Gordon Brown

[YehButNoBut]

Making a great speech at the moment and promising to ensure that promises made on extra powers will be kept.

This campaign seems to have rejuvenated him and he has more passion for Scotland than I thought

Would be good if he stood as an MSP as would be a stick on for Fist Minister.

[degenerated]

Making a great speech at the moment and promising to ensure that promises made on extra powers will be kept.

This campaign seems to have rejuvenated him and he has more passion for Scotland than I thought

Would be good if he stood as an MSP as would be a stick on for Fist Minister.
I don't believe him.

[lord bunberry]

Making a great speech at the moment and promising to ensure that promises made on extra powers will be kept.

This campaign seems to have rejuvenated him and he has more passion for Scotland than I thought

Would be good if he stood as an MSP as would be a stick on for Fist Minister.
I hope I never see that man again, he was the worst prime minister ever and he's nothing more than a self publicist whose sole aim is keep himself in the limelight. He doesn't care about Scotland, he cares about himself and his mates in Westminster.

[Sergey]

Making a great speech at the moment and promising to ensure that promises made on extra powers will be kept.

This campaign seems to have rejuvenated him and he has more passion for Scotland than I thought

Would be good if he stood as an MSP as would be a stick on for Fist Minister.

Given his previous. that's a position that would suit him rather well.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Making a great speech at the moment and promising to ensure that promises made on extra powers will be kept.

This campaign seems to have rejuvenated him and he has more passion for Scotland than I thought

Would be good if he stood as an MSP as would be a stick on for Fist Minister.


Brown is a back bench British Labour MP with absolutely no power whatsoever and has specifically said he has no plans to return to front line politics.

He reports to Ed Milliband who is the leader of the British Labour party who already seems very uncomfortable about any new powers for Scotland.

David Cameron as Prime Minister of Britain and Nick Clegg with some input from Milliband will decide everything which is exactly as it should be and not some back bench Labour MP.

[johnbc70]

I hope I never see that man again, he was the worst prime minister ever and he's nothing more than a self publicist whose sole aim is keep himself in the limelight. He doesn't care about Scotland, he cares about himself and his mates in Westminster.

If his aim was the limelight then for the last 4 years he has done a terrible job.

I watched his pre referendum speech and thought he was very good. Many crediting that speech as a turning point from Yes to No.

[Scottie]

1000 Scottish people every year get blood transfusions from English donors

No wonder so many people voted for the NO campaign then. There all full of English blood. :faf:


The fight goes on. :saltireflag

[Phil D. Rolls]

If his aim was the limelight then for the last 4 years he has done a terrible job.

I watched his pre referendum speech and thought he was very good. Many crediting that speech as a turning point from Yes to No.

I was puzzled why BT didn't use him before that. As others have said, he'd be a shoo in for FM.

I actually like the man, and would welcome him fighting for Scotland. All sides said they'd work together whatever the result. I hope to see the start of that process this weekend.

[ronaldo7]

Can anyone point me to the motion that was supposed to be done by yesterday according to the brown timetable.

[Colr]

I was puzzled why BT didn't use him before that. As others have said, he'd be a shoo in for FM.

I actually like the man, and would welcome him fighting for Scotland. All sides said they'd work together whatever the result. I hope to see the start of that process this weekend.

Brown may have his faults as a leader and was in he wrong job at the wrong time, but he did save the country from an economic meltdown and he is a serious politician with unrivalled experience and contacts. Much as I'm a bit to the right of him economically, he would be an fantastic First Minister.

[cabbageandribs1875]

the man responsible for giving the UK the most stealth taxes by a chancellor of the Exchequer EVER, a failed chancellor and a failed PM, we can't keep his Liebour party out of power at Westminster but we sure as heck can keep them out of power at Holyrood, but at least we know when he's lying....his lips move :aok:

[Colr]

the man responsible for giving the UK the most stealth taxes by a chancellor of the Exchequer EVER, a failed chancellor and a failed PM, we can't keep his Liebour party out of power at Westminster but we sure as heck can keep them out of power at Holyrood, but at least we know when he's lying....his lips move :aok:

Is there not a demand for greater public expenditure in Scotland. Brown and his taxes will help with that.

[One Day Soon]

the man responsible for giving the UK the most stealth taxes by a chancellor of the Exchequer EVER, a failed chancellor and a failed PM, we can't keep his Liebour party out of power at Westminster but we sure as heck can keep them out of power at Holyrood, but at least we know when he's lying....his lips move :aok:

'Liebour party' - stunningly original

[lord bunberry]

If his aim was the limelight then for the last 4 years he has done a terrible job.

I watched his pre referendum speech and thought he was very good. Many crediting that speech as a turning point from Yes to No.
Up until now people haven't cared what he had to say, it was only because he wasn't part of the official better together campaign that he was wheeled out to make promises he couldn't keep on behalf of people who had no intention of keeping those promises. IMO the man is an absolute disgrace, and he will be remembered as the patsy who did the Tory's dirty work.

[Phil D. Rolls]

'Liebour party' - stunningly original

But regrettably accurate.

[ACLeith]

.... he was wheeled out to make promises he couldn't keep on behalf of people who had no intention of keeping those promises.

1979 - Sir Alex Douglas Home
2014 - Gordon Brown?

We'll know for sure pretty soon

[Phil D. Rolls]

Up until now people haven't cared what he had to say, it was only because he wasn't part of the official better together campaign that he was wheeled out to make promises he couldn't keep on behalf of people who had no intention of keeping those promises. IMO the man is an absolute disgrace, and he will be remembered as the patsy who did the Tory's dirty work.

I hope not. But he really would be a Quisling if he doesn't follow through.

[lord bunberry]

1979 - Sir Alex Douglas Home
2014 - Gordon Brown?

We'll know for sure pretty soon
I suspect we know already

[One Day Soon]

But regrettably accurate.

No, just regrettably trite

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, just regrettably trite

Is that what the bloke off the telly told you?

[hibsbollah]

Hes a skilful politician and was by far the best performer in the No campaign. He has the misfortune to be saddled with the most insincere smile imaginable though. Everytime he does that mcawber grin it just screams 'liar!' , whatever the content of his speech.

[ACLeith]

I suspect we know already
I agree, but just a wee bit patience until we know for sure! Maybe we should start a poll on how long that will be? My choice would be the end of this month - and that's me being conservative! (Can't believe I just typed that last phrase :shocked: )

[One Day Soon]

I hope not. But he really would be a Quisling if he doesn't follow through.


Quisling worked for the Nazis against his own country. Let's not forget that the Nazis were responsible for systematic genocide of Jews, and the mass murder of the disabled, gypsies, Catholics, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals and many many others.

Using the term Quisling to describe Gordon Brown in the prospect of the context you anticipate is disgusting. You should withdraw it.

[Canongatehibs]

I don't believe him.

Agreed. how could you trust a man who app appears to look as though he's constantly chewing bees or something? ?

[One Day Soon]

Is that what the bloke off the telly told you?

Well you have made little sense to this point and now you've just gone off the scale. I have no idea which 'bloke' you are referring to.

[One Day Soon]

Agreed. how could you trust a man who app appears to look as though he's constantly chewing bees or something? ?


What are you all going to attach your anger to once the new powers are delivered?

[lord bunberry]

What are you all going to attach your anger to once the new powers are delivered?
Even if they are delivered(which I doubt) they won't go anywhere near far enough. Anger will turn to a determination to right the wrongs of Thursdays vote.

[One Day Soon]

Even if they are delivered(which I doubt) they won't go anywhere near far enough. Anger will turn to a determination to right the wrongs of Thursdays vote.

How do you know that if you don't know what they are yet? Are you an SNP member?

[cabbageandribs1875]

No, just regrettably trite


in your opinion, personally i don't give a jot what you think or even say tbf

[lord bunberry]

How do you know that if you don't know what they are yet? Are you an SNP member?
I'm not an SNP member but I intend to become one. If you want independence then any powers short of that isn't going to be sufficient.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Quisling worked for the Nazis against his own country. Let's not forget that the Nazis were responsible for systematic genocide of Jews, and the mass murder of the disabled, gypsies, Catholics, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals and many many others.

Using the term Quisling to describe Gordon Brown in the prospect of the context you anticipate is disgusting. You should withdraw it.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of what went on in WW2, but your summation has brought me right up to speed.

Quisling has been a by word for treachery. I'm not withdrawing the statement because I had no intention of making the connotations you inferred.

Whats disgusting is how you have used the holocaust (google it) to deflect attention from the way that Brown has betrayed his country by acting like Quisling. (See where I'm going, there are similarities, but not in the pathetic way you are implying).

[Berwickhibby]

Even if they are delivered(which I doubt) they won't go anywhere near far enough. Anger will turn to a determination to right the wrongs of Thursdays vote.

"Right the Wrongs" It was a democratic referendum where the majority voted to remain part of the UK. It's time for the Country to unite and move on.

[Phil D. Rolls]

in your opinion, personally i don't give a jot what you think or even say tbf

I think you should, because he's coming out with some remarkable stuff today.

[Phil D. Rolls]

"Right the Wrongs" It was a democratic referendum where the majority voted to remain part of the UK. It's time for the Country to unite and move on.

Yes, but don't forget we were offered Devo Max if we voted No. There was also all sorts of stuff about working together for Scotland. :faf:

[lord bunberry]

"Right the Wrongs" It was a democratic referendum where the majority voted to remain part of the UK. It's time for the Country to unite and move on.
I'm sorry mate but when we have the Westminster government asking businesses to issue scare stories whilst themselves trying to scare pensioners into thinking their pensions would stop, then IMO that's wrong. I fully respect that a democratic decision was taken on Thursday, I just don't like how it was achieved.

[lord bunberry]

Yes, but don't forget we were offered Devo Max if we voted No. There was also all sorts of stuff about working together for Scotland. :faf:
Yeah, offered it by someone who didn't have the authority to even promise it let alone deliver it.

[One Day Soon]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of what went on in WW2, but your summation has brought me right up to speed.

Quisling has been a by word for treachery. I'm not withdrawing the statement because I had no intention of making the connotations you inferred.

Whats disgusting is how you have used the holocaust (google it) to deflect attention from the way that Brown has betrayed his country by acting like Quisling. (See where I'm going, there are similarities, but not in the pathetic way you are implying).


Your attempt to justify yourself on this is even more disgusting.

If you want to criticise him for what you perceive as being disloyal to Scotland there are an infinite number of ways to do so without making the comparison you chose. Quisling actively supported the Nazis in their liquidation of the jews from Europe.

You may or may not have had the intention of making the connotations but knowing what Quisling actively supported you continue to use him as a comparison.

I'm happy to debate Brown's role in what is happening now but there is no need to do so by reference to Nazi collaborators. You brought Quisling into this not me. If you don't know your history on this you should read up on it. If you do then you should withdraw it.

[One Day Soon]

in your opinion, personally i don't give a jot what you think or even say tbf

That's a big part of what lost you the Referendum. Not caring what the 55% thought and wanted answers on. Crack on though

[One Day Soon]

I'm not an SNP member but I intend to become one. If you want independence then any powers short of that isn't going to be sufficient.


You should. Too many people talk crap but take no action. If you believe in something as strongly as you appear to then getting engaged in that way is the next logical step.

I think you're wrong though. :wink:

[lord bunberry]

You should. Too many people talk crap but take no action. If you believe in something as strongly as you appear to then getting engaged in that way is the next logical step.

I think you're wrong though. :wink:
I will talk crap and take action :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Your attempt to justify yourself on this is even more disgusting.

If you want to criticise him for what you perceive as being disloyal to Scotland there are an infinite number of ways to do so without making the comparison you chose. Quisling actively supported the Nazis in their liquidation of the jews from Europe.

You may or may not have had the intention of making the connotations but knowing what Quisling actively supported you continue to use him as a comparison.

I'm happy to debate Brown's role in what is happening now but there is no need to do so by reference to Nazi collaborators. You brought Quisling into this not me. If you don't know your history on this you should read up on it. If you do then you should withdraw it.

A Quisling is a traitor, it's not normally used to describe a Nazi. Look up the dictionaries, and while youre at it, you better stop beating up vegetarians and VW drivers. :faf:

Now, away and eat your cereal, as you're starting to sound silly, with your linguistic fascism.

[ekhibee]

I watched his interview with David Dimbleby and I thought he was absolutely dreadful. He was patronizing and really annoying. I was a Yes voter so obviously I'm going to sound biased, but everything seemed to fall in place for Brown. It was Darling who had the debates with Salmond, to my knowledge Brown didn't have any public debates with anyone, he just went round sympathetic No meetings and voiced his opinions, the same as Cameron and Milliband. He's good for the No campaign because all the promises he made can be dismissed over a period of time as he is a backbencher and was an unpopular prime minister too.

[One Day Soon]

A Quisling is a traitor, it's not normally used to describe a Nazi. Look up the dictionaries, and while youre at it, you better stop beating up vegetarians and VW drivers. :faf:

Now, away and eat your cereal, as you're starting to sound silly, with your linguistic fascism.


Gutless. You compare him with a nazi collaborator if he falls to deliver and then don't have the spine to either admit it or withdraw it. Disgusting.

I'm done discussing with you.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Gutless. You compare him with a nazi collaborator if he falls to deliver and then don't have the spine to either admit it or withdraw it. Disgusting.

I'm done discussing with you.

You are getting a bit to close to the line mate. It's probably best you've taken my advice to say no more.

You have misinterpreted the use of a name that's become a by word for any form if treachery, as meaning something else altogether. You'll find that word has been used many times in history without suggesting that the person using it supports the holocaust.

I realise you've dug yourself into a hole, and are too embarrassed to accept my explanation. For the record, I would never call someone a Nazi unless I thought they were one. Likewise, I stopped short if calling a ministers son, "Judas".

You can't really see what I'm getting at though, can you? You'd rather we spoke about semantics and etymology than the real issue. Namely, will Gordon Brown deliver on what BT agreed to, or not. If he doesn't, he's either been fooled (unlikely in such an intelligent man), he's let his heart rule his head ( this is Gordin Brown were talking about), or he's promised people something they're not getting on purpose.

Given that this promise was made to save the Union, at the expense of his own country, I think it makes him a Quisling.

[Pretty Boy]

Your attempt to justify yourself on this is even more disgusting.

If you want to criticise him for what you perceive as being disloyal to Scotland there are an infinite number of ways to do so without making the comparison you chose. Quisling actively supported the Nazis in their liquidation of the jews from Europe.

You may or may not have had the intention of making the connotations but knowing what Quisling actively supported you continue to use him as a comparison.

I'm happy to debate Brown's role in what is happening now but there is no need to do so by reference to Nazi collaborators. You brought Quisling into this not me. If you don't know your history on this you should read up on it. If you do then you should withdraw it.

I once referred to my old boss as a 'little Hitler' or I think I refered to Kevin Thomson as a 'Judas' once as well.

Should I issue apologies for suggesting they were involced in the holocaust or the crucifixion of the Son of God?

People use phrases all the time that have historical backgrounds. I've heard the term 'Quisling' used to describe people, including politicians, before and never once believed anyone was trying to link those people to the Holocaust. It's a hell of a leap you have made from what was initially said.

[Leith Green]

"Right the Wrongs" It was a democratic referendum where the majority voted to remain part of the UK. It's time for the Country to unite and move on.

I dont see that happening anymore.

[One Day Soon]

You are getting a bit to close to the line mate. It's probably best you've taken my advice to say no more.

You have misinterpreted the use of a name that's become a by word for any form if treachery, as meaning something else altogether. You'll find that word has been used many times in history without suggesting that the person using it supports the holocaust.

I realise you've dug yourself into a hole, and are too embarrassed to accept my explanation. For the record, I would never call someone a Nazi unless I thought they were one. Likewise, I stopped short if calling a ministers son, "Judas".

You can't really see what I'm getting at though, can you? You'd rather we spoke about semantics and etymology than the real issue. Namely, will Gordon Brown deliver on what BT agreed to, or not. If he doesn't, he's either been fooled (unlikely in such an intelligent man), he's let his heart rule his head ( this is Gordin Brown were talking about), or he's promised people something they're not getting on purpose.

Given that this promise was made to save the Union, at the expense of his own country, I think it makes him a Quisling.


I'm done discussing with you.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I once referred to my old boss as a 'little Hitler' or I think I refered to Kevin Thomson as a 'Judas' once as well.

Should I issue apologies for suggesting they were involced in the holocaust or the crucifixion of the Son of God?

People use phrases all the time that have historical backgrounds. I've heard the term 'Quisling' used to describe people, including politicians, before and never once believed anyone was trying to link those people to the Holocaust. It's a hell of a leap you have made from what was initially said.


Definition of quisling in English:
quisling
Line breaks: quis|ling
Pronunciation: /ˈkwɪzlɪŋ /
NOUN


A traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country:
[AS MODIFIER]: he had the Quisling owner of the factory arrested


The Oxford Englsh Dictionary is next for the ODS treatment. Disgusting of them to print such a word. From now on, the word Quisling is to be banned. It's the only way we can prevent discussions like this descending into a holocaust, as they'll be dominated by storm troopers on both sides, crushing each others freedom to call each other names.

It's what Goebells would have wanted.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm done discussing with you.

And everybody who shows you up, by the looks of things. Don't reply again.

[Mon Dieu4]

The Oxford Englsh Dictionary is next for the ODS treatment. Disgusting of them to print such a word. From now on, the word Quisling is to be banned. It's the only way we can prevent discussions like this descending into a holocaust, as they'll be dominated by storm troopers on both sides, crushing each others freedom to call each other names.

It's what Goebells would have wanted.

as someone who was traumatised by the Empires atrocities especially against the Ewoks I am disgusted you used the words storm troopers, you should be ashamed

[MyJo]

The Oxford Englsh Dictionary is next for the ODS treatment. Disgusting of them to print such a word. From now on, the word Quisling is to be banned. It's the only way we can prevent discussions like this descending into a holocaust, as they'll be dominated by storm troopers on both sides, crushing each others freedom to call each other names.

It's what Goebells would have wanted.

You cant help yourself man, storm troopers?

Are you now trying to suggest that Alex Salmond was in fact going to be building himself a death star!!!!!!!

disgusting

[Phil D. Rolls]

as someone who was traumatised by the Empires atrocities especially against the Ewoks I am disgusted you used the words storm troopers, you should be ashamed

I don't want to talk about it, but I've written to the BBC on numerous occasions demanding that they sack Seth MacFarlane. They told me he doesn't work for them, but I'm refusing to listen. There's a baby in Family Guy, FFS. They've learned nothing from Savillegate!

[Pretty Boy]

as someone who was traumatised by the Empires atrocities especially against the Ewoks I am disgusted you used the words storm troopers, you should be ashamed

The Ewoks were based on the Vietcong guerilla forces in the Vietnam War. I've got family who once visited the USA, how dare you make such an insensitive remark!

[Phil D. Rolls]

You cant help yourself man, storm troopers?

Are you now trying to suggest that Alex Salmond was in fact going to be building himself a death star!!!!!!!

disgusting

All I said was, "my that was a lovely bit of fish, that Halibut was fit for Jehovah!"

[MyJo]

All I said was, "my that was a lovely bit of fish, that Halibut was fit for Jehovah!"

oooooh he said it, stone him!

[One Day Soon]

I once referred to my old boss as a 'little Hitler' or I think I refered to Kevin Thomson as a 'Judas' once as well.

Should I issue apologies for suggesting they were involced in the holocaust or the crucifixion of the Son of God?

People use phrases all the time that have historical backgrounds. I've heard the term 'Quisling' used to describe people, including politicians, before and never once believed anyone was trying to link those people to the Holocaust. It's a hell of a leap you have made from what was initially said.


I can accept what you are arguing there as regards those terms in those contexts PB. However in the context of the poisonous Referendum debate we have just had the use of the term Quisling has taken place on a number of occasions. I have personally witnessed it being used and accompanied by various other references to fascists and nazis - including for example at a polling station gate by Yes supporters aimed at others and giving the nazi salute.

I'm no wilting flower and robust debate is fine with me but using that term in the context of this debate is for me unacceptable, unnecessary and carries very dark undertones. There is simply no need. You could label Gordon Brown a traitor to his country, a turncoat, or a whole number of other pejorative terms without drawing in those implications.

[One Day Soon]

And everybody who shows you up, by the looks of things. Don't reply again.

I'm done discussing with you.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm done discussing with you.

Are you?

[DaveF]

I'm done discussing with you.


Are you?

Right guys, it's going nowhere - for the sake of the discussion, let's leave it there.

Don't make us Admins angry. Especially when Hibs are about to kick off shortly :agree:

[Mikey09]

Can anyone point me to the motion that was supposed to be done by yesterday according to the brown timetable.


Anyone?? Any of the Better Together people who were swayed when the Daily Record published "The Vow?" :faf::faf::faf:

[cabbageandribs1875]

I think you should, because he's coming out with some remarkable stuff today.



so i've just read, and i'm Disgusted(in a mock outrage sorta way) i'm out
http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/images/smilies/2011-04-29_095644_smiley_fingers_in_ears.gif :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

Anyone?? Any of the Better Together people who were swayed when the Daily Record published "The Vow?" :faf::faf::faf:


i honestly don't think anyone would actually admit to falling for 'the vow' :wink: they're out there though :agree:

[Bad Martini]

Call him what you all like. To me he's one of the worst prime ministers the UK has seen, a **** chancellor and then he pops up to convince the wee people from the wee country that his vow is the future.... Cue loads of dafties reading the the tops and buying into all his pish.

Lies, traitor or whatever. Sneaky bull****ter would do too.

As time passes I get no less pissed off with Thursday. Still, give it 300 years and I'm sure it'll be fine....... Hud on...........

[ronaldo7]

i honestly don't think anyone would actually admit to falling for 'the vow' :wink: they're out there though :agree:

All around us it seems. I just wanted to keep on track with the timetable for the "New powers", whatever they are. As I predicted if a no vote, Scotland would be kicked into the long grass.

13506

[hibsbollah]

as someone who was traumatised by the Empires atrocities especially against the Ewoks I am disgusted you used the words storm troopers, you should be ashamed

:hilarious

[Leith Green]

i honestly don't think anyone would actually admit to falling for 'the vow' :wink: they're out there though :agree:

Guy in my work was one, he told me this morning he regrets voting No for a couple of reasons. But he felt the answers he needed to guide him to independence weren't quite there, which I would agree with to a point. There are plenty in the same boat. If things are thought out properly then I dont think the thought of independence is as shocking as people probably once thought

[lord bunberry]

All around us it seems. I just wanted to keep on track with the timetable for the "New powers", whatever they are. As I predicted if a no vote, Scotland would be kicked into the long grass.

13506

I believe the timetable revolves around flying pigs

[Beefster]

The Oxford Englsh Dictionary is next for the ODS treatment. Disgusting of them to print such a word. From now on, the word Quisling is to be banned. It's the only way we can prevent discussions like this descending into a holocaust, as they'll be dominated by storm troopers on both sides, crushing each others freedom to call each other names.

It's what Goebells would have wanted.


as someone who was traumatised by the Empires atrocities especially against the Ewoks I am disgusted you used the words storm troopers, you should be ashamed


You cant help yourself man, storm troopers?

Are you now trying to suggest that Alex Salmond was in fact going to be building himself a death star!!!!!!!

disgusting


The Ewoks were based on the Vietcong guerilla forces in the Vietnam War. I've got family who once visited the USA, how dare you make such an insensitive remark!

The regular switch from debating the points to numerous folk having a circle jerk by trying to take the piss out of a fellow Hibee is one of the most disappointing aspects of this place nowadays.

IIRC there was an apology the other day for using 'quisling' to describe folk who disagreed with the poster using it. The fact is that terms like 'traitor', 'quisling' and 'uncle tom' are unbelievably offensive in the context of the Scottish referendum. If folk want to stoop it and hibs.net are happy to allow it, that's their collective prerogative. Not everyone has to like it though.

I might frequently make a tit of myself on here or not exactly cover myself in glory but hopefully, I never stoop that low.

[hibsbollah]

The regular switch from debating the points to numerous folk having a circle jerk by trying to take the piss out of a fellow Hibee is one of the most disappointing aspects of this place nowadays.

IIRC there was an apology the other day for using 'quisling' to describe folk who disagreed with the poster using it. The fact is that terms like 'traitor', 'quisling' and 'uncle tom' are unbelievably offensive in the context of the Scottish referendum. If folk want to stoop it and hibs.net are happy to allow it, that's their collective prerogative. Not everyone has to like it though.

I might frequently make a tit of myself on here or not exactly cover myself in glory but hopefully, I never stoop that low.

My kids have a 'Clarice Bean' kids story CD in the car. At one point, Clarice has to make a sentence made up of words starting with the letter q. She says 'quisling, meaning 'traitor'. Its a commonplace expression that even kids are familiar with, and although the poster doesn't specify why he thinks Brown is a traitor, it is emphatically NOT linked to Quislings fascistic politics, which is what ODS was apparently getting agitated about.

[degenerated]

I can accept what you are arguing there as regards those terms in those contexts PB. However in the context of the poisonous Referendum debate we have just had the use of the term Quisling has taken place on a number of occasions. I have personally witnessed it being used and accompanied by various other references to fascists and nazis - including for example at a polling station gate by Yes supporters aimed at others and giving the nazi salute.

I'm no wilting flower and robust debate is fine with me but using that term in the context of this debate is for me unacceptable, unnecessary and carries very dark undertones. There is simply no need. You could label Gordon Brown a traitor to his country, a turncoat, or a whole number of other pejorative terms without drawing in those implications.
Nazi salutes like these ?
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/20/f46f77d8f539e467b1ee1c5a88d58fed.jpg

[One Day Soon]

My kids have a 'Clarice Bean' kids story CD in the car. At one point, Clarice has to make a sentence made up of words starting with the letter q. She says 'quisling, meaning 'traitor'. Its a commonplace expression that even kids are familiar with, and although the poster doesn't specify why he thinks Brown is a traitor, it is emphatically NOT linked to Quislings fascistic politics, which is what ODS was apparently getting agitated about.

The term ***t is also a commonplace expression that even kids are familiar with, (well, in Fife they certainly are) but that doesn't mean its acceptable to call someone it.

In the context of the intolerant division we have just had with some intensity for the last six weeks I think the use of that term at this time to describe Gordon Brown is a) inaccurate and b) irresponsible. When I'm called a Quisling going into a polling station while being nazi saluted the implication is pretty clear.

On reflection it really makes you wonder what we have come to that it is just fine for people to be called traitors, never mind Quislings, simply for holding a different view in a democracy. Thanks very much Mr Salmond.

[One Day Soon]

Nazi salutes like these ?
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/20/f46f77d8f539e467b1ee1c5a88d58fed.jpg

Exactly like those. I condemn them completely on either side. Do you?

[degenerated]

Exactly like those. I condemn them completely on either side. Do you?
Absolutely, thing is try as though I might to find examples of them from both sides its proving challenging finding some.

[One Day Soon]

Absolutely, thing is try as though I might to find examples of them from both sides its proving challenging finding some.

A kind of pics or it didn't happen thing? We both know that there are extreme nutters on either side and when they aren't disowned and condemned right away they become emboldened and empowered. That's why Salmond's description of the march on the BBC as 'joyous celebration' was so irresponsible. It just said that this kind of behaviour was fine to pressure journalists. Using inflammatory language around the debate doesn't help either.

And another thing that doesn't help is people wrapping themselves in flags, parading with flags and mobbing with flags on either side. But let's not get started on flags...

[Cameron1875]

He's as passionate for Scotland as Stuart Pearce is!

Absolute charlatan.

[hibsbollah]

He's as passionate for Scotland as Stuart Pearce is!

Absolute charlatan.

Careful now:cb

Charlatan' is from the French for 'confidence trickster' who sold snake oil medicines. In this highly literal thread I hope you're not accusing our previous Prime Minister of hucksterism?

[Cameron1875]

Careful now:cb

Charlatan' is from the French for 'confidence trickster' who sold snake oil medicines. In this highly literal thread I hope you're not accusing our previous Prime Minister of hucksterism?

Course not.

I mean, a passionate Scot who was in charge of the UK would have surely given this country more powers?

:tin hat:

[snooky]

I watched his interview with David Dimbleby and I thought he was absolutely dreadful. He was patronizing and really annoying. I was a Yes voter so obviously I'm going to sound biased, but everything seemed to fall in place for Brown. It was Darling who had the debates with Salmond, to my knowledge Brown didn't have any public debates with anyone, he just went round sympathetic No meetings and voiced his opinions, the same as Cameron and Milliband. He's good for the No campaign because all the promises he made can be dismissed over a period of time as he is a backbencher and was an unpopular prime minister too.

Gordon Broon aka Joseph with his coat of many colours. Interchangable for every convenient political viewpoint. :cb

[Stranraer]

He came across well in his final speech.

[the_ginger_hibee]

He came across well in his final speech.

It's easy when you can make up extravagant fairy tales of new powers.

His passion was evident right enough but no substance.

[ekhibee]

I believe the timetable revolves around flying pigs
Yep, no doubt in my mind about that.

[snooky]

Guy in my work was one, he told me this morning he regrets voting No for a couple of reasons. But he felt the answers he needed to guide him to independence weren't quite there, which I would agree with to a point. There are plenty in the same boat. If things are thought out properly then I dont think the thought of independence is as shocking as people probably once thought

The youngest laddie in the office said he was voting NO because he felt there were still to many unknowns and we weren't ready yet.
Out of the mouth of babes.....

(BTW, I still voted to take the plunge)

[Leith Green]

The youngest laddie in the office said he was voting NO because there were still to many unknowns and we weren't ready yet.
Out of the mouth of babes.....

(BTW, I still voted to take the plunge)


I think once people are given a thoroughly planned out agenda for Independance, then its something that will happen. People also need to realise that its not just about what we get out of it, but as much about what we put in..

[One Day Soon]

I think once people are given a thoroughly planned out agenda for Independance, then its something that will happen. People also need to realise that its not just about what we get out of it, but as much about what we put in..

You might be right, though I don't think so. I have to say that given all the other factors in favour of Yes winning it this time AND the fact that Better Together ran a shockingly poor campaign which seemed designed to lose votes, I doubt that any future vote would be as easy a ride for Yes. I'd estimate that a properly conducted No campaign could have attracted easily another 5%.

[Leith Green]

You might be right, though I don't think so. I have to say that given all the other factors in favour of Yes winning it this time AND the fact that Better Together ran a shockingly poor campaign which seemed designed to lose votes, I doubt that any future vote would be as easy a ride for Yes. I'd estimate that a properly conducted No campaign could have attracted easily another 5%.

I disagree with you. Turnout seems to have favoured No, some of the areas Yes won had not as high a turnout. That tells me that No got the vote out. I also think that the 45 per cent of Yes will be quite strong for it. For me theres then a hell of a lot of No voters who are open to being convinced on Independence. So basically if a strong enough case for independence is put forward, which answers the key areas which many felt hadn't in this campaign, i think there is a good 15/20 per cent who could then switch to voting Yes, obviously I'm not saying they all will but remember only 5 per cent are actually required to switch to Yes.

To answer another point, what makes you so sure another No campaign will be any different? All they have are scare stories, wether you believe them or not, you also seem to think that this current Situation with a tory government cant get worse, i think it can and it will. I think ukips gaining popularity is going to push the tories further right, this wont go down well amongst lots of the undecideds who voted NO in the referendum. Throw into the mix peoples feelings towards Labour, and wether the so called vow comes to fruition. There is also the potential Euro referendum, which will not go down well in Scotland if we dont want it, but are forced out because of 55 million English voters deciding for us. Also throw into the mix the fact Boris Johnson could quite possibly end up P.M

Lets see what happens, but I only see the Yes vote getting stronger, and have a feeling we will be independant within 15 years

[Hibrandenburg]

I can accept what you are arguing there as regards those terms in those contexts PB. However in the context of the poisonous Referendum debate we have just had the use of the term Quisling has taken place on a number of occasions. I have personally witnessed it being used and accompanied by various other references to fascists and nazis - including for example at a polling station gate by Yes supporters aimed at others and giving the nazi salute.

I'm no wilting flower and robust debate is fine with me but using that term in the context of this debate is for me unacceptable, unnecessary and carries very dark undertones. There is simply no need. You could label Gordon Brown a traitor to his country, a turncoat, or a whole number of other pejorative terms without drawing in those implications.

You mean words with dark undertones like "Nationalist"?

Here's another one "Hypocrite".

[marinello59]

The regular switch from debating the points to numerous folk having a circle jerk by trying to take the piss out of a fellow Hibee is one of the most disappointing aspects of this place nowadays.

IIRC there was an apology the other day for using 'quisling' to describe folk who disagreed with the poster using it. The fact is that terms like 'traitor', 'quisling' and 'uncle tom' are unbelievably offensive in the context of the Scottish referendum. If folk want to stoop it and hibs.net are happy to allow it, that's their collective prerogative. Not everyone has to like it though.

I might frequently make a tit of myself on here or not exactly cover myself in glory but hopefully, I never stoop that low.

Apart from your comment about Hibs.net allowing it, (do you suggest we delete all posts using the term ) I agree with you. I detest narrow minded UKIP style nationalism and the attempts to jokingly justify describing fellow Scots as quislings for having a different vision for the way forward falls right in to that category.
The Yes campaign in the main was and is better than that.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The regular switch from debating the points to numerous folk having a circle jerk by trying to take the piss out of a fellow Hibee is one of the most disappointing aspects of this place nowadays.

IIRC there was an apology the other day for using 'quisling' to describe folk who disagreed with the poster using it. The fact is that terms like 'traitor', 'quisling' and 'uncle tom' are unbelievably offensive in the context of the Scottish referendum. If folk want to stoop it and hibs.net are happy to allow it, that's their collective prerogative. Not everyone has to like it though.

I might frequently make a tit of myself on here or not exactly cover myself in glory but hopefully, I never stoop that low.



For the record. It was me who made that apology. I said I was sorry for calling voters who followed their conscience those names. I said I had no problem with using them for politicians.

As far as this particular spat is concerned, I'd like to say its come to a pretty pass when a bit of gentle slagging becomes frowned upon on the Internet. People can read the exchange and decide who was the bigger dick, but at the end of the day nobody was harmed, there was no real poison in the exchange, or threats made.

However, for those who find it unacceptable, there is complaints button. If people fund these terms unbelievably offensive, they should do the right thing.

edit: I've just read my original post


I hope not. But he really would be a Quisling if he doesn't follow through.

Was it really that bad to have written that? I didn't even say he was a Quisling. I said he would be a Quisling if he didn't act on his promises.

More to the point. Why did we get into a big debate about WW2? What has happened on the extra powers we were promised, and which influenced some people's decision to vote no?

From where I'm sitting nobody was mocking ODSs beliefs, they were mocking his style of debate. Bear in mind that he set off on the sarcasm trail, and made himself fair game for what was a bit of gentle ribbing about his unusual interpretation of one word.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Guy in my work was one, he told me this morning he regrets voting No for a couple of reasons. But he felt the answers he needed to guide him to independence weren't quite there, which I would agree with to a point. There are plenty in the same boat. If things are thought out properly then I dont think the thought of independence is as shocking as people probably once thought

What answers did he miraculously receive in the space of 24 hours that made him realise he had made a mistake?

[One Day Soon]

You mean words with dark undertones like "Nationalist"?

Here's another one "Hypocrite".


You have an over active imagination if you are associating the term nationalist or Nationalist with dark undertones. But you aren't really, you're just making up some nonsense to vent.

Here's another one "dilettante".

[Phil D. Rolls]

You have an over active imagination if you are associating the term nationalist or Nationalist with dark undertones. But you aren't really, you're just making up some nonsense to vent.

Here's another one "dilettante".

Whats happened to Gordon Browns Timetable for new powers? Has it disappeared because:

a) He lied.
b) He was stupid.
c) It's time to move on?

[marinello59]

Whats happened to Gordon Browns Timetable for new powers? Has it disappeared because:

a) He lied.
b) He was stupid.
c) It's time to move on?
As far as I know it's still in place.:confused:

[Phil D. Rolls]

As far as I know it's still in place.:confused:

Just a couple of days behind schedule then?

[marinello59]

Just a couple of days behind schedule then?

If you mean the fact that there was no motion put before Parliament on Friday then you could say that. As for the main dates on the timetable we will have to wait and see. It's not been a good start though.

[lord bunberry]

Whats happened to Gordon Browns Timetable for new powers? Has it disappeared because:

a) He lied.
b) He was stupid.
c) It's time to move on?
He lied, he had no authority to promise anything. At best he was misled but I fail to believe a man of his political expirience would have the wool pulled over his eyes so easily.

[lord bunberry]

If you mean the fact that there was no motion put before Parliament on Friday then you could say that. As for the main dates on the timetable we will have to wait and see. It's not been a good start though.
We've already been told nothing's going to happen in this parliament. His timetable was pure fantasy, a lie.

[marinello59]

He lied, he had no authority to promise anything. At best he was misled but I fail to believe a man of his political expirience would have the wool pulled over his eyes so easily.

Reading his comments from yesterday there is no doubt in my mind that he believes he can push this through. If he doesn't manage it then it won't be because he lied , it will be because the leaders who made the "vow" lied. I actually believe that David Cameron will want to drive on with this due to his party likely to be the main beneficiaries of a settlement of the West Lothian question . Milliband I am less than sure of.

[lord bunberry]

Reading his comments from yesterday there is no doubt in my mind that he believes he can push this through. If he doesn't manage it then it won't be because he lied , it will be because the leaders who made the "vow" lied. I actually believe that David Cameron will want to drive on with this due to his party likely to be the main beneficiaries of a settlement of the West Lothian question . Milliband I am less than sure of.
More powers for Scotland won't happen without more powers for England, that requires major constitutional change and won't happen anytime soon. Brown saying more powers for Scotland in the timetable he set out was a lie.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If you mean the fact that there was no motion put before Parliament on Friday then you could say that. As for the main dates on the timetable we will have to wait and see. It's not been a good start though.

Sorry for being ultra cynical, but the timetable was one of the things that swung it (hell, I was contemplating voting No myself). Falling at the first hurdle, combined with noises from Westminster, is pretty sickening in my book.

The threads about Brown, and I really need to work out if he could possibly have been so stupid as to believe he could deliver. Or, was he clever enough, and shameless enough to abuse the goodwill of the Scottish people, who trust and have supported him, by lying? Safe in the knowledge that things would blow over quickly, and people would forget?

From a political perspective, it's a shrewd move. He now has 55% of the population, who have to back him, or admit that he fooled them. People rarely like to take responsibility for their own mistakes, so they'll back him.

They back him and defend him, and they make his critics look like cranks. Then some of the softer separatists start to disassociate themselves from the cranks.

Apparently, the Q word is beyond the pail for some, so I'll just call him a traitor if he fails to deliver, a modern day John Bailol.

For the avoidance of anybody drawing the wrong conclusions from the word "traitor", I use it as follows:



traitor
ˈtreɪtə/
noun
a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.
"he was a traitor to his own class"
synonyms: betrayer, back-stabber, double-crosser, double-dealer, renegade, Judas, quisling, fifth columnist, viper; More


If Brown knowingly tricked us, he has betrayed our loyalty. As I've said, he used the high esteem that Scots have for him to make his argument. He asked us to trust him personally. Clegg, Cameron, or Milligoon could not have got the same response from the voters - and the Union would be history.

[Hibbyradge]

Hes a skilful politician and was by far the best performer in the No campaign. He has the misfortune to be saddled with the most insincere smile imaginable though. Everytime he does that mcawber grin it just screams 'liar!' , whatever the content of his speech.

You're right about that, and it really is unfortunate for him.

He was kicked in the head when playing rugby and he lost sight in his left eye. His right eye was only saved after surgery.

I think that causes his strange smile, but I don't know how.

His spin doctors shouldn't have told him to stay serious faced.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You have an over active imagination if you are associating the term nationalist or Nationalist with dark undertones. But you aren't really, you're just making up some nonsense to vent.

Here's another one "dilettante".

Did Gordon Brown lie to us?

[Leith Green]

What answers did he miraculously receive in the space of 24 hours that made him realise he had made a mistake?

I said He said he regretted it ,he said it didnt feel right.. I didnt say he recieved any answers.. My original point was that he would have voted Yes along with many others, had Yes put a more definitive case forward

[Phil D. Rolls]

I said He said he regretted it ,he said it didnt feel right.. I didnt say he recieved any answers.. My original point was that he would have voted Yes along with many others, had Yes put a more definitive case forward

I just don't understand how anybody can vote on something, then turn round and say they voted the wrong way. I don't know your pal, so this isn't aimed at him, but there are loads of people crawling out of the woodwork, with the "I've got it wrong" routine.

They are like the pals that dinghy you on a Friday night, and then ring up on Saturday morning to say they wish they hadn't. The sub text is that they want it both ways doing something unpopular, but not being unpopular as a result.

They want the Best of Both Worlds, in fact, they just can't admit it.

[Leith Green]

Reading his comments from yesterday there is no doubt in my mind that he believes he can push this through. If he doesn't manage it then it won't be because he lied , it will be because the leaders who made the "vow" lied. I actually believe that David Cameron will want to drive on with this due to his party likely to be the main beneficiaries of a settlement of the West Lothian question . Milliband I am less than sure of.


I agree. The tories have played a blinder here, dont know if it was calculated or wether it is sheer coincidence? Labours problem here is that if they dig their heels in, then they will be blamed for stalling on the agreement, if they crack on with it this also brings forward the English only MPs making decisions in england, then it will hit them hard as a lot of Labour MPs will be excluded from voting as a lot of their MPs are in Scotland

[Phil D. Rolls]

I agree. The tories have played a blinder here, dont know if it was calculated or wether it is sheer coincidence? Labours problem here is that if they dig their heels in, then they will be blamed for stalling on the agreement, if they crack on with it this also brings forward the English only MPs making decisions in england, then it will hit them hard as a lot of Labour MPs will be excluded from voting as a lot of their MPs are in Scotland

Theyve been in a lose lose situation all the way through this.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If you mean the fact that there was no motion put before Parliament on Friday then you could say that. As for the main dates on the timetable we will have to wait and see. It's not been a good start though.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

Parliament in recess till 13/10/14 won't help. No doubt the growing problems with IS will be another factor in burying the motion.

[Leith Green]

I just don't understand how anybody can vote on something, then turn round and say they voted the wrong way. I don't know your pal, so this isn't aimed at him, but there are loads of people crawling out of the woodwork, with the "I've got it wrong" routine.

They are like the pals that dinghy you on a Friday night, and then ring up on Saturday morning to say they wish they hadn't. The sub text is that they want it both ways doing something unpopular, but not being unpopular as a result.

They want the Best of Both Worlds, in fact, they just can't admit it.


Dont know, maybe you are looking to far into it. To flip things around a little, i know people who voted Yes but said they werent overly fussed, until the result was announced, they were gutted at that point.

Guy in my work voted no, was unsure a little but had always leaned towards voting no, he felt that he needed convinced,and wanted to give the more devo a bash,then after the result he said he was regretting it. I dont know how and why , I'm not a psychologist , i do know the guy pretty well though and know he isn't talking crap, he genuinely regrets voting No

[Phil D. Rolls]

Dont know, maybe you are looking to far into it. To flip things around a little, i know people who voted Yes but said they werent overly fussed, until the result was announced, they were gutted at that point.

Guy in my work voted no, was unsure a little but had always leaned towards voting no, he felt that he needed convinced,and wanted to give the more devo a bash,then after the result he said he was regretting it. I dont know how and why , I'm not a psychologist , i do know the guy pretty well though and know he isn't talking crap, he genuinely regrets voting No

You could be right. :agree: The significance of my Yes vote only came home to me as I put the cross on the paper.

I wouldn't be so bothered about the outcome, if it hadn't been achieved on the back of trickery and lies. I recognise that, had it gone the other way, those disappointed would be saying pretty much the same thing.

[Leith Green]

You could be right. :agree: The significance of my Yes vote only came home to me as I put the cross on the paper.

I wouldn't be so bothered about the outcome, if it hadn't been achieved on the back of trickery and lies. I recognise that, had it gone the other way, those disappointed would be saying pretty much the same thing.

I have experienced lows in my lifetime, but nothing has ever hurt as much how i felt watching the results coming through early Friday morning, that then changed to embarrassment on the Friday that my city had so many people who didnt want independence, then on Saturday it was replaced with renewed belief that if we fight for this it will come. It just need to be as water tight a proposal as is possible. What doesnt kill you makes you stronger, a very true statement..

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have experienced lows in my lifetime, but nothing has ever hurt as much how i felt watching the results coming through early Friday morning, that then changed to embarrassment on the Friday that my city had so many people who didnt want independence, then on Saturday it was replaced with renewed belief that if we fight for this it will come. It just need to be as water tight a proposal as is possible. What doesnt kill you makes you stronger, a very true statement..

I can understand that the case for Independence wasn't proven. Neither was the case for the Union. If it transpires that Westminster has tricked people, then that is surely further ammunition.

If you take a gradualist stand point, the referendum has been a massive step forward. More people than ever are aware, or will become aware that the Union is not in Scotland's best interests.

[Leith Green]

I can understand that the case for Independence wasn't proven. Neither was the case for the Union. If it transpires that Westminster has tricked people, then that is surely further ammunition.

If you take a gradualist stand point, the referendum has been a massive step forward. More people than ever are aware, or will become aware that the Union is not in Scotland's best interests.

I agree, i also think that support for independence has surprised people including the political parties. Its worth bearing in mind that there will be less of a surprise next time around, i think that will hopefully soften undecideds towards a more compelling case for Independance

[One Day Soon]

You're right about that, and it really is unfortunate for him.

He was kicked in the head when playing rugby and he lost sight in his left eye. His right eye was only saved after surgery.

I think that causes his strange smile, but I don't know how.

His spin doctors shouldn't have told him to stay serious faced.


I think he has issues and that he can be by turns startlingly brilliant and then 'unhelpful'. But then who doesn't that apply to?

In passing, I'm a bit stunned by the decisions of Salmond and Sturgeon not to attend this morning's service of reconciliation at St. Giles. Seems both a political gaffe and not in keeping with the broader intent. Really odd I think.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think he has issues and that he can be by turns startlingly brilliant and then 'unhelpful'. But then who doesn't that apply to?

In passing, I'm a bit stunned by the decisions of Salmond and Sturgeon not to attend this morning's service of reconciliation at St. Giles. Seems both a political gaffe and not in keeping with the broader intent. Really odd I think.

Call me bitter but if I'd just been cheated out of something I'd worked on for years, then it would take me more than a wee while to want reconciliation with those responsible. I'd want revenge.

[Mon Dieu4]

I think he has issues and that he can be by turns startlingly brilliant and then 'unhelpful'. But then who doesn't that apply to?

In passing, I'm a bit stunned by the decisions of Salmond and Sturgeon not to attend this morning's service of reconciliation at St. Giles. Seems both a political gaffe and not in keeping with the broader intent. Really odd I think.

What if neither of them are religious, I wouldn't have went there either, fair play have a meeting and try and sort things out but doesn't have to be a church service

[Tyler Durden]

Call me bitter but if I'd just been cheated out of something I'd worked on for years, then it would take me more than a wee while to want reconciliation with those responsible. I'd want revenge.

Just the latest of your increasingly bizarre posts in recent days.

Cheated you say?

[One Day Soon]

Call me bitter but if I'd just been cheated out of something I'd worked on for years, then it would take me more than a wee while to want reconciliation with those responsible. I'd want revenge.

Sturgeon is apparently going to be the next First Minister of Scotland. I'd say that means she needs to be the bigger woman and show willingness to lead across the divide. This is a pretty poor start. Swinney must be just as knackered and just as disappointed, how come he managed to turn up but she couldn't? It has naff all to do with whether she is religious or not, political leaders have to do this stuff all the time.

I think it speaks to a bitterness on her part or playing to the SNP membership gallery in the run up to a possible contest for the leadership. Either way its not very stateswomanlike.

And wasn't Salmond's first statement post defeat done at a lectern with a sign saying 'OneScotland'? How is that compatible with revenge?

[Hibrandenburg]

Just the latest of your increasingly bizarre posts in recent days.

Cheated you say?

What else would you call introducing a third option that was originally stricken from the ballot paper and not agreed upon by both sides and claiming it is a given if people vote no with the intention of splitting the YES vote? Add to that that the time frame for this "vow" has now been broken and is looking more and more like it wasn't sincere in the first place and will be impossible to deliver. We were cheated.

[One Day Soon]

What else would you call introducing a third option that was originally stricken from the ballot paper and not agreed upon by both sides and claiming it is a given if people vote no with the intention of splitting the YES vote? Add to that that the time frame for this "vow" has now been broken and is looking more and more like it wasn't sincere in the first place and will be impossible to deliver. We were cheated.


And so the myth making begins....

[Hibrandenburg]

Sturgeon is apparently going to be the next First Minister of Scotland. I'd say that means she needs to be the bigger woman and show willingness to lead across the divide. This is a pretty poor start. Swinney must be just as knackered and just as disappointed, how come he managed to turn up but she couldn't? It has naff all to do with whether she is religious or not, political leaders have to do this stuff all the time.

I think it speaks to a bitterness on her part or playing to the SNP membership gallery in the run up to a possible contest for the leadership. Either way its not very stateswomanlike.

And wasn't Salmond's first statement post defeat done at a lectern with a sign saying 'OneScotland'? How is that compatible with revenge?
Just maybe she's incapable of being slimy enough to go patting the backs of those who played every dirty trick in the book to hoodwink the Scottish electorate. You may consider her objection to serial slimeballs as unstateswomanlike, I think it shows her to be a healthy human being.

[Mikey09]

And so the myth making begins....


Eh?? Myth making?? That's exactly what happened...

[The_Exile]

And so the myth making begins....

My dad, a no voter, a Labour stalwart, is absolutely raging. I've actually never seen him so angry, he is disgusted with what's happening. What's a myth? This is exactly what happening. No voters who voted no due to the promise of further powers are absolutely raging. If we had another referendum tomorrow it'd be a yes vote. This is only the start of it, something is simmering away with all this and I'm willing to bet the senior members of Labour and the Tories are very very worried.

Edit: Just asked him what he'd vote if a referendum was held tomorrow, his exact words:

I'd vote yes, I cannae find the Labour party I knew on the list of parties any more, I'd happily help rip them up and rebuild them from the bottom up.

I'd say a lot of folk like him are thinking the same, if not the vast majority.

[over the line]

My dad, a no voter, a Labour stalwart, is absolutely raging. I've actually never seen him so angry, he is disgusted with what's happening. What's a myth? This is exactly what happening. No voters who voted no due to the promise of further powers are absolutely raging. If we had another referendum tomorrow it'd be a yes vote. This is only the start of it, something is simmering away with all this and I'm willing to bet the senior members of Labour and the Tories are very very worried.

Edit: Just asked him what he'd vote if a referendum was held tomorrow, his exact words:

I'd vote yes, I cannae find the Labour party I knew on the list of parties any more, I'd happily help rip them up and rebuild them from the bottom up.

I'd say a lot of folk like him are thinking the same, if not the vast majority.

I think it is fair to say that whatever the result had of been, there would be a large element of compromise. There is no way an iS would have stuck rigidly to all the promises being made by the Yes campaign. Equally we can expect the UK to tinker/change/renege on its promises. That is the reality of politics and life in general and it would have been the same in an iS. It is human nature to lie and dupe others to achieve your aim, or get your own way and that is true regardless of which flag is flying.

Don't get me wrong, your Dad is right to be cross about it, but it will never change will it?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think it is fair to say that whatever the result had of been, there would be a large element of compromise. There is no way an iS would have stuck rigidly to all the promises being made by the Yes campaign. Equally we can expect the UK to tinker/change/renege on its promises. That is the reality of politics and life in general and it would have been the same in an iS. It is human nature to lie and dupe others to achieve your aim, or get your own way and that is true regardless of which flag is flying.

Don't get me wrong, your Dad is right to be cross about it, but it will never change will it?

Well, that's alright then.

[Hibrandenburg]

That is the reality of politics and life in general and it would have been the same in an iS. It is human nature to lie and dupe others to achieve your aim, or get your own way and that is true regardless of which flag is flying.

If that's what you expect from you're government then that's what you'll always get, again and again and again.

[over the line]

If that's what you expect from you're government then that's what you'll always get, again and again and again.

I'm just a jaded realist, saves getting disappointed doesn't it? ;)

[SvenNeil]

'Liebour party' - stunningly original

I prefer Scottish Labour and Unionist Party (SLUP) :aok:

[McIntosh]

There is a myth being created. That myth is that the yes campaign won the argument but were 'stabbed in the back'. The yes campaign lost because they did not convincingly address the economic issues, unsurprisingly in these circumstances the no votes gained a convincing majority. in raw political terms what the referendum exposes is the disconnect between the Labour Party and it's historical constituency. However, there is also a deeper truth that core nationalist voters voted for no. I suspect the SNP will reconcile itself more easily than labour can to its core electorate. For labour it needs to connect and it needs quality leadership. To say that the labour leadership is light weight would be a disservice - a disservice to light weights. Interesting and if this thread is anything to go by - bitter days ahead.

[Phil D. Rolls]

There is a myth being created. That myth is that the yes campaign won the argument but were 'stabbed in the bag'. The yes campaign lost because they did not convincingly address the economic issues, unsurprisingly in these circumstances the no votes gained a convincing majority. in raw political terms what the referendum exposes is the disconnect between the Labour Party and it's historical constituency. However, there is also a deeper truth that core nationalist voters voted for no. I suspect the SNP will reconcile itself more easily than labour can to its core electorate. For labour it needs to connect and it needs quality leadership. To say that the labour leadership is light weight would be a disservice doing a disservice - a disservice to light weights. Interesting and if this thread is anything to go by - bitter days ahead.

Agree with everything except this. How many, and how do you know?

[McIntosh]

Agree with everything except this. How many, and how do you know?
I should have caveated this by stating out with the industrial areas i.e Perth and the Islands. Places where I would have expected a yes vote as they have strong SNP histories.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I should have caveated this by stating out with the industrial areas i.e Perth and the Islands. Places where I would have expected a yes vote as they have strong SNP histories.

:aok:

[Tyler Durden]

What else would you call introducing a third option that was originally stricken from the ballot paper and not agreed upon by both sides and claiming it is a given if people vote no with the intention of splitting the YES vote? Add to that that the time frame for this "vow" has now been broken and is looking more and more like it wasn't sincere in the first place and will be impossible to deliver. We were cheated.

Except there is no way to determine how this "vow" impacted the vote. It's a bit naive not to expect parties to over reach during a campaign and possibly struggle to keep to their word. For example there's a long list of things in the SNPs white paper which wouldn't be delivered as their budget simply never balanced.

To be clear though, it will be a disgrace if the 3 parties fail to keep their word. I don't think that will happen. Missing the initial step on September 19th is a minor point for me.

So no, I don't think anyone has been cheated. Nor do I believe No voters were duped or voted in fear.

[Big Frank]

1000 Scottish people every year get blood transfusions from English donors

No wonder so many people voted for the NO campaign then. There all full of English blood. :faf:


The fight goes on. :saltireflag


That is utter nonsense.

[RyeSloan]

Except there is no way to determine how this "vow" impacted the vote. It's a bit naive not to expect parties to over reach during a campaign and possibly struggle to keep to their word. For example there's a long list of things in the SNPs white paper which wouldn't be delivered as their budget simply never balanced. To be clear though, it will be a disgrace if the 3 parties fail to keep their word. I don't think that will happen. Missing the initial step on September 19th is a minor point for me. So no, I don't think anyone has been cheated. Nor do I believe No voters were duped or voted in fear.

Good post...just don't expect many to pay attention to it!!

People seem to be fixated on organising another referendum as soon as possible despite 2 years of campaigning and millions upon millions of Scots having just voted in one.

[One Day Soon]

Good post...just don't expect many to pay attention to it!!

People seem to be fixated on organising another referendum as soon as possible despite 2 years of campaigning and millions upon millions of Scots having just voted in one.


Did I see an opinion poll at the weekend on whether people wanted another Referendum? I'm sure that was in a paper somewhere.

[Hibrandenburg]

Except there is no way to determine how this "vow" impacted the vote. It's a bit naive not to expect parties to over reach during a campaign and possibly struggle to keep to their word. For example there's a long list of things in the SNPs white paper which wouldn't be delivered as their budget simply never balanced.

To be clear though, it will be a disgrace if the 3 parties fail to keep their word. I don't think that will happen. Missing the initial step on September 19th is a minor point for me.

So no, I don't think anyone has been cheated. Nor do I believe No voters were duped or voted in fear.

I'd take a guess and say it was enough to sway a large proportion of the undecideds and even some YES who were scared but willing to take the risk. We'll never know exactly how many fell for the con but it was a con and no matter how you dress it up it was cheating to introduce a third option that wasn't on the ballot paper. We'll never learn, conned again.

[JeMeSouviens]

Did I see an opinion poll at the weekend on whether people wanted another Referendum? I'm sure that was in a paper somewhere.

Lord Ashcroft's poll asked:


If it turns out that a majority has voted NO in the referendum, for how long do you think the
question of whether Scotland should be independent or remain in the UK will remain settled?

% YES/NO

For the next five years 45/20
For the next ten years 16/18
For the next generation 18/28
Forever 12/25
Don’t know 9/8


So I make it (0.61/0.91 * 45) + (0.38/0.92 *55) = 53% (ex-DK) think this is coming back within 10 years.

And that's *before* we've had the interminable Westminster bunfight, Barnett reductions and surprisingly stronger than forecast oil revenues ...

Getting a majority in Holyrood may be the big stumbling block. I hope that that is overcome by a permanent collapse in the Tory propping Lib Dem vote and hopefully a wider range of pro-Indy options than just the SNP.


Edit - found one you'll like better. :wink:

Survation asked if you'd like to see another poll within 15 years and got 43/57 Y/N.

That still seems pretty supportive given we're only a day or 2 after and there's plenty for the Unionists to get wrong.

Yet another edit: Survation also asked a range of Qs about specific powers: would you like to see them devolved or not? Income tax, welfare, VAT, corporation tax, defence, pensions. They got substantial majorities to devolve everything except defence (and even that was almost 50/50, wtf?) . Seems the Scots do actually want real Devo-max and not the pretendy Devo-as-little-as-possible we're likely to get.

[Hibrandenburg]

Lord Ashcroft's poll asked:



So I make it (0.61/0.91 * 45) + (0.38/0.92 *55) = 53% (ex-DK) think this is coming back within 10 years.

And that's *before* we've had the interminable Westminster bunfight, Barnett reductions and surprisingly stronger than forecast oil revenues ...

Getting a majority in Holyrood may be the big stumbling block. I hope that that is overcome by a permanent collapse in the Tory propping Lib Dem vote and hopefully a wider range of pro-Indy options than just the SNP.


Edit - found one you'll like better. :wink:

Survation asked if you'd like to see another poll within 15 years and got 43/57 Y/N.

That still seems pretty supportive given we're only a day or 2 after and there's plenty for the Unionists to get wrong.

Yet another edit: Survation also asked a range of Qs about specific powers: would you like to see them devolved or not? Income tax, welfare, VAT, corporation tax, defence, pensions. They got substantial majorities to devolve everything except defence (and even that was almost 50/50, wtf?) . Seems the Scots do actually want real Devo-max and not the pretendy Devo-as-little-as-possible we're likely to get.

Yepp! The vow pretty much killed the YES vote. Let's not just roll over again and let them away with this.

[RyeSloan]

Yepp! The vow pretty much killed the YES vote. Let's not just roll over again and let them away with this.

Just because you repeat it enough times doesn't make it true..

[RyeSloan]

Lord Ashcroft's poll asked: So I make it (0.61/0.91 * 45) + (0.38/0.92 *55) = 53% (ex-DK) think this is coming back within 10 years. And that's *before* we've had the interminable Westminster bunfight, Barnett reductions and surprisingly stronger than forecast oil revenues ... Getting a majority in Holyrood may be the big stumbling block. I hope that that is overcome by a permanent collapse in the Tory propping Lib Dem vote and hopefully a wider range of pro-Indy options than just the SNP. Edit - found one you'll like better. :wink: Survation asked if you'd like to see another poll within 15 years and got 43/57 Y/N. That still seems pretty supportive given we're only a day or 2 after and there's plenty for the Unionists to get wrong. Yet another edit: Survation also asked a range of Qs about specific powers: would you like to see them devolved or not? Income tax, welfare, VAT, corporation tax, defence, pensions. They got substantial majorities to devolve everything except defence (and even that was almost 50/50, wtf?) . Seems the Scots do actually want real Devo-max and not the pretendy Devo-as-little-as-possible we're likely to get.

Pretty supportive in that 57% answered in the negative...

I suppose there is a few ways to cut a cake but with LESS people saying they wanted another referendum within 15 years than voted for independence would that not suggest a drop in support of the idea?

The rest of it confirms what most people would support I would suggest...continuing devolution of power to Scotland but within the existing framework of governance.

[Moulin Yarns]

Anyone?? Any of the Better Together people who were swayed when the Daily Record published "The Vow?" :faf::faf::faf:

can we at least refer to them by their full name?

No better together, thanks

[JeMeSouviens]

Pretty supportive in that 57% answered in the negative...

I suppose there is a few ways to cut a cake but with LESS people saying they wanted another referendum within 15 years than voted for independence would that not suggest a drop in support of the idea?


Yes, obviously, but much less than I'd have expected just after a gruelling campaign and a supposedly "decisive" result. This should be the absolute low point of support for another referendum, unless the Unionists really do come up with a far reaching set of powers.



The rest of it confirms what most people would support I would suggest...continuing devolution of power to Scotland but within the existing framework of governance.

But by much, much farther than any of the unionists are prepared to even semi-contemplate. Out of that list, only defence wouldn't be in a real Devo-Max package. Only some of income tax and possibly the teensiest bit of welfare (housing benefit) are all that's likely to come.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Except there is no way to determine how this "vow" impacted the vote. It's a bit naive not to expect parties to over reach during a campaign and possibly struggle to keep to their word. For example there's a long list of things in the SNPs white paper which wouldn't be delivered as their budget simply never balanced.

To be clear though, it will be a disgrace if the 3 parties fail to keep their word. I don't think that will happen. Missing the initial step on September 19th is a minor point for me.

So no, I don't think anyone has been cheated. Nor do I believe No voters were duped or voted in fear.

Change "minor" to starting and that will be about right.

It doesn't matter whether the 'vow' was over reaching or not. If it isn't delivered on within the time frame and to the full extent of what was promised, then what it becomes is a load of rubbish made up on the spur of the moment by people who knew full well all along that it couldn't, or worse wouldn't, be delivered on. That to any normal person is duping the public, it doesn't matter if it influenced the vote or not ....... It was intended to.

[SvenNeil]

I don't think another referendum will happen in the next ten years but defo within twenty years. Either way, the run up to it has already begun and I'm struck by how many people now want independence compared to a few short years ago.

I voted yes and joined the SNP today - I will do anything I can to campaign against the Scottish Labour and Unionist Party who are severely damaged by their recent actions in the run up to the vote.

[Hibrandenburg]

Just because you repeat it enough times doesn't make it true..

And I'll keep saying it until it's proven otherwise. They've made the vow, they've already broke the timeline for the vow and I'm certain they won't keep the vow. This isn't going away and neither am I.

[Pretty Boy]

I should have caveated this by stating out with the industrial areas i.e Perth and the Islands. Places where I would have expected a yes vote as they have strong SNP histories.

Does Perth have a strong SNP history?

Maybe in recent years but until 1997 it was a Tory stronghold in Scotland. The SNP have performed well there, generally running the Tories close in the 70s and 80s and taking the seat(s) after the Tory collapse post poll tax but how much of there success has been a 'won't vote Labour, can't vote Tory' is open to debate.

[The_Exile]

13524

Stronger as part of the UK, vote No, the NHS is safe in the union no matter who was in power they said. Less than a week later, it's back to the real world where clearly the NHS is indeed well and truly "on the cliff edge". Lies, lies and more lies, this is the reason so many Labour No voters as incensed, those tweets are 5 days apart FFS!!

[Tyler Durden]

Change "minor" to starting and that will be about right.

It doesn't matter whether the 'vow' was over reaching or not. If it isn't delivered on within the time frame and to the full extent of what was promised, then what it becomes is a load of rubbish made up on the spur of the moment by people who knew full well all along that it couldn't, or worse wouldn't, be delivered on. That to any normal person is duping the public, it doesn't matter if it influenced the vote or not ....... It was intended to.

What was promised?

Would Salmond duping the public be different if his plan didn't materialise?

[RyeSloan]

Yes, obviously, but much less than I'd have expected just after a gruelling campaign and a supposedly "decisive" result. This should be the absolute low point of support for another referendum, unless the Unionists really do come up with a far reaching set of powers. But by much, much farther than any of the unionists are prepared to even semi-contemplate. Out of that list, only defence wouldn't be in a real Devo-Max package. Only some of income tax and possibly the teensiest bit of welfare (housing benefit) are all that's likely to come.

Don't disagree that the initial transfer of powers will certainly not be Devo maxesque nor will it satisfy the majority of Scots so the demand for more will never go away. But it will be another transfer of power on top of the roughly 60% of government spending that is already decided in Scotland...it will also, crucially in my mind, start the process of 'taxed raised in Scotland stays in Scotland' once that process is started I don't think it will be easy to stop.

My point is that all that will take place within the existing set up...no schism, no 18 months (yeah right!) of uncertainty, no cabal of negotiators divvying up the 10% in a darkened room.

Ultimately I see a much more federal UK...where each member essentially pays a membership fee for retained powers (Defence and urm defence!) with a possible supplement for 'poorer' areas (akin to some of the EU development funds) and maybe some universal benefits like pensions...you might then argue what would be the point of the UK and it may be better to go our separate ways, that would possibly be a compelling argument. But importantly it would be one made against a backdrop of each country already having the apparatus of self government in place so would be a significantly derisked proposal....

Maybe I'm dreaming and no such thing will happen or maybe I'm a bit more patient than some...I do know one thing tho, it's late and im aff to my kip! :-)

[JeMeSouviens]

Don't disagree that the initial transfer of powers will certainly not be Devo maxesque nor will it satisfy the majority of Scots so the demand for more will never go away. But it will be another transfer of power on top of the roughly 60% of government spending that is already decided in Scotland...it will also, crucially in my mind, start the process of 'taxed raised in Scotland stays in Scotland' once that process is started I don't think it will be easy to stop.

My point is that all that will take place within the existing set up...no schism, no 18 months (yeah right!) of uncertainty, no cabal of negotiators divvying up the 10% in a darkened room.

Ultimately I see a much more federal UK...where each member essentially pays a membership fee for retained powers (Defence and urm defence!) with a possible supplement for 'poorer' areas (akin to some of the EU development funds) and maybe some universal benefits like pensions...you might then argue what would be the point of the UK and it may be better to go our separate ways, that would possibly be a compelling argument. But importantly it would be one made against a backdrop of each country already having the apparatus of self government in place so would be a significantly derisked proposal....

Maybe I'm dreaming and no such thing will happen or maybe I'm a bit more patient than some...I do know one thing tho, it's late and im aff to my kip! :-)

That sounds fantastic, where do I sign. :greengrin

I think you're being wildly optimistic but that's certainly the direction I think Yes campaigners should refocus on for the foreseeable future (barring wholesale betrayal which I wouldn't rule out entirely). Incidentally this is exactly the strategy Salmond spoke about, gradual absorption of powers until you are effectively independent. It's how New Zealand became independent. Typically, the Unionist press picked this up and ran with "Salmond threatens UDI". :rolleyes:

[cabbageandribs1875]

Johann Lamont shows us where the puppet master ties the string, see those arms movehttp://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3549518.1411426345!/image/1338678024.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/1338678024.jpg whilst Ed Siliband applauds johann's version of that old classic, sandie shaw's 'like a puppet on a string'

[hibsbollah]

Johann Lamont shows us where the puppet master ties the string, see those arms movehttp://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3549518.1411426345!/image/1338678024.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/1338678024.jpg whilst Ed Siliband applauds johann's version of that old classic, sandie shaw's 'like a puppet on a string'

The conference footage was absolutely toe curlingly embarrassing for the most part. God knows who coaches Ed to do that manic (axe wielding?) grin to the cameras while striding purposefully past them looking as awkward as a tesco accountant at a shareholders meeting. I have no doubt he is well meaning and Labour still has slightly more progressive social and economic policies than the Tories, but Christ on a bike he has zero charisma. Alistair Campbell must be turning in his metaphorical grave.

[RyeSloan]

That sounds fantastic, where do I sign. :greengrin I think you're being wildly optimistic but that's certainly the direction I think Yes campaigners should refocus on for the foreseeable future (barring wholesale betrayal which I wouldn't rule out entirely). Incidentally this is exactly the strategy Salmond spoke about, gradual absorption of powers until you are effectively independent. It's how New Zealand became independent. Typically, the Unionist press picked this up and ran with "Salmond threatens UDI". :rolleyes:

I hope the Yes campaign does focus on that rather on another referendum...same goal different path....

I for one would support that approach and personally know a lot of No voters that would as well.

Wow...I think therefore we may actually have (almost!) came to an agreement here JMS...it's taken 2 years but we might have got there in the end! Amazing ;-)

[JeMeSouviens]

I hope the Yes campaign does focus on that rather on another referendum...same goal different path....

I for one would support that approach and personally know a lot of No voters that would as well.

Wow...I think therefore we may actually have (almost!) came to an agreement here JMS...it's taken 2 years but we might have got there in the end! Amazing ;-)

:agree::aok:

[degenerated]

I hope the Yes campaign does focus on that rather on another referendum...same goal different path....

I for one would support that approach and personally know a lot of No voters that would as well.

Wow...I think therefore we may actually have (almost!) came to an agreement here JMS...it's taken 2 years but we might have got there in the end! Amazing ;-)
I agree with that too, gradualisation is the sensible way to go for independence. Taking it a step at a time and dealing with challenges and putting robust solutions in place prior to that makes absolute sense.

[CropleyWasGod]

I agree with that too, gradualisation is the sensible way to go for independence. Taking it a step at a time and dealing with challenges and putting robust solutions in place prior to that makes absolute sense.

... which is one of the reasons Cameron didn't like the Devo-Max option. By taking that route (which, IMO, would have been a winner), the gradualisation process would have continued, to its ultimate conclusion. He wanted to stop that process.

Scots, and Brits in general, don't like wholesale changes too quickly. It's taken Scotland 35 years to come from "Devolution? We want it, but not enough" through "Aye, why shouldn't we?" to the current position of "maybe, but still no sure".

By the time the younger generation (who haven't experienced a time when there was no Scottish Parliament) have a greater say in things, it'll be a case of "why not? What is WM actually for?".

[The Harp Awakes]

There is a myth being created. That myth is that the yes campaign won the argument but were 'stabbed in the back'. The yes campaign lost because they did not convincingly address the economic issues, unsurprisingly in these circumstances the no votes gained a convincing majority. in raw political terms what the referendum exposes is the disconnect between the Labour Party and it's historical constituency. However, there is also a deeper truth that core nationalist voters voted for no. I suspect the SNP will reconcile itself more easily than labour can to its core electorate. For labour it needs to connect and it needs quality leadership. To say that the labour leadership is light weight would be a disservice - a disservice to light weights. Interesting and if this thread is anything to go by - bitter days ahead.

I think the last decade or so has demonstrated that the SNP's core vote is moving away from it's traditional heartlands to new strongholds in parts of the Central Belt. In my view this is due to the party increasingly moving to a centre-left agenda and this direction will continue under Nicola Sturgeon.

I spend most of my weekends in Highland Perthshire in John Swinney's constituency which is an example of a traditional SNP stronghold. In that area nationalists tend to be right wing in their outlook and are more than likely to have voted Tory at some point in their lives before moving to the SNP. I spoke to one such constituent at the weekend who has supported the SNP on previous elections but voted no on Thursday. He did not think the timing was right to become independent as the economy had not yet recovered following the recession. He said the SNP should have waited until the next parliament to have a referendum when the conditions would have been more favourable. I'm not sure I agree with that point of view but it is clear that a significant number of former SNP supporters in their heartlands turned their back on independence on Thursday.

A further move to the left may mean that the SNP continues to lose traditional support, but I believe that any loss will be completely overturned by support coming from disaffected Labour voters in other areas. The almost doubling of the SNP's membership since the referendum is testimony of that fact.

[One Day Soon]

Johann Lamont shows us where the puppet master ties the string, see those arms movehttp://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3549518.1411426345!/image/1338678024.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/1338678024.jpg whilst Ed Siliband applauds johann's version of that old classic, sandie shaw's 'like a puppet on a string'


Side splitting.

Why is it that the most fervent Yes supporters are consistently resorting to personal abuse or trite 'witticisms' in the post-Referendum debate.

[One Day Soon]

The conference footage was absolutely toe curlingly embarrassing for the most part. God knows who coaches Ed to do that manic (axe wielding?) grin to the cameras while striding purposefully past them looking as awkward as a tesco accountant at a shareholders meeting. I have no doubt he is well meaning and Labour still has slightly more progressive social and economic policies than the Tories, but Christ on a bike he has zero charisma. Alistair Campbell must be turning in his metaphorical grave.

I'm really not a fan of Ed Mili - voted for the other one in fact - but I have to say that there is spectacular irony in his being pilloried, effectively for having insufficient televisual spin appeal.

People want politicians who aren't pre-packaged, until they're there, then it becomes personal abuse about how eg Johann Lamont looks or sounds. Not saying that is what you are doing HB, just making the observation.

[One Day Soon]

... which is one of the reasons Cameron didn't like the Devo-Max option. By taking that route (which, IMO, would have been a winner), the gradualisation process would have continued, to its ultimate conclusion. He wanted to stop that process.

Scots, and Brits in general, don't like wholesale changes too quickly. It's taken Scotland 35 years to come from "Devolution? We want it, but not enough" through "Aye, why shouldn't we?" to the current position of "maybe, but still no sure".

By the time the younger generation (who haven't experienced a time when there was no Scottish Parliament) have a greater say in things, it'll be a case of "why not? What is WM actually for?".

The substantive reason why the No side didn't want want a third option on the ballot - and why Salmond did - was because of the likelihood that the No vote would have been split and would have allowed Indy to come through the middle.

[One Day Soon]

I think the last decade or so has demonstrated that the SNP's core vote is moving away from it's traditional heartlands to new strongholds in parts of the Central Belt. In my view this is due to the party increasingly moving to a centre-left agenda and this direction will continue under Nicola Sturgeon.

I spend most of my weekends in Highland Perthshire in John Swinney's constituency which is an example of a traditional SNP stronghold. In that area nationalists tend to be right wing in their outlook and are more than likely to have voted Tory at some point in their lives before moving to the SNP. I spoke to one such constituent at the weekend who has supported the SNP on previous elections but voted no on Thursday. He did not think the timing was right to become independent as the economy had not yet recovered following the recession. He said the SNP should have waited until the next parliament to have a referendum when the conditions would have been more favourable. I'm not sure I agree with that point of view but it is clear that a significant number of former SNP supporters in their heartlands turned their back on independence on Thursday.

A further move to the left may mean that the SNP continues to lose traditional support, but I believe that any loss will be completely overturned by support coming from disaffected Labour voters in other areas. The almost doubling of the SNP's membership since the referendum is testimony of that fact.

You may be right on that but on the other hand the majority of these could easily be either core SNP voters being energised to sign up by the disappointment of losing or other Indy supporters (eg former SSP supporters) joining the vehicle they see as being most likely to get to that end. If it is the latter and if Mr Sillars refuses to go quietly back into the broom cupboard then SNP conference will become a very interesting thing indeed.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Side splitting.

Why is it that the most fervent Yes supporters are consistently resorting to personal abuse or trite 'witticisms' in the post-Referendum debate.


so you keep on saying, you obviously didn't listen the last time i said this to you, i have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say :aok:, feel free to ignore please, i noticed someone else calling you a hypocrite (as i have already done in an earlier post) so here's a wee special one just for you

:kettle:




oh and p.s. get yourself a sense of humour FGS

[cabbageandribs1875]

The conference footage was absolutely toe curlingly embarrassing for the most part. God knows who coaches Ed to do that manic (axe wielding?) grin to the cameras while striding purposefully past them looking as awkward as a tesco accountant at a shareholders meeting. I have no doubt he is well meaning and Labour still has slightly more progressive social and economic policies than the Tories, but Christ on a bike he has zero charisma. Alistair Campbell must be turning in his metaphorical grave.


only saw a brief interview of jim murphy, he can certainly talk a good game, unfortunately he wouldn't give straight answers to the interviewer, and i actually think David Miliband would have made a better leader for Labour, imo of course :)

[JeMeSouviens]

The substantive reason why the No side didn't want want a third option on the ballot - and why Salmond did - was because of the likelihood that the No vote would have been split and would have allowed Indy to come through the middle.

Nah. The proposal Salmond tried to pretend other people were offering when it was actually him was a second question, not a third option ie.

1. Should Scotland be an independent country?

If not,

2. Should Scotland have devo-max?

Denying the second question was always about giving the SNP a doing while not committing to any change. They only rowed back on the change when they felt they had to.

[hibsbollah]

I'm really not a fan of Ed Mili - voted for the other one in fact - but I have to say that there is spectacular irony in his being pilloried, effectively for having insufficient televisual spin appeal.

People want politicians who aren't pre-packaged, until they're there, then it becomes personal abuse about how eg Johann Lamont looks or sounds. Not saying that is what you are doing HB, just making the observation.

I don't think it's ironic at all. I want a Labour leader to be two things; as a priority, principled, with well informed policies that reflect the labour movement's aims and objectives. And two, capable, which includes the ability to deliver a speech and, yes, have 'spin appeal' as you put it. It's not one or another.

Im stunned at Miliband's incapacity. He started his speech about Isis, a couple of platitudes about how nasty they are, but nothing about the bombing, nothing about Labours position on the topic. By being unable to say whether or not he would back air strikes he creates uncertainty in the very first few sentences. I don't want or demand a Keir Hardie, just Basic political capabilities. The content is as ****** as the delivery. Slagging Cameron for playing tennis. What? And policies to quicken the wealth redistribution pulse? An increase in the minimum wage which is only a baw hair above inflation anyway in time for 2020. Yvette Cooper has already shown herself to be far more convincing. As has Balls.

[hibsbollah]

and i actually think David Miliband would have made a better leader for Labour, imo of course :)

Join the rest of the known universe on that one:agree:

[RyeSloan]

Join the rest of the known universe on that one:agree:

Indeed...sure he will be back as opposition leader soon tho ;-)

[One Day Soon]

so you keep on saying, you obviously didn't listen the last time i said this to you, i have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say :aok:, feel free to ignore please, i noticed someone else calling you a hypocrite (as i have already done in an earlier post) so here's a wee special one just for you

:kettle:




oh and p.s. get yourself a sense of humour FGS


Good for you, doesn't mean I'm not going to highlight your cobblers when you post it.

I'll start laughing when your wit rises above the Fran and Anna level.

[One Day Soon]

Indeed...sure he will be back as opposition leader soon tho ;-)

Sadly not.

[One Day Soon]

I don't think it's ironic at all. I want a Labour leader to be two things; as a priority, principled, with well informed policies that reflect the labour movement's aims and objectives. And two, capable, which includes the ability to deliver a speech and, yes, have 'spin appeal' as you put it. It's not one or another.

Im stunned at Miliband's incapacity. He started his speech about Isis, a couple of platitudes about how nasty they are, but nothing about the bombing, nothing about Labours position on the topic. By being unable to say whether or not he would back air strikes he creates uncertainty in the very first few sentences. I don't want or demand a Keir Hardie, just Basic political capabilities. The content is as ****** as the delivery. Slagging Cameron for playing tennis. What? And policies to quicken the wealth redistribution pulse? An increase in the minimum wage which is only a baw hair above inflation anyway in time for 2020. Yvette Cooper has already shown herself to be far more convincing. As has Balls.


So take all that you have written above and then imagine the possibility that he will be top dog after the next election, because I think that there's a serious chance that could happen. Many people don't fear him losing, they fear him winning.

You're not back to Balls again? Yvette certainly, but I can assure you that two Eds would not make a right here.

[degenerated]

I'm really not a fan of Ed Mili - voted for the other one in fact - but I have to say that there is spectacular irony in his being pilloried, effectively for having insufficient televisual spin appeal.

People want politicians who aren't pre-packaged, until they're there, then it becomes personal abuse about how eg Johann Lamont looks or sounds. Not saying that is what you are doing HB, just making the observation.
My criticism of Lamont has never been about what she looks like or how she sounds. It's what she says that's the problem. I'm sure she's very clever but clearly not genetically programmed for politics.

[degenerated]

only saw a brief interview of jim murphy, he can certainly talk a good game, unfortunately he wouldn't give straight answers to the interviewer, and i actually think David Miliband would have made a better leader for Labour, imo of course :)
Have a search for the bold Jim's track record when he was in the NUS, speaks volumes about the man.

[One Day Soon]

My criticism of Lamont has never been about what she looks like or how she sounds. It's what she says that's the problem. I'm sure she's very clever but clearly not genetically programmed for politics.

That's fair enough. What exactly did she say about being genetically programmed?

[One Day Soon]

Nah. The proposal Salmond tried to pretend other people were offering when it was actually him was a second question, not a third option ie.

1. Should Scotland be an independent country?

If not,

2. Should Scotland have devo-max?

Denying the second question was always about giving the SNP a doing while not committing to any change. They only rowed back on the change when they felt they had to.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one. Anyway it's moot I guess since it never happened.

[Hibrandenburg]

Side splitting.

Why is it that the most fervent Yes supporters are consistently resorting to personal abuse or trite 'witticisms' in the post-Referendum debate.

:faf:

Aye right, it's only the YES voters. My Facebook feed is full of caricatures of Salmond of a similar nature. You can drop the "cyber bullies" party line now, the referendum is over.

[Hibrandenburg]

The substantive reason why the No side didn't want want a third option on the ballot - and why Salmond did - was because of the likelihood that the No vote would have been split and would have allowed Indy to come through the middle.

:agree:

And by throwing it in there at the last minute tagged to a no vote meant he got the best of both worlds.

[One Day Soon]

:faf:

Aye right, it's only the YES voters. My Facebook feed is full of caricatures of Salmond of a similar nature. You can drop the "cyber bullies" party line now, the referendum is over.


Sorry, don't do Facebook. I'm talking about here on .net.

Do you not choose who you are connected to on Facebook?

[One Day Soon]

:agree:

And by throwing it in there at the last minute tagged to a no vote meant he got the best of both worlds.

Not sure who 'he' is but I agree with you on this. The offer combined with straight up No was set directly against Yes. Can't see a problem with that.

The question asked if you wanted independence or not. By majority, people didn't.

[Mon Dieu4]

That's fair enough. What exactly did she say about being genetically programmed?

From my memory and could be wrong she said on Question Time a while back that the Scots were not genetically able to make decisions for themselves or words to that effect

As soon as she said it I knew it would come back to haunt her

Actually now I think about it that could have been that other Labour wifey haha my heids fried with this all now

Oh well back to Hibs for me I think

[One Day Soon]

From my memory and could be wrong she said on Question Time a while back that the Scots were not genetically able to make decisions for themselves or words to that effect

As soon as she said it I knew it would come back to haunt her

I highly doubt that. Can anyone point to the exact context and quote?

[Hibrandenburg]

I highly doubt that. Can anyone point to the exact context and quote?

Does it matter? You're too late to change your mind anyway. :wink:

[Mon Dieu4]

I highly doubt that. Can anyone point to the exact context and quote?

I've had a wee think and im sure it was the other Labour woman, her name escapes me at the moment but she definitely said on QT that we weren't able to think for ourselves!

I'm on the bus just now but when I'm home I will try and see if there is a link somewhere to it

[hibsbollah]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nBH55ZeZU4w

No, mondieu was right. It was more a 'open mouth without engaging brain' moment than her actual belief, I think. But thats bad enough.

As it happens, Mrs Bollah went to a women in business event for work a year or so ago, and came back saying Lamont was very impressive and articulate. She's clearly better on a wee stage.

[degenerated]

That's fair enough. What exactly did she say about being genetically programmed?
Aftermath We are not genetically programmed to ma…: http://youtu.be/hFR2nupcR_w

[Mon Dieu4]

Cheers folks I was starting to question myself there haha

[Hibrandenburg]

Not sure who 'he' is but I agree with you on this. The offer combined with straight up No was set directly against Yes. Can't see a problem with that.

The question asked if you wanted independence or not. By majority, people didn't.

I can:

1. It had previously been agreed by both sides that it wasn't an option on offer.

2. The promise has been broken already and hasn't a Cat in hell's chance of being pushed through anyway.

BT went back on the agreement made prior to the referendum and deceived the Scottish electorate. I hope the Scottish people at least hold the parties of BT to account for this deceipt seeing as we can't hold the individuals to account. But more than likely we'll roll over and let Westminster scratch us on the tummy like we normally do.

[marinello59]

I can:

1. It had previously been agreed by both sides that it wasn't an option on offer.

2. The promise has been broken already and hasn't a Cat in hell's chance of being pushed through anyway.

BT went back on the agreement made prior to the referendum and deceived the Scottish electorate. I hope the Scottish people at least hold the parties of BT to account for this deceipt seeing as we can't hold the individuals to account. But more than likely we'll roll over and let Westminster scratch us on the tummy like we normally do.

Did you listen to any of the debate at Holyrood today? Alex Salmond was in top notch form and thankfully gave a much more optimistic view of what the future can bring. Scotland's parliament will be rolling over for no one and neither will Scotland's people.
Onwards and upwards. :thumbsup:.

[Hibrandenburg]

Did you listen to any of the debate at Holyrood today? Alex Salmond was in top notch form and thankfully gave a much more optimistic view of what the future can bring. Scotland's parliament will be rolling over for no one and neither will Scotland's people.
Onwards and upwards. :thumbsup:.

Unfortunately not mate. I only get GBC World (Goebels Broadcasting Corporation) and Pie in the Sky News over here. I'll have a wee scan on the net after the bairn goes to bed.

Thanks for the heads up though :thumbsup:

[One Day Soon]

Did you listen to any of the debate at Holyrood today? Alex Salmond was in top notch form and thankfully gave a much more optimistic view of what the future can bring. Scotland's parliament will be rolling over for no one and neither will Scotland's people.
Onwards and upwards. :thumbsup:.

I know a lot of people who dislike him personally but like him politically. I'm the other way around. Like him personally, though he can be a bit clunky with people, but dislike his politics.

He is going to be a very hard act for Sturgeon to follow.

[One Day Soon]

Unfortunately not mate. I only get GBC World (Goebels Broadcasting Corporation) and Pie in the Sky News over here. I'll have a wee scan on the net after the bairn goes to bed.

Thanks for the heads up though :thumbsup:

Did you not have a vote in the Referendum then?

[Hibrandenburg]

Did you not have a vote in the Referendum then?

No mate! But I think that's perfectly legitimate and believe that those who live in Scotland should decide what's best for Scotland.

[degenerated]

Did you not have a vote in the Referendum then?
Same voting rights that all those £25 a day politics students that Labour bussed up from down south to canvass.

[One Day Soon]

No mate! But I think that's perfectly legitimate and believe that those who live in Scotland should decide what's best for Scotland.

Given your stance I would have thought that was a bit of a sore one for you, but fair enough if that's your view. I would have given Scottish residents who were out of the country the right to vote, such as those in the services and I'd have had a residency here minimum time limit - perhaps three years or so.

[One Day Soon]

Same voting rights that all those £25 a day politics students that Labour bussed up from down south to canvass.

Your point is?

[degenerated]

Don't take it so personally, it was a flippant jibe.

[Hibrandenburg]

Given your stance I would have thought that was a bit of a sore one for you, but fair enough if that's your view. I would have given Scottish residents who were out of the country the right to vote, such as those in the services and I'd have had a residency here minimum time limit - perhaps three years or so.

Those in the services did get to vote providing they were recruited in Scotland. I've no problem with ex pats not getting the vote, they chose to live abroad.

[steakbake]

Miliband's speech today: unconvincing. He is Labour's William Hague. The man is so awkward it's actually uncomfortable to watch him. Everyone looked uncomfortable. Especially "Elizabeth", the Apprentice.

[Mibbes Aye]

Miliband's speech today: unconvincing. He is Labour's William Hague. The man is so awkward it's actually uncomfortable to watch him. Everyone looked uncomfortable. Especially "Elizabeth", the Apprentice.

People have been writing Ed off for a long time, because he's gawky or nerdy or just not right or people wouldn't vote for him.

IIRC you were against him in 2010 when the leadership election took place. If you weren't you were quick to dismiss his chances after his election and posted frequently to that effect.

The thing is though, when you look at what's happened, he's made the political weather at Westminster more than any other Leader of the Opposition I can recall.

He forced the government to change their approach on Murdoch and BSkyB, which ultimately gave us Leveson, prosecutions, Coulson in jail and the dissolution of the NOTW. The balance of power shifted significantly.

He stopped Cameron taking us into war against Syria.

He shifted the narrative on energy prices - the government followed his lead.

It's fashionable to write him off, folk on here do that. Folk on here aren't a good guide as to what folk generally want however, as the referendum clearly showed.

There's a far wider electorate out there who don't feel the need to bump their gums but ultimately do vote.

As things stand, the polls backs him and the party he leads. Even more so amongst women, who are massively under-represented on here.

My view is he does principle and he does substance. For some of us that counts for more than the slick performance of a PR professional like Cameron, the 'sell out for a seat in government' mindset of Clegg, or the bluff, bluster and bravado of a Salmond.

He might be clunky and a bit awkward, but hey, wasn't the protest always that we didn't like slick politicians?

[The Harp Awakes]

People have been writing Ed off for a long time, because he's gawky or nerdy or just not right or people wouldn't vote for him.

IIRC you were against him in 2010 when the leadership election took place. If you weren't you were quick to dismiss his chances after his election and posted frequently to that effect.

The thing is though, when you look at what's happened, he's made the political weather at Westminster more than any other Leader of the Opposition I can recall.

He forced the government to change their approach on Murdoch and BSkyB, which ultimately gave us Leveson, prosecutions, Coulson in jail and the dissolution of the NOTW. The balance of power shifted significantly.

He stopped Cameron taking us into war against Syria.

He shifted the narrative on energy prices - the government followed his lead.

It's fashionable to write him off, folk on here do that. Folk on here aren't a good guide as to what folk generally want however, as the referendum clearly showed.

There's a far wider electorate out there who don't feel the need to bump their gums but ultimately do vote.

As things stand, the polls backs him and the party he leads. Even more so amongst women, who are massively under-represented on here.

My view is he does principle and he does substance. For some of us that counts for more than the slick performance of a PR professional like Cameron, the 'sell out for a seat in government' mindset of Clegg, or the bluff, bluster and bravado of a Salmond.

He might be clunky and a bit awkward, but hey, wasn't the protest always that we didn't like slick politicians?

Mmmm...

I think Labour are very unlikely to win next years General Election under Milliband. He won't appeal to disaffected Tory voters, who if they want to give the Government a kicking will go to UKIP. At the same time, Labours vote in Scotland I think will disintegrate because of the way Labour politicians conducted themselves during the last few weeks of the referendum campaign. Siding with big business who were clearly being orchestrated into making negative statements about independence by Cameron was not a smart move.

There has clearly been a gulf between grass roots Scottish Labour voters and the UK Labour Party in recent years so now the gulf will be enormous. The sight of Lamont, Murphy, Alexander and buddies prancing about celebrating on the Manchester stage will be the final insult to the many Labour supporters who voted Yes. The very people they were elected to represent.

[Mibbes Aye]

Mmmm...

I think Labour are very unlikely to win next years General Election under Milliband. He won't appeal to disaffected Tory voters, who if they want to give the Government a kicking will go to UKIP. At the same time, Labours vote in Scotland I think will disintegrate because of the way Labour politicians conducted themselves during the last few weeks of the referendum campaign. Siding with big business who were clearly being orchestrated into making negative statements about independence by Cameron was not a smart move.

There has clearly been a gulf between grass roots Scottish Labour voters and the UK Labour Party in recent years so now the gulf will be enormous. The sight of Lamont, Murphy, Alexander and buddies prancing about celebrating on the Manchester stage will be the final insult to the many Labour supporters who voted Yes. The very people they were elected to represent.

:greengrin

That's the argument Nats want to believe.

The same way they wanted to believe the polls were wrong in the referendum.

The likelihood is that, as things stand, Labour will win with enough of a majority to do business.

UKIP will flee the Tories in greater numbers than Labour, that seems self-evident. The arithmetic favours Labour, has pretty much consistently done.

That could change, but as things stand, the real story is how much damage UKIP can do in Tory seats, whilst 2010 LibDems return to Labour.

[steakbake]

People have been writing Ed off for a long time, because he's gawky or nerdy or just not right or people wouldn't vote for him.

IIRC you were against him in 2010 when the leadership election took place. If you weren't you were quick to dismiss his chances after his election and posted frequently to that effect.

The thing is though, when you look at what's happened, he's made the political weather at Westminster more than any other Leader of the Opposition I can recall.

He forced the government to change their approach on Murdoch and BSkyB, which ultimately gave us Leveson, prosecutions, Coulson in jail and the dissolution of the NOTW. The balance of power shifted significantly.

He stopped Cameron taking us into war against Syria.

He shifted the narrative on energy prices - the government followed his lead.

It's fashionable to write him off, folk on here do that. Folk on here aren't a good guide as to what folk generally want however, as the referendum clearly showed.

There's a far wider electorate out there who don't feel the need to bump their gums but ultimately do vote.

As things stand, the polls backs him and the party he leads. Even more so amongst women, who are massively under-represented on here.

My view is he does principle and he does substance. For some of us that counts for more than the slick performance of a PR professional like Cameron, the 'sell out for a seat in government' mindset of Clegg, or the bluff, bluster and bravado of a Salmond.

He might be clunky and a bit awkward, but hey, wasn't the protest always that we didn't like slick politicians?

I appreciate the passion of your defence, MA. Fair play and fair comment. I just think someone like his brother might have made a better fist of it.

I agree - he's a cerebral politician and man alive, there's few of them around. I just can't see him taking it over the line after several weeks of intense exposure vs Cameron.

That's before we even get to Ed Balls.

I'm just not convinced by the two Eds. I wish I were because the country needs someone who can take the fight to the Tories.

[NAE NOOKIE]

People have been writing Ed off for a long time, because he's gawky or nerdy or just not right or people wouldn't vote for him.

IIRC you were against him in 2010 when the leadership election took place. If you weren't you were quick to dismiss his chances after his election and posted frequently to that effect.

The thing is though, when you look at what's happened, he's made the political weather at Westminster more than any other Leader of the Opposition I can recall.

He forced the government to change their approach on Murdoch and BSkyB, which ultimately gave us Leveson, prosecutions, Coulson in jail and the dissolution of the NOTW. The balance of power shifted significantly.

He stopped Cameron taking us into war against Syria.

He shifted the narrative on energy prices - the government followed his lead.

It's fashionable to write him off, folk on here do that. Folk on here aren't a good guide as to what folk generally want however, as the referendum clearly showed.

There's a far wider electorate out there who don't feel the need to bump their gums but ultimately do vote.

As things stand, the polls backs him and the party he leads. Even more so amongst women, who are massively under-represented on here.

My view is he does principle and he does substance. For some of us that counts for more than the slick performance of a PR professional like Cameron, the 'sell out for a seat in government' mindset of Clegg, or the bluff, bluster and bravado of a Salmond.

He might be clunky and a bit awkward, but hey, wasn't the protest always that we didn't like slick politicians?

Or as we call it ... engage in reasoned political debate as a result of following the issues of the day :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

:greengrin

That's the argument Nats want to believe.

The same way they wanted to believe the polls were wrong in the referendum.

The likelihood is that, as things stand, Labour will win with enough of a majority to do business.

UKIP will flee the Tories in greater numbers than Labour, that seems self-evident. The arithmetic favours Labour, has pretty much consistently done.

That could change, but as things stand, the real story is how much damage UKIP can do in Tory seats, whilst 2010 LibDems return to Labour.

Wow thats a rosey picture. Tories voting for UKIP is a protest vote when the election comes they will return as simply Miliband is unelectable which is an indictment when the alternative is Dave the smarmy Eton boy.

[hibsbollah]

People have been writing Ed off for a long time, because he's gawky or nerdy or just not right or people wouldn't vote for him.

IIRC you were against him in 2010 when the leadership election took place. If you weren't you were quick to dismiss his chances after his election and posted frequently to that effect.

The thing is though, when you look at what's happened, he's made the political weather at Westminster more than any other Leader of the Opposition I can recall.

He forced the government to change their approach on Murdoch and BSkyB, which ultimately gave us Leveson, prosecutions, Coulson in jail and the dissolution of the NOTW. The balance of power shifted significantly.

He stopped Cameron taking us into war against Syria.

He shifted the narrative on energy prices - the government followed his lead.

It's fashionable to write him off, folk on here do that. Folk on here aren't a good guide as to what folk generally want however, as the referendum clearly showed.

There's a far wider electorate out there who don't feel the need to bump their gums but ultimately do vote.

As things stand, the polls backs him and the party he leads. Even more so amongst women, who are massively under-represented on here.

My view is he does principle and he does substance. For some of us that counts for more than the slick performance of a PR professional like Cameron, the 'sell out for a seat in government' mindset of Clegg, or the bluff, bluster and bravado of a Salmond.

He might be clunky and a bit awkward, but hey, wasn't the protest always that we didn't like slick politicians?

I think you're being too kind to him. The policies (with a few exceptions, particularly housing and public spending) are fine, and command public support
...

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/24/ed-milibands-nhs-pledge-gets-good-reaction-from-public-polls-show

...but with events as they are, Labour should be destroying the coalition at this point in the polls. And a more impressive leader would be doing so.

[allmodcons]

People have been writing Ed off for a long time, because he's gawky or nerdy or just not right or people wouldn't vote for him.

IIRC you were against him in 2010 when the leadership election took place. If you weren't you were quick to dismiss his chances after his election and posted frequently to that effect.

The thing is though, when you look at what's happened, he's made the political weather at Westminster more than any other Leader of the Opposition I can recall.

He forced the government to change their approach on Murdoch and BSkyB, which ultimately gave us Leveson, prosecutions, Coulson in jail and the dissolution of the NOTW. The balance of power shifted significantly.

He stopped Cameron taking us into war against Syria.

He shifted the narrative on energy prices - the government followed his lead.

It's fashionable to write him off, folk on here do that. Folk on here aren't a good guide as to what folk generally want however, as the referendum clearly showed.

There's a far wider electorate out there who don't feel the need to bump their gums but ultimately do vote.

As things stand, the polls backs him and the party he leads. Even more so amongst women, who are massively under-represented on here.

My view is he does principle and he does substance. For some of us that counts for more than the slick performance of a PR professional like Cameron, the 'sell out for a seat in government' mindset of Clegg, or the bluff, bluster and bravado of a Salmond.

He might be clunky and a bit awkward, but hey, wasn't the protest always that we didn't like slick politicians?

Putting your 'love in' with Ed to one side, can I ask if you voted for Labour under Tony Blair?

[Mibbes Aye]

I appreciate the passion of your defence, MA. Fair play and fair comment. I just think someone like his brother might have made a better fist of it.

I agree - he's a cerebral politician and man alive, there's few of them around. I just can't see him taking it over the line after several weeks of intense exposure vs Cameron.

That's before we even get to Ed Balls.

I'm just not convinced by the two Eds. I wish I were because the country needs someone who can take the fight to the Tories.

I appreciate that you're far from alone in saying you're unconvinced.

I'm not sure about this, just my gut, but it feels like things have changed since May 2010 and the old rules no longer apply to the same extent.

An actual coalition government which most would have struggled to imagine prior to the GE.

A party winning a working majority in the Scottish parliament.

A near break-up of the union, that saw amongst other things 16 and 17 year-olds given the vote.

What could turn out to be a sustainable new party that love it or loathe it, sets some of the agenda (i.e. UKIP)

A genuine and massive shift in how we think about things - the press, our politicians, even the TV celebrities a lot of us grew up with!

On that basis, I don't think we would repeat 1992 where Kinnock the man was a card played successfully played by his opponents.

I also suspect TV debates would work in EM's favour - I follow PMQs. admittedly it can be a bit of a panto, but it highlights their strengths and it can go both ways. DC's PR skills come to the fore but EM does have a capacity to get DC angry, which doesn't look good at all.

Anyway, won't have long to find out.

Re Ed's brother, he's an accomplished man and could have done a great job I suspect.

I think there was risk however - risk in his much closer association with Tony Blair, which would have hung heavy round him for some voters.

And risk around his actions as Foreign Secretary - his knowledge of UK involvement in extraordinary rendition and the like would have been a potential point of exploitation that hasn't been high-vis since he quit active politics.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think you're being too kind to him. The policies (with a few exceptions, particularly housing and public spending) are fine, and command public support
...

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/24/ed-milibands-nhs-pledge-gets-good-reaction-from-public-polls-show

...but with events as they are, Labour should be destroying the coalition at this point in the polls. And a more impressive leader would be doing so.

You could be right.

I frequently read posts that contain throwaway comments about him being unelectable, but there's not much more thought put into them than that. Given how unrepresentative this place was of the general mood of the nation it felt wrong not to comment :greengrin

Re the polls I think the Tories did a devastatingly good job in pinning more blame for the recession on Labour than was accurate - that's not to say they couldn't have made different decisions but it was a global crisis that many different actors contributed to. Labour are still paying a price for that in polling.

I think his personal polls aren't great either. Yet his record as Leader of the Opposition has been one of taking risks, but taking risks that many supported - taking on Murdoch, speaking out against our rush to war with Syria - and ultimately setting the agenda.

Without being partisan, I genuinely struggle to remember the last Opposition leader to have had such an influence.

[JeMeSouviens]

You could be right.

I frequently read posts that contain throwaway comments about him being unelectable, but there's not much more thought put into them than that. Given how unrepresentative this place was of the general mood of the nation it felt wrong not to comment :greengrin

Re the polls I think the Tories did a devastatingly good job in pinning more blame for the recession on Labour than was accurate - that's not to say they couldn't have made different decisions but it was a global crisis that many different actors contributed to. Labour are still paying a price for that in polling.

I think his personal polls aren't great either. Yet his record as Leader of the Opposition has been one of taking risks, but taking risks that many supported - taking on Murdoch, speaking out against our rush to war with Syria - and ultimately setting the agenda.

Without being partisan, I genuinely struggle to remember the last Opposition leader to have had such an influence.

I must admit I haven't paid him a huge amount of attention. I'm going by his approval numbers which are truly abysmal. If he is an extra influential oppo leader, the public aren't giving him any credit for it.

[One Day Soon]

Labour minority government or Labour coalition led government after the 2015 election with Miliband as PM. Astonishing, truly astonishing, but money on it now.

Watch the betting exchanges which are not often wrong -they got the Referendum right way before anyone else. Think about the capacity of UKIP to eat Tory votes in marginal seats and so allow Labour to win them. Remember it is a relatively small number of seats and voters that decide the outcome of the election overall.

[RyeSloan]

Labour minority government or Labour coalition led government after the 2015 election with Miliband as PM. Astonishing, truly astonishing, but money on it now. Watch the betting exchanges which are not often wrong -they got the Referendum right way before anyone else. Think about the capacity of UKIP to eat Tory votes in marginal seats and so allow Labour to win them. Remember it is a relatively small number of seats and voters that decide the outcome of the election overall.

Don't see it myself...I doubt the UKIP vote will do much to the swing seats as you suggest. People are reasonably smart and will know that if their 'protest vote' is actually more likely to let Labour win the seat than anything else the x will go in the conservative box.

would be interesting to see some analysis on previous GE's to see how often the split the vote and the other runner sneaks inbetween theory has actually played out.

[JimBHibees]

Don't see it myself...I doubt the UKIP vote will do much to the swing seats as you suggest. People are reasonably smart and will know that if their 'protest vote' is actually more likely to let Labour win the seat than anything else the x will go in the conservative box.

would be interesting to see some analysis on previous GE's to see how often the split the vote and the other runner sneaks inbetween theory has actually played out.

Totally agree with that.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You could be right.

I frequently read posts that contain throwaway comments about him being unelectable, but there's not much more thought put into them than that. Given how unrepresentative this place was of the general mood of the nation it felt wrong not to comment :greengrin

Re the polls I think the Tories did a devastatingly good job in pinning more blame for the recession on Labour than was accurate - that's not to say they couldn't have made different decisions but it was a global crisis that many different actors contributed to. Labour are still paying a price for that in polling.

I think his personal polls aren't great either. Yet his record as Leader of the Opposition has been one of taking risks, but taking risks that many supported - taking on Murdoch, speaking out against our rush to war with Syria - and ultimately setting the agenda.

Without being partisan, I genuinely struggle to remember the last Opposition leader to have had such an influence.

Sitting with my mum and son the other day - none great political enthusiasts. The room burst into laughter when Milliband came on. Reckon he's another Michael Foot.