Printable View
@18SEPT2014: James Kelly Labour MSP expenses for 2012/13 = £21,827.28
@AlexSalmond First Minister of #Scotland expenses for 2012/13 = £11.636.68 #YES2014
@18SEPT2014: James Kelly Labour MSP expenses for 2012/13 = £21,827.28
@AlexSalmond First Minister of #Scotland expenses for 2012/13 = £11.636.68 #YES2014
Oops meant to post this too, phone playing up:Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
@18SEPT2014: FM Jack McConnell expenses for 2005/06 = £16,447.03
@AlexSalmond Current FM expenses for 2012/13 = £11.636.68
Go work that out! #YES2014
Currency has very little to do with my voting intentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauzee_4
Everyone else is perfectly entitled to vote on whatever basis they want so yes, it may be a valid reason for someone else's vote.
That's all very well but he's six.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
If it takes an infantile response to get over the absurdity of using "I don't have any evidence, I'm just certain it will happen" as a debating point, so be it.
Rant? You asked for evidence of the mans greed that you could easily have found yourself. My point is that an Independent Scotland will not magically make greedy politicians disappear.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Ach well, there will be no more Tory governments in an independent Scotland, unless we want one. There is some certainty for youQuote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
A government which takes from the working classes and gives to the rich is not welcome here
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
May not be untouchable, but it is a long way down the road. Pretty sure that Scotland (an independent Scotland) cannot adopt the euro as its currency. It would have to be a member of the ERM and that would entail Scotland already having it's own currency ... (pound sterling is obviously not part of the ERM either) ...
Both First Ministers in our devolved Parliament at the time of their claims . I don't see the relvance. Or are you merely making the point that SNP = GOOD, everybody else = BAD. This isn't about the SNP is it?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I'm no fan of the current UK government but stuff like this is just beyond parody.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauzee_4
Debate then!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
What currency do you think an iScotland will adopt post a Yes vote if not the pound sterling in one of the two formats suggested in my earlier post?
The Royal Mail was privatised and the biggest beneficiary was Gideon Osborne's best man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
The licenses for fracking across the UK are being issued. Gideon Osborne's father in law's business interests include fracking.
ATOS has given the Conservative Party £1.3m in donations, has received £3bn in contracts and are ruling people fit to work who are terminally ill.
Around £1.5bn in NHS contracts have been awarded to Conservative Party donors from Lansdowne Partners to Circle Health. The NHS is in the process of being dismembered and privatised south of the border, with Tory donors the main beneficiaries.
I think it's fair to stay they're stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
There probably are valid complaints/concerns/questions in there. It's the likes of "stealing from the poor to give to the rich", "the biggest beneficiary..." etc rhetoric that I object to.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I could pick holes in all of your claims whether they are based on an element of truth but exaggerated, ignore subsequent events (e.g., Atos) or how you could likely find any government decision that will benefit someone associated with a politician.
Politicians are gits. That's not unique to Westminster, the Tories or a consequence of being in the UK. FFS, Salmond's been caught sucking up to Murdoch and Trump at times.
I have no idea and don't really care. IMHO the currency is a side issue. The main thing (for me) is the SNP's response to the affair. Rather than say "Well, we think a currency union will happen because it's for the best. However, if it doesn't, here's what we propose", they've just stuck their fingers in their ears and refusing to explain the alternatives to the population. For me, it just raises questions about the other stuff being promised.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Folk won't believe this but I was open to being persuaded (and may still be). I don't really see that big an issue with the UK in its current state (or further devolution) so need to be convinced about why my family, community, society (in that order) will be better off. However, I won't vote for some abstract notion of what might happen. I'm a details man whether I'm planning something, voting for something or whatever.
With the greatest of respect to fellow posters, I'm not going to be convinced by anyone on here. It needs to be those probably going to be running an independent Scotland. As far as I'm concerned, they're fundamentally failing at that.
You have my respect for putting your opinion across, an honest debate is the only way we'll come to the right answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
My comments about taking from the poor and giving to the rich you surely can't dispute that is historically what the Tories have done more so than any other party?
I realise every policy benefits someone and I don't mean they're "stealing", I mean they've consistently implemented policies which favour the rich over the working classes.
I know you've said we can't persuade you, fine, but I'm going to try anyway :greengrin
You've asked how will your family be better off, well.. for 30 years we have paid in more to the UK treasury than we've received back, £64 billion more (£12,075 for every man, woman and child) This video gives you some great financials based on GERS figures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8cKHcZn60
I would love to hear your opinion on it
The currency issue isn't a deal breaker for me. Ideally I'd prefer one of the SNP's options c or d, the 1st 2 of an agreed union or alternatively using sterling regardless I'm less happy about.
Just to be clear c, I think was a pegged currency and d was floating? ...... On phone so can't link back to the commission report where it's laid out.
This has been available for a year. Seems it's not the Scottish Government who have their fingers in their ears. They have continually set out their position. If the Uk Government don't want to pre negotiate then what are they supposed to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00420804.pdf
Come up with a plan B.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Have you read the document? Plan a b c and d.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
As the Uk Government are sticking their fingers in their ears and don't want to Pre negotiate, we'll just have to wait for the result.
Decent piece from the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ats?CMP=twt_gu
I can use Google perfectly well thanks. A search shows that this is the only claim of substance against Salmond.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I have copied and pasted the claim against Salmond made by the Telegraph. Salmond himself said he did not come out of the expenses scandal 'whiter than whiter', but to link the claim against Salmond to the Maria Miller case?
Claim: Scotland's first minister voted on only six days in the Commons in the financial year 2007/8 yet claimed £1,751.50 for food - over a third of the maximum permitted annual amount, the Sunday Telegraph said.
Mr Salmond, who is MP for Banff and Buchan as well as MSP for Gordon, also claimed £800 for August and September 2005, when Parliament was in recess, the paper added. It said he claimed £3,200, the maximum food allowance, for eight months in 2005/6. In the same year he received £54.75 for towels, £540 for bed linen, £650.40 in curtains and £1,093 for a bed. Authorities also docked £9 from his claim for a stay at a hotel in London in July 2005 because he had included drinks from hotel room mini bar.
Response: Mr Salmond said his overall claims were £9,000 below the limit of the Additional Cost Allowance. He said he had furnished a rented flat in London in 2005 with a "job lot" of used furniture at a cost of just over £2,000, "which must be a record low figure for the House of Commons". The £9 drinks were deducted from his reimbursement because, even though they were non-alcoholic, they were not specified as such, Mr Salmond added. He said he had placed his expenses for the financial year 2007/8 on the Scottish National Party's website and would do so with the 2008/9 data as soon as it was available. Mr Salmond said that, during 2007/08, he was in London for around 30 days - and said the correct figure for the food allowance was £1,391.50, which equated to £40 per day. He added that he still had a rented flat in London for the first nine months of the year. In terms of 2005/06, Mr Salmond said MPs still went to London during recess, and pointed out that bills incurred during the parliamentary session, such as Commons dining facilities, often fell during that period.
IMO the second part of your post was a rant. A clear case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
A rant if said about your beloved leader perhaps. Fair comment if said about anybody else I suspect. That's a cop out really isn't it. How was he damned if he didn't take the money in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
A nice wee spin on things there though. If he spent 30 days in total in London should we assume that 20 of those days were during the recess as he claimed he ate his way through £800 worth of food then? I know, you will spin it out further to defend him because you can't see beyond party lines.
I'm with Beefster, most of them are total gits. An Independent Scotland won't cure politicians of greed but at least we will have them on a tighter leash.
Thanks R7, that's the one i was thinking of. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
You sure about this? It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but how tight will that leash really be (if at all) in a parliament with a single chamber? What checks and balances does that really offer, how easy will it be to circumvent any effective oversight, I wonder - particularly where an independent Scotland and its politicians have access to so much wealth? Who will have them "on the leash" exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Don't really understand your point. If a politician upsets the Scottish electorate they are likely to be out.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
Or far more likely to be out than a UK minister upsetting the Scottish electorate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sauzee_4
The Scottish electorate may be changing from a parliamentary system with a second chamber (partly elected) to one with a single chamber (less oversight?) - how is it on a tighter leash? Seems to me the promise of a nation with a great deal of wealth at its disposal is open to possible corruption by those in power, particularly if they are "left to themselves" - Other resource-rich nations have parliaments too with electorates, yet the corruption levels are extraordinarily high in some particularly topical examples, with little opportunity for the electorate to effectively alter things in its favour through the ballot box: why will it be different in Scotland? Is corruption not an issue - have I been away too long?
Eh? How does that work? If a UK minister, let's say Nick Clegg, upsets the Scottish/UK electorate, everyone relies on his constituents doing the right thing at the next opportunity. It'll be exactly the same in an independent Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauzee_4
The electorate.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
The same lot that voted them in, you mean? :greengrin OK, but is that on its own enough, I wonder? How much money can I (e.g. as a corrupt politician) embezzle before the "the electorate "twigs" what's actually going on? Who's going to inform the electorate anyway? A lot of "oil money" can flow far too quickly into the wrong hands before the electorate gets around to pulling on that leash, surely ...Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I'm sorry you lost me with the "second chamber" chat but I've done my reading and I assume you mean the house of Lords.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
Are we not able to set up a system ourselves which does a similar job to the Lords? (Excuse my ignorance)
Nick Clegg can upset the Scottish electorate all he wants and still be voted into power if the rest of the UK decide they like him.Quote:
Eh? How does that work? If a UK minister, let's say Nick Clegg, upsets the Scottish/UK electorate, everyone relies on his constituents doing the right thing at the next opportunity. It'll be exactly the same in an independent Scotland.
Alex Salmond can upset the Scottish electorate after September the 18th and get emptied as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Have you watched my video and decided that your family will be better off yet? :greengrin
Any politician will only be voted out if they upset their constituents. Salmond might upset East Lothian and Shetland in an independent Scotland, neither of whom voted for him, and still remain an MSP.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauzee_4
No! As I said earlier, I'd need the case made by a meaningful subset of the Scottish population. I wouldn't make my decision based on Standard Life's or Barrhead Travel's statements so a business man from a lobbying group isn't going to make any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauzee_4
All he does is run through the GERS figures which clearly show Scotland pays more into the UK than it gets out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
On your first point, it's better to have some people in Scotland unhappy with the government than all of us (current situation). In the situation you describe a majority of Scots would be a happy bunch as they'd just got the government they'd voted for, or they'd only have to wait a few years to get rid.
Obviously we'd never get a situation where everyone is happy (just like any democracy) but more Scots would be happy with a government which reflects our own ideals which are quite clearly different to those in the South East and Middle England.
The only other question is, are we capable? and I think the figures published by GERS prove beyond doubt we are.
For the Grandchildren.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/90acb1a8-c...c0.html#slide0
I've never doubted the figures published in the GERS reports, and on the face of it Scotland puts in more than it takes out, but what it doesn't, and can't accurately portray, is any financial (direct or indirect) benefit Scotland gains from being part of the current union.Quote:
Originally Posted by sauzee_4
Anyone who thinks that Scotland will carry on with the same financial figures post independence is dreaming, they may well be better and they may well be worse but with our domestic financials changing to reflect our left of centre leanings, and our international appeal changing also I doubt very much that an independent Scotland accounts would reflect the current GERS reports.
In a + or - way?And how so?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
I honestly don't know but I'm fairly certain it won't be the same! It could be a lot better, we could stand out from the UK shadows,,, OR,,,we may not carry the same clout by not being part of a larger trading union.Quote:
Originally Posted by southfieldhibby
Royal Society of Edinburgh and the British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences have issued this: Enlightening the Constitutional Debate
http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/fil...The%20Book.pdf
Thanks for the link, jonty. I suspect that it will be more revealing that the entire political debate to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
It's being touted as an educational resource, so I'm hoping there's some substance to it, rather than the scaremongering and political oneupmanship that's going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Good find. That's my bed time reading sorted.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Are they dead yet?
Whoops wrong thread ;-)
SCOTLAND LIKELY TO CHOOSE INDEPENDENCE FOREIGN DIPLOMATS BELIEVEQuote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
An interesting article and editorial particularly given it is the Guardian.
You really do wonder about the strategy of the 'No' campaign. It seems to entirely focus on issuing threats and negative press statements to the media. I think if they continue with the same strategy in the lead up to the referendum and fail to make a positive case for remaining in the Union, they will continue to lose ground.
If the respective campaigns were judged as a boxing match, the ref would be about to count 10 and announce 'down and out' for the 'No' campaign.
I think their negativity has an audience, and their position in the polls hasn't been effected by their declarations.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
The Scots are finding it hard to take this decision without a big boy to take the blame. Hell mend anyone that ever complains about England again.Quote:
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Alex Salmond was very poor today at the Stuc conference. Announced 3 year funding for union learning but it's frozen at the rate it was 4 years ago. Told a delegate during the Q&A that iScotland will build rUK warships and that there will be a currency union. He was accused of not answering the questions. I'm not a fan of his but he is generally a excellent public speaker but he did not seem interested. Johann Lamont's turn tomorrow. Hopefully she will deliver a positive case rather than Nat bashing
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/271749-g...ferendum-poll/
Another poll showing that the gap between Yes and No is closing. It also shows that those definitely intending to vote has risen from 65% to 74%. Despite my reservations about the quality of the debate it looks like people are engaqing with it. Encouraging stuff.
I have read most of the white paper (flicked) and it does all look very impressive and the advert on the TV is very good and will no doubt stir the emotions of the nationalists, there is no plan B for the outcome if Scotland goes independent and the things widely mentioned in the debate come into play. Salmond just beats his drum about the anti Westminster and the YES voters will be nursing a semi at some of the p1sh he comes out with imo.
I personally will be voting no but I would of voted yes if I thought it was the best for Scotland long term, but I don't.
I agree with most of the above and going the same way. There are far to many unknowns to risk for me and my families future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gus
Not everyone that will vote yes will pay attention to the white paper, Im voting yes and couldn't care less what is in it, if we become Independent then there will be an election to see who will run the country, the white paper is a wish list that will have you think the streets will be paved with gold on the flip side the better together lot would have you think we will become a third world country
i think the truth lies in between and that we will go along just fine as we are just now but making our own decisions with a government we actually vote for
As opposed to what is known about the Union? An arrangement that has hardly worked to our advantage in the last 40 years. Lets face it, if it was any good, we'd never have voted for Devolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeshibs
The bottom line is that we will be self determined rather than get the scraps of what public schoolboys from Eton decide what pocket money we deserve despite providing massive input to the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gus
Very good point and did Standard Life not also tell us they would leave Scotland if we voted for devolution yet surprisingly didn't. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Every day of life we take risks which we don't have to take.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeshibs
18 September is just another day but it will be momentus in deciding how Scotland is governed in the decades that follow. Is it worth taking the risk? I guess it depends on how good life is for the individual right now and how much it means to you for decisions that effect Scotland, to be taken in Scotland.
I can remember well both the failed campaign for Devolution in the 1970s and the successful campaign more recently. There were the same disaster scenarios played out by the Unionists in both campaigns but Scotland has prospered under Devolution and been a success IMO.
The referendum is certainly a leap of faith for many, but for others, a 1 in 25 year opportunity to make things better for the majority of people in our country is too good a chance to miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
Good post, echoes much of what I feel about it.
I might vote for independence now if Salmond is going to step in and save every single Scottish company in trouble from going under. Does anyone think he'll get personally involved to help write my debt off if I decide not to pay my tax and credit card bill?
Beefster in call for state aid to prop up non-sustainable industries amid rumours of a Tory/Trot alliance. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
So to add to the "cataclysmic" downfall of the world in post Yes, the worlds poor would also suffer. I didn't realise just how important we are as a nation of 5m odd in keeping the equilibrium of the world. Just waiting to hear the climate change worries about the sky falling in post Yes to complete the set.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...obref=obinsite
Would there be a sky in an independent Scotland? Alex Salmond won't say!Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Said Frank
Yes. He would tell us, then he would save it.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The No campaign likened to the Jeremy Kyle show.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/will...?utm_hp_ref=tw
Im banking on it! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...=email%2Balert
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...ehind.24005226
Interesting couple of articles in today's Herald about the Yes Campaign. The first is a meedja take on the second, and a neat reflection of their (the meedja, that is) obsession with leaders and personality clashes. For me, the interesting aspect is the strength of the grassroots campaign, and it seems, the way the public are responding to it. If this is a further reflection of the Scottish electorate's engagement in the political debate, despite considerable skepticism towards the political class and their spouting via the meedja, I can only applaud from afar. This comment under the second article really struck me:
"The grassroots YES campaign seems to be huge and very active. But from what I hear many use their own material, gathered at times from other pro-independence websites, even to the extent of using pre-prepared leaflets or making up their own.
And perhaps this should be the way; it's the People of Scotland who will make Independence happen, and will make it work, not a bunch of politicos or paid agents. Either the People of Scotland say "YES" or we say "NO"".
:not worth
If you are undecided then this is worth reading
http://yesdivit.wordpress.com/2014/0...y-road-to-yes/
What's the deal with Robert Gordon uni?
A good read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
I have been inspired and have decided to join the Yes campaign to help out with leaflet drops etc.
Attachment 12463
Let's play spot the difference...
Willing participants in state propaganda. Gordon Brown to lecture us on pensions shortly too. The man who ****ed up all our pensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
Superficially, it looks dodgy. Despite the mention of pensions, they are two different stories, I would imagine. One about pensioners not having the resources put away to have a decent retirement, the other about the resources an independent Scotland would need to put towards state pensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylar
I'm not offering an opinion on either story incidentally. Just pointing out that they are not the same story.
Gordon Brown in warning about pensions. :faf:
After the break ... A. Fox warns about the perilous state of chicken farming in an independent Scotland. :rolleyes:
I'd imagine his pension might suffer in an independent Scotland so maybe he's talking from the heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...litical-agenda
Eek!
I'm a small, developed, western democracy with no desire to meddle any further in the affairs of the middle east, get me the **** out of here!!!!
So if Scotland is independent will Blair and his like not intervene in the Middle East? Course not. It was the Scottish MPs that stopped cameron bombing Syria. Without the Scots the UK and USA would have bombed Syria. I'd rather stop it than say it happened but not in my name. It's crucial that we continue to influence UK and western foreign policy. But we can only do that by having Scots at Westminster. Before any starts about that idea failed on Iraq, I accept that, but let's ensure no further unnecessary wars take placeQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Couldn't quite see what is so good about this article that it could sway an undecided voter to vote "yes". Don't see it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment that individuals should find out as much as possible about what independence will mean for Scotland before casting their votes.
His BC take on politicians however is pathetic nonsense and his assertion that the Internet is a better place to find the "truth" is surely misguided ...
... maybe someone should tell Fraser that not only "Scots" are entitled to vote in the referendum .... (... "if every single Scot"...)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...g-ground-polls
Yay 39%
Nay 42%
Dinnae Ken 19%
Or excluding dinnae kens
Yay 48%
Nay 52%
Closer and closer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
All very noble, but I don't want my kids to forgo the benefits of independence just so that we can occasionally maybe stop Westminster doing something stupid.
When was this vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
How many Scots Labour MP's voted?
It's just that the Scottish Labour Mp's told us they would vote against the Bedroom tax and several never even turned up.
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspo...ll-labour.html
Then there was the vote on the Welfare cap where I thought they would support the poor. I know of 32 Labour MP's who voted with the Tories.
Seems to me it's a tactic of the No campaign to make bold statements and then run for the hills without being allowed to be challenged on them.
George Osborne and Gordon Brown spring to mind. When George made his sermon on the pound and Gordon on his pensions. Both opted out of speaking to the media therefor not allowing the claims to be challenged.
No time for complacency but tonight is genuinely the first time I have believed that we're heading for a Yes' vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
That is why being an independent Nation State within the European Union, United Nations and NATO will work. Each nation has the same voting rights. The number of Scottish MPs at Westminster will never have the same influence because they are so outnumbered by those we didn't vote for.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
You are Lord George Robertson! Where do I claim my £5?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
I think the best influence we could have on UK foreign policy is to further diminish the UK's imperial hangover pretence of being a "great power" by becoming independent. The UK's "defence" spending, at 2.5% of GDP, is wildly disproportionate compared to other European countries. Only France, the other ex-imperialist, comes close.
If you think Scots MPs at Westminster are going to stop that, you are utterly delusional. Jim Murphy, John Reid, Gordon Brown (even TB himself is really a Scot) ... all seduced by the chance to be "players" on the world stage. All cheerleaders for doomed military adventure. :rolleyes:
Good grief, the fox-chickens thing would actually be less ironic than this ...Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-minister.html
I'm starting to think there's a Tory conspiracy aiming for a Yes vote. :hmmm:
Vulnerable people could lose their benefits - says tory :tee hee:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
for your neck
http://www.design-technology.org/brasso.JPG
Highly recommended by Rod Petrie
So Iraq is just brushed under the carpet, good one. The most shameful decision a UK government has made in my lifetime and even more ironic that it was so well supported by the vast majority of Labour MP's now telling us how wonderful the UK and Westminster is for Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Nonsense we played our part i agree but had Liberals and the Conservatives not had MP's who rebelled against there leaders and backed no military strike it would have went ahead with or without Scottish MP Votes. This is why when the overwhelming majority off Scottish MP's oppose something its still enforced unless we get backing from Mp's south off the border whose interest in Scotland is minuscule.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
This thread has turned into a cycle of:
- Some lonely soul (generally, Lucky these days) makes a point that might be pro-No or may only be remotely questioning of independence.
- A variety of Yes-supporters trash said poster. A few trying to address the point, some posting links to pro-independence websites and the rest just mocking the poster/points.
- A succession of links, smilies and "good post" to reinforce the fact that the questioner was wrong.
You guys know what a 'circle jerk' is, right?
What are people to do when very few people are bringing up points from the no camp? They can only answer these queries/ try and refute these claims whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
I'm sure these guys are actually enjoying the fact that the amount of no voters are demonising on this site.
Why don't you bring up a topic that is debate worthy?
Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland to be given equal status in the UK as .......
CORNWALL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-27132035
You really couldn't make that up!!!!
RAF fighter jets scrambled to investigate Russian planes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27130125
apparently happened 8 times last year.... I wonder why it's only now that it's being shared?
These incidents are reported from time to time but, given there basically is no story, only really when it's a slow news day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
It's only made the news now because of the Russia/Ukraine situation.
So it's Ok for Scots to take pride in their unique cultural identity but we should sneer at our fellow Celts in Cornwall for doing the same. The Cornish have long seen themselves as 'separate' from the rest of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
I know where you're coming from ..... Can't help thinking its a wee bit fortuitous timing wise this time around. Mind you both sides will use whatever comes around to help push their argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I'm not sneering at the Cornish, I'm just astonished that Scotland will be permitted the same status as Cornwall (by the Westminster Government), in the same year that Scotland will vote whether to become an independent, seperate nationQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Eh? Have you actually read the story? The story isn't about the Scots, it's about the Cornish. They are being granted the same legal minority status as the Scots currently have. What is wrong with that? If you think that they are undeserving of that status and you aren't sneering at them, what is the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Your spot on. I generally pop into this thread just to how it's going. Originally it was fairly balanced but now it's shout down the no supporters. But what does interest me is how the poll on here is so out of sync with all other polls on the independence. It would appear that Hibs support is more inclined to support separation based on this. Not sure what other fans websites are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Or less likely to voice their support for a No Vote on here. I would guess that the Hibs support as a whole are like the Scottish electorate, split roughly 50 -50.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Someone i know is doing a poll on all other social media website and forums for individual football teams so when i get the results ill post them here. I love a good Poll and its good to see majority here have voted yes and on other polls i have seen but on the other hand Polls aren't always accurate which is why i don't tend to bother who has more votes until the results are declaredQuote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Most other fans forums are on a par with here. With one obvious exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Sorry Marinello, Of course I read it, maybe I needed to splash a few smillies around when I turned the story on its head to suggest that Scotland would have parity with a county in the south west of England. Maybe, but I didn't. What the Cornish will still be denied by the UK Government is any devolved governance like that suggested by COSLA for Scotland, while other devolved nations within the UK are proposing a reduction in local governance, by reducing the number of Local Authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I recommend reading Blossom, by Lesley Riddoch.
Jeezo, people are surely allowed to question a poster who makes this claim" It was the Scottish MPs that stopped cameron bombing Syria".Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
I've asked two questions on the subject, maybe I should have asked one this week and one next week.
Seems people only want to make claims but are not prepared to back up the claim with evidence.
I read it recently and it is an absolutely superb book. It did nothing but strengthen my belief that voting Yes will prove to be the starting point for a much better Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Yes has stronger support among men than women (men Y +1, women N +7) and the strongest Yes age segment is 25-34 (Y +3), so I guess football forums ought to be fairly fertile Yes territory. (Figures from latest ICM poll for the Scotsman.)Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59