Nicely stated Devon!
Yes or no. Scottish residents only please
- Thread starter Den
- Start date
- Status
I live here and have yet to see any evidence of that. What's your evidence for this assertion?
Fixed that for you. Yet again, what's your evidence for the bullying and intimidation you refer to? Lots of pundits have supported the YES position (not just the SNP) that a YES vote would trigger a considerable change of mind on the part of the Bank of England not least because it's subject to the will of Parliament. A Sterling zone WOULD make every sense for RUK as well as Scotland.
That's f*cking rich coming from a UKIP supporter! I still have not made my mind up for September 18th but every time someone from south of the border opens their gob on the NO side, is a step nearer me voting YES.
Toddy
Registered user
Toddy
Registered user
Take your time and read the truth rather than what the Wastemonster gov tells you.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...ionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...ionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation
Toddy
Registered user
Quite possibly the best argument I've read in favour of voting YES - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/20/scottish-independence-becoming-only-option
(If, indeed, one is needed at all.....)
(If, indeed, one is needed at all.....)
Deleted account 210516001
Registered user
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 1
Jim Sillars gets it right.
It nearly made me choke to have to type that given the left wing background of the man but there is no doubt he is a clever operator with ideas that are worth listening to. He is also spot on when he highlights the damage that Cybernats are doing to the Yes cause. Here is the full text http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/open-letter-called-cybernats/ but it is summed up with this paragraph.
I am sure when hurling abuse and curses at J.K.Rowling, and dousing the ‘Better Together’ campaigner Ms. Lally with personal abuse, you felt really good as you pressed the ‘send’ button. Your pleasure was nothing compared to the NO side’s and their media supporters. You gave them licence to pontificate, take the moral high ground, and smear the entire Yes campaign in the process. If you were being paid by the No side to be cyber louts bringing the Yes side into public disrepute, you could not do a better job. With supporters like you, the Yes side needs no external opponents. Alastair Darling, must be smiling as he views you in the role of what Lenin called ‘useful idiots.’
Of course as a No Thanks voter I wish he had kept quiet about it but now that the genie is out of the bottle it is perhaps time to pay tribute to the members of UKGSer who have in the main kept the comments civil and not resorted to the sort of personal abuse that is becoming all to common in other social media. Even our own resident Cybernat, Toddy, has refused to be drawn into personal abuse despite a fair bit of prodding from me and others.
I think Alec Salmond's tactic of relying on "useful idiots" to front his campaign through social media has come home to roost and he may now find it difficult to put a lid on their activities which is sad for all Scots.
Maybe if Jim Sillars was fronting the Yes campaign.........!!! No stop it . I am still voting No and Yes I would give J K Rowling one OK.
It nearly made me choke to have to type that given the left wing background of the man but there is no doubt he is a clever operator with ideas that are worth listening to. He is also spot on when he highlights the damage that Cybernats are doing to the Yes cause. Here is the full text http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/open-letter-called-cybernats/ but it is summed up with this paragraph.
I am sure when hurling abuse and curses at J.K.Rowling, and dousing the ‘Better Together’ campaigner Ms. Lally with personal abuse, you felt really good as you pressed the ‘send’ button. Your pleasure was nothing compared to the NO side’s and their media supporters. You gave them licence to pontificate, take the moral high ground, and smear the entire Yes campaign in the process. If you were being paid by the No side to be cyber louts bringing the Yes side into public disrepute, you could not do a better job. With supporters like you, the Yes side needs no external opponents. Alastair Darling, must be smiling as he views you in the role of what Lenin called ‘useful idiots.’
Of course as a No Thanks voter I wish he had kept quiet about it but now that the genie is out of the bottle it is perhaps time to pay tribute to the members of UKGSer who have in the main kept the comments civil and not resorted to the sort of personal abuse that is becoming all to common in other social media. Even our own resident Cybernat, Toddy, has refused to be drawn into personal abuse despite a fair bit of prodding from me and others.
I think Alec Salmond's tactic of relying on "useful idiots" to front his campaign through social media has come home to roost and he may now find it difficult to put a lid on their activities which is sad for all Scots.
Maybe if Jim Sillars was fronting the Yes campaign.........!!! No stop it . I am still voting No and Yes I would give J K Rowling one OK.
Toddy
Registered user
Toddy
Registered user
The shocking, secret truth about Scotland’s independence debate: it is civilised.
If Scotland’s independence campaign is notable for anything it is unusual for being remarkably civilised. Violence, generally speaking, has no more than 140 characters. No-one has died. No-one anticipates, I think, civil unrest regardless of the result in September. This may seem a small thing but it is not. Just peer across the North Channel if you doubt this.
As for dirty tricks or rhetorical excess? Well this has nothing on the campaigns of yesteryear. Politics is a tough business but for all that there’s been plenty of playing the man, not the ball in Scotland this year it’s not been an unusually hard or dirty campaign.
Both sides are guilty of scaremongering, both sides are happy to paint pictures of a pestilential, dystopian future should Scotland vote the wrong way. But that’s politics for you. People on all sides have said plenty of silly and stupid things but, hey, that’s people for you.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...cotlands-independence-debate-it-is-civilised/
If Scotland’s independence campaign is notable for anything it is unusual for being remarkably civilised. Violence, generally speaking, has no more than 140 characters. No-one has died. No-one anticipates, I think, civil unrest regardless of the result in September. This may seem a small thing but it is not. Just peer across the North Channel if you doubt this.
As for dirty tricks or rhetorical excess? Well this has nothing on the campaigns of yesteryear. Politics is a tough business but for all that there’s been plenty of playing the man, not the ball in Scotland this year it’s not been an unusually hard or dirty campaign.
Both sides are guilty of scaremongering, both sides are happy to paint pictures of a pestilential, dystopian future should Scotland vote the wrong way. But that’s politics for you. People on all sides have said plenty of silly and stupid things but, hey, that’s people for you.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...cotlands-independence-debate-it-is-civilised/
I think your idea of civilised and mine are different......
'JK Rowling Better Together donation: Calls for calm in Scottish Independence debate as vile abuse against Harry Potter author revealed'
'Sure enough, nationalists who Rowling described as “Death Eaterish” for “judging [her] ‘insufficiently Scottish’” scrambled online to tell her to “get to f***”, calling her “politically corrupt”, a “b****” and a “c***”.'
The nutter wing of the indies doing their best to encourage a no vote. The Tartan Taliban??
But I forgot....you don't have any ideas of your own do you?
'JK Rowling Better Together donation: Calls for calm in Scottish Independence debate as vile abuse against Harry Potter author revealed'
'Sure enough, nationalists who Rowling described as “Death Eaterish” for “judging [her] ‘insufficiently Scottish’” scrambled online to tell her to “get to f***”, calling her “politically corrupt”, a “b****” and a “c***”.'
The nutter wing of the indies doing their best to encourage a no vote. The Tartan Taliban??
But I forgot....you don't have any ideas of your own do you?
Toddy
Registered user
"You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet"
Abraham Lincon
Abraham Lincon
morty
Registered user
gerarddwatts why do you bother to try & have an intelligent discussion with a fucking retard.I logged on the other day & let a group of friends read this thread & well I think you can guess for yourself what the response was to our resident fuckwit Toddy.There you go toddy you can have another wank at your name being mentioned.
Toddy
Registered user
Kevin McKenna sums up the week nicely in the Gurdian
Fewer than 100 sunsets now until dawn breaks on Scotland's fateful day and the campaign has just become reassuringly and pleasingly poisonous. It has been a rather splendid couple of weeks in the independence referendum campaign. If this sort of momentum and tone are maintained for the next 93 days, I shall be sorry to see 18 September come and go. Indeed, I'm almost tempted to urge a no vote so that we can gather together the circus, strike up the band and do it all over again. The campaign hasn't got toxic at all; rather, it has become intoxicating.
We first had Gordon Brown galumphing around Scotland, purporting to love the country in ways that were not apparent during his wretched time in office at Westminster. This was a period during which Brown steadfastly refused to even talk about more devolution for Holyrood.
Advertisement
Now, though, he wants us to soar with extra new powers… just so long as his old chums in London hold the purse strings. Brown was once known as the Iron Chancellor, but only by his then newly acquired friends in the banking sector, who stood to gain most from his sickening efforts to appease them. If Scotland votes to become independent, Brown will have played a significant part in the triumph; he is proving to be a major asset to the yes campaign.
The entertainment really started at the beginning of last week, with events on either side to mark the 100-day countdown to 18 September. Last Monday, Better Together had another of its Keystone Cops days, when it turned the spotlight on normal, everyday people who desired to speak up in support of the union.
One of them was a mother of two called Clare Lally who spoke about the NHS and what it had done for one of her sick children. The admirable Ms Lally was passionate and eloquent about her support for the union, but in seeking to portray her as an "ordinary housewife", the Better Together campaign was guilty of misleading the public. Ms Lally had recently been appointed as a lay member of Johann Lamont's shadow cabinet and the Labour leader had introduced her on stage at a rally.
Campbell Gunn, senior media adviser to first minister Alex Salmond, sought to point out Better Together's little sin of omission in an email to the Daily Telegraph. Within 24 hours, a firing squad was being assembled with its sights trained on Gunn, a widely respected former political editor of the Sunday Post and recipient last year of a press lifetime achievement award. The Telegraph, possibly drunk on the exciting possibility of actually breaking a Scottish story, sought to portray Gunn as a vile cybernat who had unconscionably attacked an ordinary wee housewife with a sick child. He had instead merely been doing his job.
In the artificial firestorm that followed, Salmond forced his adviser to apologise, in a meaningless move by the first minister aimed at appeasing the mob. He knew as well as anyone that Gunn had done nothing for which to apologise.
The rise of the cybernats has added greatly to the gaiety of this campaign. They are depicted as a sullen assortment of foul-mouthed social misfits firing off profane tweets and blogs to anyone who supports the union. The crushing reality, though, is that they don't really exist beyond the febrile imaginings of Better Together chiefs and Alistair Darling. The social networks attract all manner of semi-literate knuckle-draggers and visigoths who are free to inveigh anonymously on any issue. What some of Scotland's top football writers, such as Graham Spiers and Tom English, have had to endure on Twitter these past few years far eclipses in volume and intensity anything encountered in the referendum campaign.
The absence of anything resembling a proper campaign by Better Together has forced it into the realms of fantasy and this is one of them. In its desperation, it now portrays any criticism of the unionist cause as "vile cybernat abuse".
This was embarrassingly apparent in the lamentable television appearance last week by John McTernan, a former Labour special adviser in its bottomless department of special advice. McTernan was talking about some of the abuse JK Rowling had received for donating £1m to the Better Together campaign. As he began visibly lose to all sense of reality, McTernan, who genuinely seemed to be in some distress, began blaming Gunn for the billionaire author's online ordure.
Fortunately for the rest of us, Iain MacWhirter, a real journalist, was on hand elegantly to eviscerate McTernan. Joanne Rowling got off lightly compared with some of the stuff that was being written about Colin and Christine Weir, the Ayrshire lottery winners who have given £4m to the Yes campaign. Much of this was rooted in old-fashioned Tory class elitism, of the type that dictates that bad things happen when you give poor people too much money.
Behind all the online frivolity and gloriously manufactured sense of outrage, there is a serious warning for Better Together, and one that it needs to heed quickly if blue is to remain in the union jack. The unionists need to be aware of the consequences of constantly seeking to portray the Scottish nationalists as goggle-eyed brigands with personality disorders, as is the case with their ill-judged "Project Fear" campaign.
As more voters in Scotland begin to encounter Yes volunteers on their doorsteps, they will discover that they are, of course, as polite, well-mannered and passionate about their country as the Better Together activists. This dissonance will chime with them and they will be resentful at being sold another lie by Better Together.
Last Wednesday, the Daily Record, Scotland's main unionist paper, carried the results of an opinion poll that revealed that the gap between Yes and No is once more a mere handful of points. It further revealed that the prospect of a Conservative election victory in 2015 would deliver a resounding Yes vote.
Better Together needs to think much more carefully about its tactics from now on until the death, because this campaign is slipping away from it.
Fewer than 100 sunsets now until dawn breaks on Scotland's fateful day and the campaign has just become reassuringly and pleasingly poisonous. It has been a rather splendid couple of weeks in the independence referendum campaign. If this sort of momentum and tone are maintained for the next 93 days, I shall be sorry to see 18 September come and go. Indeed, I'm almost tempted to urge a no vote so that we can gather together the circus, strike up the band and do it all over again. The campaign hasn't got toxic at all; rather, it has become intoxicating.
We first had Gordon Brown galumphing around Scotland, purporting to love the country in ways that were not apparent during his wretched time in office at Westminster. This was a period during which Brown steadfastly refused to even talk about more devolution for Holyrood.
Advertisement
Now, though, he wants us to soar with extra new powers… just so long as his old chums in London hold the purse strings. Brown was once known as the Iron Chancellor, but only by his then newly acquired friends in the banking sector, who stood to gain most from his sickening efforts to appease them. If Scotland votes to become independent, Brown will have played a significant part in the triumph; he is proving to be a major asset to the yes campaign.
The entertainment really started at the beginning of last week, with events on either side to mark the 100-day countdown to 18 September. Last Monday, Better Together had another of its Keystone Cops days, when it turned the spotlight on normal, everyday people who desired to speak up in support of the union.
One of them was a mother of two called Clare Lally who spoke about the NHS and what it had done for one of her sick children. The admirable Ms Lally was passionate and eloquent about her support for the union, but in seeking to portray her as an "ordinary housewife", the Better Together campaign was guilty of misleading the public. Ms Lally had recently been appointed as a lay member of Johann Lamont's shadow cabinet and the Labour leader had introduced her on stage at a rally.
Campbell Gunn, senior media adviser to first minister Alex Salmond, sought to point out Better Together's little sin of omission in an email to the Daily Telegraph. Within 24 hours, a firing squad was being assembled with its sights trained on Gunn, a widely respected former political editor of the Sunday Post and recipient last year of a press lifetime achievement award. The Telegraph, possibly drunk on the exciting possibility of actually breaking a Scottish story, sought to portray Gunn as a vile cybernat who had unconscionably attacked an ordinary wee housewife with a sick child. He had instead merely been doing his job.
In the artificial firestorm that followed, Salmond forced his adviser to apologise, in a meaningless move by the first minister aimed at appeasing the mob. He knew as well as anyone that Gunn had done nothing for which to apologise.
The rise of the cybernats has added greatly to the gaiety of this campaign. They are depicted as a sullen assortment of foul-mouthed social misfits firing off profane tweets and blogs to anyone who supports the union. The crushing reality, though, is that they don't really exist beyond the febrile imaginings of Better Together chiefs and Alistair Darling. The social networks attract all manner of semi-literate knuckle-draggers and visigoths who are free to inveigh anonymously on any issue. What some of Scotland's top football writers, such as Graham Spiers and Tom English, have had to endure on Twitter these past few years far eclipses in volume and intensity anything encountered in the referendum campaign.
The absence of anything resembling a proper campaign by Better Together has forced it into the realms of fantasy and this is one of them. In its desperation, it now portrays any criticism of the unionist cause as "vile cybernat abuse".
This was embarrassingly apparent in the lamentable television appearance last week by John McTernan, a former Labour special adviser in its bottomless department of special advice. McTernan was talking about some of the abuse JK Rowling had received for donating £1m to the Better Together campaign. As he began visibly lose to all sense of reality, McTernan, who genuinely seemed to be in some distress, began blaming Gunn for the billionaire author's online ordure.
Fortunately for the rest of us, Iain MacWhirter, a real journalist, was on hand elegantly to eviscerate McTernan. Joanne Rowling got off lightly compared with some of the stuff that was being written about Colin and Christine Weir, the Ayrshire lottery winners who have given £4m to the Yes campaign. Much of this was rooted in old-fashioned Tory class elitism, of the type that dictates that bad things happen when you give poor people too much money.
Behind all the online frivolity and gloriously manufactured sense of outrage, there is a serious warning for Better Together, and one that it needs to heed quickly if blue is to remain in the union jack. The unionists need to be aware of the consequences of constantly seeking to portray the Scottish nationalists as goggle-eyed brigands with personality disorders, as is the case with their ill-judged "Project Fear" campaign.
As more voters in Scotland begin to encounter Yes volunteers on their doorsteps, they will discover that they are, of course, as polite, well-mannered and passionate about their country as the Better Together activists. This dissonance will chime with them and they will be resentful at being sold another lie by Better Together.
Last Wednesday, the Daily Record, Scotland's main unionist paper, carried the results of an opinion poll that revealed that the gap between Yes and No is once more a mere handful of points. It further revealed that the prospect of a Conservative election victory in 2015 would deliver a resounding Yes vote.
Better Together needs to think much more carefully about its tactics from now on until the death, because this campaign is slipping away from it.
I'm waiting for the second coat of paint to dry, so wasting some time.
56 yes 51 no. Seems the no's are catching up .......... or does it.
Look, its my poll. My little baby which I check-up on, just to see how things are. However, whilst tending to it, Ive noticed that there are 12 votes in the 'no' vote which come from people who's location is not in Scotland
That's not to say that they may be cheating. They may indeed have a wife sitting knitting in a wee but'n'ben in Ullapool which they stay in when not working in Leeds, Doncaster, Ireland, Crete, Oxford, Ipswich or Worcester, but it disnae seem right!
Incidentally, I did notice whilst stalking everyone, that most of the 'no' voters come from the Aberdeen area. I wonder if there is any relevance in that?
There are 7 'no' voters who, despite extensive thread research, have kept their locations very well hidden.
I have not yet checked the location of the 'yes' vote (because it takes ages) but I will get round to it.
So 51 against may actually be 39 !
56 yes 51 no. Seems the no's are catching up .......... or does it.
Look, its my poll. My little baby which I check-up on, just to see how things are. However, whilst tending to it, Ive noticed that there are 12 votes in the 'no' vote which come from people who's location is not in Scotland
That's not to say that they may be cheating. They may indeed have a wife sitting knitting in a wee but'n'ben in Ullapool which they stay in when not working in Leeds, Doncaster, Ireland, Crete, Oxford, Ipswich or Worcester, but it disnae seem right!
Incidentally, I did notice whilst stalking everyone, that most of the 'no' voters come from the Aberdeen area. I wonder if there is any relevance in that?
There are 7 'no' voters who, despite extensive thread research, have kept their locations very well hidden.
I have not yet checked the location of the 'yes' vote (because it takes ages) but I will get round to it.
So 51 against may actually be 39 !
Toddy
Registered user
Den, has anyone changed their mind?
Toddy
Registered user
TRIDENT nuclear bombs are too risky to be based in the south of England, but it’s fine for Scotland, according to the UK government.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-lives-considered-cheap-by-uk-1523923
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-lives-considered-cheap-by-uk-1523923
Toddy
Registered user
IndyRef Weekly Review.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?utm_med...m&utm_content=buffer1f25a&utm_campaign=buffer
https://m.youtube.com/watch?utm_med...m&utm_content=buffer1f25a&utm_campaign=buffer
Ross Dean
Registered user
A mundane but important question.
After a discussion in the car with my English (and proud of it) partner, I realised that I have no idea about the question below so ...
I am a Scotsman who has lived in England for 30 years. I have English parents of Scots and Irish descent and English children. I am in favour of self governing for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within a Great Britain federation in which Westminster looks after European, international and defence affairs only. This means that I would vote No to Scottish total independence if given the opportunity but my domiciliary status means that this is not possible. All this being said, if Scotland votes Yes then I will accept my Nations choice and apply for a Scottish passport and citizenship.
The question: if Scotland is independent, and not yet a member of the EU, does this mean that I, as a Scottish citizen living in England, am not eligible for National Health treatment free at the point of delivery even though I will pay English taxes?
After a discussion in the car with my English (and proud of it) partner, I realised that I have no idea about the question below so ...
I am a Scotsman who has lived in England for 30 years. I have English parents of Scots and Irish descent and English children. I am in favour of self governing for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within a Great Britain federation in which Westminster looks after European, international and defence affairs only. This means that I would vote No to Scottish total independence if given the opportunity but my domiciliary status means that this is not possible. All this being said, if Scotland votes Yes then I will accept my Nations choice and apply for a Scottish passport and citizenship.
The question: if Scotland is independent, and not yet a member of the EU, does this mean that I, as a Scottish citizen living in England, am not eligible for National Health treatment free at the point of delivery even though I will pay English taxes?
Toddy
Registered user
- Status