Moving on?

Forums New posts
greencol said:
Barroso delivers embarrassing EU rebuke to Cameron | Scottish National Party

The walls are closing in on ye Davy .....

Hope you enjoyed your time as PM & made a few bob too:rascal:
Click to expand...

Don't worry about the boy David. He was already a multi millionaire before politics and among other policy changes seen under his leadership stands to increase those millons with the privatisation of the NHS and asorted defence contacts.

Glegg is also among the dozens of MPs that will also be making a killing. Profit from pain.
 
An unelected politician delivers embarrassing rebuke? Really SNP media spin?
 
Is this not the same unelected politician that better together and the "British" media were creaming themselves over??
 
Hattie said:
Is this not the same unelected politician that better together and the "British" media were creaming themselves over??
Click to expand...
It is indeed. Next we'll be hearing Cameron approached Putin to ask him to put a word in regards Scotland... oh hang on he did didn't he?
 
Hattie said:
Is this not the same unelected politician that better together and the "British" media were creaming themselves over??
Click to expand...

Why Hattie old chap, I think you might be spot on there :detective:

Now though it seems he is not to be trusted and according to the inference from [MENTION=2693]Smurf[/MENTION] his utterings which held so much meaning pre-referendum have become SNP spin.

You don't even have to make that shit up.
 
SirRiordan said:
It is indeed. Next we'll be hearing Cameron approached Putin to ask him to put a word in regards Scotland... oh hang on he did didn't he?
Click to expand...

Putin's 'help' involved parking a big fuck off missile cruiser in the Moray Firth IIRC and they sent a RN destroyer all the way from the English Channel to deal with it just as a subtle reminder to us jocks that the bad old Russians might see us as weak and scared
 
Beagle said:
Putin's 'help' involved parking a big $#@! off missile cruiser in the Moray Firth IIRC and they sent a RN destroyer all the way from the English Channel to deal with it just as a subtle reminder to us jocks that the bad old Russians might see us as weak and scared
Click to expand...
Was that the one where the nearest ship was parked up in Southampton and took 4 days to respond? Was it not sheltering from a storm? Though the fact that the nearest navy responder was in the English channel is pretty damning.However there was another event that featured in all the papers earlier this year where it was claimed that a 10 Downing Street aide had approached Putin for help regards the referendum.Cameron doesn't give a damn. The day after the referendum he started giving it all this English votes for English laws. The reason is that when he made 'the vow' parliament was in recess and his backbenchers needed placating. He's now just stabbed Barrosso in the back. It would all be so funny if it was so very serious :/
 
Hattie said:
Is this not the same unelected politician that better together and the "British" media were creaming themselves over??
Click to expand...

Aye, interesting that now, post referendum, this guys opinion is now seen as being worth diddly-squat by Westmonster. I`d laugh if it didn`t make me so angry.
 
Fritz said:
Aye, interesting that now, post referendum, this guys opinion is now seen as being worth diddly-squat by Westmonster. I`d laugh if it didn`t make me so angry.
Click to expand...

Westmonster amongst others....
 
Fritz said:
Aye, interesting that now, post referendum, this guys opinion is now seen as being worth diddly-squat by Westmonster. I`d laugh if it didn`t make me so angry.
Click to expand...

Cuts both ways though. Apparently for the SNP his opinion is now worthwhile. And who'd have thought that "uncertainty" over EU membership could be so potentially damaging?
 
Hattie said:
Is this not the same unelected politician that better together and the "British" media were creaming themselves over??
Click to expand...

Dub said:
Why Hattie old chap, I think you might be spot on there :detective:

Now though it seems he is not to be trusted and according to the inference from [MENTION=2693]Smurf[/MENTION] his utterings which held so much meaning pre-referendum have become SNP spin.

You don't even have to make that shit up.
Click to expand...

have some rep chaps :thumbgrin
 
No it will be used to keep the self serving scumbag pond life who targeted the vulnerable. The mothers who want the best for their kids. Keep their highly lucrative existence. That makes me feel better


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Tiger Prima said:
No it will be used to keep the self serving scumbag pond life who targeted the vulnerable. The mothers who want the best for their kids. Keep their highly lucrative existence. That makes me feel better


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Instead of going into the coffers of a government who have done so much for the poor.

Sorry, I meant "who have cut tax for the middle classes and want to do the same for big business". Odd how easy it is to make these mistakes.
 
You,re going to have to elucidate on that one. Not sure what you mean ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Tiger Prima said:
BBC News - BP and GDF Suez discover new North Sea oil field

Undoubtedly smurf and lb will be along to say it's another piece of yes manipulation . Whatever

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I was consistent all along in saying whether better off or worse off it WASN'T a factor in how I was going to vote.

I have to laugh at all those who regard themselves as socialist who voted Yes because of the oil reserves. They voted Yes because apparently it would make us richer. Therefore at the cost of making others poorer? The poor of England?

Imagine the irony of England discovering oil in the Thames and so called socialists In England organising to campaign for English independence to make themselves richer at the expense of the poor of Scotland....
 
Admirable sentiments. To which I whole heartedly agree. However, your basic premise is to remain as is. This, in my opinion is fundamentally flawed. In that it just perpetuates the current position. I can't be arsed trawling through previous posts but I'm fairly sure there will be something contradictory some where.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Tiger Prima said:
Admirable sentiments. To which I whole heartedly agree. However, your basic premise is to remain as is. This, in my opinion is fundamentally flawed. In that it just perpetuates the current position. I can't be arsed trawling through previous posts but I'm fairly sure there will be something contradictory some where.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My premise isn't at all to remain as is? I campaigned for the creation of a strong Scottish Parliament from 1992 onwards. I voted Yes Yes in 1997 when Labour delivered the creation of that Parliament. To me the Scottish Parliament needs greater powers. I believe that's what the overwhelming majority of the four million registered to vote in the referendum want.
 
Smurf said:
My premise isn't at all to remain as is? I campaigned for the creation of a strong Scottish Parliament from 1992 onwards. I voted Yes Yes in 1997 when Labour delivered the creation of that Parliament. To me the Scottish Parliament needs greater powers. I believe that's what the overwhelming majority of the four million registered to vote in the referendum want.
Click to expand...

Being a pedant, 84% of the electorate voted, of that 84%, 55% voted No, so 1,980,000 votes. Hardly an overwhelming majority Kenny.

But I do get the gist of your point, no matter how badly you made it :wink:
 
Smurf said:
I was consistent all along in saying whether better off or worse off it WASN'T a factor in how I was going to vote.

I have to laugh at all those who regard themselves as socialist who voted Yes because of the oil reserves. They voted Yes because apparently it would make us richer. Therefore at the cost of making others poorer? The poor of England?

Imagine the irony of England discovering oil in the Thames and so called socialists In England organising to campaign for English independence to make themselves richer at the expense of the poor of Scotland....
Click to expand...

I can`t see what is so amusing. It would have allowed us to build/improve hospitals, pay NHS and other staff a fairer wage, help the poor and needy, get the unemployed back into work, without having no benifits system to speak of, to such an extent that we would indeed have been a VERY Social Society.

So now we beg for hand-outs instead. Fascinating theory indeed. :coffee:
 
Smurf said:
My premise isn't at all to remain as is? I campaigned for the creation of a strong Scottish Parliament from 1992 onwards. I voted Yes Yes in 1997 when Labour delivered the creation of that Parliament. To me the Scottish Parliament needs greater powers. I believe that's what the overwhelming majority of the four million registered to vote in the referendum want.
Click to expand...

Right before this goes awry. My basic point here is that there was a propaganda campaign of fear and doom mongering. I now offer one piece of many, which exposes and highlights the mis information employed. There are more if you care to look.

I'm not sure if I fully accept the notion that the majority were voting for more powers. In fact I don't accept it at all. If the majority did we would not be having this dialogue.

If however I am interpreting your proposal correctly, ie that somehow or other voting no would bring an acceptable level of autonomy ? I really have to disagree. Though for arguments sake if the vote had went the other way I personally believe, and I am taking a massive leap in the dark here, that this would have been closer to the level of self government that you desire. As it stands the no vote gave Cameron et al a mandate for further shafting of North Britain.
I would ask that you consider this. The biggest thing that a yes vote would have achieved is allowing the politacariat the opportunity to put on their big boy trousers and sit at the grown ups table. Of course there are shared interests across the U.K.. There always will be until someone takes a massive fuck off chain saw from Stranraer to Berwick and tows Scotland Into the arctic circle. Defence and foreign affairs being the two that immediately spring to mind.
As it stands now we are still west minsters bitch and we will get what the 55% deserve.
And breathe


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Zitellis Heid said:
I can`t see what is so amusing. It would have allowed us to build/improve hospitals, pay NHS and other staff a fairer wage, help the poor and needy, get the unemployed back into work, without having no benifits system to speak of, to such an extent that we would indeed have been a VERY Social Society.

So now we beg for hand-outs instead. Fascinating theory indeed. :coffee:
Click to expand...

If I may, I think he means that making people poorer just because they're a different nationality to you might not be an overwhelmingly socialist attitude.

- - - Updated - - -

Tiger Prima said:
You,re going to have to elucidate on that one. Not sure what you mean ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I just meant that the idea that everybody would suddenly start wanting to help poor people just because of independence was a vain hope. The party that would most likely govern hasn't even done anything with the powers it has, except cut tax for middle class people. So why it - or Scotland as a whole - would suddenly change it's tune I don't know.

Unless you think there would suddenly be so much money that even a centrist government could have afforded lavish welfare and investment. Plus an oil fund of course.
 
HenryLB said:
If I may, I think he means that making people poorer just because they're a different nationality to you might not be an overwhelmingly socialist attitude.
Click to expand...

And if I may, how can 500m towards London`s new Super Sewer, and a larger amount which escapes me, towards HS2, that we will not benefit from in either case, be deemed any different? :dunno:
 
Ok because I am an inherently nice felly. I will accept this as a genuine point of view and not trolling.

Firstly had there been a yes vote I honestly believe that at the next Scottish election there would have been a real left of centre government voted in. In fact any one who disputes this is mentally ill considering the Scottish political psyche. Fwiw I'm not sure that's an entirely good thing but that's another days musings.

On the day of Black Friday I was listening to radio hoots mon. On it was the ex rugger type John Beattie. He and his contemporaries nailed their Union Jack colours firmly to the mast previous to the vote. As such it would be fair to presume there was no yes bias. Figures were getting bandied about. The most significant of which was that it costs 43 billion pa to run scotland. Of that 30 billion comes from Barnett and the rest gets cobbled together somehow or other. Taking in washing I suppose. Oh aye and watching folks motors at the football.
It's difficult to look on the grim side when we send in excess of 56 billion in oil revenue to aid David and boris getting into kip with ubed ( clever eh) and leading the uk out of Europe.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Smurf said:
My premise isn't at all to remain as is? I campaigned for the creation of a strong Scottish Parliament from 1992 onwards. I voted Yes Yes in 1997 when Labour delivered the creation of that Parliament. To me the Scottish Parliament needs greater powers. I believe that's what the overwhelming majority of the four million registered to vote in the referendum want.
Click to expand...

Can even one of you people describe, specifically, what "greater powers" entails for you?

Or is it basically, as I suspect is the case, just whatever we're eventually given?

I just find it deeply ironic, after all your bleating about "FACTS, WE WANT FACTS", none of you No voters seems to be able to articulate with even an iota of clarity, exactly what you want us to be given. I don't even think you care, as long as it's something. We could get some futile tax varying "power", and youse will all go "see, see, told ye we would get it".

When Westminster condescends to dole out whatever it is prepared to allow, you will all wave it about as if it's some kind of victory for Scotland. Makes me sick.
 
Tiger Prima said:
Ok because I am an inherently nice felly. I will accept this as a genuine point of view and not trolling.
Click to expand...

Thank you for responding. It is a genuine pov if that's any consolation!

Firstly had there been a yes vote I honestly believe that at the next Scottish election there would have been a real left of centre government voted in. In fact any one who disputes this is mentally ill considering the Scottish political psyche. Fwiw I'm not sure that's an entirely good thing but that's another days musings.
Click to expand...

The Scottish political psyche is unionist though. It is one fifth Tory, plus a decent segment of right-of-centre SNP supporters. You would, I have no doubt, elect a mild centre left government. But would that be radical enough to end food banks and poverty? I would be amazed if it were.

On the day of Black Friday I was listening to radio hoots mon. On it was the ex rugger type John Beattie. He and his contemporaries nailed their Union Jack colours firmly to the mast previous to the vote. As such it would be fair to presume there was no yes bias. Figures were getting bandied about. The most significant of which was that it costs 43 billion pa to run scotland. Of that 30 billion comes from Barnett and the rest gets cobbled together somehow or other. Taking in washing I suppose. Oh aye and watching folks motors at the football.
It's difficult to look on the grim side when we send in excess of 56 billion in oil revenue to aid David and boris getting into kip with ubed ( clever eh) and leading the uk out of Europe.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I suspect that this notion of Scotland being fabulously wealthy and bankrolling the UK is bunk. I may be wrong. But even the most optimistic nats say Scotland is second to London in wealth creation.

- - - Updated - - -

aggie said:
Can even one of you people describe, specifically, what "greater powers" entails for you?

.
Click to expand...

I'm not a No voter but I could certainly be fairly precise about what I would imagine the phrase entails. I think most people could, although they might not agree on specifics.

I suspect there were as many different visions of what an independent Scotland might look like among Yes voters. A lot of them incompatible.
 
southfieldhibby said:
Being a pedant, 84% of the electorate voted, of that 84%, 55% voted No, so 1,980,000 votes. Hardly an overwhelming majority Kenny.

But I do get the gist of your point, no matter how badly you made it :wink:
Click to expand...

I said overwhelming majority as I'm assuming that those that were in the losing side who voted Yes would now too want the extra devolution? Therefore, the majority want what's been promised. And if not then electoral wipeout for unionist parties.... Though of course the SNP will say Its not enough...

- - - Updated - - -

Zitellis Heid said:
I can`t see what is so amusing. It would have allowed us to build/improve hospitals, pay NHS and other staff a fairer wage, help the poor and needy, get the unemployed back into work, without having no benifits system to speak of, to such an extent that we would indeed have been a VERY Social Society.

So now we beg for hand-outs instead. Fascinating theory indeed. :coffee:
Click to expand...

I don't accept the premise that an Independent Scotland would have such a cash surplus and not enough independent experts or organisations have confirmed that.

Again regardless I find nothing socialist about wanting to preserve wealth for selfish reasons. If what you say is true about our huge wealth you are happy not to share it with ordinary working class folk in England through selfish priority?
 
Smurf said:
Though of course the SNP will say Its not enough...
Click to expand...

You've always seemed to ignore me when I've asked you questions on the referendum thread. No matter, I'll ask again - what is enough, in your opinion? What "greater powers" do you expect?



Again regardless I find nothing socialist about wanting to preserve wealth for selfish reasons. If what you say is true about our huge wealth you are happy not to share it with ordinary working class folk in England through selfish priority?
Click to expand...

Firstly, who ever said that people who wanted independence were by default socialist? Your second point is just a rehashing of that ridiculous "we're abandoning England" argument that was tripe then, and it's still tripe now. As if working class people in England OR Scotland are now better off - are you happy that ordinary working class in neither country now benefit from the wealth of the UK as a whole?
 
aggie said:
You've always seemed to ignore me when I've asked you questions on the referendum thread. No matter, I'll ask again - what is enough, in your opinion? What "greater powers" do you expect?





Firstly, who ever said that people who wanted independence were by default socialist? Your second point is just a rehashing of that ridiculous "we're abandoning England" argument that was tripe then, and it's still tripe now. As if working class people in England OR Scotland are now better off - are you happy that ordinary working class in neither country now benefit from the wealth of the UK as a whole?
Click to expand...

I think in general you tend to shout and scream coming across angry and bitter that anyone should dare not to agree with you on the constitution. Therefore, unlike a few others who share your opinions but do so with humour and in good spirit on here, with yourself I admit I think "What's the point?".
 
Smurf said:
I said overwhelming majority as I'm assuming that those that were in the losing side who voted Yes would now too want the extra devolution? Therefore, the majority want what's been promised. And if not then electoral wipeout for unionist parties.... Though of course the SNP will say Its not enough...
Click to expand...

- - - Updated - - -



I don't want the 'extra' devolution Kenny.

It wasn't on the ballot paper.

It was a last ditch attempt by the Westminster junta to stave off independence & it worked brilliantly I have to say.

So, really, they can stick their 'extra' devolved powers up their collective shiteboxes where it belongs.

Classic case of moving goalposts.
 
Smurf said:
I think in general you tend to shout and scream coming across angry and bitter that anyone should dare not to agree with you on the constitution. Therefore, unlike a few others who share your opinions but do so with humour and in good spirit on here, with yourself I admit I think "What's the point?".
Click to expand...

I have to admit, that's genuinely made me do a wee guffaw out loud - really? More so than everyone else you do engage with?

But fair enough, man, I won't bother in future.
 
Smurf said:
I think in general you tend to shout and scream coming across angry and bitter that anyone should dare not to agree with you on the constitution. Therefore, unlike a few others who share your opinions but do so with humour and in good spirit on here, with yourself I admit I think "What's the point?".
Click to expand...

an accusation you've levelled at me in the past.

Do you just cut and paste ?
 
greencol said:
Smurf said:
I said overwhelming majority as I'm assuming that those that were in the losing side who voted Yes would now too want the extra devolution? Therefore, the majority want what's been promised. And if not then electoral wipeout for unionist parties.... Though of course the SNP will say Its not enough...
Click to expand...

- - - Updated - - -



I don't want the 'extra' devolution Kenny.

It wasn't on the ballot paper.

It was a last ditch attempt by the Westminster junta to stave off independence & it worked brilliantly I have to say.

So, really, they can stick their 'extra' devolved powers up their collective $#@!eboxes where it belongs.

Classic case of moving goalposts.
Click to expand...

It's absolute bollocks to say the extra devolution was only offered in the last few days. All other respective parties gave plans for their version of extra devolution long before the last few days. Extra devolution has been an on going process since 1999.

Disappointed you don't want extra devolution. The majority who voted either No or Yes do want that.

- - - Updated - - -

emerald green said:
an accusation you've levelled at me in the past.

Do you just cut and paste ?
Click to expand...

Please highlight where I said exactly that? And please don't resort to your usual tactic of trying to be the big man sending me warning PM's as I'm not interested.
 
Smurf said:
I said overwhelming majority as I'm assuming that those that were in the losing side who voted Yes would now too want the extra devolution? Therefore, the majority want what's been promised. And if not then electoral wipeout for unionist parties.... Though of course the SNP will say Its not enough...

- - - Updated - - -



I don't accept the premise that an Independent Scotland would have such a cash surplus and not enough independent experts or organisations have confirmed that.

Again regardless I find nothing socialist about wanting to preserve wealth for selfish reasons. If what you say is true about our huge wealth you are happy not to share it with ordinary working class folk in England through selfish priority?
Click to expand...

What a way to phrase a question. That's along the lines of "Are you still beating your wife"

I'll answer though - Yes absolutely I would be in favour of keeping all of our money and using it to help Scottish people in the same way Westminster uses our money to help english people [although most of these are south of Watford Gap.

What is so wrong with wanting your country to prosper. People in england don't live in my country so again, YES I would happily do what your question espouses.

[MENTION=498]HenryLB[/MENTION] - Your statement "But would that be radical enough to end food banks and poverty? I would be amazed if it were" may or may not be correct but it would have a damn sight better chance of helping these people than we will ever get from Westminster regardless of what tie the PM is wearing, for one simple reason - they would care about Scotland and westminster doesnt give a flying one so long as the money continues to roll in.
 
Dub said:
[MENTION=498]HenryLB[/MENTION] - Your statement "But would that be radical enough to end food banks and poverty? I would be amazed if it were" may or may not be correct but it would have a damn sight better chance of helping these people than we will ever get from Westminster regardless of what tie the PM is wearing, for one simple reason - they would care about Scotland and westminster doesnt give a flying one so long as the money continues to roll in.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that they would care about Scotland? Or, more accurately, poor people in Scotland? They show no signs of doing so at the moment.

Let's assume there would be a bit more money in an independent Scotland. Maybe there would be - although I doubt it. You genuinely think the political will exists to spend that on eradicating poverty? Instead of, say, setting up an oil fund or giving tax breaks to business and homeowners?
 
HenryLB said:
What evidence do you have that they would care about Scotland? Or, more accurately, poor people in Scotland? They show no signs of doing so at the moment.

Let's assume there would be a bit more money in an independent Scotland. Maybe there would be - although I doubt it. You genuinely think the political will exists to spend that on eradicating poverty? Instead of, say, setting up an oil fund or giving tax breaks to business and homeowners?
Click to expand...

In truth my "evidence" is based on the fact that they would be mostly Scottish people voted in by Scottish people and therefore accountable to the Scottish people. It's not much more than blind faith iin your eyes perhaps but it would still. imo, be more likely that they would act against poverty than anyone in westminster is doing right now or did while the food banks were springing up all over the shop.

I'm not sure why you doubt there would be more money. We pay more to westminster than we get back so using simple arithmetic I deduced that if we werent giving more to westminster than we got back we would have more money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom