Last Comments about Scotland... maybe ever...

homers_double

Not me, read one post above yours

veronese68

nathancom wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

At least he is saying what he believes . I wasn't much impressed when J K Rowling was attacked for supporting the No campaign - it is a bad situation when people are scared to express their political beliefs because of a load of 'banter' on Twitter.

That wasn't banter. Are you saying you believe what people refer to as banter on here is the same as the threats and abuse that went on?

My comment didn't even remotely refer to this forum. Apologies if that was misunderstood.

Phew. Glad about that.

Anonymous

VTech wrote:

Its a game where the captains win and the players lose.

And that is why gov't shouldn't be run like business. I am no socialist by any means, but the job isn't just to 'balance the books'. It's to provide (within reason) equal opportunity so that the players can become captains, and redistribute the wealth.

I understand that the gov't needs to not 'bite the hand that feeds' per se, but the status quo where they just appear to be looking after their mates so they can guarantee a cushty non-exec role when they're voted out is too much 'business' and not enough 'government'

VTech

coriordan wrote:

VTech wrote:

Its a game where the captains win and the players lose.

And that is why gov't shouldn't be run like business. I am no socialist by any means, but the job isn't just to 'balance the books'. It's to provide (within reason) equal opportunity so that the players can become captains, and redistribute the wealth.

I understand that the gov't needs to not 'bite the hand that feeds' per se, but the status quo where they just appear to be looking after their mates so they can guarantee a cushty non-exec role when they're voted out is too much 'business' and not enough 'government'

And thats why some people make millions whilst the vast majority struggle to pay average bills.

I accept we can't all agree on how to run the country, its impossible as many have tried and failed before which is why I personally took things into my own hands.
The vast majority of people would be better off if my ideal was upheld but this wouldn't work for the few wealthy people who are born into the system. Remember, its complete fact that more people are born into wealth than there are people who come from nothing to achieve wealth. !

Governments number 1 objective, to keep people in order, to create "need", to maintain hardship.

This is of course a completely needed outcome otherwise we have no one to do the menial jobs but we could all be so much better off with decent distribution.

Anyway, what does that mean to most here ?

Anonymous

Thus we need to create more wealth to make it a self fulfilling prophecy by distributing it more evenly?

Menial jobs would have people clamouring for them if they were well paid.

VTech

coriordan wrote:

Thus we need to create more wealth to make it a self fulfilling prophecy by distributing it more evenly?

Menial jobs would have people clamouring for them if they were well paid.

Ideally we need to cut down on the organised wastage.
Local councils waste vast amounts of money just to make sure the following years budget isn't cut too much, this is false economy.

Garry H

Salmond to stand down

Stevo_666

Garry H wrote:

Salmond to stand down

Goodbye, loser.

morstar

So it's the cities that voted for independence and the remainder of the heavily rural country that voted to stay together. Surely the city dwellers have more in common with the londoncentric government than the country folk.
What is the rationale behind this in peoples opinions?
City dwelling underclass feel more disenfranchised?

MichaelW

Stevo 666 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Salmond to stand down

Goodbye, loser.

Kicking a man when he is down is almost as bad as reading his obituary on Radio 4 before he is dead.

pinno

MichaelW wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Salmond to stand down

Goodbye, loser.

Kicking a man when he is down is almost as bad as reading his obituary on Radio 4 before he is dead.

Yeah - really below the belt that Stevo. Hope you rot in hell whilst getting shagged by Jimmy Saville's syphilis infested warty devil truncheon for eternity. I know it's warty 'cos Arran told me.

Cygnus

pinarello001 wrote:

MichaelW wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Salmond to stand down

Goodbye, loser.

Kicking a man when he is down is almost as bad as reading his obituary on Radio 4 before he is dead.

Yeah - really below the belt that Stevo. Hope you rot in hell whilst getting shagged by Jimmy Saville's syphilis infested warty devil truncheon for eternity. I know it's warty 'cos Arran told me.

To be fair, Salmond seems to be acting like he's on his death bed with only hours to live.

verylonglegs

I found myself thinking fair play to Salmond, he put his ideals up for public vote and has decided to go when they were rejected. I was certainly no fan of his from the way he stirred things up but with this it's a refreshing change compared to many modern politicians who'll say and do whatever is popular or necessary just to stay in office.

rolf_f

verylonglegs wrote:

I found myself thinking fair play to Salmond, he put his ideals up for public vote and has decided to go when they were rejected. I was certainly no fan of his from the way he stirred things up but with this it's a refreshing change compared to many modern politicians who'll say and do whatever is popular or necessary just to stay in office.

Indeed. To be fair, in terms of his career the no vote was surely a result for him. He could have stayed put forever milking his near success (I don't buy 55-45 as a landslide) until whenever he felt like retiring. Victory would inevitably have led to a humiliating voting out of office a few short years down the line when the land of milk and honey failed to turn up as a result of independence.

VTech

Rolf F wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I found myself thinking fair play to Salmond, he put his ideals up for public vote and has decided to go when they were rejected. I was certainly no fan of his from the way he stirred things up but with this it's a refreshing change compared to many modern politicians who'll say and do whatever is popular or necessary just to stay in office.

Indeed. To be fair, in terms of his career the no vote was surely a result for him. He could have stayed put forever milking his near success (I don't buy 55-45 as a landslide) until whenever he felt like retiring. Victory would inevitably have led to a humiliating voting out of office a few short years down the line when the land of milk and honey failed to turn up as a result of independence.

If you take away the 16/17 year olds the victory was more like 70/30 according to the BBC.
Having said that, he stood by his guns and honourably defended his rights and methods. Honour in defeat for sure.

Garry H

I think it was inevitable. I would also have expected the same of Cameron had the result gone the other way.

cc78

Salmond has turned a small minority view into the most influential party in Scotland, and he nearly won a referendum vote that would have been unthinkable less than 20 years ago, both with regard to its subject and the number of people of people who actually turned out to vote.

For what it's worth, I think there will be another referendum within a decade and this time it will be yes.

VTech wrote:

There has always been huge hatred for the english by the scottish, its unjust in modern times and harmful.

"huge hatred"... simplistic, infantile, total and utter garbage

Garry H

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

There has always been huge hatred for the english by the scottish, its unjust in modern times and harmful.

"huge hatred"... simplistic, infantile, total and utter garbage[/quote

Agreed. Having lived here for over twenty years, I've experienced nothing of the sort. If you've experienced "hatred" in Scotland, I suspect it's not because you're English! I did see a lot of the opposite while working in London, but of course, this is alway just "banter".

cc78

VTech wrote:

If you take away the 16/17 year olds the victory was more like 70/30 according to the BBC.

more nonsense

there were only 110,000 16-17 year olds registered and 71% voted yes... take them out the overall figures and the difference to the result is negligible, less than 1%

Garry H

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If you take away the 16/17 year olds the victory was more like 70/30 according to the BBC.

more nonsense

there were only 110,000 16-17 year olds registered and 71% voted yes... take them out the overall figures and the difference to the result is negligible, less than 1%

Away with your "facts". There's no place for that in here!

rolf_f

So one lesson we can learn from this is that 16-17 year olds probably shouldn't have the vote........

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

There has always been huge hatred for the english by the scottish, its unjust in modern times and harmful.

"huge hatred"... simplistic, infantile, total and utter garbage

Indeed. Infact, if you got rid of the appalling press, there probably wouldn't be any significant hatred. It's just endless tabloid stirring that causes the animosity. I've never experienced hatred from the Scots and I never expect to. I suppose if I go into a bar in certain areas of Glasgow and burn a Saltire then I might expect some hatred but, in any general sense, if you are nice to people they are nice to you back irrespective of nationality.

crescent

Rolf F wrote:

So one lesson we can learn from this is that 16-17 year olds probably shouldn't have the vote........

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

There has always been huge hatred for the english by the scottish, its unjust in modern times and harmful.

"huge hatred"... simplistic, infantile, total and utter garbage

Indeed. Infact, if you got rid of the appalling press, there probably wouldn't be any significant hatred. It's just endless tabloid stirring that causes the animosity. I've never experienced hatred from the Scots and I never expect to. I suppose if I go into a bar in certain areas of Glasgow and burn a Saltire then I might expect some hatred but, in any general sense, if you are nice to people they are nice to you back irrespective of nationality.

Bang on. Hatred is generally linked to media, football and football fan/thug mentality (not all, but some). I would like to think the Commonwealth games went some way to demonstrating how the vast majority of Scots welcome visitors, English or otherwise.

nathancom

Garry H wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If you take away the 16/17 year olds the victory was more like 70/30 according to the BBC.

more nonsense

there were only 110,000 16-17 year olds registered and 71% voted yes... take them out the overall figures and the difference to the result is negligible, less than 1%

Away with your "facts". There's no place for that in here!

The 71% statistic is based on a poll by Lord Ashcroft from a sample of 14, yes 14, 16-17 year olds. We don't know how the different age groups voted as there was no large scale exit pole.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Scotland-Post-Referendum-poll-Full-tables-1409191.pdf

There really is no evident hatred of the English and that was never the point of independence and was never raised as an issue. Somehow I think the constitutional mess we are left with might end up being more painful than independence would have been.

Shouldn't Cameron been a little prepared for this, he had 2 years. Next up is the EU referendum which is sure to go smoothly...Cameron is just about the most inept Prime Minister I have seen. I don't think this government as a whole has been inept, unpleasant for sure, but Cameron is the Frank Spencer of British Politics.

cc78

nathancom wrote:

The 71% statistic is based on a poll by Lord Ashcroft from a sample of 14, yes 14, 16-17 year olds. We don't know how the different age groups voted as there was no large scale exit pole.

True enough. The point remains that the number of 16-17 olds registered to vote would have had little impact on the overall result. I suspect the 71% is not far from the truth.

k-dog

VTech wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I found myself thinking fair play to Salmond, he put his ideals up for public vote and has decided to go when they were rejected. I was certainly no fan of his from the way he stirred things up but with this it's a refreshing change compared to many modern politicians who'll say and do whatever is popular or necessary just to stay in office.

Indeed. To be fair, in terms of his career the no vote was surely a result for him. He could have stayed put forever milking his near success (I don't buy 55-45 as a landslide) until whenever he felt like retiring. Victory would inevitably have led to a humiliating voting out of office a few short years down the line when the land of milk and honey failed to turn up as a result of independence.

If you take away the 16/17 year olds the victory was more like 70/30 according to the BBC.
Having said that, he stood by his guns and honourably defended his rights and methods. Honour in defeat for sure.

And if you didn't count the over 65s it was a resounding Yes.

I said for a while that they shouldn't get a vote as it doesn't affect them. Most of them will be dead by the time anything would have changed - and even if they weren't they're all atill sitting in the houses they bought for a couple of times their annual salary and their investments.

Meanwhile those with young families haven't got 2 beans to rub together - unless they're a banker or estate agent etc. and are paying 6 times their salary to buy a house that's half as big as they need.

Clearly independence wasn't a guaranteed cure for anything but it's not like the current regime does us any good.

pinno

k-dog wrote:

VTech wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

I found mysel...

Indeed...

If you...

And if you didn't count the over 65s it was a resounding Yes.

I said...

Meanwhile those with young families haven't got 2 beans to rub together - unless they're a banker or estate agent etc. and are paying 6 times their salary to buy a house that's half as big as they need.

Clearly independence wasn't a guaranteed cure for anything but it's not like the current regime does us any good.

Stop talking sense you tw@t - this is an internet forum.

VTech

cc78 wrote:

Salmond has turned a small minority view into the most influential party in Scotland, and he nearly won a referendum vote that would have been unthinkable less than 20 years ago, both with regard to its subject and the number of people of people who actually turned out to vote.

For what it's worth, I think there will be another referendum within a decade and this time it will be yes.

VTech wrote:

There has always been huge hatred for the english by the scottish, its unjust in modern times and harmful.

"huge hatred"... simplistic, infantile, total and utter garbage

Please don't pretend that the scotts love the english, OK hatred was way over the top but scottish people dislike english as a whole, they feel that the english get the better deal and abuse rights over scotland. They do HATE anything sporting towards the english and would pick any country in the world over england at any sport.

I also believe strongly that people voted against england because its england and not because it was in the interest of scotland which is a sin.

simonhead

Sorry Vtech, you are wrong, most Scots are indifferent to the English, there is banter which may be misconstrued and there is a small minority that hate and even then this is not aimed at Mr Average Englishman. In sport its rivalry is the same as England V Australia,Germany etc again no real hatred amongst the vast majority.

Most English and Scots see each other a bit like the neighbour that you see in the street, would sign for a parcel for or put their bin away but wouldnt go out on a friday night with.

bompington

simonhead wrote:

Sorry Vtech, you are wrong

deeply astonished that anyone should feel the need to say this.

VTech

simonhead wrote:

Sorry Vtech, you are wrong, most Scots are indifferent to the English, there is banter which may be misconstrued and there is a small minority that hate and even then this is not aimed at Mr Average Englishman. In sport its rivalry is the same as England V Australia,Germany etc again no real hatred amongst the vast majority.

Most English and Scots see each other a bit like the neighbour that you see in the street, would sign for a parcel for or put their bin away but wouldnt go out on a friday night with.

I can't agree, If australia were playing england I would support england, if australia were playing brazil I would not support either.
The sottish support anyone but the english no matter what the side but of course thats just sport.
Im not saying this is anything more than rivalry but it is valid non-the-less as we are meant to be partners and I have no issues with anyone but I do struggle to see how anyone could argue the fact that the scottish would in an ideal world prefer to be their own people and rule themselves without any support from anyone.

OK some will say they voted against a exertion so what I have wrote must be wrong but it isn't, they voted no because that was the best outcome for them. It is common sense to do what suits you best rather than what you class as ideal.