Stuart Dickson Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Your absolutely right, Gordon Brown has no authority to make pledges, but it wasn't him that made the pledge it was the PM his deputy and the leader of the opposition. Mr brown merely set a timetable. I respect your position that you feel more British than Scottish, however surely having the ability to make decisions closer to where they will be implemented can only be of benefit to all concerned no matter your political perspective. Just to come back to this as well, have you read the vow that the three political leaders signed? They've basically met the terms of that right now. There's no attempt to close Holyrood, despite that being what I think would be best for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament will have new powers - as agreed under the Scotland Act. And the Scottish NHS is completely devolved therefore the only people who could decide how much is spent on the NHS is indeed the Scottish Government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluff Cultivator Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Platitude or no, I keep repeating the borrowed words of Ted Kennedy so aptly uttered by Alex Salmond in his concession/passing the torch speech: "...The dream shall never die" But the old unionist tosspots on here will. No smiley required. My grin will be permanently locked long before rigor mortis sets in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 So unlucky for you moving out of the area in the last couple of months as well. WTF are you talking about? I've lived in North Lanarkshire since 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 My mistake then, I thought ML8 was in South Lanarkshire. It is I dont live in ML8 anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 I love this Thread ... Night night !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 But........... http://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/forums/index.php/topic/38380-paisley-post-code/page-2#entry1182378 Stalker...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strummer Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 I think failing to convince the people in your great leaders own region - so much so he ducked the count - is an embarrassing defeat. I think the huge votes - almost 70% against Independence - in the islands and down in Dumfries showed just how badly the argument about politics being too one region centric went for the Yes Campaign. I think the fact that area's like Midlothian, Edinburgh and South Lanarkshire voted No show that even in their own heartlands the independence campaign failed to hit the mark. Even in f**king Renfrewshire the voters came out on a No vote. Successfully making your argument in just 4 out of 32 regions is a tanking. And losing by over 10% of the voting population is a doing in anyones language With the freedom movement losing by only 5 % only a bitter unionist could use the word "tanking" when looking at the percentage figure...its like saying you ve hammered every team in the league 1 0 ..and with a few dodgy penalties and dubious refereeing decisions. .your language seems to be bordering on the manic..kind of Ian Paisley ish..there was a lot of closely run areas and if the election was run again there would be a different out come..on the under dogs side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) With the freedom movement losing by only 5 % only a bitter unionist could use the word "tanking" when looking at the percentage figure...its like saying you ve hammered every team in the league 1 0 ..and with a few dodgy penalties and dubious refereeing decisions. .your language seems to be bordering on the manic..kind of Ian Paisley ish..there was a lot of closely run areas and if the election was run again there would be a different out come..on the under dogs side. Just like the last time you've got absolutely no idea what the no vote would be. It could just as easily be argued that there was a silent majority in Scotland who have a steely, but quiet determination to ensure independence never happens. After all despite the No Camp running a very disjointed campaign the still managed to get over 2.1m Scots out to vote. Indeed I think the nonsense of the last few days when Yes voters have called us everything from traitors to English bastards and the likes of Salmond and Sillars appear to have completely lost the plot, you'll find the resolve of No voters could well be even more entrenched. As for your analogy if a team plays a 32 game season, wins 28 and loses only 4 youd say they walked the title. This is no different. The Yes Campaign threw everything they had at this and yet they completely lost 28 regions, including your leaders home one. How embarrassing for you...... Edited September 23, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E=Mc2 Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 With the freedom movement losing by only 5 % only a bitter unionist could use the word "tanking" when looking at the percentage figure...its like saying you ve hammered every team in the league 1 0 ..and with a few dodgy penalties and dubious refereeing decisions. .your language seems to be bordering on the manic..kind of Ian Paisley ish..there was a lot of closely run areas and if the election was run again there would be a different out come..on the under dogs side. For the Yes campaign to reverse the result and have the No campaign "losing by only 5%" it would require over 19% of the No voters to change to being a Yes voter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 For the Yes campaign to reverse the result and have the No campaign "losing by only 5%" it would require over 19% of the No voters to change to being a Yes voter. You'll be needing new batteries for that calculator soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 You'll be needing new batteries for that calculator soon. I bet he has a solar powered one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 How did you arrive at those figures of 2-5%? Did you just make them up off the top of your head? On your second point, do you know a 'hue amount' of people? And specifically, do you know a 'huge amount' of people who were going to vote yes and then switched to yes? How many people are we talking about? How did you ask them all? Did you manage to ask them all over the weekend? Or did you just make that up off the top of your head as well?... beyond our ken, on 21 Sept 2014 - 21:42, said: I think the vow, coupled with previous assertions of more powers probably accounted for anything from 2-5% of a late swing concentrate hard Phil, the words in bold are important. You have to read ALL of the words in a sentence to understand what the WHOLE sentence means. Living in Fife, i can tell you that Brown's intervention on THAT bandwagon took a huge amount of voters over to NO TV and radio reports local newspapers talking to local politicians speaking to people who work at rosyth dockyard, grangemouth, longannett and other places with large Fife based work-forces. Also, my wfe is involved in local politics, as are some of our friends and they have knowledge 24 years of living and working in this area telling me how Brown is almost sanctified by the local labour party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E=Mc2 Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Are you saying that the "freedom movement" was the "No campaign"? Well, it was only them that brought up Braveheart so I suppose, in a way, you are correct. Using Joe Strummer's logic the of "freedom movement losing by only 5%" makes them the No campaign. “And so now I'd like to say - people can change anything they want to. And that means everything in the world. People are running about following their little tracks - I am one of them. But we've all got to stop just following our own little mouse trail. People can do anything - this is something that I'm beginning to learn. People are out there doing bad things to each other. That's because they've been dehumanised. It's time to take the humanity back into the center of the ring and follow that for a time. Greed, it ain't going anywhere. They should have that in a big billboard across Times Square. Without people you're nothing. That's my spiel.” ― Joe Strummer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 If you think Salmond has lost the plot then you obviously don't understand, it's actually a very shrewd move. Your imaginary team might not have even won the title as the 4 games they lost could all have been to the one team, who also won all their other games - so your imaginary team may have lost the league by 12 points - they were "tanked" according to you. If you are going to try using analogies, at least make them accurate. It wasn't a 32 team league though. There was just 2 teams and yours won 4 and lost 28. Relegation form in anyone's language Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil McCracken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 With the freedom movement losing by only 5 % only a bitter unionist could use the word "tanking" when looking at the percentage figure No = 2,001,926 Yes = 1,617,989 2,001,926 / 1,617,989 - 1 = 23.7% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil McCracken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) beyond our ken, on 21 Sept 2014 - 21:42, said: As I suspected. You just made the figures up off the top of your head. Thanks for confirming. Edited September 23, 2014 by Phil McCracken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 As I suspected. You just made the figures up off the top of your head. Thanks for confirming. Whatever, i offered an opinion and gave you the information i used to base my assumptions on, it is a debate-or so i thought. i didn't realise we had already evolved from a fascist state to your stalinist dictatorship since thursday. incidentally, you realise that to deny Brown & the vow had an effect on the vote had a galvanising effect on the swithering NOs is just as spurious as any other viewpoint. to argue otherwise is to offer the stalinist viewpoint that opinion is fact as long as it comes from the party. i am just watching a straw poll at the labour conference coming out in a majority for GB going back into the front line of labour. His recent intervention was unwelcome to me but clearly galvanised the swithering NO vote-to what extent is unclear, but it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil McCracken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Whatever, i offered an opinion and gave you the information i used to base my assumptions on, it is a debate-or so i thought. i didn't realise we had already evolved from a fascist state to your stalinist dictatorship since thursday. incidentally, you realise that to deny Brown & the vow had an effect on the vote had a galvanising effect on the swithering NOs is just as spurious as any other viewpoint. to argue otherwise is to offer the stalinist viewpoint that opinion is fact as long as it comes from the party. i am just watching a straw poll at the labour conference coming out in a majority for GB going back into the front line of labour. His recent intervention was unwelcome to me but clearly galvanised the swithering NO vote-to what extent is unclear, but it happened. Are you justifying your made up figures to yourself or to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 What the f**k is that supposed to prove? Honestly, I'd like a reasoned answer to this as I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are attempting to prove with that calculation (even if your calculation was correct).Of course itvalso conveniently ignores the fact that with only 2 choices, when one side gains a vote, the other loses one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E=Mc2 Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Of course itvalso conveniently ignores the fact that with only 2 choices, when one side gains a vote, the other loses one. You are forgetting the 660,048 voters on the electoral roll who abstained. Abstaining was also a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Of course it wasn't a 32 team lead - you're just proving, once again, that you don't understand numbers. A 32 team league would consist of multiples of 31 as the amount of games - unless you have concocted something even weirder that our split. I was actually assuming a 9 or 17 team league playing each other 4 times or 2 times each respectively (4*8=32 and 2*16=32 - just so you know) - a bit weird in the numbers, I admit, but nowhere near as weird as you talking about a 32 team league with consists of 32 games. If you are trying (too hard) to compare it directly to the referendum (with 2 sides) then are you saying that: (1) we are going to have another 31 referendums? - Not going to happen as 1 will be enough. (2) that we would have more independence referendums even after "my team" won the first of their 4? - Not going to happen, obviously. (3) both of the above?- Not going to happen. (4) something even weirder? - I really want to see this - go on, go on, go on, go on ... 32 matches were played up and down the country with Yes playing No. Yes won 4. No won 28. Again in anyone's language that's a f**king doing. The goals for were No - 2,001,926 Yes - 1,617,989 from which I can only conclude that Marc McAusland must have been playing in both sides defences..... Over the course of those 32 matches you conceded a massive 383.957 more votes. And when you consider that equates to just under 9% of the number of people in Scotland who were eligible to vote it's still a f**king doing. You (and by you I mean the Yes Campaigners in general) threw everything at this. Absolutely everything. Your lied like f**k, told all your members how to answer questions posed of it so as not to give the game away. You spread shit stories about the NHS that were meaningless, lies about what would happen in the event of even a minor accident at Faslane (claiming it would wipe out all living life forms in Scotland, whilst leaving everything else completely unscathed from just south of Dumfries) whilst knowing that there's hundreds of minor accidents at Faslane every single year since it opened with not one death as yet. You threw xenophobia into the mix, and a ridiculous form of inverted snobbery claiming that the well educated shouldn't be in power , spent money fighting a legal battle against Freedom of Information requests to try to hide the fact that you had no idea whether you would get European Union membership. You threatened business leaders, threatened party activists and smeared individuals. You arranged mob squads to try to intimidate members of the public who might want to ask Jim Murphy or Nigel Farage a question. You put peoples saving accounts and pension plans on the line. You risked devaluing people's houses by £31,000 (according to Zoopla). You made pledges on free nursery care, free old people care, increased pension payments, a reduced pensionable age, and spent Trident money at least four times over despite knowing that you wouldn't make any savings on Trident until 2025. Now Scotland is faced with a situation where we're going to have to close A&E departments in hospitals - like Monklands - due to a massive funding gap that has been left by the SNP Scottish Government. A funding gap created by the expensive policy of giving middle class, rich and elite Scots free prescriptions and providing free car parking at all hospitals, despite warnings that would mean maintenance of roads and parking spaces coming out of the healthcare budget. You threw everything at this - your once in a lifetime opportunity - and you still come up woefully short, trounced in every single region in Scotland bar 4 and that despite the fact that the No Thanks campaign was a cluster f**k from start to finish. No wonder Salmond resigned in disgrace. No wonder most of Scotland is laughing at you. All your rage and bullshit bravado means f**k all. You lost in your one and only chance for independence in your lifetime. Shame really. Ditch the chip on your shoulder and accept the pummelling that you got. It'll be far more healthy than hanging on to a pile of rubbish what ifs. Anyway, never mind. Stewart Campbell is a good bit richer for it all. A man living in Bath who's now done with Scotland forever. Edited September 23, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil McCracken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 What the f**k is that supposed to prove? Honestly, I'd like a reasoned answer to this as I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are attempting to prove with that calculation (even if your calculation was correct). Its supposed to prove that the number of no votes was 23.7% greater than the number of yes votes. I know that you have a problem with numbers so don't feel bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 ^^^^^ What a f**kin clusterf**k of a Metdown from Dicko... and NO won! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil McCracken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Of course itvalso conveniently ignores the fact that with only 2 choices, when one side gains a vote, the other loses one. Leaving aside the fact that there were 3 choices, your post is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil McCracken Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 ^^^^^ What a f**kin clusterf**k of a Metdown from Dicko... and NO won! ^^^^^ seething Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.