oaksoft Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 The BBC reports over 6000 attendance. That's almost twice as much as Motherwell typical home gate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I would have said more like 8000-9000 but then again I never went round and counted everyone like, I'm sure, the BBC did. There were only about 8 police there that I saw (and I walked round the whole square) including 2 on horseback. I'm sure that will break GCC coffers like Dorothy makes out. The local coffee shops / Gregg's / etc were doing a roaring trade - Queen St station must have made a fortune out of people going for a piss, too - 30p a whizz (they weren't charging to start with and then suddenly - just as I went, of course - the turnstile wouldn't turn unless you paid). Yep. I would say the total attendance throughout the day was way more than quoted. We did not get there till 3pm and the train we got from Paisley was already full of Rally attenders when we got on it. Also sat outside a Pub in one of the streets leading to the square (for a wee refreshment) around 4.30 and there was still a constant stream of folk heading there. You know how the 'authorities' like to play down the numbers at these events... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 No-one was conned. The 55% saw through the Yes Campaign's lack of credibility and decided we weren't interested. More power for Holyrood was never a factor. I didn't say "the 55" were conned, I said "a chunk of the 55" were conned. Say, ooh, let's see......about 6%, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I didn't say "the 55" were conned, I said "a chunk of the 55" were conned. Say, ooh, let's see......about 6%, maybe? 6% of the 55% wouldn't have helped you very much. You would still have lost. And nobody on the Yes side was conned or coerced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 No need to be facetious, Rick, you know exactly what was meant. Doesn't it make you feel a bit dirty siding with StuD and i(nept)Tony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 No need to be facetious, Rick, you know exactly what was meant. Doesn't it make you feel a bit dirty siding with StuD and i(nept)Tony? I did of course know what you meant. I think a slight arithmetic error like that by a No like me would have been commented on. The two guys you name did make some perfectly valid points at times. Stu just rambles about politics as he does about football. To counter-balance that, the Yes campaign benefited massively from from the 'Get It Right Up The English' morons. I know it is a minority but it's a significant minority. You know it exists but the howls of denial will emerge again. Boaky at least had the guts to admit he would take independence even if Scotland was worse off, as it certainly would have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Š Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I didn't say "the 55" were conned, I said "a chunk of the 55" were conned. Say, ooh, let's see......about 6%, maybe? I doubt it. Every single opinion poll bar one showed that the country would vote No by quite a healthy margin long before Brown decided to speak. Let's go into the General Election with no changes and see what the Scottish electorate want. If they vote Labour then it's clear they don't want change, if they vote SNP then it'll be up to the SNP to strike deals to get the power they want, which will probably mean them keeping David Cameron in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I didn't say "the 55" were conned, I said "a chunk of the 55" were conned. Say, ooh, let's see......about 6%, maybe? Are you referring to the British Government going against it's own rules on the constitution ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Oh dear. It appears there is something fish about the rally http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/shamed-politician-tommy-sheridan-faces-4424533 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 There may be something fishy about the organisors of the rally, I don't have enough information to make an informed judgement. There's nothing fishy about the spirit which inspired so many people to turn up for it. Two completely different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I did of course know what you meant. I think a slight arithmetic error like that by a No like me would have been commented on. The two guys you name did make some perfectly valid points at times. Stu just rambles about politics as he does about football. To counter-balance that, the Yes campaign benefited massively from from the 'Get It Right Up The English' morons. I know it is a minority but it's a significant minority. You know it exists but the howls of denial will emerge again. Boaky at least had the guts to admit he would take independence even if Scotland was worse off, as it certainly would have been. No certainly about it, Rick. In your opinion, maybe, in mine not so. My opinion is equally valid but I would never make a statement like that. There always has been such a minority, I'm sure I brought it up previously. I've been voting for an independent Scotland since 1979 for precisely the reasons so many people voted Yes this time. In 1979 the SNP got 17% of the vote and I'd guess that 10/17ths of that were in that category. IMO, that %age of the overall population hasn't changed meaning that the number of "converts" is 28/45ths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Debate at Westminster just now, must be important as Broon has turned up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 No certainly about it, Rick. In your opinion, maybe, in mine not so. My opinion is equally valid but I would never make a statement like that. There always has been such a minority, I'm sure I brought it up previously. I've been voting for an independent Scotland since 1979 for precisely the reasons so many people voted Yes this time. In 1979 the SNP got 17% of the vote and I'd guess that 10/17ths of that were in that category. IMO, that %age of the overall population hasn't changed meaning that the number of "converts" is 28/45ths. I made my statement and stand by it. Parties in a normal general election have to try to be fairly circumspect in drawing up its manifesto. They don't want to get in and then get chucked out the next time round when they don't fulfill their promises. Salmond didn't feel restrained in that way because he knew there was no going back had he got his way. So he gilded the lily thinking he could fool enough of the electorate. He failed. His economic policy only fooled those who wanted to believe and those who didn't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 If you're so confident of what's going to happen in the future can I have tonight's Euromillions numbers too, then, please? His economic policy didn't fool me for a moment, I had investigated the potential many, many years before and I am equally confident that an independent Scotland would be a prosperous, thriving & generous place to live & work. Given how many have been converted to this pov there aren't really that many left to win over. It's when, not if, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 You didn't need the last three words. You bloody Scotsmen , that believe in your own country , are all the same. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 If you're so confident of what's going to happen in the future can I have tonight's Euromillions numbers too, then, please? His economic policy didn't fool me for a moment, I had investigated the potential many, many years before and I am equally confident that an independent Scotland would be a prosperous, thriving & generous place to live & work. Given how many have been converted to this pov there aren't really that many left to win over. It's when, not if, in my opinion. Why did Salmond lose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 It wasn't about Salmond. You keep playing the man, I keep playing the Scottish people. The Scottish people are seeing the truth and, imo, and at the risk of repeating myself, it's when, not if. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 It wasn't about Salmond. You keep playing the man, I keep playing the Scottish people. The Scottish people are seeing the truth and, imo, and at the risk of repeating myself, it's when, not if OK I'll alter the question. Why did the Scottish people lose? You are in the minority like it or not. Your post seems a bit confused. What do you mean you are playing the Scottish people? You are fighting them and you can't accept a democratic decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 I don't see how Scotland can be more prosperous on it's own.I can't see how anyone can research the subject in any great depth and come to that conclusion without making massive assumptions on the ability of our people and of our politicians. There was a point maybe 7 or 8 years ago where I believe an Independent Scotland would have been no worse off but since then we've become far more dependent on public sector jobs, our banking sector has collapsed having been found to have had it's wealth built on shifting sands, and it's become much more apparent than ever before that our politicians at Holyrood have even less ability that those we've been sending to Westminster. As for the people who supported the Yes Campaign, they just seem to be a rag bag of mixed up views. When you read someone telling you for months that there's loads of oil in Scotland that is there to be extracted if only we'd do deep water drilling on the Atlantic Shelf suddenly tell you that he would have preferred for the leader of the Green Party to head up an Independent Scotland you begin to realise just how f**ked up their logic is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 OK I'll alter the question. Why did the Scottish people lose? You are in the minority like it or not. Your post seems a bit confused. What do you mean you are playing the Scottish people? You are fighting them and you can't accept a democratic decision. The answer to the first one has been given before, we didn't convince enough of the people of Scotland that Independence was the best option. This time around - when, not if, remember. Next, we are (currently anyway) in the minority, I've never said otherwise. You're being disingenuous with the next question, Rick, you know I'm talking in terms of cards here. You keep playing what you consider your ace - Salmond - and I keep playing a trump to take the trick - the people of Scotland. We're not fighting them, we're educating them. When, not if. But no, you're right, we lost the democratic vote so we should just give up the fight. Like Black Americans did before us. Or suffragettes. Or the Labour party because the Conservatives kept winning the general elections......no, hang on, scratch that last one..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 A quick question for Cameron, Clegg, Milliband or any other No voter out there: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 So £46bn apparently wiped off value of Stock Market today. Must be the uncertainty of the impending referndum. Oh, wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WirralSaint Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 So £46bn apparently wiped off value of Stock Market today. Must be the uncertainty of the impending referndum. Oh, wait... That was a shameful day for our media. TV and newspapers putting out massive scare stories and headlines citing values which were absolutely normal fluxuations in our markets ....in fact a smaller dip than many many days prior. By using the much more emotive Billions of pounds values rather than the normal daily "FTSE is up down 0.7% today" which most people unfamiliar with stocks and shares usually let wash over them every night they managed to portray an image of impending financial disaster. A full days screaming headlines and then absolutely no mention the following day that the exact same value had gone back on the market. "and the pound had dropped Oh my God the pound has dropped"....dropped from one of it's highest previous values in years...hardly unexpected then. That for me nailed just how desperate and baised our media had become to get the result they all wanted as opinion reached 50/50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 That was a shameful day for our media. TV and newspapers putting out massive scare stories and headlines citing values which were absolutely normal fluxuations in our markets ....in fact a smaller dip than many many days prior. By using the much more emotive Billions of pounds values rather than the normal daily "FTSE is up down 0.7% today" which most people unfamiliar with stocks and shares usually let wash over them every night they managed to portray an image of impending financial disaster. A full days screaming headlines and then absolutely no mention the following day that the exact same value had gone back on the market. "and the pound had dropped Oh my God the pound has dropped"....dropped from one of it's highest previous values in years...hardly unexpected then. That for me nailed just how desperate and baised our media had become to get the result they all wanted as opinion reached 50/50 Are you implying that a biased media , attempted to influence a free referendum , by stoking the governments vested interest and printing bogus and misleading reports ? I would hope not . . . .as that is exactly the kind of behaviour our government has a very dim view of when , it happens in other countries , like Uganda. . 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.