The Referendum Thread

[saintnextlifetime]

The question you are obviously ignoring is what would happen if an EMPLOYER sent a message to every colleague saying Yes is the way he would vote cos it makes 'sense'.

The answer, of course, is NOTHING. And rightly, too. He would only be offering his mere, and legal, opinion.

And immediatelyhis business and it's prospects get threatened.

THAT is why I knew Herr Dixon would have the open goal he has gladly exploited.

It may appear overkill with his constancy, but he has more point than the YES hysterics on here who'd abuse everyone with a contrary opinion.

In the past I was constantly depressed by every Election that Thatcher won. I couldn't understand why most of my neighbours could fail to see the "illogic and immorality" underpinning her views. It took a while to get over the losses.

Elections can be won as well as lost. Be prepared.

I reckon , that without her , we would not be in the position now whereby we are having a referendum on self determinism . The woman decimated Scotland , decimated it. .

She also decimated , in particular , industry in Lanarkshire , home (allegedly) of a certain , staunch Tory supporter, perhaps the only member left of the NSDAP. .

[2becks]

With all due respect Stuart, constant harping about pre-war Germany has nothing to do with this debate.

Now if you had been referencing the 'brown trousers' of the BT campaign as they realise scare tactics aren't working, then I'd say bicycle clips are in desperate need.

Perhaps you could refer the simpleton to Godwin's law. I think it just about covers his interjection.

[RickMcD]

Perhaps you could refer the simpleton to Godwin's law. I think it just about covers his interjection.

I've had Stu on ignore for a while because I can't stand his constant carping at St.Mirren. Recently, though, I've seen some of his posts on this thread because you lot keep quoting him. He's ploughing a lonely furrow,by and large, but at times he scores fairly heavily. It strikes me that the Yes campaign never acknowledges that the BT crowd do have some perfectly legitimate arguments and points to make.

I still think this is a crazily extended campaign but acknowledge it is without precedent. What happened to keeping your powder dry? The last month or so will hopefully be a lot more meaningful and interesting than the current borefest which on this forum consists mainly of knocking everything said by the No people with the only evidence usually being what such and such a journalist or economist has said.

[beyond our ken]

The question you are obviously ignoring is what would happen if an EMPLOYER sent a message to every colleague saying Yes is the way he would vote cos it makes 'sense'.

The answer, of course, is NOTHING. And rightly, too. He would only be offering his mere, and legal, opinion.

And immediatelyhis business and it's prospects get threatened.

THAT is why I knew Herr Dixon would have the open goal he has gladly exploited.

It may appear overkill with his constancy, but he has more point than the YES hysterics on here who'd abuse everyone with a contrary opinion.

In the past I was constantly depressed by every Election that Thatcher won. I couldn't understand why most of my neighbours could fail to see the "illogic and immorality" underpinning her views. It took a while to get over the losses.

Elections can be won as well as lost. Be prepared.

Re the bit in bold, are you sure about this ? Is there evidence to support it? i remember the reaction to the Stagecoach owner appearing on question time was very personal and moved from the question of independence on to other areas s that were somewhat off-topic

And as for the so-called hysteria, have you read some of the condescending pish that you buddy Dickson spouts. i was subjected to abuse for having a differing view

But the truth always gets in the way of a good old troll though, doesnt it Blut?

[Stuart Dickson]

Re the bit in bold, are you sure about this ? Is there evidence to support it? i remember the reaction to the Stagecoach owner appearing on question time was very personal and moved from the question of independence on to other areas s that were somewhat off-topic

And as for the so-called hysteria, have you read some of the condescending pish that you buddy Dickson spouts. i was subjected to abuse for having a differing view

But the truth always gets in the way of a good old troll though, doesnt it Blut?

Hmm, here's your perceived persecution of Brian Souter on Question Time....

He wasn't asked the Question as a random act by someone in the audience. The questioner was referencing the SNP plans to make gay marriage legal in Scotland. And to put this all into context Souter also had history in this as he personally funded a national referendum on Section 28 of the Local Government Act which prohibited schools from teaching the acceptability of homosexuality as a "pretend family relationship". Souter wanted to keep Section 28.and his campaign was ultimately viewed as homophobic, even by many who accept Souters funding within the SNP.

If you watch the video you'll see that Souter wasn't being targeted because of his nationalistic views, it had far more to do with the fact that he appears to be a raging homophobe who was stupid enough to appear on National TV having had a little bit too much alcohol prior to the show.

I take it you are also familiar with the whole premise of BBC Question TIme. It's supposed to show a debate about political issues of the day - it has never been a programme solely focused on Scottish Independence

Edited April 2, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Bart Simpson]

Perhaps you could refer the simpleton to Godwin's law. I think it just about covers his interjection.

I hadn't seen that before. Is it because Stuart likes to comment on all internet topics or because the debate descends and grinds to a halt eventually?

ETA: the answer for this topic was # 192, Page 10, but no prizes for guessing who made the reference.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Bart Simpson

[Bart Simpson]

It may appear overkill with his constancy, but he has more point than the YES hysterics on here who'd abuse everyone with a contrary opinion.

In the past I was constantly depressed by every Election that Thatcher won. I couldn't understand why most of my neighbours could fail to see the "illogic and immorality" underpinning her views. It took a while to get over the losses.

Elections can be won as well as lost. Be prepared.

Bluto, as per my opening posts on this thread, Scotland won't simply float away into the Atlantic or the North Sea, nor will it gravitate towards London the day after the referendum vote. We will all go back to work with those who voted with and against us.

Neither result will be without hardship and tough choices, the question is which option you believe is better for Scotland and it's residents.

Healthy debate is important, but ultimately you have to make a choice. I think a Yes vote would be best, but I respect those who disagree with this opinion. I simply don't think that it is helpful to make reference to pre-war Germany at every turn.

I will indeed be disappointed if Scotland votes No, but I will have to accept it as will all Yes voters. I do not envisage the persecution suggested regardless of the result of the vote, the referencing is simply inflammatory and tedious.

[Bart Simpson]

The reason for keeping a record of events in history isn't for our entertainment, it's for us to learn from to ensure we don't make the same mistakes. In Scotland we have a large minority of our population who repeating the mistakes from German history whether it's blindly and unquestioningly accepting the Nationalist propaganda as fact or whether it is in terms of trying desperately to silence opposing voices and suppressing free speech. The good news for Scotland is that it is a minority and the rest of the country has spotted it for what it is. Scotland will still be a part of the UK post referendum and the Yes Campaign will eventually go down as one of the worst campaigns ever fought. Lets just hope the Natsi's accept democratic will and that we don't see a Scottish Kristalnacht

Stuart your opinion is your opinion. I would respect you points more if you offered a balanced view at times. You often answer back stating you used to feel a particular way but worldly wisdom has changed your mind. However, you fail to point out that there are entrenched views on either side of the argument who will argue diametrically opposite points with the exactly same information. You highlight only one side though and in a very inflammatory and tedious manner with your repeated referencing of pre-war Germany.

The question is where you want Scotland to go in the future, not fixating on the past. Referencing pre-war Germany detracts from some perfectly valid points. It is right to question both arguments and to scrutinise them fairly. Equating one side to 'Mein Kampf' though isn't useful or accurate, unless you know something about Scotland that I don't know.

[beyond our ken]

Hmm, here's your perceived persecution of Brian Souter on Question Time....

He wasn't asked the Question as a random act by someone in the audience. The questioner was referencing the SNP plans to make gay marriage legal in Scotland. And to put this all into context Souter also had history in this as he personally funded a national referendum on Section 28 of the Local Government Act which prohibited schools from teaching the acceptability of homosexuality as a "pretend family relationship". Souter wanted to keep Section 28.and his campaign was ultimately viewed as homophobic, even by many who accept Souters funding within the SNP.

If you watch the video you'll see that Souter wasn't being targeted because of his nationalistic views, it had far more to do with the fact that he appears to be a raging homophobe who was stupid enough to appear on National TV having had a little bit too much alcohol prior to the show.

I take it you are also familiar with the whole premise of BBC Question TIme. It's supposed to show a debate about political issues of the day - it has never been a programme solely focused on Scottish Independence

I was, of course, talking about the reaction on this forum to his support for independence.

Taking your head out of your own arse may well help you follow the debate

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The question you are obviously ignoring is what would happen if an EMPLOYER sent a message to every colleague saying Yes is the way he would vote cos it makes 'sense'.

The answer, of course, is NOTHING. And rightly, too. He would only be offering his mere, and legal, opinion.

And immediatelyhis business and it's prospects get threatened.

THAT is why I knew Herr Dixon would have the open goal he has gladly exploited.

It may appear overkill with his constancy, but he has more point than the YES hysterics on here who'd abuse everyone with a contrary opinion.

In the past I was constantly depressed by every Election that Thatcher won. I couldn't understand why most of my neighbours could fail to see the "illogic and immorality" underpinning her views. It took a while to get over the losses.

Elections can be won as well as lost. Be prepared.

Mr chingford, I do enjoy both the banter and debate with yourself and (some) others who favour the butchers apron on this thread. I do however find that in recent weeks you are becoming increasingly erratic in your views.

Do you really believe that an employer should write to all their employees telling them how to vote? Do you really believe that this poor multi millionaire (oxymoron?) has been threatened? Have you been reading the daily mail again?

I genuinely thought you were more socialist or at least socially democratic in your views.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Quoting articles off Nationalist websites is like having a German quote sections of Mein Kampf.

As the wishaw troll has ignored repeated attempts to get him to explain this quote, I can only conclude that he is now castigating the whole of the german nation / race in addition to calling any supporter of Scottish independence a nazi.

The irony...

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Batter together?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/glasgow-political-row-ends-in-pub-brawl.20455773

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Dictionary of Unionese

Alicsammin: The UK press believes the referendum question is “Do you want Scotland to be an alicsammin country?” It’s all about Alicsammin. Alicsammin is the only person in Scotland who wants independence, no one else had ever thought of the idea before he did. This is why the press constantly attacks Alicsammin, because if people don’t like him they wouldn’t dream of voting yes.

Anglophobia: Any sentence uttered by a supporter of Scottish independence which contains the words “England” or “English”.

Banter: A racist slur directed against Scottish people in the UK media. It’s just a bit of a laff.

Barroso: An EU mannikin, a Portuguese Tory with pals in the Spanish Partido Popular – but he’s still a neutral voice of authority because he’s foreign. Barroso is the latest technological advance in talking dolls, no more having to pull a on a string to hear a selection of rote comments – if you offer to support his candidacy for the post of chief of NATO, you can get him to say anything you want.

BBC: The neutral, unbiased and utterly impartial broadcasters of Great British News Bake Off, a light hearted competition presented by Andrew Marr in which contestants vie to cook up scare stories against independence from sour dough.

Big Beast: A Westminster dinosaur with a well padded bank account and an enormous sense of entitlement.

Bullying: Criticism of Westminster, any unionist, or any unionist media outlet, by an online supporter of Scottish independence. The British Government is regularly bullied by an arthritic granny in Fife whose grandson bought her a laptop for Christmas. She keeps sending Alistair Darling messages telling him his tea is oot.

Currency union: Mentioning a currency union will provoke a temper tantrum, foot stamping, and “But you can’t make me! It’s not fair!” – which results in being put on the naughty debt step.

Cybernat: An independence supporter with an internet connection and an attitude. According to the Unionists, cybernats are controlled by Alicsammin’s mind control waves and form part of an organised and highly disciplined army of robots which Alicsammin can switch on an off simply by sticking his tongue in a filling. This is sadly mistaken, cybernats think independently.

Devo Journey: The process by which the Labour party ensures it has power in Holyrood and Alistair Darling gets a seat in the House of Lords.

Devomax / Federal Britain: A unicorn, occasionally glimpsed by wishful thinkers and fantasists.

Difficult questions: Questions where the answer is withheld by the questioner, like a magic trick performed by an end of the pier conjurer but with Johann Lamont instead of a cute fluffy bunny. The process works by a combination of distraction techniques and ensuring that the audience don’t have enough information to be able to work the trick out for themselves – like the UK Government’s trickery over Scottish EU membership, or Labour’s devo-diddlysquat proposals and hints of possible jam. Better Together are believed to have employed Paul Daniels as a consultant on difficult questions. Sadly they ignored his advice to get rid of the fright wig.

Foreigner: A state of alienation and abandonment which prevents you from laughing at British comedy shows. Citizens of the Irish Republic are immune, and are also immune from being brought up by Unionists as an example when they assert Scots will become foreign.

Galloway: An ego on stilts and the true saviour of the Union. Galloway will save the Union by asking everyone to wait for a properly socialist Labour party. He doesn’t know when it will arrive, he doesn’t know how to create one, but he thinks it’s a good idea because it keeps him on the telly. His flag is a red flag, and in order to make sure his flag keeps on being the red flag, he wants Scotland to have a red white and blue one.

Hatred: The misguided belief that a country is best governed by the people who live there.

Naughtie: Unit of measurement for anti-independence bias on the BBC. One Naughtie is worth ten Reporting Scotlands and five Sally Magnussons.

Nationalism: The root of all human evil, but thankfully Westminster is immune which is why they’ve never done anything bad, ever. British nationalism is the only non-nationalist nationalism on the planet because it stops people in the UK from being foreign. And being foreign is bad, but it’s not nationalist to say that if you’re British.

Negativity: Any expression of confidence in the future of Scotland which doesn’t include a high profile post for Jim Murphy.

Positive case for the Union: A species of jam tomorrow, always promised but never arrives.

Proudscotbut: A defense mechanism employed by Unionist politicians when making statements or adopting policies which are damaging to Scotland. Proudscotbut covers up for a multitude of mortal sins that Unionist politicians won’t admit to. Neither god nor the Scottish electorate is going to be fooled.

SNP: The only political party supporting Scottish independence, but only because they’re controlled by Alicsammin’s mind waves. They don’t really support independence, they’re just blinded by Alicsammin’s halo.

Thinking it through: What independence supporters haven’t done during the past 50 years or so that independence, the constitutional question, and the Scottish identity have been debated and discussed in Scotland. People from south of the border who have just arrived at the debate and know nothing about it are able to think things through in the 10 seconds it takes them to leave an irate comment in the Guardian complaining that Alicsammin hates English people.

Uncertainty: The only uncertainties are what happens after independence. The Union gives Scotland the certainty that it will continue to get Tory governments and things will stay as crap as they are just now forever. The Union also gives us the certainty that things will get much much worse after Westminster has pissed away the last of the oil revenues without investing them in Scotland’s future.

[bluto]

I reckon , that without her , we would not be in the position now whereby we are having a referendum on self determinism . The woman decimated Scotland , decimated it. .

She also decimated , in particular , industry in Lanarkshire , home (allegedly) of a certain , staunch Tory supporter, perhaps the only member left of the NSDAP. .

And without the SNP scuttling the Labour government she would never have reared her vicious head in Scotland.

And as for the so-called hysteria, have you read some of the condescending pish that you buddy Dickson spouts. i was subjected to abuse for having a different view

Being abused by Dixon on a forum does not compare to a businessperson and their business being reviled by a substantial number of the populace. You know your attacker and can respond individually, whilst your (and your employees) income is not jeopardised. No comparison.

Mr chingford, I do enjoy both the banter and debate with yourself and (some) others who favour the butchers apron on this thread. I do however find that in recent weeks you are becoming increasingly erratic in your views.

Do you really believe that an employer should write to all their employees telling them how to vote? Do you really believe that this poor multi millionaire (oxymoron?) has been threatened? Have you been reading the daily mail again?

I genuinely thought you were more socialist or at least socially democratic in your views.

I merely pondered on the non- reaction that would have greeted a Yes man doing the same thing. I note that no yes men on this thread has seen fit to respond to that. All merely offering whataboutery, or, as you so deftly do - deflection.

I think that proves my comment was substantial, worthwhile and impossible to rebut.

Thank you.

Edited April 2, 2014 by bluto

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

The question you are obviously ignoring is what would happen if an EMPLOYER sent a message to every colleague saying Yes is the way he would vote cos it makes 'sense'.

The answer, of course, is NOTHING. And rightly, too. He would only be offering his mere, and legal, opinion.

And immediately his business and it's prospects get threatened.

The point i'm making is simply this; no matter from which side of the debate you're arguing from, any employer would frown at any employee using company resources/time to convey political views. So, he should set an example. In this case he just didn't think it out.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Desperately Seeking Susans

[bluto]

The point i'm making is simply this; no matter from which side of the debate you're arguing from, any employer would frown at any employee using company resources/time to convey political views. So, he should set an example. In this case he just didn't think it out.

That was obviously your point, but from my point of view it ignored the more important dog-whistle yes man howls of over-reaction, which would not have occurred if a Yes businessperson had done the same thing.

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

That was obviously your point, but from my point of view it ignored the more important dog-whistle yes man howls of over-reaction, which would not have occurred if a Yes businessperson had done the same thing.

Yes it would - from the NO camp!

[Stuart Dickson]

I was, of course, talking about the reaction on this forum to his support for independence.

Taking your head out of your own arse may well help you follow the debate

Hmm, I can't remember that. Maybe you should link to it. I certainly can't remember mass calls for a boycott of Stagecoach. :rolleyes;

[Stuart Dickson]

Yes it would - from the NO camp!

Nonsense. There have been a few, a very few, businessmen who have said that Scottish Independence would be a good thing. One who immediately springs to mind is Willie Walsh. He said a few weeks back that he thought Scottish Independence could be "marginally positive" for his company due to the fact that the Scottish Government has pledged to slash air passenger duty. Did we see an avalanche of No voters queuing up to call for a boycott of British Airways or any of the other airlines in the International Airlines Group? Nope. Nothing whatsoever, not even on here.

Compare that with some of the silly Natsi responses about Barrhead Travel on here in the last couple of days.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[bluto]

Yes it would - from the NO camp!

I was going to answer you this a.m. by saying I didn't think so, couldn't imagine anyone caring enough and that the only person rabid enough on the subject to contemplate doing so might be Herr Dixon.

I was wrong.

He has responded to your unsubstantiated claim in a remarkably measured way (for Herr Dixon) in the two above posts.

Edited April 3, 2014 by bluto

[shull]

23 potholes on my street now.

[RickMcD]

The point i'm making is simply this; no matter from which side of the debate you're arguing from, any employer would frown at any employee using company resources/time to convey political views. So, he should set an example. In this case he just didn't think it out.

I don't know a thing about Barrhead Travel's set up but the Head Honcho can say what he likes if he owns or is chairman of the company. He can't tell employees how to vote but if he genuinely has reason to thinks Scottish Independence could have a negative effect oh his business, he'd be a pretty shit employer not to speak up. A negative consequence is a possibility but I realise Yes people recognise no negatives in the whole Independence movement. Or have I missed something?

[Stuart Dickson]

23 potholes on my street now.

You should move to Wishaw Shull. The way Scottish Water and the local council have ripped the roads apart over the last few weeks must mean that soon we will have the smoothest roads in Scotland.

[beyond our ken]

And without the SNP scuttling the Labour government she would never have reared her vicious head in Scotland.

Being abused by Dixon on a forum does not compare to a businessperson and their business being reviled by a substantial number of the populace. You know your attacker and can respond individually, whilst your (and your employees) income is not jeopardised. No comparison.

I merely pondered on the non- reaction that would have greeted a Yes man doing the same thing. I note that no yes men on this thread has seen fit to respond to that. All merely offering whataboutery, or, as you so deftly do - deflection.

I think that proves my comment was substantial, worthwhile and impossible to rebut.

Thank you.

Well well, tangle with a blut and a dicko comes along -tangle with Dick and the blut appears at his shoulder. something of a recent pattern.

And as for knowing dick, are you serious? so many backflips and deflections make it impossible to follow him

and now, it seems, both of you are impossible to take seriously

Edited April 3, 2014 by beyond our ken

[RickMcD]

Well well, tangle with a blut and a dicko comes along -tangle with Dick and the blut appears at his shoulder. something of a recent pattern.

And as for knowing dick, are you serious? so many backflips and deflections make it impossible to follow him

and now, it seems, both of you are impossible to take seriously

And typical from you and your fellow travellers. Zippo to say promoting Yes apart from regurgitating bits of your white paper and abusing the opposition. So many of you seem to think if you say something often enough it must be true. I don't know StuDick at all and I think he talks crap about football and especially St.Mirren but he has made some valid points about the Yes campaign. Usually you don't even attempt to answer them. You just start abuse all over again.