The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

I actually cannot believe that the winner of the under-15 Spelling Bee 1985 is quoting a journalists words and ignoring the entirety of the full quotes from the only people who matter - Standard and Poor.

Standard and Poor pretty much sums up your entire intellect bluto.

Standard and Poor are quoted directly from their statement as saying that "in short the challenge for Scotland would be significant, but not insurpassable". That line appears to be conveniently missed out of the pro Independence Agenda websites reporting on the whole issue. They have also said that the AAA rating was subject to an Independent Scotland being in a Currency Union. Again that is ignored. And the third part of the report that is ignored is the bit where they say "While an independent Scotland would have the attributes of a wealthy investment-grade economy, it would face high levels of public debt, sensitivity to oil prices and potentially limited monetary policy flexibility"

Now I know you are so excited about independence that you've completely set aside your "green" principles but please read articles from across the spectrum of agenda's and not Scottish State Government run online versions of Der Stürmer

[linwood buddie]

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1526090_516588621794166_816468671_n.jpg

Starting too get desperate.

[bluto]

No point me answering you ,you are obviously so superior to me ,another patronising prick .I know exactlywhat the FT stands for is it social justice ?..... no stupid me it's money .Just likemost of the NO campaign then.I know where you are coming from now ." I subscribe to the FT so I can read the piece and not rely upon a link that won't workfor most people"Sorry but you are a fanny .

I may well be a fanny, but if you want a truthful presentation and analysis of any aspect of society that involves money, then the FT IS the only reliable source. It's what it does.

And I did slightly fib: my wummin has the subscription and I have access.

Glad I could help you feel patronised. It seems to be a knack revealed only when I bump up against folk who are infallible and 100% sure they're right.

[bluto]

Regrettably (and I genuinely mean this) I've put Dickson on ignore.

I have no problems with other people's opinions and I don't even care about how they put them across - as long as they are man enough to take what they give me. However the latest comments about holocaust denial is the last straw.

I'm not suggesting anyone else put him on ignore but for me this is now a question of integrity.

I HATE blocking out other people's opinions but I think we have a duty to take action against this sort of thing.

Far be it from me to chastise someone ignoring Herr Dixon, but putting someone on ignore is NOT "taking action". It's being inactive.

I would genuinely hate it if I was left as the sole sceptical voice in the referendum debate. But I guess that's what it takes to live in a tartan utopia...

(Too patronising...? )

[bluto]

No point me answering you ,you are obviously so superior to me ,another patronising prick .I know exactlywhat the FT stands for is it social justice ?..... no stupid me it's money .Just likemost of the NO campaign then.I know where you are coming from now ." I subscribe to the FT so I can read the piece and not rely upon a link that won't workfor most people"Sorry but you are a fanny .

Hmmm.

Just realised....

Apart from anger-management issues, you do realise you called me both a prick AND a fanny in the same post?!

I do hope you're not so flip-floppy on voting day.

[oaksoft]

I would genuinely hate it if I was left as the sole sceptical voice in the referendum debate. But I guess that's what it takes to live in a tartan utopia...

You are not the sole sceptical voice. Sadly your tartan comment shows you up as not actually being in the debate at all.

I've seen no more than about 2 people on this thread supporting a No vote who have actually discussed things in a reasonable manner.

Over 100 pages of posts from those supporting No about how the Yes voters are Natsi's, brownshirts, holocaust deniers, xenophobic, racist, buckled lefties (whatever the hell that is), selfish (I don't get that one either) and a vast range of other insults and slurs such as patronising tartan shit which add nothing to the debate whatsoever.

Then the priceless comment wrapped in opaque words from English, Greek and Latin about the "paucity of debate" from No voters. It's laughable.

It reminds me of a quote. I can't remember who said it:-

First they ignore you - 300 years of that - check.

Then the laugh at you - see last 30 years - check.

Then they attack you - boy are we seeing that now. On every forum and in every newspaper.

Then you win - that remains to be seen but it's interesting how far down this path the Yes campaign now are.

No you are not alone bluto. Rick, Dickson, Lex, Duke, Reynard are all in there with you but if you think ANY of them has added anything to the debate you'd be wrong.

Between that lot and others, you've attempted to trash an entire thread because you didn't like what others had to say and yet you have the cheek to talk about others sacrificing democracy. Maybe this amuses you. Maybe you genuinely are like this with people whose opinions you don't like? TBH does anyone really care?

Someone earlier called you a prick and a fanny. Leaving aside the contradiction which you took your usual pleasure in pointing out, I'd say that I've also been called that and worse. I get my reputation from speaking my mind and having opinions which others don't like at all. They don't know how to handle that in an adult manner and resort solely to name calling.

What about you though? You are being called that despite NOT having any real views about anything. Why do you even bother posting bud?

And BTW your picky comment about putting someone on ignore NOT being an action but instead being inaction?

I beg to differ. It required me to press a few buttons and had the consequence of bringing peace of mind.

Action - consequence.

Edited March 1, 2014 by oaksoft

[bluto]

You are not the sole sceptical voice. Sadly your tartan comment shows you up as not actually being in the debate at all.

I've seen no more than about 2 people on this thread supporting a No vote who have actually discussed things in a reasonable manner.

Over 100 pages of posts from those supporting No about how the Yes voters are Natsi's, brownshirts, holocaust deniers, xenophobic, racist, buckled lefties (whatever the hell that is), selfish (I don't get that one either) and a vast range of other insults and slurs such as patronising tartan shit which add nothing to the debate whatsoever.

Then the priceless comment wrapped in opaque words from English, Greek and Latin about the "paucity of debate" from No voters. It's laughable.

It reminds me of a quote. I can't remember who said it:-

First they ignore you - 300 years of that - check.

Then the laugh at you - see last 30 years - check.

Then they attack you - boy are we seeing that now. On every forum and in every newspaper.

Then you win - that remains to be seen but it's interesting how far down this path the Yes campaign now are.

No you are not alone bluto. Rick, Dickson, Lex, Duke, Reynard are all in there with you but if you think ANY of them has added anything to the debate you'd be wrong.

Between that lot and others, you've attempted to trash an entire thread because you didn't like what others had to say and yet you have the cheek to talk about others sacrificing democracy. Maybe this amuses you. Maybe you genuinely are like this with people whose opinions you don't like? TBH does anyone really care?

Someone earlier called you a prick and a fanny. Leaving aside the contradiction which you took your usual pleasure in pointing out, I'd say that I've also been called that and worse. I get my reputation from speaking my mind and having opinions which others don't like at all. They don't know how to handle that in an adult manner and resort solely to name calling.

What about you though? You are being called that despite NOT having any real views about anything. Why do you even bother posting bud?

Great.

That's how to win your debate.

Put someone on ignore and ask another to not post.

I think YOU're probably quoting Robbie Williams.

Tho Gandhi also used it, quoting a US TU leader, IIRC.

I hope this helps?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1526090_516588621794166_816468671_n.jpg

Starting too get desperate.

Desperate? How so, linwoodbuddie?

[FTOF]

Are you seriously suggesting that the FT doesn't have a politically driven editorial slant? I mean, really???

Of course he is.

It suits his agenda.

His posts are getting more and more like fatty's and the dullard's every day.

[linwood buddie]

Desperate? How so, linwoodbuddie?

Since wee Alex has been making a complete ass of the whole thing ,the Yes mob have decided too partially distance themselves from him or did you not see that plainly in the picture ?

[oaksoft]

Since wee Alex has been making a complete ass of the whole thing ,the Yes mob have decided too partially distance themselves from him or did you not see that plainly in the picture ?

Here's yet another example of the paucity of debate from the No side.

Is this seriously the very best you can come up with?

Grow up FFS and let's hear your views on why we should remain in the UK.

We already have one Dickson. We don't need two.

[oaksoft]

Great.

That's how to win your debate.

Put someone on ignore and ask another to not post.

I think YOU're probably quoting Robbie Williams.

Tho Gandhi also used it, quoting a US TU leader, IIRC.

I hope this helps?

I'm not asking you not to post. That's not my style at all.

I'm asking why you bother to post when you have nothing to say.

BTW if Gandhi or the US TU leader used that quote then I'm hardly quoting Robbie Williams.

You do know it's the FIRST person who gets the credit don't you?

Edited March 1, 2014 by oaksoft

[salmonbuddie]

Since wee Alex has been making a complete ass of the whole thing ,the Yes mob have decided too partially distance themselves from him or did you not see that plainly in the picture ?

No, it's Jock Tamson cutting off his nose to spite his face. It's pointing out that voting no because you don't like Salmond will be wasted in a couple of generations time because that generation won't even know who Salmond was.

[linwood buddie]

Here's yet another example of the paucity of debate from the No side.

Is this seriously the very best you can come up with?

Grow up FFS and let's hear your views on why we should remain in the UK.

We already have one Dickson. We don't need two.

Really have no interest in any of the shit you put on .

[oaksoft]

Really have no interest in any of the shit you put on .

I wasn't asking your opinion on my shit.

There's plenty of adult conversation going on in this thread.

salmonbuddie is a prime example.

Try contributing and you'll get a better audience.

[linwood buddie]

No, it's Jock Tamson cutting off his nose to spite his face. It's pointing out that voting no because you don't like Salmond will be wasted in a couple of generations time because that generation won't even know who Salmond was.

Is Jock Tamson as young as that ,well tell you one thing I wouldn't let my kids play with scissors at that age.

[oaksoft]

Is Jock Tamson as young as that ,well tell you one thing I wouldn't let my kids play with scissors at that age.

Whit?

[salmonbuddie]

Are you seriously suggesting that the FT doesn't have a politically driven editorial slant? I mean, really???

Of course he is.

It suits his agenda.

His posts are getting more and more like fatty's and the dullard's every day.

In fairness, we were all happy enough to quote the FT a few weeks ago when it pointed out how well Scotland would do on its own.

[linwood buddie]

I wasn't asking your opinion on my shit..

There's plenty of adult conversation going on in this thread.

salmonbuddie is a prime example.

Try contributing and you'll get a better audience.

Don't want an audience .

[salmonbuddie]

Is Jock Tamson as young as that ,well tell you one thing I wouldn't let my kids play with scissors at that age.

You're better than that, don't go down StuD's route, that way lies madness and a' that.

[oaksoft]

Are you seriously suggesting that the FT doesn't have a politically driven editorial slant? I mean, really???

In fairness, we were all happy enough to quote the FT a few weeks ago when it pointed out how well Scotland would do on its own.

Yes that's true but the important point here is that in THIS instance it wasn't an opinion article by the journalist.

It had direct quotes from Standard and Poor. Under those circumstances only the quotes are relevant.

[oaksoft]

Don't want an audience .

Oh I think we've pretty much understood that.

[linwood buddie]

Whit?

You're better than that, don't go down StuD's route, that way lies madness and a' that.

Yes I am ,but I like the banter.

[linwood buddie]

Oh I think we've pretty much understood that.

Explain please.

[FTOF]

Are you seriously suggesting that the FT doesn't have a politically driven editorial slant? I mean, really???

In fairness, we were all happy enough to quote the FT a few weeks ago when it pointed out how well Scotland would do on its own.

I didn't (well not that I remember).

I don't pay attention to a newspaper that's read by mostly tory voters.