|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 9:34:46 GMT
Well if nothing else , this campaign has produced some enjoyable discussion ( and humours ) on here , abuse free for a change .....very refreshing , though I can't see it being the norm thats because of the absence on this thread of certain posters go read the muslim beheading thread if you are missing be called a daily mail bigot sunshine I'm not sure I know who you are referring to mate ?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 9:38:13 GMT
you cant blame him mate, you have to put a positive spin on it. the problem with the left is they are to blinded by hatred of the tories to have an open mind on the whole thing, and the reverse isn't true I suppose ??? no it isnt, you only have to read some of the general election threads to see some of my positives on the last lot. not many but some
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 9:40:38 GMT
His rhetoric is very left wing, he is partisan, I think that's why he wasn't chosen in the first place and the insipid Darling was. His Government sadly was right wing, not the Attila the Hun right wing of war murderer Blair but it was to the right. So what you are saying is that he spent years and years and years of talking a good game about social justice and yet when he got the chance he went all right wing? It needs putting into some context though doesn't it. When Labour returned to power in 97 I didn't anticipate them being thirsty for war and bending over for bankers but they did introduce a minimum wage which the Tories railed against because they have no commitment for social justice and fairness so it wasn't all bad.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 9:40:41 GMT
you cant blame him mate, you have to put a positive spin on it. the problem with the left is they are to blinded by hatred of the tories to have an open mind on the whole thing, this is a great day for politics in this country, the majority of the UK want to stay the UK, england gets a lone voice for english matters that affect english voters and it should result in a EU referendum. It's certainly been a great period for politics generally salop so why do you want to take the vote back off some people who helped make it so? im not trying to take the vote of anyone - i dont however believe 16 year olds should have the vote, nor prisoners, nor people in mental hospitals. Salmond thought a lot of youth would vote Yes so he asked and was given the vote for 16 year olds, it made the vote closer but no change in expected result, when these 16 year olds grow up and leave school and get into the big bad world a lot of them will be regretful of their youthful exuberance and haste in nearly making a bad mistake
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 9:45:42 GMT
It's certainly been a great period for politics generally salop so why do you want to take the vote back off some people who helped make it so? im not trying to take the vote of anyone - i dont however believe 16 year olds should have the vote, nor prisoners, nor people in mental hospitals. Salmond thought a lot of youth would vote Yes so he asked and was given the vote for 16 year olds, it made the vote closer but no change in expected result They seemed to exercise their responsibilities with forethought and respect from the interviews I saw. A 16 year old who isn't a serious individual isn't going to waste time voting are they? They certainly don't need to be grouped with the mentally ill!
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Sept 19, 2014 9:59:27 GMT
He promised us one before though didn't he? Yes he did And did he deliver on his promise ?, he is shit scared he would get the wrong result for him and his mates, can we now have a vote in England if we want the Scots in the union ?.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 10:03:32 GMT
And did he deliver on his promise ?, he is shit scared he would get the wrong result for him and his mates, can we now have a vote in England if we want the Scots in the union ?. Why would we want that ?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Sept 19, 2014 10:09:21 GMT
And did he deliver on his promise ?, he is shit scared he would get the wrong result for him and his mates, can we now have a vote in England if we want the Scots in the union ?. Why would we want that ? To save shed loads of cash for a start, and did he deliver ?, sick of hearing the whinging sweatys complaining about the English they hate us, but like Andy (bad back) Murray they do not mind taking the subsidies we give to them.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 10:14:14 GMT
im not trying to take the vote of anyone - i dont however believe 16 year olds should have the vote, nor prisoners, nor people in mental hospitals. Salmond thought a lot of youth would vote Yes so he asked and was given the vote for 16 year olds, it made the vote closer but no change in expected result They seemed to exercise their responsibilities with forethought and respect from the interviews I saw. A 16 year old who isn't a serious individual isn't going to waste time voting are they? They certainly don't need to be grouped with the mentally ill! if i had it my way i would make 18 the default age for armed force service, marriage, driving, voting, drinking, smoking most things that you deem to be an adult. for every 16 year old sensible enough there will be ten just turn 16 year olds smoking weed who dont even know what time the 10 oclock news is on. and yes i do appreciate that there will be just as thick 18+ voters out there, i just think 18 is an appropriate age. one age for everything is sensible anyroads it backfired on salmond, he cant say he had nearly every concession he asked for to get the result he wanted, it needed a yes/no vote before you could even begin to look at devo max
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 10:17:34 GMT
They seemed to exercise their responsibilities with forethought and respect from the interviews I saw. A 16 year old who isn't a serious individual isn't going to waste time voting are they? They certainly don't need to be grouped with the mentally ill! if i had it my way i would make 18 the default age for armed force service, marriage, driving, voting, drinking, smoking most things that you deem to be an adult. for every 16 year old sensible enough there will be ten just turn 16 year olds smoking weed who dont even know what time the 10 oclock news is on. and yes i do appreciate that there will be just as thick 18+ voters out there, i just think 18 is an appropriate age. one age for everything is sensible anyroads it backfired on salmond, he cant say he had nearly every concession he asked for to get the result he wanted, it needed a yes/no vote before you could even begin to look at devo max I think it could be argued that on an issue like this 16 year olds deserved a vote more than an 88 year old did!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 19, 2014 10:19:02 GMT
To Gordon Brown's credit ,he ran rings around Miliband No, he is just streets ahead of Darling. No one anticipated the use of the big guns would be required so a mediocre offend no one face was chosen. I think you are giving too much credit to Milliband, Sheikh. Labour had to front the Union campaign as Tories and Lib Dems are as rare as snowballs in June in Scotland and it was the softness, or otherwise, of the Labour vote which would decide the outcome. Milliband knew that he had to choose a Scottish born Labour MP. Darling or Brown were the obvious choices - both are patriots and both were major players in the last Labour government. Milliband chose Darling and, by the end of the second debate with Salmond, it was clear that he was the wrong choice. Brown stepped up to the plate - big time. If Brown had performed like that as PM the last General election would have been much closer that it was. When it comes to an emotional appeal to his own party Brown proved that he was still a "big beast". The size of the "No" vote suggests that Brown's performance certainly swung the vote by a sizeable amount - but we'll never know if his intervention was decisive. But the "No" victory came despite Milliband and not because of him. His mistake could easily have lost the referendum. I watched Brown's speech live on Wednesday and said on here that it was one of the 3 or 4 best (in the sense of being effective) political speeches I have heard. It won't get him back into power in the Westminster Labour Party but he could do a lot worse than stand as a Scottish MSP - he's raised his political stock considerably in the past 2 weeks. He could certainly give Salmond or Sturgeon a run for their money at Holyrood.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 10:22:07 GMT
if i had it my way i would make 18 the default age for armed force service, marriage, driving, voting, drinking, smoking most things that you deem to be an adult. for every 16 year old sensible enough there will be ten just turn 16 year olds smoking weed who dont even know what time the 10 oclock news is on. and yes i do appreciate that there will be just as thick 18+ voters out there, i just think 18 is an appropriate age. one age for everything is sensible anyroads it backfired on salmond, he cant say he had nearly every concession he asked for to get the result he wanted, it needed a yes/no vote before you could even begin to look at devo max I think it could be argued that on an issue like this 16 year olds deserved a vote more than an 88 year old did! maybe but there has to be a line somewhere, it was decided it was 16 i believe it should be 18, not a problem, i accept it. democracy in action so take the referendum result as a thumbs upfor the union like a man, stop bleating about the scots not taking their opportunity against the tyranny of the conservative party and the english and making yourself look bitter about my views on wether 16 year olds should have the vote or not because you dont like last nights result
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 10:24:40 GMT
No, he is just streets ahead of Darling. No one anticipated the use of the big guns would be required so a mediocre offend no one face was chosen. I think you are giving too much credit to Milliband, Sheikh. Labour had to front the Union campaign as Tories and Lib Dems are as rare as snowballs in June in Scotland and it was the softness, or otherwise, of the Labour vote which would decide the outcome. Milliband knew that he had to choose a Scottish born Labour MP. Darling or Brown were the obvious choices - both are patriots and both were major players in the last Labour government. Milliband chose Darling and, by the end of the second debate with Salmond, it was clear that he was the wrong choice. Brown stepped up to the plate - big time. If Brown had performed like that as PM the last General election would have been much closer that it was. When it comes to an emotional appeal to his own party Brown proved that he was still a "big beast". The size of the "No" vote suggests that Brown's performance certainly swung the vote by a sizeable amount - but we'll never know if his intervention was decisive. But the "No" victory came despite Milliband and not because of him. His mistake could easily have lost the referendum. I watched Brown's speech live on Wednesday and said on here that it was one of the 3 or 4 best (in the sense of being effective) political speeches I have heard. It won't get him back into power in the Westminster Labour Party but he could do a lot worse than stand as a Scottish MSP - he's raised his political stock considerably in the past 2 weeks. He could certainly give Salmond or Sturgeon a run for their money at Holyrood. all true mate, and i stand by the fact that he should be in parliment shouting from the back benches not hiding in obscurity. a credible opposition makes for better government
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 10:29:26 GMT
Is that all .... Did I make any of it up? No. It's just that you forget to mention that most of the problems you've listed are Labour's fault. Maybe you can tell us all how a government left with less can fix the problems you've listed or improve the situation?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 10:29:56 GMT
I think it could be argued that on an issue like this 16 year olds deserved a vote more than an 88 year old did! maybe but there has to be a line somewhere, it was decided it was 16 i believe it should be 18, not a problem, i accept it. democracy in action so take the referendum result as a thumbs upfor the union like a man, stop bleating about the scots not taking their opportunity against the tyranny of the conservative party and the english and making yourself look bitter about my views on wether 16 year olds should have the vote or not because you dont like last nights result Woah there cowgirl, where haven't I accepted the result?! I've described it as emphatic and whilst I have personal disappointments about it as I believe scaremongery has won the day more than anything else, what's not to accept? The process itself has been commendable and I'm simply saying that should be emulated where possible. You're pissing up the wrong tree as usual, pal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 10:33:26 GMT
To save shed loads of cash for a start, and did he deliver ?, sick of hearing the whinging sweatys complaining about the English they hate us, but like Andy (bad back) Murray they do not mind taking the subsidies we give to them. Do you know many Scots mate ? .....There is I agree an amount who do have an Irrational hatred ( in this day and age ) of the English ....I know quite a few Scottish people ...and they are thoroughly decent individuals who like us and are proud to be British ...good and bad in all walks of life mate .
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 19, 2014 10:36:00 GMT
Maybe the greater Glasgow area and Dundee just need to go their separate way? Wouldn't be much oil heading with them though.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 10:37:55 GMT
No, he is just streets ahead of Darling. No one anticipated the use of the big guns would be required so a mediocre offend no one face was chosen. I think you are giving too much credit to Milliband, Sheikh. Labour had to front the Union campaign as Tories and Lib Dems are as rare as snowballs in June in Scotland and it was the softness, or otherwise, of the Labour vote which would decide the outcome. Milliband knew that he had to choose a Scottish born Labour MP. Darling or Brown were the obvious choices - both are patriots and both were major players in the last Labour government. Milliband chose Darling and, by the end of the second debate with Salmond, it was clear that he was the wrong choice. Brown stepped up to the plate - big time. If Brown had performed like that as PM the last General election would have been much closer that it was. When it comes to an emotional appeal to his own party Brown proved that he was still a "big beast". The size of the "No" vote suggests that Brown's performance certainly swung the vote by a sizeable amount - but we'll never know if his intervention was decisive. But the "No" victory came despite Milliband and not because of him. His mistake could easily have lost the referendum. I watched Brown's speech live on Wednesday and said on here that it was one of the 3 or 4 best (in the sense of being effective) political speeches I have heard. It won't get him back into power in the Westminster Labour Party but he could do a lot worse than stand as a Scottish MSP - he's raised his political stock considerably in the past 2 weeks. He could certainly give Salmond or Sturgeon a run for their money at Holyrood. I don't think any of the leaders have done themselves any good forny with their 11th hour mercy dash to the scene. Milliband for the reasons you give but also Cameron in his weeping for his own job the union efforts. They both looked like political pygmies.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 10:38:02 GMT
I think you are giving too much credit to Milliband, Sheikh. Labour had to front the Union campaign as Tories and Lib Dems are as rare as snowballs in June in Scotland and it was the softness, or otherwise, of the Labour vote which would decide the outcome. Milliband knew that he had to choose a Scottish born Labour MP. Darling or Brown were the obvious choices - both are patriots and both were major players in the last Labour government. Milliband chose Darling and, by the end of the second debate with Salmond, it was clear that he was the wrong choice. Brown stepped up to the plate - big time. If Brown had performed like that as PM the last General election would have been much closer that it was. When it comes to an emotional appeal to his own party Brown proved that he was still a "big beast". The size of the "No" vote suggests that Brown's performance certainly swung the vote by a sizeable amount - but we'll never know if his intervention was decisive. But the "No" victory came despite Milliband and not because of him. His mistake could easily have lost the referendum. I watched Brown's speech live on Wednesday and said on here that it was one of the 3 or 4 best (in the sense of being effective) political speeches I have heard. It won't get him back into power in the Westminster Labour Party but he could do a lot worse than stand as a Scottish MSP - he's raised his political stock considerably in the past 2 weeks. He could certainly give Salmond or Sturgeon a run for their money at Holyrood. all true mate, and i stand by the fact that he should be in parliment shouting from the back benches not hiding in obscurity. a credible opposition makes for better government That is true mate .....but it can be argued that he wasn't credible when he was PM can't it ? ......is he liable to be any better in opposition ?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 10:40:32 GMT
all true mate, and i stand by the fact that he should be in parliment shouting from the back benches not hiding in obscurity. a credible opposition makes for better government That is true mate .....but it can be argued that he wasn't credible when he was PM can't it ? ......is he liable to be any better in opposition ? william hague was good in opposition but unelectable as a PM, i would argue the same could be said for michael foot
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 10:44:54 GMT
maybe but there has to be a line somewhere, it was decided it was 16 i believe it should be 18, not a problem, i accept it. democracy in action so take the referendum result as a thumbs upfor the union like a man, stop bleating about the scots not taking their opportunity against the tyranny of the conservative party and the english and making yourself look bitter about my views on wether 16 year olds should have the vote or not because you dont like last nights result I believe scaremongery has won the day more than anything else, what's not to accept? . the yes campaihn had no answers to the important questions, that is what lost it for salmond he should have had a plan, and not made it up as he went along as an independant scotish PM. he shot his load early rather than wait to formulate a plan and have the answers. he was banking on anti tory/english/british sentiment to get the yes vote. he went for personal glory and a place in history rather than argue the case for scottish benefits his narcissim was his downfall. if it took as you say "scaremongering" to point this out than fair enough but in the end a shit plan is better than no plan, as he found out to his cost
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Sept 19, 2014 10:45:26 GMT
To save shed loads of cash for a start, and did he deliver ?, sick of hearing the whinging sweatys complaining about the English they hate us, but like Andy (bad back) Murray they do not mind taking the subsidies we give to them. Do you know many Scots mate ? .....There is I agree an amount who do have an Irrational hatred ( in this day and age ) of the English ....I know quite a few Scottish people ...and they are thoroughly decent individuals who like us and are proud to be British ...good and bad in all walks of life mate . I know quite a few sweatys, I have worked for a Glasgow based company and in my experience the vast majority especially the younger generation have very little good to say about the English, just my experience like.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 19, 2014 10:45:26 GMT
I think you are giving too much credit to Milliband, Sheikh. Labour had to front the Union campaign as Tories and Lib Dems are as rare as snowballs in June in Scotland and it was the softness, or otherwise, of the Labour vote which would decide the outcome. Milliband knew that he had to choose a Scottish born Labour MP. Darling or Brown were the obvious choices - both are patriots and both were major players in the last Labour government. Milliband chose Darling and, by the end of the second debate with Salmond, it was clear that he was the wrong choice. Brown stepped up to the plate - big time. If Brown had performed like that as PM the last General election would have been much closer that it was. When it comes to an emotional appeal to his own party Brown proved that he was still a "big beast". The size of the "No" vote suggests that Brown's performance certainly swung the vote by a sizeable amount - but we'll never know if his intervention was decisive. But the "No" victory came despite Milliband and not because of him. His mistake could easily have lost the referendum. I watched Brown's speech live on Wednesday and said on here that it was one of the 3 or 4 best (in the sense of being effective) political speeches I have heard. It won't get him back into power in the Westminster Labour Party but he could do a lot worse than stand as a Scottish MSP - he's raised his political stock considerably in the past 2 weeks. He could certainly give Salmond or Sturgeon a run for their money at Holyrood. I don't think any of the leaders have done themselves any good forny with their 11th hour mercy dash to the scene. Milliband for the reasons you give but also Cameron in his weeping for his own job the union efforts. They both looked like political pygmies. You might be right but I suspect that Cameron will be HUGELY satisfied that after the last couple of weeks and yesterday's result, he now has the Tories, The Lib Dems and UKIP all determined that English votes (alone) will decide legislation which only affects England. That is hugely bad news for Milliband and Labour. It means that if the other parties get their way then, even if Labourhave a majority after next general election, they will probably not have a majority when it comes to votes on English matters. On other areas like devolution of powers to England, wales and NI there is much more common ground but in respect of English votes on English legislation, Labour may never have a majority again. And this has happened without Scotland leaving the UK. To all English parties bar Labour this is a great end result.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 10:48:56 GMT
I believe scaremongery has won the day more than anything else, what's not to accept? . the yes campaihn had no answers to the important questions, that is what lost it for salmond he should have had a plan, and not made it up as he went along as an independant scotish PM. he shot his load early rather than wait to formulate a plan and have the answers. he was banking on anti tory/english/british sentiment to get the yes vote. he went for personal glory and a place in history rather than argue the case for scottish benefits his narcissim was his downfall. if it took as you say "scaremongering" to point this out than fair enough but in the end a shit plan is better than no plan, as he found out to his cost So why, with so little real detail or substance behind the 'Yes' campaign, were they allowed to go as far as get the referendum?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 10:49:06 GMT
That is true mate .....but it can be argued that he wasn't credible when he was PM can't it ? ......is he liable to be any better in opposition ? william hague was good in opposition but unelectable as a PM, i would argue the same could be said for michael foot Whoever had been leader of the Conservatives , they would have been unelectable at that time ....William Hague's time came too early . Michael Foot was a decent man , but far too idealistic ( and that's not a criticism of the man ) to be PM ....he left the Labour Party in tatters through his very weak leadership .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 10:51:14 GMT
Do you know many Scots mate ? .....There is I agree an amount who do have an Irrational hatred ( in this day and age ) of the English ....I know quite a few Scottish people ...and they are thoroughly decent individuals who like us and are proud to be British ...good and bad in all walks of life mate . I know quite a few sweatys, I have worked for a Glasgow based company and in my experience the vast majority especially the younger generation have very little good to say about the English, just my experience like. As you say it's all about your experiences ...but that being said yours were in Glasgow !
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Sept 19, 2014 10:54:33 GMT
I know quite a few sweatys, I have worked for a Glasgow based company and in my experience the vast majority especially the younger generation have very little good to say about the English, just my experience like. As you say it's all about your experiences ...but that being said yours were in Glasgow !
You asked and yes it was Glasgow which is in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 10:56:07 GMT
the yes campaihn had no answers to the important questions, that is what lost it for salmond he should have had a plan, and not made it up as he went along as an independant scotish PM. he shot his load early rather than wait to formulate a plan and have the answers. he was banking on anti tory/english/british sentiment to get the yes vote. he went for personal glory and a place in history rather than argue the case for scottish benefits his narcissim was his downfall. if it took as you say "scaremongering" to point this out than fair enough but in the end a shit plan is better than no plan, as he found out to his cost So why, with so little real detail or substance behind the 'Yes' campaign, were they allowed to go as far as get the referendum? they humoured him the government knew he had no plan so let him have his day knowing he couldnt win and knowing the matter is put to bed for ever. to be fair he ran a decent campaign in popularity stakes, he speaks well but what he said had no substance its showed him to be very naive, if th esnp get this chance in 50 years they will learn from it. by then devo max will be in full swing, oil will be nearly gone and there will be no need or call for it apart from bitter ex tennis players living in miami
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 10:58:36 GMT
I don't think any of the leaders have done themselves any good forny with their 11th hour mercy dash to the scene. Milliband for the reasons you give but also Cameron in his weeping for his own job the union efforts. They both looked like political pygmies. You might be right but I suspect that Cameron will be HUGELY satisfied that after the last couple of weeks and yesterday's result, he now has the Tories, The Lib Dems and UKIP all determined that English votes (alone) will decide legislation which only affects England. That is hugely bad news for Milliband and Labour. It means that if the other parties get their way then, even if Labourhave a majority after next general election, they will probably not have a majority when it comes to votes on English matters. On other areas like devolution of powers to England, wales and NI there is much more common ground but in respect of English votes on English legislation, Labour may never have a majority again. And this has happened without Scotland leaving the UK. To all English parties bar Labour this is a great end result. Devolution to the English regions based on the Scottish model granted at the eleventh hour will arguably be a good thing for Labour and ensure Tories don't start appearing on the map in great number until Oxford. It depends what we really mean when we talk devolution.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 11:01:30 GMT
As you say it's all about your experiences ...but that being said yours were in Glasgow !
You asked and yes it was Glasgow which is in Scotland.
Really ?
|
|