|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 15:34:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 19, 2014 15:37:55 GMT
for me its not a question of a string of tory governments , the issue has always been scottish MP's wanting a westminster vote to influence english politics , at the same time wanting a devolved assembly to keep the english out of their affairs . they cant have it both ways So why not just make it simple and have four separate countries all voting for their own interests, self-governing. I see that there are infrastructure issues like central banks etc but not insurmountable in the long run. If you are going to have a Union of countries, then I think you just have to put up with the vagaries of who votes for what. The lid has been taken off a right wriggly can of worms now Scotland will be given independence in all but name. I'm sure Wales and N Ireland are licking their lips in anticipation at what might come their way too. i dont have any answers to that one , i do know the American war of independence was about taxation without representation though
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 15:38:12 GMT
If you want conspiracy, you got it. Ignore the nauseating tones and examine the footage. scraping the barrel wht's worse is that some "Friends" of mine on Facebook are now going mad because of how 16 year olds were allowed to vote and the only reason the UK govt. let that happen was to influence voting!!!! who was it that specifically requested 16 year olds being allowed to vote again??? pretty sure it WASN'T the UK govt...oh yeah that's right it was the SNP who've been campaigning to reduce the voting age for years! i'm now awaiting people to start telling us that Salmond was actually a Cyborg created by Westminster specifically to confuse the electorate and win the election for the No campaign by programming him to specifically ignore and fudge issues over a 2 year period. fair play, some have acted with dignity and accepted defeat (this time) but the way some are behaving makes we wish they'd bloody won!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 15:38:43 GMT
That bird who looks like rabs Mrs likely to take over
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 15:42:58 GMT
scraping the barrel i'm now awaiting people to start telling us that Salmond was actually a Cyborg created by Westminster specifically to confuse the electorate and win the eulection for the No campaign by programming him to specifically ignore and fudge issues over a 2 year period. Starkiller over to you
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Sept 19, 2014 15:43:04 GMT
no way no way would Lukey's hero quit after such a victory
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 15:45:59 GMT
Did she not? Why does it say BEHIND THEIR FRONT BENCH in that quote you put up then? Or have you misquoted? And you think you know better than the sainted lady now? I'm impressed ??? It says she saw socialism on the backbenches because she thought there were socialists within those numbers. You are assuming that she didn't see any socialism on the front bench when in truth she did not mention the make up of front bench at all apart from 1 member on it that was Blair. No need to be impressed as I'm sure she would have taken a much different view had she commented in 2010 on what they actually did. How odd then that your quote directly mentions the New Labour cabinet, the front bench! And that she didn't say something like "I see no socialism in Mr Blair, but plenty in the backbenchers". I might give you that one, but I think you've dropped a bit of a bollock here, mcf! Anyone can see that it refers to the front bench and Tony Blair. Although claiming you know better than the woman you love so much is an impressive effort at wriggling free, I have to say that given that it took several of us previously to get you to grasp the global nature of the financial markets, I'm not convinced
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 15:50:49 GMT
That bird who looks like rabs Mrs likely to take over hahahaha that should be a laugh!!! the woman who specialises in Braveheart style speeches but whenever questioned about the actual politics of it all dismissed the questions specifically because she isn't a politician so wouldn't know! then again it would be little difference to who they've had leading them for the last 7 years or so
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Sept 19, 2014 15:53:33 GMT
It says she saw socialism on the backbenches because she thought there were socialists within those numbers. You are assuming that she didn't see any socialism on the front bench when in truth she did not mention the make up of front bench at all apart from 1 member on it that was Blair. No need to be impressed as I'm sure she would have taken a much different view had she commented in 2010 on what they actually did. How odd then that your quote directly mentions the New Labour cabinet, the front bench! And that she didn't say something like "I see no socialism in Mr Blair, but plenty in the backbenchers". I might give you that one, but I think you've dropped a bit of a bollock here, mcf! Anyone can see that it refers to the front bench and Tony Blair. Although claiming you know better than the woman you love so much is an impressive effort at wriggling free, I have to say that given that it took several of us previously to get you to grasp the global nature of the financial markets, I'm not convinced Don't divert by going on about another topic... I don't think you will find too many that think it refers to the front brench when she specifically mentions Tony Blair. If she wanted to have said there was no socialism on the front bench then you would have said the front bench. ....but how could she when the Gordon 'The Behemoth of the Left' Brown was sat on it.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 19, 2014 15:55:46 GMT
At last a wicket in this whole turgid affair. Dickie is also having a long hard look at Alex Salmond's buddy that woman who is turning in to a witch by the day and sounds like a fish.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 15:57:39 GMT
At last a wicket in this whole turgid affair. Dickie is also having a long hard look at Alex Salmond's buddy that woman who is turning in to a witch by the day and sounds like a fish. i swear she puts that hair on like a lego man every morning
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 16:04:19 GMT
no way no way would Lukey's hero quit after such a victory "He might well resign and say his time is done as he's been head of the SNP (with a small break) for years. His wife is also pretty old in comparison to him". ???
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 16:06:03 GMT
At last a wicket in this whole turgid affair. Dickie is also having a long hard look at Alex Salmond's buddy that woman who is turning in to a witch by the day and sounds like a fish. i swear she puts that hair on like a lego man every morning Gone off mutton dressed as bad mutton
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 16:07:53 GMT
How odd then that your quote directly mentions the New Labour cabinet, the front bench! And that she didn't say something like "I see no socialism in Mr Blair, but plenty in the backbenchers". I might give you that one, but I think you've dropped a bit of a bollock here, mcf! Anyone can see that it refers to the front bench and Tony Blair. Although claiming you know better than the woman you love so much is an impressive effort at wriggling free, I have to say that given that it took several of us previously to get you to grasp the global nature of the financial markets, I'm not convinced Don't divert by going on about another topic... I don't think you will find too many that think it refers to the front brench when she specifically mentions Tony Blair. If she wanted to have said there was no socialism on the front bench then you would have said the front bench. ....but how could she when the Gordon 'The Behemoth of the Left' Brown was sat on it. It's a good wriggle but not quite squirming out enough there, mcf - I just can't get past that mention of the socialism in the Labour party being behind the front bench ???
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 16:10:34 GMT
So why not just make it simple and have four separate countries all voting for their own interests, self-governing. I see that there are infrastructure issues like central banks etc but not insurmountable in the long run. If you are going to have a Union of countries, then I think you just have to put up with the vagaries of who votes for what. The lid has been taken off a right wriggly can of worms now Scotland will be given independence in all but name. I'm sure Wales and N Ireland are licking their lips in anticipation at what might come their way too. i dont have any answers to that one , i do know the American war of independence was about taxation without representation though And were you aware that what happens in American financial markets often leads to knock on effects in other financial centres around the world?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 16:13:07 GMT
From tomorrow's Times. Times got it wrong
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 16:16:18 GMT
For all the perceived mistakes of the no campaign salmons loses massively if they vote no There will be no more referendums so the Scottish nationalists will lose their independence right for ever. Salmond has shown this is a personal campaign more than the right of Scotland. He's pinning his place in history over this. I think he is pretty much irrelevant and finished if he loses. He is pretty much in the position kinnock was in 92 He's a canny politician - and as such will come out claiming a victory for Scotland (himself) even if there is a no vote. He will major on the concessions and claim the credit, he will enjoy the additional power he has, just as he has basked in the limelight over the past weeks. Despite all of this, I have a tad more respect for him than most others of his ilk (for whom I have zero), because he is good at it. Not that canny
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 16:25:25 GMT
From tomorrow's Times. Times got it wrong Really? Everyone bar a few on here accepts that the yes campaign was better. The yes vote went from 30% to 45%. The no camp were very complacent until a last minute rousing of anyone and everyone, politicians and businesses alike, they could muster to scare the floaters into voting no when they thought there was a possibility they might lose. They have had to concede Devo Max as it says above. Now the rest of the UK and England are already making noises about their own regional and city devolutions, although this is not mentioned in that piece from The Times. Pretty much everything else in it is bang on. It'll be interesting to see what they say in tomorrow's edition and whether they've done a complete u-turn!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 19, 2014 16:26:41 GMT
Miliband squirming on sky news.
He doesn't want english mps voting on english matters, seriously damages labours position
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 19, 2014 16:32:46 GMT
I suppose I have been to 15 counts at local, General and European elections - sometimes as a candidate, sometimes as an election agent and most often as a scrutineer.
The scrutineers (and they have them at all UK elections) watch the count to establish whether the count is conducted properly and the scrutineers are drawn equally from each party contesting the election or, in this case, each side in the referendum. It is easy to spot if the counters are not doing their job properly and if an error is spotted it is corrected by the person supervising the count. If it is persistent or deliberate that teller (counter) is removed from the count.
Every table at every counting station in the whole of Scotland last night will have had scrutineers from both sides of the referendum watching and scrutinising FOR THE WHOLE DURATION OF THE COUNT until the result for that constituency is declared. If there was fraud then the scrutineers FROM BOTH SIDES would all have to be in on it.
I think whoever put the video together has got confused as to what was going on. First the papers are counted FOR EACH BOX (irrespective of what the vote was on each paper) this is to establish that the number of papers matches the voting numbers recorded at that particular polling station. Then the papers are sorted into YES and NO votes. Then the YES votes and the NO votes are counted into bundles of 25 and aggregated into piles of 100 papers. Then a figure for the total YES and NO votes is calculated AND COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL total of papers.
At any stage a scrutineer can ask for a bundle of papers to be checked (as to which way each vote went) and recounted. The chances of any significant error (more then 1 or 2 wrong papers in a bundle are minimal. And, if the vote at any polling station was close either side can ask for a recount. I've actually been at a count where there were 4 recounts - but the difference is usually one or two votes or a misplaced bundle.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 16:38:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 19, 2014 17:02:41 GMT
i dont have any answers to that one , i do know the American war of independence was about taxation without representation though And were you aware that what happens in American financial markets often leads to knock on effects in other financial centres around the world? no way im having that it was all thatchers fault , post big bang
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Sept 19, 2014 17:19:42 GMT
I suppose I have been to 15 counts at local, General and European elections - sometimes as a candidate, sometimes as an election agent and most often as a scrutineer. The scrutineers (and they have them at all UK elections) watch the count to establish whether the count is conducted properly and the scrutineers are drawn equally from each party contesting the election or, in this case, each side in the referendum. It is easy to spot if the counters are not doing their job properly and if an error is spotted it is corrected by the person supervising the count. If it is persistent or deliberate that teller (counter) is removed from the count. Every table at every counting station in the whole of Scotland last night will have had scrutineers from both sides of the referendum watching and scrutinising FOR THE WHOLE DURATION OF THE COUNT until the result for that constituency is declared. If there was fraud then the scrutineers FROM BOTH SIDES would all have to be in on it. I think whoever put the video together has got confused as to what was going on. First the papers are counted FOR EACH BOX (irrespective of what the vote was on each paper) this is to establish that the number of papers matches the voting numbers recorded at that particular polling station. Then the papers are sorted into YES and NO votes. Then the YES votes and the NO votes are counted into bundles of 25 and aggregated into piles of 100 papers. Then a figure for the total YES and NO votes is calculated AND COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL total of papers. At any stage a scrutineer can ask for a bundle of papers to be checked (as to which way each vote went) and recounted. The chances of any significant error (more then 1 or 2 wrong papers in a bundle are minimal. And, if the vote at any polling station was close either side can ask for a recount. I've actually been at a count where there were 4 recounts - but the difference is usually one or two votes or a misplaced bundle. Good post that, very informative.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Sept 19, 2014 17:36:04 GMT
They voted to keep the Giro as their currency.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Sept 19, 2014 17:49:31 GMT
i'm now awaiting people to start telling us that Salmond was actually a Cyborg created by Westminster specifically to confuse the electorate and win the eulection for the No campaign by programming him to specifically ignore and fudge issues over a 2 year period. Starkiller over to you Well, apparently there's rumours of some leaked documents suggesting something similar...
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Sept 19, 2014 18:08:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 19, 2014 18:11:33 GMT
Well that's what you get when you trust a fucking Tory. Less than 24 hrs later!!!!!!!
Mr Salmond announced his resignation as David Cameron promised new powers for Scotland.
The First Minister, 59, said now was the "opportunity to hold Westminster's feet to the fire on the 'vow' they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland".
He said he had spoken on the telephone to the Prime Minister who had "reiterated his intention to proceed as he outlined".
"But he would not commit to a second reading vote by March 27 on a new Scotland Bill", which the SNP leader said was a clear promise set out by Gordon Brown in the campaign.
The PM said such a vote would be "meaningless", according to Mr Salmond, who added: "I suspect he can't guarantee the support of his party."
Mr Salmond said some people will be "incandescent" if they see "slippage" from a timetable clearly set out just a few days ago.
Shame on the lying Tory bastard.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 19, 2014 18:37:47 GMT
Really? Everyone bar a few on here accepts that the yes campaign was better. The yes vote went from 30% to 45%. The no camp were very complacent until a last minute rousing of anyone and everyone, politicians and businesses alike, they could muster to scare the floaters into voting no when they thought there was a possibility they might lose. They have had to concede Devo Max as it says above. Now the rest of the UK and England are already making noises about their own regional and city devolutions, although this is not mentioned in that piece from The Times. Pretty much everything else in it is bang on. It'll be interesting to see what they say in tomorrow's edition and whether they've done a complete u-turn! Behave! It's true that the people in the yes campaign think their campaign was better - but they fall into the trap of the self- delusional; believing the arguments that convince themselves will convince others. They utterly failed to convince voters concerned with the economy that an independent Scotland would be better. They failed to attract women. The SNP need to reflect on these failings. The latter, of course, may be addressed with a new leader. The big winner for this looks like it's David Cameron. Because he's put his main opponent at the UK level in a bind over the West Lothian question. Hard to see how Ed can get out of that.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 19, 2014 18:53:41 GMT
Ed can get out of that by becoming the new SNP Leader...
Surely he can't fail to attract female voters.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 19:27:01 GMT
Really? Everyone bar a few on here accepts that the yes campaign was better. The yes vote went from 30% to 45%. The no camp were very complacent until a last minute rousing of anyone and everyone, politicians and businesses alike, they could muster to scare the floaters into voting no when they thought there was a possibility they might lose. They have had to concede Devo Max as it says above. Now the rest of the UK and England are already making noises about their own regional and city devolutions, although this is not mentioned in that piece from The Times. Pretty much everything else in it is bang on. It'll be interesting to see what they say in tomorrow's edition and whether they've done a complete u-turn! Behave! It's true that the people in the yes campaign think their campaign was better - but they fall into the trap of the self- delusional; believing the arguments that convince themselves will convince others. They utterly failed to convince voters concerned with the economy that an independent Scotland would be better. They failed to attract women. The SNP need to reflect on these failings. The latter, of course, may be addressed with a new leader. The big winner for this looks like it's David Cameron. Because he's put his main opponent at the UK level in a bind over the West Lothian question. Hard to see how Ed can get out of that. And most political commentators and observers. Ultimately it didn't succeed and some numpties will judge it solely on that (not calling you a numpty btw) but it increased independence support by 50% and put the shits up the no lot to the extent that they had to offer the last minute bribe of Devo Max, something which Cameron originally refused for consideration on the ballot paper as he felt secure enough that yes would not win. Imagine that being the result when the whole thing started off and support for independence was at less than one person in three!
|
|