Blackpool Jags Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Yep, fairly dry as I expected, but summary points: Nicola Sturgeon - ahead on points; assertive, purposeful and credible Cameron - tadger Clegg - even bigger tadger Farage- bigot, and promoting some sort of national socialism Plaid Cymru leader - honest and plausible, if lacking in leadership qualities Green Party leader - credible on some issues, obscure in others Miliband - an improvement on his early period of LP leadership, but lacks statesmanship Over and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Yep, fairly dry as I expected, but summary points: Nicola Sturgeon - ahead on points; assertive, purposeful and credible Cameron - tadger Clegg - even bigger tadger Farage- bigot, and promoting some sort of national socialism Plaid Cymru leader - honest and plausible, if lacking in leadership qualities Green Party leader - credible on some issues, obscure in others Miliband - an improvement on his early period of LP leadership, but lacks statesmanship Over and out. Strugeon credible? Claims fiscal competance and runs her budget on grants, does not use the tax powers she has, does not spend all she recieves, says she is does not recieve enough. Accuses others of discrimination yet prevents people in her own party from contesting seats they are entitled and able to because they are in England. Like Salmond before her she is without question assertive, purposeful and a canny political operative. However, while willing to fight our corner and commit to one union she refuses to fully participate in another. She is a peddler of fear and perceived oppression and promoter of division, exclusion and expoiltation. Edited April 2, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I thought Bennett was incredible, she pished all over the others as far as I am concerned. She was clear, to the point, true to the ideals of the left, credible and commanded an authority every time she spoke. The room went silent to listen to her each time she spoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Strugeon credible? Claims fiscal competance and runs her budget on grants, does not use the tax powers she has, does not spend all she recieves, says she is does not recieve enough. Accuses others of discrimination yet prevents people in her own party from contesting seats they are entitled and able to because they are in England. Like Salmond before her she is without question assertive, purposeful and a canny political operative. However, while willing to fight our corner and commit to one union she refuses to fully participate in another. She is a peddler of fear and perceived oppression and promoter of division, exclusion and expoiltation. Just my view of how the candidates came across on the night. I don't agree with your views on NS in general, to be honest; she does cut a statesman-like figure, in my opinion, and keeps Scotland in Holyrood well to the left of both Labour & the Lib Dems who seem to be facing a sevco-scale meltdown in a few weeks time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 I thought Bennett was incredible, she pished all over the others as far as I am concerned. She was clear, to the point, true to the ideals of the left, credible and commanded an authority every time she spoke. The room went silent to listen to her each time she spoke. Bennett did come across better than I had expected her to, though possibly a bit light on forcefulness (if that makes any sense). I see the Greens as possibly being a makeweight in a future Govt., if not this time round. And, yes, their politics is 'new left'; their ideals will be put to the test in future should they hold the balance of power, or part thereof. If so, let's hope they don't suffer a spectacular moral collapse in the way that the LDs have done under Clegg in his all out quest to be somebody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Strugeon credible? Claims fiscal competance and runs her budget on grants, does not use the tax powers she has, does not spend all she recieves, says she is does not recieve enough. Accuses others of discrimination yet prevents people in her own party from contesting seats they are entitled and able to because they are in England. Like Salmond before her she is without question assertive, purposeful and a canny political operative. However, while willing to fight our corner and commit to one union she refuses to fully participate in another. She is a peddler of fear and perceived oppression and promoter of division, exclusion and expoiltation. Sounds like your knee-jerk, predictably stagnant response could have been written without you even having seen the programme. The kind of response that is seeing the number of people about to vote for the SNP surging way beyond what any other political party in Scotland is likely to be able to muster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Just my view of how the candidates came across on the night. I don't agree with your views on NS in general, to be honest; she does cut a statesman-like figure, in my opinion, and keeps Scotland in Holyrood well to the left of both Labour & the Lib Dems who seem to be facing a sevco-scale meltdown in a few weeks time. As it was mine and I generally agree with your initial assessment, ( 2 out of the 3 adjectives you used, I endorsed ). She's a popularist with faux convictions. Perfect fit for the SNP. Will work with anyone to advance their cause of separation, including those who would deny our sovreignty. "Well to the left", that's an easy path to take when you have a convient oppressor and don't raise your own finance. I agree they want to tell us what to do, tell us what's good and bad, but Labour died from the same disease and the Lib-dems will not be forgiven for negotiating with the tories. You call Farage a bigot. Would Sturgeon concede there might be a way to reform the UK so her ultimatum of separation is redundant? At least at westminster her party and members can propose and has succeeded in passing legislation. That is not how it works ( or doesn't work ) in Brussels and Strasbourg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Sounds like your knee-jerk, predictably stagnant response could have been written without you even having seen the programme. The kind of response that is seeing the number of people about to vote for the SNP surging way beyond what any other political party in Scotland is likely to be able to muster. Knee jerk and stagnant? After calm consideration i stand by my response. Please expand on "stagnant" I'm not sure what you are critical of. The SNP surge in support is because they have trashed and denied the rest and claim competence in balancing the books. They do not balance the books. They simply keep them tidy. They blame others for the shortfalls in cash while scotland suffers and refuse to use the powers they have to raise income for fear of criticism. Worse still, they don't even spend all they have and divert cash into vote grabbing and entrenchment of policy areas knowing they have succeeded in convincing many that any struggling sector is the fault of westminster's greed. People were treating the referendum like a general election, demanding policy promises be delivered when only one question was able to be answered. We are now in the very dangerous position that many will view the general election as a referendum and use their vote to express their opinion on a single issue. Well played SNP. ... I'll give you that. ... but you don't fool me. Edited April 3, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 There seems to be a (grudging) consensus down here, amongst a lot of people I know, that Nicola Sturgeon enjoyed a points victory in the debate. Her style and sharpness of presentation certainly grabbed the attention of a few who'd barely heard of her but never seen her in action. The SNP's politics are of course anathema to unionists, and therefore many people hold that against them, but that's another story. At a time when there is little appetite for the bland, feckless personas of the leaders of the 'big three parties', there's little doubt that Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor wouldn't fit that category. As much as Andy Burnham on Question Time, when pushed hard on the subject, 'asserted' that there is absolutely no possibility of a Labour - SNP coalition, I don't think anyone was fooled; an expected increase in SNP seats in Westminster WILL give the SNP a big say in the next UK Government. Too many politicos already in denial on that score, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerjag Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Ed Miliband looking down the camera because he wants to talk to the people of britain = cringe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) There seems to be a (grudging) consensus down here, amongst a lot of people I know, that Nicola Sturgeon enjoyed a points victory in the debate. Her style and sharpness of presentation certainly grabbed the attention of a few who'd barely heard of her but never seen her in action. The SNP's politics are of course anathema to unionists, and therefore many people hold that against them, but that's another story. At a time when there is little appetite for the bland, feckless personas of the leaders of the 'big three parties', there's little doubt that Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor wouldn't fit that category. As much as Andy Burnham on Question Time, when pushed hard on the subject, 'asserted' that there is absolutely no possibility of a Labour - SNP coalition, I don't think anyone was fooled; an expected increase in SNP seats in Westminster WILL give the SNP a big say in the next UK Government. Too many politicos already in denial on that score, in my opinion. Yup.... to many down south she is a novelty, a surprising shrewd and polished politician on the UK scene who's never sat in westminster. However, a candidiate who refuses to represent you despite agreement, praise and admiration soley because of where you live should be the empitome of a "bland and feckless persona". Not irrelevent, but not an ally you can rely on for loyalty or common cause. It has been many unionists' folly, both north and south, to underestimate the threat of the SNP and their determination to break up the state. Naive and pompous to think they could pacify separatist intentions with "their own parliamnet". It has proven to be the quintessential proving ground for the nationalist cause, a £414million state of the art training facility for the SNP agenda. SNP politics are not so far from Unionist thinking. Although very different in political ideologies, one claiming "Libertarian" one "social democracy", comparisons with UKIP can be easily made. The main difference is for the SNP it's anyone but England. They denounce westminsters austerity measures yet they want Scotland to be seen as equal partners in a union with europe containing the heavyweights of France and Germany imposing austerity on Greece to the point far right murderers and far left rebels were the peoples choice. They want shot of nuclear weapons but to remain part of a nuclear alliance. They denounce the far right but wish to remain in a union with France who's Front National hold 1/4 of their european seats.... Better together - vote SNP. You can't fool all of the people all of the time ..... you just have to fool most of the people some of the time. It was also hinted at by Peter Hitchens that some tories may welcome SNP victory to maintain majoritive power in a "free" England. I would not be surprised if some clandestine handshake has been done. It would not be the first time SNP and tories have co-operated to manoeuvre power rather than represent the people. It's indicitive of the sad state of UK politics when the leader of the opposition at westminster uses his 4 questions in a live televised debate with the Prime Minister to repeated call for a live televised debate with the Prime Minister. Perhaps we should dispense with archaic practises of fair hearing, consideration and putting pices of paper in boxes and just all have buzzers and illuminated "X's" if we are not wow'ed by the act. Edited April 3, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Incognito Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 There seems to be a (grudging) consensus down here, amongst a lot of people I know, that Nicola Sturgeon enjoyed a points victory in the debate. Her style and sharpness of presentation certainly grabbed the attention of a few who'd barely heard of her but never seen her in action. The SNP's politics are of course anathema to unionists, and therefore many people hold that against them, but that's another story. At a time when there is little appetite for the bland, feckless personas of the leaders of the 'big three parties', there's little doubt that Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor wouldn't fit that category. As much as Andy Burnham on Question Time, when pushed hard on the subject, 'asserted' that there is absolutely no possibility of a Labour - SNP coalition, I don't think anyone was fooled; an expected increase in SNP seats in Westminster WILL give the SNP a big say in the next UK Government. Too many politicos already in denial on that score, in my opinion. As good as Sturgeon was, I think the representatives of the four unionist parties were more interested in scoring points off each other, hence Sturgeon (and Bennett and Woods, to a lesser extent) had a bit more space to, for want of a better description, 'showboat'. There were political points they could have pulled her up on but they would mainly have centred on aspects of governance controlled at Holyrood, so an irrelevance as far as a Westminster GE is concerned. Next week STV are doing a leaders debate, featuring Sturgeon and the managers of the Scottish branches of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat (but not, disappointingly, the Scottish Green's excellent Patrick Harvie). It is highly unlikely Sturgeon will have as easy a ride; they will be gunning for her. Then again, having Willie Rennie gunning for you must be like being chased around the room by Bungle from Rainbow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroon Posted April 5, 2015 Report Share Posted April 5, 2015 ChewingGum......Your use of the term "separatists" says it all, as does the lame comparison of the SNP with UKIP. I assume that you will be opposed to the estimated £3billion repair bill for the House of Parliament on cost grounds? Dave C and Milliband are still pro-Europe so, by you logic, they are also in bed with right wing parties such as the Front National, absolute nonsense. Something like 25 out of 28 countries in the NATO alliance do not have nuclear weapons. It's a sad day when the leader of the Labour Party tries to make political capital out of a 4th hand (perhaps "lost in translation") pack of lies printed in The Telegraph. The SNP and Sturgeon are open to criticism on their record in Government. However it looks like the Establishment have ben rattled by her TV performance and project fear is one again raising it's ugly head. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 5, 2015 Report Share Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) macaroon... My use of the word "separatists" is contextual. SNP want to separate from UK. UKIP want to serparate from EU. What else do you derive from its' meaning? The SNP were granted a referendum on their issue. UKIP are campaigning for one on theirs, and it's worth noting that historically Labour, Liberal and Conservative have all changed their minds on when and if they might deliver one. I am not arguing that puts them "in bed" with France's front national, maybe they do have separate rooms, however it keeps them in the same hotel and sharing breakfast. I'm not for letting world famous buildings rot. However, if you were not so willing to assume another's character, you'd take time to consider i'm of the opinion parliament could sit in Maryhill Community Central Halls and be encouraged to do a better service. Only 3 NATO countries do have nave nuclear weapons though, and without them it would be a far less influencial and effective defence alliance. There are 8 sovereign nations who are known to have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. 2 of those, and 1 further nation who refuse transparancy over its acknowledged nuclear capability are non signatories of The Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Furthermore North Korea signed the treaty, never complied with its' terms and withdrew about 10 years ago. Of the 5 recognised Nuclear weapon states within that treaty we have the least amount of nuclear warheads... And then there is Iran, 60 years of skeptical negotiation between them and the US is not ended over coffee, chocolates and the exchange of cuckoo clocks in the Alps. The real and present danger of rogue states and terrorist groups is unknown. Its a sad state of affairs, but we cannot simply un-invent nuclear weapons. This live boradcast : , ain't The Telegraph. I don't think the establishment were particulary rattled by Sturgeon's audition. Probably more pissed off at her ability to deflect criticism onto them and her "let's be pals" line of attack is admired and believed. Scotland and England best of chums, but stick your nuclear weapons up yer Solent. Her bravado might well be popular, but it does not comfort me. Edited April 5, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroon Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 You are evidently so anti-SNP that I wonder if it's even trying to address your points. Anyway, the Yes campaign was not one and the same thing as the SNP it was a broad coalition The post referendum surge in support is on two counts. Firstly, many people believe that having a large number of SNP MPs will help ensure the promises made by the Westminster parties will be delivered, you may recall that Gordon Brown talked about powers akin to Home Rule for Scotland, i.e.everything apart from defence and foreign policy, now it didn't quiet work out that way.....Secondly, a huge loss in belief in Labour. 7 months ago we were being love-bombed and begged to stay in the UK, now that we have the cheek to use our democratic voice in a way that challenges the status quo we are a threat to democracy. You claim on the one hand that the SNP is anyone but England n then criticize Sturgeon when she appeals to ant-Tory voters in England! Scotland doesn't want to be an "equal partner" in Europe, it wants to have a distinct voice, something I doesn't have at the moment. Just because Greece and France have extreme politicians then it follows that the SNP and others who are pro-Europe are guilty by association? Can you explain In what circumstances Trident would be used? IS are running amok in the middle east, atrocities in Kenya/Nigeria, Putin in Ukraine, 9/11, attacks in London. The possession of Trident was a costly irrelevance. Your link to a Commons debate, your point is? What values are we protecting anyway?......the right to attack and demonise the most vulnerable in society (bed-room tax, job seekers), the right of civil servants to undermine democratically elected individuals vial lies passed o the Tory press? Carmichael says it was one of those things, that's ok then, 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 Bravo Sherlock, your powers of deduction amaze me. I'm "anti-SNP". Even though it's been explained to me many times, I just won't accept the clear evidence life will be better for all under their authority. However, my questions are not intended to be mere mischievous bigotry and points made, not to draw attention to clerly inconsequential fact, or to tarnish the glorious revolution of thought, hope and progressive politics. I just don't get it. Please, don't give up on me!!! A broad coalition of support for the Yes vote? : The official "Yes Scotland" campaign had support from 3 established political parties, SNP, Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialists. Other noteable groups purportedly independent but supportive of the official campaign included: Labour for Independece (est 2012). Set up as a facebook campaign, claimed 2000 members at its peak. Chief exec of official Yes campaign attended first official meeting. Now defunct. Founder joins SSP. Women for Independence (est 2012) . Formation accredited to former Labour Party advisor. However, other lead spokes-women for the group included a prominent SNP activist & 2 former SSP MSPs who also claim it was their idea. Business For Scotland (est 2012) The broad spectrum of approximately 350 business leader has been fronted by 3 key figures. A former soldier, an SNP MSP and the group is now led by a former SNP local council (hyndland ward Glasgow 1999) candidate. He was not elected. Radical Independence (est 2012) Although "Yes Scotland" & Snp distanced themselve from the group following some controversial executions of their "non-violent direct action" campaign, their first conference included speakers Aamer Anwar a prominent SNP member, Dennis canavan chair of the official campaign and Patrick Harvie leader of the greens. National Collective (est 2012?) Purportedly an arts collective in support of independence, perhaps best known for being threatened with leagl action for an article it published on its' website by a young student. An edited re-publication of the article was displayed and the threat of legal action withdrawn, David beat Goliath, ablely supported by SNP activist Aamer Anwar. Wings over Scotland (est 2011) A website started by a Scot living in England who can't vote SNP, couldn't vote in referendum, and who's writings in reference to the Hillsborough disaster caused Yes Scotland to admit actually, social media is not all good. The majority of its' funding came from the SNP and the SNP voting (and previous donators to that party) Euro-lottery winners the Weirs, allegedly £3.5million. The largest no campagin donation was, again allegedly, £1million from J.K.Rowling. Evidence suggests that the no campaign received the larger number of smaller donations. Of course there are many different visions of what an independent Scotland might constitute. However, the problem is, as I previously stated when suggesting that for many this general election will be seen by many as a second referendum, that political ideals will be sidelined in order to embolden the SNP cause. I have no arguement that the SNP is a much divided party itself and its glue is "Independence". Salmond, the master tactician, reduced his first scottish cabinet (2007) from 9 to 6 in order to quell dissention from his party line. But is that really such a good thing? All the while, he keep's everyone's attention on gaining independence, he is entrenching his own party's ( or more acurately his own ) political position and legacy. Sturgeon has perpetuated the plan, appealing to socialst ideals, but blaming the union for cash shortfalls while refusing to raise her own. She seduces anti tory sentiment in England, but appeals to them for what? Their vote? Come on, it's classic snake in the grass stuff. Put me in power then see ya later. Gordon Brown was not in a position to offer anything during the referendum. A failed and unelected Prime minister who led his party to it's second worst defeat in living memory at westminster. A backbencher of the busted flush of "New Labour". But gordy bashing asides, no one had the right to promise policy post referendum. Who had the majoritive mandate? Who did we elect to deliver the plan? The question was constitutional with only two affirmative answers, not about who should represent us on broader policy. Of course, now at this election you have a right to exercise you views again. It's not that SNP voters are seen as a threat to democracy, it's that they are a self proclaimed threat to the UK. The SNP hope to hold the balance of power when the votes are in, despite contesting 1/12 of constituences and you are argueing Scots don't have a distinct voice in the UK? Good luck establishing that kind of leverage over the course of EU policy. We have elected MPs same as every other part of the UK, yet devolved measures are not of limits to them. I'm not arguing the situation is good, bad, right, wrong, perfect or in need of change here... But Scotland has the most "distinct voice" of UK home nations apart from Northern Ireland. Sturgeon has made an offer to Miliband to "Lock Cameron out of no.10". Is that not suggesting any Labour unionist to be guilty by association with the tories? I made no accusation of gulity by association. My point was that voluntary involvement in political union with countries who flirt with extreme executives is not a good idea. Trident is in use. It is a deterrent. I think it's better to deter others from attack than have to defend yourself with force. A costly irrelevance? The "cold war" was so called because there was no large scale fighting between the two main protagonists and allies. That was a cost worth paying. The link was in support of my previous statement about milliband, but also serves as evidence of the tories gauding Labour with the SNP. It's no surprise to me that newspapers print lies or partizan propoganda. I tend not to beleive what the papers or politicians say, I form opinion on it. I'm of the opinion SNP/tory collaboration is not without precedent. Truth is, Tory or Labour majority... it's very likely a win/win for the SNP .... should they do well on the home front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroon Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 It seems to me that you have a pathological hatred of the SNP....the "threat of the SNP"...."the populist SNP" (what party isn't populist?)....Sturgeon as a "peddler of fear"......and most ridiculous of all your comments....Hollyrood as a "training facility for the SNP" In fact your thinking reminds me of the obsession (of "the other") emanating from selick/sevco supporters. I don't understand your libertarian v social democracy argument. Russell Brand and Farage are libertarians? Presumably your reference to "Westminster austerity measures" was an oversight as you ha referred to "shortfalls in cash" separately. I don't think North Korea or Iran will be taking much notice of the UK's nuclear arsenal an they have forged ahead in efforts to develop missiles despite the much larger nuclear arsenal...so much for deterrent then. Perhaps you would care to explain the circumstances in which Trident would be deployed...... As for the cold war, post WII the super-powers armed and supported countries across Africa and Asia with resulting mass death and destruction....The Torygraph article was published one month after the Sturgeon/French Embassy meeting, it just so happened to be a day after Sturgeon was highly rated across the media for her TV performance and people in England had the chance to see her speak and form their own opinion, many were impressed. Incidentally, the indy No campaign was much better funded than the Yes campaign. Perhaps you will boycotting Firhill given the donation from the Weirs to the Yes campaign......I mean you are virtually living in the same house if not quite sharing a pie and bovril with them..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroon Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 correction: "much larger US arsenal" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the diagnosis. I am displaying symptoms of severe criticism of The Party and discomfort of policy. This seems to you to be abnormal, possibly Illness or disease. ... that's that then .... what can i say? .... how long have I got doc? ..... just tell me, i can take it .............. Please don't stop my medicine. I do wonder what other words would be more appropriate though. The Party are a threat to the current state of the United Kingdom. Mock the training ground metaphor if you like but the peak of SNP elected representives before it exsisted was late 70s, 11MPs, and 150-200 councillors. Over the period of the last 3 holyrood elections they have gone from 27 seats to 69, 170 to over 400councillors yet have retain around 20% of the westminster vote 6ish MPs and 2 MEPs. Sturgeon herself failled twice to get elected to Westminster, made Holyrood twice as #1 on the party list before finally gaining a newly constructed constituency seat for her prospective leadership role. If holyrood was a gym Alex would be red bull and fake tanned oot his nut daein steroids in the cludgie, checkin wee Nicla's tooshie keepin up with the boyzeez, nae bother! YAAAAAASSSS!!!! Who's Hoooose ? ... SNP's HOOOOSE!!!!! I understand that "populist" is a vague political adjective, and could be applied to many if not all modern partys in some context. However your shrewd analysis of my nasty intent was correct, in that I was using it as a pejorative term for The Party's claim to speak for naturally politically progressive Scotland, that we must unite as Scots to free ourselves from Those who would divide us and the shackles of the westminster elite who have betrayed and neglected Scottish public and break social barriers of status and caste, celebrating the people's community and striving for the commonweal!!! I mistook all that sh1t for empty rhetoric y'see. I should have embraced the bold warrior Salmond and joined my sister Sturgeon's fearless struggle towards better days for the righteous. Hope over fear!!! Aye... i'm just a big feartie.... it was dead funny right enough when Big Eck called that posh english fud cameron a "big feartie"... I didn't make an agrument libertarian v social democrat. I pointed out that's what they claim of themselves. Did you mean they are one in the same? Russel Brand is not a libertarian, or a democrat really.... Some kinda anarchist maybe? Don't think he realy knows himself... which is fine... why d'you bring him up? Farage is nearer libertarian principles, but he's playing Salmond's populist policies game now for similar reasons. I think he'd want to take his party on a different path if elected but like Salmond has one big target and has said he'll chuck it if he doesn't get in. Westminster austerity and shortfalls in cash is no oversight. It's a very real problem for many folks and worth mentioning more than once. No nukes on our shores! ... that's a pretty good track record. This trident thing must be working. We'll save the cash on foreign aid, when we support other countries they only end up fighting resulting in mass death and destruction. Yeah... tories and the media .... it always them what's printing the fibs. I never said who had more dough. I said the no's had more contributors. ya pie! I've no intention of boycotting Firhill. I'm very gratefull to the Weir's for their support and cash. We're a football club and i trust the weir's to respect that as do i. In fact your thinking reminds me of the obsession (of "the other") emanating from selick/sevco supporters. Try keepin to the point ya nugget. Edited April 10, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroon Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 You could have taken the opportunity to make a reasonably argued criticism of the record of the SNP in government but preferred to make childish personal remarks about individuals, "wee Nichola's tooshie" is just pathetic. You could have made a positive case for the continuation of the United Kingdom but failed to do so mind you the Better Together campaign didn't either so there is consistency on that count. You might have come up with a scenario where Trident would be used but none was forthcoming. Come to think of it all the non-nuclear (25 of 28?) NATO countries should really get their act together and invest in some missiles, how have they survived without them and what a bare-faced cheek not to have acquired their own systems. Yes, you omitted to mention that the No Campaign was overall better financed as it didn't fit with your argument. If Scotland is tarnished by being a member of a European Union that includes extremists in Greece then how can you cheer on kids that make the Thistle first team having benefited from £0.7 million from the Weirs who support the scummy separatist SNP? I do support independence as Scotland has it's own legal/educational and religious institutions, it's own languages and cultures and now a Parliament with representation on a PR basis. There are other positive factors, of course the prospect of an almost guarantee that the Torys will never be in power after independence is an attractive one. I' not wholly convinced by the SNP but in the sort-term they best placed to deliver. Perhaps this debate can be opened up to others, I'd welcome that as I really can't be bothered with the petty name calling and personal jibes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 ChewingGum......Your use of the term "separatists" says it all, as does the lame comparison of the SNP with UKIP. I assume that you will be opposed to the estimated £3billion repair bill for the House of Parliament on cost grounds? Dave C and Milliband are still pro-Europe so, by you logic, they are also in bed with right wing parties such as the Front National, absolute nonsense. Something like 25 out of 28 countries in the NATO alliance do not have nuclear weapons. It's a sad day when the leader of the Labour Party tries to make political capital out of a 4th hand (perhaps "lost in translation") pack of lies printed in The Telegraph. The SNP and Sturgeon are open to criticism on their record in Government. However it looks like the Establishment have ben rattled by her TV performance and project fear is one again raising it's ugly head. You are evidently so anti-SNP that I wonder if it's even trying to address your points. Anyway, the Yes campaign was not one and the same thing as the SNP it was a broad coalition The post referendum surge in support is on two counts. Firstly, many people believe that having a large number of SNP MPs will help ensure the promises made by the Westminster parties will be delivered, you may recall that Gordon Brown talked about powers akin to Home Rule for Scotland, i.e.everything apart from defence and foreign policy, now it didn't quiet work out that way.....Secondly, a huge loss in belief in Labour. 7 months ago we were being love-bombed and begged to stay in the UK, now that we have the cheek to use our democratic voice in a way that challenges the status quo we are a threat to democracy. You claim on the one hand that the SNP is anyone but England n then criticize Sturgeon when she appeals to ant-Tory voters in England! Scotland doesn't want to be an "equal partner" in Europe, it wants to have a distinct voice, something I doesn't have at the moment. Just because Greece and France have extreme politicians then it follows that the SNP and others who are pro-Europe are guilty by association? Can you explain In what circumstances Trident would be used? IS are running amok in the middle east, atrocities in Kenya/Nigeria, Putin in Ukraine, 9/11, attacks in London. The possession of Trident was a costly irrelevance. Your link to a Commons debate, your point is? What values are we protecting anyway?......the right to attack and demonise the most vulnerable in society (bed-room tax, job seekers), the right of civil servants to undermine democratically elected individuals vial lies passed o the Tory press? Carmichael says it was one of those things, that's ok then, It seems to me that you have a pathological hatred of the SNP....the "threat of the SNP"...."the populist SNP" (what party isn't populist?)....Sturgeon as a "peddler of fear"......and most ridiculous of all your comments....Hollyrood as a "training facility for the SNP" In fact your thinking reminds me of the obsession (of "the other") emanating from selick/sevco supporters. I don't understand your libertarian v social democracy argument. Russell Brand and Farage are libertarians? Presumably your reference to "Westminster austerity measures" was an oversight as you ha referred to "shortfalls in cash" separately. I don't think North Korea or Iran will be taking much notice of the UK's nuclear arsenal an they have forged ahead in efforts to develop missiles despite the much larger nuclear arsenal...so much for deterrent then. Perhaps you would care to explain the circumstances in which Trident would be deployed...... As for the cold war, post WII the super-powers armed and supported countries across Africa and Asia with resulting mass death and destruction....The Torygraph article was published one month after the Sturgeon/French Embassy meeting, it just so happened to be a day after Sturgeon was highly rated across the media for her TV performance and people in England had the chance to see her speak and form their own opinion, many were impressed. Incidentally, the indy No campaign was much better funded than the Yes campaign. Perhaps you will boycotting Firhill given the donation from the Weirs to the Yes campaign......I mean you are virtually living in the same house if not quite sharing a pie and bovril with them..... You could have taken the opportunity to make a reasonably argued criticism of the record of the SNP in government but preferred to make childish personal remarks about individuals, "wee Nichola's tooshie" is just pathetic. You could have made a positive case for the continuation of the United Kingdom but failed to do so mind you the Better Together campaign didn't either so there is consistency on that count. You might have come up with a scenario where Trident would be used but none was forthcoming. Come to think of it all the non-nuclear (25 of 28?) NATO countries should really get their act together and invest in some missiles, how have they survived without them and what a bare-faced cheek not to have acquired their own systems. Yes, you omitted to mention that the No Campaign was overall better financed as it didn't fit with your argument. If Scotland is tarnished by being a member of a European Union that includes extremists in Greece then how can you cheer on kids that make the Thistle first team having benefited from £0.7 million from the Weirs who support the scummy separatist SNP? I do support independence as Scotland has it's own legal/educational and religious institutions, it's own languages and cultures and now a Parliament with representation on a PR basis. There are other positive factors, of course the prospect of an almost guarantee that the Torys will never be in power after independence is an attractive one. I' not wholly convinced by the SNP but in the sort-term they best placed to deliver. Perhaps this debate can be opened up to others, I'd welcome that as I really can't be bothered with the petty name calling and personal jibes. Your first 3 rebuttals open up with remarks which are presumptive, patronising, dismissive and disrespectful of any question or criticism. Petty name calling is just that. Suggesting that in expressing opposing views to yours or to a political party, one is indicating signs of hatred caused by mental disorder or illness is a little more personal, obnoxious and of a far more sinister fascistic nature. Learn to write in paragraphs, like the grown ups do, before criticising others childish behaviour. Check yo' self, before y'all wreck yo'self, dawg!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroon Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 I stand by everything that I've said. Although it's low-level stuff it was you that described me as a pie and a nugget. However I'll accept the comparison to Sherlock Holmes as he was known for his astute logical reasoning -you got that one right. At what point did I suggest you were suffering from a mental disorder or illness? Anyway I don't want to take up any more of our time, you must have a Peter Hitchens article to read, enjoy your Daily Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) You could have taken the opportunity to make a reasonably argued criticism of the record of the SNP in government but preferred to make childish personal remarks about individuals, "wee Nichola's tooshie" is just pathetic. You could have made a positive case for the continuation of the United Kingdom but failed to do so mind you the Better Together campaign didn't either so there is consistency on that count. You might have come up with a scenario where Trident would be used but none was forthcoming. Come to think of it all the non-nuclear (25 of 28?) NATO countries should really get their act together and invest in some missiles, how have they survived without them and what a bare-faced cheek not to have acquired their own systems. Yes, you omitted to mention that the No Campaign was overall better financed as it didn't fit with your argument. If Scotland is tarnished by being a member of a European Union that includes extremists in Greece then how can you cheer on kids that make the Thistle first team having benefited from £0.7 million from the Weirs who support the scummy separatist SNP? I do support independence as Scotland has it's own legal/educational and religious institutions, it's own languages and cultures and now a Parliament with representation on a PR basis. There are other positive factors, of course the prospect of an almost guarantee that the Torys will never be in power after independence is an attractive one. I' not wholly convinced by the SNP but in the sort-term they best placed to deliver. Perhaps this debate can be opened up to others, I'd welcome that as I really can't be bothered with the petty name calling and personal jibes. I was gonna leave it at that.... but i've got a minute before the BIG MATCH... Of the 25 non-nuclear states in Nato at least 5 of them are known to host US and UK nuclear bases. Germany, Turkey, Belgium, The Netherlands and Canada I think. Although, Nato forces are in constant action defending the interests of its members, consulting and assisting in UN operations, the only time Nato members have been held to the part of the treaty which requires them to assist a fellow signatory under attack was after 9/11. When the USSR broke up, 1/3 of its' nuclear capability was allegedly in the Ukraine. On independence they were persuaded to disarm and a treaty was signed at Budapest offering the assurances of UK/US and Russia Their sovereignty and security would be assured if they were to proceed towards becoming a non- nuclear state. Without wishing to go into a long explanation or analyisis of the rights and wrongs and history of the current Ukrainian situation in relation to why ideologically enforced or lead disarming is a danger, suffice it to say there are some in the Ukraine who think they may have made a grave error. A memeber of Klitschko's UDAR party and current member of their fragile parliament was quoted in the American press as sayin "We gave up nuclear weapons because of the protection and assurances agreed in the Budapest Memorandum. Now, there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake. ... ... In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine. If you have nuclear weapons, people don't invade you." E.T.A. Peter Hitchens was on Question Time. http://dictionary.re...athological?s=t ... it really is elementry stuff. Daily Mail??? ... Yeah another example of your magnificent astute logical reasoning Holmes..... assumption and prejudice! See You at the big match buddy.... I guess you'll be the lad in the kilt, glengarry and dessie boots, eating porridge, drinking Irn bru and blaming our English players for holding us back from our potential? Y'urra pie!!!! Edited April 11, 2015 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroon Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 The term "pathological" in the wider (non-clinical) sense is applied to people who are perceived as extreme, obsessive, irrational and illogical...... I think the good citizens of Canada would be a tad upset to find US nuclear weapons on their territory. Hey, let's have nukes in the Baltic states and all the former Soviet EE countries. A credible conventional military defence in the EE countries is what s called for. However the main threats to these islands are from cyber attack, terrorism and possibly biological agents......how does Trident address any of these? It doesn't. Your inspirational friend Peter Hitchens doesn't even believe in the UK deterrent any more, check out his blog in the Mail Online. As for your suggestion that I might pick out English players in the Thistle team for blame, that's shoddy even by your low standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted April 12, 2015 Report Share Posted April 12, 2015 Oh right... So my pathological hatred does not render me a full blown nutter... just places me at the edges of society, abnormally intent, deprived of normal reasoning and incapable of correct or reliable inference? ... Nice! .... nothing patronising or disparinging there then. And here was me thinking you were calling me a pure mad mental beyond saving .... What um ah like, ay?!?! No, considering they got rid of their own bombs in the 80s, best not tell the crazy canucks it's part of the deal. Especially the Saskatchewanites that are still making a living from the world's most productive uranium mines. Ah yes... let's go back to nice conventional weapons. World wars 1&2 were so gentle, bit of a laugh looking back. We'll just get some nice volunteers to die so we don't have to. Eventually one of them has gotta shoot the last guy with the recipe for the nukes. Then we can just not talk about it and it'll all be fine. Nope... you are dead right. Three main threats to these islands is not nearly enough. Let's add another. Good for Peter. We haven't spoken since the last time he was on the telly. Even then he pure dingied me! Oh how I miss him so... Now your telling me to read The Mail?!?! .... I thought it might get me blacklisted and top of the list for corrective service come the revolution. Has big posh Peachy been taken off the list? Can I beleive what he says now? Does his sadly departed brother being a former Marxist win him points? Or did he blot his file with some of his pro-american ramblings towards the end? Did you see the smiley face? ... it was ment to be shoddy, in response to your refined, shrewd witticism suggesting my support of the Jags is untenable given the hypocrisy in continuing to support a football team who accept donations from those who have different political views to mine.... even by your nugget standards, I thought that was pretty low. 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.