Scottish Elections Result

Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I read your posts pre-tensed because you're so aggressive in your tone and attitude towards England

:confused: :rolleyes:


Show me once in this thread where I have done anything like that. Quite the opposite, I've been very positive towards England's future.



that we should be so grateful for Scotlands being part of it rather than the other way round,

Erm....



your dislike for Westminster and the UK in general

And? What's that got to do with you?


and your seemingly unwaverable attitude that Scotland would be better off without the Union.

That is absolutely no justification to get aggressive with someone plat.

I'm sorry, but you really are talking a lot of urine.



talk about facts and figures yet when people provide facts and figures that show just how much Scotland would suffer and indeed how much England would suffer you tend to ignore them.

:confused:

No one has produced figures in this thread?

I would dearly love to have a reasoned debate on the subject, and for the most part they are, but in order to have debate one must be willing to have ones mind changed; I've never for once thought you are that kind of person.

Absolute nonsense.

Your sig may well have been "tongue in cheek" but its indicative of your general attitude.

No it isn't you are bitter and clutching at straws here, I've already explained it and if you can't understand it your failings are not my fault.


You can guarantee if it had been the other way round you wouldn't have been so "understanding" of its irony and hilarity. It's always the same. It's ok to bash England, bash the UK, etc but have a go at Scotland? Heaven forbid.

You quite simply are talking out your hairty bum hole I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
what did it say?

'Douglas' 'Douglas' "Ye shall all die thieves of England'

It's a quote from the wars of independence from a guy called the Black Douglas - more for the 'economic' side than the 'death'.

It was a tongue in cheek pish take to the likes of the xenophobic morons that have surfaced in here, but even they are too stupid to understand irony and sarcasm so...
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
Trying to read it neutrally I can see why people might view that as being aggressive

What, my sig?

The difference between the way I approach the subject and the historic vitrolic statement in my sig should be obvious and it has nothing to do with prejudice. It was borne from repeated experiences here from the that side and was a joke. More sensible people in SC don't seem to have this problem.

So the opposite side would be I am actually professing that all of England will die?

I think it ridiculous when I have clearly offered direction and positivity towards England as state in this discussion. England has a long and proud history and has often held interest with me; shame I can't say the same about all its occupants mind.. :p





it might be a fair question but with the internet you obviously lose a lot of the tone so while you may be charming enough in real life (Ahleckz seems to have fallen under your spell and you've not even met yet :p) to not be offensive. When asking that on the internet it's much more difficult to convey the same impression.

I can see that, but what plat came out with is a lot of guff.

I'm not anti English (or I'd have to be anti-some of my own family even), and I have not displayed anything like that in my postings.


Also you might want to edit the words that I've starred as they're probably viewed as disguised swearing.

I think you lot need to issue a list of what's ok and what's not! Don't know where to tread these days.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I'm not to sure on Alex I think he's a bit misunderstood, yes when he's in full blown mode he can look smug (hard not too with opposition like that) but in real life he is actually a very soft mannered and gentle man. And very kind too.

Like anyone on the soapbox they get carried away with their own argument, and no doubt that has to come across.

But, according to the leader polls and other politicians - he is clearly the only man with Scotland's backing to take Scotland forward regardless of SNP policy.

And I happen to think they are right...
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
Nothing to do with the signature, it was the "and what's it got to do with you" in regard to whether you have issues with Westminster. As I say it may be a perfectly fair question but it possibly comes across as rather forceful or aggressive. It's up to you of course if you feel like altering it at all but thought I'd highlight how it might appear to others.

Exactly it was seriously annoying. He is using my politics as being different to his as justification to get short and snappy with me before the discussion has even taken place by his own admission, I have not done the same with anyone else who has come here for a topical discussion.

It really has nothing to do with him, I'm fed up with being prejudiced for my political and historic views - and he clearly showed that initially with his tone, and all the other (you hate x y z) before I said anything like that.

I am genuinely sorry you have read that this way, and if anything makes me even more determined not to post threads on this topic here again.

I have spent three days continually answering questions, someone gets short with me then I'm disparaged for nipping back. If even a Scotsman thinks this of my postings what's the bloody point eh







Thanks for editing there, I don't know if such a list could be offered but I'll raise the point that there may be a lack of clarity and see if any guidance can be offered.

Please, because I don't know what's left from right with moderation these days
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I'm trying to be even handed here and point out how it could look to other people, personally it wouldn't offend me in the least but then again I'm pretty difficult to offend. You don't have to take any notice of what I'm saying, any advice given is to be used or ignored as you see fit.

I'm just fed up with it.

I'll draw an example. Erm I'll use Castiel not too sure how happy he'll be though but hang on..

You no doubt remember how we bounced off each other with on British history etc with little love lost for a long time. We both worked past that and when we chat now, we speak on very amicable terms. I actually quite often enjoy conversations with him, and even though we know we are diametrically opposed on politics it doesn't stop us discussing them civily and it is rarely pre-loaded if ever now.

Where as on the other side there are some who will regardless of my presentation at present before they post, or actual blooming argument, come in banding about a bunch of misrepresentations and insults about me.

And yes, I do get insulted if someone says I am anti-English. (But that's the age old 'British' defence isn't it if I'm allowed any cynicism here anymore. ;))

I'm as near as a 'hippy' global socialist deep down as you can get morally, and while I might have a penchant for historic social and political difficulties in the UK that does mean I hold prejudice for each and every one of those instances all boiled up in a big hate cauldron, which a lot of people try to infer.

I have also pointed out that in the context of this hypothetical discussion several times that we need all countries in the British Isles to be successful, we are neighbours friends and major trading partners.

We need that right now too. The only problem is the only way I can do what I do is to critique the failure so in effect it makes me look like a negative person, and unfortunately a lot of people don't like to look at failure on the things I do.

This is quite why I can't bring my discussions to OcUK and rarely do, I'll wait for other's to post the topics I want to talk about. Like colonial history, I brought that up years ago but it wasn't productive it wasn't worth the time.

I needed the cover of the British Prime Minister to discuss that rationally here for some.

I'm not the only one to have these problems either. If you raise them, they are ignored or (dare I say it? you know I will) you are bigoted or Anti-English.

I may spout rhetoric sometimes, it's really hard not to. :(
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
To be fair to Biohazard, he hasn't posting any anti-English comments and I've come up against him a few times in the thread (although he's admitted himself he dislikes central Government - maybe he'll start feeling that way about the SNP if they gained independence ha).

Oh cheers, not all hope is lost then :)

Don't worry I'm not a sychophant and I've got politics views beyond the SNP, I've had a few things to say about them over the last four years but not here as there is not really a lot of activity on these topics obviously. But other forums, blogs and websites yes.

But they have also done a lot right, and with this election as a push in momentum hopefully they can achieve a lot more without the oppose everything regardless 'Labour'.

It might sound like hyperbole, but if you know Scottish politics and can look at it impartially (yes I also have those skills) then that was what it was - regardless of the benefits to Scotland. They didn't want to let the SNP have success. Negativity rarely prevails as we have now seen.

I've said it before to anyone involved in Unionist politics, the arguments for the Union are going to have be in line with this positivity or it is likely to be lacking in effectiveness.

Differing opinions that won't budge and I still think his his economics are flawed but that's what forum discussions usually end up being. No one budges :p I also think he hasn't really trolled, he might have experienced less aggression if he had posted a bit more of a numeric evidence to back up his arguments and keep the people who don't understand his views are for his economic reasons (again, which I disagree with) rather than nationalist reasons.

The long term economic case is there for Scotland as it is for England/Wales seperately.

At the moment unless we strip the UK's world stance down to basic defence and lose all the other costly expensive custume jewellery we are likely to continue adding to the debt of the nation in the long term in my opinion. The political map looks very different over the last two years up to today across the UK, but it won't stay like this for ever. I know the reasoning behind a potential Conservative UK government next term, perhaps, but eventially it'll slide again. I am near firmly set in the argument that swing majority politics in this one size fits all economic/social approach is not working - and it causes a lag effect on the whole UK economy overall.

This is why we have devolution, Nat's all over Scotland metaphorically, ceding of more economic powers etc. What would stop this perhaps would be true federalist system, I can't see the Establishment going for it though. Westminster is a fickle thing, as has recently been evidenced.

I'm a Tory at heart economically, and instead of running off to London I'd rather stay here and stick with a socialist party who has a Scotlands economic interests at it's heart (then turn coat on them lol). Full unbridled fiscal autonomy may actually stop my nationalist want if the UK lost the costly stance and pretence.

I don't want my taxes to go to that nonsense, simply.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I think the UK could still use the Union Flag, from a heraldic point of view it might be a bit off but it would be a better time for wales to get a bit more prominance?

Dragon somewhere!! lol

What about this?

englandr.jpg


:p

The australians still have the flag in theirs, would they have to change thiers like a domino effect? :D
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
unionjackproposed.jpg


Some potential designs for the original Union flag. At one point Scotland was using one with the St Andrews cross at the fore, and England with St George's at the front.
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13321726

Tavish Scott to go, looks like with the exception of the Scottish Tories' Annabel Goldie, the SNP won't have any credible oppositon as the other parties are looking increasingly light weight.

I actually feel a shame for Tavish, he didn't want his party to go into Coalition with the Conservatives down south, and now he has ultimately had to pay the price for that.

I expect Gray to step aside, I don't think he has the calibre to do anything else than what he has been doing.
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
The Scotsman said:
The SNP is facing lots of good problems. The Scottish Parliament wasn't designed for parties to win a majority. Literally. "There isn't a room big enough for us to hold our group meetings," one minister noted yesterday, after the party had been forced to trek over to the nearby Holyrood hotel to squeeze all their members in. Just how far Scotland's political axis has shifted was becoming clearer last night as Scottish Secretary Michael Moore acknowledged the obvious; that sometime within the next five years, people in Scotland will be asked to decide whether or not they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. The term historic is used often but, in this case, without exaggeration.

lol

http://news.scotsman.com/holyroodelections/Eddie-Barnes-keep-the-faith.6764468.jp?articlepage=1

Another senior Labour figure warned that the party risked losing a referendum on independence if it failed to get its act together.

"It really is a case of ripping everything up and starting again. We have got to accept that this is our 1997 and we are the Tories. There is no policy, no strategy and no leader. We need to find a way of establishing people who we can get into the parliament and find a way of making them spokespeople in the run-up to the next elections. We will only win this referendum if we sort out the party first."

http://news.scotsman.com/holyroodelections/Labour-won39t-parachute-in-39big.6764461.jp?articlepage=3
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
Why not have a pitched battle Braveheart style to sort it out ?

David Cameron could have his army on one side and Alex Salmond the other. Swords, maces, axes and arrows to replace referendum cards and Huw Edwards commentating along with John Snow's Swinganaxeometer should make for good entrainment.

Add Emily Maitress wearing a busty serving wench outfit for the icing on the cake.

I agree.

Would make a great film if nothing else. :D

In light of the little dust bins, cheers guys at least your work won't be entirely silent from now on. :)
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
The scottish parliament having yet more problems, how am I not surprised...

Although I am not talking about the SNP exclusively here, they are involved. Scotland having its own parliament would be a farce

Scotland has had it's own parliament for more than a decade, and recently it has been outperforming Westminster on some key economic inidicators so... I don't think it's been a farse at all.

they cant even build their own parliament on time or anywhere near budget, god knows how they will survive with more pressing issues.

That was a Westminster problem, not the people who sat in the Scot's parliament once built.
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
You can blame Labour for that as they have held the City Council for the last eighty years. Now that the SNP have made gains in the Scottish elections I can only hope that this is replicated and exceeded in a UK election.

Labour in Glasgow is nothing short of a cabal, lining their own pockets at the expense of the population they are supposed to be representing. ALEO payments, junkets with SPTE and outright fraud is what Labour are best at in Glasgow and the sooner they are thrown out of office, the better. I can only hope that the SNP gain control of Glasgow City Council and start to put things right.

Or Labour Gaslgow councilors snorting cocaine on their desk, handing out dodgy contracts and being bent by criminals etc etc?

I'm not suprised Glasgow rejected them either...
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
Are you sure? I thought most of the cost rises came after responsibility was transferred from westminster/HM treasury?

Yes I'm sure.

The problems came from the westminster contract which was controlled by the Scottish Office in it's dying days.

Responsibility did not transfer to the intermediatry new Scot's parliament; they had an oversight committee that spent years going nuts - but Westminster had ensured they had no chance of interference.

It's a very old myth this one.
 
Back
Top Bottom