Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by lichtgilphead

  1. ^^^ and neither of them ever won the Scottish Cup
  2. Leaving aside the politicising of a 96 year old pensioner's death, | was interested in the quote by Tom Harris The last great setback for the Snp was the Indyref in 2014. As Tom feels that a generation has passed since then, maybe Labour are coming round to the view that Indyref2 is inevitable? Or maybe they use different definitions of generation depending on context?
  3. I'd like to see a statement by everybody condemningt he arrest of anti-paedophile 'protestors' in Scotland
  4. Remember though, different rules apply to our betters. Half your age minus seven is the rule for royals, so Diana was well within the permitted age range. See "Girls Andrew never met" for a more complete explanation
  5. Scotland's independence & whether we have a ceremonial head of state & an official religion are completely different matters. Only Kincy is trying to link them. I'm quite happy to have Chuckles III as our proddy king in an independent Scotland - right up to the moment that we have our referendum on becoming a secular republic, which I will happily vote for.
  6. Exactly. My partner's aunt is a US citizen, who spent her working career in Scotland. The US Govt do not pay her any pension, but the UK Govt do. In contrast, however, my brother has spent his entire working life in London. Are the Yoons seriously suggesting that if he moves to Spain on retiral, that he will get a rUK pension, but if he moves home, he will not get a rUK pension? Finally, I spent a couple of years working in Manchester (for a Scottish employer). Where will my contributions from that time be counted for my pension entitlement? In all 3 cases, I would suggest that the ongoing pension payment is due from the rUK Govt after Indy. What say you, Yoons?
  7. Don't know, but I see that at least one abusive post by him (and references to it) appear to have been removed...
  8. Remember now Antlion. According to our Yoon chums on here, only the Snp (and maybe Plaid Cymru) are nationalists. The "British" parties are patriotic. HTH
  9. Your avatar? I believe it's Steve Clarke. Bit strong to call him a bellend though IMO.
  10. Yeah, I can agree that Roman Britain included French Brittany. However, we can all agree that DAF's contention that "Britain" = "UK" is absolute nonsense, can't we?
  11. Isn't it strange that so many Unionists are confused about the various descriptions currently in use to describe geographical entities within the British Isles? The term 'Britain' derives from 'Britannia', the Roman name for the areas conquered by the Romans. Either Hadrians or Antonines Wall may be considered to be the limit of the Roman empire, but whichever definition is used, Britain does not include any of Ireland or most (or any) of Scotland. In simple terms that even Unionists can understand, 'Britain' is roughly equal to E&W, whilst Great Britain is equal to E,S&W As DAF says, Britain is not the same as Great Britain. It's significantly smaller. TL:DR More Unionist misinformation tonight!
  12. So, does your passport say "United Kingdom of Great United Kingdom & Northern Ireland" or "Britain of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Like some US visitors, do you also consider "England" to be synonymous with "Britain"& "UK"?
  13. I assume that you mean the UK? Ulster & the Shankhill are not part of Britain. It's not quite as simple as you appear to suggest. Incidentally "kith & kin" does not reflect everyone's situation. I have one Spanish relative (a brother in law). On his own, he outnumbers all my NI & Welsh relatives.
  14. If you ever make a salient point, I'll be sure to address it. Opinions, unsupported assertions & misused statistics aren't really salient, however.
  15. Your posting ridiculous opinions & using statistics in meaningless ways doesn't really constitute a discussion. I've already demonstrated that your evidence doesn't stack up, so unless you plan on posting facts instead of opinion, I think we're done.
  16. Any other Rangers fans trolling on the politics forum instead of concentrating on their team? No? None? Of course, they did let their club die, didn't they.
  17. Dhurie claims to be a Rangers supporter, but he missed 20 minutes of the PSV game to type that nonsense above The funniest line was "The vow was kept", IMO. He never fails to amuse.
  18. OK, so we have two competing theories Dhurie says thar every single idividual pollster got every single idividual poll wrong in favour of Yes, and makes the statistically ignorant mistake of attempting to compare results with "don't knows" included with "don't knows" excluded (which immediately discredits his figures). He then goes on to say that the infamous Vow didn't affect the final result as it was "just part of the campaign", even though it could't have affected any of the polls (except maybe the last 2?) but was cited by 3.4% of people polled after the event as the reason why they voted no. I suggest that the polls were correct (within the stated margins of error, of course) and that the lies on the front of the Daily Record had the effect of increasing the Yoon majority from 52:48 to 55:45 Occam's Razor, Dhurie?
  19. Why are you not acknowledging the 3.4% boost given to the nawbags vote by the Vow? "3.4% cited the offer of more powers as the main motivation for their decision"
  20. You don't understand statistics, do you Dhurie. Firstly, you are comparing poll results with figures given for "don't knows" with the final result. That's a big no-no in statistical terms. Secondly, every poll apart from the final two will not factor in the effect of "The Vow" As usual, we can safely ignore your witterings.
  21. Britain is not a country. Like Kincy, you are ignoring Northern Ireland. Accordingly, we can ignore your wittering.
  22. Yeah, that's pretty much Scot Goes Pop's opinion. Curiously, the headlines generated from this poll have been less about the headline numbers, and more about the hypothetical numbers in the highly likely event that Liz Truss becomes Prime Minister next month. Yes would supposedly move into a 52-48 lead in that scenario. As is always pointed out, results from hypothetical questions have very little credibility - we've seen that in the past with results predicting there would be a decisive swing to Yes if Brexit occurred, or if a particularly Hard Brexit occurred, or if Boris Johnson became Prime Minister. The problem is that by asking how people would vote in an indyref, and then asking how they would vote in an indyref if Truss is PM, you're drawing attention to the Truss Factor and implying it's the sort of thing that could change people's votes, which might in itself be enough to nudge certain respondents in a particular direction. It's worth noting that the hypothetical question about Sunak being PM also shows a lower No vote - which makes no sense, because voters should already be factoring in the certainty that either Truss or Sunak will shortly be in Number 10. Nevertheless, the poll is still extremely valuable because it helpfully feeds the narrative that a Truss premiership will be a gift for the pro-independence campaign (as indeed it probably will be in the long run).
  23. Apparently in the Suday Times /Panelbase pollig, the usual indy question results in 49 yes, 51 no. However when they followed that up with a similar question under Truss as PM, the scores change to 52 yes 48 no. That's ot a bad starting position...
  24. As I said, it was either you, or one of your many aliases - probably Albus?
  • Create New...