renton Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Because the paper has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and doesn't address the fundamental issues in any reasonable manner. The press conference merely highlighted the major flaws. You are a quick reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Because the paper has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and doesn't address the fundamental issues in any reasonable manner. The press conference merely highlighted the major flaws. What holes? What fundamental issues does it not address? The press conference highlighted nothing more than that Salmond and Sturgeon were comfortable answering all the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Because the paper has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and doesn't address the fundamental issues in any reasonable manner. The press conference merely highlighted the major flaws. You've already read it all? Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Only a tinted specked numbnuts would think that didn't go well, regardless of who I decide to vote for the pair of them came across very well, much better than the usual say a lot and explain nothing we get surrounding UK politics. How they "came across" isn't what I'm concerned with. I prefer to look at the detail of what is said rather than admiring Alex Salmond's choice of attire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Only reason I'm here and willing to dip my toe into the debate on here now is that it's being divvied up into threads that can be followed, so won't as easily get lost in petty squabling. For the record, my general stance is "no is my starting point, but please convince me otherwise". As I believe everyone should be. If we're not substantially worse off, then it'll be a yes from me. It's beginning to look more and more like a yes from me. The reason I use the word substantially is that for me, it's firstly all about if it makes financial sense then secondly if it doesn't, but we're not substantially worse off, then I would take this as our best ever opportunity of government reform and that Scots deciding Scottish matters would be the best way forward. So, I'm still a no (I obviously haven't read the entire report), but I'm getting nearer a yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Taranbino Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Looks like xbl has made a decision not to post on this sub forum. This day gets better and better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 That was a genuine laugh out loud moment. XBL- get on with it and Div, for fairness, can we have Swampy back? I'm clueless to the ban, but he's generally sensible. I would probably agree on Swampy's return, his contribution would enhance the discussions on the white paper so long as he manages to steer clear of his fondness for dipping into tedious mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMjag Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Because the paper has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and doesn't address the fundamental issues in any reasonable manner. The press conference merely highlighted the major flaws. Any particular points you take issue with? What are your examples of these 'holes'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 How they "came across" isn't what I'm concerned with. I prefer to look at the detail of what is said rather than admiring Alex Salmond's choice of attire. It was you that started it. Give us the details you disliked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Anyone else think Barry had that post written last night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabianKnight Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Only reason I'm here and willing to dip my toe into the debate on here now is that it's being divvied up into threads that can be followed, so won't as easily get lost in petty squabling. For the record, my general stance is "no is my starting point, but please convince me otherwise". As I believe everyone should be. If we're not substantially worse off, then it'll be a yes from me. It's beginning to look more and more like a yes from me. The reason I use the word substantially is that for me, it's firstly all about if it makes financial sense then secondly if it doesn't, but we're not substantially worse off, then I would take this as our best ever opportunity of government reform and that Scots deciding Scottish matters would be the best way forward. So, I'm still a no (I obviously haven't read the entire report), but I'm getting nearer a yes. Not to be presumptuous but sounds like you will be a Yes the day you tick the box. Nice one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Div Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 That was a genuine laugh out loud moment. XBL- get on with it and Div, for fairness, can we have Swampy back? I'm clueless to the ban, but he's generally sensible. Swampy hasn't been banned ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Not to be presumptuous but sounds like you will be a Yes the day you tick the box. Nice one. It really depends on the facts and figures. But I'm nearing the tipping point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Swampy hasn't been banned ? Option B then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 It really depends on the facts and figures. But I'm nearing the tipping point. I'm teetering myself, don't know why but that conference filled me confidence and enthusiasm, makes a change from the usual turgid same old same old feeling I get when I listen to politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggie_Murray7 Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 barrysnotter pretending to have read a 600+ page document in 2 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I'm teetering myself, don't know why but that conference filled me confidence and enthusiasm, makes a change from the usual turgid same old same old feeling I get when I listen to politicians. Haven't seen it yet as I'm at work, but will give it a look later. Had a quick scan through the White Document, and while it's missing a number of important things from my perspective, (CTRL+F can help you look for bits that pique your interest) I never really expected them to be in there. The things I'm referring to would be more party manifesto specific anyway I'd assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 It's time like this that I wish I was Mike Ross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMjag Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 barrysnotter pretending to have read a 600+ page document in 2 hours I think his general direction has been to criticise the paper, be asked why he takes issue with it, and then he scrambles for a point from the paper that he can try and whittle some negative pish out of. It would certainly explain his 'make a point and run away' tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Any particular points you take issue with? What are your examples of these 'holes'? Let's start with currency. 100% reliant on the UK accepting a currency union on Salmond's terms. No real acknowledgement of the risk involved and no alternative. That is one hell of a big hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.