The Moonster Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well, it happened sooner than I thought it would but my uncle has been turned from the No side . He posted a fairly large amount of Better Together stuff and I thought he'd be set in his ways but me and a couple of others kept chipping away at the nonsense he was spouting. It was all about Salmond for him, he didn't want to give him the satisfaction of winning independence I think. He hates him, which is fair enough, but I'm glad I now seem to have hammered the point home that if you don't like Salmond then don't vote for him after independence. I think he's finally fed up with what Better Together are campaigning as well and I'm sure others will be the same. I'm delighted as I've always looked up to him and I often agreed with him on social/political issues so to see him turn to the Yes side when I know how stubborn he can be is fantastic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well played Moonster. I find it incredibly frustrating when I encounter people who are voting No just because of Salmond. So, so, so short sighted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 (edited) Well played Moonster. I find it incredibly frustrating when I encounter people who are voting No just because of Salmond. So, so, so short sighted. You need to articulate how stupid that stand point is in a manner that doesn't make the person feel stupid. Edited December 3, 2013 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well played Moonster. I find it incredibly frustrating when I encounter people who are voting No just because of Salmond. So, so, so short sighted. You need to articulate how stupid that stand point is in a manner that doesn't make the person feel stupid. Totally agree. This has to be one of the most frustrating issues of the whole debate and ayrmad has made an excellent point there. I have lost count of the times I have ended up in a heated argument with people, whose main reason for dismissing the whole idea of Independence is their irrational dislike of Salmond - it does make you wonder how he ever got elected - and it doesn't help win them over. In most instances, I get the impression these people won't make it to the polling centre anyway but I no longer rise to it and adopt a more softly, softly approach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I tend just to say, "aye, I hate Salmond too, what a c*nt, but I am still voting Yes" and then get into a dialogue from there. FWIW, I like Eck but if I need to pretend I don't just so I can find some common ground with soft Nos/undecideds then so be it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Totally agree. This has to be one of the most frustrating issues of the whole debate and ayrmad has made an excellent point there. I have lost count of the times I have ended up in a heated argument with people, whose main reason for dismissing the whole idea of Independence is their irrational dislike of Salmond - it does make you wonder how he ever got elected - and it doesn't help win them over. In most instances, I get the impression these people won't make it to the polling centre anyway but I no longer rise to it and adopt a more softly, softly approach. Anyone that knows me knows that I can't really hide my passion when I'm in a discussion, I enjoy it, it isn't the way to influence people though, I'm not even sure what will happen to the SNP in the event of a YES vote, they can't all be on the same side of politics once independence is stripped away. What I do know is that there is enough evidence out there to convince most people to vote YES, it's how the YES campaign produce this evidence that will decide independence, they can't hide major documents like the 1 about oil as easily nowadays. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well played Moonster. I find it incredibly frustrating when I encounter people who are voting No just because of Salmond. So, so, so short sighted. Yeah, I find the "well voting No means you're happy with Cameron then?" argument seems to work pretty well. People might hate Salmond's smug face and may not want to give him the satisfaction of winning independence but to place your country's future on something as trivial as that is just not on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Henry having another pop at Better Together http://www.yesscotland.net/news/henry-mcleish-criticises-uncompromising-and-consistently-negative-no-campaign I wonder what's stopping him from coming out and supporting independence 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Henry having another pop at Better Together http://www.yesscotland.net/news/henry-mcleish-criticises-uncompromising-and-consistently-negative-no-campaign I wonder what's stopping him from coming out and supporting independence I don't know his views but he's only showing NO the error of their ways, not quite what I'd do if I was an influential person looking for independence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Thats right. They had two options to consider and chose the easier route in a lot of ways. If the former East Germans decided unification was nt working for them and decided to secede the Gordon EF tit might be onto something. Of course what would happen then is Germany would continue in membership and 'New DDR' would apply as a new member. Im glad people are starting to grasp this. I think everyone grasps that the situation is different. But clearly everyone managed to take a pretty common sense approach to something which wasn't specifically accounted for in any international/EU laws. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I think everyone grasps that the situation is different. But clearly everyone managed to take a pretty common sense approach to something which wasn't specifically accounted for in any international/EU laws. Well international law applied. It was nt 'common sense'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 You have nt read Crawford and Boyle s legal position on a possible Scottish secession have you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 And so the embarrassment continues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 You have nt read Crawford and Boyle s legal position on a possible Scottish secession have you? "All this is not to suggest that it is inconceivable for Scotland automatically to be an EU member. The relevant EU organs or Member States might be willing to adjust the usual requirements for membership in the circumstances of Scotland’s case" That Crawford & Boyle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 (edited) Well international law applied. It was nt 'common sense'. So West Germany subsuming East Germany would be no different whatsoever to the UK 'subsuming' India or France 'subsuming' half of North Africa? In these sceanrios India and North Africa would become part of the EU through being subsmed, without a hitch? Edited December 3, 2013 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I forgot to add, here is Henry's article in full http://www.holyrood.com/2013/12/no-campaign-uncompromising-and-consistently-negative-mcleish/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I forgot to add, here is Henry's article in full http://www.holyrood.com/2013/12/no-campaign-uncompromising-and-consistently-negative-mcleish/ That puts a better slant on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well international law applied. It was nt 'common sense'. International law didn't come into reunification itself at all. It was all handled by the grundgesetz. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 What's stoping Henry? Timing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Well played Moonster. I find it incredibly frustrating when I encounter people who are voting No just because of Salmond. So, so, so short sighted. I wouldn't vote for Salmond in an Independent Scotland but will continue voting SNP in the result of a No vote. I reckon there are quite a few people in that category. If anyone wants to stop seeing Big Eck's pus everywhere, voting No isn't going to do it. 0 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.