xbl Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Everyone can see why. His referendum is in tatters, cameron owned him at Edinburgh and he's desperately trying to drag a Tory up here to play the class card. Cameron is laughing at him from London. The desperate "please debate me, pleassssse" whines show the desperation on the Yes side. Yep. Deluded dreamer in action. As demonstrated by his "YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE" spiel. It reminds me a lot of when the Euro collapsed. As argument after argument got dismantled by reality, he clung on to just screaming out "IT IS GOING TO COLLAPSE!!!" Well guess what? It didn't. Mitt Romney didn't become President, the SNP won the 2011 election, we are having a referendum, and the Euro is still going. Think on that when the liars and deflectors try their spiel. Just think on how disconnected to reality they are. I can imagine that they watched Sturgeon debate with Carmichael, and then pretended they never bothered to watch it, but heard that Carmichael won. Liars should be mocked. Welcome back. Clearly not a moment too soon. Why is nobody challenging these liars? Why are they given the run of the forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 You're a dishonest wee fucker aren't you? I know for a fact that this has been raised many times, and answered many times. Don't waste your breath trying to claim ignorance, because we both know thats a lie. Why should Salmond sully himself debating with some junior nobody? The opposite numbers thing has been explained to you many times now. If Darling wants to debate, he can debate his opposite number. If he wants to debate with somebody in the government (assuming he represents the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, and lets face it, Labour do up here), then he can debate with the Minister in charge of the referendum. Now, if you ask such a stupid question, yet again, after near a year of having it answered slowly, patiently, and in slow words, then we are going to do nothing but laugh at you. Take a telling. Keeping it business, I see. Why did you get banned btw? i tried to figure ot out from the Top 50 posters thread but it's a total clusterfuck He's said before that he'll debate with anyone, but he's holding out for Cameron and I can see why. Firstly, the argument that it should be a Scots only thing doesn't wash, Cameron is prime minister of the United Kingdom, if anyone has the knowledge and authority to put forth the positive case for the Union, it's him. Also as prime minister of the UK, he still apparently represents the 5.2 million Scots and has a duty to them - so why is he avoiding the debate with Salmond? Secondly, the presentational argument is great fro Salmond: Old etonian, upper class Conservative politician vs. Salmond? Salmond could slay puppies and kittens on naitonal TV and still win that debate. . Agree with all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Out of interest has darling requested a debate with the first minister of Scotland ? I believe he has yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Uh huh. Why on earth would Cameron want to debate with Salmond on an issue he has already stated is for Scots to decide upon, and which his preferred "side" is winning comfortably? What possible incentive does Cameron have to venture into this mess Yes are in and help them out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I believe he has yes. He has indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Keeping it business, I see. You've been informed of all this stuff over and over, and yet you keep asking exactly the same questions in that glaikit, uninformed, wide eyed way that you do. Well guess what, you've been informed many times. Continuing the same act does you no credit whatsoever, and so until you sort yourself out, you will be lumped in the Ad Lib camp. Why on earth would Cameron want to debate with Salmond on an issue he has already stated is for Scots to decide upon, and which his preferred "side" is winning comfortably? What possible incentive does Cameron have to venture into this mess Yes are in and help them out? He doesn't have to. I've said it in the past, he's under no obligation to do so. After all, if the Prime Minister of the CDU thinks Scotland is nothing to do with him, then I have no problem with that. Must be a hammer blow to tame Unionist types like you though, your dear leader doesn't care about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_bo Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 If it has not already been said I would imagine Alex Salmond would step down and retire in the event of a no vote. Maybe most of the senior SNP leadership. The SNP itself would I expect crumble into smaller pieces as the finger pointing and blame sets in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 You've been informed of all this stuff over and over, and yet you keep asking exactly the same questions in that glaikit, uninformed, wide eyed way that you do. Well guess what, you've been informed many times. Continuing the same act does you no credit whatsoever, and so until you sort yourself out, you will be lumped in the Ad Lib camp. Sorry if it wasn't clear but I was challenging the poster with that question, not seeking information. The poster had previously said that the "Unionists" didn't have a candidate to debate Saalmond, I pioinedted out that salmond is actively avoiding a debate with Darling. Anyways, what did you do to get banned from an internet forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why on earth would Cameron want to debate with Salmond on an issue he has already stated is for Scots to decide upon, and which his preferred "side" is winning comfortably? What possible incentive does Cameron have to venture into this mess Yes are in and help them out? I don't concede that his side are winning 'comfortably' the polls give differnet answers dependent upon the weighting used and none of them (including panelbase) provides for me, a decent, accurate snapshot of public opinion. And, to go back to my earlier response 'for the scots to decide' is a massive cop out and undermines the entirety of the Better Together campaign: If we are, as they say better together, then it should not be limited to the scots to say so. Ultimately, David Cameron is the anointed Spokesperosn for the whole United Kingdom, by democratic mandate. it is inconceivable thet he would, now, have nothing to say about the dissolusion of the state he serves. And as I said previously, if anyone has the arguments to make regarding how much netter we are united, it's him - he is at the peak of the British economic and political machinery. he sees the figures, has access to the information, and has the mandate to make guarentees to the Scots. No one else does. He is the prime minister not just of England, but of the 5.2 million Scots, regarldess of politics or presentation, he has a duty to them and to the british state to make the argument for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Sorry if it wasn't clear but I was challenging the poster with that question, not seeking information. The poster had previously said that the "Unionists" didn't have a candidate to debate Saalmond, I pioinedted out that salmond is actively avoiding a debate with Darling. They don't have a candidate. After all, if the chair of the No campaign is Darling, then he should be challenging his opposite number, Dennis Canavan, chair of the Yes campaign. This is why we see the two chief exec Blairs (Jenkins and McDougall) go up against each other. Likewise, the Scottish Government figure in charge of the referendum is Nicola Sturgeon, and she goes up against the British Government figure in charge of the referendum. This used to be Michael Moore, and after she dismantled him, it was Carmichael. So we have opposite numbers debating at several levels. So the closest to a logical opposite number to Salmond is Cameron, and I accept the Unionist argument that they are not truly opposite numbers, because I agree that Cameron has no obligation to debate. No problem with that. But it DOES mean that the Unionists don't have a candidate to debate Salmond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 And, to go back to my earlier response 'for the scots to decide' is a massive cop out and undermines the entirety of the Better Together campaign: If we are, as they say better together, then it should not be limited to the scots to say so. Also, if its for the Scots to decide, why do the British Government keep sticking their nose in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_bo Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why on earth would Salmond debate Alastair Darling? Salmond is first minister, Darling is some no mark nyaff sitting on the back benches. This is like a scaffy challenging Salmond to a debate and after he politely refuses for obvious reasons folk saying he is 'avoiding the debate'. Well of course he is, he is a fucking scaffy, duuuuuh. Salmond was one of the very few folk that could get under the skin of Tony Blair in the house of commons, On the subject of independence who would murder Eton Dave, it would be a holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 They don't have a candidate. After all, if the chair of the No campaign is Darling, then he should be challenging his opposite number, Dennis Canavan, chair of the Yes campaign. This is why we see the two chief exec Blairs (Jenkins and McDougall) go up against each other. Likewise, the Scottish Government figure in charge of the referendum is Nicola Sturgeon, and she goes up against the British Government figure in charge of the referendum. This used to be Michael Moore, and after she dismantled him, it was Carmichael. So we have opposite numbers debating at several levels. So the closest to a logical opposite number to Salmond is Cameron, and I accept the Unionist argument that they are not truly opposite numbers, because I agree that Cameron has no obligation to debate. No problem with that. But it DOES mean that the Unionists don't have a candidate to debate Salmond. It doesn't need to be an opposite number. Sturgeon debated Anas Sarwar for example. Darling and Salmond are the two figure heads of their respective campaigns. as the white paper media coverage showed. Anyways, why did you get banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Salmond is actively avoiding a debate with Darling Why? This should be funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why? This should be funny. There are plenty of theories, as this thread has shown. Surely Salmond has nothing to fear from Darling. right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Point one. Is he not the leader of the uk the thing that Scotland wants to break up ? Point two. Keeping Scotland in the uk. If he wants to keep Scotland in the UK, which he does, he is doing absolutely the right thing. Staying well out of it. He knows this, Salmond knows this. Which is why Cameron is grinning and flicking Salmond the Vs from London. Cameron has played an absolute blinder in this referendum. He's played Salmond like a fiddle. Which is why Salmond is frantically trying to drag Cameron into it, as he knows that he is losing, and losing heavily. It's a desperate move from a campaign that is facing a heavy defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 There are plenty of theories, as this thread has shown. Surely Salmond has nothing to fear from Darling. right? Only the fear that he might physically rend Darling asunder with the strength of his rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Only the fear that he might physically rend Darling asunder with the strength of his rhetoric. Ooooft, surely you cringed writing that? Ssalmond v Darling would be a really interesting debate in terms of styles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 He is the prime minister not just of England, but of the 5.2 million Scots, regarldess of politics or presentation, he has a duty to them and to the british state to make the argument for it. Right. So just to clarify here, you think he should breenge into this debate and increase the chance of Yes winning as a "duty"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Doesn't matter who debates, if your arguments are flawed then you will get your arse handed on a plate to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.