AberdeenBud Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Eh? Nearly 70% of the electorate wanted this vote. Some to vote yes and others to put it to bed finally. It's why Cameron allowed it. It was still remarkable that the SNP were able to form a majority administration under an electoral system explicitly designed to stop them doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 @ yes supporters: How will you react if the result is no Probably go down to Carlisle and capture it in the name of FREEDOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendan Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Eh? Nearly 70% of the electorate wanted this vote. Some to vote yes and others to put it to bed finally. It's why Cameron allowed it. What I meant was that none of the three main parties wanted us to have a vote on independence prior to the SNP winning in 2011. It could easily have been an option on the ballot paper in 1979 and 1997, but it wasn't. I don't think we should assume another chance will come along quickly if there is No vote this time. I'm sure it would come eventually, but I really hope that no-one would vote No this time, or not vote at all, with the idea that they'll have another chance to vote later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 You ran away the last time you peddled this rubbish and were called on it. Cameron 'winning' a referendum on Europe would mean the UK staying in, guven that is his preference and what he will be campaignibg for. First time i mentioned this, u got the wrong man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 In fact you have a handful of twats on both sides of the debate who are simply attempting to ruin every thread by verbally abusing each other. It's as though the ability to communicate with respect was lost somewhere in our history. You name one person in your post who has not displayed a single piece of evidence of independent thought or insight of their own but that poster is not the only one. There's an trolling problem on here and every other forum where a handful of people deliberately wind others up. We then have an ego problem which means a handful of others are obsessed with responding to the troll in a likewise manner. Result? The forum disappears down a hole and only the twats are left. My advice is for people to ignore trolls and those who've responded in a completely over the top aggressive manner. Trolls crave attention. Deny them that and they'll disappear within days and maybe the rest of us adults can discuss things in peace. Yeah... meanwhile who are tge 4 parties in Scotland who can genuinely form the majority party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Eh? Nearly 70% of the electorate wanted this vote. . That could be a more ridiculous claim than your one above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Would have to move on I suppose. Would be extremely gutted and upset that scaremongering had prevailed and that fellow Scots did not use the courage to vote for a progressive change. Would also have a go at every single no voter who moans what Westminster do to Scotland after it! Honestly think Scotland will drop into a deep depression after a No vote. Those who vote No will be waiting for this change to happen, which just won't... Scaremongering is not just the tool used by the No campaign. I would argue that both sides have used it when it was politically expedient to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Scaremongering is not just the tool used by the No campaign. I would argue that both sides have used it when it was politically expedient to do so.Nicola Sturgeon is quoted today as saying there are in Scotland 'almost a million people in poverty as a direct result of these Tory Lib-Dem policies' which is of course lies. And shameful lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Nicola Sturgeon is quoted today as saying there are in Scotland 'almost a million people in poverty as a direct result of these Tory Lib-Dem policies' which is of course lies. And shameful lies. Can you provide specific evidence to back up your assertions that she's telling porkies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Nicola Sturgeon is quoted today as saying there are in Scotland 'almost a million people in poverty as a direct result of these Tory Lib-Dem policies' which is of course lies. And shameful lies. What is the verbatim quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Scaremongering is not just the tool used by the No campaign. I would argue that both sides have used it when it was politically expedient to do so. "Look at how shite everything is and project forward" is not scaremongering. It's meteorology. Compare that to the Biblical plagues trotted out in the Scotsman every weekday by the No campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What is the verbatim quote? Would you like to make one up as you did with George Osborne so humiliatingly? "Just this week, we have seen an independent report warn of a 'humanitarian crisis' in Scotland, with almost a million people in poverty as a direct result of those Tory-Lib Dem policies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Would you like to make one up as you did with George Osborne so humiliatingly? "Just this week, we have seen an independent report warn of a 'humanitarian crisis' in Scotland, with almost a million people in poverty as a direct result of those Tory-Lib Dem policies." At the risk of repeating myself: Can you provide specific evidence to back up your assertions that she's telling porkies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 At the risk of repeating myself: Can you provide specific evidence to back up your assertions that she's telling porkies? I already have. There are not almost a million Scots in poverty, and even is her figures were correct (which they aren't) this is not as "a direct result of those Tory-Lib Dem policies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I already have. There are not almost a million Scots in poverty, and even is her figures were correct (which they aren't) this is not as "a direct result of those Tory-Lib Dem policies". There are almost a million Scots in poverty. 870,000 is almost a million in anyone but a fool's language. So what caused them to be in poverty then? Did they fall over and all their money fell out? Come on, HB, don't be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 So what caused them to be in poverty then? A ridiculous definition of poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 A ridiculous definition of poverty. Just in case you missed it on the other thread. From the CPAG website you quoted: "Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 600,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16. This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.7 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020." CURRENT GOVERNMENT POLICIES, HB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Just in case you missed it on the other thread. From the CPAG website you quoted: "Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 600,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16. This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.7 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020." CURRENT GOVERNMENT POLICIES, HB. Which is not at all the same as saying there are 870,000 living in poverty as a direct result of current government policies. Were the SNP in power, and Scotland was independent, there would still be (using a definition of poverty they aren't even transparent enough to name, but clearly relates to relative income) hundreds of thousands of people in "poverty". It's a nonsense claim that actually demens real poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Which is not at all the same as saying there are 870,000 living in poverty as a direct result of current government policies. Were the SNP in power, and Scotland was independent, there would still be (using a definition of poverty they aren't even transparent enough to name, but clearly relates to relative income) hundreds of thousands of people in "poverty". It's a nonsense claim that actually demens real poverty. Sweeping, deflecting, whataboutery and word salad in one fell swoop? Bravo, HB. I didn't think it was possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Can any of you guys who are arguing over legal definitions of poverty provide a rough breakdown of what you think it costs to survive with a family of 4 on an average rent or mortgage in Scotland? This is an impossible question to answer as it is absent much needed information. Where in Scotland? What age are the children? What other benefits are either party entitled to? etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.