Casual Bystander Posted September 7, 2014 Author Share Posted September 7, 2014 Salmond could do a counter offer that could win it for Yes. What more can he offer than what the Yes campaign already offers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 What more can he offer than what the Yes campaign already offers? Think about it. What's the one reason that many No voters give for not voting for Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actonsheep Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Think about it. What's the one reason that many No voters give for not voting for Yes? Fear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo99 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Think about it. What's the one reason that many No voters give for not voting for Yes? dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 He means giving wee nicola the reins I think. Not sure that would make a huge difference tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Shower of wankers. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29100372 People have already voted. It clearly is purdah. Despite what pravda says. I foresee problems if it is a narrow no vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted September 7, 2014 Author Share Posted September 7, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo99 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 People have already voted. It clearly is purdah. Despite what pravda says. I foresee problems if it is a narrow no vote yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Imagine if the electoral commission do admonish BTUKOK for illegal campaigning activities? That would kill off any lingering hopes they had. It would end them. And I, in true Kevin Keegan style, would LOVE it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arabdownunder Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Imagine if the electoral commission do admonish BTUKOK for illegal campaigning activities? That would kill off any lingering hopes they had. It would end them. And I, in true Kevin Keegan style, would LOVE it. ^^^^ Has forgotten how that worked out for Kevin Keegan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plugin Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Imagine if the electoral commission do admonish BTUKOK for illegal campaigning activities? What would likely happen in such circumstances? A swing to yes? Is that all? (As if that wasn't enough!) Just wondering what the consequences are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 What would likely happen in such circumstances? A swing to yes? Is that all? (As if that wasn't enough!) Just wondering what the consequences are. I would imagine they'd get no more than a slap on the wrist, but publically, it would finish them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 What would likely happen in such circumstances? A swing to yes? Is that all? (As if that wasn't enough!) Just wondering what the consequences are. There has been talk that what has happened here was also against the law. If this is true, then should it be unreasonable for those who broke the law to be dealt with accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 It's not against the law - the UK govt aren't covered by these rules, but they gave a gentleman's agreement they would abide by them. This needs to be the focus from Yes - how can you trust someone to keep a promise when by offering that promise they were actually breaking another promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 It's not against the law - the UK govt aren't covered by these rules, but they gave a gentleman's agreement they would abide by them. This needs to be the focus from Yes - how can you trust someone to keep a promise when by offering that promise they were actually breaking another promise. Talk was not of the Edinburgh agreement itself, it was more along the laws of an election. Don't know if they cover a referendum also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 How long until they pop up and give us an answer to what the EU said about Scotland's chances of joining the EU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted September 8, 2014 Author Share Posted September 8, 2014 Right, this is totally not against the Edinburgh Agreement. How do I know this? Because it's very simple, read my lips.... NO MORE POWERS That's what the Bitters are offering. Absolutely nothing different to what was offered beforehand. All they are doing is providing a time frame for what they had already loosely offered. So, ask yourself, why didn't Westminster think that it was right for them to do this in the first 2 years of the campaign rather than in the last 10 days? One might suggest it's a sense of complacency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Right, this is totally not against the Edinburgh Agreement. How do I know this? Because it's very simple, read my lips.... NO MORE POWERS That's what the Bitters are offering. Absolutely nothing different to what was offered beforehand. All they are doing is providing a time frame for what they had already loosely offered. So, ask yourself, why didn't Westminster think that it was right for them to do this in the first 2 years of the campaign rather than in the last 10 days? One might suggest it's a sense of complacency. So it's not about " NO MORE POWERS ". It is, about when we will get " NO MORE POWERS "? Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted September 8, 2014 Author Share Posted September 8, 2014 So it's not about " NO MORE POWERS ". It is, about when we will get " NO MORE POWERS "? Gotcha. Exactly that. OK, let's be fair there are some powers that have been soft shoe shuffled towards the Scots with no guarantees, but in terms of what is to be offered it's no more new powers, just clarification of what all 3 parties were soft of offering before. Westminster felt that they didn't need to tell us until the very last minute. Why do you think that is? It's surely not part of their campaign strategy, "Let's wait until people have sent in the postal votes then we'll flesh out the details". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted September 8, 2014 Author Share Posted September 8, 2014 So Gordon Brown has claimed that after a No vote there should be a "period of consultation with 'civic figures' and a draft bill should be placed in front of parliament on 2015". Is anyone else spotting some key flaws in regard to these "guarantees" of further devolved powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.