pmu 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The line was always " its not about the politicians" but the vote for scotland. Was salmond the right person to head it up. He is a street fighting, lying, manipulative, bullying politician of the highest order. Would a more inclusive, trustworthy, type have got the yes over the line? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The losers continue to spout nonsense about what the percentage was in particular age groups or from area to area. It was a national vote with two options, and as such, the only numbers that matter are the winning 55% and the losing 45%. Didn't Papal Bear claim that on the Friday morning he would deal with the result and move on? Same old same old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chibmark 15 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The losers continue to spout nonsense about what the percentage was in particular age groups or from area to area. It was a national vote with two options, and as such, the only numbers that matter are the winning 55% and the losing 45%. Didn't Papal Bear claim that on the Friday morning he would deal with the result and move on? Same old same old. And as if by magic, the type of guy mentioned in the OP is now throwing around thinly veiled religious insults. This place used to be a hotbed of passionate discourse, but for whatever reason, the past year has seen guys like Andy Steel disappear and replaced with the guys found in other classless forums. Think it's time for the site owners to weigh up what kind of talking shop you want here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,255 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 You've got to laugh at the YES'ers saying Westminister will renege on its promises for that's exactly what they'd have done had they won last Friday. Would they have got sterling ? EU membership? NATO membership? Doubtful If they reneged on any of them would there have been a re-run of the referendum? not a chance. One thing about that referendum was that if they'd won there was no going back whatever happened Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Irrespective of what we think should happen, this is what is happening ... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/reaching-agreement-further-powers-scotland-4308584 Reaching agreement on further powers for Scotland will not be easy, says Lord tasked with making it happen Sep 23, 2014 13:43 By Dailyrecord.co.uk 1 Comments LORD Smith of Kelvin said the country's political parties must show "courage and compromise" if they were to agree on what further powers could be devolved to Holyrood. Lord Smith of Kelvin says further devolution will not be easy THE peer tasked with building a consensus around new powers for Scotland has advised his work will not be easy and he cannot force an agreement between the political parties. Robert Smith, Lord Smith of Kelvin, urged Scotland's political parties, which have separate devolution proposals, to show "courage and compromise" in reaching an agreement. He set out details of his Scotland Devolution Commission and started talks with Scotland's political parties during a visit to the Scottish Parliament today. He said: "Following the referendum we have a willingness, shared by all five of Scotland's main political parties, to strengthen the powers of the Scottish Parliament. "My message today to the political parties is a simple one - Scotland expects you to now come together, work together and agree the detail of what those powers should be. "Time is tight but this is not an exercise in thinking about what we could do; that has been done. It is about agreeing on what we will do. "My job is to create a process through which agreement is reached, but I cannot force an agreement. It will not be easy; it will require positive intent, courage and compromise from all parties. But I have confidence that our political leaders will rise to the challenge and I look forward to working with them." The commission will hold cross-party talks and civic engagement to produce recommendations for further devolution by November 30. This will be informed by a UK Government command paper, to be published by October 31, and will result in the publication of draft clauses by January 25. The recommendations will deliver more financial, welfare and taxation powers to the Scottish Parliament. A set of proposals - the heads of agreement - will be published by the commission, independent of both the UK and Scottish governments, based on the views of the five political parties and with input from the wider engagement programme. Over the course of today, Lord Smith will meet with the Presiding Officer and representatives of the Scottish Conservative Party, Scottish Labour, Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party. He will invite each party to nominate two representatives, at least one of which should be a member of the Scottish Parliament, to take part in the cross-party talks. He will also ask each party to prepare a written submission on their views on strengthening the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The names of the party representatives will be published by September 26. Later this week, Lord Smith will write to Scottish civic institutions and business groups, seeking their views on strengthening the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. Next week, he will announce plans for how individual Scots can share their views on the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 You've got to laugh at the YES'ers saying Westminister will renege on its promises for that's exactly what they'd have done had they won last Friday.Would they have got sterling ? EU membership? NATO membership? Doubtful As has been shown, we could absolutely use sterling but perhaps not in a currency union. Although, that one could have been a bluff to bully the voters. You can't see the cards if you don't call. EU membership - no chance we would be rejected, the problem would be the conditions - like adoption of the Euro and Schengen. There was far more chance of not being in the EC in say 10 years time, by the no vote winning. Middle England are more and more adopting the opinion that the UK should leave. NATO would be a complete formality. That's just a red herring. If they reneged on any of them would there have been a re-run of the referendum? not a chance. One thing about that referendum was that if they'd won there was no going back whatever happened This is where you're arguing against yourself. A lot of the no votes was because some of this *couldn't* be promised. There is nothing to renege on. The devolved powers *were* promised and the impression was given that this was possible and even guaranteed. One thing is for sure is that the new Scottish parliament would have tried it's hardest for those issues, can the same be said of Westminster? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The losers continue to spout nonsense about what the percentage was in particular age groups or from area to area. It was a national vote with two options, and as such, the only numbers that matter are the winning 55% and the losing 45%. Didn't Papal Bear claim that on the Friday morning he would deal with the result and move on? Same old same old. Does this also apply to a Rangers win? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Behave yourself?? You seem to be the one dismissing the older voters right! Or is that not what you are saying? I think what is being said is that in say 20 years time, many of the over 55's will likely have passed away if current life expectancy doesn't change much. In their place will be the 35 to 55's now. If they stick with the same votes - unless it is an age thing where you change your mind as you get older, then that demographic could change. That could make a big difference if everyone else keeps the same vote and the next generation of 15 to 35's vote in a similar way to those now. It seems pretty logical, if having a fair few assumptions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think what is being said is that in say 20 years time, many of the over 55's will likely have passed away if current life expectancy doesn't change much. In their place will be the 35 to 55's now. If they stick with the same votes - unless it is an age thing where you change your mind as you get older, then that demographic could change. That could make a big difference if everyone else keeps the same vote and the next generation of 15 to 35's vote in a similar way to those now. It seems pretty logical, if having a fair few assumptions. The NO vote would have been required to deal with a YES result as it is, not as it might one day be. We would have lost our British citizenship and been expected to take it on the chin and deal with it, and many of us would have done so. It was the NO vote that triumphed though, and some people are struggling to even acknowledge it, and when they bring up age as an issue for a vote that has already occurred - and is set in stone - they make themselves look small and embittered. The sovereign will of the Scottish people is that the Union will continue. Nothing can or will detract from this very hard fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Does this also apply to a Rangers win? Does what apply? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts