cosanostra Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 What's ridiculous about it? Too near the truth for you to tolerate? And you seem to know plenty about Hitlerum... Labelling your political opponents as 'vermin' reeks of 'Hitlerum'. Are you maybe confusing me with someone else? I didn't label any political opponents as "vermin". Your post was as poor as the other guys' and reeks of hypocrisy. You're clearly smart enough to understand why your post is nonsense so you must have been attempting to insult the other guy, Scots in general or yes voters. I find your posts entertaining mostly but you look a little odd pointing the finger at others for doing exactly what you did earlier in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Are you maybe confusing me with someone else? I didn't label any political opponents as "vermin". Your post was as poor as the other guys' and reeks of hypocrisy. You're clearly smart enough to understand why your post is nonsense so you must have been attempting to insult the other guy, Scots in general or yes voters. I find your posts entertaining mostly but you look a little odd pointing the finger at others for doing exactly what you did earlier in the thread. He does have great quips tbf. Loving the nazi and Hitler ones on this thread thus far. Edited January 2, 2015 by scott_jambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 He does have great quips tbf. Loving the nazi and Hitler ones on this thread thus far. True enough Scott. One of the funny JKB posters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 True enough Scott. One of the funny JKB posters. Yeah but not really though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yeah but not really though. Sometimes. I started watching M.A.S.H again online because of his signature photo. Pretty funny. Thanks for that TJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What we really need is an Alex Salmond statue outside Tynecastle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What we really need is an Alex Salmond statue outside Tynecastle. No room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What we really need is an Alex Salmond statue outside Tynecastle. A joint statue with Mr Romanov plz, just to see the reaction of the foamers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Salmond is a PHM. A statue fund would get my cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Could have a series of statues. Salmond, Robbo, Hartley, Rudi and Pressley. Hell, just get busts and have a hall of fame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Could have a series of statues. Salmond, Robbo, Hartley, Rudi and Pressley. Hell, just get busts and have a hall of fame.Pressley??? Stop it!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Pressley??? Stop it!!!! Mock or not, your seethe is... ... No joke, chest thump aside he can do no wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Mock or not, your seethe is... ... No joke, chest thump aside he can do no wrong. Pressley comes nowhere near Salmond as far as PHM go. Salmond is a hero. Pressley is a snake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 This thread has gone a very long way off topic and run its course. I'll close it shortly, and we can get back to discussing the actual subject of the thread closer to polling day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 This thread has gone a very long way off topic and run its course. I'll close it shortly, and we can get back to discussing the actual subject of the thread closer to polling day. On second thoughts, why close the discussion? The thread has moved to become a general independence/devolution thread, so it's been merged into the overall thread for those subjects. But leave out the Pressley chat, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Pressley comes nowhere near Salmond as far as PHM go. Salmond is a hero. Pressley is a snake. PHM are establishment men. Salmond is anti-establishment therefore not a PHM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 PHM are establishment men. Salmond is anti-establishment therefore not a PHM. The only establishment club Scotland has had is/was Rangers So PHM are Rangers fans then? Anyway there is no such thing as a PHM I prefer to be a Hearts supporter myself This PHM trolling is really chronic and past its sell by date Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 On second thoughts, why close the discussion? The thread has moved to become a general independence/devolution thread, so it's been merged into the overall thread for those subjects. But leave out the Pressley chat, eh? I'll not raise our former glorious leader again... Was a joke anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Anyway there is no such thing as a PHM Sometimes there is. "A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits." Just saying. Anyway, I think TheMaganator might be jesting just a tad with his references to "PHM". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Sometimes there is. "A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits." Just saying. Anyway, I think TheMaganator might be jesting just a tad with his references to "PHM". so fishing is allowed what has PHM jesting got to do with this debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Vote yellow get blue says Murphy http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/305248-jim-murphy-voting-snp-could-leave-tories-in-power-at-westminster/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Surely if you are worried about Scotland voting SNP but ending up getting a Tory Government then you would have voted for Independence in the Referendum as that is the way to stop that nonsense try listening to some opposing views before any future votes and we will help you avoid such schoolboy errors in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 so fishing is allowed what has PHM jesting got to do with this debate? My reference was to the occasion on which a number of PHM saw off an attempt at Hibs one upmanship by a fish - or more accurately, a Fish. The reason why it is relevant to this debate is because it's my way of dropping a reminder into the discussion that (with literally an exception or two) we are all Hearts supporters here. The people who remember that when debating independence and devolution tend to end up being the reasonable ones and making the valuable contributions to the debate. The people who don't - on both sides of the argument - tend to be the ones who get extreme and unreasonable, and who look to find offence where there is none. So no, fishing isn't allowed. You could nearly say it's a Gorgie Fish Bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 My reference was to the occasion on which a number of PHM saw off an attempt at Hibs one upmanship by a fish - or more accurately, a Fish. The reason why it is relevant to this debate is because it's my way of dropping a reminder into the discussion that (with literally an exception or two) we are all Hearts supporters here. The people who remember that when debating independence and devolution tend to end up being the reasonable ones and making the valuable contributions to the debate. The people who don't - on both sides of the argument - tend to be the ones who get extreme and unreasonable, and who look to find offence where there is none. So no, fishing isn't allowed. You could nearly say it's a Gorgie Fish Bar. on form today Uly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 on form today Uly!Thanks. [emoji23] Passion for politics is good, but taking that to extremes isn't. We're a club with supporters of both sides and all angles of the independence and devolution debate. HMFC before politics, that's my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Surely if you are worried about Scotland voting SNP but ending up getting a Tory Government then you would have voted for Independence in the Referendum as that is the way to stop that nonsense try listening to some opposing views before any future votes and we will help you avoid such schoolboy errors in the future You're in some mood today! I vote Tory mate, so it doesn't bother me. I and the rest of the '55' listened at length to your opposing views. Still voted No though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 You're in some mood today! I vote Tory mate, so it doesn't bother me. I and the rest of the '55' listened at length to your opposing views. Still voted No though i'm always in a mood! point still stands though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Vote yellow get blue says Murphy http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/305248-jim-murphy-voting-snp-could-leave-tories-in-power-at-westminster/ Old chestnut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Here was me thinking it was all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Vote yellow get blue says Murphy http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/305248-jim-murphy-voting-snp-could-leave-tories-in-power-at-westminster/ I'm not really sure how he expects to get away with that. It really is lowest common denominator stuff and, dare I say, "fear" politics. If you look at the arithmetic, he is talking nonsense. Let us assume that the Tories keep their one Scottish seat, but make no further gains. Extremely plausible, I'd say. So, for the Tories to win outright, they will need to win in the rest of the UK, namely England and Wales. If they do this, it doesn't matter whether the Scots vote for Labour or the SNP as the Tories would have a majority anyway. If the Scottish seats were to count, then it would mean that the Tories hadn't won enough in England & Wales to win an overall majority. Therefore, Murphy is slavering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo1185 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Not really on topic, but following on from Boris' slavering comment above, Andy Burnham was also at it this morning, talking about there being "4 months to save the NHS". Unfortunately for him, he was made to look like a total idiot and completely floundered when it was pointed out to him that "5% private outsourcing when you left power in 2010 to 6% now is hardly a wholescale privatisation is it?" Health is devolved up here anyway, but given none of the Big 3 are really proposing any funding increases that will make much difference to the NHS in England and Wales (and Labour's spending pledges are below the Tories as I understand it anyway), and only the Greens out of all the mainstream parties want to legislate against private companies working within the NHS in any capacity, the NHS really shouldn't be an issue in this campaign because there isn't anything between what is being offered, but of course all 3 (and no doubt the "others" as well) will try to make it so. Looks like plenty of slavering from Labour around the UK as we go forward. Also, UKIP now projected to get zero seats on latest polling data, despite a voting share of between 15 to 17%, even at a best chance they might get six, will this stop the Tory/UKIP coalition nonsense? I'm guessing no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Not really on topic, but following on from Boris' slavering comment above, Andy Burnham was also at it this morning, talking about there being "4 months to save the NHS". Harsh, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Harsh, man. I suspect jambo1185 is referring to my comment that Murphy was slavering, and not meaning that I was slavering. I think so anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo1185 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I suspect jambo1185 is referring to my comment that Murphy was slavering, and not meaning that I was slavering. I think so anyway! Haha sorry Boris, yes that it what I meant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Haha sorry Boris, yes that it what I meant! Hahaha...I'm sure I've been prone to a slaver or two in the past, so it was fifty-fifty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Had heard a few months ago that this guy was going with strong pressure from Whitehall. But obviously has been given a 'decent' amount of time. Hopefully the next Permanent Secretary will not see the job as being the civil service arm of the Government. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/civil-service-chief-sir-peter-housden-to-quit-1-3662482 Or as a means to inflict this drivel on his staff. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/sir-peter-housden-s-journal-published-online-1-2754697 http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/civil-service-chief-nets-blogging-fans.15714334 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 In 2011 the Swiss central bank moved to stop the appreciation of the Swiss franc against the euro, as its exports were threatened by the collapse in the single currency during the euro zone crisis and the boost its own currency was receiving from so-called safe haven flows. To achieve this it imposed a currency cap of 1.20 Swiss francs vs the euro, which required it to commit to buying an almost unlimited amount of euros and to face down any major Soros-like speculators that wished to test its mettle. See the similarity to the scenario you painted? Except we're talking a real scenario of 8 million (switzerland) people vs 330 million (a ratio of 1:41) instead of 5 million (Scotland) vs 58 million (rUK) or a ratio of 1:11. Now the Swiss policy was not without its risk, but they were able to pull it off by essentially printing their way to the outcome they desired. Print Swissies, sell them, buy euros. Rinse and repeat. While they were forced to buy billions of euros they didn't necessarily want, they were able to maintain their currency cap, protect their exporters access to their largest market and in turn preserve their wider economy, and now - that the darkest days of the euro zone crisis appear to be behind us - they should actually be making money as the euro starts to appreciate and they sell down their holdings. Now, there may of course be differences in how the market would respond to a newly independent country with a freshly-minted currency trying the same trick. This is obviously an extreme example. But it does shown that even relatively small countries retain a large degree of control over their currency when they're a) relatively wealthy and control their own printing presses. But Scotland couldn't do it because... I see this week that the Swiss Central Bank has abandoned the effort to hold the Swiss Franc at 1.20 to the euro. In one day, the Swiss Franc soared so that the euro could only buy 0.80 Swiss Francs. Since then the euro recovered to 1.04. So in one day the euro dropped against the Franc by over 30%, and then in another day it bounced up by over 25%. So much for relatively small countries retaining a large degree of control over their currency. Here's the BBC story: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30829917 Here's a page explaining the economics behind it, but without going into jargon. http://qz.com/327410/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-understand-what-happened-to-the-swiss-franc-this-week/ And another short page with a simple message - when one of the currency big guns changes the rules of the game, a small country will find it impossible not to go along with those changes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswright/2015/01/15/why-the-swiss-franc-shot-up-30-in-a-morning/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 ^^^^ tl;dr version: The SNP's strategy was wrong all along. They should have cleared up all of the issues that people wanted addressed - not just currency - between 2011 and 2014, and then had the referendum. If they'd done that, the result might well have been different, and Scotland might well be on the way to independence within 14 months. It was a lost opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 ^^^^ tl;dr version: The SNP's strategy was wrong all along. They should have cleared up all of the issues that people wanted addressed - not just currency - between 2011 and 2014, and then had the referendum. If they'd done that, the result might well have been different, and Scotland might well be on the way to independence within 14 months. It was a lost opportunity. If we assume that independence is the raison d'etre of the SNP, then would it be too harsh to have expected them to have had all this sorted at the drop of a hat? Totally agree,with your comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 ^^^^ tl;dr version: The SNP's strategy was wrong all along. They should have cleared up all of the issues that people wanted addressed - not just currency - between 2011 and 2014, and then had the referendum. If they'd done that, the result might well have been different, and Scotland might well be on the way to independence within 14 months. It was a lost opportunity. The only problem with that is that the UK government refused to negotiate anything like that until after the referendum, forcing the SNP to go on supposition and projections. If the UK government had agreed to hammer out the details and let the voting public make an informed choice, yes the result may have been different. Which is why they refused point blank to discuss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The only problem with that is that the UK government refused to negotiate anything like that until after the referendum, forcing the SNP to go on supposition and projections. If the UK government had agreed to hammer out the details and let the voting public make an informed choice, yes the result may have been different. Which is why they refused point blank to discuss it. I don't think Ulysses is talking about pre-negotiation of the position. It's more the SNP's lack of ability to counter the economic roadblock on currency that was presented to them. Should've had better answers than debt reneging and tariffs or even nonsense about blockading the North Sea. It was not the position, obligation or requirement for there to be pre-negotiation. The UK government had no mandate from the UK electorate to begin the process of dividing up the nation. The SNP should have had a considered that the UK government may not follow their ideas to the letter. Pre-negotiation was never on the cards. As Ulysses says, this was their prime opportunity and the blew it. A Tory government, an unpopular one at that, an economy in the slump and high oil revenues during the campaign should have ensured a win. Instead they squandered everything they had tactically and failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The only problem with that is that the UK government refused to negotiate anything like that until after the referendum, forcing the SNP to go on supposition and projections. If the UK government had agreed to hammer out the details and let the voting public make an informed choice, yes the result may have been different. Which is why they refused point blank to discuss it. Yet when the UK did produce a red line like no to a currency union, it was "bullying" Scotland! You can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Aye they could have been braver, taken one option and stuck to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The only problem with that is that the UK government refused to negotiate anything like that until after the referendum, forcing the SNP to go on supposition and projections. If the UK government had agreed to hammer out the details and let the voting public make an informed choice, yes the result may have been different. Which is why they refused point blank to discuss it. I agree with you up to a point. I think part of the problem here is that the SNP saw this in terms of winning and losing, instead of seeing it as a project where they had to win over hearts and minds to their way of thinking and doing things. I saw an article (sorry, I just can't recall where) that laid out a different strategy that the SNP should have adopted after winning the 2011 election. It said that as a government, they should have called a referendum much earlier seeking a mandate from the people to negotiate the terms of an independence agreement, on the condition that the agreement would be put to another referendum for adoption or rejection by the people. The thinking was that the people would hardly have turned such a modest and reasonable request down - and in a situation where a very big majority of Scots identify themselves as Scottish rather than British, it would immediately have put Westminster and Whitehall at a huge disadvantage. Negotiate, and they're opening the door to independence. Refuse to talk, and they're a recruiting officer for the independence campaign. So then the government negotiates terms over a period of (say) up to September 2014. During that time, issues of uncertainty would have gotten ironed out, and all the while the Scottish government would have looked more and more like a sovereign government and the idea of being independent would have become normalised in the media and in the minds of voters - but all on the basis that the voters are of course free to reject whatever is agreed if they don't like it. There's no way an approach like that would have produced a lower Yes vote than 45% on referendum day - not a chance. We can't say what proportion of the other 22-25 percent would have said Yes with much of the doubt eliminated. But I think a lot of them would have. That's why I think it was a missed opportunity for the SNP. I think they were that bit too impatient after they won the election in 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasselhoff Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Read somewhere that a Scottish OBR is being suggested so that parties can't just invent 'facts' to try and win votes and there will be proper factual evidence on financials over many years which is independent of parties. Seems a good idea and will prevent some of the lies which came out during the referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo1185 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Read somewhere that a Scottish OBR is being suggested so that parties can't just invent 'facts' to try and win votes and there will be proper factual evidence on financials over many years which is independent of parties. Seems a good idea and will prevent some of the lies which came out during the referendum. What a surprise, Labour announcing an 8month old Tory policy and heralding it as something tremendous they just thought up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 What a surprise, Labour announcing an 8month old Tory policy and heralding it as something tremendous they just thought up. And there isn't any need for one anyway - as we have the august Scottish Fiscal Commission anyway. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-in-call-for-new-scottish-fiscal-body-1-3664888 This would be the body which doesn't seem to have met since March 2014 - and has had nothing to say about the Smith Commission proposals, collapse in North Sea Oil revenue, further evidence of the cost that sterlingisation would have had etc. Where have they gone post-referendum? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Economy/Council-Economic-Advisers/FCWG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 And there isn't any need for one anyway - as we have the august Scottish Fiscal Commission anyway. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-in-call-for-new-scottish-fiscal-body-1-3664888 This would be the body which doesn't seem to have met since March 2014 - and has had nothing to say about the Smith Commission proposals, collapse in North Sea Oil revenue, further evidence of the cost that sterlingisation would have had etc. Where have they gone post-referendum? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Economy/Council-Economic-Advisers/FCWG The SFC is not an OBR. Were they not the sub team of Salmonds Council of Economic Advisers who drew up currency union? Swinney called for a Scottish OBR a few years ago but never got it through cabinet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The SFC is not an OBR. Were they not the sub team of Salmonds Council of Economic Advisers who drew up currency union? Swinney called for a Scottish OBR a few years ago but never got it through cabinet. It is Swinney's guy who is saying that a SOBR isn't needed because they want to put the (now apparently defunct) FC on a statutory basis! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 It is Swinney's guy who is saying that a SOBR isn't needed because they want to put the (now apparently defunct) FC on a statutory basis! My mistake. Personally, I think the OBR and a Scottish version are kind of excuses for governments to fob the duty of honesty to another independent body. If anything, the OBR has proved that once these bodies are established they quickly become matters of dispute and the debate moves from policy to costings and alienates people. 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.