|
Post by ozneil on Sept 22, 2014 19:34:57 GMT -1
Tell me this is a beat up
News.com.au
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 23, 2014 4:45:09 GMT -1
Tell me this is a beat up News.com.au Well the part about whiskey - an irish/american/anywhere but scotland distilled spirit from barley is - why would anyone want to boycott that lingerie - michell moan (a lot) has been threatening to leave Scotland since the 2007 - sorta went like this... 2007 - if SNP win election i'm off to engerlandshire with my business - SNP won, she never went 2011 - if SNP win election i'm off to engerlandshire with my business - SNP won, she never went 2014 - same threat She employs @30 people in Scotland, all her gear is made in China - her business acumen is so good that she had to sell the majority stake in her business to a Sri Lankan outfit to stop it from going under, after her divorce and losing an employment case for bugging her employee. She did try to open in australia a few years ago but got ripped off by some "business partner" She spends most of her time trying to be a "celebrity" nowadays, doing virtually anything to get her name in the media (invited hello to see her new flat) but "moaning" incessantly when they run negative stories - liek her getting banned from driving recently Going back to the "whiskey" or maybe even whisky story - whisky companies can't leave Scotland as its the only place it can be made and sold as WHISKY - teh Scotch WHISKY Association are very adept at protecting that name - this is probably bullshit Some companies have actually withdrawn their remarks before referendum as their senior staff or former directors were talking out of turn or without the authorisation of the board and/or shareholders - for example Barrhead Travel - we discussed that for a while some months ago, in that case the board counteracted it as the chap involved was no longer the owner of said business, had no managerial or executive position within teh company and was only now a non-executive director who used the company email system without authorisation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 16:00:43 GMT -1
By nature, I am not a Republican but when the present monarch dies, I wouldn't be too fussed if she wasn't replaced (mind you the 'charm' of monarchy for visitors in London is quite intriguing). Anyway, back to the point of this post - there seems to be a lot the 'Queen has said,' and without doubt, I imagine that she has expressed her views but we're beginning to hear more and more about her thoughts being aired in public even if it is by others. I've always respected this woman for seemingly 'keeping out of politics' but it would be good if her Ministers' would keep their mouths shut, better still if she would be like the vast majority of us wretched souls and stop sharing her views with them - she can't trust them and I don't particularly want to hear her views on my country. She doesn't have to go to a Foodbank or fight local councils over the 'bedroom tax'. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29335028
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 23, 2014 17:33:25 GMT -1
CORRECT GIL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 18:38:49 GMT -1
My point is you dont knowYou are probably right or you could be wrong. You are told what the people telling you want you to hear.This is one of the reasons I never voiced a voting preference I didnt, & still dont, believe either side. But I can see results. Stock market, the engine of the economy, liked the No vote .. You and "Nos" have to get together and work together to achieve best results I said that earlier but people assumed I was talking Scotland and England not YES & NOS. It was interesting to note that only YES areas were round Glasgow and Dundee and Glasgow had lowest turn out ... Why? Biggest unemployment? Largest youth population? Most welfare recipients? Some other reason? I am asking I dont know just looking for reasons other that those put out by people with vested interests BTW I watched the DAILY RECORD which gave the best coverage minute by minute which surprised me Of course "the market' liked the NO vote, Oz. The value of the pound is shored up by the value of oil and other massive Scottish exports. Any threat of Scotland removing those revenues from UKE were going to have ramifications. Which is precisely why all the 'big guns' of the establishment banded together to scare the living daylights out of people. That plus the fact that the Scots could lay claim to 10% roughly of all crown assets.... I gave you several examples of scaremongering in my last post; all proven, and not hearsay. Add to that, David Cameron put pressure on the heads of supermarkets to scare us with threats of rising prices. This TOO is proven, not conjecture. Re turnout in Glasgow, it averaged about 70%+, slightly lower than elsewhere. More on that in a bit...
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 23, 2014 18:57:12 GMT -1
By nature, I am not a Republican but when the present monarch dies, I wouldn't be too fussed if she wasn't replaced (mind you the 'charm' of monarchy for visitors in London is quite intriguing). Anyway, back to the point of this post - there seems to be a lot the 'Queen has said,' and without doubt, I imagine that she has expressed her views but we're beginning to hear more and more about her thoughts being aired in public even if it is by others. I've always respected this woman for seemingly 'keeping out of politics' but it would be good if her Ministers' would keep their mouths shut, better still if she would be like the vast majority of us wretched souls and stop sharing her views with them - she can't trust them and I don't particularly want to hear her views on my country. She doesn't have to go to a Foodbank or fight local councils over the 'bedroom tax'. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29335028I think you're correct I your view of the urgent monarch, she is very important to a lot of people, I've no idea how neutral she actually is with government ministers, stories abound about her detesting thatcher( no surprises there, what?) You're also correct I think, about people's attitude once she dies. I'm a republican, but want a president who is a non-executive head of state, like the Irish president or the German one. But I also think that it should be a position not open to former elected politicians and the election should not be a party political issue either
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 18:57:46 GMT -1
Tell me this is a beat up News.com.au It's inaccurate, Oz. The "45% and rising" is a broad grouping that's formed since last Friday. I doubt any are wannabe William Wallaces but I guess we have to put up with such stupid categorisations.... and I've not seen any outright calls to 'boycott' any companies. (Although I know this is happening, informally...) Many of us believe the vote was just the end of the beginning. Some very interesting things are happening this past couple of days, for example: 1) 25,000 new members of the SNP (now the 3rd biggest party in the UK as of today) 2) 3,000 new members of the Scottish Green Party Plus calls for all pro-indy parties to campaign together on a YES ticket in the General Election (UKE) come May. We're also hearing that many are now withholding their union dues, if their union funds Labour. Labour are heading for massive losses in the coming months. And deservedly, I say, for deserting their core principles and jumping into bed with the Tories, with LibDems, with UKIP and yes, with BNP, in one spectacular case. A NO vote is a vote for Westminster right-wing rule. The utter awfulness of it is that so many NO voters didn't realise it.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 23, 2014 19:39:32 GMT -1
Tell me this is a beat up News.com.au It's inaccurate, Oz. The "45% and rising" is a broad grouping that's formed since last Friday. I doubt any are wannabe William Wallaces but I guess we have to put up with such stupid categorisations.... and I've not seen any outright calls to 'boycott' any companies. (Although I know this is happening, informally...) Many of us believe the vote was just the end of the beginning. Some very interesting things are happening this past couple of days, for example: 1) 25,000 new members of the SNP (now the 3rd biggest party in the UK as of today) 2) 3,000 new members of the Scottish Green Party Plus calls for all pro-indy parties to campaign together on a YES ticket in the General Election (UKE) come May. We're also hearing that many are now withholding their union dues, if their union funds Labour. Labour are heading for massive losses in the coming months. And deservedly, I say, for deserting their core principles and jumping into bed with the Tories, with LibDems, with UKIP and yes, with BNP, in one spectacular case. A NO vote is a vote for Westminster right-wing rule. The utter awfulness of it is that so many NO voters didn't realise it. It's the case now that the SNP now have more members than all the other parties in Scotland put together I was reading screaming mags ( stair heid rammy) curran pish about having to go to their traditional voters in their constituencies to find out why they want independence, Are currant and her colleagues fucking deaf and blind, never mind stupid, jeezo they shouldn't be in charge of a dog turd never mind a country if they can't grap that issue. Jeezo............ Anyways got may 2015 to look forward to, and hat erse Iain Mackenzie, coincidently currints right hand imbecile at Westminster getting booted out on his erse, tactical voting in inverclyde will work, just to get rid of him What will we do withoot his smug smarminess blighting oor lives for ever? Pish wur selves laughing no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 24, 2014 19:57:32 GMT -1
I am more than a tad disappointed in you people.
You are big on talk on democracy yet when a decision goes against you, by 10%, you promptly start talking about overturning it. Do you not believe in rule by the majority or is it just that you know better than the hoi poloi?
Similarily talking about boycotting firms that supported the "no" vote. Hardly democratic is it? Dont they have a right to their opinion or must it conform to yours to be truly democratic?
Accept the majority vote and work with them to improve the situation in Scotland within the framework of the UK.
The majority do not want to separate from UK.
Live with it.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 24, 2014 21:06:45 GMT -1
I am more than a tad disappointed in you people. You are big on talk on democracy yet when a decision goes against you, by 10%, you promptly start talking about overturning it. Do you not believe in rule by the majority or is it just that you know better than the hoi poloi? Similarily talking about boycotting firms that supported the "no" vote. Hardly democratic is it? Dont they have a right to their opinion or must it conform to yours to be truly democratic? Accept the majority vote and work with them to improve the situation in Scotland within the framework of the UK. The majority do not want to separate from UK. Live with it. Eh? So why then did you vote against the last labor government, after all they were elected democratically, surely using your logic all the other parties that didn't win shouldn't have bothered and just let them get on with doing whatever they wanted forever......... The SNP government were elected with a mandate, clearly stated in their manifesto, to hold a referendum on independence. Now come the next election, if they have that in their manifesto and they are again elected to government, they then have the democratic right to organise a referendum, after all they were elected to do so. Boycotting companies - business entities do not have a vote, therefore boycotting any business has nothing to do with democracy in the slightest, its a matter for the individual or groups concerned. Surely denying folk the right to not buy from a company or use the services of a company is anti-democratic, as your infringing the individuals human rights to buy from whom they so choose. If companies are so keen to participate, then let them put their CEO or chairman up for election to public office on a manifesto made up of their business case and whatever their shareholders fancy, strangely I don't think they would get many votes If you stick yer head above the parapets for one side or the other, you have to be prepared to take the pelters as well as the plaudits. Also one other particularly ironic thing, was that the bosses of the banks were expecting people to listen to their prophecies of doom and destruction, yet not one of them foretold the financial meltdown of 2008 Dunno what it's like in Oz but boycotts have been ongoing in UK for donkeys years, highest profile ones being against apartheid. But also against Israel, Chile, Canada, China, and various other business from a variety of countries at one time or another My grannie wouldn't have anything German related in the house whatsoever, I know folks who felt the same about Japanese products. A friend of mines late mother had never, right up until she died bought a Jaffa brand.orange or grapefruit. Now you may think that is silly, but for people with no real power or political influence, this is a way of making their own voice heard, doing it en mass, just makes that single voice louder. As for Scotland's referendum, the smart companies kept their thoughts to themselves and didn't come down for one side or the other To the best of my knowledge these included Lidl Aldi House of Fraser Debenhams Cooperative Thomas Cook Cunard P&O Airdrie Savings Bank Tesco The companies that tended to shout loudest about voting no, are also the ones who tended to donate money to the Conservative party too, companies like Vitol, and its boss Ian Taylor, who have charges for giving money to mass murders like Arkan, a Serbian warlord who led multiple death squads responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians, you've no doubt heard of places like Srebenicia. How democratic is that Vitol s one of the companies being boycotted too, where possible
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 24, 2014 22:05:42 GMT -1
It was a R-E-F-E-R-E-D-U-M not an E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N.
The people decided on a single question not on varying policies for a limited period.
The majority wish to remain with the UK the people have decided. Full stop. End of Story. No ifs or buts.
Accept their decision
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 25, 2014 4:43:34 GMT -1
It was a R-E-F-E-R-E-D-U-M not an E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N. The people decided on a single question not on varying policies for a limited period. The majority wish to remain with the UK the people have decided. Full stop. End of Story. No ifs or buts. Accept their decision Thanks for that, but I do understand the difference very clearly As i've stated many times - I have accepted it - doesn't mean I have to like it or indeed even lump it As I also said, if a political party gets elected on a manifesto promise of holding another referendum, then the people have spoken again - surely you would expect, in a democracy, for a political party to implement the policies they were elected on? There are moves afoot by westminster to even try and bar the Scots ( or anyone else for that matter) from having independence referendi ever again - not exactly democratic either - which no doubt with the aid of over 800 UNELECTED members of the House of Lords, they could push through - pity it goes against the UN charter though - democracy in action UK style But, nothing is forever, referendi measure the will of the electorate at a given time, things change....... For example Switzerland have referendi regularly to ask the people how to move things forward - they are allowed further referendi to change it back if things don't work out - in political science its called " direct democracy" But hey-ho
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 15:52:25 GMT -1
The thing that worries me about giving 16 /17 year olds the vote is they have no experience of life in a cruel hard world and are inclined to vote with their heart and not their head If we are to exclude 16/17 year olds from voting - then let us be honest and do the right thing. 1. Abolish the marriage of those under 18 - as there is no point in allowing someone to be married, have a family, set up a home if they're going to rule everything with their heart. 2. Those who are 16/17 should be exempt from paying any form of tax, be it income, VAT or even Stamp Duty - regardless. If they aren't allowed representation then surely they shouldn't be be expected to participate in taxation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 17:38:51 GMT -1
The thing that worries me about giving 16 /17 year olds the vote is they have no experience of life in a cruel hard world and are inclined to vote with their heart and not their head If we are to exclude 16/17 year olds from voting - then let us be honest and do the right thing. 1. Abolish the marriage of those under 18 - as there is no point in allowing someone to be married, have a family, set up a home if they're going to rule everything with their heart. 2. Those who are 16/17 should be exempt from paying any form of tax, be it income, VAT or even Stamp Duty - regardless. If they aren't allowed representation then surely they shouldn't be be expected to participate in taxation! Or join the army, see foreign countries and come home in a box, eh? Couldn't agree with you more, Gilly. As it happens, Oz, the Westminster parties now endorse giving general election votes to 16/17 year olds too.....(ahem..)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 17:53:04 GMT -1
I am more than a tad disappointed in you people. You are big on talk on democracy yet when a decision goes against you, by 10%, you promptly start talking about overturning it. Do you not believe in rule by the majority or is it just that you know better than the hoi poloi? Similarily talking about boycotting firms that supported the "no" vote. Hardly democratic is it? Dont they have a right to their opinion or must it conform to yours to be truly democratic? Accept the majority vote and work with them to improve the situation in Scotland within the framework of the UK. The majority do not want to separate from UK. Live with it. Nota's on the money with his last two posts, I think! Particularly on boycotting... As a consumer it's entirely MY choice who I buy from. I've chosen to exercise a boycott on many, many companies all my adult life--nothing to do with this referendum. I also think those who stop their union dues being paid to a political party who's policies no longer fit is perfectly valid as well. THAT is democracy in action! SNP, as of today, is now the third biggest party in the UKE and the biggest in Scotland. Membership this time last week was 25,000. Today it's just over a massive 62,000. Is this not being reported where you are, Oz? Like Nota says, if, as is likely, SNP win a landslide in 2016 to govern Scotland, independence will be on their manifesto. They'll have our mandate to keep working towards it. There's also talk at the moment that should the UKE hold a referendum on coming out of the EU, and the vote is YES to that, this changes everything-- and Scotland could, if we want, insist on a counter-referendum at that point. The genie's not going back in the bottle, Oz. The opposite, if anything. 10% is a reasonable margin (had it been 30 or 40% then indy could be very far off indeed) and it's also true there's a generational attitude here. Put bluntly, the over 65s voted 80% NO while most other age groups were pro-YES.
|
|