|
Post by bormes on Feb 15, 2014 8:32:01 GMT -1
I think that is your best ever post Nota, well done!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 19:19:40 GMT -1
This list has been presented to me at a recent local 'debate' including some of our MSPs and others and the conclusion was that this is the list of voters that have been identified in my local area: Those who will vote for Independence because they are sentimental - the 'Bravehearts' Those who will vote for Independence because they are 'vindictive' - getting back at the 'Thatcher years' Those who will vote for Independence because they are conviction voters - they truly believe in Independence. Those who will want to retain the status quo because they're intimidated by Westminster and the Media spin. Those who will want to retain the Union because they are fearful of change... My question is, does any of the above surprise anyone? It doesn't for me..... Hi Gilly, no, the list doesn't surprise me either Could I just say that Category 1 (the Braveheartians) do more harm than good. This is recognised by the YES campaign. You'll not find the language and prejudices used by this group endorsed by very many of us who're committed to Indy. Just a comment on the Vindictive group: it seems a tad harsh to me. It's just a fact that even our young people are aware of the disasters that were visited on Scotland in the Thatcher years, I think it's now in our genes somehow...but again, I don't believe this group hold sway over the more thoughtful, informed indy voters. To be honest, I think it's going to come down to the wire between groups 3 and 5. Most notable group missing from the above is those who will vote NO because strong, convincing, evidenced arguments have been put forward by that side. Still waiting! Just to repeat my personal stance: I believe in independence for Scotland because I think the Scots are hugely capable of running our own affairs and I'd like us to get the government WE vote for in future. I'd like US to take the best decisions for the people of Scotland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 19:36:31 GMT -1
OZ, may I suggest that quite a lot of yes voters, including myself, originally voted as a protest because NONE of the main parties were standing up for the Scots. Even the Parliament was set up so that they could NEVER be the Government, yet,,,,,, They DID!!!! That to me seems to suggest strongly, more and more people realise that the SNP have done a great job so far with their hands tied financially. We are being pounded by the BBC and the majority of the media that we should stay together and that we must stay together. I hope we manage it. Meantime may I suggest we could learn a lot from Australia. Very true, Bormes, I know so many people who protest voted as well, some of whom are committed YES voters, others are undecided at the moment. But we, the Scottish people, overwhelmingly voted in an SNP administration and they have done very well in government, I agree. Re the BBC. I don't know where to start. I won't go into too much detail unless you'd like me to---but on Thursday via my personal Twitter account, I commented on one particular BBC news reporter on his coverage of the leaked George Osborne speech. (The report was subsequently edited severely by the BBC, because it was actually very slanted and objections were raised). So the BBC 'journalist' posted back at me on Twitter, trying to embarrass and belittle me--AFTER his own report had been toned right down. Yet he was taken off the next day's coverage and replaced by Glenn Campbell. Apart from this single incident, there's LEGIONS of evidence that the BBC are tending towards bias on the side of NO. It is being gathered, and challenges will be made by licence payers like me that insist on BBC neutrality. A truly awful week. I was reduced to tears on Thursday by the sheer vitriol emanating towards our people when Osborne, Balls and Alexander ganged up against the Scots, and I'm not alone in that. Next day though......the fightback started!
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 15, 2014 19:48:08 GMT -1
One final qwuestion
Are 16 year olds allowed to vote in refurendum?
A simple yes or no will do I dont need a lecture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 19:51:36 GMT -1
Funnily though, the same old anti-indepence arguments are getting the light of day again, they must have an auld scullery press somewhere full of them....... MALTA An editorial in The Times on 7 January 1959 noted gravely: ‘Malta cannot live on its own … the island could pay for only one-fifths of her food and essential imports; well over a quarter of the present labour force would be out of work and the economy of the country would collapse with out British Treasury subventions. Talk of full independence for Malta is therefore hopelessly impractical. The Times published a letter on 21 January 1964 by a Joseph Agius of Ta’ Xbiex on Malta stating fearfully of: ‘... the folly of giving independence to Malta when we are not economically prepared for it.’ NORWAYOn 6 July 1892, The Times published a letter by ‘R.H’ entitled, ‘A Warning from Norway’: ‘… I may add that, as regards the immediate point of consular representation, the opinion of the commercial class in both kingdoms, as expressed in the chambers of commerce, beginning with the Norwegian capital itself, is decidedly hostile to it… At the same time it seems scarcely possible that the leaders of the movement can clearly realise the fate they are preparing for the country by what may well be termed a suicidal agitation … would not a free national existence but subserviency, not to say bondage to Russia … [Norway] reduced to conditions of a central Asian khanate.’ Norway gained independence on 13 May 1905. It didn’t become a ‘central Asian khanate’. Norway was another country which ‘couldn’t afford independence’. Like Malta prior to independence, it had an amount of self-government, but within Sweden. One of the great bones of contention for Norway was that the consular service and tariffs were biased towards the more agrarian Swedish economy rather than the exporting Norwegian one. Even though the call for greater independence was widely felt across Norway, there were still some who were afraid of it and its consequences. ICELANDIn a rare article on Icelandic politics, The Guardian wrote a sentence on 23 March 1908, which I guess has been used for all former colonies: ‘It is very interesting to note that in this connection that Denmark has to pay a heavy price for her nominal possession of Iceland in the form of a large annual subvention to the Budget of the island.’ Thirty years later........ On, 1 December 1938, twenty years and a World War after The Guardian’s dire assessment, The Times wrote a glowing report on Iceland’s twentieth anniversary of independence from Denmark. Subtitled with the decidedly modernist, ‘Roads and Radio’ the Times notes succinctly: ‘Side by side with the political liberation of the country, developed the gradual economic emancipation of the island.’ As it is very difficult ( they charge for access) to get links to the originals I've plagiarised these from this source thisisnotengland.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=814 I particularly liked the last paragraph Independence would force politicians and us voters in Wales Scotland to grow up. We would be economically viable because we would have to be – we’d have to learn to swim. Let’s look at ‘good practice’. After communism?, bling-capitalism, imperialism, state socialism?, supra-national states or religious statehood, the nation-state and independence is the one political construct which not one state or people has turned its back on. Independence works. It’s time Wales Scotland made independence work for her. Nota, your post made my day. Also worth remembering that not ONE country world-wide that has achieved independence has ever changed their mind and wanted to go back. Can I just also say that 24 countries in the European Union share a currency and it doesn't affect their independent status. As we all know, France, say and Germany are VERY different countries but manage to rub along pretty well in their monetary union. Likewise huge differences between Northern European countries and the South Europeans/Eastern Europeans. We should be looking to underline the mutual benefits, not the potential losses-- as per the NO campaign's continuous scaremongering negativity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 19:52:29 GMT -1
One final qwuestion Are 16 year olds allowed to vote in refurendum?A simple yes or no will do I dont need a lecture. Yes. So are 17 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 15, 2014 20:05:18 GMT -1
Thank you
Fiji did!!!
PS Mind you Having visited Fiji its really out of this world for both people ans scenery
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 15, 2014 20:45:06 GMT -1
One final qwuestion Are 16 year olds allowed to vote in refurendum?A simple yes or no will do I dont need a lecture. Yes they are. The funny thing is, lowering the iting age is supported by all major parties apart from the Tories. The second funny thing is, that they ( lieboor-scum and lie-dumbs) don't support t or the referendum. - funny that
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 15, 2014 20:45:54 GMT -1
Thank you Fiji did!!! PS Mind you Having visited Fiji its really out of this world for both people ans scenery Did they? I don remember that, when was this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 20:49:44 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 15, 2014 22:18:14 GMT -1
1970 immediately after Independence large section of community asked UK to re-assume responsibility for the administration.
We are glad to be members of the Commonwealth It is a powerful tool in world politics giving small nations equal say as such nations as India, Canada & UK. Commonwealth countries also draw on the expertise of other members such as university places. etc etc
At present the boss man is Kamalesh Sharma from India. His predecessor was Don McKinnon of NZ Couple of newly independent countries with no links to UK (Mozambique & Angola) have joined
Membership is by application and acceptance. Countries can and are suspended or expelled Fiji which we talked about being a prime example, in and out more often than a bird on a cuckoo clock, depending on the result of the latest coup. Most of the countries are republics
There was talk of expelling UK when they joined Common Market
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 15, 2014 22:41:07 GMT -1
One final qwuestion Are 16 year olds allowed to vote in refurendum?A simple yes or no will do I dont need a lecture. Yes they are. The funny thing is, lowering the iting age is supported by all major parties apart from the Tories. The second funny thing is, that they ( lieboor-scum and lie-dumbs) don't support t or the referendum. - funny that Thanks but I didnt want a lecture on the iniquities on people who do not believe in the Gospel according to Nota just a "Yes" or "No" was adequate Blind Freddy would have seen the reasons
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 15, 2014 22:53:54 GMT -1
Yes they are. The funny thing is, lowering the iting age is supported by all major parties apart from the Tories. The second funny thing is, that they ( lieboor-scum and lie-dumbs) don't support t or the referendum. - funny that Thanks but I didnt want a lecture on the iniquities on people who do not believe in the Gospel according to Nota just a "Yes" or "No" was adequate FFS it wasn't a lecture, just pointing oot it's exactly as I said above, if you don't believe me look it up www.votesat16.orgYou'll notice if you care to read, that some of the signatories, forgot their support when it was decided to lower voting age for referendum, suddenly 16/17 year olds became to young to vote, the LIEBOOR-SCUM were the biggest liars at this, see below, they've changed their tune again, all within a matter of months www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545035/Giving-vote-16-year-olds-Labour-priority-Sadiq-Khan-says-one-acts-win-power-Tories-accuse-party-pandering-unions.htmlBut oh fuck it's those dastardly left wingers again, maybe even one day they could be socialists, who knows, they've changed their spots so often. From pseudo-socialists to thatcher bitch clones and onto being even more fasicist than the thatcher bitch herself There you go..........
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 15, 2014 23:34:44 GMT -1
OK (against my better judgment ) Why were 16 & 17 year olds given vote? I think answer is bloody obvious but am interested to hear the spin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 1:20:26 GMT -1
Here's a spin-free answer Because 16 year olds are deemed old enough to serve in the forces and lose their lives for this country in wars? Because 16 year olds are legally allowed to marry? Them's two big life decisions. If they're deemed capable of taking them, it's only rational they should have the right to vote. Some of course, see the move more cynically, as in potentially garnering more YES votes by extending the electorate. Some would also say the young are more likely to take risks politically and fear *change* less than their elders. Make your own mind up, Oz
|
|