Confidemus

Back on topic, William Hill and Betfred offering 2/1 on a Yes vote, 9/4 at Bet365, 28/13 at 888sport and Unibet. My, those odds are tumbling....

A suggestion for an album name: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/33826/Blood-Duster-c**t/

Well, you're a graduate who went down south, how did you get on?

Oh, Lex

You really are the most swivel-eyed of loons.

FTFY

Is the retail store where you work a hotbed of intellectual thinking then?

I refuse to read a book unless ALL the above you mentioned are featured heavily. I never read the books without a boner.

Classic example of opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. Being that I'm half English, I'd hardly consider the entirety of England to be a crock of shit.

:lol: Oh, my sides!!

If my current department was a crock of shit and treating me and my colleagues like idiots while the bosses get rich, I'd jump at it. And please stop using clown collective. It makes you look pathetic.

I presume this and all your posts before it are your own unique attempt at trolling?

You can do all the research you want, change is necessarily negative. Finishing work to go on holiday to the Caribbean. Winning the lottery. Becoming independent. Getting a new car. They're all changes aren't they? Don't think I'd feel too negative about any of them.

Absolutely, and rightly so. The gigantic difference being that Yes Scotland's overall message is one of hope and optimism. BetterTogether's entire message is one of fear. They have nothing else.

Surely, by that logic, all Yes Scotland have to do is put enough people off the idea of the United Kingdom? Your arguement doesn't stand up. One vote - two choices, therefore it is encumbent on BOTH sides to demonstrate why people should vote for them. To suggest BetterTogether shouldn't do this is ludicrous. It's just that that has them dangling on a precipice.

It is as I see it. The polling day question is "Should Scotland become an Independent country? It is therefore encumbent on each side to demonstrate why. BetterTogether, if they had any nous about them would have formulated a campaign highlighting the benefits of the Union and why it is better to remain part of that union rather than to break out on our own. Similarly, Yes Scotland's campaign should ( and does ) highlight the potential benefits and what we have to gain from going it alone. One nil to us then.

It clearly wasn't word salad. No burden of proof lies with the Yes campaign. The onus is on BOTH sides to give their arguement. So far only one has. I'll give you a clue. It's not BetterTogether.

I would argue that the overall message on the Yes side is one that "we can do it". Very much a positive message and showing what we can be as a country whilst also, quite rightly, highlighting some of the shortcomings of being governed by Westminster. On the other hand, BetterTogether offer not ONE positive message. Nothing has come out of their side other than fear. Nothing.

Care to highlight anything you think that's incorrect about my post?

That's plenty, you parse-hole.

If that's meant to be funny, it failed spectactularly. Nice copying of Vikington with "lockstep", btw.

You're fast becoming a parody of yourself.

Are you actually suggesting that the Yes campaign are on equal footing with Better Together on the scaremongering? The ONLY argument the No campaign have put across is one of fear. Not one positive message has been given on why we are Better Together. The Yes campaign, however, have focussed on all the positive points of independence and about what can be achieved. I'm afraid that's stone cold fact.

You're voting No aren't you? I was going to say I'm surprised you have the audacity to mention scaremongering, seeing as how 99.9999999% of the scaremongering is coming from the No side, but then I remembered it's you. HB - P&B's most shamelessly amoral keyboard warrior since the site was conceived.

Hills down to 9/4 now, Ladbrokes 11/4... http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome