lichtgilphead Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Is there meant to be some point to this post or are you just playing the conscientous objector version of guess how many sweets are in the jar. It's a simple point - you appear to be suggesting that an ex-SNP leader doing some jail time for his conscientious objector viewpoint is a bad thing, whilst ignoring the fact that it was more common amongst Scottish Labour MP's. I'm suggesting selective blindness on your behalf. But you knew that, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Yes. As I said, you've been dancing around the issue a good few times. Once again, its hinting and muttering. Why don't you expand on point number 2? You keep running away. Not sure what needs expanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Not sure what needs expanding? All of it. But lets focus here: I point out that SNP supporters may not want to play What did you do during the War Daddy? Games. Why not? Why don't you expand on this? You've brought something up like this several times now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 It's a simple point - you appear to be suggesting that an ex-SNP leader doing some jail time for his conscientious objector viewpoint is a bad thing, whilst ignoring the fact that it was more common amongst Scottish Labour MP's. I'm suggesting selective blindness on your behalf. But you knew that, didn't you? I'm not sure what the relevance is about how many Scottish Labour may have been conscientous objectors. Colkitto's post mentioned WWII and that he felt Churchill would have debated whereas Cameron has refused. As the SNP leader was in Saughton for much of WWII Churchill would have needed a visiting order to debate with him. What are you struggling to understand about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Why not? Why don't you expand on this? You've brought something up like this several times now. If you still go around calling the Daily Mail the Daily Heil based on what it did around WWII I don't see why you would want to be an SNP member based on the actions of the leadership of the SNP at the same time. By all means call the Daily Mail the Daily Heil because its a nasty bigoted piece of shit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Both of you dancing around the fact that you think independence supporters are no better than the Nazi's That's not what I'm saying. Not sure about Lamont though as to talk about nationalism as a virus is a bizarre thing to say but then she clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I'm not sure what the relevance is about how many Scottish Labour may have been conscientous objectors. Colkitto's post mentioned WWII and that he felt Churchill would have debated whereas Cameron has refused. As the SNP leader was in Saughton for much of WWII Churchill would have needed a visiting order to debate with him. What are you struggling to understand about that. Look back up the thread, Frosty. I've already agreed that Young spent some time in Saughton. It was only for 8 months, of course. From memory, was Churchill not PM for around 5 years during WWII? But hey, you have a point to try to make, don't you. Pity that it is undermined by the fact that Scottish Labour MP's spent far longer in jail than Young ever did. William Baxter, James Maclean and at least 2 of the Maxton clan come to mind. Do you consider them to be tainted by their "conchy" views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 If you still go around calling the Daily Mail the Daily Heil based on what it did around WWII I don't see why you would want to be an SNP member based on the actions of the leadership of the SNP at the same time. By all means call the Daily Mail the Daily Heil because its a nasty bigoted piece of shit though. And what were these actions of the leadership of the SNP at the same time? This is what I'm trying to get you to develop. Oh, and I've never called the Daily Mail by anything else. I find the infantile HB style of changing names to make them into crude insults a touch embarrassing. I also have no idea what it did in WW2. However, I also don't know what these actions of the SNP leadership were, and this is what I'm interested in. State your point rather than cryptic mutterings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 State your point rather than cryptic mutterings. Frosty's point is very important. IF CHURCHILL WANTED TO DEBATE WITH THE SNP DURING A PARTICULAR 8 MONTH PERIOD DURING WWII, HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO VISIT EDINBURGH AND GET SPECIAL PERMISSION TO GO TO A BIG BUILDING OUT GORGIE ROAD WAY. IMAGINE HIS EMBARRASSMENT IF PERMISSION HAD BEEN REFUSED! Obviously, any meaningful debate would have been impossible under these extreme conditions, so he was better off staying in London. I'm not really sure how this relates to Cameron's refusal to engage in debate though........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Engage deflector shields! Set co-ordinates to Saughton prison! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 It's a tonal thing. Even if Cameron was sweeping all before him with brilliant cast iron arguments, he'd still be the toff's toff - he'd look and sound so alien to Scottish viewers that Salmond couldn't help but win. Darling on the other hand, has that quiet air of understated competence, or at least pretends to it anyway. It's a fairly well lauded archetype in Scots culture, and he'd come off well against Salmond, who's self confidence has always been a turn off to sections of the Scottish electorate. For once I think you've captured things pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Deflect deflect. Once again, you've mysteriously developed selective amnesia. Remember when the likes of yourself and Reynard used to stride this board, dispensing your wisdom and reeking of unquestioned superiority? I bet Ad Lib thought he was on to a winner when he decided to hitch his wagon to your train. And this is what its come to. How the mighty have fallen. Wrong on everything, discredited on everything, and reduced to unseemly squabbling and the rhetoric of a nine year old having a tantrum. You can bluster, you can deflect, but we all know. Ill leave your utter cowardice here as a reminder to you. I understand why you wont go near defending your utterly ridiculous claim that it is possible to evince the characteristics of a religion in your appearance. You have bottled it and liberal use of smileys cant hide that. Pretty shameful stuff but hardly surprising from a poster who sings the Famine Song with relish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMjag Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Cameron has made the right decision from his perspective by not entering a debate with Salmond. There is not a chance in hell Better Together would have come out of such an event any stronger. Although by the same token I can only see the gap in the polls between them and Yes being narrowed substantially in the next year anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacamion Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 I think that "No" are so far ahead that they just need to avoid banana skins between now and the vote. Putting an English Tory Aristocrat in a debate with pretty much anyone from "Yes" would be a banana skin. If it is THE English Tory Aristocrat, the one whom the masses blame for austerity, the bedroom tax etc, versus Salmond - they are not going to let that happen in a million years. Cameron's not scared to debate, he's just been told by Better Together that it makes strategic sense for him to keep his distance. Better Together wouldn't even be keen on Ruth Davidson debating with anyone from "Yes", let alone David Cameron, so toxic is the Tory brand in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 I think that "No" are so far ahead that they just need to avoid banana skins between now and the vote. Putting an English Tory Aristocrat in a debate with pretty much anyone from "Yes" would be a banana skin. If it is THE English Tory Aristocrat, the one whom the masses blame for austerity, the bedroom tax etc, versus Salmond - they are not going to let that happen in a million years. Cameron's not scared to debate, he's just been told by Better Together that it makes strategic sense for him to keep his distance. Better Together wouldn't even be keen on Ruth Davidson debating with anyone from "Yes", let alone David Cameron, so toxic is the Tory brand in Scotland. There was never any necessity for Cameron to engage directly with Salmond. Listening to what Cameron actually said yesterday, he basically played the role of Pontius Pilate at the Edinburgh agreement. Got what he wanted exactly, made it look like the secessionists got all they wanted and fucked off knowing their leader is going to be publically humiliated as a result of the whole process. Salmond absolutely knows that Cameron is laughing at him now. And he really doesn't like that one little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bula Bairn Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Maybe Miliband could step up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 There was never any necessity for Cameron to engage directly with Salmond. Listening to what Cameron actually said yesterday, he basically played the role of Pontius Pilate at the Edinburgh agreement. Got what he wanted exactly, made it look like the secessionists got all they wanted and fucked off knowing their leader is going to be publically humiliated as a result of the whole process. Salmond absolutely knows that Cameron is laughing at him now. And he really doesn't like that one little bit. Thats the point isnt it. Salmond knows Cameron owned him in Edinburgh and is laughing at him from afar. Hence the frenzied and desperate 'please.... come back' rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 There was never any necessity for Cameron to engage directly with Salmond. Listening to what Cameron actually said yesterday, he basically played the role of Pontius Pilate at the Edinburgh agreement. Got what he wanted exactly, made it look like the secessionists got all they wanted and fucked off knowing their leader is going to be publically humiliated as a result of the whole process. Salmond absolutely knows that Cameron is laughing at him now. And he really doesn't like that one little bit. How would losing the vote lead to 'public humiliation'? Even assuming there is a 'no' vote, it's still a 'line in the sand' moment. It sets the precedent of having referendums on Independence. It's a win/win situation for Eck. It raises the issue in people's minds. It should lead on to debate about greater powers for Holyrood. Hopefully in time it will lead to some sort of federal type system, where we raise all our own taxes. One step at a time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Desperate stuff this morning from the cdu types Daves a fearty,you know it we know it live with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Thats the point isnt it. Salmond knows Cameron owned him in Edinburgh and is laughing at him from afar. Hence the frenzied and desperate 'please.... come back' rhetoric. Only in the minds of the likes of yourself, barrysnotter and Reynard, is this how the situation is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.