SNP activists

[noahrab]

If Blah Blah Phucking Blah is your idea of taking the pysh,then all I can say is thank phuck for the comedy vision of Wlatty and Wolph.

Hardly, that's a comment on the wastemonster, fool Britannia, britnat, MSM etc et. pysh that appears from you c**** every other post.

Shows you c**** up for the uneducated phuckwits that you are.

[JackSnakes]

I am someone who would vote for independence unless there was a compelling argument against it. So far I have seen no such argument. I suppose there are many who would vote for the union unless there was a compelling argument against it. They are probably still waiting also. The fact is that it is an unknown entity and any argument is therefore all speculation and devoid of facts. There are some figures you can use but the bottom line is that if you do not want to be an independent country then you are not going to vote for independence. Arguing over who is an idiot or not is not really conducive to anything other than division and hatred which, according to some, is all on the unionist side. According to others, it is all on the nationalist's side. I see no reason either on here or in the popular press to take any sides on that one. Now, there are many things I enjoy getting aerated about - I enjoy a good barney... ... but the independence (or not) of a country is not really something that should be trivialised with name-calling and facetious arguments

[stewarty27]

I am someone who would vote for independence unless there was a compelling argument against it. So far I have seen no such argument. I suppose there are many who would vote for the union unless there was a compelling argument against it. They are probably still waiting also. The fact is that it is an unknown entity and any argument is therefore all speculation and devoid of facts. There are some figures you can use but the bottom line is that if you do not want to be an independent country then you are not going to vote for independence. Arguing over who is an idiot or not is not really conducive to anything other than division and hatred which, according to some, is all on the unionist side. According to others, it is all on the nationalist's side. I see no reason either on here or in the popular press to take any sides on that one. Now, there are many things I enjoy getting aerated about - I enjoy a good barney... ... but the independence (or not) of a country is not really something that should be trivialised with name-calling and facetious arguments

I like this post. And mea culpa I have engaged in some childlike name calling. However its borne out of pure frustration I have tried repeatedly to engage the poster Noah in mature and objective debate on the future of our country. But all I get back is bitter resentment that I have the nerve to challenge the status quo. In most of my posts I have tried to put forward a POSITIVE vision of the potential of our country. As for blaming """ wastemonger"" as keeps get thrown at me as an argument of course by default its a valid position to take .But the main thrust of my argument is about Scotland its people and its resources its massive potential to be a better fairer and a more equal country. Also to have the financial means to make this possible. Another argument that's prevalent is Noah's hatred of the SNP it clouds his thinking and stops objectivity. Independence is not about the SNP its far far bigger than that. The SNP are a means to an end that's all. So I invite Noah to discuss the pro's and con's of our future without the retort of Blah Blah phuckin Blah.

[noahrab]

I like this post. And mea culpa I have engaged in some childlike name calling. However its borne out of pure frustration I have tried repeatedly to engage the poster Noah in mature and objective debate on the future of our country. But all I get back is bitter resentment that I have the nerve to challenge the status quo. In most of my posts I have tried to put forward a POSITIVE vision of the potential of our country. As for blaming """ wastemonger"" as keeps get thrown at me as an argument of course by default its a valid position to take .But the main thrust of my argument is about Scotland its people and its resources its massive potential to be a better fairer and a more equal country. Also to have the financial means to make this possible. Another argument that's prevalent is Noah's hatred of the SNP it clouds his thinking and stops objectivity. Independence is not about the SNP its far far bigger than that. The SNP are a means to an end that's all. So I invite Noah to discuss the pro's and con's of our future without the retort of Blah Blah phuckin Blah.

'Mature and objective debate'

Dont make me phuckin laugh.

All you do is cut and paste from what can best be described as pro independence website or bloggers and at worst be described as independence propoganda.

You don't have a single original thought in yer head about independence wee man.

I don't hate the SNP, I can see them for what they are as opposed to you and yer ilk thinking the sun shines out of 'Nicola's' erse.

The next time you try and engage anyone in a 'mature and objective debate' will be the first.

[noahrab]

I am someone who would vote for independence unless there was a compelling argument against it. So far I have seen no such argument. I suppose there are many who would vote for the union unless there was a compelling argument against it. They are probably still waiting also. The fact is that it is an unknown entity and any argument is therefore all speculation and devoid of facts. There are some figures you can use but the bottom line is that if you do not want to be an independent country then you are not going to vote for independence. Arguing over who is an idiot or not is not really conducive to anything other than division and hatred which, according to some, is all on the unionist side. According to others, it is all on the nationalist's side. I see no reason either on here or in the popular press to take any sides on that one. Now, there are many things I enjoy getting aerated about - I enjoy a good barney... ... but the independence (or not) of a country is not really something that should be trivialised with name-calling and facetious arguments

What is the 'compelling' argument for it?

All I see is rhetoric with no substance and a 'trust us it'll be ok' reply.

How much financial pain would we go through to get to what the separatists desperately want? People might be prepared to put up with it if they knew. Surely that's not too much to ask before a decision is made.

[JackSnakes]

What is the 'compelling' argument for it?

All I see is rhetoric with no substance and a 'trust us it'll be ok' reply.

How much financial pain would we go through to get to what the separatists desperately want? People might be prepared to put up with it if they knew. Surely that's not too much to ask before a decision is made.

As I said in my post, those expecting one are still waiting for it and no, I don't think the truth is too much to ask.
I believe that perhaps people were treated as maybe not mature enough to handle the possible downside therefore they were not told it.
I think that was probably a mistake and indeed thought so at the time.
The fact of the matter is that both campaigns were so utterly gash that neither would have changed the mind of anyone but the most stupid.
Politicians usually believe that if they lay out the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then the media will simply sensationalise some bits much more than others, thereby swaying the minds of voters. In this respect, the politicians are right.
The media CAN sway many, and it is not difficult to exaggerate and bend facts to suit any particular agenda.
The old joke about the man hailed as a hero when he kills a vicious dog to save a child until he's found to be English/Muslim/Celtic supporter/rangers supporter and is then exposed as someone who murdered a poor family pet is a bit extreme, but not far from the truth.
It is, and was, incumbent upon both sides of the argument to lay out their vision and their beliefs for the future, warts and all, leaving nothing out, and ensure that everyone gets it straight from the horses mouth, and not after it has been subjected to bias and partiality by unscrupulous journalists with an agenda.
Surely if everything is going to be better, you have nothing to hide by giving people the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If you give them an opinion, at least say it is an opinion and give the public the reasons why you have arrived at that opinion - which experts or public bodies have been consulted and why you think their opinion holds weight.

It should have been a careful and measured campaign but descended into shameful name-calling and personal attacks that were not worthy of the nation that was taking such an important decision.
It was like a class of five year-olds instead of this country's top politicians.
I would like to think that the people of Scotland are grown-up enough to be able to discern fact from fiction, to not allow themselves to be swayed by rhetoric either from politicians or the media, and to be able to make a decision based on the full and frank facts set before them.

[noahrab]

As I said in my post, those expecting one are still waiting for it and no, I don't think the truth is too much to ask.
I believe that perhaps people were treated as maybe not mature enough to handle the possible downside therefore they were not told it.
I think that was probably a mistake and indeed thought so at the time.
The fact of the matter is that both campaigns were so utterly gash that neither would have changed the mind of anyone but the most stupid.
Politicians usually believe that if they lay out the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then the media will simply sensationalise some bits much more than others, thereby swaying the minds of voters. In this respect, the politicians are right.
The media CAN sway many, and it is not difficult to exaggerate and bend facts to suit any particular agenda.
The old joke about the man hailed as a hero when he kills a vicious dog to save a child until he's found to be English/Muslim/Celtic supporter/rangers supporter and is then exposed as someone who murdered a poor family pet is a bit extreme, but not far from the truth.
It is, and was, incumbent upon both sides of the argument to lay out their vision and their beliefs for the future, warts and all, leaving nothing out, and ensure that everyone gets it straight from the horses mouth, and not after it has been subjected to bias and partiality by unscrupulous journalists with an agenda.
Surely if everything is going to be better, you have nothing to hide by giving people the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If you give them an opinion, at least say it is an opinion and give the public the reasons why you have arrived at that opinion - which experts or public bodies have been consulted and why you think their opinion holds weight.

It should have been a careful and measured campaign but descended into shameful name-calling and personal attacks that were not worthy of the nation that was taking such an important decision.
It was like a class of five year-olds instead of this country's top politicians.
I would like to think that the people of Scotland are grown-up enough to be able to discern fact from fiction, to not allow themselves to be swayed by rhetoric either from politicians or the media, and to be able to make a decision based on the full and frank facts set before them.

Correct, it's not too much to ask for.

[stewarty27]

'Mature and objective debate'

Dont make me phuckin laugh.

All you do is cut and paste from what can best be described as pro independence website or bloggers and at worst be described as independence propoganda.

You don't have a single original thought in yer head about independence wee man.

I don't hate the SNP, I can see them for what they are as opposed to you and yer ilk thinking the sun shines out of 'Nicola's' erse.

The next time you try and engage anyone in a 'mature and objective debate' will be the first.

Oh Dear. You really dislike me don't you. Are you aware of the aggressiveness and tone in your responses to me ? I have asked you politely to discuss and debate Scottish Independence. are you prepared to do that ?

[noahrab]

Oh Dear. You really dislike me don't you. Are you aware of the aggressiveness and tone in your responses to me ? I have asked you politely to discuss and debate Scottish Independence. are you prepared to do that ?

You might dislike an anonymous person on an internet messageboard you've never met and don't know, fortunately, I'm not as shallow as you.

You have no interest in whether independence is good for Scotland or not, just that you want it.

You ain't worthy of debate.

[stewarty27]

You might dislike an anonymous person on an internet messageboard you've never met and don't know, fortunately, I'm not as shallow as you.

You have no interest in whether independence is good for Scotland or not, just that you want it.

You ain't worthy of debate.

Is it really beyond you to be civil ?