Polarised Bears

[D'Artagnan 173]

I think you are still on some kind of idealistic high, Mr.D.

 

 

 

If you think that the main parties will stick together in some kind of unified pact to "fight with unrelenting determination to establish social justice, as well as eradicate poverty and it’s manifestations from the shores of our United Kingdom." ie. to undo what they have been supervising over a number of years..................then you don't live in the real world.

If the rhetoric is to help drum up enthusiasm then fine but you should learn from the Nationalists mistakes regards not having enough substance or not being able to convince anyone outwith the 'membership' or already converted.

 

 

As for Scottish Labour winning back supporters from the SNP, for a start they need some 'credible people' and not the likes of Lamont. There is more chance of Clement Atlee returning than your line about the UK parties seriously working together and achieving the "eradication of poverty" , perhaps Gordon Brown is as high as they could go but it's doubtful he'd want to and he comes with baggage.

 

For a number of reasons, democracy in the UK is in an unhealthy state and for me there are issues that are far more important than the Union or Nationalism.

 

In that case you have missed the whole point of that article - or I havent espoused it well enough - or perhaps both.

 

When I write....

 

Our voice is on the rise, we must by actions, not words or political sound bites, ensure our Union is defended, by attacking the root causes of social injustice and poverty within our society.

 

 

It is a plea to move away from rhetoric, or empty promises/sound bites - and to take action by way of policy to tackle those causes.

 

Furthermore whilst it may unrealistic to have an aim of eradictating poverty, it is not beyond the realm of politicians to at least be seen tackling some of the causes. Also I dont think I ever suggested the UK parties working together - what I said was that unionist parties need to have at the heart of their manifestos a willingness to tackle some of these issues - not necessari;y together.

 

I would imagine this not only applies to Scotland but other areas such as the North East of England wher there are large areas of multi-deprivation.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

If the rhetoric is to help drum up enthusiasm then fine but you should learn from the Nationalists mistakes regards not having enough substance or not being able to convince anyone outwith the 'membership' or already converted.

 

Can I just point out that before the campaign began, support for Independence hovered between 25 and 28%. When we finished the campaign, support for Independence had risen to 45%.

 

So I'd say that the Nationalists did a pretty good job of convincing quite a few people - particularly in the face of a tsunami of lies, threats and blackmail from the No side, pumped out and published by their lapdogs at the BBC and in the MSM.

 

The good news is that the genie is out the bottle and the 45% aren't going anywhere. Indeed, as the lies of the No campaign come home to roost and people see that they have been conned by the three stooges, the momentum will begin to build for the next referendum.

 

Even better news is that 20,000 people have joined the SNP since Friday - and that makes us the third largest party in the UK.

 

Independence has been delayed for a few years, that's all.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Can I just point out that before the campaign began, support for Independence hovered between 25 and 28%. When we finished the campaign, support for Independence had risen to 45%.

 

So I'd say that the Nationalists did a pretty good job of convincing quite a few people - particularly in the face of a tsunami of lies, threats and blackmail from the No side, pumped out and published by their lapdogs at the BBC and in the MSM.

 

The good news is that the genie is out the bottle and the 45% aren't going anywhere. Indeed, as the lies of the No campaign come home to roost and people see that they have been conned by the three stooges, the momentum will begin to build for the next referendum.

 

Even better news is that 20,000 people have joined the SNP since Friday - and that makes us the third largest party in the UK.

 

Independence has been delayed for a few years, that's all.

 

The sovereign will (as Salmond was want to say) of the Scottish people is that they want to remain part of the United Kingdom, get over it.

[Juancornetto 1]

I am just a wee bit surprised why folk like yourself Bearger would choose to declare your voting intentions. Many considered that this was something that should remain a private matter.

 

That's what I was thinking too, especially with regard to Gers fans who regularly use social media sites.

 

Why would you announce which way you're voting on those social media platforms if you know it's a touchy subject amongst many Rangers supporters and something you're quite likely to get some abuse for?

 

Most of us know there's a fair number of our supporters with quite extreme views and not afraid to voice them on those social media sites, so if you declared yourself as a 'YES' voter on them, I think you pretty much knew what was going to happen.

 

So as not to upset the supporters with "quite extreme views" you should keep your mouth shut? Are you both really saying what I think you're saying? Deary me.

[buster. 5,257]

It is a plea to move away from rhetoric' date=' or empty promises/sound bites - and to take action by way of policy to tackle those causes.

 

Furthermore whilst it may unrealistic to have an aim of eradictating poverty, it is not beyond the realm of politicians to at least be seen tackling some of the causes. Also I dont think I ever suggested the UK parties working together - what I said was that unionist parties need to have at the heart of their manifestos a willingness to tackle some of these issues - not necessari;y together.

 

I would imagine this not only applies to Scotland but other areas such as the North East of England wher there are large areas of multi-deprivation.[/quote']

 

To be somewhat direct, your plea is empty rhetoric or to be kinder, is to want what many of us do but don't get and haven't been getting for many years, indeed quite the reverse is happening. But if I were to join you in simply stating that I'd like to see X,Y and Z.....then I would do so in an inclusive manner rather than putting the onus on soley the Unionist parties.

 

The priority should be about the X, Y and Z not Unionism or Nationalism.

 

 

No, Mr.D you are in 'idealistic rhetoric mode' that has no traction in Planet Westminster or indeed Holyrood.

I'd take it more seriously if you were able to tell us how practical steps might be taken, agreed upon and budgeted.

 

Where more substantial rhectoric will feature is in political party manifestos but they tend to feature a fair allocation of good intentions or lies.

[der Berliner 3,813]

So as not to upset the supporters with "quite extreme views" you should keep your mouth shut? Are you both really saying what I think you're saying? Deary me.

 

Well, more like "you know what sort of people does inhabit the grand wide anyonymous internet (no matter whether they wear our colours or not), so it was not hard to pedict that quite a few would level flak at you". Given the amount of notority involved in the debate, a flak-vest and tin hat was always required, but kudos should go out for standing up against such bampotry and voice your opinion nonetheless.

[Zappa 0]

So as not to upset the supporters with "quite extreme views" you should keep your mouth shut? Are you both really saying what I think you're saying? Deary me.

 

Not at all JC. If you read what I wrote again all I'm really saying is that it shouldn't have come as any sort of surprise that some of our supporters would dish out abuse to open 'yes' voters on social media. Also, anyone who knowingly wound up the sort of supporters that dish out abuse would probably have got it even tighter.

 

There's no point in standing in the middle of a road and then complaining when a vehicle hits you is there?

[barca72 440]

Can I just point out that before the campaign began, support for Independence hovered between 25 and 28%. When we finished the campaign, support for Independence had risen to 45%.

 

So I'd say that the Nationalists did a pretty good job of convincing quite a few people - particularly in the face of a tsunami of lies, threats and blackmail from the No side, pumped out and published by their lapdogs at the BBC and in the MSM.

 

The good news is that the genie is out the bottle and the 45% aren't going anywhere. Indeed, as the lies of the No campaign come home to roost and people see that they have been conned by the three stooges, the momentum will begin to build for the next referendum.

 

Even better news is that 20,000 people have joined the SNP since Friday - and that makes us the third largest party in the UK.

 

Independence has been delayed for a few years, that's all.

 

LOL! Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

I'll give you a quote from a wise man ...

 

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it."

W. C. Fields

[D'Artagnan 173]

To be somewhat direct, your plea is empty rhetoric or to be kinder, is to want what many of us do but don't get and haven't been getting for many years, indeed quite the reverse is happening. But if I were to join you in simply stating that I'd like to see X,Y and Z.....then I would do so in an inclusive manner rather than putting the onus on soley the Unionist parties.

 

The priority should be about the X, Y and Z not Unionism or Nationalism.

 

 

No, Mr.D you are in 'idealistic rhetoric mode' that has no traction in Planet Westminster or indeed Holyrood.

I'd take it more seriously if you were able to tell us how practical steps might be taken, agreed upon and budgeted.

 

Where more substantial rhectoric will feature is in political party manifestos but they tend to feature a fair allocation of good intentions or lies.

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

Rather than rhetoric its a requirement of the parties which call themselves Pro-Unionist.

 

One of the aspects of the campaign was that Yes very cleverly managed to grab hold of the mantle of social justice - if you didnt hear reference to foodbanks, child poverty or the bedroom tax during the course of the debate then you were not watching the same debates which I was. Labour were labelled "Red Tories" or in darlings case "a front man for the tories".

 

They clearly have considerable ground to make up as evidenced by RPB's stats above.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Can I just point out that before the campaign began, support for Independence hovered between 25 and 28%. When we finished the campaign, support for Independence had risen to 45%.

 

So I'd say that the Nationalists did a pretty good job of convincing quite a few people - particularly in the face of a tsunami of lies, threats and blackmail from the No side, pumped out and published by their lapdogs at the BBC and in the MSM.

 

The good news is that the genie is out the bottle and the 45% aren't going anywhere. Indeed, as the lies of the No campaign come home to roost and people see that they have been conned by the three stooges, the momentum will begin to build for the next referendum.

 

Even better news is that 20,000 people have joined the SNP since Friday - and that makes us the third largest party in the UK.

 

Independence has been delayed for a few years, that's all.

 

Although we come at this from two different ends of the debate RPB there is much in that I would agree with .

 

The rise in support for independence is showing, for me a worrying trend, I realise thats not the case for you.

 

Given that much of that support has been galvanised at community level, some of which will be ongoing I think it would be foolish for any unionist to think that this debate is over and done with.