Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Right now I would rather we still had Wellbeck and little pea and that Falcao had never arrived.  Not too impressed by the signing of Di Maria either.

"We"?? I'm surprised you associate yourself to an organisation that has squandered over £135 this summer, whilst there are homeless people on the streets and starving children in the world!! They could have spent £135m on those things and left the squad alone, finishing top half would still be ok wouldn't it? Especially if so many peoples lives were improved by redirecting transfer monies to charity.

[gaelgowfer]

God save The Queen!

Is it possible to squeeze any more outdated institutions in one sentence. Religion and monarchies. The UK really is quite an antiquated place.

Dear oh dearie me ... you certainly appear, at least on this occasion, not to 'get' british humour.

[beninho]

It was no great surprise that 66% of voters in Scottish Borders voted no to independence – so many people in the affluent region work over in England, with many English settled among the abbeys and heather-clad moorlands of the area.

But a not-insignificant 27,906 people in the Borders wanted Scotland to be an independent country. One of them was 22-year-old Jamie Noble, a volunteer at a charity shop in the market town of Kelso, just six miles from England, who said on Friday: “I’m no’ happy with the result. I didnae want to be part of England any more. I cannae be doing with them, with some of them, anyway. They’re total snobby.”


Poster boy for the yes voters!

[pedro]

 It can start by ditching the House of Lords and creating a new more meaningful and democratic second chamber.

Hear hear. What kind of anachronistic thing is that. Not even China or North Korea can boast of such an institution.

Except, despite what you say, it does a reasonable job. Do you want ANOTHER set of elections to elect an upper house? Everyone I speak to hates the idea of even more elections.

Scrap it. What's wrong with just ONE house?

[I'm never wrong]

Scrap it. What's wrong with just ONE house?

Because if one party gets in with a landslide majority there are no checks and balances to what they can do.

[Diggers]

Why should there be any checks and balances? Thats the point of being given a mandate to govern surely, to be allowed to implement that mandate and govern.
Having that mandate affected by a non representative house is completely undemocratic IMO.

[pedro]

Scrap it. What's wrong with just ONE house?

Because if one party gets in with a landslide majority there are no checks and balances to what they can do.

it's called democracy.

[super_realist]

Mac must have gone into a coma due to the amount of frapping he's been doing since the result.

[MustPuttBetter]

Doesn't the result of 55-45 just show that if someone who actually had a bit of a plan as to how it would work came along then Scotland would probably go for independence?
If Salmond, without essentially having convinced anyone that he knew what he would do if he won, could get 45% to side with him, surely it would be a yes vote if someone with more of a structure came along. Any structure basically

I don't read this result as a resounding vote for the union. More of a '45%, really?' With no real framework. Says to me they're up for independence but this wasn't the guy

[super_realist]

It wouldn't matter at all MPB because there simply aren't any facts to back up the claims of independence.

I also think that as much as I think he's a dick, Salmond had a certain charismatic appeal to a specific demographic and thus he was a good leader for them. Looking into the SNP minions there is no one even close to being able to be of Fat Salmond's calibre in that respect and with oil becoming less available it's even less likely to be independence in the future

[MustPuttBetter]

Fair enough.
I'm just thinking that at least 6% must have been thinking 'I'm up for it but there's no substance'. If you could sway them with half a plan it would have been a yes

[SmithersJones]

But there really is no substance, hence it's more like 55% thinking 'if only there was some substance' and 45% thinking 'f*ck the English'.

[super_realist]

Nah Smithers, I knew just two people who were yes voters, and all the rest are as British as you are. They didn't want independence at all.

[MustPuttBetter]

But there really is no substance, hence it's more like 55% thinking 'if only there was some substance' and 45% thinking 'f*ck the English'.

Some must be thinking 'substance or not I'm not up for independence'

[kwinigolfer]

Lots of uplifting stuff about NFL players recently, usually drugs or beating the sh1t out of their wives/girlfriends/children.

NFL Commissioner Goodell says he's handled it badly. He's got to get the NFL "house in order".
How much do you think he's paid to be making such institutional c0ck-ups?
$1M?
$4M??
$14M???
. . . . . no, stop, he can't "earn" more than that.
$24M????
$34M?????
. . . . . you gotta be sh1tting me
$44M??????
$54M????????

You make your choice.

[raycastleunited]

Doesn't the result of 55-45 just show that if someone who actually had a bit of a plan as to how it would work came along then Scotland would probably go for independence?
If Salmond, without essentially having convinced anyone that he knew what he would do if he won, could get 45% to side with him, surely it would be a yes vote if someone with more of a structure came along. Any structure basically

I don't read this result as a resounding vote for the union. More of a '45%, really?'  With no real framework. Says to me they're up for independence but this wasn't the guy

I thought this too. Also, if someone like Sean Connery had led instead of Salmond then maybe they would have got the extra 6%.

[Diggers]

Not sure an ex pat, non tax paying knight if the realm would have been a great choice. I don't think he's even that bright.
I think Salmond did a great job, he gets slated on here but that's hardly surprising. He galvanised a party and the Yes campaign.
It's pretty obvious if you are Scottish and voted No you'd dislike him and most English people dislike him because he had the temerity to ask for Scottish people to have the choice of independence.
All the decent commentary I've listened to is full of praise for Salmond. The there was no rational argument is a one eyed view as far as I'm concerned, there was a lot of rational in the choice to vote Yes, just not quite enough to fully sway the majority in the end.

[super_realist]

I don't think people are that stupid. Connery is widely seen as a hypocrite on the subject because he lives in the Bahamas, he isn't even eligible to vote.

It isn't about personality when it comes to crossing the line, even though Salmond appealed to lots of people from a certain demographic, it's about what you can demonstrate to be true, and the Yes campaign failed to do that.

The hilarious thing about the Salmond resignation is that Lego Hair is favourite to take over as First Minister, I can't see those who fawned over Salmond doing the same to her. There could be a holocaust of SNP MP's next year with her in charge and the next referendum decades away.

[MustPuttBetter]

There may have been a lot of rational argument Digs but, at least in the tv debates, I think he did a bad job of conveying that. He dodged a lot of the material questions. Yes a lot maybe had to be dodged but not all. And I suspect if he had managed to answer even some and give the impression he had 'a plan' then he would have got his yes (rather than this having been the resounding no to independence some are claiming)

[Diggers]

It was a very close call MPB, I can't see how it can be seen any other way. For me if it had happened at a time when the UK economy was performing less well (and let's face it there is a lot of smoke and mirrors there) that could have made the difference.
Salmond persuaded well but many people are risk averse and even if they liked the idea if independence they weren't prepared to take a leap of faith which is fine. It doesn't mean the No argument was the only way though.
You can hang every criticism of Salmond on the other leaders. They were equally vague when it suited them.
Anyway lots on interesting debate has cone of it and a lot more reform to follow hopefully.

[super_realist]

Indeed MPB, I lost count of the time Salmond simply palmed off a criticism with "that's just nonsense" without giving an explanation why, nor could he back up his assertions with any substance. His policies were simply based on. "I think it's worth a risk" or "It will be alright".

That's not good political debate, that's just dodging an answer, and when he was stuck in a corner he just blamed the Westminster elite, despite once being part of it.

[Diggers]

Spoken like a true No voter super.

[MustPuttBetter]

You could definitely say the same for the other leaders yes but they won.
All I'm saying is if anything this result says to me that actually the majority of Scottish people would be up for independence, given a bit more of a firm idea on how it would work.

[MustPuttBetter]

Super, a few stories coming out lately on Salmond's past, once being chucked out of the Commons etc.
I'm sure these stories exist for lots of them but interesting that they weren't pushed out sooner.

[Diggers]

Maybe MPB but those big leaps require a leap of faith. The debate following a Yes vote would have formed a framework.
The No vote says that it couldn't work, fair enough, that just their opinion though.
Lots on people are risk averse when presented with even a good opportunity, they are conservative, its human nature in many ways.

[super_realist]

You can't say that at all MPB.
You've got 55% that says No, that's a majority, you've got no basis for saying they'd be up for Independence at all.
You don't live here, you don't know the public opinion, you aren't discussing it with the people that would be affected. You don't know their reasons for voting no, and you've got no idea what the majority think about Independence.

I know 2 people that want Independence. TWO.

It's never been a case of, "show me the evidence and I'll vote Yes, if not I'll vote no".

It isn't about not taking a risk, or even having enough facts, there's a lot of people who simply don't want to be independent and prefer the union option.

A Scottish Brit is just as British as an English Brit.

[Diggers]

What's the point of saying you know only 2 people when well over a million voted Yes? Pointless remark and only serves to illustrate your social circle.
20 people in a room, 11 vote no and 9 yes. Its a close debate and given other variables, like say Brown not being brought (which everyone agrees galvanised the No's) in or a less bright economy in the UK, and it could have gone the other way.

[MustPuttBetter]

Super, no I don't live there etc but that's not stopped anyone debating until now has it.....

As I've said you would think at least 6% were pro independence but thought this version didn't work. I'd say that was likely fairly certain.

So you could easily say under only very slightly different terms it could easily have been a yes

Oh and I have discussed it with plenty if people who would be affected

[super_realist]

What's the point of saying you know only 2 people when well over a million voted Yes? Pointless remark and only serves to illustrate your social circle.
20 people in a room, 11 vote no and 9 yes. Its a close debate and given other variables, like say Brown not being brought (which everyone agrees galvanised the No's) in or a less bright economy in the UK, and it could have gone the other way.

The point being Diggers that, those I know who voted no, did so because they didn't want to be Independent and wanted to stay part of the Union, not that they had insufficient evidence to vote Yes.
MPB seems to overlook that people can be pro Union. He seems to suggest that people only voted No because they didn't have sufficient grounds to vote Yes.

You could also say that if the No campaign had been a little more visible, campaigned more then they majority could have been even more.

It's all if's and but's.

[MustPuttBetter]

Rubbish Super?! When have I said that?
What I've said is I think, if given a better idea on how it might work, it looks like more than 50% would vote yes.
That leaves another 49% max that I accept are just pro union, in case you're struggling with the maths

[Be_the_ball]

I have to say i found the whole Scottish referendum captivating. It must have felt like a roller coaster ride for you Scots in the eye of the storm. There's a great article on the BBC site that covers the rise of the SNP and Alex Salmond, so what now for the SNP do you think? Does this "reset the clock" on the anti Conservative sentiment? Could the Conservatives become a political force in Scotland now?

[MustPuttBetter]

Let's try this another way, are you saying you refuse to accept that some people were pro independence but voted no based on this particular strategy?

[Diggers]

Tiny sample group Super, and let's face it if your mates and circle are like you they are hardly predisposed to change their mind about anything.
If you are well off and conservative and risk averse you are in the group that's less likely to be swayed..hardly an earth shattering discovery that really.

[super_realist]

And like I say, if the No campaign had been a little more influential and visible, then perhaps there would be more No voters.
It works both ways, but the only thing that matters is the outcome, and Yes lost fairly convincingly.

[MustPuttBetter]

Ha ha ok fair enough

[super_realist]

Tiny sample group Super, and let's face it if your mates and circle  are like you they are hardly predisposed to change their mind about anything.
If you are well off and conservative and risk averse you are in the group that's less likely to be swayed..hardly an earth shattering discovery that really.

Of course it's a tiny sample group, and I'm not in a group likely to be changed, nor my friends or work colleagues, however those at the other end of the scale are also unlikely to change their minds are they?

There could be a bunch in the middle who could be persuaded either way given information from either side. So if you say that the Yes vote could be swayed by more information, then of course you could have a swing to the No direction.

So you could have Yes making a swing of 6% taking them over the line or you could have No increasing their win from 10% -16%.

[Diggers]

The outcome from the debate isn't the only thing that matters, what happens now with devolution is what matters and how that might facilitate a move toward independence on the future.
Let's face it we can't say in the UK whether we will be in Europe in 3 years time, lots of things can change which might affect future polls. The fact that Supers pro Union demograph might never change hardly means the others demographs might  not be.

[MustPuttBetter]

No.
The difference being you can feasibly understand someone being pro independence but voting no in this case with this strategy.
You can't see anyone who is anti independence voting yes for any reason

[super_realist]

Indeed, but I can understand some being pro independence simply because of patriotism and a dislike of the English too, where further information might have them change their mind back to No.
It works both ways.

[MustPuttBetter]

I would say it's far less likely that someone who hates the English would be persuaded out of that to vote no, than those who would say yes if presented with a workable plan.

But look, it's all opinion, who knows. I only know what the result says to me which is as explained

[super_realist]

I would say it's far less likely that someone who hates the English would be persuaded out of that to vote no, than those who would say yes if presented with a workable plan.

But look, it's all opinion, who knows. I only know what the result says to me which is as explained

If you had information that they'd be worse off under independence then I think you could. I remember seeing a study that people would vote for Independence if it could be proved they'd be just 300 qui a year better off. So, sure it would work the other way.

One thing I do admire Fat Salmond for is taking blame for the defeat and resigning. If only England football managers had that sort of self respect and self awareness.

[beninho]

So the west Lothian question. Not something I had ever heard of before but no can't stop!. It seems that a no vote is going to be just as intersting then a yes down here. Will ukip start making more noise. And labour will try and put off any changes. An English national assembly on the cards?

[MustPuttBetter]

Ha ha true enough. I was at first surprised he'd resigned but then I suppose if his whole remit was to achieve independence he has nothing left to do? Not sure

[navyblueshorts]

So the west Lothian  question. Not something  I had ever heard of before but no can't  stop!. It seems that a no vote is going to be just as intersting then a yes down here. Will ukip start making more noise. And labour will try and put off any changes. An English national assembly on the cards?

Seriously?? You hadn't heard of that?

[raycastleunited]

What's the west Lothian question?

Gullane or North Berwick? Sorry that's the east Lothian question.

[kwinigolfer]

That van Gaal is certainly some manager . . . . . .
Think of the grief Moyes would (did) take after a result like that.

[MustPuttBetter]

Isn't it funny. I know people say 'I'm better than so and so' and obviously don't mean it but everyone in world could tell you that Man United need improving defensively (more than just buying Rojo). How can van Gaal not see that??

[pedro]

Disappointing for Leicester to concede three goals.

[Diggers]

Isn't it funny. I know people say 'I'm better than so and so' and obviously don't mean it but everyone in world could tell you that Man United need improving defensively (more than just buying Rojo). How can van Gaal not see that??

They bought Shaw as well so have spent £40million strengthening the defence this season...but on the same position. Presumably he'll play Rojo at CB when Shaw is fit but not sure he's any good there.
Shambolic today though really. Conceding 5 against Leicester, amazingly bad.

[Diggers]

Lots of shock results today, keeps it interesting. Only constant is Lampard keeps scoring goals.

[JAS]

Looking at the last polls before the vote, if you added the Don't knows to the No's you'd get roughly the actual percentage of No votes. In other words most people who were saying Don't Know in the polls actually voted No, which to be fair you'd expect i.e. if you can't be sure, leave it as it is.

I think there would have been periods in the relatively recent past where there would have been a pretty decisive Yes vote. Specifically anytime in the period between 1983 & about 1990 when Thatcher was at the height of destroying Scotland's industrial base and a Labour alternative looked unelectable A Yes would have happened then, especially in the immediate aftermath of the poll tax experiment (they don't like me anyway let's try it on them first). Would it have been the right thing to do? probably not but we'll never know anyway. I'd say a substantial rump of the more middle aged Yes vote haven't let that era go yet. As decades pass it will be more and more forgotten. The young vote was more pro-Yes. but again as they grow up and gain a better understanding of the world their ideals will be tempered with more reality so I think any subsequent vote (which I hope there isn't for decades) would be even less likely to result in a Yes.

[Sponsored content]