Who is bogging off after the YES vote?

[martinr007]

HenryJM said:

k2sherpa said:

HenryJM said:

You don't know who k2sherpa is? Hmmm...!!

I actually just searched for him. Not sure how I can prove to you I'm not him but more than happy to put a large bet that he and I am not the same person.

Obviously I'm not going to post my real name up here but please feel free to contact admin to find out who I am.

So you are logged in as k2sherpa, you are posting as k2sherpa and you don't know who k2sherpa is?

I can only apologise for quoting on my phone and getting mixed up, as has been stated previously most yes voters are incompetent, spongers etc I suppose I foot that bill. I'll say again feel free to contact admin to find my contact details, I'm no pcdriver.

As for your previous comment regarding the results not suiting me, they do actually. I work hard but earn a very good living. On the other hand, the thousands in poverty and requiring food banks across the country don't. I'm not voting yes purely for myself.

[HenryJM]

gofasterrosssco said:

As for your comment about a career politician, you can say many things about Alex Salmond but he's never fiddled his expenses (at least I've never read about) like so many of the current Westminster elite. Regardless of that, it will be the SNP and Salmond in power until 2016 but then after that it's election time again, if you don't like him you can vote for someone else. I don't really trust most politicians, but I think the Scottish politicians are a bit more like "normal" people and I'd like to think they would have Scotland's interests at heart than the Eton educated toffs in Westminster. These guy's live on a different planet!!

Click here for coverage of all the expenses issues Salmond has been part of.

Then you can try googling for the lies he has told.

The standards of Holyrood are appalling, it seems that MSPs can cheat and lie almost with impunity, things that would have got them in front of an enquiry in Westminster go largely unnoticed there.

Meanwhile you seem to want to help the more unfortunate and for that you vote for independence! Scotland as an independent country would have big financial problems needing to cut public spending due to difficulties in borrowing to support current levels, yet alone increasing it. So you can be pretty sure it would be a disaster for the less well off as the richer simply move away.

Edited by HenryJM on Friday 22 August 12:24

[gofasterrosssco]

HenryJM said:

gofasterrosssco said:

As for your comment about a career politician, you can say many things about Alex Salmond but he's never fiddled his expenses (at least I've never read about) like so many of the current Westminster elite. Regardless of that, it will be the SNP and Salmond in power until 2016 but then after that it's election time again, if you don't like him you can vote for someone else. I don't really trust most politicians, but I think the Scottish politicians are a bit more like "normal" people and I'd like to think they would have Scotland's interests at heart than the Eton educated toffs in Westminster. These guy's live on a different planet!!

Click here for coverage of all the expenses issues Salmond has been part of.

Then you can try googling for the lies he has told.

The standards of Holyrood are appalling, it seems that MSPs can cheat and lie almost with impunity, things that would have got them in front of an enquiry in Westminster go largely unnoticed there.

Meanwhile you seem to want to help the more unfortunate and for that you vote for independence! Scotland as an independent country would have big financial problems needing to cut public spending due to difficulties in borrowing to support current levels, yet alone increasing it. So you can be pretty sure it would be a disaster for the less well off as the richer simply move away.

Minor quoting error there Henry

[McWigglebum4th]

gofasterrosssco said:

I don't have anything in common with someone educated at Eton, and it's a lovely characature to present (not like we haven't heard it before) to people to show how alien these people are to us up North. Does that make them unsuitable politicians? Does someone have to come from a working class background to gain credibility, like Thatcher?

A YES vote will ensure we only have total retards running the country


No rich bds will be allowed into Holyrood

[Hugo a Gogo]

wait, so the current bunch in Westminster are NOT retards?

and those dedicated MSPs and would-be MSPs that are currently devoted to their constituencies will pack up and move to England, or give up politics altogether?

bonus!

[HenryJM]

gofasterrosssco said:

Minor quoting error there Henry

Oops

Click here for coverage of all the expenses issues Salmond has been part of.

[Junior Bianno]

martinr007 said:

HenryJM said:

k2sherpa said:

HenryJM said:

You don't know who k2sherpa is? Hmmm...!!

I actually just searched for him. Not sure how I can prove to you I'm not him but more than happy to put a large bet that he and I am not the same person.

Obviously I'm not going to post my real name up here but please feel free to contact admin to find out who I am.

So you are logged in as k2sherpa, you are posting as k2sherpa and you don't know who k2sherpa is?

I can only apologise for quoting on my phone and getting mixed up, as has been stated previously most yes voters are incompetent, spongers etc I suppose I foot that bill. I'll say again feel free to contact admin to find my contact details, I'm no pcdriver.

As for your previous comment regarding the results not suiting me, they do actually. I work hard but earn a very good living. On the other hand, the thousands in poverty and requiring food banks across the country don't. I'm not voting yes purely for myself.

What is going on in this thread??? Is K2sherpa actually Martinr007 then?

[Lefty]

Nice

[simoid]

Lefty said:

I've also heard the whingey "we aren't fairly represented" argument.

My response is:
1. You had a fking vote
2. Look at election turnout then STFU
3. If you want to change the rules of democracy because you don't like it then it's not democracy
4. If those are the rules we're gonna follow then I want independence from iScotland. I'll build a wall round my house, raise my clan flag, print my own passport and stop paying taxes.

And the real yes voter mindfk:

55% of the Scottish people who turned up to vote at the last Holyrood election voted AGAINST the party who ended up with a historic majority.

The Scottish parliament goes directly against the principles they seek of "governments we vote for."

Nothing about yes makes any sense.

[simoid]

Lefty said:

Nice

Does that say scum?

What a lovely democracy our new Scotland is going to be, with people being publicly abused for their political beliefs.

[Rollin]

k2sherpa said:

As a long term lurker / observer this is one of the reasons why I haven't signed up / posted until now, I feel some people post absolute nonsense and it all ends up in a mud slinging match. However after reading the 3 posts above I felt I had to sign up.

Why is there always something shifty and deceitful about a nat?

[martinr007]

Rollin said:

k2sherpa said:

As a long term lurker / observer this is one of the reasons why I haven't signed up / posted until now, I feel some people post absolute nonsense and it all ends up in a mud slinging match. However after reading the 3 posts above I felt I had to sign up.

Why is there always something shifty and deceitful about a nat?

10 out of 10 to Junior Baiano for paying attention at the front of the class, that's what happen if you log in with your phone or laptop At least Henry now knows I'm not pcdriver!

Rollin, I'd no deceitful intentions but if that's what you think about nats fair enough, says more about you generalising people that it does me. I signed up with another name as I'd prefer to keep cars and politics apart. Imagine turning up to a car meet only to find the guy you're speaking to is the same keyboard warrior that's been telling you STFU, you've had you're vote now fk off etc on line (I don't mean you).

As I said earlier some people are willing to actually discuss the referendum (I think I've made the right decision but would like to hear why folk are voting no), but others dismiss yes voters as knuckle draggers, plebs, people of low intelligence, scroungers etc etc, it's pathetic. I'd like to think if everyone was having this discussion at say a car meet there be a bit more sensible debate and a lot less of the bravado.

I've seen a few other comments saying that if you don't like the current system and want to change it then that in itself is undemocratic. So does this mean that anyone who votes for Labour is undemocratic as they don't support the Tories?

[martinr007]

simoid said:

Lefty said:

Nice

Does that say scum?

What a lovely democracy our new Scotland is going to be, with people being publicly abused for their political beliefs.

Does this meet your approval then? http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottis...

There are idiots on both sides of the debate can we at least agree on that?

[martinr007]

HenryJM said:

gofasterrosssco said:

Minor quoting error there Henry

Oops

Click here for coverage of all the expenses issues Salmond has been part of.

I think there's a big difference between spending money on attending the Ryder cup and say Alistair Darling flipping second homes 4 times in as many years. I'd love to know if there was any benefit / new investment in Scotland because of the visit, but I don't think he should be staying in the most basic of accommodation if he's trying impress foreign investors. The same goes for the London olympics, I wouldn't have expected them to scrimp on that when they're wining and dining to win votes.

[HenryJM]

martinr007 said:

I think there's a big difference between spending money on attending the Ryder cup and say Alistair Darling flipping second homes 4 times in as many years. I'd love to know if there was any benefit / new investment in Scotland because of the visit, but I don't think he should be staying in the most basic of accommodation if he's trying impress foreign investors. The same goes for the London olympics, I wouldn't have expected them to scrimp on that when they're wining and dining to win votes.

So,why do you think he hid it. If it was justifiable expense why not be open about it?

[KENZ]

Lefty said:

Nice

I see a lot of these billboards on farmland and McIntosh Plant Hire estate. Landowners seem to be doing well in the current climate..

Can't see why these billboards would sway/influence the average voter.

Edited by KENZ on Saturday 23 August 10:05

[martinr007]

HenryJM said:

martinr007 said:

I think there's a big difference between spending money on attending the Ryder cup and say Alistair Darling flipping second homes 4 times in as many years. I'd love to know if there was any benefit / new investment in Scotland because of the visit, but I don't think he should be staying in the most basic of accommodation if he's trying impress foreign investors. The same goes for the London olympics, I wouldn't have expected them to scrimp on that when they're wining and dining to win votes.

So,why do you think he hid it. If it was justifiable expense why not be open about it?

Probably because he knew how Johann Lamont would twist it and tell her constituents that he himself had spent more in one week on a "jolly" than what some of them would take 2 years to earn. I don't know what the reward vs cost of the trip was but imagine if he'd been staying in a travel lodge and gave the Ryder cup delegation / potential investors a packet of tunnocks tea cakes and some walkers shortbread for their gifts.

I think any prime minister/first minister/president should be able to push the boat out a bit for a business visit where there's the potential for investment, however I can understand that a lot of people, especially if they're on the minimum wage and wondering if they can pay their bills the following week would think otherwise. I think Johann Lamont capitalised on this.

If there are genuine expense fiddles / scandals like the house flipping etc then no I won't defend him as I think that's one of the worst crimes of the current politicians.

[HenryJM]

martinr007 said:

Probably because he knew how Johann Lamont would twist it and tell her constituents that he himself had spent more in one week on a "jolly" than what some of them would take 2 years to earn. I don't know what the reward vs cost of the trip was but imagine if he'd been staying in a travel lodge and gave the Ryder cup delegation / potential investors a packet of tunnocks tea cakes and some walkers shortbread for their gifts.

Well he had everyone else stay somewhere else but he stayed at the Peninsular in a suite. Now the Peninsular is a very nice hotel and a suite there is around $1,200 a night and he was there for four nights however his bill seems to have crept up to around $9,000 for the stay.

Now of course it could easily be justifiable, maybe he held some form of meetings and receptions in his suite for people it was useful to Scotland for him to meet. Maybe..., who knows?

But if that was the case why, when asked, did he try to cover it up? He may not have wanted to shout about it but when asked he should be open, but he wasn't, he tried to hide it.

martinr007 said:

I think any prime minister/first minister/president should be able to push the boat out a bit for a business visit where there's the potential for investment, however I can understand that a lot of people, especially if they're on the minimum wage and wondering if they can pay their bills the following week would think otherwise. I think Johann Lamont capitalised on this.

I think she capitalised on the reluctance to be clean about it. I don't know whether he milked expenses for his personal benefit but I do know he was stupid trying to hide it.

martinr007 said:

If there are genuine expense fiddles / scandals like the house flipping etc then no I won't defend him as I think that's one of the worst crimes of the current politicians.

Actually the biggest problem in Westminster was no so much expense fiddles as an expenses system that was far too lax and failed under the scrutiny of public gaze. It wasn't, for example, against the policy to house flip - it was essentially seen as being an available perk - but it was heavily disapproved of when the public heard about it to the effect of getting a much more effective policy in place.

Now I still think it was wrong, but it was more like tax avoidance is when compared to tax evasion, the first is legal although sometimes morally dubious, the second is illegal. For a lot of the expenses issues it was the former type rather than the latter.

[HenryJM]

If you want another Salmond example have a look at the saga of the 'trews' which they tried once again to hide, then lied about before deciding (18 months later) to reimburse the taxpayer once a newspaper got involved.

There are others...

[KENZ]

Alec Salmond/Scottish Goverment expenses are a drop in the ocean compared to what your local councilors spend. Of course Westminister takes it to another level..