Seil Chat

Jim, these are the rules by which we must abide by if we wish to join in this site. After all we don't have to use it, and an awful lot have chosen not to. Arguing with the Admin is futile (it probably wouldn't change its approach even if Scotland voted Yes, and tried to become a fairer and more equal society). A bit of mudslinging is normal in life these days, but, I agree a line should be drawn at a certain level of insults or profanity. Those that overstep that invisible line only lower their standing in the eyes of others.

Standards of what is acceptable in life have changed, and as far as respect and manners are concerned I have no doubt that humanity has moved backwards rather than forwards over the last few generations. Much as I would happily challenge Nick or Elaine, or the others for hurling insults at me over the years, to a duel at dawn with pistols, I recognise things have moved on, and I favour the other genteel response of turning the other cheek instead.

As you are have reached the age of 83 I would be interested if you started another thread perhaps relating how life was when you were a child, a teenager, a young man, regarding respect, manners, sense of community, sense of patriotism, etc and how it has changed over the years.

jimcee wrote: I am sailing very close to the wind, and it may be that this attempt will put me beyond the pale, and I will be excommunicated and henceforth have no further allowance to contribute to these pages.

Jim, you can relax, you are not currently in any danger of excommunication. I for one am glad to have you (and Innes, and indeed everyone else) on board, a debate in which only one side is aired can get dull very quickly! Continue to ask difficult questions by all means, and defend yourself robustly if you wish. I ask only (and this applies to everyone, all contributors please not) that posters keep their language moderate and their insults to a minimum. Also, please, all of you, consider the opposing view and imagine, for a moment, that you may be wrong. If nothing else I find this helps formulate a more considered response. It might be helpful too if both sides of the indy debate recognise that each side genuinely and sincerely has the best interests of Scotland at heart.
End of lecture. I would like to point out that my prohibition of discussion of moderation is not to stifle democracy. Experience on other fora (although I believe forums has become acceptable now) is that discussions of moderation policy can swamp a board and make it unreadable. I won't allow that and if you don't like it other discussion boards are available. If you object to a post, you can report it by clicking on the red ! on the right of the offending contribution. Otherwise you can PM me (by which I mean send me a personal message) by clicking the PM button at the bottom of any of my posts. I promise you all that appropriate action will be taken, and if I consider no action is required I will inform you by PM of the reasons for that inaction.
End of topic, now play nicely.

Herby Dice wrote:It might be helpful too if both sides of the indy debate recognise that each side genuinely and sincerely has the best interests of Scotland at heart.

The best interests of Scotland., or the best interests of the UK?

I believe it is facile to equate the two.

Did you see the recent revelations that show the UK has been milking Scotland for most of the duration of the union?





If you add those numbers up, the total gap between the money Scotland raised and the amount it got back in spending over the 22-year period at the turn of the 20th century is just under £562.2 million. That’d be a not-insignificant sum in 2014, but if you convert it from 1911 prices (the midpoint of the period) it equates to a mind-boggling £56.1 billion, or a little over £2.5bn a year.

Well, here we are back in the hornet's nest.
First of all, a thank you to our moderator for providing a balanced view on the conduct of the forum and not threatening the big stick of the admin.
Secondly, a thank you to Innes Newton who has been supportive to my cause of trying to promote fairness to this debate.
However, I would like to dispute the reference to Bestiality/Necrophilia levelled against me by Stalin, in reference to a posting from a year ago. I would have given this the red warning light as proposed by our moderator, had I been able to find it.
Secondly, as an aside, our admin, does not miss a trick, and in the midst of this sideline about morality and decency, seizes on a remark by Herby and Innes to put in a plug for a perceived injustice in Scotland's treatment at the hands of Westminster.
If you say to Nick Bowles that the grass is greener in England than Scotland, it will, no doubt be because Westminster has made it so.
I do not intend to desist from putting in my tuppenceworth until I have been banned from the site.
How long that will last will depend on the nuisance that the heirarchy will stand.

Nick, I'm surprised you supposedly went all the way to the Middle and Far East on a fact finding mission. You should have stayed in Scotland and tried to verify some facts for the Yes Campaign.

The best interests of Scotland., or the best interests of the UK?

I believe it is facile to equate the two.

No it isn't, especially not if you are British like you are. The statistics you churn out are meaningless. Statistics can tell you anything you want them to. And one's from 1900....until 1920? The Yes Campaign can't even put a cost on making Scotland an independent country.

That’d be a not-insignificant sum in 2014, but if you convert it from 1911 prices (the midpoint of the period) it equates to a mind-boggling £56.1 billion

Just as well it was contributed then because it all nearly went to save the Royal Bank of Scotland.

You know, a part of me hopes Scotland wins the Yes vote so that in time I can be proven right. I really don't want to see a split, two tier Britain, but some people deserve to get what they wish for. Devomax is what Scotland needs but you can't have it if you vote Yes.

.
Good grief, now we get the bank bail-out nonsense.

Banks are bailed out by the countries they operate in. Where the brass plaque is located is irrelevant.

Did you not know that the UK government contributed 124bn to the British banks bailout package while the US treasury's contribution was 640bn?

I thought everybody realised that the 'too wee and too poor to bail out the banks' myth had been discredited a long time ago.

Good grief, now we get the bank bail-out nonsense.

Nonsense? I thought you might attach more value to it. It was FACT, not fantasy, not pie in the sky. We're going to be paying for it for a long time. FACT.

You may be a fact finder, but you only flip flop on which facts you care to accept or ignore. It suits you to ignore the facts when you dream of Scottish Independence (you and the spitting, hissing Marxist puppet ).



By the way, please correct the spelling of the title to the thread. It's obvious why the 'A' is highlighted and it smacks of nastiness.

Innes Newton wrote:

Good grief, now we get the bank bail-out nonsense.

Nonsense? I thought you might attach more value to it. It was FACT

Listen carefully, I shall say zis only wance . . .

An independent Scotland would not have been wholly responsible for RBS's debts, or indeed those of any other nominally Scottish bank.

By international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks. In the case of the RBS…roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland.

The Federal Reserve stepped in to bail out US operations linked to RBS and HBOS. In Europe the governments of France, Belgium The Netherlands and Luxembourg joined forces to help the Fortis and Dexia Banks operating across their borders.

Next daft scare story please.

This "off topic" debate did serve a useful purpose when it was moved to this site but it has unfortunately degenerated back to the Indy argy-bargy between Nick B and Innes Newton, One has only got to make a pronouncement in favour of their views and it is immediately countered by the other, ad infinitum.
So it would appear to keep them both happy, and certainly it is refreshing to have a champion of the NO argument to balance out Nick Bowles and his cohorts McDicken and Rodgers, who seem to be the only ones to have survived the disclosure edict.
While not wishing to get embroiled into this ding-dong, I would like to point out that the Lord Robertson piece was presented without any proof of what he was guilty of and the Bowles portrait was deliberately chosen to show him in the worst possible light. If we were to trawl the press pictures of politicians we could present them all in the most unflattering pose to try and discredit them as not worthy of our attention.
I still await some proof of beastiality/ necrophilia in previous posts of my own which are evidently somewhere in the archives

Well, if you were around in the 50's or earlier it wasn't uncommon to be called by only your surname, so I guess you are not from that era. You probably wouldn't have thought it a good idea to use Stalin as your avatar either. Try using Vladimir Putin with a 'Braveheart' face as your avatar. There's a long list of countries he's got on his mind to add into his new sphere of Soviet influence. And an independent Scotland is going to be much more at risk.

Can I suggest that Jim ( see first name!) reads the transcript of Robertson's "speech", if he does he will see that it cannot be taken out of context, it is what it is, an own goal.............Bill..........Hiya Rodger(s)

Glad to see that the Stalin avatar has disappeared.
Next improvement would be a more cuddly version of Che Guevera, which currently might be comforting to someone in a S.American country, intent on revolution.
Bill McDicken (Bill) is playing it safe with presumably his own spaniel, but our Yes campaigners seem to delight in ridiculing anyone who speaks up in opposition to their views suggesting that they are not worth listening to.
Innes Newton posted a well presented and thoughtful view from Ming Campbell, yet our administrator dismissed it out of hand, as being the ramblings of a geriatric with no touch on reality.
To an outsider it might suggest that all this ridiculing of opposition statements, represents a sense of insecurity in the Yes camp, about the impact they are making on the undecideds and trashing the credentials of anyone speaking out in opposition is the only form of defence they have.
As one of the undecideds, I find myself being swayed towards the No camp, purely because of the tactics of the Yes brigade, which seems hell bent on denigrating anyone who does not espouse their cause.

Elaine (please note not ms Rodger) some of your postings defy comprehension, You prefer not to address the question and go off at a tangent into an incomprohensible aside. I realise this is seriously off topic and will be punished by the powers that be, but please for the sake of anyone else watching this thread, explain the meanings of your last pronouncement and elucidate us on who the rather benign looking gent is, who you have chosen to replace Stalin (or the curious alias you have dreamed up for him) and why you have not insisted on a YES badge to adorn his lapel.

As one of the undecideds, I find myself being swayed towards the No camp

Jim, I'm disappointed a man with your life experience and wisdom could even consider voting for such an ill-conceived proposal for an independent Scotland!

By the way I sent you a private message you might find interesting. But you can't repeat its contents, or I'm banned (again)!

After some considerable time and searching, I have come across the PM message sent to me by Pentland Pirate (alias Innes Newton). As I have a great admiration for his being the only one who is prepared to stand up to the bullying and hectoring of the Yes camp, in what is listed as a debate but is more like propaganda, I was interested to what he would have to say in a PM.
However, it would appear that I am still in the dark as although it has taken this message over a week to reach me, it would appear to be a test to see whether the PM would be sanctioned by the powers that be.
The fact that it took aeons in cyberspace to get through suggests some skulduggery somewhere.
If this message appears as a posting on the website - it is over to you Innes Newton - your test message survived censorship and I was able to access it - but where now?

Why do you say that? Do you really think anyone wants to associate themselves with the stupid comments you make?

Innes Newton wrote:Why do you say that? Do you really think anyone wants to associate themselves with the stupid comments you make?

This sounds like the kind comment you would hear in a primary school playground, hardly adult debate.
Maybe due to the "FACT" (Innes likes facts) that "Flipper Darling's" No campaign is about to crash and burn.
If you want the proof of that fact have a look at the current opinion polls.

Yes, Alastair Darling was guilty of flipping homes like some 232 MP's did. But what he did was an abuse of the system, rather than something that was illegal, and so far you haven't called him a liar.

Alex Salmond, and the Yes Campaign on the other hand have pushed economy of the truth so much over recent years that even some MP's have over-stepped their own limits of calling someone a liar, by saying not only that Alex Salmond is a liar but that the push for Scottish Independence has been "the most dishonest, deceptive and disgraceful political campaign this country has ever seen".

If the polls are true that the number of people prepared to vote yes is increasing, I can only shake my head at the gullibility of them. The saying "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln..............must be true

I'm not sure I really understand the logic of your last post Innes, but I'm not calling Flipper Darling a liar, I'm calling him a failure. The campaign he has led has passed the point of no return, due mainly to the rubbish spoken by the likes of George Robertson.

Are you saying thay just because Alastair Darling has been a failure, an independent Scotland will be a success and gets your vote? Where's the logic in that? Don't you question the integrity of the Yes Campaign and its leaders at all, yet you do for the No campaign? Crazy. You lot might have headed down to the pub yesterday but you better sober up before September 18th.