Seil Chat

Phew!!

http://forargyll.com/2012/10/ferrymans- ... n-eisdeal/

http://forargyll.com/2012/10/council-su ... -ferryman/

It seems that EE have completely lost the plot, it just gets worse by the minute, see :-

http://forargyll.com/2012/10/is-easdale ... nt-1134532

My hunch, backed up by inconclusive casual observation, is that these slates may have been removed from Seil near Ellenabeich. Much easier to get started. So it might not be an Easdale issue at all.

Less than a wheelbarrowful of small pieces of slate. I find this hard to get excited over.

Maybe so, Nick, but what this regrettable stramash does indicate is that the landowner is now thoroughly hacked off with Eilean Eisdeal directors playing god and assuming that he's too far away to know or do anything about it.

In the hope of reading something new on this subject, I logged on to peruse it.
Alas, it seems to have dried up, but then I noticed that a couple of the contributors have a blue circular "YES" next to their chosen avatar? - or whatever that identifying thing is called.
Please can someone explain to a novice in these matters, what the significance of this "YES" business is, and whether one should aspire to having it added to all the other paraphenalia associated with contributing.
Also - if it confers some sort of kudos to one's persona, how does one go about acheiving this added distinction?
I realise that this diatribe of mine has nothing to do with the thread, but it seemed an appropriate place to air it, as the original subject was a bit dormant, and it might help to enlighten others in the same boat as myself.

The "YES" signifies the Yes for Scottish independence campaign, a cross-party movement to promote enthusiasm for voting Yes in the independence referendum in 2 years time. The addition to the avatar here is obtained by requesting NickB to add it for you. Fancy one, Jim?

Now that's opening up a whole can of worms.
Firstly, I find it hard deciding what to eat for my next meal, so deciding at this stage on how to vote in two years time is way beyond my decision making timescale.
At this stage my regret is that Mr Salmond caved into Mr Cameron on the question of "Devo Max", presumably to get the 16/17 year old vote - this I presume is a gamble to have them on board for a YES vote.
If Devo Max had been on the cards, I suspect that it would have been the majority choice which would have been a step along the way to the SNP goal. but with a "one choice" option Cameron is concentrating the mind and he may well be successful, as it gives Salmond an uphill struggle.
However these are just current thoughts and a lot of water will pass under the bridge, and a lot of mud will, no doubt, be slung, before decision day.
Meantime, I will manage to survive any brickbats coming my way, by not opting to have that YES thing adorning my signature.

Hi Jim, just to say I think you've got it the wrong way round about the devo max thing. If there had been this 3rd option, most folk would have voted for it and the Yes for full independence vote would have had little chance. Now it's a straight choice and it's all to play for. Yet another blunder by Cameron. There seems to be a new one almost every day. However, we are way off topic so better shut up! A lot can happen in 2 years both nationally and on Easdale! Bring it on!

Surely there can be only one question asked, the answer to which is either Yes or No!!

Any other option/s will only muddy the waters.

There's plenty of time for serious debate when the SNP have published their proposals for an independant Scotland. I look forward to it nearer the time, there's no use in debating the subject when nobody really knows what the entire substance of the matter is - i.m.h.p!

Anyway Nick, thanks for the avatar addition.

Has anybody asked for a 'No', or, a 'Maybe's Aye, Maybe's No!' addition?

Longshanks, where are you???? Maybe you're a closet Nationalist????

Purely on the Avatar setup, it is significant that all the flak I am getting is from the Yes camp, although I have in no wise nailed my colours to the mast. I suspect that those who have opted at this time are diehards who will not be swayed by anything that will be said for the next 2 years.
It is reminiscent of a remark that was once made about candidates in N.Lanarkshire - if a certain party put up a monkey for the post they would have to make accomodation for it at Westminster.
Party faithful are a useful thing for fund raising and getting a bit of publicity but it is the undecided who make the decisions in the long run.
As a cynical observation on the whole political scene - those who indulge in it - whether it be elected members or lobbyists, have an axe to grind - and unfortunately in most cases it is their own.

Closet my arse !
No, since you asked my long held position is that I dearly wish my country to become independent once more.
To me, to be truly independent, we must make our own laws and we must have our own currency and our own reserve bank.
The offer we have from Salmond means we will not be independent.
Eurocrats will make the bulk of our laws and London will control our money supply, borrowing and interest rates.
So, regretfully, I will be voting NO.....half cock independence will be a disaster for us. Only true independence would be successful.

Bruce Shanks (auld by choice)

Hi

Without trying to create strife this appears (to me ) to be one of the most mixed up threads that I have ever read from the original post !

Could this discourage some members from contributing to this post and generally to the forum in general ????

Snoman

Welcome back Shankers, still in good command of your spurtle!!

You do, however present an interesting scenario though.

What if the UK does have a referendum re EU membership and the vote is not for continuation, well...................!

If your opening sentence is a command you may be in some pain but I do hope you're both reunited soon.

Bless!