Seil Chat

Has anybody ever spoken so much exaggerated drivel before, I doubt it. Looks like a "Yes" vote will start World War 3 according to this enlightened gent. Surely the "No" camp will hide it's heid in shame.

.
Aye, he's some choob.

Do you remember this pronouncement :

No. I wasn't aware of his previous verbal issued on the 23/9/13. I'm deeply shocked ( no language and culture!! ).
Come on Innes Newton, l dare you to ride to Robertson's rescue.

It's easy to make someone look foolish when you quote them selectively out of context (Salmond could have won many prizes for that). Is that not a fact? And what facts does anyone have to say Robertson is wrong?

"The Robertson Speech" contained no facts at all, simply sought to predict a future where a Scottish "yes" vote could be blamed for all subsequent global disasters/wars/terrorist attacks etc. The man is a Tw@t ! ( you can take that as a fact )

He probably had access to a lot of peer reviewed material and facts about our national defence that we will never see. He almost certainly has better grounds to make statements on that subject than you or me, or even Alex Salmond who would do away with it without having a clue how it benefits us. Agreed?

Actually "cataclysmic" is not too strong a word to use when describing the effect of Scottish Independence on defence of the British Isles, Europe and further afield.

It is proven over and over again that technological superiority is what wins wars and provides strong defence.

No Trident
No NATO
No EU
No UK
No viable land, sea or air defence, because the fragments of UK forces and assets given to Scotland will not be cohesive or effective in such small numbers (and hugely expensive to maintain in fighting order)

Breaking up the UK's forces, and forcing them to withdraw from Scottish soil will leave a weakened UK and a weakened NATO.

Yes Campaigners have no clue of the damage they threaten. It's time they started facing up to facts.

"Project Fear" has now engaged Overdrive and become "Project Panic". The rest of us live in the REAL world. Take time and think about it, Robertson has gone into the realms of fantasy.

As a cooling down attempt in this acrimonious debate, could I put my own recollection on past events.
Way back when the devolution option was mooted, wee George Robertson was a leading light in the quest for devolution. He was a tireless proponent of getting this on the statute books and his efforts were partially responsible for getting us a Scottish Parliament.
It came as a surprise to us who were around at that time that the administration at that time did not reward him with some recognition of his achievements, but instead made Donald Dewar the king pin - he who was responsible for a lot of the subsequent debacle.
Wee George was a tirelees fighter for devolution, so his pronouncements on Independence cannot be dismissed as rantings.

Bill McDicken wrote:"Project Fear" has now engaged Overdrive and become "Project Panic". The rest of us live in the REAL world. Take time and think about it, Robertson has gone into the realms of fantasy.

As a bit of a photographer myself I must commend you on the dog picture. However, back on topic, you should never be surprised what the world can throw up. All throw history you have had great men who warned of cataclismic events such as WWI and WWII. Some people could see these things approaching. Others ridiculed them. They were living in their own little worlds and reality came to them as a nasty shock. Did you predict 9/11?

Imagine you went to bed tonight and set the alarm for 7.15 am. You had a disturbed sleep, something you couldn't explain and tossed and turned from 1.00 am until about 3.00am. And the next thing you knew the alarm was ringing at 7.15 am. You got up and noticed it was unusually dark outside, but also chillier than usual. You get dressed, have breakfast, but still strangely it isn't any lighter outside. You drive to work in total darkness, and now you know something is wrong, badly wrong. You switch on the car radio and it is alive with chat and reports from around the world. Something has happened to our world beyond our comprehension and control. At work, no one is working. Everyone is gathered together, talking. Some are scared, others are just tense. Still it is totally dark outside at 10.00am and at 1100 am. And at noon when the sun should be at its zenith it is utterly black outside. Reports from Australia and the USA report a totally different day. The Australians can't sleep and it is the middle of the night yet the Sun is blazing down. It is hotter than they can ever remember. Other reports come in. The tides have gone crazy and all the lands fringing the North pacific are totally flooded................etc, etc, etc. In time they establish what happened. Whilst Earth continued in it's orbit around the Sun it fell into the equivalent of a space pothole and bounced off its pivot causing it's rotation to slow down. The South Pole now directly faced the Sun. Europe was in permanent darkness, Antarctica melted, Australia permanently held in blazing sunlight.

Imagine how our world and lives could change in an instant. Impossible? The Yes Campaign needs to wake up to the fact that if it is successful in winning a Yes vote, it could shatter some of the good things we take for granted, i.e the natural balance that has been established for life in the UK for over 300 years.

The Yes Campaign has never once talked about even one down side of independence. That is unrealistic, ignores reality, and misleads those it has conned into following the dream for a Fool's Paradise.

So . . .

Vote YES and the earth will stop rotating.

Are you writing for BBC Scotlandshire now?

Innes Newton wrote:The Yes Campaign has never once talked about even one down side of independence. That is unrealistic, ignores reality, and misleads those it has conned into following the dream for a Fool's Paradise.

And the NO campaign has been equally if not more guilty of presenting an unrelentingly gloomy picture where an independent Scotland would perish in ruins. You think that is honest or realistic?

Ask yourself - why is it that every single debate that polls the audience before and after on voting intentions sees a substantial swing to YES ?

It's because once people start to look at the facts they realise that the NO campaign is an empty vessel banging a hollow drum.

Time after time have shot down your flimsy arguments with cold hard facts - and each time you twist and turn away frnm the point you first brought up. Not once have you been man enough to admit that even one of your false 'arguments' has been debunked. Instead you come up with ever more fanciful jingoistic nonsense.

There is a smell of fear about the NO campaign now. After this Robertson nonsense I wonder just how low they will stoop.

A teacher in Glasgow once told me, "Ignorance is bliss". So it is.

Innes Newton wrote: ‘The Yes Campaign needs to wake up to the fact that if it is successful in winning a Yes vote, it could shatter some of the good things we take for granted, i.e the natural balance that has been established for life in the UK for over 300 years.’

What is meant exactly by ‘natural balance’ in the context of the above claim?

NickB wrote:

Innes Newton wrote:The Yes Campaign has never once talked about even one down side of independence. That is unrealistic, ignores reality, and misleads those it has conned into following the dream for a Fool's Paradise.

And the NO campaign has been equally if not more guilty of presenting an unrelentingly gloomy picture where an independent Scotland would perish in ruins. You think that is honest or realistic?

.

So you admit the Yes Campaign has never mentioned even one downside to independence? And Yes I do think a two tier Britain with a poorer independent Scotland is exactly what you will get. I don't want that for Scotland. Look at all the successful socialist countries in the world such as......er.......ummm? By it's own self-foolery Scotland an independent Scotland, isolated on a limb and in the shadow of rUK, would start to look like East Germany compared to West Germany. By the way the UK's economy is forecast to overtake united Germany in the next generation or two (and I haven't seen a hint that the eastern part of Germany wants to become a separate country again. Perhaps those socialist East German folk have realised its a lot better to be part of a united Germany).

"Guff" will be the noise you will make, but only because you are unable to come up with a more plausible alternative opinion that isn't based on fantasy with no factual basis.

I'll answer Peter later on after I have done a day's work and helped contribute enough taxes to keep another 62 people on benefits afloat.

.
Looks like you are alone in your admiration for Lord Robertson's moronic 'apocalypse now' ravings.

Even the pro-union press seem to think it was way over the top :

With reference to Jim's post regarding Wee George, I can't argue that he wasn't a good guy in his younger years and probably spoke some sense in those far off days. It's just that the man now in the form of big George has recently come out with some outrageous rubbish that CAN be dismissed as rantings that will only assist in achieving a "yes" result. ( I should Email and thank him!!!)

To Peter

What is meant exactly by ‘natural balance’ in the context of the above claim?

By that I mean the status quo. What is wrong with what we have? What is wrong with what millions of our forefathers (and foremothers) have worked for and given their lives to build? What is so wrong with it that only a small proportion, isolated in one corner are so dissatisfied with it that they must break it up, never to be the same again? It has taken 300 + years to get to a point where we live in peace with each other, all have relative wealth compared to before, all have freedom of speech (except on Seil Chat), live in a free democracy, all have comparative safety and protection. What is so broken, and so bad that it must be broken up at the demand of a minority, and to risk all that the benefits that have built our great nation that is the envy of so much of the world?

To Elaine

taxes as going on the ''defence'' budget and contributing to the slaughter of innocents

Actually I don't mind a small part of my taxes being used to protect our nation, one that millions of brave men have already given their lives to protect against tyranny. I don't mind that a small part of my taxes is used to protect weaker nations from aggression around the world and the victims of hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters. I don't mind that our forces fight wars on the enemy's turf instead of ours. I do mind that innocent victims are caught up in it, but in most cases we were not the ones who started the trouble. (Saddam Hussein provoked the west and unfortunately misjudged their breaking point). I do mind alot that a huge part of my taxes are spent on wasters who knock our country, choose not to work, act sick to claim benefits, cause trouble and constantly moan and whinge without making one positive contribution to Life in general. Some of these people are a disease on humanity and at last the government in Westminster is working hard to rid the worst of them from society. This inevitably makes the Westminster government unpopular with the shirkers who wish to hide behind a socialist government. Too many of them will want to vote Yes for Scottish independence for that reason alone. As I said before this is part of the reason why an independent Scotland will lead to a two tier Britain. Nota positive message, No! But you need to face up to that reality.

.

Innes Newton wrote:To Peter

What is meant exactly by ‘natural balance’ in the context of the above claim?

By that I mean the status quo.

The idea that the current political set-up in these islands represents any kind of 'natural balance' implies that everything preceding it was 'unnatural'.

Was the state of the British Isles pre 1921 prior to the Anglo-Irish war 'natural' or 'unnatural' ? If the current status quo is natural then that must have been by definition unnatural.

Unnatural for Ireland to be subservient to Westminster, but somehow - since 1921- completely natural for Scotland to be subservient to Westminster.

Surely you can see that what you have written is utter nonsense ? History does not recognise any 'status quo'.

In this politically correct world they have to be careful what they define as "fraudulent claims". If they only state 1% it shows you what a massive problem our benefit system is. Far too many people are 'legitimately' claiming them, when they should be working for them. As for tax avoidance by large corporations, this is a global problem. We all contributed to the success of these large corporations by using them when if we had bought local instead the big companies would not have grown bigger to a point where they can structure their organisations globally and use tax loopholes to avoid payment. What they do is not a crime. Stop using them, or buying from these organisations.