I have never wanted to be as wrong about anything as I want to be wrong about tomorrow's vote.but i have never been more certain I am right. I just cannot see No winning. Scotland seems to have been enveloped by a fog of delusion, caused by justified anger at the Westminster machine and the outrageous lies of the Yes side. I truly feel for people like DavidL, seeing their country slipping away on the back of a lemming-like rush to self-destruction.
We are not beaten yet. Have faith. Scots are not stupid. At least more than 50% of them are not.
Polling station 7-10 then knocking doors. Going to be a long day.
So, you are calling Yes voters "stupid" now?
You know what? I am. To call anybody that can believe Salmond's lies stupid is actually a compliment because the alternatives are worse.
It's not about Salmond, or even his arguments, it never has been.
It's about Scotland, and her nationhood.
I can accept that for the vanishingly few who actually think that way but their cold indifference to the suffering they will cause their fellow citizens makes me shudder. And the fact that they are so willing to lie and deceive to obtain their "principled" position is really only worthy of contempt.
It's not about the SNP and their lies.
The people of Scotland aren't stupid enough to believe the SNP and their lies.
What the people of Scotland DO like is the central vision of the SNP. An independent Scotland.
I, and some others who have long been sent away from PB, have been pointing this out for a long time. That NO need to sell a similar vision. Only Gordon Brown, in the last week, has risen to the challenge.
PS. I'm not a Scottish nationalist.
Brown's speech today made much of the lies the SNP have told about everything from the NHS to currency.
Indeed so.
But he didn't drone on about currency, or trident, or big business, or process, which is all the NO campaign has done until Gordon stepped in.
He sold a vision of the Union, then pulled apart the opposing vision.
I think we can all agree that Gordon has done well in the latter stages of this campaign. So well that it will probably only be a few decades of wandering around doing good deeds dressed in sackcloth, and he could almost be forgiven for destroying our economy and pissing the country's life savings up the wall.
Archbishop of Canterbury: my doubts about existence of God Justin Welby says he asks himself ‘is there a God?’ and says Christians cannot explain why there is suffering in the world --------------------------- If the Archbishop can't believe in God then he can't believe in Jesus, the Son of God. Whats he doing being a Christian Archbishop in the first place? No wonder Christianity is dying in the UK.
I thought Jesus was God. Why did he need to talk to himself?
I'm assuming that's a tongue-in-cheek question as if you were three years old?
Have a look at Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann, Eberhard Jungel, Paul Fiddes and many theologians who have written on the Trinity, especially as it relates to suffering and the cross.
Let's get back to the Indy and save theology for another day.
Two more polls then?
Any convincing argument should be able to be expressed simply. If people try waving their hand towards others to make their argument for them, then it's a good sign they are on weak ground.
No it's because I don't think this is the time or place to take you through the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a political betting site not a theology class. However, according to Christians Jesus wasn't talking to himself when he prayed. He was, for them, both human and divine, the second person of the Trinity. You know that full well, so stop being mischievous.
This website has long been an open forum where lots of different matters are discussed. I'm aware of the concept of the Trinity. I just don't think the concept works when you actually question it. If he was both human and divine, couldn't the divine aspect of him know why God had forsaken him? Seeing that he was that God and alll...
What a shame you weren't around when St Augustin and Thomas Aquinas were writing -it would have saved them so much time and effort if you'd been around to tell them the concept doesn't work when you actually question it.
If I'd have been around at the time I wouldn't have studied the Enlightenment, so I probably would have accepted whatever the religious folk told me.
Tomorrow, the country I have lived in my entire life, my effectively cease to exist.
Can't really get my head around it.
The Yookay is not a country. It is a state.
The two are the same thing. Whether people choose to identify with it is another matter. That said, terminology for political units is hopelessly confused and interchangeable.
The best single test as to whether two areas are part of the same country is to ask: are both sets of residents subject to the same body of law? The answer with Scotland and the rest of the UK is a resounding no - try buying land, getting divorced, or making a will and dying, in both places. The Union was, if for that reason alone, a half-hearted stitch-up.
So on that basis, if you're in Atlanta, for sake of argument, which country are you in?
WTF - the idiots in charge of cricket in this country.
I'll bite, who or what is a kolpack?
"A Kolpak player or Kolpak, is a term used in the United Kingdom for players in the domestic leagues in cricket and both rugby codes from overseas, subject to the Kolpak ruling." The ruling was an EU ruling barring quotas to block such players from teams
Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn·36 secs …and a stinker for Labour; Cameron now marginally more trusted than Ed Miliband in Scotland, by 26% to 25% (5/5) http://bit.ly/1qZqNeb
Although obviously minor compared with the question of whether the UK is about to break up, the collapse of Scottish Labour and the failure of Ed M to connect with his core vote there is a remarkable side-show.
If no wins it will be massively down to Gordon Brown.
WTF - the idiots in charge of cricket in this country.
I'll bite, who or what is a kolpack?
"A Kolpak player or Kolpak, is a term used in the United Kingdom for players in the domestic leagues in cricket and both rugby codes from overseas, subject to the Kolpak ruling." The ruling was an EU ruling barring quotas to block such players from teams
Gale moved himself in the field in an attempt to squeeze in one further over. He moved closer to Prince who is alleged to have told him to “f*** off back to cover point.” Gale responded by saying “Well you can f*** off back to your own country you Kolpak f*****.”
And actually was the Empire technically anything other than India - afaik the monarch was only ever Emperor/ress of there, not any of the colonies and dominions?
An empire doesn't need an Emperor. France had one during the Third and Fourth Republics.
Is sky doing a notional expected result by voting area - say based on the SNP/Other result in 2011 or whenever the last holywood election was? So a projection of whether yes/no will win can be done early?
Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn·36 secs …and a stinker for Labour; Cameron now marginally more trusted than Ed Miliband in Scotland, by 26% to 25% (5/5) http://bit.ly/1qZqNeb
Although obviously minor compared with the question of whether the UK is about to break up, the collapse of Scottish Labour and the failure of Ed M to connect with his core vote there is a remarkable side-show.
The tactic of 'Labour-led No and leave us to deliver our usual block vote and you toxic tories just keep out of it' and their failure to do so is certainly one of the side-shows from this.
It ties in with the threat we hear oft on here from our UKIP friends that Labour's core vote in parts of England may also be looking for an alternative too be it UKIP or Green..
Watching Gordon on the 10 o clock - what a difference from that cowed, awkward, bumbling and ineffectual man who ran our country.
I still think he shares a huge level of blame for the financial mess we ended up in, and he was blatantly not the right man to continue in the job in 2010. But I can only think that he was significantly encumbered by advisors and consultants who didn't get the man and pushed him into a jacket he was not comfortable to wear.
Or perhaps he was just never made to be Prime Minister, despite wanting it for so long. Perhaps he was always made to be a political fighter rather than a political leader.
No should be a lot shorter imo. Probably about 1/8. The visibility and enthusiasm of YES is keeping the price up despite the now very conclusive polling evidence.
It's tricky for us to make YES much bigger though, as I am anticipating a huge volume of Scottish money for it tomorrow as the inevitable tales of huge queues outside polling stations convinces people that 7/2 is a great price in a "toss-up" which is how the media will keep portraying it.
Tomorrow, the country I have lived in my entire life, my effectively cease to exist.
Can't really get my head around it.
The Yookay is not a country. It is a state.
The two are the same thing. Whether people choose to identify with it is another matter. That said, terminology for political units is hopelessly confused and interchangeable.
The best single test as to whether two areas are part of the same country is to ask: are both sets of residents subject to the same body of law? The answer with Scotland and the rest of the UK is a resounding no - try buying land, getting divorced, or making a will and dying, in both places. The Union was, if for that reason alone, a half-hearted stitch-up.
So on that basis, if you're in Atlanta, for sake of argument, which country are you in?
The USA? The test allows for local laws as well as universal ones. Scots law isn't comparable to any flavour of US state law - different hierarchical status.
Tomorrow, the country I have lived in my entire life, my effectively cease to exist.
Can't really get my head around it.
The Yookay is not a country. It is a state.
The two are the same thing. Whether people choose to identify with it is another matter. That said, terminology for political units is hopelessly confused and interchangeable.
The best single test as to whether two areas are part of the same country is to ask: are both sets of residents subject to the same body of law? The answer with Scotland and the rest of the UK is a resounding no - try buying land, getting divorced, or making a will and dying, in both places. The Union was, if for that reason alone, a half-hearted stitch-up.
So on that basis, if you're in Atlanta, for sake of argument, which country are you in?
LOL, not to mention Louisiana with its Napoleonic Code approach to certain issues.
Tomorrow, the country I have lived in my entire life, my effectively cease to exist.
Can't really get my head around it.
The Yookay is not a country. It is a state.
The two are the same thing. Whether people choose to identify with it is another matter. That said, terminology for political units is hopelessly confused and interchangeable.
The best single test as to whether two areas are part of the same country is to ask: are both sets of residents subject to the same body of law? The answer with Scotland and the rest of the UK is a resounding no - try buying land, getting divorced, or making a will and dying, in both places. The Union was, if for that reason alone, a half-hearted stitch-up.
Hear hear. And it was doomed when the Tories (as it happened, but it could have been anyone else f the chips had fallen that way) thought it acceptable to rule Scotland from London with hardly any MPs actually elected in that country. Just think, an entire legal system effectively controlled by politicians from another entity. My realisation of that back in 1993 was what got me interested in pro-indy politics.
Now THAT was a real West Lothian Question: not the namby pamby one so many folk on this board complain about.
Tony Blair and Donald Dewar's Parliament only slowed, and redirected, the process.
(I know, and have repeated on this board many a time, that there were and are a lot more Scots Tories than that. But the Tories' preference for FPTP effectively disfranchised their own supporters. To resume the (in my view) instructive Biblical theme, those that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.)
Which also reminds me of my favourite DM anecdote. They had evidently been so busy censoring the news and opinion for their Scottish version that they had completely forgotten to change the advice pages, which were on wills and executry ...
James Kelly finished up getting banned because he's a loon.
Well said, sir!
Oh come on Richard that's pathetic.
James Kelly is, and was on here, insightful, passionate of course, but always always polite, and far from a "loon".
Far less of a "loon" than someone who thinks David Cameron is a good Prime Minister!
And I tell you what, some of you hardcore punters could have made a lot of money if you'd listened to him.
God, you talk bollox - Kelly was an obsessive loon, who always needed to have the last word - every day the threads were full of outraged comments by him because he'd found a comment he disagreed with two or three threads prior. - and boy did he have 'women' issues.
Tomorrow, the country I have lived in my entire life, my effectively cease to exist.
Can't really get my head around it.
The Yookay is not a country. It is a state.
The two are the same thing. Whether people choose to identify with it is another matter. That said, terminology for political units is hopelessly confused and interchangeable.
The best single test as to whether two areas are part of the same country is to ask: are both sets of residents subject to the same body of law? The answer with Scotland and the rest of the UK is a resounding no - try buying land, getting divorced, or making a will and dying, in both places. The Union was, if for that reason alone, a half-hearted stitch-up.
So on that basis, if you're in Atlanta, for sake of argument, which country are you in?
LOL, not to mention Louisiana with its Napoleonic Code approach to certain issues.
I rather think th eissue is the congruence of voting areas with legal demarcations. Louisianans determine their law (subject of course to Federal courts of the US), I assume?
Tomorrow, the country I have lived in my entire life, my effectively cease to exist.
Can't really get my head around it.
The Yookay is not a country. It is a state.
The two are the same thing. Whether people choose to identify with it is another matter. That said, terminology for political units is hopelessly confused and interchangeable.
The best single test as to whether two areas are part of the same country is to ask: are both sets of residents subject to the same body of law? The answer with Scotland and the rest of the UK is a resounding no - try buying land, getting divorced, or making a will and dying, in both places. The Union was, if for that reason alone, a half-hearted stitch-up.
So on that basis, if you're in Atlanta, for sake of argument, which country are you in?
LOL, not to mention Louisiana with its Napoleonic Code approach to certain issues.
I rather think th eissue is the congruence of voting areas with legal demarcations. Louisianans determine their law (subject of course to Federal courts of the US), I assume?
I think picking on legal differences is arbitrary in defining statehood. You could pick on any number of single issues to make whatever point you want in relation to that matter. The fact is, for 300 years or so, everyone treated the UK as one country, regardless of the legal differences between Scotland and England/Wales.
It was peaceful and democratic and passionate and there were thousands. If there is a narrow No vote, these people are not going away - you can be absolutely sure of that! The Union is over, it is just a question of when not if.
Haven't the leaders of both sides agreed that they'd consider it settled for 20-30 years.
The Scottish people can have a referendum any time they want. No-one can tell them otherwise, leaders or not. This campaign has separated many voters from the Labour party meaning the chance of another landslide for pro-independence parties is high. Add into the mix the threat of the UK leaving either the EU or the Council of Europe and various other political and economic events and the call for another quite soon is not beyond imagination. Salmond was careful to say that he would not call one and that it was only his opinion that another would not be called for..
Meh. It'll be twenty five years before we have another referendum. In the meantime we can sort out the Barnett nonsense so us in the South East stop subsidising higher spending levels north of Berwick.
The next Lib/Lab coalition government in Holyrood should change the electoral system to STV (as in the local elections) so this can never happen again. Given the way Scotland is tearing itself apart perhaps there is something to be said for political apathy after all.
Er! LibDem in coalition with any body? Nae Chance! We in Edinburgh have seen how they can be incompetent as senior in the partnership they can be when running a council in coalition with the SNP. Which is why the party has virtually been wiped out and the sitting MP's have decided to take the Chiltern Hundreds or whatever.
Scotland will never have another "Independence" referendum. even we in Scotland know that this has been a complete waste of time, money and energy. And the amount of hatred between friends,family and community engendered by Salmond's incompetence means that even if by some miracle, there is a Yes vote, then it will be many years before there will be a stabilisation.
People in Scotland know how to hate, too many of our young men have gone to war for many different causes, too many years of indoctrination against Catholics/Proddies/English/Orange order/Knights of St. Columba/Celtic/Rangers/Hearts/Hibs,IRA/PIRA/Wee Frees/WeeGees, EdinB*ggers, Sheep Sh*ggers, etc.. And practice makes perfect, especially after the Referendum and Eck stands to speak..............
Isn't she from somewhere up North but started wetting her pants about Boris being mayor of London?
Now she's inflicting her ugly face on those poor souls North of the border
Is it really that shot in the North that you have to pretend to be from anywhere else you see on a map?
'I hate England': Tartan-loving fashion designer Vivienne Westwood pins 'Yes' badges on her models (despite the fact she's grown rich in London and hasn't got a Scottish bone in her body)
Sorry but I didn't think Brown was that wonderful. He sounds like a demagogue. Perhaps that's the sort of thing that goes down well at the moment with the supposed intimidation coming from the Yes camp. It doesn't make me any more relaxed about what might happen come Friday morning.
Meh. It'll be twenty five years before we have another referendum. In the meantime we can sort out the Barnett nonsense so us in the South East stop subsidising higher spending levels north of Berwick.
Well, we'll see. There are tens of thousands of activists out there for Yes. The young generation is alive with this. They will probably file into a new independence party. With the collapsing UK economy and austerity, they'll be back sooner than you think and all them oldies who are still solid Unionist will no longer be with us.
As for Barnett. It focuses solely on expenditure. The fact remains that in terms of income we feed the beast more than England does. And our GDP per capita is 10% higher than England's according to City analysts Investec. Without our oil rUK's debt will go from about 5% of GDP (annualised) to around 10% - why do you think there are hundreds of billions pouring out of the UK? Investors know you depend on our oil..
And since there has been so much written about "Flower of Scotland" being the National Anthem of the new iScotland, perhaps some people may be interested in an alternative version of "Scotland the Brave" sung by the Corries (Wot wrote the Flowers of Scotland):
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/counties/11102567/Yorkshire-captain-Andrew-Gale-charged-with-using-racist-and-abusive-language-towards-Lancashires-Ashwell-Prince.html
Yes 43% No 57%
Take that sillars! Once a * always a *
The bookies, quoting >70% chances of a No, do not have it wrong, based on that.
The Scots really hate Tories though.
You like me come back for the big events!
I'll be off again after tomorrow!!
Gale moved himself in the field in an attempt to squeeze in one further over. He moved closer to Prince who is alleged to have told him to “f*** off back to cover point.” Gale responded by saying “Well you can f*** off back to your own country you Kolpak f*****.”
Racist ?
James Kelly is, and was on here, insightful, passionate of course, but always always polite, and far from a "loon".
Far less of a "loon" than someone who thinks David Cameron is a good Prime Minister!
And I tell you what, some of you hardcore punters could have made a lot of money if you'd listened to him.
It ties in with the threat we hear oft on here from our UKIP friends that Labour's core vote in parts of England may also be looking for an alternative too be it UKIP or Green..
Didnt he go 40/60
I still think he shares a huge level of blame for the financial mess we ended up in, and he was blatantly not the right man to continue in the job in 2010. But I can only think that he was significantly encumbered by advisors and consultants who didn't get the man and pushed him into a jacket he was not comfortable to wear.
Or perhaps he was just never made to be Prime Minister, despite wanting it for so long. Perhaps he was always made to be a political fighter rather than a political leader.
Either way, he's a great character to analyse!
The visibility and enthusiasm of YES is keeping the price up despite the now very conclusive polling evidence.
It's tricky for us to make YES much bigger though, as I am anticipating a huge volume of Scottish money for it tomorrow as the inevitable tales of huge queues outside polling stations convinces people that 7/2 is a great price in a "toss-up" which is how the media will keep portraying it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J39bBV7CBJk
It seems closer than that; but 30 hours time will show what is true, and what is bluster.
Now THAT was a real West Lothian Question: not the namby pamby one so many folk on this board complain about.
Tony Blair and Donald Dewar's Parliament only slowed, and redirected, the process.
(I know, and have repeated on this board many a time, that there were and are a lot more Scots Tories than that. But the Tories' preference for FPTP effectively disfranchised their own supporters. To resume the (in my view) instructive Biblical theme, those that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.)
Which also reminds me of my favourite DM anecdote. They had evidently been so busy censoring the news and opinion for their Scottish version that they had completely forgotten to change the advice pages, which were on wills and executry ...
Scotland will never have another "Independence" referendum. even we in Scotland know that this has been a complete waste of time, money and energy. And the amount of hatred between friends,family and community engendered by Salmond's incompetence means that even if by some miracle, there is a Yes vote, then it will be many years before there will be a stabilisation.
People in Scotland know how to hate, too many of our young men have gone to war for many different causes, too many years of indoctrination against Catholics/Proddies/English/Orange order/Knights of St. Columba/Celtic/Rangers/Hearts/Hibs,IRA/PIRA/Wee Frees/WeeGees, EdinB*ggers, Sheep Sh*ggers, etc.. And practice makes perfect, especially after the Referendum and Eck stands to speak..............
Isn't she from somewhere up North but started wetting her pants about Boris being mayor of London?
Now she's inflicting her ugly face on those poor souls North of the border
Is it really that shot in the North that you have to pretend to be from anywhere else you see on a map?
'I hate England': Tartan-loving fashion designer Vivienne Westwood pins 'Yes' badges on her models (despite the fact she's grown rich in London and hasn't got a Scottish bone in her body)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755652/Tartan-loving-designer-Vivienne-Westwood-pledges-support-Yes-campaign-Scottish-independence-slamming-unionists-frightened-stupid.html#ixzz3Dc0PePei
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
As for Barnett. It focuses solely on expenditure. The fact remains that in terms of income we feed the beast more than England does. And our GDP per capita is 10% higher than England's according to City analysts Investec. Without our oil rUK's debt will go from about 5% of GDP (annualised) to around 10% - why do you think there are hundreds of billions pouring out of the UK? Investors know you depend on our oil..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK6LkpfZ94s