Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Right now I would rather we still had Wellbeck and little pea and that Falcao had never arrived.  Not too impressed by the signing of Di Maria either.

"We"?? I'm surprised you associate yourself to an organisation that has squandered over £135 this summer, whilst there are homeless people on the streets and starving children in the world!! They could have spent £135m on those things and left the squad alone, finishing top half would still be ok wouldn't it? Especially if so many peoples lives were improved by redirecting transfer monies to charity.

[MustPuttBetter]

My point is i don't think there is anything more important to a politician than staying in power and i do think it helps the Tories if the Scottish Labour vote is lost.

Hence i don't think Cameron has tried very hard to persuade the Scottish to vote no.
I have a suspicion that he wouldn't mind losing them. Yes he's under public pressure to be seen to make an effort to keep 'the Union' together and so has done a certain amount to try and balance off losing Scotland with not kopping the blame for it.

A yes vote complimented by a decent amount of 'they tried' is a win win for the Tories?

[MustPuttBetter]

I haven't as i didn't say it was because of more important things, which isn't really an answer anyway.
What things?
Maybe they've decided it's no help to them staying in power if Scotland go

Duh. Defense for one thing.

Defence. Duh

[navyblueshorts]

I haven't as i didn't say it was because of more important things, which isn't really an answer anyway.
What things?
Maybe they've decided it's no help to them staying in power if Scotland go

Duh. Defense for one thing.

Defence. Duh

Well done. Bravo. I commend you on your admirable straw man response. A bit like Salmond, you avoid the issue raised.

FWIW, 'defense' is fine as a U.S. spelling - normally I avoid that sort of thing but put it down to my Word spell checker.

[MustPuttBetter]

I'm not normally one for picking on spelling but i thought your childish remark was deserving of an equally childish response.

Anyway, you think the government wants to keep the UK together in case Scotland attack us?

[Diggers]

...bar keeping interest rates low to create a false economy he's achieved sweet FA else.

Pretty sure it's the BoE that's keeping interest rates low.

Yeah, no relation to govt fiscal policy at all. I think the Treasury plays the tune for that dance.

[pedro]

As long as the bag pipers are kept out I'm happy.

[navyblueshorts]

I'm not normally one for picking on spelling but i thought your childish remark was deserving of an equally childish response.

Anyway, you think the government wants to keep the UK together in case Scotland attack us?

:sigh: Don't be daft. I'm thinking about what would be the situation if another power (let's suggest Russia for the sake of argument) were ever in a position and/or thinking about invading the rUK. Defending something of that ilk would be orders of magnitude easier as we are now than a situation where an invading power has more or less free reign to use Scotland as a mustering point prior to taking on the rUK. Actually, what would probably happen in that scenario is rUK would annex Scotland if Scotland didn't agree to either help and/or allow rUK forces access to strategic locations for the armed forces. A bit like what almost happened re. Ireland earlyish in WW2 although we had more military capability back then.

You're right re. earlier. My "Duh" was uncalled for and deserved a retort in a similar vein but if you can't conjure any situation where politicians might think it's better to be together than sundered, it's pretty blinkered thinking IMO and your response was pure straw man. Never mind - I'll try to avoid the "Duh" next time if it'll help.

...bar keeping interest rates low to create a false economy he's achieved sweet FA else.

Pretty sure it's the BoE that's keeping interest rates low.

Yeah, no relation to govt fiscal policy at all. I think the Treasury plays the tune for that dance.

So, in other words, you have no evidence to back that up? I'm sure there's conversations between the Government and the BoE about what the Government would like to happen but I've not heard any commentators, from any political position, suggest the BoE isn't free to make its own decisions.

[super_realist]

My point is i don't think there is anything more important to a politician than staying in power and i do think it helps the Tories if the Scottish Labour vote is lost.

Hence i don't think Cameron has tried very hard to persuade the Scottish to vote no.
I have a suspicion that he wouldn't mind losing them. Yes he's under public pressure to be seen to make an effort to keep 'the Union' together and so has done a certain amount to try and balance off losing Scotland with not kopping the blame for it.

A yes vote complimented by a decent amount of 'they tried' is a win win for the Tories?

If there is nothing more important than staying in power then why are there opposition MP's?

[raycastleunited]

I haven't as i didn't say it was because of more important things, which isn't really an answer anyway.
What things?
Maybe they've decided it's no help to them staying in power if Scotland go

Duh. Defense for one thing.

Defence. Duh

Navy you asked for that

[raycastleunited]

What's wrong with Norway?

Over religious, bigoted, self centered and up its own behind. Doesn't sound like a super_realist combo.

I imagine that's some sort of joke, or you think that Brevik is every Norwegian.

It's not a joke. Didn't even think of Breivik, he's just a symptom. Norwegians are religious and narrow minded (relatively speaking). A classical example of insular small town mentality you see in every outskirt of Europe. Plus a sickening political correctness. But people are usually nice and friendly.

Pedro have you ever been to Norway? Doesn't sound like the Norway I know

[raycastleunited]

Have to say I understand MPB's point here.

Policiticans generally have a very short term view, driven by staying in power over a short (e.g. 4 year) cycle. If you speak to a senior civil servant they will tell you about how they need to manage the politician who heads up their department, a la Humphrey from Yes Minister. So Cameron et al must be thinking whether a yes / no benefits them personally.

As for Dee-fense, well I don't expect anyone is imagining a scenario where Scotland becomes some rogue state and facilitates a Russian invasion of England. Surely Scotland would join NATO and the UN.

So what are the benefits to England?

[super_realist]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Russia would invade England. What has any part of the UK got that Russia hasn't?

[incontinentia]

Defence?! Who'd want to invade Scotland?

[MustPuttBetter]

Navy, I see what you're saying and I don't doubt you are correct that defending half an island is more difficult than defending a whole island.
That said I doubt the UK's biggest threat to security in coming years is troops walking down through Scotland. Much more issues of making sure maniacs aren't coming into the country intent on blowing us up, which is a matter for immigration more than anything and that arguably is easier to manage the smaller you are.

Of course there are situations where we are better off together and if you read into what I have said that I didn't think there were then you're not really paying attention.

My point is, I wonder if the Tories wouldn't mind a yes vote. I don’t think they want to keep the UK together for security reasons. Does it seem to you like they have tried very hard for a no? It doesn't to me. You see more ads and information out there at a general election. But then, that’s about staying in power which I imagine is much more important to them

[MustPuttBetter]

If there is nothing more important than staying in power then why are there opposition MP's?

Huh? If the most important thing to Man United is winning (which it is), why are there other teams?

I don't get the question. There are opposition MPs because there is more than one person/group of people who want to be in power

[super_realist]

Yet, there are politicians who will never be in power, yet they remain politicians.

Politicians just don't give up when they are in opposition. So being in power isn't the most important thing to them.

[MustPuttBetter]

So what is it you think they're trying to do when in opposition?

[navyblueshorts]

MPB

Not sure about the Tories. As I said earlier, I'm pretty convinced they'd benefit politically for sure. I seriously doubt that they'd do anything to hasten the end of the Union. In this day and age, any memo, any e-mail, any text, any communiqué, any overheard chat, at all, would become public knowledge and they'd then be hung, drawn and quartered. Rightly so.

Personally, I think the Westminster government has been damned either way from the beginning. It's easy for Salmond to spout on about how things'll be better, despite not putting any detail at all on the rhetoric, as he's talking about a change from the status quo. The Westminster crew have the task of championing the benefits of the status quo - not an easy job. There's also apparently a wider disillusionment with the current political world and a general kickback against the 'Establishment'. Very silly to use that as a major reason to trash the UK.
In addition, the media outlets are all being accused of a Union bias and people are buying that, for whatever reason, so it's increasingly difficult, no matter the veracity, for the Union side to say anything that is believed by the Indy side. They just aren't believed and this despite the demonstrable fact that the SNP are just as slippery and don't keep to their promises either.

I'm still hoping (although increasingly convinced it isn't going to happen) that it'll be a 'no' but that this then drives a wider constitutional debate/change throughout the UK.

[raycastleunited]

Navy, I see what you're saying and I don't doubt you are correct that defending half an island is more difficult than defending a whole island.
That said I doubt the UK's biggest threat to security in coming years is troops walking down through Scotland. Much more issues of making sure maniacs aren't coming into the country intent on blowing us up, which is a matter for immigration more than anything and that arguably is easier to manage the smaller you are.

Of course there are situations where we are better off together and if you read into what I have said that I didn't think there were then you're not really paying attention.

My point is, I wonder if the Tories wouldn't mind a yes vote. I don’t think they want to keep the UK together for security reasons. Does it seem to you like they have tried very hard for a no? It doesn't to me. You see more ads and information out there at a general election. But then, that’s about staying in power which I imagine is much more important to them

Maybe the Tories are making more effort in Scotland, but we don't see it down south? Scottish people, maybe you can give a better view?

[MustPuttBetter]

Navy, so you think the 'No's' have given everything they could have to their campaign? The very best shot they could at convincing people the Union should remain?
Fair enough. I don't

[pedro]

What's wrong with Norway?

Over religious, bigoted, self centered and up its own behind. Doesn't sound like a super_realist combo.

I imagine that's some sort of joke, or you think that Brevik is every Norwegian.

It's not a joke. Didn't even think of Breivik, he's just a symptom. Norwegians are religious and narrow minded (relatively speaking). A classical example of insular small town mentality you see in every outskirt of Europe. Plus a sickening political correctness. But people are usually nice and friendly.

Pedro have you ever been to Norway? Doesn't sound like the Norway I know

Many times. But as I said most people are very friendly and nice. And Oslo may be slightly less insular. But you can't avoid noticing them warming to themselves and their country in a xenophobic way, with open debates being surpressed in political corectness.
Btw, I have also been to the US mid-west. Also here people are extremely friendly and nice.

[super_realist]

What more would you expect them to do?

Cameron gets accused of being desperate by coming up today, but if he didn't he'd be accused of being Westminster-centric.

It's an un-win-able position he's in.

[MustPuttBetter]

Maybe Ray but I have Scottish friends and clients and they tell me there's been little if nothing in the way of tv broadcasts like you'd see at an election or anything like that. Doesn't seem like a great deal of effort to me. Cameron had barely said anything or even been to Scotland until a few days ago

[MustPuttBetter]

What more would you expect them to do?

Cameron gets accused of being desperate by coming up today, but if he didn't he'd be accused of being Westminster-centric.

It's an un-win-able position he's in.

Desperate by leaving it until a week before the vote when it's going jubblies up, I should think so yes!

[super_realist]

What's wrong with Norway?

Over religious, bigoted, self centered and up its own behind. Doesn't sound like a super_realist combo.

I imagine that's some sort of joke, or you think that Brevik is every Norwegian.

It's not a joke. Didn't even think of Breivik, he's just a symptom. Norwegians are religious and narrow minded (relatively speaking). A classical example of insular small town mentality you see in every outskirt of Europe. Plus a sickening political correctness. But people are usually nice and friendly.

Pedro have you ever been to Norway? Doesn't sound like the Norway I know

Many times. But as I said most people are very friendly and nice. And Oslo may be slightly less insular. But you can't avoid noticing them warming to themselves and their country in a xenophobic way, with open debates being surpressed in political corectness.
Btw, I have also been to the US mid-west. Also here people are extremely friendly and nice.

Xenophobic?
Seriously Pedro, I think you've lost it. You won't find a much more anglicised or Americanised culture in the world.
Norwegians are proud to be Norwegian, so what, doesn't make them Xenophobic.

[super_realist]

Maybe Ray but I have Scottish friends and clients and they tell me there's been little if nothing in the way of tv broadcasts like you'd see at an election or anything like that. Doesn't seem like a great deal of effort to me. Cameron had barely said anything or even been to Scotland until a few days ago

Cameron's pre campaign stance was that it wasn't for those not able to vote to lead the campaign.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy, so you think the 'No's' have given everything they could have to their campaign? The very best shot they could at convincing people the Union should remain?
Fair enough. I don't

I'm not sure. As I said, I think there's pretty much a 'perfect storm' that they're having a great deal of problem addressing. For me, the dumbest thing is not holding Salmond, Legohead etc to account properly in the media etc. They've not answered a thing re. currency, the EU, NATO etc etc and they're allowed to get away with downright lies re. the NHS in Scotland. I'm damned if I can see why they've been given such a free ride. And another thing, why has Salmond not been challenged on the SNP's support for Thatcher in '79? A support that actually got her in to power for Heaven's sake.

Re. Cameron saying nowt until now, he and the Westminster lot had to stay out of it. Maybe they think it's better to join in now and try to stop Scotland going it alone than be seen to be 'interfering'? Who knows.

[MustPuttBetter]

Indeed. A fairly sensible stance if you wouldn't mind a yes vote but can't be seen as saying as much

[navyblueshorts]

Indeed. A fairly sensible stance if you wouldn't mind a yes vote but can't be seen as saying as much

I still say that's a huge risk and there's nothing to support that except the usual conspiracy theory angle. It would come out and even I don't think they're that stupid.

[MustPuttBetter]

Fair enough, it was just a thought. Each to their own opinions and all that

[pedro]

What's wrong with Norway?

Over religious, bigoted, self centered and up its own behind. Doesn't sound like a super_realist combo.

I imagine that's some sort of joke, or you think that Brevik is every Norwegian.

It's not a joke. Didn't even think of Breivik, he's just a symptom. Norwegians are religious and narrow minded (relatively speaking). A classical example of insular small town mentality you see in every outskirt of Europe. Plus a sickening political correctness. But people are usually nice and friendly.

Pedro have you ever been to Norway? Doesn't sound like the Norway I know

Many times. But as I said most people are very friendly and nice. And Oslo may be slightly less insular. But you can't avoid noticing them warming to themselves and their country in a xenophobic way, with open debates being surpressed in political corectness.
Btw, I have also been to the US mid-west. Also here people are extremely friendly and nice.

Xenophobic?
Seriously Pedro, I think you've lost it. You won't find a much more anglicised or Americanised culture in the world.
Norwegians are proud to be Norwegian, so what, doesn't make them Xenophobic.

Ok in the oil cities there's some international influx as well.
But you clearly don't follow the EU discussions in Norway and the anti Europe arguments being broughtforward. Just as the right wing national party gets 20% of votes due to the lack of an open immigration debate.

[super_realist]

So, so far you've got it wrong about Norway being religious, you got it wrong about Oslo, Stavanger and Bergen and you've glossed over that until the recent coalition government they have a tradition of socialist governments.

There is nothing remotely xenophobic about being anti-Europe. They've no reason to be in Europe. Why would they?

So, what we've established is, that Norway is a non-religious, self sufficient, diverse, proud to be norwegian country with strong social support for its citizens and those who live there.

Well done, that sounds a terrible place.

[navyblueshorts]

...Well done, that sounds a terrible place.

It must be mustn't it? Look at the price of the beer!

[super_realist]

...Well done, that sounds a terrible place.

It must be mustn't it? Look at the price of the beer!

Indeed, awful if you are not on expenses or a Norwegian salary. I paid £13 quid for a pint in Stavanger and about £10 in Oslo. All relative though

[navyblueshorts]

...Well done, that sounds a terrible place.

It must be mustn't it? Look at the price of the beer!

Indeed, awful if you are not on expenses or a Norwegian salary. I paid £13 quid for a pint in Stavanger and about £10 in Oslo. All relative though

Hmm. So how does Alex "The Anglophobe" Salmond transform the current situation in Scotland to that of Norway (or Sweden/Denmark) where, to buy a single beer, you need £10-£13 in your pocket??

[super_realist]

Denmark isn't that bad, only 6-7 quid a beer. Not much different than the UK.

[navyblueshorts]

Denmark isn't that bad, only 6-7 quid a beer. Not much different than the UK.

Maybe not bad cf. London but a beer is nowhere near £6 or £7 anywhere else unless in a nightclub of some sort.

[super_realist]

I've paid nearly £6 in Edinburgh

[gaelgowfer]

Defence?! Who'd want to invade Scotland?

No-one will need to invade Scotland.  Its doors will be wide open to any and everyone.  It's the only way it will be able to keep on top of pensions not to mention the NHS.  Humza Yousaf (a Glasgow SNP MP) has declared that, if necessary, Scotland will open its doors to Palestine refugees.       

From what I can gather, the oil situation is not as sound as the SNP have previously claimed.  Even Salmond has now admitted that new technology will be required to access new oil fields.  Trouble is, companies are not exactly lining up to develop said technology.

[super_realist]

Gael, it's not a question of technology for Oil, that's already here and it's used all over the world where oil production is cheaper, it's that much of the fields are not commercially viable, despite it being in place.

Deepwater and high pressure high temperature fields are simply too expensive to develop.

[Diggers]

Navy, so you think the 'No's' have given everything they could have to their campaign? The very best shot they could at convincing people the Union should remain?
Fair enough. I don't

I'm not sure. As I said, I think there's pretty much a 'perfect storm' that they're having a great deal of problem addressing. For me, the dumbest thing is not holding Salmond, Legohead etc to account properly in the media etc. They've not answered a thing re. currency, the EU, NATO etc etc and they're allowed to get away with downright lies re. the NHS in Scotland. I'm damned if I can see why they've been given such a free ride. And another thing, why has Salmond not been challenged on the SNP's support for Thatcher in '79? A support that actually got her in to power for Heaven's sake.

Re. Cameron saying nowt until now, he and the Westminster lot had to stay out of it. Maybe they think it's better to join in now and try to stop Scotland going it alone than be seen to be 'interfering'? Who knows.

You can't answer questions when their is no definitive answer. The answers will be based on negotiation dependent on the result. Westminster has changed its policy in the past week...so what good was that definitive policy 8 months ago..answer is none.
Its politics Navy, Cameron has politically changed his stance on devolution yet you feel Salmond should have set answers for all your questions even though he can't control the outcomes?
Hardly fair really.

[navyblueshorts]

I've paid nearly £6 in Edinburgh

Really? Ouch!

[super_realist]

Navy, so you think the 'No's' have given everything they could have to their campaign? The very best shot they could at convincing people the Union should remain?
Fair enough. I don't

I'm not sure. As I said, I think there's pretty much a 'perfect storm' that they're having a great deal of problem addressing. For me, the dumbest thing is not holding Salmond, Legohead etc to account properly in the media etc. They've not answered a thing re. currency, the EU, NATO etc etc and they're allowed to get away with downright lies re. the NHS in Scotland. I'm damned if I can see why they've been given such a free ride. And another thing, why has Salmond not been challenged on the SNP's support for Thatcher in '79? A support that actually got her in to power for Heaven's sake.

Re. Cameron saying nowt until now, he and the Westminster lot had to stay out of it. Maybe they think it's better to join in now and try to stop Scotland going it alone than be seen to be 'interfering'? Who knows.

You can't answer questions when their is no definitive answer. The answers will be based on negotiation dependent on the result. Westminster has changed its policy in the past week...so what good was that definitive policy 8 months ago..answer is none.
Its politics Navy, Cameron has politically changed his stance on devolution yet you feel Salmond should have set answers for all your questions even though he can't control the outcomes?
Hardly fair really.

I'd simply like Salmond to be able ONE question. Everything he has said is just sheer speculation and wishful thinking.

[navyblueshorts]

You can't answer questions when their is no definitive answer. The answers will be based on negotiation dependent on the result. Westminster has changed its policy in the past week...so what good was that definitive policy 8 months ago..answer is none.
Its politics Navy, Cameron has politically changed his stance on devolution yet you feel Salmond should have set answers for all your questions even though he can't control the outcomes?
Hardly fair really.

Fairish I guess. If it's brinksmanship on some of the issues from Salmond, all I can say is he's gambling with a huge number of people's livelihoods (certainly in the short to medium term) solely for his own political posterity. It's not something in the current climate I'd remotely entertain but then, each to their own I guess. We'll find out soon enough!

[gaelgowfer]

Gael, it's not a question of technology for Oil, that's already here and it's used all over the world where oil production is cheaper, it's that much of the fields are not commercially viable, despite it being in place.

Deepwater and high pressure high temperature fields are simply too expensive to develop.

Fair enough.  In that case, the situation's even worse than I thought.

[super_realist]

Indeed, especially as their forecasts are based on an oil price which was only maintained for a very short period of time.
Oil price is the lowest it's been at for a very long time.

Salmond overplays oil anyway. Only 5bn last year in revenue. Countries that make lots of oil money, do so because they have massive interests in state owned companies like Statoil or Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, not just domestic production.

[navyblueshorts]

...Salmond overplays oil anyway. Only 5bn last year in revenue. Countries that make lots of oil money, do so because they have massive interests in state owned companies like Statoil or Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, not just domestic production.

And would I be amazed to hear that there are no such companies in the UK? Just private, commercial interests such as BP etc? No. I thought not .

[super_realist]

...Salmond overplays oil anyway. Only 5bn last year in revenue. Countries that make lots of oil money, do so because they have massive interests in state owned companies like Statoil or Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, not just domestic production.

And would I be amazed to hear that there are no such companies in the UK? Just private, commercial interests such as BP etc? No. I thought not .

As a point of interest Statoil, 66% owned by Norway made 70bn internationally last year, and that wasn't a great year. So when Salmond says "we can be like Norway with an Oil fund" he's being very elusive.

It would be a bit like saying Burnley can be like Man City.

[Bob_the_Job]

I'm sure you've all seen it, but this recent article on the Beeb site was interesting, wrt Norway, Oil etc.. look HERE if you haven't read it already.

[navyblueshorts]

I'm sure you've all seen it, but this recent article on the Beeb site was interesting, wrt Norway, Oil etc.. look HERE if you haven't read it already.

Yeah. I read that. Not sure how Norway's approach remotely squares the circle for Salmond's claims re. Scottish oil reserves. If they were to follow that approach, there'd be a lot of disappointed people who were hoping for free NHS, free education, free health care for the elderly, free prescriptions etc etc etc.

[Sponsored content]