Scotland - Political ramifications of YES win ??

First topic message reminder :

If momentum is anything to go by..Next week we'll see a Political earthquake...

What do you think happens for the British govt in the next few weeks should Scotland go...Personally can't see Cammy staying and can't see how it can wait till May for an election !!!

Are you saying the American war of Interdependence is just the same as the YES / NO vote?

When is Braveheart on btw?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're just being silly........

Osbourne say's he's not having the pound..........Salmond hasn't got a plan B.........

William Wallace had more idea !!

You don't want him to have a Plan B. You're happy that he doesn't have one. It's a stick to beat him with in the hope that his people choose Plan-Stay-With-The-Union. Of course you're going to disparage his lack of preparation work on the perfect blueprint for the future. In the meantime, I think it's pretty apparent right now that Westminster itself is short on detail and "How's" on the outcome they never quite expected - a Yes vote. They seem to have been kicked out of their apathy this week as the gap closes. Now Osbourne and the rest will have to seriously this time contemplate exactly what happens and what treaties might emerge from the reality of Scotland perhaps saying Yes, when they never truly expected them to.

Where's the detail? Where's the "How?"? Are Westminster prepared for the negotiations? Do they know the dynamics of a shrunken Union? Do they know how they might have to re-organise Parliament to meet the new challenges? I don't see much detail there either, do I? The future will be vague for both Scotland AND the rest of the remaining UK if Scotland vote Yes. They'll all find they have a lot of thinking to do about 'detail'.

Scrumpy wrote:Are you saying the American war of Interdependence is just the same as the YES / NO vote?

When is Braveheart on btw?

Be on next week about two hundred times no doubt..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Latest survation poll....

Yes 47 % ...............No 53 %...........

Think as the Election draws near people are thinking with the head and not the heart perhaps..

Perhaps............... only poll that matters is the vote though.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Are you saying the American war of Interdependence is just the same as the YES / NO vote?

When is Braveheart on btw?

Be on next week about two hundred times no doubt..

Followed by 'The Patriot'

Scrumpy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Are you saying the American war of Interdependence is just the same as the YES / NO vote?

When is Braveheart on btw?

Be on next week about two hundred times no doubt..

Followed by 'The Patriot'

There have been a lot of Braveheart quotes sure enough in recent weeks.  "The trouble with Scotland is that it is full of Scots!"  He had brilliant lines, did old Patrick McGoohan, the best King England never had.

Edward the Lionheart and David Cameron will certainly never be confused..

Latest Poll on the BBC.

48% No
42% Yes
10% Don't know

GAME OVER.

Cameron: Who is this person who speaks to me as though I needed his advice?

Clegg: I am skilled in the arts of war and military tactics, Sire.

Cameron: Are you? Then tell me, what advice would you offer on the present situation?

Cameron did try the famous window scene early in the coalition but...............well, the security lock was on and he couldn't open it.

Scrumpy wrote:Latest Poll on the BBC.

48% No
42% Yes
10% Don't know

GAME OVER.

10% Don't know. (of which 1% won't vote; 1% will vote No and 8% will vote Yes)  correct GAME OVER.  

But then, it isn't a game - it's the very serious future of a good many million people.  It ain't football, folks.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:"Why do you want Independence?" seems to be the cry of some.  As in "You know nothing will work without us - not the Health service, not Education, not Security, not your Oil Industry...nothing will work without us being there to control and regulate it, Salmond is talking crap, you know he's talking crap...and yet you lot still want to vote for Independence??"

I'd ask a question of the questioners.  And seek a Genuine Answer:  "Why do you lot want us(Scottish)?  You don't need us, you run things better, you laugh at us, you have all the money, all the people, all the brains, all the UK kudos (ie, foreigners identifying the UK as somehow something that happens to mostly English people in England )  Why the hell do you lot want us?  What's in it for you?  And please - no emotion - no 'because we love yous' "  That's what I'd ask if I was Scottish.

Ooo! That would be clever - pity no-one has come up with that one yet. Who knows? In no particular order: oil, tourism, whisky, engineering, current and historical contribution to what's generally considered an excellent armed forces, advantages to all from economies of scale, diversities of opinion etc.

So the English want what's best for them in the equation of Union with Scotland?  
Grand.  There's the truth.  
Everyone is looking out for Numero Uno.  Just as it should be.  But that's the only true story in town.  
The English (some of them) are saying "We want you (Scottish) because it helps us and serves our interests"  
The Scottish (some of them) are saying "Correct.  We Scots benefit from being linked together with England"  
The Scottish (some of them) are saying:  "We want to help ourselves, thanks.  Happy to be firends and all, and trade and all - but controlling our own destiny will serve our interests better" (ie, actually quite a similar argument to the Conservatives as they use it in relation to the EU; an irony many Cionservatives don't seem to notice)
The English (some of them) are saying "We don't give a shyte and are prepared to accept that Scotland might go its own way and we'll all adapt to the change."

Anyway - that's it.  Self interest is the only game in town.  I guess, apart from all the often heated discussion, the only thing that means anything now is the vote and the decision.

Eh??? That's not what I said at all but don't let that get in the way of your ****-stirring. Not a career politician by any chance are you?

SecretFly wrote:The referendum isn't a treaty outlining how Scotland will operate.  All that detail comes after - not before - Scottish people actually decide what they want to do.  The detail work follows after the decision to go it alone not before that decision.

Really?? People are allowed to ask WHAT will happen if they vote 'yes'. You don't think that has a bearing on the actual referendum? Salmond et al have simply not given answers to the huge questions.

SecretFly wrote:You are again saying Scotland 'Can't' exist on its own without England...

No-one says that. I've not heard a single, sensible commentator from the pro-Uniion side declare that to be the case. Of course it can. That isn't the issue. The issue is what are the likely effects of a 'yes' in the short, medium and long term? I would imagine in the long term (whatever that means) the prospects are relatively good. In the short to medium term I have no confidence what-so-ever in what Salmond claims. He's Wee weeing around with millions of livelihoods all for his own political posterity.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:"Why do you want Independence?" seems to be the cry of some.  As in "You know nothing will work without us - not the Health service, not Education, not Security, not your Oil Industry...nothing will work without us being there to control and regulate it, Salmond is talking crap, you know he's talking crap...and yet you lot still want to vote for Independence??"

I'd ask a question of the questioners.  And seek a Genuine Answer:  "Why do you lot want us(Scottish)?  You don't need us, you run things better, you laugh at us, you have all the money, all the people, all the brains, all the UK kudos (ie, foreigners identifying the UK as somehow something that happens to mostly English people in England )  Why the hell do you lot want us?  What's in it for you?  And please - no emotion - no 'because we love yous' "  That's what I'd ask if I was Scottish.

Ooo! That would be clever - pity no-one has come up with that one yet. Who knows? In no particular order: oil, tourism, whisky, engineering, current and historical contribution to what's generally considered an excellent armed forces, advantages to all from economies of scale, diversities of opinion etc.

So the English want what's best for them in the equation of Union with Scotland?  
Grand.  There's the truth.  
Everyone is looking out for Numero Uno.  Just as it should be.  But that's the only true story in town.  
The English (some of them) are saying "We want you (Scottish) because it helps us and serves our interests"  
The Scottish (some of them) are saying "Correct.  We Scots benefit from being linked together with England"  
The Scottish (some of them) are saying:  "We want to help ourselves, thanks.  Happy to be firends and all, and trade and all - but controlling our own destiny will serve our interests better" (ie, actually quite a similar argument to the Conservatives as they use it in relation to the EU; an irony many Cionservatives don't seem to notice)
The English (some of them) are saying "We don't give a shyte and are prepared to accept that Scotland might go its own way and we'll all adapt to the change."

Anyway - that's it.  Self interest is the only game in town.  I guess, apart from all the often heated discussion, the only thing that means anything now is the vote and the decision.

Eh??? That's not what I said at all but don't let that get in the way of your ****-stirring. Not a career politician by any chance are you?

Well, you're well on the way with your perfected 'deniability clauses'

I simply asked you, or anybody, to outline a generalised view of how an English person might respond to a question which a Scottish person might put along the lines of: "Why do you want us to remain a Union"

You noted down a probable list of what an English person might jot down and when I say 'list duely noted', you say "Hey! That's not what I said at all."

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Latest Poll on the BBC.

48% No
42% Yes
10% Don't know

GAME OVER.

10% Don't know. (of which 1% won't vote; 1% will vote No and 8% will vote Yes)  correct GAME OVER.  

But then, it isn't a game - it's the very serious future of a good many million people.  It ain't football, folks.

According to a couple of experienced pollsters this morning, they both stated that whatever the polls show pre-vote, there's always a shift back to the status quo when people come right down to it. They may be wrong but you know what? I'll trust their greater experience in the matter.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:You are again saying Scotland 'Can't' exist on its own without England...

No-one says that. I've not heard a single, sensible commentator from the pro-Uniion side declare that to be the case. Of course it can. That isn't the issue. The issue is what are the likely effects of a 'yes' in the short, medium and long term? I would imagine in the long term (whatever that means) the prospects are relatively good. In the short to medium term I have no confidence what-so-ever in what Salmond claims. He's Wee weeing around with millions of livelihoods all for his own political posterity.

In the short to mediuum term there will be upheavels... of course there will be - on BOTH sides of any new border BTW, not just in Scotland.  But ---- ANY vote on such a concept of Independence will Always be a Long Term Proposal.  
You've admitted that in a Long Term View Scotland's hopes as an Independent nation would be as reasonable as any other small nation's chances.  That's all the vote is about.  Each and every damn referendum I had to vote on about Empire EU was soaken in language not about the present but in language that said "we're doing this for our children's future."  Big referendums are always going to be about long term hopes, aspirations and plans - as will England's own vote on IN/OUT of Europe if they have it.

navyblueshorts wrote:According to a couple of experienced pollsters this morning, they both stated that whatever the polls show pre-vote, there's always a shift back to the status quo when people come right down to it. They may be wrong but you know what? I'll trust their greater experience in the matter.

It doesn't matter. All we're doing here is chatting. My opinion won't swing the percentage values...neither will yours. So who cares about the professionals and shift backs. Scotland will vote Yes or No. So be it - whichever it is. This though is a simple discussion about it....

Scotland could easily exist on their own if they voted yes, but, it would not be much of an existence, they would have to cut back on spending everywhere, the oil will not pay for everything.

SecretFly wrote:Well, you're well on the way with your perfected 'deniability clauses'  

I simply asked you, or anybody, to outline a generalised view of how an English person might respond to a question which a Scottish person might put along the lines of: "Why do you want us to remain a Union"

You noted down a probable list of what an English person might jot down and when I say 'list duely noted', you say "Hey! That's not what I said at all."    

Now you're just being daft. That's not what happened at all. I gave you a list and you said:

"So the English want what's best for them in the equation of Union with Scotland?  
Grand.  There's the truth.  
Everyone is looking out for Numero Uno.  Just as it should be.  But that's the only true story in town."

Thanks for making the nonsense jump from what I listed to the above. I did not mean that all I wanted was what was best for me - do try not to equate me with your way of thinking . It was you who said that there should be none of the "Because we love you" stuff.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:According to a couple of experienced pollsters this morning, they both stated that whatever the polls show pre-vote, there's always a shift back to the status quo when people come right down to it. They may be wrong but you know what? I'll trust their greater experience in the matter.

It doesn't matter.  All we're doing here is chatting.  My opinion won't swing the percentage values...neither will yours.  So who cares about the professionals and shift backs.  Scotland will vote Yes or No.  So be it - whichever it is.  This though is a simple discussion about it....

Whatever. We're obviously discussing two distinctly different things then.

Must say this is more interesting than the by now saturated Pistorious trial.

What exactly is the margin of victory needed for "no" be passed? Is it as simple as 50+?

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Latest Poll on the BBC.

48% No
42% Yes
10% Don't know

GAME OVER.

10% Don't know. (of which 1% won't vote; 1% will vote No and 8% will vote Yes)  correct GAME OVER.  

But then, it isn't a game - it's the very serious future of a good many million people.  It ain't football, folks.

According to a couple of experienced pollsters this morning, they both stated that whatever the polls show pre-vote, there's always a shift back to the status quo when people come right down to it. They may be wrong but you know what? I'll trust their greater experience in the matter.

Happened with Brown in 2010................Obama in 2012.....and in pretty much every election I can remember...

The incumbency bounce.........Change to some can be a scary thing..

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, you're well on the way with your perfected 'deniability clauses'  

I simply asked you, or anybody, to outline a generalised view of how an English person might respond to a question which a Scottish person might put along the lines of: "Why do you want us to remain a Union"

You noted down a probable list of what an English person might jot down and when I say 'list duely noted', you say "Hey! That's not what I said at all."    

Now you're just being daft. That's not what happened at all. I gave you a list and you said:

"So the English want what's best for them in the equation of Union with Scotland?  
Grand.  There's the truth.  
Everyone is looking out for Numero Uno.  Just as it should be.  But that's the only true story in town."

Thanks for making the nonsense jump from what I listed to the above. I did not mean that all I wanted was what was best for me - do try not to equate me with your way of thinking . It was you who said that there should be none of the "Because we love you" stuff.

I specifically..........................Specifically.................. said none of the lovie dovie stuff for the very reason that critics of Independence seekers won't allow that to be part of the debate....so let's not have it part of the debate...in the past or even now, as the time ticks away.  

Critics of Salmond and the Independence movement say: "none of your dewy eyed idealism and aspirational stuff about Scottish identity..tell the people HOW it will work in clinic, unemotional, grim business and commerce terms.  Go on.  Tell the Scottish people the gory details.  No, you don't want to do the economy reasons because you have none so don't try to fool them with the 'it's simply great to be Scottish and it's what we are' shyte!"

So.......................... with clinic hard economical facts the only grounds for discussion, I asked an English person to outline what an English person might say if asked "Why do you lot (English people) want us (Scotland)? No lovie dovie reasons allowed

I realised your list wasn't your exact personal list but it was presented as a probable list coming from an English person.  So I said, "There you go, English people have their own agenda when the loveie dovie stuff is disallowed and therefore English people and Political parties are as guilty of self centredness as they are accusing Salmond of.  Everyone wants the Union to continue for their own specific and selfish reasons....and Salmond, well he wants Independence, for his own specific and selfish reasons.

I say, you are all entitled to your reasons and there's no 'guilt' anywhere.  The voting will decide.

It seems GREED is again at the forefront of British politics on this one. Its the same policy used by imperial Nations around the world.

The danger of a good idea

Scotland succeeds as an independent Nation and Wales get ideas.

Feel sorry for the Scots. They are trying to establish an identity, whats wrong with that? After all the effort their ancestors gave through the centuries to relieve themselves from the oppressive grip of England, the Scots just want to complete the historic goal through democratic methods yet they are hampered by pressure groups and patronising politics that only serve to threaten and scare them into obedience.

kingraf wrote:Must say this is more interesting than the by now saturated Pistorious trial.

What exactly is the margin of victory needed for "no" be passed? Is it as simple as 50+?

Pistorius can't be found guilty of murder...Judge has said.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:According to a couple of experienced pollsters this morning, they both stated that whatever the polls show pre-vote, there's always a shift back to the status quo when people come right down to it. They may be wrong but you know what? I'll trust their greater experience in the matter.

It doesn't matter.  All we're doing here is chatting.  My opinion won't swing the percentage values...neither will yours.  So who cares about the professionals and shift backs.  Scotland will vote Yes or No.  So be it - whichever it is.  This though is a simple discussion about it....

Whatever. We're obviously discussing two distinctly different things then.

We must be.... as you seem to think anyone who tries to reason for an Independent Sctoland is either fruity, selfish or willingly going against the science of pollsterism.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:According to a couple of experienced pollsters this morning, they both stated that whatever the polls show pre-vote, there's always a shift back to the status quo when people come right down to it. They may be wrong but you know what? I'll trust their greater experience in the matter.

It doesn't matter.  All we're doing here is chatting.  My opinion won't swing the percentage values...neither will yours.  So who cares about the professionals and shift backs.  Scotland will vote Yes or No.  So be it - whichever it is.  This though is a simple discussion about it....

Whatever. We're obviously discussing two distinctly different things then.

We must be.... as you seem to think anyone who tries to reason for an Independent Sctoland is either fruity, selfish or willingly going against the science of pollsterism.

You've been somewhat provocative all morning Mate.....Look at yourself..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Must say this is more interesting than the by now saturated Pistorious trial.

What exactly is the margin of victory needed for "no" be passed? Is it as simple as 50+?

Pistorius can't be found guilty of murder...Judge has said.

Didn't think he would. Culpable has always been the money bet.

kingraf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Must say this is more interesting than the by now saturated Pistorious trial.

What exactly is the margin of victory needed for "no" be passed? Is it as simple as 50+?

Pistorius can't be found guilty of murder...Judge has said.

Didn't think he would. Culpable has always been the money bet.

He's a political figure..........High profile white sportsman in a new age Country.....

Compromise is the best bet............Try to satisfy all sides.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Must say this is more interesting than the by now saturated Pistorious trial.

What exactly is the margin of victory needed for "no" be passed? Is it as simple as 50+?

Pistorius can't be found guilty of murder...Judge has said.

I can't understand how any trial could proceed whereby everyone - everyone - from Judge to defence and prosecution counsel and even to journalists covering the case - are willing to pretend (ie, lie) that in that house on that night there was only two people - Pistorius and Reeva.

The world knows there were three people.  There was also another guy who says he was asleep downstairs (through all the melee!) and was not forced to testify or was not queried how when people over a hundred metres away were woken by gunfire, noise and screams, he lay perfectly comfortable and perfectly asleep.

That's the major fault with the entire trial that the court continues to state there were only two people in the house.  There were three and one of them I suspect is holding back a lot of information.

Who was this third person?

First I have heard of this do you have a source?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:According to a couple of experienced pollsters this morning, they both stated that whatever the polls show pre-vote, there's always a shift back to the status quo when people come right down to it. They may be wrong but you know what? I'll trust their greater experience in the matter.

It doesn't matter.  All we're doing here is chatting.  My opinion won't swing the percentage values...neither will yours.  So who cares about the professionals and shift backs.  Scotland will vote Yes or No.  So be it - whichever it is.  This though is a simple discussion about it....

Whatever. We're obviously discussing two distinctly different things then.

We must be.... as you seem to think anyone who tries to reason for an Independent Sctoland is either fruity, selfish or willingly going against the science of pollsterism.

You've been somewhat provocative all morning Mate.....Look at yourself..

I'm not provocative. It's simply that people get tetchy around people who use logic to express their views.  I'm outlining the issues objectively and logically- someone throws an argument my way, I return that argument using their same logic but using a different example...and that upsets people because they want you to get emotional and there is always a weakness in emotion...which I try to steer clear of. Logic and argument.

Nope... I'm being solidly reasonable with the topic and when I say I have an opinion that runs contrary to some others on here I say, 'let that be'.... don't attack it by saying 'your opinion isn't worth as much as professional pollsters'.  So be it, my opinion might be worthless, I alluded to that fact a number of times myself.  I'm all for my fallibility. I'm human. All we have is opinions...it's other people who are getting 'edgy' about my opinions.  Other people are bringing the 'provocation'.  I have a right to an opinion...I'll certainly express it on these pages.  Everyone else has the same right.  Don't attempt to tell me an opnion you don't necessarily agree with (like Scottish Independence) is 'provocative'.  No, it's simply an opinion some here don't agree with.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Who was this third person?

First I have heard of this do you have a source?

You see? You see how central such a truth would be to people's interpretation of what went down in the Pistorius house and why a certain person was unwilling to say he heard anything and why he was not forced to testify - even to protest in court that simple claim that he heard nothing, saw nothing as his entire neihbourhood heard lots.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:It seems GREED is again at the forefront of British politics on this one. Its the same policy used by imperial Nations around the world.

The danger of a good idea

Scotland succeeds as an independent Nation and Wales get ideas.

Feel sorry for the Scots. They are trying to establish an identity, whats wrong with that? After all the effort their ancestors gave through the centuries to relieve themselves from the oppressive grip of England, the Scots just want to complete the historic goal through democratic methods yet they are hampered by pressure groups and patronising politics that only serve to threaten and scare them into obedience.

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

Tell you what, let's allow the secession of Cornwall. How about the Houses of Lancaster and York as well? What about ancient Wessex? Where are you going to draw any lines? I know, let's have every man and woman for themselves. Pathetic and narrow minded.

SecretFly wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Who was this third person?

First I have heard of this do you have a source?

You see?   You see how central such a truth would be to people's interpretation of what went down in the Pistorius house and why a certain person was unwilling to say he heard anything and why he was not forced to testify - even to protest in court that simple claim that he heard nothing, saw nothing as his entire neihbourhood heard lots.

Eh? Yet again you avoid the question asked  - DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE? If so, quote it. If not, stop stirring the ordure.

I think he was being clever, to make a point.

Source please secret fly

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Who was this third person?

First I have heard of this do you have a source?

You see?   You see how central such a truth would be to people's interpretation of what went down in the Pistorius house and why a certain person was unwilling to say he heard anything and why he was not forced to testify - even to protest in court that simple claim that he heard nothing, saw nothing as his entire neihbourhood heard lots.

Eh? Yet again you avoid the question asked  - DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE? If so, quote it. If not, stop stirring the ordure.

 I specifically - Specifically - didn't give the detail because I knew someone might call me up on the lack of detail again.  "Spoofer Fly, at it again"..... am I right?  Of course I'm right, that's your very accusation.

Now tell me.................. first the important bit.  ONETWOFOREVER has admitted he has never heard of a 'third' person.  Now I'm directly asking you - have you ever in the course of the months heard about a thrid person in Pistorius's house on the night of the killing?  First answer that one because your answer will either strengthen my views on the subject (already outlined above0 or - if you have indeed heard about a third person before - then you of course know I'm not spoofing and you yourself would then be guilty of 'stirring the ordure'

I reckon it was Professor plum with the lead piping on the dining room table..

No...his name isn't Professor Plum..... but you're getting there....

SecretFly wrote: I specifically - Specifically - didn't give the detail because I knew someone might call me up on the lack of detail again.  "Spoofer Fly, at it again"..... am I right?  Of course I'm right, that's your very accusation.

Now tell me.................. first the important bit.  ONETWOFOREVER has admitted he has never heard of a 'third' person.  Now I'm directly asking you - have you ever in the course of the months heard about a thrid person in Pistorius's house on the night of the killing?  First answer that one because your answer will either strengthen my views on the subject (already outlined above0 or - if you have indeed heard about a third person before - then you of course know I'm not spoofing and you yourself would then be guilty of 'stirring the ordure'

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... Your SOURCE please?

SecretFly wrote:
I can't understand how any trial could proceed whereby everyone - everyone - from Judge to defence and prosecution counsel and even to journalists covering the case - are willing to pretend (ie, lie) that in that house on that night there was only two people - Pistorius and Reeva.

The world knows there were three people.  There was also another guy who says he was asleep downstairs (through all the melee!) and was not forced to testify or was not queried how when people over a hundred metres away were woken by gunfire, noise and screams, he lay perfectly comfortable and perfectly asleep.

That's the major fault with the entire trial that the court continues to state there were only two people in the house.  There were three and one of them I suspect is holding back a lot of information.

Family pets generally aren't called to the witness stand

Fly- trying to decipher your posts is somewhat exhausting, can you be a little less ambiguous if you wouldn't mind?

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote: I specifically - Specifically - didn't give the detail because I knew someone might call me up on the lack of detail again.  "Spoofer Fly, at it again"..... am I right?  Of course I'm right, that's your very accusation.

Now tell me.................. first the important bit.  ONETWOFOREVER has admitted he has never heard of a 'third' person.  Now I'm directly asking you - have you ever in the course of the months heard about a thrid person in Pistorius's house on the night of the killing?  First answer that one because your answer will either strengthen my views on the subject (already outlined above0 or - if you have indeed heard about a third person before - then you of course know I'm not spoofing and you yourself would then be guilty of 'stirring the ordure'

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... Your SOURCE please?

I take it that's confirmation you've never heard of a third person in the house on the night.  Would that concern you?  That an entire court proceeding could ignore the existence of a person in the very same house where the incident ocurred.  If that happened in England or Ireland or Ameirca etc it would be classed a very problematic 'cover-up' of truth and prospective evidence.

So, even this morning, the Judge more than once asserted that her judgements needed to be made by looking exclusively at the evidence rather than witness statements from people who were not in the house at the time of the killing.  She clearly highlighted the fact that the voices people heard coming from the house could only have come from one of the two people EXCLUSIVELY in the house at the time - Reeva and Pistorius.  A judge, ignoring truth to pronounce on her reasons for coming to her conclusion.

Well, a third person did exist and the world's media have chosen to ignore him for some reason that I can't begin to fathom - there is no reason that would not even admit that he was there - even if by some legal requirement he was not asked or forced to testify.

Is the Telegraph a good enough source for you?  Not the only one by the way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10809123/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Malawian-housekeeper-was-at-Pistorius-home-on-night-of-shooting.html
Now, instead of trying to denigrate me... are you going to actually comment on the point I made that a third person was there and allegedly slept through the rumble upstairs that woke an entire neighbourhood...or that Pistorius decided to run onto a balcony to cry for help when there was help downstairs?  And does not that truth not suggest the court session is unsatisfactory and that something ain't quite right about any of it.

incontinentia wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
I can't understand how any trial could proceed whereby everyone - everyone - from Judge to defence and prosecution counsel and even to journalists covering the case - are willing to pretend (ie, lie) that in that house on that night there was only two people - Pistorius and Reeva.

The world knows there were three people.  There was also another guy who says he was asleep downstairs (through all the melee!) and was not forced to testify or was not queried how when people over a hundred metres away were woken by gunfire, noise and screams, he lay perfectly comfortable and perfectly asleep.

That's the major fault with the entire trial that the court continues to state there were only two people in the house.  There were three and one of them I suspect is holding back a lot of information.

Family pets generally aren't called to the witness stand

Fly- trying to decipher your posts is somewhat exhausting, can you be a little less ambiguous if you wouldn't mind?

Maybe that's what the housekeeper is considered the equal to in certain residential areas in SA?

PS... being ambiguous is part of the fun. I enjoy that the third guy story was quite a public story and yet somehow the public never fixed it in their mind and somehow forgot it without a blink of an eyelid. Now that's ambiguity.

Good to see RBS make a statement regarding there proposals under Independence and good for the Scottish economy that they are only considering moving their registered head office.

I was just out taking care of some business, whilst listening to none other than BBC Radio Two in my car, when straight away this thread dawned on me, Scotland if they went independent would lose everything, even the BBC, now I could be far wide of the mark here, but I bet there are loads of things the Scotts have not even considered, how would a population of 5,327,700 people paying a tele license have the same quality of tv as a population of 63,489,000 paying for their licenses, I know this may sound trivial but seriously, they could stand to lose their Rugby and football on BBC ALBA, they would not get programmes like Eastenders and Emerdale and Corrie, even Jeremy Kyle would be a stretch. O.k, perhaps I am being silly with the soaps, but the cogs started going around in my head, but things like the national grid, the rail networks, the whole infrastructure, who the fook is going to fit the bill for all this ? The oil, whisky, shortbread and tourism industries will only go so far, who are going to pay their politicians ? Who's going to fit their bill for their NHS, their benefits, dole e.c.t I could go on, now I am thinking, that if they did go it alone they would be skint pretty quickly. Or am I missing something ?

LordDowlais this is where Salmond and his SNP gang will twist the argument and say they are still British therefore they keep the good stuff (Eastenders Errr?????) without having to pay for it.

My view is if you want independence then good luck to you, but you go it alone and can not pick and choose what you want to keep or pay for.

LordDowlais wrote:I was just out taking care of some business, whilst listening to none other than BBC Radio Two in my car, when straight away this thread dawned on me, Scotland if they went independent would lose everything, even the BBC, now I could be far wide of the mark here, but I bet there are loads of things the Scotts have not even considered, how would a population of  5,327,700 people paying a tele license have the same quality of tv as a population of 63,489,000 paying for their licenses, I know this may sound trivial but seriously, they could stand to lose their Rugby and football on BBC ALBA, they would not get programmes like Eastenders and Emerdale and Corrie, even Jeremy Kyle would be a stretch. O.k, perhaps I am being silly with the soaps, but the cogs started going around in my head, but things like the national grid, the rail networks, the whole infrastructure, who the fook is going to fit the bill for all this ? The oil, whisky, shortbread and tourism industries will only go so far, who are going to pay their politicians ? Who's going to fit their bill for their NHS, their benefits, dole e.c.t I could go on, now I am thinking, that if they did go it alone they would be skint pretty quickly. Or am I missing something ?

People in the Irish Republic and certain areas of France and perhaps others can get BBC A satelite can't fully draw a coverage signal map of England, Wales and NI just yet. That day might be coming but it hasn't happened yet. ...and ain't Jeremy Kyle ITV? That's an Independent commercial channel who I'm sure will provide Corrie to someone who wants to continue watching advertisments.

Scrumpy wrote:LordDowlais this is where Salmond and his SNP gang will twist the argument and say they are still British therefore they keep the good stuff (Eastenders Errr?????) without having to pay for it.

My view is if you want independence then good luck to you, but you go it alone and can not pick and choose what you want to keep or pay for.

...the Queen would be ever so displeased she couldn't tune into Eastenders when holidaying in Scotland, Scrumpy!

Plus - on a more serious note........ there will still be English people in Scotland IF Scotland vote Yes? Will there be? They surely won't all pack their bags. There'll be English people working and living in Scotland just as now...who'll want their blasted Corrie fix, and God help anyone who tries to take it from them!!!! That's WAR!

Most likely what will happen is there will be a discussion with the BBC and a commercial agreement will be reached to show those channels via money generated from the license fee. Obviously no definitive answer can be given as no discussions on such a scenario will be entered into until after the vote.

Then again I could do without the BBC personally as I don't think the quality is of a very good standard anyway considering what's paid for it though there are exceptions.

Brys wrote:Good to see RBS make a statement regarding there proposals under Independence and good for the Scottish economy that they are only considering moving their registered head office.

Not that good considering LBG (of whom RBS is essentially just a division) are moving lock stock and barrell south of the border.