But she'll always have the albatross of failure in the Referendum round her neck. She was front and centre in the campaign, as much as Salmond.
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
There'll be a million and one ways for her to spin it positively, especially if it brings about the sort of change being spoken of.
Suppose that's true, will be interesting to see what happens.
Because they aren't 16. 16 year olds are trusted to make decisions. They can live alone, work, shag, etc.
Its not a slippery slope as you're implying. There needs to be a cut off somewhere.
Make them eligible to play for England and we might win something.
But those things just affect them though, normally. 16 year olds are idiots.
Pleased with the Scots decision. I didn't expect Salmond to resign.
Last edited:
So what? It's not as if we set minimum intelligence requirements to vote.
That's politics though, it's a case of choosing which right bunch of cnuts is going to be a slightly less of a right bunch of cnuts than the other right bunch of cnuts options.
Last edited:
Taxi for Salmond !
Isn't all of this talk that 16 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're too naive/ young to have any intellectual views on politics a bit condescending?
Also the talk that the young yes voters will switch over to No once they get older and have a family, etc etc to support a bit presumptuous? Plenty of voters in the older demographics voted Yes.
Reminds me of an American saying "If you're not a liberal in your 20s you have no heart but if you're not a conservative in your 40s you have no brain".
Which is a bit fanciful at best and insulting at worst but all of the above goes to show why society in western countries is still deeply conservative in some respects and averse to change because liberalism/idealism has become inextricably linked with youth, lack of life experience and naivety vs conservatism being branded as a view you should have once your older, smarter and more experienced. So that invariably leads to a maintenance of the status quo or a very slow burn towards change.
I still pretty much have the same views to politics as I did when I was 16, I still don't watch the news or read the papers very often and couldn't name 7 politicians if I tried, so should I be prevented from voting as well even though I'm in my early 20s? I'm sure there are people younger than I am who have more knowledge about politics while at the same time there could be a few older than me who know as much as I do. Knowledge about politics isn't linked to age but a willingness to get involved and find out information.
Not anyone on here but there seems to be a condescending view towards people who don't know much about politics, in the sense that those who follow politics more closely believe that the former should not be allowed to vote as they don't know who or what they are really voting for. I think the vote should be open to everyone over the age of 16 regardless of intelligence, lack of experience or whatever other criteria you can come up. The most important part of elections is letting everyone have a say.
Elections aren't just for the few who feel that they know better, but for everyone. An independent Scotland will affect 16 year olds just as much as anyone else so they had just as much right to have a say
Also the talk that the young yes voters will switch over to No once they get older and have a family, etc etc to support a bit presumptuous? Plenty of voters in the older demographics voted Yes.
Reminds me of an American saying "If you're not a liberal in your 20s you have no heart but if you're not a conservative in your 40s you have no brain".
Which is a bit fanciful at best and insulting at worst but all of the above goes to show why society in western countries is still deeply conservative in some respects and averse to change because liberalism/idealism has become inextricably linked with youth, lack of life experience and naivety vs conservatism being branded as a view you should have once your older, smarter and more experienced. So that invariably leads to a maintenance of the status quo or a very slow burn towards change.
I still pretty much have the same views to politics as I did when I was 16, I still don't watch the news or read the papers very often and couldn't name 7 politicians if I tried, so should I be prevented from voting as well even though I'm in my early 20s? I'm sure there are people younger than I am who have more knowledge about politics while at the same time there could be a few older than me who know as much as I do. Knowledge about politics isn't linked to age but a willingness to get involved and find out information.
Not anyone on here but there seems to be a condescending view towards people who don't know much about politics, in the sense that those who follow politics more closely believe that the former should not be allowed to vote as they don't know who or what they are really voting for. I think the vote should be open to everyone over the age of 16 regardless of intelligence, lack of experience or whatever other criteria you can come up. The most important part of elections is letting everyone have a say.
Elections aren't just for the few who feel that they know better, but for everyone. An independent Scotland will affect 16 year olds just as much as anyone else so they had just as much right to have a say
No offence but if your son is 17 and only cares about football and his PS4, with no interest in the wider world, I would be somewhat concerned as a parent.
From what I see, the older generations are stubborn, hate change and generally deliberately distance themselves from new developments. It's a bit of a generalisation but the old people i see and speak to tend to be happy to live in isolation, stuck in "the old ways".
You seriously think most 16 year olds don't know that we've had a recession and wouldn't know if their parents are struggling financially? In that case I'd suggest you know far less about the average 16 year old than they do about politics.
Anybody that ignorant at 16 is unlikely to be much more informed at 18, yet we allow them the vote then. The truth is whatever age limit you impose will be somewhat arbitrary.
I'd also point out that there are quite a few people in their 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's who are unbelievably politically ignorant despite all their life experience.
Why ?
The song is essentially an independence cry. Continuing to sing it wouldn't make sense.
George Square revellers on Wednesday
George Square revellers today
George Square revellers today
Is it any surprise? Considering it's in Glasgow, we know who exactly that crowd is made up of.
Like I'd been saying in here throughout, yes, there are idiots within the Yes and the No camp but the myth that had seemed to build up that Yes were intimidating and violent was just simply not true. Extremely passionate, yes, but never would I have described the majority of them as either violent or intimidating.
Edit: And why on earth are they singing god save the queen when we'd have been keeping the queen?
One of the other videos on his page has this title "Loyalist songs, flares. This isn't an average No crowd.".
Reporter on BBC Scotland said it seemed to be a well planned thing because they came into the square from both sides. So saddening to see that this is end product of what was a campaign that had energised the country and made so many people sit up and take notice in a democratic way. Now we resort to this bigoted pish once again.
Last edited:
Is it any surprise? Considering it's in Glasgow, we know who exactly that crowd is made up of.
Like I'd been saying in here throughout, yes, there are idiots within the Yes and the No camp but the myth that had seemed to build up that Yes were intimidating and violent was just simply not true. Extremely passionate, yes, but never would I have described the majority of them as either violent or intimidating.
Edit: And why on earth are they singing god save the queen when we'd have been keeping the queen?
One of the other videos on his page has this title "Loyalist songs, flares. This isn't an average No crowd.".
Probably because its the British anthem and, had the vote gone the other way, no Scot would ever have been obliged to sing it again commonwealth or not.
It may actually be a good idea for England to use 'Jerusalem', which is our national anthem, instead of 'God save the Queen' at England only events. I suspect things are going to be a bit fractious between the different parts of the UK for awhile. No need to aggravate them.
That's a really shit right.
The song refers to Scotland fighting off English invaders in 13 oatcake. Not sure we are in threat of being invaded at the moment, certainly not by the English.
I am Scottish, I am proud to be Scottish and i like O Flower of Scotland as an anthem its emotional and passionate. Nothing wrong with that.
The No vote, which i do not think is a bad thing does not mean we cannot be a proud nation.
Not really the point. Governments shouldn't be able to force you to do things without a legitimate reason.
What defines a legitimate reason?
What about your right to not have a percentage of your earnings detracted for municipal services you might not use? How much less of a right is that?
Edit: And why on earth are they singing god save the queen when we'd have been keeping the queen?
Or why are they singing god save the queen while doing nazi salutes
"We can still rise now and be a nation again".
Sing that without having a complete and utter brass neck and I salute you.
If they were forced to vote I would still not agree would be more sympathetic to their position. At least that would be accomplishing something that could, at a stretch, be a legitimate reason. But they are not even doing that. They are making people stand in and feel ridiculous. That's not a remotely legitimate reason.
Could government make a law that requires anyone who goes to a store to walk down the produce aisle to encourage healthy eating? Would the law be any less ridiculous because "you don't have to buy anything!"?
Voting is a right and people can choose whether or not to exercise it or even which elections they want to exercise it. People shouldn't be forced to stand in line and play out a preposterous charade. Is a bunch of uneducated people being forced to vote a civil service?
As for the tax argument, people use a nonzero number of the services funded by tax dollars whether they actively choose to or not. (Roads, national defense, etc)
It is impossible to opt out of these services. It is possible to opt out of voting as almost every other democracy in the world proves. Australia itself even prices how possible this is by specifically allowing people to do just that.
That's a bit harder to comprehend.
Scotland is a nation, just not a nation-state. Its a kingdom in its own right joined by law to another kingdom, principality and a county across the Irish Sea.
Christ. Didn't think it'd be this bad
If that's as bad as it gets I would be happy.
Then why are we singing a song about fighting the English when we've decided to depend on them? Seriously, singing the line "we can still rise now, and be a nation again" would be embarrassing against England. We've literally chosen to do the opposite.
Why? The song written in 1967 about the Battle of Bannockburn in 13 whatever was defending land against invaders, are we being invaded ?
Why have we been singing this song loudly and proudly against any country for many years?
This has naff all to do with any Referendum in 2014.
To some extent it looks no worse than what you might see outside an Old Firm derby. Sure the Glasgow police are more than used to this kind of things.
What you don't want is for the feeling to fester and become like the worst of what we used to see in Northern Ireland. Very much doubt that will happen because Scotland and Ireland have different histories, but you never know how people will react.
Excuse my ignorance but i wasn't even aware we were fighting the English. And when did we decide to depend on them?
The song concerns fighting the English, and rising as a nation. Why would a country who rejected it's independence and wants to stay with England sing it?
As for the second point, we decided to do that yesterday.
The song refers to The Battle of Banockburn, nothing else.
And what was decided yesterday was to stay part of the UK, not to depend on the English.
This is one of those times though, when an ostensibly reasonable argument leads to an empirically worse outcome - much like the argument that companies should have freedom of contract to sell to who they want, and should therefore not be required to contract with ethnic or sexual minorities should their owners not wish to. Is the right to contract freely not equally a right?
The simple empirical reality is that there are sections of society that for any number of reasons, will not vote, or vote at significantly reduced rates, like students and youths - but we the people, collectively, are the poorer for it because the smaller but more highly motivated constituencies therefore have an outsized say in the franchise. You as an American, for sure would know more than me about this phenomenon - Republicans want to restrict the franchise for precisely this reason, no?
Nobody's advocating banging non voters into jail or something stupid. But certain countries with mandatory voting achieve this by removing ones right to vote if it is not exercised, with the non voter allowed back on the rolls on payment of a small fine. It's a small bump, but it's not significantly dissimilar from subsidising healthy food or taxing cigarettes - punishing asocial behaviour and rewarding civic participation, in essence.
No more than I'd expect in Glasgow. Full of a bigoted arseholes who made their decision based on football. Embarrassing