The BBC have identified the troublemakers as Glasgow Rangers fans. BBC reporter Cameron Buttle said the atmosphere had changed quickly when a large group of Loyalists, many in Rangers tops, arrived and rushed the 'Yes' supporters. Some Loyalists had concealed Union flags and appeared to have co-ordinated their attack. Flags on display on the Unionist side had Loyalist slogans, some with Northern Irish allusions, including "Springburn/Derry Union" and "Scotland is British, No surrender." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-r...ar-glasgow-protests-following-no-vote-1466349 Nothing surprising there then.
Dunblane was one of the saddest chapters in Scotland's history, for any sick minded **** to use it as a weapon against Murray shows some people have no compassion for the suffering of the victims and families of the children that were murdered that day, shame on them. RIP the victims of Dunblane.
Absolutely. Death and tragedy should never be used to score points in an argument or to wind people up. Murray is his own worst enemy though. What he did was quite sneaky and calculated. After having said he didn't want to get involved in the independence debate (when the polls were showing the yes vote at about 35%) he kept quiet until the polling day to then declare that he favoured the yes position. He knew he had a large following (2.5m+) and to me it seems he wanted to affect the undecided. No one would take exception to him to stating his opinion publicly but I can understand why the timing may have incensed many.
anyone reckon this could have an effect on his support he gets at Wimbledon or still be the same,ie still be huge support for a british player, i mean scottish player at an english tournament lol. when is the next Wimbledon as i am def watching and on the Dunblane comments, completely agree, mentioning tragedies on any level is disgusting.
no dave, obviosuly not. i never said that and you know probaly i didn't... i simply trialed off shaking my head at you.... I merely asked the question as i formed an opinion. I volunteered to do the job and you guys elected me. If i'd simply closed it you'd have a case I did not. I thought something you guys disagreed so i didn't....
I'm getting a little tired of this eulogy for Salmond following his resignation. When you strip away the Scottish delight in Bonnie Prince Charlie sentimentality it is clear that he LOST. When you are the jockey of one participant in a two horse race and come second you have lost. When the margin of that loss is 10% of the electorate then you have been well beaten. He does deserve some credit for raising the level of support to the 45% level. However, when you view the performance of the NO campaign you have to consider that 45% was not too difficult to achieve. I truly believe that he's gone before he was publicly sacrificed. His epitaph should read "I got confused between what I wanted and what I was truly able to deliver"
I did say a lot earlier that I didn't want an argument over this. So, with respect to board harmony I'll shut up but I do believe you were high handed.
Now that we have sorted the Scottish question, the attention is turning to the English one which has been 'avoided' by the politicians of all parties as being too difficult to tackle. It has been around for decades so how does Cameron think he can sort it before the general elections next year? The English question: how do you give the English more (the only?) say in purely English matters? How do you stop MPs from Scotland voting on education, health matters affecting English people when they have no say on the same issues in their own country? The issue of an English parliament was raised a while ago and rejected because people didn't want another tier and also that parliament would be competing with the current one and be much stronger too. That parliament would probably be Tory but surely things and voting do change. The current situation in Westminster cannot continue. It is IMO undemocratic. MPs representing people from another nation affecting the lives of people they do not represent.
As has already been pointed out, Labour would need a landslide to form an effective Govt without the Scottish vote, so whilst the principle is right, there won't be much desire to force this issue through across the spectrum.
Now that Salmond has gone, what are the odds that a whole can of worms will open up that he kept hidden so it did not affect the YES vote. I would guess massive overspend on education, health and care for the elderley in Scotland is more per head of population than in England.
People's views change. If most people in England lean towards the Tories is this a good reason not to make England more democratic? Someone has already suggested that 2 days a week English MPs meet to discuss and vote on English laws. I can see problems with that. What if the govt is one party but the English "group" is led by another. That's a recipe for total inertia.
If we tried to retain the existing parliamentary system then it would be undemocratic as there would almost be a fixed Tory majority. However, it could be possible to re-arrange constituencies based upon metropolitan areas eg Merseyside, etc. We would have some problems with rural areas but with a bit of goodwill I'm sure that they could be overcome. Those areas could then forward MP(s) to an English Parliament. Hopefully that would not add greatly to the administrative costs whilst ensuring that power was usefully devolved in a fair manner. For once John Redwood talked some sense when he suggested that the English and UK parliaments could share a timetable in the present House of Commons. Provided that these moves actually do devolve power and wealth then we can see the beginning of the end of the South East stranglehold.
Interesting to see labour attempting to protect the status quo in Westminster, protecting the current elitist government that everyone seems so angry about at the moment, whilst the Tories play the role of the people's party pushing for change and devolution of powers across the uk.
maybe, but sadly that doesn't mean the torries are in the right, just this probably benefits them more, if it was other way round we would get the opposite, they are all self serving ****s!
Agreed, just think it's amusing that labour, the supposed working mans party (yeah ok), are fully against changing the current situation which is out dated and more than likely not beneficial to lots of the country who are filled with working men. Whilst on the other side, the supposed elitist toffs are pushing for what the working men want. Obviously at the heart of it is self preservation but the roles of both sides seem to have switched over! What bloody sell outs, the lot of them!
Beware of Tory PM's championing the cause of the 'common' man! You just know that it's merely a tactical ploy. However, I think Cameron has burnt himself very badly with this one as Labour will be forced to adopt a much more positive attitude to English devolution and it does not relieve Cameron of the UKIP threat in 2015.
Labour Tories Lib Dems, if people haven't copped they are the same bag of f**wits then... Why does anyone think nothing chances no matter who is in power ffs. Tories take you to war and prop up the bankers Labour takes you to war and props up the bankers Tories and Lib dems about to take you to war and prop up the bankers. All 3 back economy destroying austerity. The last elections, gave a government NO ONE voted for Democracy in action eh. Seriously.. ffs.
that is a farce to be honest, another is they get 5yrs to **** everything up when they do come in. always the same whichever party is in, when they do these future bollocks, do this, do that, its always just before elections come round again, and what they should have done in the first place usually.
