Scottish independence: let's have an honest debate (P2)

1578579581583584603

Comments

  • AidyAidy Posts: 2,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cheetah666 wrote: »
    And they couldn't have let the people who wanted to commemorate Bannock Burn enjoy their day too without over shadowing it? There was really nowhere else in Scotland other than within a mile of the Bannock Burn commemoration to hold Armed Forces Day?

    No idea on that one.

    My response on the date was to show Dare_Allan that the date has been set for a number of years so his assertion that David Cameron and Westminster and No Thanks set the date to clash with Bannockburn was wrong.
  • Cheetah666Cheetah666 Posts: 16,036
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kidspud wrote: »
    Why could they not enjoy their day? How does one overshadow the other?

    I think its obvious that in the year which is the centennary of the start of the First World War, and the 700th anniversary of Bannock Burn, the two celebrations should be held in different places so that one doesn't over shadow the other.
  • kidspudkidspud Posts: 18,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cheetah666 wrote: »
    I think its obvious that in the year which is the centennary of the start of the First World War, and the 700th anniversary of Bannock Burn, the two celebrations should be held in different places so that one doesn't over shadow the other.

    I can understand if you think stirling doesn't have the ability to host both events (I don't know if it does or doesn't), but I don't see how if someone was planning to go to the bannock burn event, having another event in the city makes any difference.

    Someone earlier was saying ticket sales ended up being strong, so it clearly didn't make a difference.
  • Dare_AllanDare_Allan Posts: 2,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aidy wrote: »
    This is the same armed forces day that has been held on the last Saturday in June since 2009. You do realise that don't you?

    It could easily be moved. An anniversary can't. It could have been held in a different town. Bannockburn commemoration can't.

    Yet again we have a unionist argument that black is white when it is transparently a lie. It was moved to Stirling on that day to conflict with the Bannockburn commemoration. Not any other reason.
  • Dare_AllanDare_Allan Posts: 2,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cheetah666 wrote: »
    I think its obvious that in the year which is the centennary of the start of the First World War, and the 700th anniversary of Bannock Burn, the two celebrations should be held in different places so that one doesn't over shadow the other.

    But that's how the No Campaign works. It has no positive argument, all it can do is lie and create fear and try to undermine anything which you could think of as being a "Scottish day". They have nothing but negativity, they have no positive argument or thought process.
  • Cheetah666Cheetah666 Posts: 16,036
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kidspud wrote: »
    I can understand if you think stirling doesn't have the ability to host both events (I don't know if it does or doesn't), but I don't see how if someone was planning to go to the bannock burn event, having another event in the city makes any difference.

    Someone earlier was saying ticket sales ended up being strong, so it clearly didn't make a difference.

    I'm glad it didn't make a difference, but choosing to host the Armed Forces Day celebrations in the same town which had already arranged to hold a commemoration of something else on the same day looks like a deliberate attempt to make a difference.

    Seriously is there nowhere else they could have celebrated Armed Forces Day?
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cheetah666 wrote: »
    I'm glad it didn't make a difference, but choosing to host the Armed Forces Day celebrations in the same town which had already arranged to hold a commemoration of something else on the same day looks like a deliberate attempt to make a difference.

    Seriously is there nowhere else they could have celebrated Armed Forces Day?

    Armed forces day events have been held in many towns throughout the country. I assume Stirling decided to hold an event rather than it being forced on them. Perhaps sterling council could answer your question better than people On here.
  • AidyAidy Posts: 2,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dare_Allan wrote: »
    Armed Forces Day was hi-jacked by David Cameron, Westminster and No Better Together. They decided to hold it on the same weekend as Bannockburn's anniversary and they decided to hold it in the same town as Bannockburn's anniversary.

    You are right. It stinks, just another No campaign dirty trick.

    Your original post above. BIB is the important bit. "They decided to hold it on the same weekend" - No they didnt. It has been held on the same weekend since 2009 but don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
    Dare_Allan wrote: »
    It could easily be moved. An anniversary can't. It could have been held in a different town. Bannockburn commemoration can't.

    Yet again we have a unionist argument that black is white when it is transparently a lie. It was moved to Stirling on that day to conflict with the Bannockburn commemoration. Not any other reason.

    Don't really understand that BIB.

    My limited research on this shows that Stirling applied to host this - why they did this you would need to ask them but I am sure that you can do a freedom of information request on this.

    Stirling was chosen by the MOD and this decision was welcomed by Keith Brown (SG Veterans Minister) and by the local SNP MSP. There is even a comment in a newspaper report that the Scottish Government supported the bid!

    So to recap the date has been set for years - David Cameron et al did not set the date to conflict with the Bannockburn commemoration. Your assertion on this is wrong.
  • Dare_AllanDare_Allan Posts: 2,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aidy wrote: »
    My limited research on this shows that Stirling applied to host this - why they did this you would need to ask them but I am sure that you can do a freedom of information request on this.

    You do know that Stirling Council is that Frankenstein's monster of a Tory/Labour coalition ?
  • BillyJamesTBillyJamesT Posts: 2,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Armed forces day events have been held in many towns throughout the country. I assume Stirling decided to hold an event rather than it being forced on them. Perhaps sterling council could answer your question better than people On here.

    Stirling council is run by a Labour/ Tory coalition, say no more.
  • BillyJamesTBillyJamesT Posts: 2,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    http://www.clans2014.com/2014-when-good-councils-go-bad/

    Just today I have learned that a senior figure in Event Scotland warned Stirling Council not to go for Armed Forces Day as it would clash with Bannockburn. What we now know is that not only did they ignore this advice but they then kept plans under wraps, did not reveal them to the NTS who were running Bannockburn (even when asked directly at planning meetings about potential event clashes) and did not inform the Scottish Government or any other official bodies. This is nothing short of a gleeful and willful attempt to undermine the Homecoming 2014 schedule of events.

    Not only that but they passed the responsibility of hosting the clans over to Bannockburn while they were secretly planning to upstage this event

    Just be aware of this, what Stirling Council have done is take what could have been a ‘take two’ of one of the largest and most impressive clan gatherings that has ever happened and thrown it away in favour of scoring political points in the lead up to next year’s referendum. They have mocked the clans, the National Trust, The Government and thanks to dragging Armed Forces Day into a political mire have mocked thousands of brave men and women who put their lives on the line daily by turning what is THEIR day into nothing more than a political rally.
  • benjaminibenjamini Posts: 32,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cheetah666 wrote: »
    And they couldn't have let the people who wanted to commemorate Bannock Burn enjoy their day too without over shadowing it? There was really nowhere else in Scotland other than within a mile of the Bannock Burn commemoration to hold Armed Forces Day?

    It's Bannockburn. Or if you prefer Blar a' Bannaich.

    What is Bannock Burn?
  • AidyAidy Posts: 2,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dare_Allan wrote: »
    You do know that Stirling Council is that Frankenstein's monster of a Tory/Labour coalition ?

    What has that to do with your assertion that David Cameron, Westminster and Better Together set the date to coincide with Bannockburn?

    Again I will say it - the date has been set for years.

    Want to admit you got that bit wrong?
  • Dare_AllanDare_Allan Posts: 2,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aidy wrote: »
    What has that to do with your assertion that David Cameron, Westminster and Better Together set the date to coincide with Bannockburn?

    Again I will say it - the date has been set for years.

    Want to admit you got that bit wrong?

    It's been "set" for 5 years. It isn't set at all. But on that day, in that place, the Tory/Labour pact in Stirling held an Armed Forces Day (which claimed 35000 at the event but showed at most 3000 in reality) on the same day as the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn.

    Here's the deal, you can argue all you want it was a "con-incidence" or "un-intended" but Scotland isn't well known for idiots. You won't win any votes for your failing cause with these lies. Scotland knows it was a bullshit event for bullshit reasons. And we will vote accordingly.
  • AidyAidy Posts: 2,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dare_Allan wrote: »
    It's been "set" for 5 years. It isn't set at all. But on that day, in that place, the Tory/Labour pact in Stirling held an Armed Forces Day (which claimed 35000 at the event but showed at most 3000 in reality) on the same day as the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn.

    Here's the deal, you can argue all you want it was a "con-incidence" or "un-intended" but Scotland isn't well known for idiots. You won't win any votes for your failing cause with these lies. Scotland knows it was a bullshit event for bullshit reasons. And we will vote accordingly.

    "It's been "set" for 5 years" - so before David Cameron was PM and before BT was even formed? Even before the SNP got a majority and were able to hold a referendum on independence? So is this some huge conspiracy theory that people sat down in 2009 and thought how can we disrupt the SNP's referendum in 2014 that they forecast in their crystal ball?

    What lies have I told? That the date has been set for a number of years? It has! That is undeniable.

    As to Stirling bidding for the event you will need to ask them their reasons behind that. There is an audit being undertaken by Grant Thornton as to the background to Stirling bidding for the event but I can tell you one thing that that audit wont cover - it wont cover the date of the event. It was set a number of years ago.
  • Dare_AllanDare_Allan Posts: 2,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aidy wrote: »
    "It's been "set" for 5 years" - so before David Cameron was PM and before BT was even formed? Even before the SNP got a majority and were able to hold a referendum on independence? So is this some huge conspiracy theory that people sat down in 2009 and thought how can we disrupt the SNP's referendum in 2014 that they forecast in their crystal ball?

    You miss the point.

    It is not set at all when the "event" is barely 5 years old, it can be held on any day you want, it is not needed to be on one day, especially not the day of Scotland wining its freedom. That in itself is an insult to all Scots.

    [QUOTE=Aidy;73415318As to Stirling bidding for the event you will need to ask them their reasons behind that[/QUOTE]

    We can see the reasons, its a Tory-Labour coalition one of the very few in existance. So they work for No Better Together as you would expect.
  • Cheetah666Cheetah666 Posts: 16,036
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dare_Allan wrote: »
    You do know that Stirling Council is that Frankenstein's monster of a Tory/Labour coalition ?

    Oh, well that explains it then. A fairly mean spirited thing to do, IMO.
  • Dare_AllanDare_Allan Posts: 2,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cheetah666 wrote: »
    Oh, well that explains it then. A fairly mean spirited thing to do, IMO.

    Westminster will do ANYTHING to get you to vote No. Use your dead grandparents from one of the wars, lie through their teeth about Scotland's finances, make up ridiculous stories about military threats.

    They will not stop at any measure to make you vote No.

    All lies, all nonsense, most of it deplorable and morally bankrupt. But they will do it and use it. Because they have NOTHING else. There is no reason to stay in the union, no money, no future. But they NEED to get our money. They NEED to get our resources. They will do anything they can to get them.
  • BillyJamesTBillyJamesT Posts: 2,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dare_Allan wrote: »
    It's been "set" for 5 years. It isn't set at all. But on that day, in that place, the Tory/Labour pact in Stirling held an Armed Forces Day (which claimed 35000 at the event but showed at most 3000 in reality) on the same day as the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn.

    Here's the deal, you can argue all you want it was a "con-incidence" or "un-intended" but Scotland isn't well known for idiots. You won't win any votes for your failing cause with these lies. Scotland knows it was a bullshit event for bullshit reasons. And we will vote accordingly.

    As far as I'm led to believe there was fewer than 2000 at the armed forces event.
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Aidy wrote: »
    Not one mention of Scotland in the whole 6min 31secs of that video.

    So are you saying that this shows that they are biased against Yes Scotland?

    I presume you did watch the video? You have previous for not watching video links that you post.

    an example
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/06/stirling-shenanigans/

    "Stirling Shenanigans

    1,600 people attended British Armed Forces Day in Stirling. 20,000 attended Bannockburn Live, 1 mile away. Guess which the BBC covered?"


    continues
  • Dare_AllanDare_Allan Posts: 2,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As far as I'm led to believe there was fewer than 2000 at the armed forces event.

    Police Scotland says 35000. Probably counting shoppers on the parade through town.

    Interestingly the press pictures only show soldiers no sign of the crowd at all.
  • BillyJamesTBillyJamesT Posts: 2,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I hear the Sunday Post has a Michael Heseltine interview tomorrow, where he reveals Thatcher covered up the discovery of oil in the Clyde. If this is true that's more treachery to add to the McCrone reports.
  • BillyJamesTBillyJamesT Posts: 2,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dare_Allan wrote: »
    Police Scotland says 35000. Probably counting shoppers on the parade through town.

    Interestingly the press pictures only show soldiers no sign of the crowd at all.

    I've been looking at pics online there are more people in the parades than there are spectators. Bad planning not only an attempt to undermine the Bannockburn event it also clashes with the televised World Cup.
  • thmsthms Posts: 61,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9388-unionists-retreat-to-fortress-bbc-as-the-final-battle-nears

    "Each side is mobilising its forces for the final battle and the BBC is firmly in the Better Together camp.* The BBC has for months been filleting its news and current affairs staff to ensure only those trusted to deliver the pro-Union message remain in key positions."
This discussion has been closed.