We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 215 comments are related to the topic:
Breaking news: The Queen bumps into Alex Salmond
Breaking news: The Queen bumps into Alex Salmond
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 215
|
By:
....and before you ask 'why' Emden.....don't bother - you really are
 |
|
By:
why
|
|
By:
Why?....probably a deprived upbringing and lack of education.
|
|
By:
why
|
|
By:
Dewey: do you and Camilla look alike ?
 |
|
By:
a "Count"?
I don't get it. |
|
By:
Not remotely.....Emden probably bears some resemlance to a 'Count'.
|
|
By:
'you still tired and emotional' Dews?
|
|
By:
akabula, you're a fake. Same as last time a few months back, when you're asked direct questions you always find a way NOT to answer.
Lets think over what Labour governments have done for us in recent times. Took us into wars, sold all our gold at knockdown prices and set the scene for an economic collapse. Yes good old Labour we can trust them. Can't we? You're also politically naive in the extreme if you think Blair and co. were "Labour". It's clear that you know less than SFA about politics. It's also clear that a) you're a Tory but scared to admit it on the forum, or b) you're a Labour voter who's scared to admit it to his blue nose pals. Either way you've proved that you're glaikit politically. FWIW, The Tories would have went into Iraq as well. The economic crash was happening world wide, no one in this land could have stopped it, and you know it. No, on second thoughts, maybe you don't. |
|
By:
What a comedian you are Alias. Not Labour.
 How many Labour supporters voted them in? Did you vote for them? How many times were they voted in? How many times did you vote for them? You couldn't make this up. Not Labour So who voted them in for three terms? |
|
By:
BTW if I'm politically naïve what does it say about you and all your comrades who voted them in three times.
This is comedy gold. |
|
By:
akabula, please at least TRY to pay attention. re-read my post below, from 18th Aug.
Alias 18 Aug 14 09:14 Joined: 28 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 4,742 | Blogger: Alias's blog I thought it through quite a while ago. I was a Labour party member for many years until the 90s. I've never been impressed with Johann Lamont, but I'd rather have her as PM at Holyrood running Scotland than any Tory doing it from Westminster. How about you? Actually the failure in the '92 election was the last straw for me. NOT ONCE DID I VOTE FOR THE BLAIR MOB, NOT ONCE DID I EVEN CONSIDER IT. Comedy Gold? It sure is, only the laugh is on you. |
|
By:
akabula
akabula 20 Aug 14 21:01 Joined: 13 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 5,333 | Blogger: akabula's blog @ Alias Who the **** do you think you are to demand someone tell you what their political leanings are on a forum. WTF business is that of yours. As regards your second point I have answered that already but here goes again. I want the Union to remain so no matter who you quote I don't want to be governed by Holyrood You've just admitted it. Official, akabula IS a Tory. Worse, he's sh1t scared to admit it. Still, we know who to blame if it's a No majority, when the NHS is privatised and there are food banks on every street corner. Oh, and if you're going to try and debate, forget the juvenile Braveheart keech, and the constant "Bitter Torygether" in black does you no favours either. Strive to be original. Just a thought: are you actually old enough to have a vote? Serious question. |
|
By:
Alias, off subject, but could you give me your thoughts on the Championship thread please. (for betting purposes)
|
|
By:
@Alias Why do you find it impossible to debate without abusing people? This appears to be a common trait amongst those in favour of independence.
You say that because I want the Union to remain I must be a Tory (your post at 10.47). I'm assuming that that logic applies to everyone who votes NO. With just over 400,000 Tory voters in Scotland how do you explain the numbers, far in excess of 400k, who are opposed to independence? Again you fail to answer my question. You claim that Blair wasn't Labour or real Labour as you stated and that any fool would know that. Why then did he get voted in for 2 further periods in office and who voted him in? |
|
By:
akabula, check your posts of 00:13 and 00:33 and tell me about abuse. Oh, and you were wrong by miles.
|
|
By:
I'm assuming that that logic applies to everyone who votes NO. With just over 400,000 Tory voters in Scotland how do you explain the numbers, far in excess of 400k, who are opposed to independence?
Again you fail to answer my question. You claim that Blair wasn't Labour or real Labour as you stated and that any fool would know that. Why then did he get voted in for 2 further periods in office and who voted him in? a) No it doesn't, you assume wrong AGAIN. b)I fail to answer? ROFL - what about you? c) ANY socialist knows Blair wasn't. Labour supporters voted without thinking, just as they will if they vote No in the referendum. Since Iraq, you'd hope plenty had learned. You'd struggle to count the posts I've made making clear my thoughts about Blair. Asking you if you're Tory is like asking a member of the Orange Lodge to confirm his religious preference. It's so fuqin obvious. |
|
By:
) ANY socialist knows Blair wasn't. Labour supporters voted without thinking, just as they will if they vote No in the referendum. Since Iraq, you'd hope plenty had learned.
Got to be the post of the century. Blair voted into office for a second and third term because you and all your labour comrades weren't thinking. |
|
By:
Dear me akabula. Once more, please read and understand my post of 10:38 yesterday.
"I was a Labour party member for many years until the 90s." Get it now? Past tense. An apology will be accepted. ................................................................................................................ @Alias Why do you find it impossible to debate without abusing people? This appears to be a common trait amongst those in favour of independence By the evidence of your own posts akabula, the above line would appear to be quite erroneous. Some advice: If you're in a hole, stop digging. |
|
By:
@Alias
Are you really standing by that comment that Blair got voted in for a further two terms because 10m people weren't thinking? And amongst them will be people voting YES in the independence vote. Are you sure they are thinking? |
|
By:
Here's what I said yesterday at 10.38.
Actually the failure in the '92 election was the last straw for me. NOT ONCE DID I VOTE FOR THE BLAIR MOB, NOT ONCE DID I EVEN CONSIDER IT. Later you accused me of voting Labour. You said at 23:54 Blair voted into office for a second and third term because you and all your labour comrades weren't thinking Recognise that you were wrong. I've given you enough chances, I've been open about my political allegiance past and present, but STILL you hide yours. WHY? Or have you given yourself away yet again: because you and all your labour comrades weren't thinking Spit it out akabula. Confession is good for the soul. |
|
By:
Are You sticking by your statement that 10m of the electorate voted for Blair because they weren't thinking ?
|
|
By:
You are twisting my words, as you usually do. Where did I mention 10m? Don't you realise that many many people must vote (esp at general elections) strictly according to party loyalty? I bet you do! How many Tories or Labour do you think change their vote to the other? Not many in the grand scheme, and certainly not in Scotland. Floating voters are NOT in any kind of majority. If you think otherwise you're even more naive than I thought.
No more answers from me until YOU front up about your party affiliations and stop hiding behind your flag. What are you afraid of akabula? YOUR TURN TO PROVIDE ANSWERS. ARE YOU GOING TO APOLOGISE? |
|
By:
akabula
akabula 19 Aug 14 19:22 Joined: 13 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 5,396 | Blogger: akabula's blog Well Alias? Away checking whether your union flag is upside down akabula? After tonight it maybe should be.  |
|
By:
Did she really? I mean ' REALLY'......just 'bump' into Alex Salmond? I would need a fair bit of convincing about anything to with Alex Salmond I'm afraid.
|
|
By:
@Alias
After tonight? Why? They were both terrible when it came to direct answers. I would agree that Salmond beat him hands down but that was only because Darling was so poor. Someone like Stephen Fry would have hammered both as neither had a night to be proud of. When the dust settles people will begin to realise that Salmond never said much of any substance. His point on the UK not being able to stop him using the Pound was kids stuff. Everyone knew that but he acted as if he'd unearthed some startling revelation. |
|
By:
Darling might have lost but Salmond treated the electorate with contempt with his antics.
|
|
By:
They were both terrible when it came to direct answers.
Welcome to politics.but that was only because Darling was so poor. Poor because he has nothing positive or constructive to work with. More and more he looks like a man who wishes he was somewhere else. Salmond treated the electorate with contempt with his antics. Really? I must have missed that bit. Is that gospel from the Daily Mail? |
|
By:
generally agree, darling poor salmond better, too much talking over each other.
salmond clearly was better prepared to give more satisfactory answers but it's a bit disheartening to see that there wasn't that cohesion in the first place, after all he's the man with the plan. i think the no vote will still get it, 55 / 45. |
|
By:
Were you impressed by Salmond? Look how he reacted to Darling saying he couldn't be stopped from using the Pound.
Who has ever disputed that? That's when he treated the voters with contempt. Was a cheap shot from a cheap guy. Talking of cheap shots from a cheap guy, I don't think my newsagent gets any Daily Mails. I've never seen any on his counter. Maybe he keeps them out of sight. |
|
By:
Memories of Sturgeon v Lamont made me watch the Man City Liverpool game instead.
|
|
By:
Not 'impressed' akabula, but he did come across more credible than usual. the "plan B" question is always going to be awkward as currency is one of the most important questions, maybe even the one that decides a yes or no vote. As he says, bringing a 2nd best option to the table would likely have Scotland leaving with 2nd best.
I think he missed a crucial point (unless I misunderstand that the proceeds of oil would go to a Scottish government post independence)... Darling was hammering home the point regarding fluctutations of oil price not being a good bedrock to plan budgets. Though Salmond failed to pick up on the point of Scotland only receiving a fraction of the amount just now. Darling was arguing about the fractions while Salmond could have simply stated that Scotland would have the entire slice. |
|
By:
'Unconventional' oil will become the new 'conventional' as easily obtainable oil runs out. If oil prices fell substantially then recovering the current 'unconventional' oil would not be possible from an economic point of view.
In other words, the price will fluctuate but cannot fall long term. |
|
By:
We still have to hear about the Clyde basin oil, currently unreachable because of Trident, also the Clare field West of Shetland.
|
|
By:
@Alias Why do you find it impossible to debate without abusing people? This appears to be a common trait amongst those in favour of independence.
And then....Was a cheap shot from a cheap guy. OH dear akabula! And if you really believe the first sentence, you must live a sheltered life. Take a look at some of the newspaper comments form yes and no voters for starter. |
|
By:
*from
|
|
By:
akabula
13 Aug 14 23:04 Joined: 13 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 5,373 | Blogger: akabula's blog It's been good to see the various people, politicians and others, debate independence. One thing has been evident though from those that would vote yes and it's a distinct lack of factual detail. It's all based on a Braveheart theme. Maybe you could offer that gem to honest Ally D, it might calm his nerves. Care to expand though akabula? What exactly is a "Braveheart theme"? Even now Salmond and the rest of his yes team refuse to accept any argument on the use of the pound despite repeated statements that the rest of the UK will refuse to operate a monetary union. Oh aye, Prime Minister in waiting Miliband says he'll stick it in his manifesto, just to keep Cameron happy. WHEN was the last time ANY party manifesto was adhered to, to the letter? Remember the aftermath of the last general election? Another aspect of the yes voters is that they insist in attacking and insulting anyone who opposes them. See Alias for proof of that. Then sayeth akabula: Was a cheap shot from a cheap guy. Oh aye, it's alright for you to say! My opposition is based purely on the economics of the matter. Utterly, consummately risible. WTF do you know about economics? Oh aye, "It's all based on a Braveheart theme". IS THAT IT? I feel that the costs of setting up an independent country has been played down You FEEL? Is that the economics you speak of? and that, as in business, bigger is better. Ask yourself why companies merge. Better tell that to Switzerland then. Oh, and companies merge to create bigger companies, often creating monopolies or cartels, thus ripping us all off. As regards a republic? Hopefully never. The Queen had been a fantastic Ambassador for us for as long as she has reigned. Monarchy - an anachronism which has happily been removed in much of the world. Bring on the REPUBLIC. |
|
By:
Complaining of 'lack of factual detail' then claiming 'bigger is better' is not too clever.....
Here is a list of countries ranked by GDP per capita, and their population, according to the IMF- 1) Qatar 2.1m 2)Luxembourg 549,000 3) Singapore 5.4m 4) Norway 5.1m 5) Brunei 415,000 6) USA 318m - Hong Kong 7.2m 7) Switzerland 8m 8) San Marino 32,000 9) Canada 35m 10) Australia 23.5m 11) Austria 8.5m 12) Netherlands 16.8m 13) Sweden 9.6m 14) Iceland 325,000 15) Germany 80m 16) Taiwan 23m 17) Kuwait 4m 18) Ireland 4.6m 19) Denmark 5.6m 20) Belguim 11.2m 21) UK 64m The World Bank and CIA (yes, the CIA) also have similar lists. The UK are even lower in those. The differing organisations include regions like Hong Kong, Bermuda, even Jersey as 'nations'. The IMF are most stringent in this regard so I'll stick with them even though I could twist my arguement by using lists which rank the UK lower. Anyway, on to some observations.... 14 of the top 21 (inc. Hong Kong) have populations of less than 10 million. 8 of the top 9 (inc. Hong Kong) have populations of under 8 million. I think 7 nations (inc. Hong Kong) have gained independence from the UK and now have higher GDP per capita. Qatar and Kuwait were at one time British protectorates so it is really 7 and two halves. At least 9 countries with a better GDP per capita than the UK could be defined as small European countries. People fear we will end up like Ireland or Iceland but even with their problems they have better GDP figures than us. Oh and Iceland managed to restructure their banks, put some bankers in jail and let greedy foreign investors take the hit, despite poster boy Darling and his boss threatening them with anti-terrorism legislation and the removal of NATO protection of their airspace. We boast about how we could save our banks. Darling claims being in the UK minimises risk, but we are now lab rats in a QE project in which our oil wealth is basically collateral while hundreds of billions are printed and handed to the same ****s that caused the mess in order to prop them up. Only history will tell if being 'bigger' was an advantage in this regard. If printing a few hundred billion has no consequences at all then why doesn't everybody do that all the time? Norway on the other hand have roughly the same in their oil fund as we are printing and handing to the banks. Better together? Better like people were lied to in the 1970s about oil reserves? To get back to the point - it is obvious from the list that the following things are important - 1) Being European 2) Having a small population 3) Having a large amount of natural resources. Scotland qualifies on all three counts. If foreign interventions, bullying countries, or a little more reflected glory at the Olympics are your thing then carry on. I'm voting with my heart and my head and for the record Braveheart is a fking awful film. |
|
By:
Light fuse and stand back.
Alias ready to explode |
|
By:
nice post john92, if salmond uses that angle i think he'd have done a better job of persuading the undecideds.
|