Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri May 01, 2026 12:17 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
Quote:

I wouldn't say he's not Scottish, any more than I said you weren't.
Seems to me, you are the one who is uncomfortable with it.

And the only fear is eminating from the unionist camp.
Fear of change and fear of the unknown.
They have no real defence for this unequal union.
In it's place they peddlle fear and lies.
They suppress the truth and, ably assisted by a biased media, they tell us we are a poor and deluded nation, incapable of looking after ourselves and in need of the benevolence of our neighbours.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jasbar is right about where this UK of yours is heading, and that's something you should be worried about.

We will have our independence.
If not this time, then the next or the next.
We will not just fade quietly into the night.



Theres no fear in the Unionist camp, seems to me that all the fear and anxiety is on the SNP side of things, theyre well behind in the polls and are spouting as much guff and contradictory nonsense as they can muster in the hope that more intelligent Scots might by some miracle fall for it, Im not sure even the SNP believe half the Contradictory crap they are using as propaganda.

You'll never convince the unionists that we are wrong.... I dont even think you can convince all the SNP that your right.

So...Im not in the least bit bothered about being the loser as its not going to happen.

Blaw as much as you want about it...you'll just puff yourself out. #-o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Quote:
You'll never convince the unionists that we are wrong....

You are right, but we don't have to convince you that you are wrong.
Dyed-in-the-wool Brit-Nats like you are a small minority.
We only have to convince the less sceptical and more open minded, that you are wrong.

:lol:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
My only concern with the forthcoming vote is that Scots will see maintaining the union as a slam dunk and not turn out at the polls. The nasties could win by default.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Jasbar wrote:
My only concern with the forthcoming vote is that Scots will see maintaining the union as a slam dunk and not turn out at the polls. The nasties could win by default.


I'm sure the 3 unionist parties will manage to empty all the old folks homes for the day of the vote.
At least they'll need a pulse to vote no this time :lol:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Megrahi agreed to drop appeal months before he met me reveals MacAskill

Thursday, 01 March 2012 06:48

By G.A.Ponsonby

Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill has revealed that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had given a written undertaking to drop his appeal against conviction for the Lockerbie bombing months before both men met in Greenock Prison.

The provisional undertaking was signed by the Libyan prior to his application for compassionate release but at a time when he was aware that any outstanding appeal would have prevented his return to Libya via the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA).

The PTA was the result of secret negotiations between former Labour PM Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddafi in the infamous ‘deal in the desert’. It is known that the former Labour Government were actively engaged in negotiations with the Libyans to have Megrahi freed from the Greenock prison and returned to Libya in return for deals on energy.

Mr MacAskill was making a statement to the Holyrood chamber after opposition MSPs accused him of doing a deal with the dying Libyan in order to set him free. The claims have been repeated in various Scottish media outlets and have been given high profile coverage on the BBC.

They follow claims in the book ‘Megrahi – You Are My Jury’ in which Mr Megrahi spoke of being told by a Libyan official, Abdel Ati Al-Obeidi, that Mr MacAskill had said that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if the appeal was dropped.

However in a statement yesterday, the Justice Minister categorically denied the claims, saying “presiding officer, these claims are wrong”.

Mr MacAskill opened his statement by offering his condolences to the relatives of those who perished in the downing of Pan Am 103.

He explained that a record of his communications with the Libyan delegation has been in the public domain since September 2009 and that at no time was he, or any of his officials, alone with any Libyan representative.

“These records are made by impartial civil servants to ensure that there is a proper historic record of important discussions.” he said.

“In addition to the minute kept, presiding officer, let me be quite clear. Scottish Government officials were present throughout my meeting with Mr Al-Obeidi.

“At no time did I or any other member of the Scottish Government suggest to Mr Al-Obeidi, to anyone connected to the Libyan Government or indeed to Mr al-Megrahi himself that abandoning his appeal against conviction would in any way aid or affect the application for compassionate release.”

The Justice Secretary told the chamber that compassionate release did not require the dropping of an appeal unlike the PTA. It is already known that Megrahi’s legal team advised their client that an appeal was not a barrier to compassionate release.

Mr MacAskill insisted that he had taken no part in the decision to drop the appeal and that it had been a decision taken by Mr Megrahi and his legal team.

He said: “The Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr al-Megrahi’s appeal being abandoned.”

Mr MacAskill then revealed that Mr Megrahi had already given a written undertaking to drop his appeal on March 23rd 2009, which, said Mr MacAskill, was at a time when Mr Megrahi already knew that an appeal was a barrier to release under the PTA.

The Minister also quashed claims that the Scottish Government was trying to delay the publication of the SCCRC report that contained the six reasons that cast doubt on Mr Megrahi’s conviction.

“Presiding Officer” said Mr MacAskill “Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation introduced by this Scottish Government, will enable the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information in cases they have investigated where a subsequent appeal has been abandoned.”

Mr MacAskill insisted that the legislation would leave the SCCRC as the decision maker on whether they published the report. He said that the new information now in the public domain may well lead the commission to consider publication.

However he reminded the chamber that data protection legislation, which was reserved to Westminster, was a key barrier to disclosure and revealed that he had already written on three occasions to UK Justice Minister Ken Clark urging a review of the situation and had written a fourth letter that same day urging for an exception to be made to allow publication in what he described as “this unique case”.

“Let no-one be in any doubt” said a determined looking Mr MacAskill “We want the statement of reasons to be published …”

Mr MacAskill then made an unexpected announcement when he confirmed that a route allowing the appeal to be revived existed.

“It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC, the commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference.”

He added: “That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with”.


http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/sc ... -macaskill

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Alex Salmond nails his colours to a sinking mast

WHEN Rupert Murdoch’s only friend in politics, aka the First Minister of Scotland, was challenged about their special relationship, all he managed to do was succeed in nailing his colours even more firmly to the Aussie-turned-Yank’s mast.

By Alan Cochrane, Scottish Editor
9:27AM GMT 02 Mar 2012


It is possible to state, without much fear of argument, that Alex Salmond is proving to be a stauncher mate of the News Corp boss than any of that great list of political leaders who have courted Mr Murdoch in past years. After all, the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and their minions have dropped old Rupe like hot bricks, now that his newspapers are firmly in the brown stuff.

Wee Eck has proved himself made of sterner stuff. Although it’s true that he was never as close to Mr Murdoch as those others were, he always strove to be – even to the extent of miscalling him ‘ Sir Rupert’ in one letter – and now that the Blairs, Browns and Camerons have dropped Mr Murdoch, Mr Salmond appears determined to take their place in the magnate’s affections.

As such he’s making a huge mistake. Not that I object to Eck making mistakes; in fact I love it. But the decent members of his party, as well as his supporters in the country, will not take kindly to this association.

Surely even someone as bombastic as Mr Salmond is aware that it is one thing to make jokes about how other politicians swallowed champagne and oysters in Mr Murdoch’s company, whilst only Tunnock’s caramel wafers were offered when the two met at Bute House on Wednesday, entirely another for him to be so obviously conceited about this alliance.

His view seems to be: “Murdoch backs winners and he’s backing me. Full stop.”

And the crucial difference between what others did and what he’s doing, is that their grovelling occurred in the past tense; his is in the present and on-going.

There was a long passage of arms on the Murdoch question between the First Minister and Johann Lamont, the Labour leader, in which, in spite of the caterwauling from the Nat backbenches, she proved that she’s more than a match for him and that she has a good line in humorous sarcasm that he can’t handle.

The immediate question must now concern whether Mr Salmond continues to flaunt the Rupert connection or lets things die down a bit in that direction. If I know my First Minister he’s not one to abandon a pal, at least not one with several hundred thousand readers – no matter how unhappy his foot soldiers become.

Meanwhile, those whom some consider to have been the “disappeared ones’ in Scottish Labour’s fight against the Nats will seek to re-assert themselves at the party’s annual conference in Dundee.

In some respects the speech from Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary and former Scottish Secretary, will echo the tone of David Cameron’s effort in Edinburgh in February.

Risking precisely the same sort of sneers from Mr Salmond that greeted the Prime Minister’s speech which touched on some of these subjects, Mr Alexander will say that Scotland’s voice in the world was greater thanks to being part of the United Kingdom.

He will insist that inter-dependence, rather than independence was the order of the day, adding that to advance international co-operation, Britain was a permanent member of the Security Council; something Scotland would not be.

To further international security, Britain has a permanent seat on the council of NATO; Scotland would not.

To engage emerging economies, Britain was a permanent member of the G20 group; Scotland would not be. To tackle disease and poverty, Britain has a permanent seat on the board of the World Bank; Scotland would not.

To regulate world financial markets, said Mr Alexander, Britain has a permanent seat on the executive board of the IMF; Scotland would not.

Meanwhile, in a piece of staggering chutzpah that I would hope the Geordies in her Gateshead audience would have seen through, Fiona Hyslop, who rejoices in the title of the SNP’s external affairs minister, said that the North East of England would benefit from an independent Scotland.

Eh? Perhaps she could explain how her party’s ‘beggar my neighbour’ scheme of imposing corporation tax at half the level that obtains in the rest of the UK could possibly benefit those who live just over the border.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -mast.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Just the usual bollux from the Torygraph, Dusty.
I think they have about half a dozen Scots readers.

With all the other mainstream media hostile, you can hardly be surprised if AS is talking to Murdoch. Be sure he will be supping with a long spoon.
I wonder how much dirt he has squirelled away about his former friends?
Some of them must be bricking it.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
Dusty, the key is the phrase "strove to be"

This about personal ambition over substance.

There is no case being put. I doubt there will be.

I reckon I could up a better case for faux-independence than those on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Feel free.
Should be easy enough for you, since faux is the french word for false. (Another negative connotation)
As yet, you haven't made a case for anything. Just like the rest of the Unionists.

BTW Dusty, Jasbar probably is one of the half a dozen. :wink:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/labours-new-lie/

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 pm
Posts: 2665
gusmac wrote:
Feel free.
Should be easy enough for you, since faux is the french word for false. (Another negative connotation)
As yet, you haven't made a case for anything. Just like the rest of the Unionists.

BTW Dusty, Jasbar probably is one of the half a dozen. :wink:


Are you being deliberately obtuse? I've made a positive case for denying salmond control of our little pond. I've pointed out that independence is a sham. It would mean taking power from Westminster and investing it in Brussels. We'd have to be insane to place the seat of power democratically thamn Alpha centauri.

There are NO benefits accruing from faux-independence. None whatsoever.

It would not put brewad on our tables, reduce our taxes, nor make us more prosperous.

Now it's you and your buddies who want to persuade us why we should step into the mire. So any case needs to be put by you.

But all we've had are your tears of pity that you're being picked on. That's not a mature position.

if you can't articualte a sound case cfor faux-independence can I suggest you trot of to your masters and ask them what you should be saying.

Because for now, it looks like you've turned up for the duel, and left your pistol at home.

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Jasbar wrote:
gusmac wrote:
Feel free.
Should be easy enough for you, since faux is the french word for false. (Another negative connotation)
As yet, you haven't made a case for anything. Just like the rest of the Unionists.

BTW Dusty, Jasbar probably is one of the half a dozen. :wink:


Are you being deliberately obtuse? I've made a positive case for denying salmond control of our little pond. I've pointed out that independence is a sham. It would mean taking power from Westminster and investing it in Brussels. We'd have to be insane to place the seat of power democratically thamn Alpha centauri.

There are NO benefits accruing from faux-independence. None whatsoever.

It would not put brewad on our tables, reduce our taxes, nor make us more prosperous.

Now it's you and your buddies who want to persuade us why we should step into the mire. So any case needs to be put by you.

But all we've had are your tears of pity that you're being picked on. That's not a mature position.

if you can't articualte a sound case cfor faux-independence can I suggest you trot of to your masters and ask them what you should be saying.

Because for now, it looks like you've turned up for the duel, and left your pistol at home.

:roll:


Complete and utter bollox. [-X

You have presented nothing positive. It's all been negative.
You have put no positive case for the union, only a negative case against Independence.

Scorn, personal dislike of Salmond and the SNP, innuendos, your opinions passed off as fact, and a good measure of just the sort of anti scottish clap trap that's found every day in the tory media.

Scotland still wants to hear what awaits us should we reject independence.
Now be positive if you can.
You won't find the answers in the Torygraph. They don't have them either. :wink:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:45 am
Posts: 9966
Location: Braintree, Essex.
Anyone who sleeps and dances with the devil (Murdoch styleeeee) deserves to be flogged in public.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Nidge2 wrote:
Anyone who sleeps and dances with the devil (Murdoch styleeeee) deserves to be flogged in public.


Unless of course they are a unionist hypocrite?

Image
Image

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Yeah, we'll start with those two gusmac.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 618 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group