saintbletch

Certainly Bear. Especially the bit about other men being jealous, I can see the little green monster behind your reply. I can't help it. All men want to be me, and all women want to be with me. I think it's the tweed.

What's short and what's tall, pap? I'm a wig wearer and proud of it. I'd be pretty much bald on top without it. It wasn't vanity that made me wear it, it was the thought of losing all the Carson from Downtown(sic) Abbey lookalike work that I get. Without it I look like the person that Turkish wants to come across as on here: 6'1" (nearer 6'2" with some of my wigs), 15 stone, 46" chest, 36" waist and with sort of good looks that makes every male that meets me jealous* I watch with amusement as the people I meet for the first time struggle to reconcile the erudite and mellifluous words and tones that leave my mouth, with the appearance of an extra from Green Street** It's the sort of visual and aural contradiction that would see Turkish making a post on here that reads: So, don't **** with me. M'Lords. *Statistics (and facts) subject to change ** If that extra wore M&S jeans, a clean and nicely pressed shirt and a tweed jacket

It was a good performance. Since Blair's year-on-year Oscar nominations during his time in office, I can't find it in myself to credit any politician with the humility to show their true self. Cameron came close yesterday for me. But the thought that he would let slip the term "effing" due to passion, is a stretch too far. He delivered it well, but to my mind a script writer and spin doctor put those words in his mouth; knowing that it would become known as that "effing Tories" speech, knowing that it would be watched and re-watched, and shared on social media, knowing that it would make a platform for his words to travel farther and resonate deeper than they otherwise would have done. Clever. I should say that it would be churlish to suggest that Cameron doesn't believe what he says, I'm sure he does.

I would agree that it isn't enough. But it's the combination of factors that I can understand. Perhaps simplistically: (Identity + Sense of disenfranchisement + Sense of oil revenue injustice + historic enmity) > Historic ties The Identity element of that combination of things simply goes to answer "Why Scotland? Why not Tooting?". That's very true, and I imagine that existing devolved decision making, plus the additional "Devo max" powers being discussed, will militate against independence for many. Again, very true. A post-independent Scotland political map of the Untied Kingdom(sic) would likely be skewed blue - or at least as you say to the right. This should be a worry for everyone - even those of a blue hue. This would re-balance itself in time I'm sure, but potentially not for a worryingly long period of time. Thanks for sharing your perspective - really enlightening.

All true badgerx16 - as I said earlier what next "Freedom for Tooting". Certainly with other nations of the Union there is a valid question about independence to be asked. Northern Ireland is a different proposition for other reasons, but Wales? Yes, I could imagine that the same set of tensions relating to identity and representation exist there too. The element I missed out as an influencer is of course national wealth. I guess the difference between the Scottish and the Welsh is that nobody can cobble together an argument for a self-funding nation based on exports of Welsh rarebit. Salmond has managed to convince many that Scottish oil will fund them. This is also set against a backdrop of many Scots asking the question (likely prodded by the SNP) as to how, as an oil producing nation they are having their spending capacity cut. It's simplistic, but again I can see how that can be added into the melting pot of identity and representation to make many conclude they have been shafted.

I agree. What you should do pap is take the interesting part out of the article and post it on here. Then you should link to the full article for further reading if people want to get more detail.

A good question, and you're right that the values of those people are likely to be similar. Or at least they're not likely to be wildly different simply because they are one side of an arbitrary line and not the other. However, I'm suggesting that this palpably "real" difference between the people of England and Scotland lies less in their values and more in their sense of identity. Does the Carlisle resident cheer if he sees the result "Scotland 1 - 0 England"? Does she routinely cite with pride the inventors of tarmac, the TV, the telephone or penicillin? Or does the sound of Flower of Scotland provide a shiver every time they hear it? So if that sense of identity is as "real" as I think it is, such that the arbitrary wiggly line means something to them, then I'm not surprised that residents of Scotland go on to look at the results of Westminster elections - not as the UK as a whole, but instead by focussing on all the non-blue areas of "their" country. They must then start to feel slightly disenfranchised. Not disenfranchised from the right to vote, but perhaps from the right to expect representation for "their" country's views. The stats from The Wee Blue Book surprised and staggered me. I'm assuming they're true, but in 38 of the last 68 years the Scots have been governed by a party "they" didn't vote for. I appreciate that if one doesn't see Scotland as a separate voting constituent of the UK - because it isn't, then this stat is meaningless. Afterall it was a UK vote and under those rules we don't separate out and give any special credence to the opinions of the individual countries of the Union. But surely even left-of-centre, pro-unionists must also start to question their influence? I don't know that, I'm asking the question. Perhaps you know some and can comment? If they do and have, then I can well see why they might desert the Labour Party for the SNP to get the influence they feel they need - perhaps planning to come back to Labour in an independent Scotland one day. *I'm aware that I'm generalising here to illustrate my points, and as we know it's always wrong to generalise! Yes that was clumsy. I guess what I meant was that they were elected to govern in a representatively democratic process. I accept that people may have voted for the SNP for reasons other than independence. The fact that they now sit on the cusp of getting exactly what they don't want, but played a role in facilitating, surely shows that representative democracy ain't infallible. Let's hope thy will be done.

It's a good question. Where do we draw the line? Freedom for Tooting? It's good to hear your views as an "interloper", and I'm sure the divisions you mention between the various cities and regions of Scotland are real, but they're surely not as "real" as those between Scotland the separate country and the rest of the world. Perhaps as a local you'll tell me they are? Given the historic claims to separate nationhood, fierce and justifiable national pride, a long-held chip on the shoulder at being annexed and the theft of several goalposts, it's not surprising that there is a long-held perception of the Scots and the English as being "different" - as seen from both sides of the border. Given those perceptions and circumstances, do we really expect those left leaning Scots to look at the otherwise arbitrary grouping of Scottish Westminster seats in the north of the United Kingdom and simply mumble about their tough luck when the south turns Blue? I think I'd become fed up that brand of representative democracy after a while. So instead of seeing themselves as part of the UK as a whole, and putting up with governments that more often than not don't reflect their views, I'm not surprised that many have chosen to focus on points north of that wiggly line from coast to coast, and have started hatching plans. A majority of the Scottish electorate presumably chose to put the SNP into power and as the SNP's platform was built on devolution, I think they can reasonably argue that a "Yes" vote would be a perfect "reason to start dissecting the country into bits that happen to vote the same way". I guess representative democracy cuts both ways? Yeah, I'll re-read it alpine_saint, because that's not what I took away from the piece. I think the point was that rather than wanting some special consideration, they would prefer that they no longer had any control over the complexion of the Westminster government at all. Instead, as is presumably obvious, they want independence. *"They" being the authors of The Wee Blue Book.

PMQs cancelled tomorrow so all three party leaders can travel to Scotland to campaign for Better Together.

Agreed BTT. This section from The Wee Blue Book that pap linked to earlier put things into stark relief for me. Remove your political leanings if possible, read the following, and ask yourself how you'd vote in the referendum.

Nutella. Did he?

She's not a 'bird', Bear. She's Belladonna Bletch, and I'd ask you to be a bit more respectful in future. The Carson and the grammar things she gets from me. #thatsmygirl The "breading" is from her mother's side of the family. Her great, great grandfather was arrested for quote, "Using a baked implement to obtain unsuitable nutrients from the chamber pot of a member of the Royal family" back in the 1800s. But we don't like to talk about that. All I know is that I'm never going to get on "Who do you think you are?" now. Especially if you add in the incident involving Great Uncle Barnabas Bletch.

Labour will, and probably should take the majority of the blame, I agree. But not for the reasons you suggest. In my view, it's Labour's inability to guarantee a non-Tory government in Westminster that will have moved Labour voters to a left-of-Tory party in the Referendum I mean, if you're a Labour voter in Scotland it's a sort of win-win. Or probably more accurately a "two bites at the cherry" scenario. Vote Yes in the referendum. If you win, you get a left-of-Tory government and a guarantee that you never get another Tory government. You may even go on to vote Labour in future independant Scotland elections. If the vote goes against you, then you get the chance to vote for Labour in the upcoming Westminster elections. You may not get what you want, but you do get two attempts. I like those odds. Either way you're right. Labour will take most of the blame. But history will show Cameron responsible.

I can't believe that I'm expending energy trying to convince you of a conspiracy where you see none. Actually I just read that Salmond chose the date for the Referendum - which makes sense as it's close to The Edinburgh Festival and The Commonwealth Games. I thought I remembered it being a Westminster decision. [pap's voice enters my mind] Ah, but it must have been a Westminster decision to allow it to be a Salmon decision... So I too am edging toward seeing cock-up and not conspiracy, and yet, whilst I'm no lover of the political classes, do they really make such a catalogue of stupid judgements on such significant matters? I guess the answer is "Yes".

The Aryan clone thing? Yeah that's a given, but Boris behind the engineered Yes vote? Not so sure pap. There's your cui bono papster! Well, I guess my tongue is in my cheek here, but a semi-serious question. Could Cameron's play have been to remove the Labour vote in Scotland? Or at least, was it seen as some sort of win-win? Given the ground surrendered over Devo-Max it suggests not, but the impact on the Labour party of a Yes vote would surely benefit the other party/ies. Then again, without PR what would the impact be of those lost MPs? Anyone seen any projections?

Where've you been you great ursine lump? Toke said you'd been following young girls around an island somewhere, but then again Toke doesn't know his wife from his labradors. I did see that you went to Reading Festival. FYI my daughter was there and if I found out that you went within 250 yards of her....well I guess I'll be becoming your Father-in-law! So then I'd be Toke's biological Dad and your Dad in law. A man really could want for two better sons. I mean that. I must admit that it still feels a bit odd to be on the main board (note it's not bored now). It's full of lovely people who just want to get along with each other. BTW did you fancy joining the TMS Anti-Bullying Alliance - codename Operation Teabag? BTW2 we all found out the meaning of Breading in TMS while you were away. Batman came in and did a lunch and learn session for the muppets. It's was very informative, but it's not for me. Apparently my hair-trigger, gag-reflex is too finely tuned. I can't do this sort of thing to order hutch, I was pushed into a corner and as Swayze said - nobody puts Bletch in a corner. Now gents if you will, back on topic please. Post September One judgements please.

11 years, really? That just shows the depth of my jealousy, The9. League of Wales wasn't it? (it was the Gay Boot's Newport reference that reminded me). Did I ever tell you that I played for the Transfrig Gosport adult team at the age of 15 (I'm a big unit)? Or that I once scored a John Barnes-esque wonder goal against a Brazilian team in Florida? Oh and I also shuffled round Fleming Park in Eastleigh for 12 or so years. I'm off to update your details on my ammunition spreadsheet with something more contemporary! Boring? Ouch. I guess that's fair. See apology below. BTW I still can't reconcile this post with your first post though. Is Travis Bickle boring? I do apologise for taking the thread off-course in what I felt was the spirit of public service. I hope my other earlier contributions show that I was attempting to contribute properly. I'll stop now.

Yes it is, CB Fry and can I be the first one to say that I know how difficult those words were for you to write. When I read them back, even now having read them a number of times, they still bring a lump to my throat. But, it's your use of the "right?" at the end that just about breaks my heart. It's those five, lonely little letters followed by the mark of self-interrogation that map the start of the journey through realisation, acceptance and on the road to recovery. Remember that the first step to a cure is acknowledging that you've got the problem. Well done mate. BTW did anyone see just how angry CB Fry's post was before he edited it? The TMS Anti-Bullying Alliance is offering a reward for anyone that saw it before he had second thoughts.

Help me out Bechenham Saint, I'm not sure I follow your point. I'm not being evasive here. I'm happy to discuss it with you, but I can't quite make the connection. Could you be a bit more explicit? Are you suggesting that I come across as angry in the second post you quoted? I was aiming for pretentious and condescending (as usual).

I just thought it was a cute observation. Perhaps it's just me then? But either way, you've missed the point The9. It doesn't have to be true, it's just part of the formula. I mean, does anyone know if alpine_saint really craves Mars Bars? You simply pick a perceived weakness, and using equal measures of free-time, repetition, conviction, repetition, vitriol and repetition you make it true. For example, instead of this rambling reply I could have just replied with: I guess I filed away the fact that you play football having read one of your posts in the past, and I guess a little jealousy made me keep it in mind whenever I see your name. I no longer play you see, which I can tell you robbed veteran football of a pretty classy journeyman. Anyway, for the record I neither want you to **** off, nor stop mentioning it. I'm simply demonstrating the formula. I guess you're proud (that's the weakness) of your footballing achievements and rightfully so, so that's a good place to start. Then, over the next several days I keep baiting the hook by taunting you with it, and attempt to get you to bite by replying to me. Ideally I'd get you to deny that you ever made such a claim, then I've got you. I then simply keep throwing it in your face in lieu of rational argument during any debates I might have with you. Imagine if a number of posters met every post of yours with that sort of response. I'm sure you're more than capable of handling that, but it would make debating difficult for you. It's not clever, but it is effective in turning this forum into the polarised and fractured clique it has become - where "new" posters would need to have pretty thick skin to contribute...and you can see why. (see what I did there?) Again, for the record I really do think that anger is the catalyst for CB Fry's use of the formula. What in the real world he is angry about, I don't know. I'd acknowledge the obvious - that this is just an opinion as I'm not an expert in such matters.

I must say I expected more. Three or four posts of me yanking your strings, and you're dancing to the puppetmaster's tune... ...justifying yourself, forced to drop the insults, pleading to be liked, but still screaming at the top of your voice that you're not angry. Shh, shh. It's OK. That's right. Deep breaths. Bless. LOL. You do know that this is just an Internet forum, don't you? How do you like them cutes, CB Fry? Pass me another forum bully. This one's broken. Next! -=-=-=-=- Well that's what I might have said if I were trying to ape someone with a perma-angry, inferiority-driven, THESE ARE NOT MY OPINIONS THEY ARE FACTS complex. But that's not me, and as I'm seeking professional help to get rid of my very own version of that complex, I'll simply concede the points you make, state that I can see how you've reached your opinion, thank you for conveying your points with neither pejorative nor anger, and bid you good day. x This post was brought to you by the TMS Anti-Bullying Alliance (Actively seeking members! *Free* "Tokyo gratification" for the first 10 members!). Toke's a ****.

Good to see your smiling face back about the place Gay Boot. Questions were: 1) Are you angry? 2) Are you right?

Hmm. It looks like we're back to the "I'm not really angry" defence. Look, this is just an Internet forum CB Fry. I'm not a "real" threat to you, and you needn't be scared of debating the issues with me. I might win the argument, but I can't hurt you in the real world. I'd have thought you'd be pretty good at debating on an Internet forum if you could only rid yourself of all that anger. Where do you think your anger stems from, and why did my seemingly innocuous post make you so angry? Was it the length? I get that a lot. But the job done bit? No, not yet. We both know you need to win this discussion, and until you can control that anger thing, deep down you'll know I'm right. If it helps, I will happily concede that you've wound me up, was looking for empathy, and I was/am a fire-sale lunatic. But on the anger thing. No. Sorry.

Ah, OK. You mean you don't even realise how your posts come across?

Thanks for taking the time to read it CB Fry, I'm just sorry that it made you so angry. That was never my intention.