If they vote to leave would it really affect us? My boss is a jock living down here and says it should be a no & doesn't know any scotchs who will vote yes.

P.S. Alex Salmond is a smarmy fucker

That makes as much sense as allowing swimming pools to have a pissing section.

 

What would be the problem if they did? There is no evidence that piss in a swimming pool is harmful to public health and neither is the evidence of second hand smoke being dangerous very clear-cut either. So by all means if there was a demand for piss pools at public baths let's see them. People could freely decide if they wanted to use them or not. I would think that if they were allowed to most pubs would have smoking and non smoking rooms. The public would be granted the - shock horror - choice. That's a good thing.

How were smokers imposing their habit on you, even when you could do it in pubs? Was it the law that you had to stand near them?

So bar staff have to heighten their chances of lung cancer just to serve you?

 

Or would you just employ smokers?

People never know what they want, but there is a massive disconnect between the public and the parties at the moment, which is why you get UKIP, SNP and a few years back the BNP stepping into the vacum. I'd suggest it happened around the end of New Labour's first term. They were too hesitant and didn't get through as many policies as they could have with their majority. The Tories were a shambles and New Labour just became focused on winning elections so they needed to keep the Home Counties on side and close, meaning they started being far removed from their heartland support and turned into a simply centerist party. Nothing between the main three parties and therefore no alternatives, to the public all parties became an out of touch Westminster elite rather than our elected representatives. All three were afraid to touch on issues such as immigration, the Tories because they were trying to reinvent themselves as a more human, less judgmental party to get back their core support which had changed since the mid 80s, labour because it went against what their overall brand was. It is a mistake not to tackle concerns such as this head on instead of dismissing them as views of just a small select band of nutters. It allowed misrepresentation of the facts and showed how out of touch they all really had become. Then the expenses issue just justified what many had already thought Westminster had become. New Labour was not the great dawn, in response to how toxic the Tories had become towards the end of their tenure. It showed that whichever way you vote, it's all the same except the colour of the rosette. People were tired of the lies, the wars and the scandals. We didn't even give one party a majority at the last election, that shows how fragmented peoples views on party politics have become.

 

So Things are changing, they have to, even if it's just the way our politicians relate to the public. People want they to be more accountable, and to acknowledge the issues at a local rather than just a national level more. The north east assembly was roundly laughed away when they had a chance, if the vote was held today it would be considerably closer.

 

All three need to work harder to win back the public's trust and they've got a hell of a job to do this.

I agree with a lot you say  apart from labour getting through a lot of their policies, they got too many imo, nanny state anyone?. However all three are still out of touch with immigration and the EU.

 

The irony is that with a no vote it will be all back to "how you were" I think you are naive to think otherwise. Thats why the big three are campaigning so hard, they want the status quo to continue. Their trough is threatened if the scots go their own way.

 

And no speech by Brown can ever be classed as great. I'll never forgive that moron for doing what he did to our pensions and selling off our gold reserves at its lowest price in history. Just as big a liar as Blair.

So bar staff have to heighten their chances of lung cancer just to serve you?

 

Or would you just employ smokers?

 

You don't think if pubs could choose to be smoking or non smoking that sooner or later people would apply for a job in the non smoking ones if they felt strongly enough about it and things would just kinda sort themselves out? Was there some terrible bar staff recruitment problem when smoking in pubs was allowed? Are there really people who can only find jobs in places where people smoke? But it doesn't matter anyway because there is no evidence that working as bar staff in a smoking pub has any effect at all on the chances of getting lung cancer. There was one massive study into this in particular which got cancelled halfway through because it was obvious that no link was going to be found.

You don't think if pubs could choose to be smoking or non smoking that sooner or later people would apply for a job in the non smoking ones if they felt strongly enough about it and things would just kinda sort themselves out? Was there some terrible bar staff recruitment problem when smoking in pubs was allowed? Are there really people who can only find jobs in places where people smoke? But it doesn't matter anyway because there is no evidence that working as bar staff in a smoking pub has any effect at all on the chances of getting lung cancer. There was one massive study into this in particular which got cancelled halfway through because it was obvious that no link was going to be found.

I never said there was a shortage did I?

 

I'm merely stating that bar staff and other customers for that matter shouldn't be forced to breath in smoke that can heighten chances of lung cancer and fucking stinks.

 

It's a disgrace it was ever allowed in the first place.

 

There's enough pubs about with heated and sheltered smoking areas to satisfy your needs surely.

 

...and whilst I'm at it, why do smokers think that fag ends don't constitute as litter? Most deem it appropriate to throw their stubs on the floor rather than the smoking bins provided.

That makes as much sense as allowing swimming pools to have a pissing section.

Are you suggesting they don't have one now? ;-/

I agree with a lot you say apart from labour getting through a lot of their policies, they got too many imo, nanny state anyone?. However all three are still out of touch with immigration and the EU.

 

The irony is that with a no vote it will be all back to "how you were" I think you are naive to think otherwise. Thats why the big three are campaigning so hard, they want the status quo to continue. Their trough is threatened if the scots go their own way.

 

I'm think that's a bit simplistic, there will be no continuing down the same path, whatever happens.

 

And no speech by Brown can ever be classed as great. I'll never forgive that moron for doing what he did to our pensions and selling off our gold reserves at its lowest price in history. Just as big a liar as Blair.

You may not like him, but that was a fantastic piece of political oratory. Cameron should watch and learn. That's how you reach people. Not trying to be all things to all men, Dave.

I never said there was a shortage did I?

 

I'm merely stating that bar staff and other customers for that matter shouldn't be forced to breath in smoke that can heighten chances of lung cancer and fucking stinks.

 

 

Some people don't want to be near smokers. Fine. The solution to this is to let pubs choose whether or not you can smoke in them. Again the passive smoking thing is a red herring. It might make your clothes smell but cause lung cancer it does not. Hence no shortage of bar staff when you could smoke under their noses. And even if it did cause lung cancer, people are free not to work in places they don't want to.

 

You may not like him, but that was a fantastic piece of political oratory. Cameron should watch and learn. That's how you reach people.

 

 

Well no, it's how he reached you. Unfortunately nearly two thirds of Scots polled a week ago don't trust him. http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-much-do-you-trust-claims-made-by-gordon-brown-in-relation-to-the-independen

 

Seeing as he said the same things today as he said a week ago, there is no reason to think he is viewed any more favourably at this point in time. Nope, he is just another symbol of the same Labour Party hundreds of thousands of delusional Yes voters feel betrayed by.

You've got to much time on your hands nic

How were smokers imposing their habit on you, even when you could do it in pubs? Was it the law that you had to stand near them?

Maggie, I generally fully agree with everything you write on here, you're knowledge on most things seems bottomless.

 

However, this particular post is utter horseshit and I'm surprised you even believe it.

 

Love you.

Are you suggesting they don't have one now? ;-/

 

They do, but apparently getting out to do it is frowned upon.

Some people don't want to be near smokers. Fine. The solution to this is to let pubs choose whether or not you can smoke in them. Again the passive smoking thing is a red herring. It might make your clothes smell but cause lung cancer it does not. Hence no shortage of bar staff when you could smoke under their noses. And even if it did cause lung cancer, people are free not to work in places they don't want to.

 

 

Well no, it's how he reached you. Unfortunately nearly two thirds of Scots polled a week ago don't trust him. http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-much-do-you-trust-claims-made-by-gordon-brown-in-relation-to-the-independen

 

Seeing as he said the same things today as he said a week ago, there is no reason to think he is viewed any more favourably at this point in time. Nope, he is just another symbol of the same Labour Party hundreds of thousands of delusional Yes voters feel betrayed by.

Well, no. He spelt out clearly his arguments for a No vote. I've yet to see such clarity from the opposition. He's actually well liked north of the boarder and the speech has been acclaimed across the board.

 

Too much time on my hands to follow this vote? I'd rather listen to this speech whilst at work than radio one and deliver a board presentation. Multi tasking? I've shit it.

Betfair paid out on "No" yesterday.

Maggie, I generally fully agree with everything you write on here, you're knowledge on most things seems bottomless.

 

However, this particular post is utter horseshit and I'm surprised you even believe it.

 

Love you.

 

Awww thanks snugglebum. But every time you stood near a smoker in a pub and they made your clothes smell, it was your choice to be where you were. No one smoking in a pub has ever imposed their habit on anybody.  

 

He spelt out clearly his arguments for a No vote. I've yet to see such clarity from the opposition. He's actually well liked north of the boarder and the speech has been acclaimed across the board.

 

 

We can agree that it was a good speech and we can agree that we thought it set out sound arguments for a no and we can agree that the Yes campaign might as well be on the moon for all its interaction with reality. On those points I concur. But we are irrelevant. There is nothing to suggest that people north of the border agree with us, nothing to suggest he is popular outside of Labour circles and nothing to suggest that his belated intervention in this debate has made any difference. If I'm wrong and No wins by 99.8% to 0.2% I'll be happy to concede that Brown was the reason.

What happens if it's a draw?

What happens if it's a draw?

The No votes wins

The No votes wins

Why?

No one smoking in a pub has ever imposed their habit on anybody.

 

.

Apart from the fact they would be breathing out clouds of smoke across the room?

Awww thanks snugglebum. But every time you stood near a smoker in a pub and they made your clothes smell, it was your choice to be where you were. No one smoking in a pub has ever imposed their habit on anybody.  

 

 

We can agree that it was a good speech and we can agree that we thought it set out sound arguments for a no and we can agree that the Yes campaign might as well be on the moon for all its interaction with reality. On those points I concur. But we are irrelevant. There is nothing to suggest that people north of the border agree with us, nothing to suggest he is popular outside of Labour circles and nothing to suggest that his belated intervention in this debate has made any difference. If I'm wrong and No wins by 99.8% to 0.2% I'll be happy to concede that Brown was the reason.

If No sneaks a win, I'd say his intervention has been crucial. Darling has been sidelined as he's plainly not very good at expressing the points that need to be made, no one likes either Cameron (boooo he's a Tory so we won't listen) Milliband (boooooo a london-centric weak Labour leader) Clegg (erm...boooo...we suppose if we could be bothered) Brown has bounded in at the last minute and rescuing this mess as it's Labour voters that the No vote needs out there to win this referendum. I've said I'm in no way his biggest fan, but credit where it's due, the No vote finally has a spokesman who can take Salmond on. 

http://huff.to/XBVMBv

Can we have a poll? Yay or nay

I think Gordon Brown is a top bloke for a red.

 

He's certainly made a difference.

What happens if it's a draw?

 

 

The No votes wins

 

 

Why?

 

Away goals count double in Europe.

Winner stays on.

Apart from the fact they would be breathing out clouds of smoke across the room?

 

Yes apart from that fact because other than a bit of a smell on clothes the effects of the smoke clouds were nil.