BBC Blog Network

User Profile

brigadierjohn

Listed below are comments made by brigadierjohn between Monday, 16th March 2009 and Wednesday, 18th March 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Goodwin's goodies 1:49pm on 18 Mar 2009 I'll have leave The Brains Trust here to sort out the Goodwins and the badyins because the fat Lady is singing..

It's time to say goodbye, folks. Indulge me in a few reminiscences:
When I first joined I was deferential to Brownedov and oldnat, who seemed like the elder statesmen of something I had never attempted before. Gradually they morphed into Statler and Waldorf!
Quite a few others conjured up mental pictures:
Bighullabaloo (remember him?) always flouncing out - definitely Rik Mayall in the New Statesman.
Bluelaw, greenockboy, sneckedagain and dubbieside: The Wild-eyed Bunch. Beyond parody. And redemption.
Aye_write, pattymkirkwood and disgustedDorothy: Dale Winton, Graham Norton and John Inman.
Thomas Porter: Oh dear. Thomas could only play himself in my movie.
Ed Iglehart: Our own "Uncle Tom" American.
Neil Small: Captain Sensible.

Of course there were villains like me: ExPat was truly wonderful. Not always fully accurate, but never missed the mark. Hours of laughter reading the outrage he provoked! Sorry.
Likewise Anglophone. He knew where the soft spots were. And what about Derek Barker? If I needed lessons in wickedness....

But the people I liked best had humour and good manners. It's always nice to be savaged politely by a funny guy.

To those who offered nothing but bile and hatred.... well, you know who you are. And what you are! Wipe the froth away and get a life.

So that's it. Goodbye.

No flowers please. Donations, if desired, to the RNLI.
Party warms to virulent Scott 1:25pm on 17 Mar 2009 #102 albamac: Your username would be a clue, then? So you don't grasp hyperbole - tough. There are more things in heaven and earth, albamac, than comprise your understanding...
Do you understand fanaticism, pedantry, and blind to reality?
Half and half 1:12pm on 17 Mar 2009 I'd be perfectly content with an all-woman Parliament. Don't see a problem, provided they were the best people and selected without discrimination.
"Gender" is a word used in grammar. It can be masculine, feminine, neuter or common. People belong in sexes. So, sex balance, please. Don't be prissy.
Party warms to virulent Scott 12:58pm on 17 Mar 2009 #101 aye_write: I don't think any modern Nationalist would wish to debate your suggestions as rational options.
I got no reply on a previous thread when I asked what might happen to a Scottish Royal Marine, an SAS man or a Para who didn't fancy poncing up and down at Bute House or some Castle. Should he stay in the UK Army? Would his family be vilified? I could debate that.
The DVLA? Build a new one or "contract out" the service to Swansea. The implications? Is it worthy of debate?
"Wait till we're Independent." How dare you insult me with the proposition "Vote for me - but I'm keeping my options secret. Maybe I just don't know."

Aye_write, I do want to like you. You seem honest and genuine. I had a young girl reporter like you, and I took time to sit down and explain how to get all those dancing thoughts down on paper. She's very successful now, and every year she sends me a card thanking me for having faith in her and changing her life. True. And I always shed a tear.
But it's to late for us, I fear. Maybe today, definitely by tomorrow, I'm off for the foreseeable future.
Faustian pacts and pompous asses 12:08pm on 17 Mar 2009 #177 aye_write: No spite. I was being chivalrous in telling you not to keep making a fool of yourself. Once, a lady would have recognised that without the need to have it spelled out. :-)

I'm finished on this thread. Kick back on the next of you must.
Faustian pacts and pompous asses 12:04pm on 17 Mar 2009 #174 bobbishop: I hope I didn't advocate federalism per se. I said I preferred it to Independence as now offered, if that was the choice. My first idea was to repair what we have.
I realise Mandelas and Havels don't grow on trees, but I also said if we had a true statesman or a natural leader I would be prepared to give him a mandate.
Sadly, I see us just limping along with the Nats, without the Independence mandate, but strong enough to deny Labour another go at corruption. A mess.

Remember Northern Ireland? Everyone was so fed up there was substantial suport for a return to Westminster Rule. We may have to go through that phase.

(For pedants, yes, I know the politics in NI weren't directly comparable).
Party warms to virulent Scott 11:46am on 17 Mar 2009 #76 greenockboy: You have edited the quote I used "the figures appear... not a little far fetched." Far fetched? You mean you don't accept they were properly obtained?
I wonder if you would allow me "a genuine error" or accuse me of twisting things to my point of view?
Double standards - we all have them occasionally.
Party warms to virulent Scott 11:32am on 17 Mar 2009 #69 aye_write: What a star you are - for my arguments! So all the great Offices of State are going to be recreated all over Scotland, and their work duplicated? Cost?
So, it's not to be a Scottish Defence Force for ceremonial and peace-keeping duties - the whole Army is coming home? Cost?
And the "Scots" Navy and Air Force?
And the rest? "We can't say until we are independent!!!!!"

You called it a "combination of stuff paraphrased from quirky Nats websites." I believe you have a talent for pinching stuff. :-)
Really, aye_write, you have to get out more. Stop reading that guff and mix with a few non-Nats. Talk about the weather, or babies or something to take your mind off all this.
You're coming across as a 1970s loony Nat, a throwback to the days when "Scotland's Oil" would gold plate our taps and line our coats with mink.

Just stop and think for a minute before you regale us with a new, long, long chapter from Barbara Cartland's selected fantasies.
Faustian pacts and pompous asses 10:21pm on 16 Mar 2009 #159 bobbishop: You certainly don't need me here. But your questions are fair enough.
Right now I wouldn't trust any party in Scotland or the UK. I'd prefer to see the moderating hand of coalition partners, although that would not be my favoured form if, for example, one party could produce a true statesman or a natural leader for the nation. I'd prefer federation to separation, but first I'd like to see an attempt at fixing the Union, just to see if something demonstrably fair could be arrived at.
Past voting has always been for the candidate rather than the party. In this area the Tories seem to produce better people, although I did once vote for Margaret Bain, the late Mrs Ewing for whom I had much respect. Probably Tory next time, but anyone honourable.
Aspiration for Scotland? A return to old educational standards, respect for others, an end to the handout culture (for individuals) anything that elevates decency and self-respect, affordable homes in remote communities, nothing too revolutionary. Same as most folk, I suspect. Oh, and for me, bigger pensions!
Maybe a Nat will tell me now, what he/she think would be special or different, or what they aspire to, under Home Rule?
As for SNP policy, I really don't want to read carefully crafted PR stuff. I want ordinary Nats to tell me what it means to them, in practical terms. It seems to be a huge problem. Even asking draws a barrage of abuse.
Party warms to virulent Scott 8:12pm on 16 Mar 2009 As cyber-Nuttery hits new levels of hopping-mad rage, the calming question has to be asked: Has the Independence Movement reached its high-water mark?
Despite a tissue-soft opposition, I would guess Salmond is coming under severe pressure from within, although it hasn't surfaced publicly yet. I believe the reshuffle was a response to party concerns. For example, do internal polls confirm the trend identified by YouGov? Is there wavering on the referendum. Is the dreaded question being asked: What if it's lost?
Salmond himself looks a bit subdued, as if his Presidential hopes are ebbing. For how long can Republican Rose, Neil and McAskill keep their power bases from breaking the unity facade?
It would be abnormal if factions were not saying: We have come so far - we must go for it.
Others will reply: Well, we wouldn't like to blow it now - let's see the finance thing resolved.

Unsubstantiated assertions? Certainly. Speculative? Of course. A gut instinct? Without a doubt.

I suppose the clinching argument will be the outrage, mock and otherwise, that such a suggestion might generate.

Mischief, thou art afoot.....

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

brigadierjohn