BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Rev_S_Campbell

Listed below are comments made by Rev_S_Campbell between Friday, 13th November 2009 and Thursday, 26th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Talking drink 8:24pm on 26 Nov 2009 @113 "Alcohol is not sold by the unit though!"

What does that have to do with anything? People know how many units are in what, and they also know roughly what their own tolerance is. If the object is purely to get blootered at the lowest possible cost, then a bottle of spirits is already the "best" option, since you can get 26 units of economy-label vodka for little more than a fiver. (By buying really cheap and nasty lager you can get slightly more units for your money, but it's physically a fair bit harder to drink about eight litres of fizzy beer than it is to knock back 0.7 litres of the voddy.)

With minimum pricing there's if anything actually slightly LESS reason to opt for spirits.
Talking drink 7:51pm on 26 Nov 2009 @94 "Tell me why my statement is wrong Mr Porter,"

I'm not him, but I'll have a stab. Your statement was that faced with minimum pricing, people would turn to spirits to get drunk rather than beer. There is, however, no rational basis whatsoever for believing this, since with minimum pricing by definition the PER-UNIT price is the same either way. So there's nothing to gain, in terms of getting drunk cheaper, from shifting to spirits. And by-and-large people tend to find beers more palatable than the hard stuff, and you certainly get a lot more volume for your money.

(And of course, if you sit there knocking back vodkas every five minutes instead of taking half-an-hour to drink a pint, you'll pass out a lot faster due to the concentrated effect and have ended up consuming less alcohol anyway...)
All to play for? 1:01pm on 16 Nov 2009 @171 "not punish/slag off those people who either didn't vote SNP or who are stuck in a benefit cycle"

I neither slagged off anyone or called for punishment for anyone. I merely stated a simple statistical fact, and also pointed out an interview that had been done by the BBC with some Glasgow NE electors. Once again - it's not an insult to call a spade a spade.
All to play for? 09:45am on 14 Nov 2009 @87 "Since you've deserted the last blog Reverend, I just thought I'd remind you, I'm still waiting for your conclusive evidence that Glasgow NE is, in fact "the dumbest constituency in Scotland" as you so eloquently put it."

Yawn. I already did. If you have alternative criteria (sorry, big words again) for measuring intelligence other than academic qualifications, feel free to provide us with them - as you've already been asked to - and we'll see where we get.
All to play for? 09:39am on 14 Nov 2009 @103 "Now maybe I have missed something that makes this idea completely unworkable?"

The fact that forced labour is slavery?

If there's work to be done, by all means get people to do it. But pay them minimum wage, or they're in every meaningful sense slaves. Are you REALLY saying that anyone unfortunate enough to be made redundant should become some sort of sub-citizen, deprived of the protection of the laws the rest of us enjoy? Have you any concept of the knock-on effect an army of millions of available slave labourers would have on the rest of the job market?
All to play for? 01:53am on 14 Nov 2009 @85 I see no contradiction between my (entirely real) title and anything I've said. The course of action detailed above IS without question the most practical one the SNP could take to improve the lives of everyone in Scotland, including Glasgow NE. Sometimes you have to help people despite themselves.

And I know of no holy book that forbids calling a spade a spade.
All to play for? 01:25am on 14 Nov 2009 @72 "People didn't vote SNP because they didn't believe that they could or would change their lives. If the SNP couldn't make the connection with the voters they need to work harder on the message."

No, that's not right. People didn't vote SNP because BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION they would never vote for anyone but Labour, no matter what anyone ever said to them or did for them. Why waste time and resources trying to talk to the deaf and blind?

The most practical thing the SNP could do - both for the SNP and for all of Scotland - is to ignore the likes of Glasgow NE entirely and hope they stay in their houses on polling day, complacent in the belief that they don't need to go and vote to get their Labour candidate in. That way their votes will inflict the minimum possible damage, and they can be carried along to a better Scotland without ever having to take any responsibility for it.
All to play for? 01:19am on 14 Nov 2009 @54 "Why do you insult people?"

It's not an insult. If you vote for Labour literally regardless of anything, as the person interviewed on tonight's news claimed to do, "mindless" is an entirely accurate and fair description of your behaviour.

I'm not in the SNP, and reserve the right to hold and express that reasonable and rational position regardless of whether people moan about it. But since these electors are by their own declaration going to vote Labour no matter what, it would seem not to make a lot of difference to anything if anyone "insults" them or not. As far as I'm concerned these people are a write-off, electorally speaking. You might find that offensive, but Labour have written them off in far worse ways than that, and if they vote for them anyway then they deserve everything they get.
All to play for? 8:59pm on 13 Nov 2009 I'm quite sure that Salmond isn't particularly popular in parts of the West of Scotland, but that's no reason for the SNP to dump their biggest asset. The fact is that the SNP never had a chance in Glasgow NE, for reasons demonstrated on the BBC this very evening when they interviewed some of the GNE electorate and asked them, literally and directly, "Is there ANYTHING Labour could do that would stop you voting for them?", to be met with a very firm "No".

I'm not paraphrasing anything there. That is the exact question that was asked, and these mindless sheep happily affirmed for the nation to see that they would vote Labour *no matter what*, presumably including the candidate raping their dog and taking a dump on their carpet.

The SNP can't persuade these people, no matter who they choose for leader, so there's no point cutting their noses off to spite their face. They will have to achieve their aims despite such voters, not by persuading them. The best the SNP can hope for is to get these people to stay at home, and if there's one encouraging thing for the SNP to take from last night's result it's the turnout. If Scotland's fate is left to voters prepared to think for themselves and make an informed decision then there's still a chance that the country can escape a generation of English Tory rule.
Glasgow North East by-election 4:57pm on 13 Nov 2009 @174 "And it wasn't that long ago that a report issued that admitted that, historically, the Edinburgh-based administrations of the past had deliberately done their best to keep Glasgow in just such a position. Perhaps Glasgow feels it's time that they were recompensed for that particular piece of skullduggery?"

Hang on. What were "the Edinburgh-based administrations of the past", exactly? How far back are we going here?

«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

Rev_S_Campbell