tomtscotland

This is a forum. We debate issues so lets not tell some named folks it's "okay" and other unnamed folks "there is no need". Also, as far as I can see, no-one has implored that FOS should not be sung. You have also objected to politics being raised at football. This is a perfectly valid point. However, you posted (#91) - " Those of you thinking you are making some sort of a statement by not singing Flower of Scotland are playing into No voters or union supporting hands. It is the union lovers that would have us change our national anthem from FoS and so what are we who want independence achieving by not showing our utter defiance by singing Flower of Scotland - LOUD AND BLOODY PROUD." - clearly you advocated singing FOS as a political statement. You cant have it both ways. The reality is that FOS has always been political and post-referendum it may be seen as some as an act of defiance, a statement of intent or indeed a protest against those ( the majority) who voted No. My contribution to this debate was to argue against what you have said (#91) and that singing FOS will be seen by Unionists as business as usual. It will not make No voters change their mind, feel guilty or whatever. Only not singing FOS would have an impact through feeling of loss on soft No voters. I recognise that it is one of the best football anthems in the world . I am only making a debating point and not actually advocating or imploring folks not to sing FOS.

I know a couple of train drivers and they've got nothing good to say about First.

I actually hope people do sing it.....but for some it may be a choker....at least at first. As I may have posted here ...I couldn't watch Loch Lomond being sung on Ryder Cup Concert. When you've invested a lot of time in the campaign ...it is not an easy to come to terms with the fact that the Lion went back in the cage even though the door was open.

I freely admit I can be an ar$ehole at times ....but I bend to no-one.

I don't have a problem with FOS being sung and don't expect my comments to deter anyone from singing. The issue I have and what I have being responding to is the suggestion that belting out FOS is sending a signal to Unionists that we are not defeated etc. I honestly cant see the political significance of FOS being sung - only if it is not sung As for taking your political protests elsewhere FOS has political connotations and more so in light of the referendum result . Pre-referendum the words could be seen as aspirational but not so much now because the reality is that the people of Scotland voted to give up sovereignty and the opportunity to be "the nation again".

You never referenced another poster ..but no problem so it is o'k to quote someone, as I did, even though they used strong language. O'k I think the ding-dong on this thread has run it's course and maybe you could oblige, as promised, with replying to me on the "Politics at Scotland Games" as to source of your assertion that "we have a larger benefit provision per head than anywhere in the European Union ." I'm not saying your wrong ...I am interested in finding out detail.

For the 3rd time and from previous post #101 and I've even highlighted in bold. "No - because carrying on as before will have no impact and will be seen as a return to normality. Belting out FOS will only serve to make Yessers feel better but will do nothing to make soft No voters think about the consequences or influence them to think different. The reverse pschology effect is that if soft No voters see others accepting that Scotland has been diminished then they might be more inclined to value that what is being lost."

I have already asked you about stats in correct thread! I've already explained at least twice why I think the anthem should not be sung - I never asked anyone to "protest during the anthem" so please dont obfuscate. More obfuscation from you because the Shitebags comment was not mine. I was replying to and quoting another poster - hence the quotation marks I used in the comment you are referring to. You can see I've used to quotation marks to quote you in this reply. I'll use another quotation from you "bullshit" - because that's a word you used to about a comment on another post (so maybe you should stop complaining about language). If you cant back up your Britain has best benefits assertion then all you need to say is you made a mistake.

I think you should "take a moment" and consider if you are a wee bit too sensitive. If you could get a chance I would appreciate you answering the point I asked in another topic and point me in the direction of the stats that show Britain has the best benefits in Europe (as you asserted). ... because if we "want the best for Scotland" then that would back up the unionist argument that we are better together.

I'm sure it will be belted out.....but I really don't think it will have any effect at all on "unionist shitebags" nor will it be reported as being any kind of indicator of this being "nowhere near over".

Could you point me to the stats that say UK has best benefits in E.U.Thanks.

My argument is not aimed at anyone who comes on here flaunting their views with 55+ avatar - you are beyond redemption. We don't need to convince the likes of you, our target are those who got bullied and frightened into voting No.

No - because carrying on as before will have no impact and will be seen as a return to normality.Belting out FOS will only serve to make Yessers feel better but will do nothing to make soft No voters think about the consequences or influence them to think different. The reverse pschology effect is that if soft No voters see others accepting that Scotland has been diminished then they might be more inclined to value that what is being lost.

The unionists and No voters wont care that FOS is being belted out as before .... they will see it as job done, everything back to normal. A stony silence would be seen to be much more significant to those who have voted No - and that to me is what counts because there would be reverse psychological effect.

Great view tae

Another possibility, if you are into photography and needing a new camera, is to get a high end "bridge" camera. I've got a Panasonic FZ200. This has got a 24x zoom lens that does a fantastic job on faraway views. You can use this like a telescope and has the advantage of image stabilisation. "Bridge" cameras usually have a smaller sensor and that makes them compact and just as easy to carry around as large binoculars. You have the added advantage of being able to capture an image (just think of those through the window shots ) and if you know what you are doing you can minimize haze effect through Photoshop.

Views 15 to 20 miles away would need high magnification but as you could be walking you would also need to take into account portability. I would say you should be looking at 16x upwards ...but your not going to be able to see inside anyone's window at that distance

High magnification will need a tripod.

That's nonsense and misses the point as to why badges were/ are worn. Pre-referendum I was challenged by someone that wearing a Yes badge meant that I was making a statement that somehow I was "superior". I gently pointed out that the reason Yessers wear badges was simply to show support and was a measure of gathering momentum. The Yes movement is not dead and badges are a visible reminder to that fact.

If it is sung then it will be business as usual and an acknowledgement that we are back in our box. On the other hand, if it is not sung, this WILL be noted and be a reminder to those who have been conned into voting No that they have made a big mistake.

Stopped watching BBC current affairs. There's another BBC protest scheduled for 26th October.

Agree with that. Can't see SNP agreeing new powers unless they get as close to a federal state as could be possible - as espoused by Gordon Brown. Lesser powers will be a poisoned chalice and would see end of SNP.

Does he expect support from Yessers? He is undoubtably one of the most duplicitous politicians on the planet and I don't believe a word he says about this or anything.

Blair Jenkins has said the BBC made mistakes but we're not biased.....wtf.