Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 12:22 pm Post subject:

If the debate is about which political party would be better
for chess, and after all this is a chess forum.

You can rule out the Labour Party for a kick off.

The Edinburgh Tory City Council always classed chess as a sport but the
moment Labour got in it was a business and the Edinburgh
Chess Club got slapped with a £2,000 rates bill.

I've never vote for Labour since then and never will.

Yes Chess does influence how I vote. (what else is of any importance.)

Independance? Why not? It won't make any difference except
give Scotland it's own slot in the Eurovision Song Contest.
(I suppose that might be worth voting for...OK...go for it.)

It does not matter who gets in, guys like me (and most of you) always get screwed.

I voted once for the Socialists when Tommy Sheridan was a member.
Why? Did I suddenly become Geoff the Red.

No. I liked his game of chess v Amy Officer.

I voted SNP last time because my wife told me not too (she's a Tory).

Chess and disobeying the wife is all I live for.

The Amy v Tommy game is here:

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=151

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

Can't argue with anything you say there, Laughing

Councillors and MP's of all colours can be idiots, hope you got the bill down to something more appropriate.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Hugh,
You miss the whole point I was making. Whether independence is right for the country and I think that it is. It is irrelevant to the original thread of this topic, ie finding sources of funding for chess Scotland I am not against discussing the merits or other wise of independence but I do think that this thread has got out of control from the orginal posting have a debate about future funding for CS by all means but keep the thread to that and leave the Politics to elsewhere

John,
What happens in England is a matter for the people of England. There is growing resentment in England at the lack of a body to discuss matters concerning England. That problem has to be addressed. The feeble fifty in Scotland failed to protect Scotland from the ravages of Thatcherism just as the current mob are failing to protect us from the coalition govt.

DGCongalton · Queen Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 113

Why should Chess Scotland receive government funding at all, no matter who's in Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels? Why should an organisation that has only 370 paid up members, according to the recently published Chess Scotland budget, receive government support?

HughBrechin · Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 11:14 pm Post subject:

Steve, the original post from Andrew is pretty clearly musing on Scottish independence. It's for him or a moderator to arbitrate as to whether we're on topic so far. I can't read anything in the initial post talking about alternative sources of funding: the only reference to CS and money is about whether the grant is likely to be continued. If you want to have a thread talking exclusively about the search for funding options, which is certainly something we should think about, start one.
(It's also slightly ironic that you say 'leave the Politics to elsewhere' before writing a paragraph about politics that doesn't mention chess or money once in reply to John).

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

I had to make a reply to John

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

Steve with respect you are not the thread police. The thread was a wider discussion than just funding. Someone that you have took full advantage of while criticising others for doing the same. All you have succeeded in doing is killing the thread.

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

Dismantling a Union of over 300 years will be messy. There is no way to avoid that rather than forgetting the politics of division and making that Union better. If that means devolving more power to regional/national parliaments then that would be sensible.
According to what I've read the SNP leader wishes to continue to have the benefit of a joint arm forces. Yeh! Alex is intelligent enough to know that full blown Independence is a non runner! If he were a betting man I reckon he'll be betting on a no vote for the referendum Smile

I'm going to have a wee chuckle to myself as he now having already marched his forces to the top of the hill marches them all down again.

Meanwhile the patience of the English amazes me as we procrastinate over how quickly, or whether or not we will spurn them.

and just a little message to Steve, If you get to go for 'feeble fifty and mob' then I get to say my piece also if fair is fair.

AMcHarg · Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 3:53 pm Post subject:

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

I never said I was the thread police John. All I said was I thought that the way the thread was developing was going away from the original thread ie independence and CS. I have never tried to stop anyone from saying what they think. This thread was already out of control before I joined it How have I killed this thread? You should explain this. This thread is alive and kicking!!
Angus :I did use the word mob I apologise if you found the word offensive. That was not my intention.

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

Andrew,

Can't recall where I read this.

Apologies if it is incorrect.

I knew Alex <b>is </b> a betting man

In fact the whole waving the flag thing is a massive punt in my opinion.

As for voting.

I'll be voting with my feet. I dont like 'Nationalism' be it promoted by a Scot or an Englishman,
As I said. The SNP are clearly the instigators of division in this instance. They are playing with fire and Alex is betting with our futures.
At the heart of it is this false sense of nation and what Scotland is. Scotland is an integrated country within a 300 year Union of countries.
I was in London for a couple of days last week. It is a totally multicultural modern city. I believe in a world which seeks to unite and make common ground not searching in the past for false senses of nation and race.

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

For once I wholly agree with Angus.

There may well be scope for futher devolution of power but my fear is the further waste of limited resources on the trappings of state and power - how much did the the scottish parliment building cost?

John:-

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

Mike, I have a lone memory and remember the 1980' very well. My thoughts are based on experience and how people around me have been dealt with. No one can tell me I don't have a right to be angry at that.

Why do I have to meet the Tory cabinet to know whether they are independently wealthy? This information is in the public domain.

What has Ron Brown, or Tommy Sheridon got to do with anything? I have no time for people like that and don't see why they should be thrown at me as if being anti Tory makes you a militant type. Quite offensive.

AMcHarg · Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 9:02 pm Post subject:

Well you have your reasons for your opinion, and I can't argue with that Angus. We clearly just have very different ideas on what's best/most desirable for us.

You may not like the SNP stance on independence but at least the SNP intend to give the electorate the right to make the decision in a referendum, which is clearly the popular choice even for many who do not want independence. Independence is clearly popular enough to merit a referendum and I think the Scottish people trust and strongly believe in democracy, and deserve the right to decide.

There is more to the referendum than just a yes or no though. I believe the options will be "status quo", "more powers", "full fiscal autonomy" and "independence", or something similar.

I personally believe that independence will make Scotland more prosperous, safer, more respected internationally and easier to govern. It also solves the West Lothian question, makes the Scottish government more accountable for their policies and rids Scotland of the English Tories, forever. I also believe that England would remain our biggest ally and be very close friends with us. We will still share a monarch (unless a subsequent referendum decides not to have a monarch), which would still be Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland.

I know that you speak of 300 years of Union but thinking back on how the Union came about is rather against everything that we think of as right in these modern days: bribery and corruption.

It always makes me laugh when people like David Cameron stand up in the House of Commons and pretend they know what the average person in Scotland thinks and needs. How do they actually? They clearly don't care and are never going to have the interests of Scotland as close to heart as the SNP.

AMcHarg · Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 9:08 pm Post subject: