Some of our support

[Inigo 32,526]

2 minutes ago, Vwbear said:

How do the so called Rangers fans that are anti British feel at ibrox or away games for that matter when the support is in full flow ? 

Depends what you mean by anti-British, I'd guess.

[Vwbear 399]

5 hours ago, Inigo said:

Depends what you mean by anti-British, I'd guess.

Yes voters,snp members,separatists, anti English 

[WGOH 2,344]

Wee prick probably wan a they cunts who all his pals are taigs and loves their sympathy. Fucking fenian pandering at its worst 

[graeme_4 34,348]

Only wee beasts hate the Royal family.

A quick look at the financials would show their net benefit to the UK.

[Vanoli 4,625]

If you were to draw someone who sits in BF1 it's this wee guy. I wonder if he mentioned his views to any bears around ibrox? Again as others have said, at least these wee boys know their place - social media. The Referendum brought this into public consciousness though, a minority of our supporters are asking questions or coming out of the woodwork with anti-unionist bile. Even more-so than standing up to our enemies and abandoning 'dignified silence - making sure these wee pricks stay firmly packed away in their box at the ground home and away must be a priority. 

[graeme_4 34,348]

On 19/11/2016 at 4:36 AM, A.T.G said:

£300m+ man irrespective of what the royal family bring in is still an awful lot to spend on a property, I'm not familiar with costs of construction or renovation but fuck sake that is some amount of dough

We can argue that it is nothing to what the royal family bring in which is fair enough but surely that cost could be brought down, what can they possibly be doing for that amount of money?

I'm in the construction sector, and for a building of the scale over 5-10 years £300m isn't all the much. 

[loyalfollower 1,543]

Not a monarchist as I think all humans are equal.. anyhow his comments are childish 

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

Who the fuck is Mark? And why does he have his own thread in the BD?

 

Never heard of the cunt.  

[MaestroNiko 53]

49 minutes ago, Redwhiteandblue said:

Who the fuck is Mark? And why does he have his own thread in the BD?

 

Never heard of the cunt.  

well known rangers fan on twitter, usually pretty sound but he does spout out shite like this quite often

[Wearethepeople72 1,845]

.

[Thewhitesettler 2,711]

7 hours ago, WGOH said:

Wee prick probably wan a they cunts who all his pals are taigs and loves their sympathy. Fucking fenian pandering at its worst 

We were having a discussion in the pub one night, mostly Bears, but a couple of taigs in the company. One of them, a taig mate of mine, said that he didn't bother too much about the Royal Family, but he did object to "us tax payers, funding them all" The lot of us burst out laughing, apart from him, who had a quizzical look on his face until I said "You've been signing on half your life, and the other half, it's been cash in hand work that you've done, us fucking tax payers?" 

I think that he was looking for the 'Moral High Ground' but found the Grand Canyon instead..

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

On 19/11/2016 at 7:07 PM, Inigo said:

Seems pricey as well, Broombrox.

The problem with discussing the anything the Monarchy does on a site like RM is it's basically pointless. The same people that will demand scrutiny and always having a healthy criticism of anything others do will give anything to do with the Royals a free pass. 

The Queen could confiscate the property of some on here and tell them to live the rest of their lives in a box and they'd thank her for it. 

Personally, I'd be inclined to ask the same questions about this. Where is the cash coming from, is it going to be done as efficiently as possible at as little cost as possible and does it represent value for money?

The money is coming from the crown estates which owns Buckingham Palace. They are replacing electrics and plumbing and all the associated systems that haven't been properly upgraded for 60 years and represent a health and safety hazard.

I imagine that its status will add to the bill as it will be specialist work in a building of international importance.

The work is being phased over 10 years to enable it to remain in use. That means it will remain open for tourists and keep bringing in revenue.

I think a few need to understand the way the Crown estates work. 85% of revenue (£304 million last year) goes to the Treasury. 

[Ivybank 4,573]

My mate used to work in the palace,and he used to say the electrics and the plumbing were from the dark ages

[Inigo 32,526]

11 hours ago, RFC Eagle said:

The money is coming from the crown estates which owns Buckingham Palace. They are replacing electrics and plumbing and all the associated systems that haven't been properly upgraded for 60 years and represent a health and safety hazard.

I imagine that its status will add to the bill as it will be specialist work in a building of international importance.

The work is being phased over 10 years to enable it to remain in use. That means it will remain open for tourists and keep bringing in revenue.

I think a few need to understand the way the Crown estates work. 85% of revenue (£304 million last year) goes to the Treasury. 

Sure, but given the relationship between the estate, grants, government and the people, it's 100% correct to ask questions as to whether this has been done as efficiently as possible. For example, would it have been more efficient to have more continual upgrades than to have allowed some things to deteriorate as they have. 

The answers may well show that everything is fine and dandy, but the questions should be asked as of anything else. Not keeping the administrators of the estate honest would make one little but a lickspittle. 

I'm ambivalent about the idea of a royal family, but as a history, heritage and architecture enthusiast, I do think that it's important to upkeep buildings like the palace, so I don't object to money being spent. I would just like to see people scrutinise these kinds of things the way they would anything else (as they would anything done by the Scottish Govt), and any objections raised or questions asked shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

[Inigo 32,526]

19 hours ago, Vwbear said:

Yes voters,snp members,separatists, anti English 

It's not hard to work out how Yes voters and separatists could be quite comfortable at an Ibrox in full flow. I know several who quite happily sing along.

Personally, I doubt there are many SNP members or anti-English at Ibrox because it would make people that are that staunchly anti-British uncomfortable. But the point is, not all Yes voters are staunchly separatist or anti-British. People get this idea that the rabid element of the Yes/SNP voters represents your average Yes voter. I doubt that it does.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

3 hours ago, Inigo said:

Sure, but given the relationship between the estate, grants, government and the people, it's 100% correct to ask questions as to whether this has been done as efficiently as possible. For example, would it have been more efficient to have more continual upgrades than to have allowed some things to deteriorate as they have. 

The answers may well show that everything is fine and dandy, but the questions should be asked as of anything else. Not keeping the administrators of the estate honest would make one little but a lickspittle. 

I'm ambivalent about the idea of a royal family, but as a history, heritage and architecture enthusiast, I do think that it's important to upkeep buildings like the palace, so I don't object to money being spent. I would just like to see people scrutinise these kinds of things the way they would anything else (as they would anything done by the Scottish Govt), and any objections raised or questions asked shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

It seems they are awarding contracts as the work comes due so no one firm gets the whole amount and they can get best value at the time.

Scrutiny is a good thing and I wasn't getting at you, just the ill informed about the Crown Estate and its contribution to the Treasury.

[gsa 3,906]

3 hours ago, Inigo said:

It's not hard to work out how Yes voters and separatists could be quite comfortable at an Ibrox in full flow. I know several who quite happily sing along.

Personally, I doubt there are many SNP members or anti-English at Ibrox because it would make people that are that staunchly anti-British uncomfortable. But the point is, not all Yes voters are staunchly separatist or anti-British. People get this idea that the rabid element of the Yes/SNP voters represents your average Yes voter. I doubt that it does.

The average Yes/SNP voter is a fucking retard. 

The "rabid" ones are just noisier retards. 

[Inigo 32,526]

49 minutes ago, gsa said:

The average Yes/SNP voter is a fucking retard. 

The "rabid" ones are just noisier retards. 

Garbage. They just have different views on what's most important compared to you.

.

[gsa 3,906]

27 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Garbage. They just have different views on what's most important compared to you.

.

Hahaha!! 

Okay....

They obviously feel strongly enough about Braveheart that they're prepared to live in a destitute backwater that will be unable to pay for even the most basic of public services. 

[Inigo 32,526]

1 minute ago, gsa said:

Hahaha!! 

Okay....

They obviously feel strongly enough about Braveheart that they're prepared to live in a destitute backwater that will be unable to pay for even the most basic of public services. 

You think everyone that voted SNP or Yes did so out of some rabid braveheart feeling or because they're stupid? Interesting.

The same kind of arrogant dismissal of the voting public cost Hilary Clinton. If you want to win something, you have to understand why you're losing. If anyone that matters convinces themselves that the 1.45 million people that voted SNP last time are all retards or bravehearts they will have singularly failed to do that.

From my own experience, it's obvious that people voted SNP/Yes for various reasons. The better that is understood, the more likely politicians will be to adopt the kind of strategy that will prevent them from achieving what they want to.

You believe it would be a destitute backwater. You might be right or wrong. They believe the opposite. They might be right or wrong. Dismissing them with arrogant jibes like some kind of Clinton this side of the Atlantic would be foolish.

[gsa 3,906]

4 minutes ago, Inigo said:

You think everyone that voted SNP or Yes did so out of some rabid braveheart feeling or because they're stupid? Interesting.

The same kind of arrogant dismissal of the voting public cost Hilary Clinton. If you want to win something, you have to understand why you're losing. If anyone that matters convinces themselves that the 1.45 million people that voted SNP last time are all retards or bravehearts they will have singularly failed to do that.

From my own experience, it's obvious that people voted SNP/Yes for various reasons. The better that is understood, the more likely politicians will be to adopt the kind of strategy that will prevent them from achieving what they want to.

You believe it would be a destitute backwater. You might be right or wrong. They believe the opposite. They might be right or wrong. Dismissing them with arrogant jibes like some kind of Clinton this side of the Atlantic would be foolish.

I accepted your post until the "they believe the opposite. They might be wrong" 

Let's not be silly about things? You made valid points in relation to understanding rather than mocking those who voted Yes. I get that. But claiming Scotland could be anything other than a destitute backwater is frankly, ludicrous. 

We would be an economic disaster. That isn't opinion. That's fact. I'm not very bright, but then you don't need to be to do those sums. They simply do not add up. 

[Inigo 32,526]

Just now, gsa said:

I accepted your post until the "they believe the opposite. They might be wrong" 

Let's not be silly about things? You made valid points in relation to understanding rather than mocking those who voted Yes. I get that. But claiming Scotland could be anything other than a destitute backwater is frankly, ludicrous. 

We would be an economic disaster. That isn't opinion. That's fact. I'm not very bright, but then you don't need to be to do those sums. They simply do not add up. 

It's not fact until it's happened and is proven. It's 100% opinion. Just look at the Brexit vote. Most, the vast, vast majority of economists were predicting catastrophe if we left. In fact, the consensus might have been more certain than during the Scottish vote. Turns out they've been pretty wrong so far.

Personally I'd agree that it would be a bad move economically (not a catastrophe, I doubt we'd be a backwater at all, but I think we'd be worse off), but I'm not arrogant enough to say I can say for certain either. People that voted Yes generally want what's best for their children as well, so they clearly think the opposite. A lot of intelligent people have voted Yes or for the SNP of late. 

The arguments about the economy (and remember others don't even vote primarily based on the health of the economy any more than they do on braveheart notions) and the other merits of voting any particular way could, and did, take up massive, long winded threads. It's nothing like as simple as a massive tranche of the population just being stupid.

[gsa 3,906]

6 minutes ago, Inigo said:

It's not fact until it's happened and is proven. It's 100% opinion. Just look at the Brexit vote. Most, the vast, vast majority of economists were predicting catastrophe if we left. In fact, the consensus might have been more certain than during the Scottish vote. Turns out they've been pretty wrong so far.

Personally I'd agree that it would be a bad move economically (not a catastrophe, I doubt we'd be a backwater at all, but I think we'd be worse off), but I'm not arrogant enough to say I can say for certain either. People that voted Yes generally want what's best for their children as well, so they clearly think the opposite. A lot of intelligent people have voted Yes or for the SNP of late. 

The arguments about the economy (and remember others don't even vote primarily based on the health of the economy any more than they do on braveheart notions) and the other merits of voting any particular way could, and did, take up massive, long winded threads. It's nothing like as simple as a massive tranche of the population just being stupid.

If people vote Yes because they "want what's best for their children" then they're actually stupider than I originally suggested. 

[Inigo 32,526]

1 minute ago, gsa said:

If people vote Yes because they "want what's best for their children" then they're actually stupider than I originally suggested. 

Goin round in circles now here, mate. Hopefully Unionist politicians will have a bit more nous than the arrogant 'I'm right and they're idiots' tack.

[MasterD 7,435]

25 minutes ago, gsa said:

I'm not very bright

You have finally posted something most of the forum would agree with