Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on August 06, 2014, 06:05:47 am
-
For all the Scottish people living abroad, who were unable to see this and anyone who may be interested.
Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister and Alistair Darling the leader of the Better Together campaign, debate the future of Scotland.
Go here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ig2xCaPra8), the debate is in three parts BTW.
Dave
-
Not a good idea.
The bent towards smaller, more tribal borders makes for weaker nations that will be less relevant.
-
Divide et impera?
-
mmm. I can see a can of worms being opened.
Must be independence.
Iain
-
It could probably be fairly pointed out that the United Kingdom is in fact too closely united in the first place. One of the greatest fears about the EU the British have is that it will reduce the power of the electorate, which in many ways might be true, but other countries don't have this fear because they are far less centralised than Britain. Germany for instance is a conglomeration of federal states and those states have real powers of their own, far more than the County Councils in Britain which are little more than talking shops that pretend to oversee the implementation of central government policies, they don't really even have that power.
Scotland splitting off is a reversal of this trend and from that point of view is to be welcomed. Unfortunately it means that the Sir Humphrey's back in Whitehall will turn themselves even more ardently to the task of bossing England and Wales around instead, just to keep their degree of self importance at an acceptable level.
-
There's now a fair bit of nastiness brewing in Scotland, between the Yes & No camps. Whichever way the vote goes, I foresee civil war in Scotland, with the winner being the first side to capture the Irn Bru factory.
-
Let's hope that scotch quality and availability are not affected
-
House of Commons, Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report.
The Implications of Scottish Independence on Business; Higher Education and Research; and Postal Services.
The report can be found here. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmbis/504/504.pdf)
Dave
-
There's now a fair bit of nastiness brewing in Scotland, between the Yes & No camps. Whichever way the vote goes, I foresee civil war in Scotland, with the winner being the first side to capture the Irn Bru factory.
;D
-
Salmond seems to have unravelled this week as when it comes down to money, keeping pound etc he's floundering. Wanting independence but keeping the UK's currency seems a confused place to be. It's like wanting out of the EU but keeping the Euro.
Salmond reminds me of Arthur Scargill. To me it seem that his agenda is Scottish Independence and damn the consequences. Even if they are calamitous for Scotland. Not saying they are BTW.
[For those who do not know Scargill the Miner's Union leader, he took on the UK government in the 80's supposedly to benefit the miners but it was more a personal battle between himself and Thatcher. The miners being the losers as the government were very well prepared after the miners had previously turned the country's lights out in the 70s].
-
I find it surprising that Salmond hasn't handled the currency problem much more subtly. English politicians aren't bullying Scotland but just reflecting public opinion that doesn't want currency union with any foreign country, whether the Euro zone or Scotland. Even if presented only as a reassuring fallback position, an independent Scottish Pound has a certain nationalistic appeal - but simply denying any need for a plan B looks a very brittle strategy.
But just think, if they did go we could ban their bagpipes and Mel Gibson.
-
Salmond seems to have unravelled this week as when it comes down to money, keeping pound etc he's floundering. Wanting independence but keeping the UK's currency seems a confused place to be. It's like wanting out of the EU but keeping the Euro.
Salmond reminds me of Arthur Scargill. To me it seem that his agenda is Scottish Independence and damn the consequences. Even if they are calamitous for Scotland. Not saying they are BTW.
[For those who do not know Scargill the Miner's Union leader, he took on the UK government in the 80's supposedly to benefit the miners but it was more a personal battle between himself and Thatcher. The miners being the losers as the government were very well prepared after the miners had previously turned the country's lights out in the 70s].
Not quite, it may have been presented that way by a press desperate to taint him but the miners did have a genuine grievance over pay and if anyone chose to personalise the conflict it was Thatcher. Scargill held the support of a large majority of miners in the UK at the time hence the length and bitterness of the strike. The idea that British industry needed modernising was certainly true but the brutal suppression of the miners was a rather backward way of going about trying to prove a point and there is little doubt that that it was short sighted and condescending management practices that had led to the stagnation of investment and new products, not stroppy workers.
-
Scargill held the support of a large majority of miners in the UK at the time
Nobody has any idea how much support Scargill had amongst miners, for the simple reason that he refused to allow a ballot to be held. Maybe it was substantial; maybe it was merely a small, belligerent and vocal minority. There's just no evidence.
Jeremy
-
Nobody has any idea how much support Scargill had amongst miners, for the simple reason that he refused to allow a ballot to be held. Maybe it was substantial; maybe it was merely a small, belligerent and vocal minority. There's just no evidence.
Jeremy
True, and that certainly didn't help his cause, but as already mentioned the strike held firm for a long time throughout much of the industry which does not suggest it was a small belligerent minority as we were begged to believe by the aforementioned press.
-
For me, thus far there have been two profound events in the campaign:
1. George Osborne stating that "if Scotland walks away from the UK it walks away from the pound", followed by a joint statement by the three principal unionist parties that they will not agree to a currency union.
2. Ed Milliband stating unequivocally that ruling out a currency union will be written into the next Labour manifesto. My understanding is that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have confirmed unofficially that the same applies to their respective parties.
In my opinion the currency question is a non-issue. However, the question has become a festering issue for Yes. The second point above, which occurred only yesterday has, for me, now brought the issue to a head. It will be interesting to see how Yes responds. Presumably it'll be along the lines of the following video:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28696555
-
For me, thus far there have been two profound events in the campaign:
1. George Osborne stating that "if Scotland walks away from the UK it walks away from the pound", followed by a joint statement by the three principal unionist parties that they will not agree to a currency union.
2. Ed Milliband stating unequivocally that ruling out a currency union will be written into the next Labour manifesto. My understanding is that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have confirmed unofficially that the same applies to their respective parties.
In my opinion the currency question is a non-issue. However, the question has become a festering issue for Yes. The second point above, which occurred only yesterday has, for me, now brought the issue to a head. It will be interesting to see how Yes responds. Presumably it'll be along the lines of the following video:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28696555
But do you not think if the vote is yes, that there would then be a massive movement of wealth and assets to the South of the border, to ensure it retains its known value, at least until such time as the new Scottish currency finds its own global value and the exchange rate is established and globally traded?
I am trying to not be for or against this, but it does worry me that from what I can gather, whenever a new country is created/established through being seceded, then people who have assets that can be moved quickly and easily to what may be seen as a more secure location and currency in the old and established part of the union, will probably do just that.
So if this is indeed the case, do you think that would have any effect on the value of the new Scottish currency, if vast amounts of monetary assets quickly drain out of Scotland and into the South?
Wouldn't there be an immediate run on the new Scottish currency and spiralling devaluation as a result?
Dave
-
The McPound could be pegged to Sterling for a transition period, during which time tax and other policies would reassure those who might move their money. The problem isn't really the practicality but the refusal to contemplate that England just doesn't want a currency union with a foreign country. If he'd said months ago that a Scottish Pound was an equally good way forward, I doubt Salmond would be looking so exposed.
-
The McPound could be pegged to Sterling for a transition period, during which time tax and other policies would reassure those who might move their money. The problem isn't really the practicality but the refusal to contemplate that England just doesn't want a currency union with a foreign country. If he'd said months ago that a Scottish Pound was an equally good way forward, I doubt Salmond would be looking so exposed.
But how can you peg it to the pound without incurring huge and open ended costs?
I remember the pound being pegged to the Euro, but all that led to was everyone getting their fingers severely burnt, a massive devaluation of the pound and rampant inflation. In other words, we have tried that idea before and it didn’t work, in fact it was a complete and utter disaster.
Dave
-
I think the answer is that you don't have to float the McPound until you're ready. The various ERMs and shadowing have been between fully-tradable currencies.
-
True, and that certainly didn't help his cause, but as already mentioned the strike held firm for a long time throughout much of the industry which does not suggest it was a small belligerent minority as we were begged to believe by the aforementioned press.
A small belligerent minority who intimidated anyone who didn't support Scargill and his cronies, 3 people were murdered over this. The reason Scargill didn't do the ballot is because he didn't think he would win it. The whole thing was a very nasty affair with Scargill being an even worse enemy to the miners than Thatcher, which is about his only achievement.
-
Dave,
It is not possible for any of us to know ahead of casting our vote what will occur in the event that a Yes is returned because ultimately how the situation unfolds will depend on the willinglness of Scotland and the rUK to negotiate and compromise during a transition period. All we can do is consider the kind of country we would like to have, and trust will be delivered, and vote accordingly.
I appreciate that my response will do nothing to allay your concern.
-
Well, one thing you do know is that rUK voters won't want a currency union with a foreign country. So what's so hard about saying there would be an orderly transition to an independent Scottish Pound? You know, I'd probably vote yes if I lived in Scotland, but what self-respecting country seeks independence but wants its finances to be subject to London?
-
Whatever bad happens, will be temporary, not terminal, so voters will not decide based on that, but on long-term prospects. Many countries declared independence in the last 10-20 years and none perished.
-
Scotland will be be just fine - and the separation would be more like Czechoslovakia's break-up than Yugoslavia's. What's at issue is the purely best case argument being used to sustain the yes vote, with realistic objections being discounted. Would the yes vote be so high with more honesty from Salmond? Probably. But what honesty about currency union would achieve is reassuring some of the no and don't knows - and give him a better chance of success than he now seems to have.
-
John,
Well, one thing you do know is that rUK voters won't want a currency union with a foreign country.
The Scottish Government has evidence that proves that a currency union is in the best interest of Scotland and the rUK. The Westminster Government has evidence that proves it is not. On what basis will rUK voters arrive at an informed decision?
In any event, with the commitment to state in their respective manifestos their refusal to enter a currency union, the three main unionist parties will deny the rUK electorate any choice in the matter.
Would the yes vote be so high with more honesty from Salmond? Probably.
Would the Yes vote be higher with more honesty from the three main unionist parties? Probably.
Honesty is not normally associated with politicians.
-
In any event, with the commitment to state in their respective manifestos their refusal to enter a currency union, the three main unionist parties will deny the rUK electorate any choice in the matter.
Huh, they can always vote for someone else who advocates it. But it would be political suicide for English parties to propose currency union with a foreign country when they know English voters wouldn't want it. Had Salmond been honest about that and proposed an independent Scottish currency, or even the Euro, I doubt he'd face the same level of opposition. It's not as if a Scottish pound wouldn't be perfectly viable - it would probably be pretty strong too.
-
John,
Had Salmond been honest about that and proposed an independent Scottish currency, or even the Euro, I doubt he'd face the same level of opposition.
Perhaps. I'm more inclined to believe that whatever currency the Scottish Government proposed would be condemned by the unionist parties. Maybe you could cite an example of something proposed by the former which hasn't been condemned by the latter?
In any event, the referendum is not about Alex Salmond, the SNP or, in my opinion, the currency, so I'm good. :)
-
Bitcoin!
-
The sooner we have a world currency the better.
-
The sooner we have a world currency the better.
Are you advocating for Pax Americana? ;)
-
What has America got to do with a single currency? Or peace for that matter?
-
Perhaps. I'm more inclined to believe that whatever currency the Scottish Government proposed would be condemned by the unionist parties.
Probably!
In any event, the referendum is not about Alex Salmond, the SNP or, in my opinion, the currency, so I'm good. :)
It's about getting more than 50%, isn't it? Nationalism doesn't look enough, and the lack of a credible plan for the currency isn't going to help win over the no's and the don't knows.
-
The real reason that Scargill didn't do the ballot was because Thatcher had bought off the Nottinghamshire miners with plans for modernisation and no closures. This meant they would have voted no to a strike. Ironically a few years later she went back on the promise and shafted them. :'(
-
John,
It's about getting more than 50%, isn't it?
To the Yes and No campaigns equally, yes. To the individual voter, no.
...the lack of a credible plan for the currency isn't going to help win over the no's and the don't knows.
I agree that uncertainty will not advance the case for Yes. I'd be interested to learn how you have determined that a currency union is not credible.
-
I actually referred to the currency, but the currency union option's not credible because English voters just don't want it - as reflected by the English parties putting it in their manifestos.
-
Ed Milliband stated on television that if he became prime minister he wouldn't agree to a currency union. He then agreed with the interviewer that the policy would cost English business' hundreds of millions of pounds. How is he going to sell that to the voters? Do English voters want higher costs on goods?
-
Of course, similar arguments were in favour of the UK entering the Euro, and that never happened. It's not worth commenting on how you've spun whatever Milliband said, but he and the others obviously believe that English voters want manifesto promises that there won't be a currency union. What's so hard about accepting that the other person won't tango and that you're going to need an alternative?
-
John,
I actually referred to the currency...
My mistake, sorry. From the outset the Scottish Government has proposed Sterling as Scotland's currency. What aspect of the currency is it you consider to be not credible?
...the currency union option's not credible because English voters just don't want it - as reflected by the English parties putting it in their manifestos.
With all due respect, England is not the rUK. Nor do the parties to which you refer represent only England.
-
The Scottish govt is proposing a formally agreed currency union, and it's pretty clear that it's not credible if the other side doesn't want it. It's not as if there aren't alternatives such as continuing to use the UK's currency or going with a Scottish Pound.
But, yeah, I am carefully using England as a wind up! The same parties operate in Wales, while N Ireland is a special case, and there are far more English votes.
-
The real reason that Scargill didn't do the ballot was because Thatcher had bought off the Nottinghamshire miners with plans for modernisation and no closures.
Bought off or offered them a deal that was actually pretty good?
This meant they would have voted no to a strike.
So Scargill didn't go for a vote because he knew the people he represented wouldn't vote for his plan. Not exactly democratic either way.
Ironically a few years later she went back on the promise and shafted them. :'(
Deliberate pun?
Hard to say, but if the [other] miners had not caused the country so much trouble, maybe she wouldn't have.
BTW - Not a Thatcher fan by any stretch of the imagination [she damaged Sheffield badly and for reasons of spite], but Scargill was even worse.
-
No matter how the miners protested, peaceful or violent, they were going to get shafted.
-
No matter how the miners protested, peaceful or violent, they were going to get shafted.
If you want to try and hold a government hostage which was the case and not a simple protest, you aren't going to earn yourself any favours. Not that it was a peaceful or pleasant.
-
If you want to try and hold a government hostage which was the case and not a simple protest, you aren't going to earn yourself any favours. Not that it was a peaceful or pleasant.
Indeed, the police were very heavy handed, but then they had got a hefty pay rise whereas the miners hadn't so why they were quite so aggressive is unclear, you'd have thought it would have been the other way round.
-
The police were helping the government clamp down on the miners, so of course they were kept sweet. The miners were not exactly nice either. I saw them at first hand at Orgreave and they were atagonistically provoking the police for a reaction. Which they got during the 'Battle of Orgreave' (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Battle+of+Orgreave%27&num=100&safe=off&es_sm=119&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gePnU5bjBKXb0QXK74HoCg&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1916&bih=1079)
At least the police didn't kill people.
-
The police were helping the government clamp down on the miners, so of course they were kept sweet. The miners were not exactly nice either. I saw them at first hand at Orgreave and they were atagonistically provoking the police for a reaction. Which they got during the 'Battle of Orgreave' (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Battle+of+Orgreave%27&num=100&safe=off&es_sm=119&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gePnU5bjBKXb0QXK74HoCg&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1916&bih=1079)
At least the police didn't kill people.
The police are meant to keep law and order, not help the government. If we accept that the government were corrupt in 'keeping them sweet' may we also accept that he government were less than honest in handling the situation?
You mention Orgreave, here's another reference to it -
The Independent Police Complaints Commission is considering an investigation into police fabrication of evidence during the trials that followed battles between police and miners at the Orgreave coke depot in June 1984 (95 cases collapsed a year later)
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/05/miners-strike-books-david-edgar-rereading
-
I'm pleased to say that I helped break the miners' strike by buying in millions of tonnes of fuel oil from all over the world to supply UK oil-fired power stations. The biggest supplier by far was Nafta, the Soviet oil export agency.
-
I'm pleased to say that I helped break the miners' strike by buying in millions of tonnes of fuel oil from all over the world to supply UK oil-fired power stations. The biggest supplier by far was Nafta, the Soviet oil export agency.
I trust you spent your silver wisely and hope that you and your contribution to Britain's glorious freedom is more readily appreciated than that of the Blessed Maggie who ended her days shut away in a gilded cage, unloved and deserted by even her own people until they could enjoy the spectacle of burying her.
-
What has America got to do with a single currency? Or peace for that matter?
I would write a witty response in Japanese or German if not for my only partially complete American public school education. ;)
-
The police are meant to keep law and order, not help the government.
A wee bit naive, maybe?
After all, it is the government who define "law and order".
-
Of course, similar arguments were in favour of the UK entering the Euro, and that never happened. It's not worth commenting on how you've spun whatever Milliband said, but he and the others obviously believe that English voters want manifesto promises that there won't be a currency union. What's so hard about accepting that the other person won't tango and that you're going to need an alternative?
No spin John. It was on the BBC's news channel on Thursday. The commentator had to ask him several times before he agreed with him. He stated that it would never happen when he became Prime minister. I don't think he has much chance of that possibly because of his lack lustre performances the party will replace him in the autumn or the voters will not vote for him. He is a light weight at best and and at the worst clueless? :(
-
I'm pleased to say that I helped break the miners' strike by buying in millions of tonnes of fuel oil from all over the world to supply UK oil-fired power stations. The biggest supplier by far was Nafta, the Soviet oil export agency.
I trust you spent your silver wisely and hope that you and your contribution to Britain's glorious freedom is more readily appreciated than that of the Blessed Maggie who ended her days shut away in a gilded cage, unloved and deserted by even her own people until they could enjoy the spectacle of burying her.
Oh, "Ding-dong the witch is dead" and all that stuff? It's true, Progressivism is a mental illness.
-
No spin John. It was on the BBC's news channel on Thursday. The commentator had to ask him several times before he agreed with him. He stated that it would never happen when he became Prime minister. I don't think he has much chance of that possibly because of his lack lustre performances the party will replace him in the autumn or the voters will not vote for him. He is a light weight at best and and at the worst clueless? :(
From what I read afterwards, your paraphrasing was indeed misleading and failed to mention that he continued to say that other economic factors outweighed any additional business costs. So yes, it wasn't worth commenting. Whatever his electoral prospects, he's been pretty astute at reading the public mood over a series of major issues and doesn't exactly need to be a political genius to call this one right.
-
Oh, "Ding-dong the witch is dead" and all that stuff? It's true, Progressivism is a mental illness.
Anything can be considered a mental illness by those who oppose it, often through prejudice rather than logic or compassion.
-
A wee bit naive, maybe?
After all, it is the government who define "law and order".
Having a police force at the beck and call of a government is hardly what is normally recognised as a democracy, the term 'dictatorship' is more often applied to such situations, but since the UK has one one of the most spied upon populations in the world I think it fair to conclude that they are happy living in a quasi police state so perhaps you may have a point. It's why I got the family out of the place BTW.
-
John,
From what I read afterwards, your paraphrasing was indeed misleading and failed to mention that he continued to say that other economic factors outweighed any additional business costs.
From this (http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-independence-miliband-currency-union-vow-1-3503118) piece in The Scotsman:
Last night, both the Tories and the Lib Dems joined Labour in signalling their intention to rule out a shared pound in their 2015 manifestos.
Asked if the Conservative Party would make the pledge part of its general election platform, a senior Tory source said: “Yes, it would. In the unlikely event of a Yes vote, we’d make it crystal clear that a currency union is not going to happen.” A Lib Dem spokesman said: “A currency union would be in the interests of no-one and we therefore cannot support it. Our position would be unchanged and our manifesto would reflect that.”
Mr Miliband became the first party leader to announce his plans during a press conference in Glasgow yesterday. He said Labour’s election platform for 2015 would make it “very clear that we’re not going to sign up to a currency union”. Asked if it would be guaranteed in the election manifesto, he twice gave an emphatic “Yes”, adding he would “rule it out” if he was elected prime minister.
It would appear to be beyond question that Ed Miliband will include in the Labour party 2015 manifesto a commitment to prevent a currency union in the event of a Yes vote. That Tory and Liberal Democrat spokesmen have confirmed their intension to write the same into their respective parties' manifesto dispels the notion that Ed Miliband’s words were taken out of context.
If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.
-
John,
From this (http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-independence-miliband-currency-union-vow-1-3503118) piece in The Scotsman:
Last night, both the Tories and the Lib Dems joined Labour in signalling their intention to rule out a shared pound in their 2015 manifestos.
Asked if the Conservative Party would make the pledge part of its general election platform, a senior Tory source said: “Yes, it would. In the unlikely event of a Yes vote, we’d make it crystal clear that a currency union is not going to happen.” A Lib Dem spokesman said: “A currency union would be in the interests of no-one and we therefore cannot support it. Our position would be unchanged and our manifesto would reflect that.”
Mr Miliband became the first party leader to announce his plans during a press conference in Glasgow yesterday. He said Labour’s election platform for 2015 would make it “very clear that we’re not going to sign up to a currency union”. Asked if it would be guaranteed in the election manifesto, he twice gave an emphatic “Yes”, adding he would “rule it out” if he was elected prime minister.
It would appear to be beyond question that Ed Miliband will include in the Labour party 2015 manifesto a commitment to prevent a currency union in the event of a Yes vote. That Tory and Liberal Democrat spokesmen have confirmed their intension to write the same into their respective parties' manifesto dispels the notion that Ed Miliband’s words were taken out of context.
If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.
On the other hand it could just be a scare tactic to frighten people into voting no.
-
From what I read afterwards, your paraphrasing was indeed misleading and failed to mention that he continued to say that other economic factors outweighed any additional business costs. So yes, it wasn't worth commenting. Whatever his electoral prospects, he's been pretty astute at reading the public mood over a series of major issues and doesn't exactly need to be a political genius to call this one right.
John did you see the television interview?
-
On the other hand it could just be a scare tactic to frighten people into voting no.
That is exactly what is going on. Alistair Darling a year earlier was in favour of the currency union and changed his mind to suit politics. Not the only thing he changed. He was a follower of Trotsky at one time. Milliband is shitting himself because in the event of a Yes vote he will lose 29 Scottish MP's and the Labour party will be eternally in opposition. ;) :)
-
John,
From this (http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-independence-miliband-currency-union-vow-1-3503118) piece in The Scotsman:
Last night, both the Tories and the Lib Dems joined Labour in signalling their intention to rule out a shared pound in their 2015 manifestos.
Asked if the Conservative Party would make the pledge part of its general election platform, a senior Tory source said: “Yes, it would. In the unlikely event of a Yes vote, we’d make it crystal clear that a currency union is not going to happen.” A Lib Dem spokesman said: “A currency union would be in the interests of no-one and we therefore cannot support it. Our position would be unchanged and our manifesto would reflect that.”
Mr Miliband became the first party leader to announce his plans during a press conference in Glasgow yesterday. He said Labour’s election platform for 2015 would make it “very clear that we’re not going to sign up to a currency union”. Asked if it would be guaranteed in the election manifesto, he twice gave an emphatic “Yes”, adding he would “rule it out” if he was elected prime minister.
It would appear to be beyond question that Ed Miliband will include in the Labour party 2015 manifesto a commitment to prevent a currency union in the event of a Yes vote. That Tory and Liberal Democrat spokesmen have confirmed their intension to write the same into their respective parties' manifesto dispels the notion that Ed Miliband’s words were taken out of context.
If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.
Sorry, why are you asking me? These quotes seem consistent with what I keep saying.
Maybe I should have quoted it, but the misleading paraphrasing was "Ed Milliband stated on television that if he became prime minister he wouldn't agree to a currency union. He then agreed with the interviewer that the policy would cost English business' hundreds of millions of pounds" - misleading because he continued to say that other financial considerations outweighed those costs.
-
Did you see the program? You seem to be quoting an edited written version from some source? What are the other things that outweigh the costs?
-
Life's too short to spend it watching Ed Milliband interviews! Isn't it funny that Scots imagine the English would accept a currency union with any foreign country? Why is it so hard to accept that after a divorce the other person might not want to a joint bank account? Just think, with proper independence you can have your very own shiny McPounds with pictures of Bannockburn and Wembley 1967 on the back. The Scottish Pound would be pretty strong too, which is a two-edged sword, of course.
-
Justinr,
On the other hand it could just be a scare tactic to frighten people into voting no.
If it is, then according to the latest polls it is working.
Stamper,
Milliband is shitting himself because in the event of a Yes vote he will lose 29 Scottish MP's and the Labour party will be eternally in opposition.
The commonly held belief that Labour is reliant on Scottish MPs in order to secure a majority in a General Election is not bourne out by the data. In 14 out of the previous 18 General Elections the loss of Scotland’s votes would not have changed the outcome.
-
John,
Just think, with proper independence you can have your very own shiny McPounds with pictures of Bannockburn and Wembley 1967 on the back.
Or, we could just use Sterling. ::)
-
John,
Or, we could just use Sterling. ::)
Absolutely, and I think it would have been better to advocate this route and not pretend Scotland can make England join a currency union. But why wouldn't any red-blooded Scot wouldn't want an independent currency?
-
Isaac,
We meet at last. Welcome. ;D
Politicians act honestly in their own self-interest.
Yes, I dare say they do.
Was your statement intended to refute my own, or was it merely an observation?
John,
...I think it would have been better to advocate this route and not pretend Scotland can make England join a currency union.
What has been proposed is that a currency union is economically in the best interest of Scotland and the rUK. This has been shown to be true, and shown to be not true, depending on which side one listens to. To the best of my knowledge what you suggest has not been proposed.
...why wouldn't any red-blooded Scot wouldn't want an independent currency?
If it is correct that a currency union is in the best interest of Scotland, then anything other than that is a poorer option.
-
Making England join a currency union seems to be exactly what Salmond proposes.
-
John,
Making England join a currency union seems to be exactly what Salmond proposes.
Either Alex Salmond has or has not proposed what you suggest. You appear to consider that he has.
For the avoidance of doubt, do you have any evidence you can post in this thread which supports your view, or is it exactly that - a personal view?
-
All the English parties say very clearly that they won't join a currency union and are putting it in their 2015 manifestos, while Salmond proposes to have a union.
-
Imagine this. Scotland votes yes. Milliband then declares no currency union as a manifesto promise which will leave both the labour voters in England & Scotland worse off. What a slap in the face to loyal Scottish voters. 18 months from now there is a union negotiated. He would look a right jerk, not that he isn't right now?
-
Life's too short to spend it watching Ed Milliband interviews! Isn't it funny that Scots imagine the English would accept a currency union with any foreign country? Why is it so hard to accept that after a divorce the other person might not want to a joint bank account? Just think, with proper independence you can have your very own shiny McPounds with pictures of Bannockburn and Wembley 1967 on the back. The Scottish Pound would be pretty strong too, which is a two-edged sword, of course.
John they have a currency union with Gibraltar.
-
Not a country, a tiny dependent territory. So you want to liken Scotland to a slice of rock with a lot of baboons and an economy totally dependent on holes in UK banking, tax and gambling laws?
-
John a negotiated currency union will happen. Scotland can and imo should reject sharing any part of the debt. That would be a disaster for England if they rejected the debt share. So that alone will be a powerful negotiating ploy.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union
-
John they have a currency union with Gibraltar.
You needn't limit it to Gibraltar. The Isle of Man, Channel Islands and to a certain extent N. Ireland, they all look the same on the surface and share the same currency but you don't have to dig too far to find that they work quite differently.
-
Quote John.
Life's too short to spend it watching Ed Milliband interviews! Isn't it funny that Scots imagine the English would accept a currency union with any foreign country?
unquote
You are probably correct about Gibraltar but my rebuttal was posted to point that you were wrong posting the statement.
-
I am wondering why - like most Scots - England is trying so hard to hold on to us. A lot of the English see us as subsidy junkies, which isn't true. Is it the oil? I suspect there is a large oilfield that has been discovered that they aren't telling us about. Or don't they want Trident placed on the shores of the Thames? Do they want to make Scotland pay a large part of the debt that a Labour government created with their mismanagement of the economy. Or is because the simply like us despite the Scots electing only one Tory MP? I don't think it is because they simply like us. So why are they reluctant to let us go?
-
Justinr,
If it is, then according to the latest polls it is working.
Stamper,
The commonly held belief that Labour is reliant on Scottish MPs in order to secure a majority in a General Election is not bourne out by the data. In 14 out of the previous 18 General Elections the loss of Scotland’s votes would not have changed the outcome.
Voting trends differ with every election. Ukip is on the rise and will take a large share of the vote and we are into a particular time period where hung Parliaments could be the norm. So 29 seats will be crucial to Labour. Image an England free from Scotland and there is an election that the Tories win by a dozen seats.
-
You are probably correct about Gibraltar but my rebuttal was posted to point that you were wrong posting the statement.
Gibraltar isn't actually a country, nor are the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. They are British Overseas Territories under UK sovereignty, each about the size of a small town, and their economies would be nothing without UK tax and gambling loopholes. Tiny tax havens aren't comparable to a country like Scotland. So yes, the UK doesn't have currency unions with foreign countries.
The UK government has advice that currency union would not be in the interests of the remainder of the UK. As Rob said, "This has been shown to be true, and shown to be not true, depending on which side one listens to" but it's clear the English parties believe that advice and consider that currency union would be almost as politically suicidal as joining the Euro.
-
I am wondering why - like most Scots - England is trying so hard to hold on to us. A lot of the English see us as subsidy junkies, which isn't true. Is it the oil? I suspect there is a large oilfield that has been discovered that they aren't telling us about. Or don't they want Trident placed on the shores of the Thames? Do they want to make Scotland pay a large part of the debt that a Labour government created with their mismanagement of the economy. Or is because the simply like us despite the Scots electing only one Tory MP? I don't think it is because they simply like us. So why are they reluctant to let us go?
It's probably simple colonialism, if that makes you feel any better. We just loved the Rannoch Moor scene in Trainspotting.
Anyway, doesn't polling indicate most Scots want to hold on to England?
-
I am wondering why - like most Scots - England is trying so hard to hold on to us. A lot of the English see us as subsidy junkies, which isn't true. Is it the oil? I suspect there is a large oilfield that has been discovered that they aren't telling us about. Or don't they want Trident placed on the shores of the Thames? Do they want to make Scotland pay a large part of the debt that a Labour government created with their mismanagement of the economy. Or is because the simply like us despite the Scots electing only one Tory MP? I don't think it is because they simply like us. So why are they reluctant to let us go?
I think its a lot more simple than that, it's just anal retentiveness, they've lost their empire and now even Scotland may go! How will the mandarins justify their self importance and vast salaries, Cameron will have even less reason to look big on the world stage, just what will GCHQ do with 5m less people to spy on etc etc? Add to that there is the awful realisation that not everybody loves the English as much as they thought after all and they need to do a bit more than be on the winning side in a couple of large wars to win the hearts and minds of the world at large.
-
Stamper,
Imagine this. Scotland votes yes. Milliband then declares no currency union as a manifesto promise which will leave both the labour voters in England & Scotland worse off. What a slap in the face to loyal Scottish voters.
The situation would be worse than you describe. If Scotland votes Yes then it will remain a part of the UK until nominally 2016. In other words, Scotland would be a part of the UK at the next General Election in 2015, yet all three unionist parties would have as part of their manifesto a pledge that purportedly would be in the best interest of the rUK rather than the UK. It would be wilful neglect of a part of the UK they were elected to represent.
I suspect there is a large oilfield that has been discovered that they aren't telling us about.
Just the one? :) There are reputed to be vast oil and gas fields in the North Atlantic Margin that have yet to be tapped. Apparently the largest field in the world lies a short distance off the coast of Lewis. In addition, the MoD is known to have blocked exploration of oil in the Firth of Clyde waters.
Presumably you are aware of the McCrone Report?
Voting trends differ with every election. Ukip is on the rise and will take a large share of the vote and we are into a particular time period where hung Parliaments could be the norm. So 29 seats will be crucial to Labour. Image an England free from Scotland and there is an election that the Tories win by a dozen seats.
Yes, it is certainly the case that when the result is close, Scottish votes can influence the result.
John,
Gibraltar isn't actually a country, nor are the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands
Nor is Wales, which is a Principality.
-
Nor is Wales, which is a Principality.
By that score neither is England, which is a kingdom ("of England and Wales"), or Scotland which is also a kingdom. Neither is the USA, which is a republic. In other words, being a country is distinct from whatever its form of government may be.
-
John,
In other words, being a country is distinct from whatever its form of government may be.
I agree.
-
John,
The UK government has advice that currency union would not be in the interests of the remainder of the UK. As Rob said, "This has been shown to be true, and shown to be not true, depending on which side one listens to" but it's clear the English parties believe that advice…
No, it is not. Time and again your argument has rested on the premise that what you have been told by the English [sic] parties is the truth. Surely you know better than to trust information provided to you by politicians, which are among the least trusted people in society.
It's probably simple colonialism, if that makes you feel any better.
Do you suggest that Scotland is a colony?
Anyway, doesn't polling indicate most Scots want to hold on to England?
The result of recent polls suggests that the Scottish electorate would like to remain a part of the UK.
-
No, it is not. Time and again your argument has rested on the premise that what you have been told by the English [sic] parties is the truth. Surely you know better than to trust information provided to you by politicians, which are among the least trusted people in society.
I agree with you that it comes down to "depending on which side one listens to" and just as you might listen to the latter case, the English parties have chosen to listen to the former. Why do you deny their sincerity? Can't the sincerity of those listening to pro-independence forecasts be questioned too? Plus, one year away from an election, English parties may be pretty clued up on English voters' views of currency unions.
Do you not agree that independence will give Scots power to take their economy in a different direction from England's (Swinney was talking corporate tax changes just yesterday)? In fact you'd want that, wouldn't you? All that extra oil west of the Hebrides won't make Scotland's economy any more like England's, will it? Similarly, independence from Scotland would mean Parliamentary and economic power in England will shift even more towards regions like London and the South which have the very least in common with Scotland's economy, so you'd expect England to go its own way too. It might not be on a German-Greek scale, but divergence is very likely and was of course one of the key items identified in the UK Treasury advice against a currency union. But hey, those who listen to those arguments don't know any better than trusting the politicians.....
Do you suggest that Scotland is a colony?
Don't you recognise a wind up? More seriously though, it may not be an attractive reason but don't you think that post-imperial attitude is fundamentally why "England is trying so hard to hold on to us"? It's certainly not for the love of deep fried Mars bars, Rabbie Burns and bagpipes.
-
John,
I agree with you that it comes down to "depending on which side one listens to" and just as you might listen to the latter case, the English parties have chosen to listen to the former. Why do you deny their sincerity? Can't the sincerity of those listening to pro-independence forecasts be questioned too? Plus, one year away from an election, English parties may be pretty clued up on English voters' views of currency unions.
I do not doubt the sincerity of politicians. I do, however, doubt their honesty, Isaac’s comment notwithstanding. :) Nor do I listen to only one side of the argument.
The arguments of those advocating independence should absolutely be challenged. I have not claimed otherwise. All I have suggested is that we treat what we read and view in the media with a high degree of scepticism. Unionist politicians may well be correct, but they may well be incorrect. The same applies to pro-independence politicians. We simply do not know, and will not know prior to the referendum.
Do you not agree that independence will give Scots power to take their economy in a different direction from England's (Swinney was talking corporate tax changes just yesterday)? In fact you'd want that, wouldn't you? All that extra oil west of the Hebrides won't make Scotland's economy any more like England's, will it? Similarly, independence from Scotland would mean Parliamentary and economic power in England will shift even more towards regions like London and the South which have the very least in common with Scotland's economy, so you'd expect England to go its own way too.
I agree with the portion italicised above. I’m less convinced about the remainder.
…divergence is very likely and was of course one of the key items identified in the UK Treasury advice against a currency union. But hey, those who listen to those arguments don't know any better than trusting the politicians...
Please do not misrepresent what I have written.
Don't you recognise a wind up?
The more important question is why you repeatedly feel the need to ”wind up”. You do yourself a disservice.
…it may not be an attractive reason but don't you think that post-imperial attitude is fundamentally why "England is trying so hard to hold on to us"?
No, for such an attitude would indicate that sentiment took precedence over economics, and I do not consider that to be true.
I do not consider that “England is trying to hold on to us”. In my experience the English generally are ambivalent about Scotland becoming independent. I do consider that Westminster is trying its utmost to create uncertainty in the mind of the Scottish electorate in order to “hold onto us”. There must be a reason, and we both agree it does not arise out of the goodness of Westminster’s heart.
No government would wish to support a country which is a net burden on it. Therefore, Scotland presumably is a net asset. In any event, independence is about so much more than currency, despite the No campaign’s extraordinary attempt (and success to date) to turn the referendum into a question not being asked.
-
Do you not agree that independence will give Scots power to take their economy in a different direction from England's (Swinney was talking corporate tax changes just yesterday)? In fact you'd want that, wouldn't you?
the greatest benefit is that UK sans Scotland will have even less money to maintain nukes...
-
I do not consider that “England is trying to hold on to us”. In my experience the English generally are ambivalent about Scotland becoming independent. I do consider that Westminster is trying its utmost to create uncertainty in the mind of the Scottish electorate in order to “hold onto us”. There must be a reason, and we both agree it does not arise out of the goodness of Westminster’s heart.
No government would wish to support a country which is a net burden on it. Therefore, Scotland presumably is a net asset. In any event, independence is about so much more than currency, despite the No campaign’s extraordinary attempt (and success to date) to turn the referendum into a question not being asked.
Well, perhaps it should be? OK, obviously you can't frame a question around individual details, and the question itself is rightly a simple Yes or No that leaves no doubt. But like any decision, you want to know roughly what you're voting for, and so the direction of the economy needs to be examined.
Ambivalence is a fair enough word, but I think the manifesto commitments also reflect a sense of wanting any break to be complete.
-
John,
Well, perhaps it should be? OK, obviously you can't frame a question around individual details, and the question itself is rightly a simple Yes or No that leaves no doubt. But like any decision, you want to know roughly what you're voting for, and so the direction of the economy needs to be examined.
We know exactly what we are voting for - "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
We know what currency has been proposed - Sterling. We know that a currency union has been proposed. We know that the rUK cannot be forced to accept it, regardless of whose interest it is best in. Nobody seriously considers anything other than a Scottish currency pegged one to one with Sterling in the event that the rUK rejects a currency union.
I have no idea what will happen in one year's time, or two, or three. How about you? Perhaps you can tell me the future. The fact is, none of us know what's around the corner. The financial fate of an independent Scotland will be determined based on responsible fiscal behaviour and by events outside of its control in the global financial market. The same applies to every other country in the world not debt free. In other words, all but a tiny minority.
Is that sufficiently "rough"?
EDIT: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/matt-qvortrup-financial-perspective-on-independence-1-3506541
-
Rough, certainly.
-
I am wondering why - like most Scots - England is trying so hard to hold on to us. A lot of the English see us as subsidy junkies, which isn't true.
Cough! Wales and Northern Ireland.
-
As ever this is going to be totally unfair to England. it's all very well for Scots and Welsh to vent anguish about whether to 'remain' but us English are not going to get the chance to give the Scots (and welsh) the elbow as many of us would like to do......Personally I have had enough of 'little Mr Salmond' now.
-
"but us English are not going to get the chance to give the Scots (and welsh) the elbow as many of us would like to do"
We are going to beat you to it. ;) ;D
-
There are many very powerful reasons why I will be voting "Yes" in the referendum. One of the lesser is that I don't like Mr Salmond and I dislike nationalism. Once we have independence we will be able to get rid of both Salmond and the SNP (ask yourself: why would anyone vote for them once independence has been obtained?)
Too many Scots are still erroneously thinking that voting "Yes" equates with voting for Salmond and the SNP.
Neat campaign poster released a few days ago - a mugshot of Salmond with the slogan "You are not voting for me. You are voting for You."
-
There are many very powerful reasons why I will be voting "Yes" in the referendum. One of the lesser is that I don't like Mr Salmond and I dislike nationalism. Once we have independence we will be able to get rid of both Salmond and the SNP (ask yourself: why would anyone vote for them once independence has been obtained?)
Will anyone vote for them after they've failed to persuade a majority of Scots to vote for independence?
Jeremy
-
Will anyone vote for them after they've failed to persuade a majority of Scots to vote for independence?
Jeremy
There is an old Scottish saying, "The deil (i.e. devil) has a' the best tunes"
That is coming out in the referendum campaign and it is certainly not the SNP alone that is persuading Scots to vote for independence. The "Yes" campaign is a very broad church and it does, indeed, have all the best tunes, all the best speeches, all the best jokes (yes, that matters), all the best slogans, most of the posters and, according to an analysis in yesterday's "Herald" (one of Scotland's two quality broadsheets), is supported by the best writers, historians, economists, lawyers, painters, doctors, farmers, academics, constitutional theorists, political thinkers, and more.
I think that where the "Yes" campaign have been very clever is that, between now and the voting day, they are rolling out several influential supporters every day whereas the "no" campaign appear to have shot their bolt some time ago.
-
There is an old Scottish saying, "The deil (i.e. devil) has a' the best tunes"
That is coming out in the referendum campaign and it is certainly not the SNP alone that is persuading Scots to vote for independence. The "Yes" campaign is a very broad church and it does, indeed, have all the best tunes, all the best speeches, all the best jokes (yes, that matters), all the best slogans, most of the posters and, according to an analysis in yesterday's "Herald" (one of Scotland's two quality broadsheets), is supported by the best writers, historians, economists, lawyers, painters, doctors, farmers, academics, constitutional theorists, political thinkers, and more.
I think that where the "Yes" campaign have been very clever is that, between now and the voting day, they are rolling out several influential supporters every day whereas the "no" campaign appear to have shot their bolt some time ago.
After the debate last night, this image started popping up on the net, is it a joke I wonder and if so, on who?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02868/alexcoin_2868474b.jpg)
Dave
-
Here's an interesting article; http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Scottish-Independence-Must-Happen
I'll duck now and keep my head down. ;D ;)
-
I'll duck now and keep my head down. ;D ;)
Come on David, this is a place for a civilised discussion on what is turning out to be the huge ramifications of SI for both the Y/N sides, so no need to stir things up more than they are already.
Dave
-
Come on David, this is a place for a civilised discussion on what is turning out to be the huge ramifications of SI for both the Y/N sides, so no need to stir things up more than they are already.
The writer's views are forcibly expressed, but it would be a mistake to imagine that he's the only Englishman who holds them. The concept of Scotland's leaving the UK is one regarded by many with, as W S Gilbert put it about something else, "an equanimity bordering upon indifference" and by many others with a degree of enthusiasm.
Jeremy
-
I am wondering why someone - English or some other nationality - who isn't entitled to vote should have a view?
-
Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't Scots who currently live outside Scotland have a view or even vote on what happens to their country? Why should the terminally-ill have a vote as they won't be around? etc Why do you presume to question who is entitled to have a view?
-
Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't Scots who currently live outside Scotland have a view or even vote on what happens to their country? Why should the terminally-ill have a vote as they won't be around? etc Why do you presume to question who is entitled to have a view?
Quite.
And just watch..... If, perchance, Scots (or, should I say, everyone registered to vote in Scotland) vote NO, everyone in the world will have a view - they will be laughing with derision at the only country to turn down the chance of becoming independent. Many other countries - from USA, Ireland, etc. onwards - had to fight and die to gain independence. We have the chance to do it by simply placing a cross on a piece of paper.
-
I suspect a lot of English will join that laughter....
Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples. I'm pretty sure that in most cases of peaceful separation, the referendum has only been called when the outcome wasn't in doubt.
-
I suspect a lot of English will join that laughter....
Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples. I'm pretty sure that in most cases of peaceful separation, the referendum has only been called when the outcome wasn't in doubt.
John if you re read carefully I wrote ..... entitled to vote.....?
BTW The last time I looked at a world map Quebec wasn't a country only a Province? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec
-
As with your Gibraltar example, you can't be so pedantic about what a country may be. 25 years ago would we have said Ukraine was a country, as we seem to do now, or what about Poland and Finland 100 years ago? At those times one had been a republic for 75 years (but with large bits in pre-Yalta Poland), and before then they were all regarded as provinces (though bits of Ukraine were in a country called Austria-Hungary). Why is Portugal a "country" but not Catalonia except by accident of history - rebellion in one case and in the other Catalonia's King acquiring the much bigger Spanish crown by marriage? Of course, Quebec has been legally a province since Britain grabbed it from France, but many Francophone inhabitants retain a sense of being a separate nation, and it's had two or three bites at becoming an independent "country" or internationally-recognised state.
I read and very-carefully paraphrased what you wrote, thank you.
-
I read and very-carefully paraphrased what you wrote, thank you.
Thanks for apology. There are enough people in Scotland who don't seem to have made up their minds claiming that they don't have enough information. If they can't fathom it out then what hope is there for anyone outside of Scotland WHO DON'T HAVE A VOTE?. :(
-
What apology? I questioned your denial of others' right to have a view, extended it to others' right to vote, and now you resort to SHOUTING. Typical...
-
Just to remind you John Reply #103
Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples.
I think you prefer to dig your self out of a hole rather than saying it was a mistake and move on? ;)
There are - imo - too many people outside of Scotland trying to influence - who don't have a vote - the vote. Foreign landowners who don't work "their" land productively and deny Scottish people access to it. They are scared that it will be nationalised into the common good? Last but not least, why are the English trying desperately to hold onto Scotland as part of the UK?
-
I am wondering why someone - English or some other nationality - who isn't entitled to vote should have a view?
We get this Canard in Canada a lot in re: Quebec. "It should be Quebec's decision, and Quebec's alone", or some such.
Well, maybe Quebec will be the only ones to vote, but people in the rest of Canada have views, and the people of Quebec aren't so foolish as to leave them unconsidered. In short, Quebec might be able to vote to separate, but it'll only be in negotiations with Canada afterward where the terms are laid out.
The Separatists in Quebec tell the people all sorts of foolish nonsense: "You can keep your Canadian passport and we can continue to use Canadian currency if we choose (as banana republics choose to use $US), but we'll have none of Canada's national debt. We will automatically gain entry into all of Canada's free trade deals and a seat at the G-8 despite having an economy a third the size of Australia's. Canada will continue to transfer billions of dollars into our province every year because they still like us. And yes we can vote to separate from Canada because we can, but no the people of the Island of Montreal can't vote to stay in Canada no matter how much they want to, because they can't." And so on.
And the rest of Canada just kind of shakes its head and laughs, knowing that won't be the way it goes down.
Voting "yes" in any separation referendum is a very risky gamble unless all the terms with the larger power have been agreed in advance. Anybody who thinks that England is just going to say "we'll do this on your terms" is out of his mind.
-
Just to remind you John Reply #103
Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples.
I think you prefer to dig your self out of a hole rather than saying it was a mistake and move on? ;)
You're just getting hung up on the curiosity of how we define a country - and note the lack of the prefix "independent" in these exchanges. Should I stick to legal niceties and say Scotland isn't a country but a kingdom, just as you claimed Gibraltar was a country and someone (you?) claimed Wales isn't a country because it's legally a principality? Which it isn't, legally, as it's just called that and is legally part of the kingdom of England and Wales. As shown in my European examples, the definition of "country" is a bit like the chicken and the egg and which comes first. Quebecois and Catalans think they are a country, as do the Basques, as did the Polish and Finns and Ukrainians before them. Quebec or Catalonia vote yes, and hey presto they are an independent state, another definition of country, so Scotland wouldn't be the first country not to choose independence. And as shawnino says, it wouldn't be the first to be laughed at for voting no.
There are - imo - too many people outside of Scotland trying to influence - who don't have a vote - the vote. Foreign landowners who don't work "their" land productively and deny Scottish people access to it. They are scared that it will be nationalised into the common good? Last but not least, why are the English trying desperately to hold onto Scotland as part of the UK?
Why would the English want to give it up? It's not that bad.
-
I am wondering why someone - English or some other nationality - who isn't entitled to vote should have a view?
So you believe there should be a moratorium on opinion of political events if you're not a citizen of said country? Have you ever had an opinion on events in North America, the Middle East, Africa? According to your post, only citizens (those entitled to a vote) should have an opinion.
-
Come on David, this is a place for a civilised discussion on what is turning out to be the huge ramifications of SI for both the Y/N sides, so no need to stir things up more than they are already.
Dave
I do not know, Dave, I, for one, am grateful for being able to read the article. My fate in humanity returns when reading articles like that. It proves one major advantage of the freedom of speech: without it, we would never know what people really think.
-
And just watch..... If, perchance, Scots (or, should I say, everyone registered to vote in Scotland) vote NO, everyone in the world will have a view - they will be laughing with derision at the only country to turn down the chance of becoming independent.
My grandfather was Scottish with a surname of Haig and which can be traced back to the twelfth century in Scotland it seems and my surname of Hickey coming from my other Grandfather, which also has a Clan in Scotland and which again has been here for several hundred years, as well as an Irish lineage of course. So me having moved back up here after two generations, means I am probably just as Scottish as anyone else up here, albeit with a very pronounced South Yorkshire accent of course. :)
So what I am trying to say, is that no one with any intelligence is going to laugh derisively at anyone, yes or no, because Scottish, Irish and English genes have been so widely dispersed around this planet, that we nearly ALL have ancestry that can be traced back to these wee small Islands. So the people who do laugh (if indeed there any), are just idiots who will laugh at anything anyway, because too many people have their roots embedded in this country and do have a genuine feeling of kinship with it and its people – which does of course include England, whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not, and I think that is the main reason the rest of the UK do not want us to leave, because we are family.
Dave
-
I still have family in Wales and England. My mother was Scotch and Welsh, although she identified herself as Welsh. My father was English. I was born in the U.S. There is nothing to laugh about. I do not have a vote and am glad I don't, however I am entitled to an opinion.
-
Isn't scotch the drink rather than the nationality?
Isn't it, in this case, one and the same? ;)
-
Isn't it, in this case, one and the same? ;)
No.
The nationality is Scottish.
The language and culture are Scots.
The whisky, adhesive tape and eggs are Scotch.
I do not have a vote and am glad I don't, however I am entitled to an opinion.
Of course you are. I don't understand why that became an issue.
-
With regards to people having an opinion I will refine what I meant. David Cameron the UK Prime minister has refused several times to debate with Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, about the prospect of Scots leaving the UK. His excuse is, it is for Scots to decide and nobody else including himself. Yesterday, August 28th, he visited Glasgow in Scotland and lectured business people about the drawbacks of separation and then did a TV interview lecturing anyone willing to listen. That is a perfect example of why I stated that only the people who are eligible to vote should have an opinion. ::)
-
You're just getting hung up on the curiosity of how we define a country - and note the lack of the prefix "independent" in these exchanges. Should I stick to legal niceties and say Scotland isn't a country but a kingdom, just as you claimed Gibraltar was a country and someone (you?) claimed Wales isn't a country because it's legally a principality? Which it isn't, legally, as it's just called that and is legally part of the kingdom of England and Wales. As shown in my European examples, the definition of "country" is a bit like the chicken and the egg and which comes first. Quebecois and Catalans think they are a country, as do the Basques, as did the Polish and Finns and Ukrainians before them. Quebec or Catalonia vote yes, and hey presto they are an independent state, another definition of country, so Scotland wouldn't be the first country not to choose independence. And as shawnino says, it wouldn't be the first to be laughed at for voting no.
Why would the English want to give it up? It's not that bad.
John earlier on in the thread you admitted you were stirring it. I assume you still are because nobody could take seriously what you stated above. ;D
-
John earlier on in the thread you admitted you were stirring it. I assume you still are because nobody could take seriously what you stated above. ;D
Only the quoted comment about being laughed at. I assume have observed you'll only understand the rest if you spend the next 3 weeks on Wikipedia.
-
John I thought that Isaac was the master of the quirky and incomprehensible postings. I now realise he is second best.
-
Well, I can only lump you in with deeeejaaaa and ignore you too from now on. Figured out the difference between pseudonyms and anonymity yet? Doh.
-
pseudonyms
I know the difference between John Beardy and John Beardsworth. Do you? :)
-
Why don't you ignore me too, dumbo? We'll both be much happier.
-
With regards to people having an opinion I will refine what I meant. David Cameron the UK Prime minister has refused several times to debate with Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, about the prospect of Scots leaving the UK. His excuse is, it is for Scots to decide and nobody else including himself. Yesterday, August 28th, he visited Glasgow in Scotland and lectured business people about the drawbacks of separation and then did a TV interview lecturing anyone willing to listen. That is a perfect example of why I stated that only the people who are eligible to vote should have an opinion. ::)
Cameron having an opinion is inevitable. Why wouldn't/shouldn't he?
Look on the bright side, Stamper. There are more pandas than Tory MPs in Scotland. We, as a nation, despise the Old Etonian, politics of privilege, self-perpetuating governing clique of the London-based Tories. Every time Cameron or his ilk step over the border to "lecture" us, they add heavily to the "YES!" vote.
::)
-
Well, I can only lump you in with deeeejaaaa and ignore you too from now on. Figured out the difference between pseudonyms and anonymity yet? Doh.
Why don't you ignore me too, dumbo? We'll both be much happier.
John in the interest of keeping the thread on course and not upsetting Dave I will let you have the last words. Go on and choose them :)
-
Cameron having an opinion is inevitable. Why wouldn't/shouldn't he?
Look on the bright side, Stamper. There are more pandas than Tory MPs in Scotland. We, as a nation, despise the Old Etonian, politics of privilege, self-perpetuating governing clique of the London-based Tories. Every time Cameron or his ilk step over the border to "lecture" us, they add heavily to the "YES!" vote.
::)
I certainly wish that was true but there are "undecided" that still can be scared into the NO camp. Unfortunately probably enough to "win" After a NO vote and Osborne wields his austerity cuts how many of the NO's will wish they hadn't voted NO? BTW I am voting YES. :)
-
I certainly wish that was true but there are "undecided" that still can be scared into the NO camp. Unfortunately probably enough to "win" After a NO vote and Osborne wields his austerity cuts how many of the NO's will wish they hadn't voted NO? BTW I am voting YES. :)
I hope you are wrong about that.
I think the negative scaremongering of the Bitter Together campaign probably had its effect months ago. My guess is that, from now until the voting day, we will see the undecided becoming increasingly influenced by the positives of the YES campaign. I also think that some of those that were scared into the NO camp will realise that they were silly to be bullied in that way and will change to YES.
If anyone should be scared, it is the NO voters. They should be scared about what vindictive steps Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and their Westminster cronies will take upon a Scotland that was too timid to grasp control of their own future.
-
I'm welling up with tears at the thought of all those weak-minded folk who have been scared and bullied into the no camp. Poor wee lambs. And their reward, dear me, will be those nasty London politicians banning their deep fried Mars bars and passing laws for subtitles for any Scots lucky enough to be heard on English TV. Where's my tartan hankie?
-
Isaac,
Nonetheless threatening to reject family seems unlikely to generate good feeling.
What has been proposed is the dissolution of the union of parliaments. No more, no less.
-
The dissolution of a sovereign state and the addition of enormous uncertainties for everyone is a bit more than merely ending a union of parliaments (which isn't the legal basis of the union anyway), and you really can't expect that separation is going to generate good feeling south of Hadrian's Wall.
-
John,
The dissolution of a sovereign state and the addition of enormous uncertainties for everyone is a bit more than merely ending a union of parliaments (which isn't the legal basis of the union anyway), and you really can't expect that separation is going to generate good feeling south of Hadrian's Wall.
Please base a response to me on what I have written, not on what I have not written.
-
What has been proposed is the dissolution of the union of parliaments. No more, no less.
The dissolution of a sovereign state and the addition of enormous uncertainties for everyone is a bit more than merely ending a union of parliaments (which isn't the legal basis of the union anyway), and you really can't expect that separation is going to generate good feeling south of Hadrian's Wall.
-
Hello Isaac,
I believe Dave (Isle of Skye) was using a figure of speech.
That does not alter the fact that the referendum is about governance. It has nothing to do with family, imagined or real.
Kind regards,
-
This affects everyone, in the UK and Ireland and Europe, it also effects the US if the UK is no longer a nuclear power and as such, the balance of power in the world. It affects everyone who has paid into a UK based private pension scheme, that will be frozen in perpetuity if Scotland becomes a separate country, even service pensions – ask any expat who already lives abroad. It affects all our utilities, and banking, and the value of all our assets, for you and all your family, plus a long list of other material things and services that we now rely on so much.
To think this is just some simple separation is to undersell the most momentous decision that you or I will ever make, so for people to talk in terms that make it sound like the decision for independence is akin to making a choice as to what channel to watch on TV tonight, is entirely and worryingly wrong, it is not just a little bit of thing, it is MOMENTOUS!
Yet all I hear from the Yes people in answer to any serious questions put to them, is 'don't worry, everything will be OK', well I am worrying, because I have heard nothing to ease my worries other than simplistic reassurances and promises along the lines of the usual political reassurances of free beer tomorrow. I do not want to gamble the value of my house, my assets, my pension and my family's future on 'don't worry, everything will be OK'.
I was determined to try and stay out of this vote, but this lack of knowing what the hell is going to happen to me and my family if we do get a yes vote, other than being sure there will be a mass exodus of people and wealth hightailing it back down to what remains of the UK, has now pushed me into making a choice based on what I think could be a disastrous leap into the unknown, from a position of being fairly secure in semi retirement, and that choice for me is going to be NO, not because I do not want independence, but because these glib reassurances from the Yes people have frightened me away from coming to any other decision.
I am sure you will tell me that all this is due to the so called Operation Fear from the No campaign, but I feel it is more the result of desperation, after listening again and again to the Yes side talking down to me, with false smiles of reassurance plastered across their faces.
'Don't worry, everything will be OK' will not feed my family and is not OK with me.
There you go, I have said my piece and nailed my colours to the mast as they say, I will now wait for the rotten eggs to start flying in my direction .. ;)
Dave
-
Hello Rob,
The referendum seems to be as much about emotion and identity, as fact.
For once, I agree with Isaac. As someone coming from a disintegrated country, I can tell you it is least of about governance, and much more about national identity, religion, emotions, historical animosities and grievances.
-
... 'don't worry, everything will be OK'....
Actually, it will be, Dave.
Pardon me for repeating myself, but I am saying that as someone coming from a disintegrated country, who's parts were even at war with each other, it all falls into place eventually. Not to mention if the separation is peaceful.
My father was a Serb, living in Serbia, but a Croatian pensioner. Yes, there was a brief period when the pensions stopped (actually replaced by the Serbian government) and then everything returned to normal. Remember, there was a civil war in the meantime.
-
Isaac,
The referendum seems to be as much about emotion and identity, as fact.
For many, it will be. Nevertheless, the Scottish electorate is not being asked to vote on their identity or on emotion. The question to be answered is political: "Should Scotland be an independent country?". The outcome will determine if Scotland is governed by Westminster or Holyrood.
Dave,
This affects everyone...
To think this is just some simple separation is to undersell the most momentous decision that you or I will ever make, so for people to talk in terms that make it sound like the decision for independence is akin to making a choice as to what channel to watch on TV tonight, is entirely and worryingly wrong, it is not just a little bit of thing, it is MOMENTOUS!
I could not agree more.
Yet all I hear from the Yes people in answer to any serious questions put to them, is 'don't worry, everything will be OK', well I am worrying, because I have heard nothing to ease my worries other than simplistic reassurances and promises along the lines of the usual political reassurances of free beer tomorrow. I do not want to gamble the value of my house, my assets, my pension and my family's future on 'don't worry, everything will be OK'.
To paraphrase: All I hear from No people in answer to any serious question is 'you should be afraid - there is nothing which will be better under independence' Well, I am fed up being told what we cannot do by UK governments. Governments whose policies have not, and increasingly do not reflect the political view of the Scottish electorate. I have heard nothing to ease my worries about leaving the EU, or that the majority of cuts are yet to come, and I have heard nothing positive whatsoever about how we will help address adverse issues that affect Scotland, other than simplistic reassurances and promises along the lines of the usual reassurances of a Tory*/Labour*/Liberal Democrat* [delete as appropriate] will focus of health, education and jobs. I do not want Scotland to be governed by a parliament in another country, in which it has 9% representation and from which it receives 80% of the money it spends.
The above does not necessarily reflect my view - though it certainly reflects the view of many. It is intended to drive home the point that your argument can be easily reversed for one no less valid. You have every right to expect to receive factual information which will enable you to arrive at an informed decision...and it is naive in the extreme to ever expect it to occur.
The Yes and No campaigns will never state anything other than "Everything will be fine" and "Everything will be awful" respectively. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. However, while we cannot know for certain the future, the past can help to inform our decision. We can examine what has been promised and delivered, or reneged on. We also happen to live at a time where information on almost anything is more freely available than at any other time in history. If we cannot trust our politicians then we can help ourselves by investigating the issues that concern us. After all, the referendum is, as you say, "the most momentous decision that you or I will ever make".
I was determined to try and stay out of this vote...
May I ask why?
...but this lack of knowing what the hell is going to happen to me and my family if we do get a yes vote, other than being sure there will be a mass exodus of people and wealth hightailing it back down to what remains of the UK...
Do you know for certain that there will be "a mass exodus of people and wealth hightailing it back down to what remains of the UK"?
..has now pushed me into making a choice based on what I think could be a disastrous leap into the unknown
If it "could be" then it "could not be".
I am sure you will tell me...
I hope you do not refer to me, as I have not attempted to influence others' decision. As I stated in page two of this thread "All we can do is consider the kind of country we would like to have, and trust will be delivered, and vote accordingly". I refer you specifically to my use of the word "will".
I have said my piece and nailed my colours to the mast as they say, I will now wait for the rotten eggs to start flying in my direction.
If you truly consider that voting No is in the best interest of Scotland then you absolutely should do so.
Slobodan,
As someone coming from a disintegrated country, I can tell you it is least of about governance, and much more about national identity, religion, emotions, historical animosities and grievances.
Please refer above to my response to Isaac. People may consider the referendum to be about many things. That is their prerogative. The issue being voted upon is the governance of Scotland.
Your experience is with respect to your (?) country. Is it valid to extrapolate that the same will apply to Scotland?
-
I guess what I'm struggling with is how anyone can vote "yes" without knowing the exact particulars. I guess if the status quo was North Korea, it wouldn't be a big leap to vote "yes" on faith, but let's be serious.
Were I a Scot, I could envision a fully negotiated settlement that would make me want to vote "yes".
I could also picture terms that would make me want to vote "no".
But without a full and complete definition of same, isn't it a pig in a poke? Why would I ever vote for change if I don't know what change means?
-
... Slobodan,
Please refer above to my response to Isaac. People may consider the referendum to be about many things. That is their prerogative. The issue being voted upon is the governance of Scotland.
Your experience is with respect to your (?) country. Is it valid to extrapolate that the same will apply to Scotland?
The question might be political, but the answer will be emotional.
As for valid extrapolation, I do not know... perhaps not... but I've certainly experienced first hand more separations and disintegrations than most here. I then worked in Russia and visited their break-away regions. I lived in Catalunya for several years, another hot-spot for separation. In all those places, nobody cares about politics, just national identity and historic grievances. As for governance, the only thing they care about is NOT to be governed by the other nation.
As for Scotland, the only thing that is missing in the equation is religion. National identity and historic animosities and grievances are there, or so I understand.
-
Some recent polls have the "No" camp gaining ground.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/polls/282505-new-referendum-poll-suggests-support-for-yes-vote-has-fallen/
-
For once, I agree with Isaac. As someone coming from a disintegrated country, I can tell you it is least of about governance, and much more about national identity, religion, emotions, historical animosities and grievances.
phew, scots are a neutered nation for centuries by now... even irish folk fare better, I mean they actually killed few ukies during our lifetime.
-
phew, scots are a neutered nation for centuries by now... even irish folk fare better, I mean they actually killed few ukies during our lifetime.
And murder's good, eh?
Jeremy
-
Nobody can foretell the future accurately. There are some things that will likely happen as you want them to be and others won't happen as you want them to be. Yet some people are trying to place a burden on the SNP to answer all of their questions accurately. Two things I believe that are likely to happen are in the event that a No is the verdict then the Tories will undertake savage cuts - they have stated this - mostly on the Scots but also on their own people. In the event of a Yes vote then the savage cuts can be avoided or reduced drastically. Some English and other nationalities will move back down south but quickly realise how savage the cuts are and will want to return. In the long run I envisage migration into a free Scotland because of savage cuts by the Tories. To sum up start up costs and other costs that will be incurred by a free Scotland will pale into insignificance compared to the savage cuts by the Tories. IMO this is what undecided and NO should be thinking about and everything else is of lesser importance. This is why I am voting YES. :) BTW the English are going to have to endure savage cuts no matter the outcome of the vote. :(
-
shawnino,
I guess what I'm struggling with is how anyone can vote "yes" without knowing the exact particulars...Why would I ever vote for change if I don't know what change means?
Implicit in your question is that:
(a) An electorate normally knows the "exact particulars" ahead of a vote, which is untrue.
(b) That the UK will not change, when it is a matter of historical fact that the UK has changed dramatically. There is no reason to expect that change will no longer take place.
Colorado David,
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/polls/282505-new-referendum-poll-suggests-support-for-yes-vote-has-fallen/
The article you provided a link to is one month old. Please allow me to provide you with an article one day old:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/latest-indy-poll-yes-42-no-48-undecided-11-.1409286439
-
And murder's good, eh?
Jeremy
it was (and still is) is a just cause... the enemy of my enemy (c)... so I wish Scots to find some long lost balls soon, nothing will be more pleasant than to see England sinking into further obsolence.
-
it was (and still is) is a just cause... the enemy of my enemy (c)... so I wish Scots to find some long lost balls soon, nothing will be more pleasant than to see England sinking into further obsolence.
Your morals are on a par with your spelling.
Jeremy
-
@AreBee: so why not complete the negotiations first if it's going to be so wonderful?
Why ask for people to vote for that pig in a poke?
What happens when "Yes" wins and the negotiations yield something the people are unhappy with?
-
shawnino,
...so why not complete the negotiations first if it's going to be so wonderful?
The Westminster government has from the outset ruled out any pre-negotiation...and has since then proceeded to pre-negotiate by announcing that there will be no currency union.
What happens when "Yes" wins and the negotiations yield something the people are unhappy with?
Your question presupposes that Yes voters expect to 'get everything their own way' during the negotiation period that will follow a Yes result. In my view, Yes voters have accepted before they cast their vote that Scotland will accept liabilities as well as assets.
-
The Westminster government has from the outset ruled out any pre-negotiation...and has since then proceeded to pre-negotiate by announcing that there will be no currency union.
It's not "pre-negotiation", whatever that may be, just stating clearly that English voters wouldn't stomach it, just like the separatists say the Faslane nuclear sub facility will close.
I can't imagine significant negotiation could ever precede a referendum. It's an enormous effort and would be a colossal waste of time if the vote went against it. So it has to be a vote on whether or not you want a land of milk and honey, and sorting out the rest over the following years.
-
"… John and Joseph McCaig, and their 23-year-old colleague Dougald McCaughey … There is absolutely no doubt that this is a further attempt by republicans to remove from history the fact that the IRA murdered three young boys, two brothers aged 17 and 18 and the third aged 23 who were unarmed (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-14292072) and out for an off duty afternoon in Belfast in 1971 simply because they were in the British Army."
they were serving the british occupants who murdered millions of Irish folks - they had a choice to refuse.
-
shawnino,
The Westminster government has from the outset ruled out any pre-negotiation...and has since then proceeded to pre-negotiate by announcing that there will be no currency union.
Your question presupposes that Yes voters expect to 'get everything their own way' during the negotiation period that will follow a Yes result. In my view, Yes voters have accepted before they cast their vote that Scotland will accept liabilities as well as assets.
How about answering my question, instead of muttering about what it allegedly presupposes. My question's a fair one, especially since you point out that Westminster is playing games--claiming no pre-negotiation one minute, then ruling out a common currency the next. Here it is again:
--Voters vote "yes"
--Negotiations yield something quite unpalatable to a majority of Scots...
...what then?
The longer this goes, the more it becomes obvious that a "yes" vote is mostly based on emotion and unfounded optimism (unfounded in its literal sense: negotiations may turn out OK, but there's been no proof of it).
Makes one wonder if what the "yes" side really needs is "Braveheart" on television 24/7.
-
Makes one wonder if what the "yes" side really needs is "Braveheart" on television 24/7.
Well, it is the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn this year, coincidentally of course.
-
shawnino,
How about answering my question...
How about asking in a civilised manner?
-
Quote Shawnino Reply#158
-Negotiations yield something quite unpalatable to a majority of Scots...
...what then?
If it was a game of cards then Scotland has two aces and England none. They could agree to keep Trident in Scotland and they could walk away from their share of the almost 1.5 trillion pound deficit which is 150 billion pounds. A lot of money for the English taxpayer to take on as a burden. ;D
-
Read this and weep.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10849333/Interest-bill-on-UKs-1.27-trillion-debt-to-hit-1bn-a-week.html
Scotland has a chance to LEGALLY walk away from this mess. There will be savage cuts and rising taxes to pay for the mess otherwise the Uk will crash and burn just as Greece has done. If you are on a sinking ship - the SS UK - and there is a lifeboat bobbing around do you stay on the ship or do you board the lifeboat even though it isn't certain to reach land? The debt is rising and £50 billion a year is a lot of money to find. It is rather ironic that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling - who loathe each other - are lecturing Scotland on economics and they are responsible for the massive debt. :'( :( >:(
-
Let us look at a few indisputable facts shall we and cut straight through the rhetoric and emotional fog being put out by both sides in this debate.
Indisputable Fact 1 – Politicians lie, Cameron is lying and so is Salmond, Sturgeon and Darling etc, they will say anything to you and promise you anything you want to get you to vote for them or their half baked ideas. In fact they are so good at lying that they even begin to believe their own lies, that is until it comes to actually putting their promises into action, then you start getting the “Ah well, I didn’t really mean it like that” type statements – a pox on all their houses I say. However, if you are still young enough to believe anything that any politician ever says to you, or promises that they freely give to you for your support, then I apologise for bursting your bubble and know that it is only a matter of time, before the indisputability of this fact and the truth of what I am saying becomes oh so apparent to you in later life.
Indisputable fact 2 – No one knows what will happen if there is a yes vote and Scotland becomes a wholly independent country, it could be good and it could be bad, no one knows, no matter how confidently they tell you that they do, they are lying.
Indisputable fact 3 – Once the vote is cast for yes, then the real consequences of that decision will begin to take effect and most of it will be out of anyone’s control, we will have jumped down a rabbit hole and absolutely no one knows where it will lead us.
Indisputable fact 4 – There is no going back, it is a one-way street which ever way the vote goes.
Indisputable fact 5 – You must base your decision for independence on your current circumstances and how you feel right now, because to do anything else is to base your decision for you and your family's future on guesswork, meaningless promises and lies.
So I suppose it comes down to how you feel you are doing right now in this world and are you happy with your lot as it currently stands? And if you are totally honest with yourself, can you not see that you are doing quite well? Yes I know things could be better, things could always be better if ever we could only find nirvana, but we never will, it doesn’t exist, even though politicians will promise you how it is just around that next corner if you vote for them, it isn't, but don’t you realise that you have better life opportunities than your parents ever had and their parents before them and their parents before them etc?
So however much we like to moan about life and how our glasses are always half empty and never half full, the world is becoming a better place, slowly but surely I grant you, but none the less a better place. So do you really think separation is going to be that instant ticket to a land of milk and honey and that your old world was just so awful, that you needed to take this leap of faith and sign up to separation based on what a bunch of lying politicians are telling you? Or do you actually look at your life and accept and realise just how good it is compared to every other generation that has ever lived before you?
Indisputable fact 6 – Only the Scottish politicians will gain from independence, not you and not me, the other lot down South will not gain anything from the union remaining intact either, as that is the current status quo, that is what is happening right now, so whatever there was to be gained for them, has already been long gone.
Indisputable fact 7 - The grass will not be any greener in an independent Scotland and you know you can believe me, because I am not a politician. So as I said earlier, let’s get real shall we, independence will not bring you any benefits and neither will staying with the rest of the UK, you will not be better off whoever is running the show, but the politicians will always be better off and that is why they want your vote and will promise you anything you want, and who’s interest in you and all those solemnly made promises, will immediately and completely disappear as soon as the last ballet paper is signed.
That is why I am voting No.
Dave
-
Dave you are correct we won't be "better off" in an independent Scotland but imo we will be a lot worse off in a united Britain. You didn't comment on the austerity cuts that is coming our way. I suspect you have done what a lot of others have. That is you think you will probably be unaffected by the cuts so self interest is to the fore? I am pretty certain that I won't be affected by the cuts but I am also looking at the big picture and voting YES. :)
-
Dave you are correct we won't be "better off" in an independent Scotland but imo we will be a lot worse off in a united Britain. You didn't comment on the austerity cuts that is coming our way. I suspect you have done what a lot of others have. That is you think you will probably be unaffected by the cuts so self interest is to the fore? I am pretty certain that I won't be affected by the cuts but I am also looking at the big picture and voting YES. :)
Robert, with all due respect, you do not know that 'savage cuts' as you put it in one of your earlier post, are coming, they might be and they might not be and seeing as we are throwing unknowns into the pot, how can you be sure the cuts wouldn't be even worse under independence? But remember, neither you nor I know what will happen, so for you to say there will be 'savage cuts' with such certainty, means you are either guessing and hoping you are correct and that it does indeed turn out bad if we stay unified, or swallowing what Alex Salmond (a politician and therefore a liar) is telling you.
Robert, you have to make your decisions on the here and now, not what some idiot who has smooched his or her way into power is telling you about what they think will happen - don't believe them, only believe what you have now and what you value right now, the future you are being promised or warned against by all sides, is not real and never will be.
Are you happy with what you have right now? That is the only question you should be asking yourself and is it worth the risk of changing any of that based on the biases and misinformation put out by a class of people, who have made a profession out of lying?
Dave
-
Isaac,
The referendum seems to be more about who would be winners and who would be losers after allocation of assets and liabilities, than governance.
To some, yes, more's the pity. To others, no.
-
Isaac,
I think you put forward a somewhat abstract, distanced, view on what the referendum means to people. I suspect that is a minority viewpoint.
I have not volunteered what the referendum means to people. I accept, as confirmed in my response to Slobodan, that "People may consider the referendum to be about many things. That is their prerogative."
-
I accept, as confirmed in my response to Slobodan, that "People may consider the referendum to be about many things. That is their prerogative."
...and this is what's so dangerous about voting 'yes'. The 'yes' side is allowing a 'yes' vote to mean everything to everybody.
Let's talk lenses. Your camera manufacturer is putting out a new lens, and they've told you the design is hundreds of years in the making. And it's amazing. They can't you the focal length or the aperture, but they're taking pre-orders. Don't worry, the lens will be great, they promise. So that'll be payment in full thanks. How much? Well, that depends on how many pre-orders there are, so just send them a blank cheque.
Oh, and I nearly forgot: once you mount the lens it can't come off. Well, it could, but it would wreck your camera's contacts and bayonet, so the camera wouldn't really work anymore. But don't worry, you'll love it. You'll never want to take it off.
Test shots? Well, not really, no. there was some prototype work done in Yugoslavia, Finland, the Indian subcontinent, and the Soviet Union, but everyone agrees those were different sized sensors. Not really relevant here. So no sample shots, no.
Who's buying?
-
Dave if you refuse to disbelieve all politicians that is your prerogative but it is negatively cynical. A week ago on tv your namesake Dave Cameron spelt out that after the General Election there will have to be cuts. The figure is in dispute but it is acknowledged that over 1 trillion pounds has to be clawed back. George Osborne not only wants the deficit wiped out he wants a surplus to be built up. That can't be done without savage cuts. This isn't a lie. Unless Skye declares it's self independent of not only Scotland and the UK then you will suffer along with the rest. IMO an independent Scotland can avoid the worst. Dave a personal question. Are you Scottish or English?
-
If anyone is looking for liars then this video exposes possibly the biggest of them all? :o
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/9667-bbc-video-reveals-sir-ian-wood-backed-scottish-government-oil-figures
-
If anyone is looking for liars then this video exposes possibly the biggest of them all? :o
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/9667-bbc-video-reveals-sir-ian-wood-backed-scottish-government-oil-figures
And here is a story that proves beyond any doubt that the Yes side and Alex Salmond are also lying - Alex Salmond accused of 'hypocrisy' over warnings about privatisation of NHS.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11066699/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-warnings-about-privatisation-of-NHS.html)
Which if you care to read the full story, proves my point exactly, that they are all lying to you and how they will tell you anything just to get you to vote for them so they can benefit from power, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of them trying to make things better for your or your family, they do not care in the slightest about you or me.
You know it is up to you of course, because obviously you can believe whatever you want and whatever rubbish they feed to you, but making any decision and especially such a momentous one as this, based simply on how the political elite are brainwashing you into voting for them, is the wrong way to go is all I am saying. Vote Yes if you want to by all means, but do so on what you absolutely know to be true based on what you have right now and not on what some idiot in a suit is telling you they will do for you in the future, but only if you vote for them, or what those lying so-and-so's on other side will do against you if you vote for them.
Dave a personal question. Are you Scottish or English?
Neither, I am a Yorkshireman, but as I said in a previous post, I am descended from a Scottish bloodline, that can be traced back to the twelfth century in Scotland, as my grandfather was Scottish and his surname was Haig :)
Maybe I should also add that I moved 500 miles from Yorkshire just to live here, Scotland is my home and I love it and don't want to see it or the rest of the UK jeopardised by splitting up.
Dave
-
Indisputable fact 2 – No one knows what will happen if there is a yes vote and Scotland becomes a wholly independent country, it could be good and it could be bad, no one knows, no matter how confidently they tell you that they do, they are lying.
+
Indisputable fact 6 – Only the Scottish politicians will gain from independence, not you and not me, the other lot down South will not gain anything from the union remaining intact either, as that is the current status quo, that is what is happening right now, so whatever there was to be gained for them, has already been long gone.
Indisputable fact 7 - The grass will not be any greener in an independent Scotland and you know you can believe me, because I am not a politician.
you a problem with logic, dear... reread your "fact 2" with your further statements together.
-
I spent all my High School years in Scotland, and lived in Glasgow as an adult.
I've been wondering.... if we all vote "Yes" for independent Scotland, do we get to expel Isaac from LuLa Land back to Scotland? ;)
-
No chance. His reading skills are sub normal. He answered a question that was aimed at someone else. :(
-
My ancestors lived both sides of Hadrian's wall outside Carlisle.
Unfortunately, Hadrian built his wall in the wrong place. He should have built it from the Mersey across to the Humber.
Folk living above that line have much more in common with each other than with folk south of that line in cultural and ethical terms.
Once Scotland becomes independent, I wonder how long it will be before the Geordies and Mancunians are campaigning to join us?
???
-
From our small speck on the timeline we find ourselves pointing to the damages, to self and others in the interminable wars for cause...yet here as elsewhere the lessons are not forgotten (would have needed to have been learned/internalized to have done that). No matter the outcome it will be down to many good people going about an attempt at honest life once again being hoisted by the petards of others...
-
Once Scotland becomes independent, I wonder how long it will be before the Geordies and Mancunians are campaigning to join us?
I can't speak for the Geordies, but I think you'll wait a while for Mancunians.
Jeremy
-
I can't speak for the Geordies, but I think you'll wait a while for Mancunians.
+1. But the Scousers will be first in line.
-
+1. But the Scousers will be first in line.
You'll never know how close I came to adding that line to my post!
Jeremy
-
Shawnino,
...and this is what's so dangerous about voting 'yes'. The 'yes' side is allowing a 'yes' vote to mean everything to everybody.
Not at all. It is simply recognition by me that what others consider the referendum to be about is outside of my control.
Isaac,
Don't we all consider our own self-interest?
On occasion, yes.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10648373_10152481961235677_1179868813181581648_o.jpg)
Might explain why so many folk for so many different reasons will be voting YES.
-
If you vote 'Yes', it'll mean no more Poundland. Think on that for a bit. Complete cultural destruction.
-
In their "Review of the Papers" this morning, the BBC is highlighting the suggestion that, resulting from panic at the latest YouGov poll that shows the YES campaign ahead for the first time, there will be a radical alternative offered by the British government within a few days. Some notion that if we vote NO, we will get a completely new federal model of government.
I have a sneaky suspicion that, if the BBC is correct, such a move would be seen in Scotland as a totally cynical ploy and would actually drive more of the uncommitted voters into the YES camp.
Every attempted intervention by the English establishment seems to have the opposite effect to the one they are seeking. Speaking on the Andrew Marr programme this morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, was made to look like a mentally defective numptie - and that by a pro-unionist presenter!
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10648373_10152481961235677_1179868813181581648_o.jpg)
Might explain why so many folk for so many different reasons will be voting YES.
And a free gold bar for every pensioner at Christmas. There's no obvious source for all this largesse, of course.
Anyway, this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11078096/Friends-The-One-With-George-Lynton-and-tricking-the-Scots.html) is worth a quick read.
Jeremy
-
... the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, was made to look like a mentally defective numptie ...
There's a perfectly good reason for that.
-
Just curious.
How exactly is the wealth generated in Scotland which pays for all these subsidies and entitlements?
Is it like Saudi Arabia which distributes oil revenue to each citizen or America where the deficit has risen to 14T in no small part thru supporting the 50% of the population which contribute virtually (3%) no tax revenues ?
-
... to become a country without a currency...
What's up with this constant harping about "without a currency" or "shared currency"!? Who says they will end up without one? They'll simply have their own, or Euro. Again, in case of former Yugoslavia, Montenegro adopted first Deutshce Mark, then Euro as its own currency, and Slovenia had its own currency (Tolar) until replaced by Euro years later. None of them experienced any catastrophe over it.
-
Isaac,
"I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?_r=1)."
Proof positive that independence isn't about the money after all. :P
-
The Yes campaign has just suffered a serious blow, with news of a new series of The Clangers due for release in 2017, for UK audiences only. There'll be no blue string & green soup north of the border if you vote yes.
-
Dave,
...if you want the real forecast of the expected outcome of the Y/N vote, then just look at the betting odds, as the bookies don't care about politics, only winning money and they are currently putting the No campaign as the odds on favourites to win (http://www.justbookies.com/election-odds/?gclid=CI784tLC0sACFcR02wodUZUAMA).
http://www.holyrood.com/2011/05/betting-on-the-outcome/
-
Dave,
http://www.holyrood.com/2011/05/betting-on-the-outcome/
Rob I instantly deleted that post you have quoted in part above, because I thought it was probably more upsetting to both sides of the campaign, than it was useful, mentioning as I did some of the more ridiculous reasons people are choosing to base this, their most momentous decision upon - I agree the betting could go either way, as could the decision, but what saddens me most, is how many people voting, are doing so on such frivolous reasoning and with out any regard to the fact that the outcome (in my opinion) could be the complete dissolution of the 300 year old union and the possibility of turning the UK in what ever form it finally takes, into a third world country.
I am sticking by Scotland whatever happens and have chosen this to be the place I spend the rest of my life, but I do fear what we who live in this, the most beautiful part of the UK, are choosing to do to ourselves just so the politicians can benefit.
This separation if it happens, will be a divorce of a long standing partnership and a very acrimonious divorce at that, so if all this and the strife that will definitely ensue is worth it to the Yes side, then so be it go for it, but I think in hindsight that this decision will go down in the history books, as the most ridiculous thing that we have ever done to this small island and its people. But of course, your opinion may differ.
Dave
-
Quote Dave Reply#204
Rob I instantly deleted that post you have quoted in part above,
unquote
Dave are you a moderator or is it a typing error? Are the originators of threads allowed to delete other member's posts? :(
-
I think Dave deleted his own post, which was the one quoted
-
Interesting that after Cameron and Queenie (who were holidaying together at Balmoral) read the Sunday Times headline, less than 24 hours passed before a new "Royal Baby" story hit the media.
Is this a co-incidence or a devilish plot to influence the referendum? Surely we should be told.
-
Chairman Bill,
I think Dave deleted his own post, which was the one quoted
Indeed.
Dave,
...what saddens me most, is how many people voting, are doing so on such frivolous reasoning...
...democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...
Spoken by, but not attributed to Winston Churchill.
...and with out any regard to the fact that the outcome (in my opinion) could be the complete dissolution of the 300 year old union and the possibility of turning the UK in what ever form it finally takes, into a third world country.
This seems rather alarmist. Did the UK become a third world country as countries successively gained their independence from Empire?
…I do fear what we who live in this, the most beautiful part of the UK, are choosing to do to ourselves just so the politicians can benefit.
I would be astonished if you could find a Yes voter whose stated rationale for voting Yes is so that “the politicians can benefit”.
…if all this and the strife that will definitely ensue is worth it to the Yes side, then so be it go for it, but I think in hindsight that this decision will go down in the history books, as the most ridiculous thing that we have ever done to this small island and its people.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-yes-campaign-chief-turns-the-question-on-its-head-1-2475676
Which is more ridiculous: ending a parliamentary union with England or entering one?
-
Loud voices in the Yes campaign have said they will not (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28696555) "have their own, or Euro", that's why it became an issue.
I might be dense, but I could not see in the linked video anything that supports that Scotland will not have their own currency or Euro. They already have Scottish Pound, and they seem to be willing to keep it... isn't it then "their own"?
-
Interesting that after Cameron and Queenie (who were holidaying together at Balmoral) read the Sunday Times headline, less than 24 hours passed before a new "Royal Baby" story hit the media.
Is this a co-incidence or a devilish plot to influence the referendum? Surely we should be told.
As good a reason for voting 'yes' as any.
-
The current "Scottish Pound" is the British Pound GBP (http://www.reuters.com/finance/currencies/quote?srcCurr=GBP) (printed with different pictures). It's underwritten by the UK central bank, the Bank of England.
I am aware of that. Once again, a parallel with former Yugoslavia: when Slovenia separated, they started printing their own money (tolar) "with different pictures," but kept it pegged 1:1 to Yugoslav dinar, the currency of the country they just separated from. If I am not mistaken, that is exactly what the guy in the video you linked was proposing too: printing Scottish Pound "with different pictures," pegged 1:1 to British Pound.
Come to think of it, I am still puzzled by various doomsday scenarios circling around, some on this thread as well. Relax, it's been done before.
-
Come to think of it, I am still puzzled by various doomsday scenarios circling around, some on this thread as well. Relax, it's been done before.
I agree, but this is such an emotional issue by both sides of the debate, that the language and terms used, are bound to reflect that emotionality.
Quote Dave Reply#204
Rob I instantly deleted that post you have quoted in part above,
unquote
Dave are you a moderator or is it a typing error? Are the originators of threads allowed to delete other member's posts? :(
Bill is correct, it was only my own post that I deleted, as I do not have the rights or inclination to delete anyone else's post, although I do believe the originator of a thread does have the ability to lock or even delete the entire thread completely.
But as I said earlier and also trying to steer clear of any doomsday scenarios, I love Scotland, it has always been and still is my dream to live and work here and perhaps more importantly, to continue my photography in this beautiful place. It is just that now I am here and everything seems to be as good as I hoped it would be and certainly much better than Sheffield where I was born, that I cannot understand why anyone lucky enough to also live and work here, would choose to risk what we already have. Yes things could be better, we always dream that things could be better, it is what gets us out of bed in a morning, but we must also realise just how good we have it now when compared to every other generation before us. For me voting No means a continuation of safety, surety and a sense of security, whereas voting Yes means taking a gamble with absolutely everything, in the vain hope that things might turn out to be a tiny bit better, but based on nothing other than vague ideas and empty promises, and also as I am now of an age where I have heard it all a zillion times before and from every hue of political wannabe, I have finally learnt that whatever they promise you for your support, will NOT materialise, it never ever does, it is always a pig in a poke they are selling you and I do mean always, but for some unknown reason, we are still daft enough to keep swallowing it and ending up with egg on our faces, as they laugh all the way to the bank. That is why we keep choosing different political groups to represent us, because we trust them and then find out they are lying, so we kick them out and then vote for the other lot, until we realise they were also lying, so we kick them out and so on and so on, with independence, when we inevitably find out it has also been nothing more than a new set of lies and waffle, we are going to be stuck with it, forever and ever amen.
Politics is the worse thing we could do I agree, but I also agree that it is better than any other idea we have come up with so far, but we really do have to start taking responsibility for our own ongoing naivety, for repeatedly allowing them to hoodwink us so effortlessly into voting for what benefits them, via a list of solemn promises of what they will do for us, but which they never, ever, do.
So I suppose it comes down to this, if you are willing to believe what the SNP are promising you, then vote yes, but if you want the general continuation and security of what you already have, based on NO political promises from any political parties, just the reality of what you have right now, then vote no.
Dave
-
It seems to me that, apart from nationalism, historic resentments and animosities, this choice is also about the style of capitalism: Nordic style (i.e., welfare state) vs. Anglo-American style (i.e., law of the jungle) - based on the table PhotoEcosse posted earlier. Am I mistaken?
-
It seems to me that, apart from nationalism, historic resentments and animosities, this choice is also about the style of capitalism: Nordic style (i.e., welfare state) vs. Anglo-American style (i.e., law of the jungle) - based on the table PhotoEcosse posted earlier. Am I mistaken?
You are mistaken about it having anything to do with "nationalism, historic resentments and animosities". Despite the cynical attempts of the NO campaign to drive wedges between us with threats of border guards, etc.,, after independence there will be the same "friends and neighbours" situation between Scotland and rUK as the UK currently enjoys with the Republic of Ireland.
However, your comment about different models of capitalism is very pertinent. Folk in Scotland (and, to be fair, the north of England) do tend to be much more liberal - in the old-fashioned sense - that those in the south-east of the UK. Most of us would very happily pay a bit more in tax to pay for better health, education and welfare services - provided we felt that the money and the services were being managed by a government we actually voted for.
-
Oh no, nothing to do with "nationalism, historic resentments and animosities". /irony
I'd agree with Slobodan's characterisation of the economic models, but there was an interesting academic study on Radio 4's Today programme yesterday. It found that Scots only see themselves as being more liberal/left than the English (I'd say Northern English have a similar view) but that their actual views on specific policies are little different. It's the study mentioned in this article The myth of meritocratic Scotland (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/the-myth-of-meritocratic-scotland/).
-
Isaac,
'BBC economics editor Robert Peston said that the coalition parties and Labour feared that an independent Scotland in a currency union could "live dangerously beyond its means...
Oh, the irony.
-
You are mistaken about it having anything to do with "nationalism, historic resentments and animosities".... after independence there will be the same "friends and neighbours" situation between Scotland and rUK as the UK currently enjoys with the Republic of Ireland....
If the best example of "friendly" is Irish and Brits, than I guess I wasn't mistaken ;)
-
... Folk in Scotland (and, to be fair, the north of England) do tend to be much more liberal - in the old-fashioned sense - that those in the south-east of the UK...
Being liberal (i.e., being pro-wealth distribution) works only as long as there is wealth to distribute. And there is wealth to distribute as long as there is new wealth creation. I am afraid I do not know much about Scottish economy, apart from whiskey production, and that you are a net exporter of good actors :) So, what is the source of that wealth creation? Are you oil rich, as Norway? In the long list of welfare entitlements in the table you provided, I have not seen a single item to promote or stimulate wealth creation.
-
Being liberal (i.e., being pro-wealth distribution) works only as long as there is wealth to distribute. And there is wealth to distribute as long as there is new wealth creation. I am afraid I do not know much about Scottish economy, apart from whiskey production, and that you are a net exporter of good actors :) So, what is the source of that wealth creation? Are you oil rich, as Norway? In the long list of welfare entitlements in the table you provided, I have not seen a single item to promote or stimulate wealth creation.
Scots might start by stopping to pay their part for British military spending wasted on cases like Libya or Iraq... that shall help both Scots and British folks at once... British might find the spending more high to maintain their policy of invading or bombing other countries under the false pretences.
-
I think we can do without such hypocrisy from "deejjjaaaa" - if you don't know, his avatar is the flag of those who murdered the passengers on the Malaysian airliner, and plenty others....
-
I think we can do without such hypocrisy from "deejjjaaaa" - if you don't know, his avatar is the flag of those who murdered the passengers on the Malaysian airliner, and plenty others....
I am not sure what hypocrisy you are talking about ? United Fruit marines ? fake WMD in Iraq ? attempting to prevent a sovereign country like Cuba to decide what weapons they want to allow on their soil ? Gulf of Tonkin ? supporting a coup to remove a legitimate president in Kiev ? ... get a mirror first may be ;D
from today's CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 )
"The White House has insisted he has all the authority he needs to use military force to strike at ISIS to protect Americans, aid the Iraqis, and provide humanitarian support."
let me translate - Kremlin has the authority he needs to use military force to strike at UA to protect Russians, aid the Russians in Donetsk/Luhansk, and provide humanitarian support to them (w/o asking anybody btw)... got it ?
just like US/Nato decided that Kosovo is right and Serbia is wrong, when some people in Kosovo decided that they are not interested to live in Serbia and started the armed insurgency.
-
Sorry, I don't feed the troll.
-
Sorry, I don't feed the troll.
likewise
-
So, what is the source of that wealth creation? Are you oil rich, as Norway? In the long list of welfare entitlements in the table you provided, I have not seen a single item to promote or stimulate wealth creation.
Slobodan, it is based mainly on the wealth generated by North Sea Oil, which is about as central as you can get to the whole independence arguments and the future viability of an independent Scotland should it choose to breakaway from the rest of the UK.
- but finally, we have someone here in this video link below, who really can be trusted to give us the actual facts on the most central issues of the independence debate and who is also not in any way politically biased in what he is saying, nor is he a politician, he just states the truth from a point of really knowing and understanding the facts, pure and simple.
I am a bit of a complete cynic when comes to anything political as you might have now gathered, but I think this guy is speaking the nearest thing to the truth, we will ever hear in this debate.
Please watch the full 25 minutes of this video to get the full facts. (http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/)
For people here and commenting on this thread and who are voting Yes, can you tell me if you believe anything he says in this video and does it change anything for how you now view the whole issue and long term viability of Scottish independence, and if not why not?
Dave
-
Isaac,
you seem to have given up any attempt to address the issues that have been raised.
Do I no longer get to choose which posts, in part or full, that I respond to?
As for the post in question, I apologise for responding cynically, but if you are going to post such poor quality content then you can hardly protest when you receive an equally poor response.
To expand upon what I wrote, clearly the UK is in the mess it is in due to citizens living beyond their means. In addition, it should be self-evident that for the rUK to accede to a currency union it would impose suitable and sufficient controls that would eliminate risk of Scotland "borrow[ing] on a scale that degraded sterling".
-
Dave Reply #230 you picked the wrong guy when you suddenly believed there is an honest person to listen to
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9623-sir-ian-woods-oil-intervention-was-political
Woods has flipped from a position he held two years ago. Then he was very confident about the future of oil. Why has he changed? He now has interests in fracking and those interests won't be realised in a free Scotland so he is now backing the no campaign for purely selfish reasons. He is a fracking hypocrite. :o
-
Here is one to balance Dave's negativity.
http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/09/expert-alex-kemp-predicts-north-sea-oil-bonanza/
-
Isaac,
The oft-stated sufficient control is not to accede to currency union.
Yes, if a currency union is not in the best interest of the rUK. However, if a currency union is in the best interest of the rUK then clearly the rUK would seek to eliminate residual risk where possible, or otherwise control it.
Dave,
…it is based mainly on the wealth generated by North Sea Oil…
Mainly? As in, greater than 50%? From 2000 until 2012, oil and gas revenue accounted for 15% of Scotland’s tax income, compared to 30% for Norway, an oil producing country comparable to Scotland in terms of population.
-
The more the No campaign desperately peddle their scare stories, the more people discover that we can’t believe a word they say.
Today’s claims on banking are just the latest to backfire:
Royal Bank of Scotland directly confirmed in a letter to staff that changing the address of their registered HQ to London would be a “technical procedure” and no operations or jobs would be moved
And media stories about Lloyds ‘moving their headquarters’ to London are being ridiculed, since Lloyds has been headquartered in London for 100 years. Changing registered address would involve changing brass plaque - nothing more.
Banks will operate where they can get the best and most experienced staff - and that’s the staff they already employ here in Scotland. That’s why Sir Martin Gilbert of Aberdeen Asset Management said today that an independent Scotland “will be a big success”.
-
Anyone ask Mel Gibson for his views on Scottish independence? ;D
-
10 billion pounds? A lot less than the Tory cuts in the event of a NO vote.
-
I think we can do without such hypocrisy from "deejjjaaaa" - if you don't know, his avatar is the flag of those who murdered the passengers on the Malaysian airliner, and plenty others....
And he himself condones the murder of teenagers. I expect he's a nice chap, underneath.
Jeremy
-
Anyone ask Mel Gibson for his views on Scottish independence? ;D
No, I'm too busy talking to Sean Connery (in the Bahamas).
Jeremy
-
Banks will operate where they can get the best and most experienced staff - and that’s the staff they already employ here in Scotland. That’s why Sir Martin Gilbert of Aberdeen Asset Management said today that an independent Scotland “will be a big success”.
It's not going to happen, though. Most of those people who, intimated by the aggression of the Yes campaign, are pretending to pollsters that they don't know how they'll vote will, in the privacy of the booth, place a cross next to "no".
Jeremy
-
... the flag of those who murdered the passengers on the Malaysian airliner, and plenty others....
As it has been pointed out before, numerous countries, including Ukraine and United States, have shot down passenger planes by mistake in the past. I have not seen a single credible claim by any side that this one was intentional.
-
Oh, lots of other people have done it, so it's all right then.... No, any reasonable person would see it was a war crime, but in any case my point was the hypocrisy of someone hiding his identity like the thugs who use that flag and making a juvenile criticism of the Iraq/Libya operations (for all the faults of those wars, remember Hallabja, Lockerbie).
-
I expect he's a nice chap, underneath.
He probably thinks he's being very, very clever and that no-one would notice, but using that flag as his avatar is stupid and provocative.
-
Oh, lots of other people have done it, so it's all right then.... No, any reasonable person would see it was a war crime, but in any case my point was the hypocrisy of someone hiding his identity like the thugs who use that flag ...
If it were automatically a war crime, than a bunch of other perpetrators, including Ukraine itself and the US, should have been brought to justice. Ain't gonna happen, though, for a simple reason it is not a war crime. Horrible mistake and tragedy, yes. As for the "thugs," either both parties to the conflict, the street mob that toppled a legitimate government and the rebels that reacted to that, are thugs or neither. Or you can see both as freedom fighters, depending on your point of view.
-
Oh, lots of other people have done it, so it's all right then...
no, it is not - what is alright is to look @ your own history first, before teaching others in a childish manner.
No, any reasonable person would see it was a war crime, but in any case my point was the hypocrisy of someone hiding his identity like the thugs who use that flag
I 'd suggest first to use that defintion to describe the intentional killing of Iranians by thugs on USS Vincennes ( "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are..." (c) one potus ) or Libiyans by thugs flying IAF F-4s ::) and yes, then you can use that for KAL flight too
and making a juvenile criticism of the Iraq/Libya operations
those were not "operations" - those were thuggish assaults by US, UK & other US lackeys under the intentionally fake pretenses that resulted in way more deaths than Saddam or Gaddafi caused :-)
(for all the faults of those wars, remember Hallabja, Lockerbie).
we can for sure start earlier than that - we can remember who encouraged & supported dear friend Saddam when he was needed against Iran or who for example was using chemical weapons first including agent orange against civilians ;D (no, not Saddam - that honor belongs to a way whiter colored thugs)
-
And he himself condones the murder of teenagers.
Jeremy
certainly I do condone when IRA attacks (& kills) British soldiers on Irish soil, whose age was sufficient to serve in the army, regardless that those soldiers were born in Scotland... they could refuse to serve occupants, they didn't
-
He probably thinks he's being very, very clever and that no-one would notice
while I think that you are trolling (by switching the discussion from UK/Scotland matters to personal attacks on participant for example), I certainly do not think that you that stupid not to understand that it is flag of the movement I support.
-
while I think that you are trolling (by switching the discussion from UK/Scotland matters to personal attacks on participant for example), I certainly do not think that you that stupid not to understand that it is flag of the movement I support.
Sorry, when I see your "movement's" flag, I can't stop laughing about these guys.
-
Or you can see both as freedom fighters, depending on your point of view.
Sure, I agree. Some terrorists do indeed become tomorrow's statesmen, and maybe that could have applied in Crimea or East Ukraine if there had been something like secession following the Scottish or Czech examples, Swiss-style federalisation, or respect for minorities as with the Baltic states' Russians or Scotland's Gaelic regions. Instead we've had little green men invading Crimea and the deliberate provision of SA missiles to nationalist thugs.
But my point remains the hypocrisy of some joker using the flag of these murderers and making an inane point about British invasions of countries which had used poison gas on civilians and brought down two airliners. What next, as an ex-Yugoslav (I assume Serbian but I don't know) would you pontificate while using Arkan's or the Ustashe's symbols? Should the English posters here use the Duke of Cumberland's crest? In case you don't get the reference (which is obscure), he won the battle of Culloden which finally ended rebellion in Scotland.
-
This is veering way off topic and taking on a nasty tone.
Stick to the topic of Scotland's Independence.
Avoid personal attacks.
-
... would you pontificate...
John, you raise a lot of points simultaneously, which I would be happy to debate, but won't, out of respect for the OP and the subject matter of this thread. I invoked ex-Yugoslavia (and yes, I am a Serb) only when pertinent for this thread, e.g. currency issues.
P.S. The same goes for Isaac, on issues not related to Scotland
-
No, I'm too busy talking to Sean Connery (in the Bahamas).
Jeremy
+1
-
John, you raise a lot of points simultaneously, which I would be happy to debate, but won't, out of respect for the OP and the subject matter of this thread. I invoked ex-Yugoslavia (and yes, I am a Serb) only when pertinent for this thread, e.g. currency issues.
I only raised one point, Slobodan, that I would have hoped we all had the good sense to avoid paramilitary or other provocative symbols.
Otherwise I only listed examples of better ways other European countries have handled the varied problems of borders not matching national/ethnic identities. It's easy in Scotland's case - the land borders are agreed, Catholic-Protestant sectarianism has weakened, and the 10% English-born don't need protection any more than other minorities like Gallic-speakers. While the independence process has some difficulties like Yes supporters shouting down those disagreeing with them (it may be different today when the Orange Order (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/10/orange-order-pro-union-parade-edinburgh-better-together) marches through Edinburgh) those problems are mild and the process is largely a model of how nations decide to separate.
-
In this referendum, the voting age has been lowered to 16 years. Yesterday 2000 16 and 17 year olds took part in the Big Big Debate in Glasgow.
Here is the poem that they all read at the end of the debate:
The morning after by Christine de Luca
Scotland, 19th September 2014
Let none wake despondent: one way
or another we have talked plainly,
tested ourselves, weighed up the sum
of our knowing, ta’en tent o scholars,
checked the balance sheet of risk and
fearlessness, of wisdom and of folly.
Was it about the powers we gain or how
we use them? We aim for more equality;
and for tomorrow to be more peaceful
than today; for fairness, opportunity,
the common weal; a hand stretched out
in ready hospitality.
It’s those unseen things that bind us,
not flag or battle-weary turf or tartan.
There are dragons to slay whatever happens:
poverty, false pride, snobbery, sectarian
schisms still hovering. But there’s
nothing broken that’s not repairable.
We’re a citizenry of bonnie fighters,
a gathered folk; a culture that imparts,
inspires, demands a rare devotion,
no back-tracking; that each should work
and play our several parts to bring about
the best in Scotland, an open heart.
-
I'm welling up.... Not quite Jerusalem though.
Anyway have a laugh at this 'The buggers are out to get us (http://bit.ly/1pWxRDj)', Scottish aristocrats talking to Tatler about their independence fears. Oh dear, grouse moors are in grave danger.
-
or respect for minorities as with the Baltic states' Russians
get educated = http://www.noncitizens.eu/faqs
-
It's you who needs educating, "deejaaa" or "vladimirovich" or whatever name you're hiding behind today. Non citizens can become citizens, doh, and rights for ethnic minorities in the Baltic states were a specific requirement for those countries' EU and NATO membership, don't you know? When you're in a glass house, don't wrap yourself up in a paramilitary flag when you throw bricks.....
-
Non citizens can become citizens, doh, and rights for ethnic minorities in the Baltic states were a specific requirement for those countries' EU and NATO membership
the history is pretty much described in the link provided, granted the situation was improved - but you were talking about what happened right after secession in 1990, not what happened 15 years later ;D ... like in USA granted it is not as bad for black folks as it is used to be ;) - that's not the reason to forget how it was some time ago.
-
In this referendum, the voting age has been lowered to 16 years. Yesterday 2000 16 and 17 year olds took part in the Big Big Debate in Glasgow.
http://www.dw.de/scotland-the-brave-yes-campaign-on-a-roll/a-17913763
"...Young people, polls would suggest, are increasingly in favor of Scotland leaving the 300-year union with England. Independence has a lead of 19 points among 16 to 24 year-olds..."
hopefully "YES" will prevail and uk will be weakened further, Spain - Catalonia shall be the next target, then UK - Wales.
-
I'm welling up.... Not quite Jerusalem though.
Anyway have a laugh at this 'The buggers are out to get us (http://bit.ly/1pWxRDj)', Scottish aristocrats talking to Tatler about their independence fears. Oh dear, grouse moors are in grave danger.
Thanks for that, I was expecting a rather pompous whinge but found it a well written and entertaining piece.
-
Now, here is a fresh perspective on the issue:
Scotland, you want out? We'll take your place (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/12/opinion/wheeler-scotland-referendum/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)
From the article:
"If Scotland votes to secede, does that open up a spot for another country? And if so -- Scotland, can we take your place?
I realize that Americans fought a bloody war of independence from England in the late 1700s, but our rifts have healed over the past 240 years. In 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that England topped America's list of favorite nations..."
:)
-
Hehee.
I wonder if this has been discussed here - whats to happen to James Bond?
-
"If Scotland votes to secede, does that open up a spot for another country? And if so -- Scotland, can we take your place?
I realize that Americans fought a bloody war of independence from England in the late 1700s, but our rifts have healed over the past 240 years. In 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that England topped America's list of favorite nations..."
:)
As has been alluded to elsewhere, you'd have to learn to spell first.
Jeremy
-
As has been alluded to elsewhere, you'd have to learn to spell first.
Jeremy
"If Scotland votes to secede, does that open up a spot for another country? And if so -- Scotland, can we take your place?
I realize that Americans fought a bloody war of independence from England in the late 1700s, but our rifts have healed over the past 240 years. In 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that England topped America's list of favorite nations..."
unquote
Jeremy would you like to point out the "mistakes" ? Considering English isn't Slobodan's first language I think he is doing rather well. Perhaps you can show us your grasp of the Serbian language? If I have made any "mistakes" in my post then feel free to correct them. ;) ;D
-
Jeremy would you like to point out the "mistakes" ? Considering English isn't Slobodan's first language I think he is doing rather well. Perhaps you can show us your grasp of the Serbian language? If I have made any "mistakes" in my post then feel free to correct them.
As I hoped would have been obvious, my remark was jovial; it was aimed at Americans in general, not Slobodan; and I was referring to this thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93125.msg758833#msg758833) (but if you want a specific example, "favourite" has a "u" in it ;)).
My Serbian could charitably be described as rudimentary.
Jeremy
-
Jeremy there wasn't a smiley in the post and there wasn't a link to another thread so your post was there to be misinterpreted by anyone reading it. :-\
-
As for my language skills... while staying on topic... I always liked when there was a Scottish speaker at international conferences, meetings and trainings I would attend... made my English sound almost right ;)
-
Jeremy there wasn't a smiley in the post and there wasn't a link to another thread so your post was there to be misinterpreted by anyone reading it. :-\
It was; as, riding valiantly on your trusty charger to Slobodan's defence1, trusty sword already drawn in hand, you have so ably demonstrated. I'll take the smiley as an apology, of sorts.
On a slightly more serious note, I don't make such comments unless there's a joke or a valid point.
Jeremy
1although on past form, he's more than capable of defending himself
-
If the handbags are being readied then here's a little something to help you lads along -
http://allcomposed.com/a-z-of-scottish-insults/ ;D
-
It was; as, riding valiantly on your trusty charger to Slobodan's defence1...
Defence? You mean "de-fence" as in "taking down the white picket fence (of the American Dream)"? Oh, wait! You meant "defense"? Learn your spelling, man!
;D
-
Defence? You mean "de-fence" as in "taking down the white picket fence (of the American Dream)"? Oh, wait! You meant "defense"? Learn your spelling, man!
;D
No no no, we all know you colonials can't cope with the correct spelling of many words as evidenced by the appalling errors extant within my spell checker which obviously believes that doing things properly is just too much like making an effort!
:D
-
and with several last words (+ bagpipes) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YkLPxQp_y0&feature=youtu.be)
-
"If Scotland votes to secede, does that open up a spot for another country? And if so -- Scotland, can we take your place?
I realize that Americans fought a bloody war of independence from England in the late 1700s, but our rifts have healed over the past 240 years. In 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that England topped America's list of favorite nations..."
Well, it's easier to be friends with people who are no longer in charge of you.
-
It was; as, riding valiantly on your trusty charger to Slobodan's defence1, trusty sword already drawn in hand, you have so ably demonstrated. I'll take the smiley as an apology, of sorts.
On a slightly more serious note, I don't make such comments unless there's a joke or a valid point.
Jeremy
1although on past form, he's more than capable of defending himself
No apology of ANY sort. ;D Your comment wasn't in any way related to the subject of the thread, therefore deserved a comment.
On a slightly more serious note, I don't make such comments unless there's a joke or a valid point.
Jeremy
Jeremy I think you should check out the meaning of ..... valid point. ;)
-
If the handbags are being readied then here's a little something to help you lads along -
http://allcomposed.com/a-z-of-scottish-insults/ ;D
I don't see an entry for ..... Glasgow kiss. I think one or two will be receiving one. ;) ;D
-
and with several last words (+ bagpipes) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YkLPxQp_y0&feature=youtu.be)
Rather amusingly, not available in England (I can't comment on Scotland). Anyway, I've always liked the definition of a gentleman as a man who can play the bagpipes but doesn't.
Jeremy
-
Rather amusingly, not available in England (I can't comment on Scotland).
They aren't independent yet!
-
I think quite a risky move if they vote yes, Scotland will have few resources once the oil runs out. I also think it would be a disaster for the UK as a whole, but it's up to them.
Whatever happens I'll be glad to get Alex Salmond off the TV after this that alone is worth paying money to do
-
Scotland will have few resources once the oil runs out.
Where did that fantasy come from? Scotland has over 30% of the potential European resources for wind, tidal, wave and hydro power generation and over 20% of the entire UK food production. 9.6% of the UK GDP yet only 8.8% of the UK population.
By every measure (even totally excluding oil) Scotland is a significantly wealthier country that the rump of the UK will be. That is the real reason the Westminster politicians are soiling their breeks.
-
Below is a well written and thought provoking article, written by Ewan Morrison (http://ewanmorrison.com/) and is well worth a read, even if you do not care about the Scottish referendum or intend to vote yes or no, to understand just how tightly the yes campaign has been micro managed and why the methods used have been so effective, that it completely caught the other side napping. In fact I believe this is how ALL political campaigns all over the world will now be managed, to produce the appropriate responses from the electorate that the people running the campaign wish to elicit.
Ewan Morrison – YES: Why I Joined Yes and Why I Changed to No. (http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/)
I hope the best outcome for Scotland wins the referendum, for me that would be a No, but for you that might be a Yes, but we will know soon enough, so the best of luck everyone, whatever happens. ;)
Dave
-
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
Dolores Ibarruri
Any one up for the fight?
-
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
Dolores Ibarruri
It's tricky to ask the dead what they think about that particular piece of ludicrous drivel, isn't it?
Jeremy
-
Jeremy I take it you are trying to get your own back? At least I have a positive vote available with respect to my future. You have the choice of Tories/Labour/Lib dems or a combination of two of them. Or maybe Ukip. Which do you prefer for the austerity future? ;D
-
Jeremy I take it you are trying to get your own back? At least I have a positive vote available with respect to my future. You have the choice of Tories/Labour/Lib dems or a combination of two of them. Or maybe Ukip. Which do you prefer for the austerity future? ;D
Stamper, Stamper, Stamper!
Surely by now you have relaised the futility of trying to have a sensible discussion with those who have patently been brainwashed by the Daily Mail.
Relax, Man.
-
Where did that fantasy come from? Scotland has over 30% of the potential European resources for wind, tidal, wave and hydro power generation and over 20% of the entire UK food production. 9.6% of the UK GDP yet only 8.8% of the UK population.
By every measure (even totally excluding oil) Scotland is a significantly wealthier country that the rump of the UK will be. That is the real reason the Westminster politicians are soiling their breeks.
That argument has been banded about for a while now. Most people in the UK feel Scotland is an important part of the country, but let's be honest going it alone isn't really going to work for anyone least of all Scotland. It has a small population relative to it's area, it would completely disappear off the international map if it were a separate country.
Whilst I dislike the cronies at Westminster let's wake up a bit, putting a greedy eyed Salmond in power isn't going to change anything for the the "people" that is normal people who just want a better life and go about their day as we all do trying to get on. It's fantasy land for some people here if anyone has even a slight grasp of politics you'll see the same thing happen again and again..lots of promise lots of chest beating but when the dust settles and the flag waving finishes nothing is going to change for the people. This isn't just applicable to Scotland but is very visible in many countries it's just the way things are..politics = a complete waste of time and a poor form of democracy.
Don't get me wrong Salmond and his pals will love every minute of it he'll spend a fortune on international trips and living the high life. It's not going to make life better for the unemployed guy living in a run down bedsit in Glasgow on the dole it's not going to make your average family in Scotland better off. But it will give the SNP a power trip and things won't really change.
I don't like the situation in the UK with the Government but it's wasn't a lot better with previous ones either same old tired "change" and nothing really does much. Governments are best ignored it's a poor form of democracy. But if the people of Scotland want to go it alone fine fire away...just don't come crying when you have the same thing just a different face at the desk.
-
Surely by now you have relaised the futility of trying to have a sensible discussion with those who have patently been brainwashed by the Daily Mail.
That you should deride that British paragon of objective factual reportage in such a derisory manner is quite appalling … !
-
That argument has been banded about for a while now. Most people in the UK feel Scotland is an important part of the country, but let's be honest going it alone isn't really going to work for anyone least of all Scotland. It has a small population relative to it's area, it would completely disappear off the international map if it were a separate country.
Whilst I dislike the cronies at Westminster let's wake up a bit, putting a greedy eyed Salmon in power isn't going to change anything for the the "people" that is normal people who just want a better life and go about their day as we all do trying to get on. It's fantasy land for some people here if anyone has even a slight grasp of politics you'll see the same thing happen again and again..lots of promise lots of chest beating but when the dust settles and the flag waving finishes nothing is going to change for the people. This isn't just applicable to Scotland but is very visible in many countries it's just the way things are..politics = a complete waste of time and a poor form of democracy.
Don't get me wrong Salmond and his pals will love every minute of it he'll spend a fortune on international trips and living the high life. It's not going to make life better for the unemployed guy living in a run down bedsit in Glasgow on the dole it's not going to make your average family in Scotland better off. But it will give the SNP a power trip and things won't really change.
I don't like the situation in the UK with the Government but it's wasn't a lot better with previous ones either same old tired "change" and nothing really does much. Governments are best ignored it's a poor form of democracy. But if the people of Scotland want to go it alone fine fire away...just don't come crying when you have the same thing just a different face at the desk.
You are missing the point. In an independent Scotland nobody need vote for Salmond if they don't like him. Vote for a party without him and accept the result. BTW I think wee Eck should get a knighthood if Scotland votes YES
-
My wife is Scottish. Because we live in England, she doesn't get a vote. If Scotland votes for independence, she will find herself living in a foreign country, having had no say in the matter. Apparently that's all fine & allegedly democratic.
-
You are missing the point. In an independent Scotland nobody need vote for Salmond if they don't like him. Vote for a party without him and accept the result. BTW I think wee Eck should get a knighthood if Scotland votes YES
Independence and the entire agenda is very much a power trip for the SNP that's my own personal view making a smaller set of cronies isn't going to help that much if at all.
You'll get exactly the same thing on a smaller scale Salmond and Co. will offer nothing new v other parties bar enjoying the limelight for a while
But it's up to the people frankly I'm amazed there are so many holes in the yes vote argument they have no currency plans (bar trying to use the British pound which won't happen for obvious reasons) quite a lot of jobs will also be move south of the border. It's far too risky a move and honestly it won't do an awful lot for the people.
The general debate is focussed on Scotland, but there are consequences for the rest of the UK for starters we'll be stuck with a Tory Government due to the loss of opposition MP's to a Scottish parliament and fragmenting the infrastructure and country would be a disaster of epic proportions for everyone including Scotland. If they do vote yes expect utter turmoil
-
My wife is Scottish. Because we live in England, she doesn't get a vote. If Scotland votes for independence, she will find herself living in a foreign country, having had no say in the matter. Apparently that's all fine & allegedly democratic.
I think that this is one of the problems with the whole independence thing. You can vote in UK elections if British and currently living in say Europe, But if British/Scottish and currently living in a different part of the UK, you cannot vote on Scotland's future even if that is your home.
-
I think that this is one of the problems with the whole independence thing. You can vote in UK elections if British and currently living in say Europe, But if British/Scottish and currently living in a different part of the UK, you cannot vote on Scotland's future even if that is your home.
And I'm sure that was a deliberate move by Salmond - Scots living in England or Wales are more likely to vote no. He's more interested in his pet obsession than the will of the people. In that he's pretty much like every other bloody politician.
I love the fact that whatever happens, the Scots have made Cameron cry, but I'd dearly like to see a fair proportion of them reduce Salmond to tears too, come Friday morning.
-
And I'm sure that was a deliberate move by Salmond - Scots living in England or Wales are more likely to vote no.
Not sure whose decision that was, but no way would Salmond agree to Scots living in a different part of the UK having a vote for the reasons you say. Despite the fact that Brits living abroad can vote in UK elections.
He's more interested in his pet obsession than the will of the people. In that he's pretty much like every other bloody politician.
One in particular, Farrage.
Baffles me that people who would never, ever vote for Farrage are supporting Salmond.
-
You are missing the point. In an independent Scotland nobody need vote for Salmond if they don't like him. Vote for a party without him and accept the result. BTW I think wee Eck should get a knighthood if Scotland votes YES
Which from your response above, would indicate that you didn't actually take the time to read Ewan Morrison's very enlightening article (http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/) before you replied, I will therefore save you the time by quoting from the article below, which perfectly describes how it is in fact the members of the yes campaign that are missing the point:
...the factions within the Yes camp are all dreaming that they will have more power in the new Scotland ‘after the referendum.’ Bigger fish in the smaller pond. The Greens will have more power than they ever could in the UK. Business leaders will have more influence over Scottish government. The hard left will finally realise its dream of seizing power and creating a perfect socialist nation. Each group is dreaming of this fresh new country (as clean as a white sheet, as unsullied as a newborn) in which they themselves dominate and hold control. Clearly these groups can’t all have more power and the banner they share is a fantasy of a unity that is not actually there. It’s a Freudian slip when converts claim that the first thing that will happen ‘after independence’ is that the SNP will be voted out – it betrays the fantasy that each interest group has of its own coming dominance.
Stamper, Stamper, Stamper!
Surely by now you have relaised the futility of trying to have a sensible discussion with those who have patently been brainwashed by the Daily Mail.
Relax, Man.
I was a Labour voter and long time member of a trade union when I was young enough and daft enough to trust what the politicians were feeding me. I have never bought nor read the Daily Mail, so you are making assumptions and incorrect assumptions at that, which just indicates how it is the yes campaign supporters that have been brainwashed into an unquestioning mob fuelled by an almost religious zeal, that can only fight against the logic of how catastrophic the situation would become after a yes vote when questioned, with hyperbolic rhetoric.
God help us all when this yes mess is finally over, as we try to rebuild the unity and trust that we once enjoyed so much in this wee small isle, it could take years I fear.
Dave
-
Which from your response above, would indicate that you didn't actually take the time to read Ewan Morrison's very enlightening article (http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/) before you replied, I will therefore save you the time by quoting from the article below, which perfectly describes how it is in fact the members of the yes campaign that are missing the point:
I've always thought that the Yes supporters were missing that point too. It's not like local councils are any better, less venal or less corrupt than national governments.
All that will happen is numpties in Westminster will be replaced by numpties in Holyrood. Not being cynical, that's just how the world works.
I think the whole article hits the nail on the head for me. Even if I wanted to vote Yes, I wouldn't, mainly because the whole thing is built on nothing more than optimism and reality is being kept locked up where it cannot be seen.
Sadly I can't vote as a I live in the wrong part of the the same country that is being directly affected by this.
-
I think the whole article hits the nail on the head for me. Even if I wanted to vote Yes, I wouldn't, mainly because the whole thing is built on nothing more than optimism and reality is being kept locked up where it cannot be seen.
"Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.", from your signature...
-
"Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.", from your signature...
I think the point is it's all hype and very little details so many problems yet so few solutions are offered so many shared resources from police, military, no currency plans just a hope, no real details just an idea.
Personally I detest flag waving waving (in any respect) and that's all the yes campaign has vote yes more as a protest than a reality. Yes means job losses, loss of status more red tape more hassle for everyone including north and south of the border. Yes is simply an idea..and not a lot more. Yes sounds great, but it has no substance and that's the problem. Replacing Westminster cronies with Hollyrood ones will solve nothing at all, Cameron power grab becomes a Salmond one. He's out for himself in the way Cameron is and the others they all are. You really expect a big change..the piano player might be changed but the tune will be very much the same with a few extra runs and flourishes.
Not a lot changed with Obama either same story new face and well a few bits but nothing major. Where's the hope and change promised? If you folks can't work out the type of people who become politicians and see past their wafer thin marketing then well there is no help. Salmond is a phoney as any English politician he's just another run of power grabbing politicians who will say ANYTHING to get elected. If you gave any of these people a real job to do they'd run a mile..what they do is talk and not a lot more.
-
Another of the deceptions and false promises by the Westminster Liars' Club is blown apart:
(http://www.premier-pages.co.uk/philip_davies.jpg)
-
I think the point is it's all hype and very little details so many problems yet so few solutions are offered so many shared resources from police, military, no currency plans just a hope, no real details just an idea.
a lot of splits happened w/o any plans at all... for as long as there are no territory disputes nothing to worry about.
Not a lot changed with Obama either same story new face and well a few bits but nothing major.
that's exactly why it is a prime time to dissolve the union...
-
Personally I think that only people resident in Scotland should be able to vote. I don't think that people who have departed Scotland and don't intend to return should influence the vote. That goes for the film stars and their ilk as well. People should be thinking about the consequences of a no vote and what Gideon Osborne will do you. If a ship is sinking - the UK - and there is a lifeboat bobbing about - the SNP - then it is wise to take to the lifeboat even though there isn't a certainty of reaching shore. I'm taking to the lifeboat tomorrow. :)
-
Another of the deceptions and false promises by the Westminster Liars' Club is blown apart:
(http://www.premier-pages.co.uk/philip_davies.jpg)
That's a rather cynical bit of SNP propaganda
Like a lot of tory MP's they're not happy that the financial arrangements with devolution and other areas including debt etc. It has very little to do with the real world though
As for Westminster liars Salmond is every bit the bare faced liar the Westminster cronies are if not even more so.
Tomorrow's vote is an ego trip for Salmond desperate to grab some power for himself and you'll see the same disadvantaged people still in the same situation 10 years from now. Nothing changes despite new faces
Regarding splits the USA is a good example what goes on in a farm in Iowa has very little representation in Washington. Democracy is a very poor better than nothing option, but history has shown time and again nothing really changed the same greed the same vested interests and clicks. Might as well bring the Romans back they had order but were corrupt from top to bottom too, since then nothing changed much maybe a little less blood on swords and they eventually exchange their weapons for cheque books and suits. Might be time to wake up a little here...
The concept of a "free Scotland" sounds great but you're no more free with the Salmond cronies than you are with the Westminster ones.
-
"Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.", from your signature...
Which has zero bearing on what I said, so what is your point?
-
Personally I think that only people resident in Scotland should be able to vote. I don't think that people who have departed Scotland and don't intend to return should influence the vote.
So how do you determine if people are going to return or not?
People may be away on a contract and hope to return, people may decide they miss family and return and so on...
That goes for the film stars and their ilk as well. People should be thinking about the consequences of a no vote and what Gideon Osborne will do you. If a ship is sinking - the UK - and there is a lifeboat bobbing about - the SNP - then it is wise to take to the lifeboat even though there isn't a certainty of reaching shore. I'm taking to the lifeboat tomorrow. :)
Though the thing that strikes me about the yes camp, is that they believe there is a lifeboat [or whatever] despite there being no evidence of one.
-
As for Westminster liars Salmond is every bit the bare faced liar the Westminster cronies are if not even more so.
Tomorrow's vote is an ego trip for Salmond desperate to grab some power for himself and you'll see the same disadvantaged people still in the same situation 10 years from now. Nothing changes despite new faces
Not been able to work out what the difference between Salmond and Farrage is yet. Other than Salmond being further along the nationalist nonsense route. They sound very, very similar.
-
Quote JJJ
So how do you determine if people are going to return or not?
People may be away on a contract and hope to return, people may decide they miss family and return and so on...
unquote
If only the residents get to vote then you don't have to worry about the above. For me it is the lesser of the evils in tomorrow's vote. The Tories are the evil ones imo. I don't expect a free Scotland will be the land of milk and honey but a UK after a no vote will an appalling mess when austerity comes into being.
-
a lot of splits happened w/o any plans at all... for as long as there are no territory disputes nothing to worry about.
That's the typical naive nonsense the Yes campaign is based on.
They'd have clinched a victory if they had real plans based on reality and the uncertainty that the whole thing entails. Too many people don't believe their empty promises and that has cost them a lot of votes.
I'll repost Dave's link where's a Yes supporter explains why gave up on voting for independence as blind and controlling optimism is not something valid to vote for. (http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/)
-
Not been able to work out what the difference between Salmond and Farrage is yet. Other than Salmond being further along the nationalist nonsense route. They sound very, very similar.
The difference is that Salmond is an elected leader of an elected party. Something that Farage will never be. What he will do is split the vote in England which means that Ed Milliband will never become an elected leader. :(
-
Quote JJJ
So how do you determine if people are going to return or not?
People may be away on a contract and hope to return, people may decide they miss family and return and so on...
unquote
If only the residents get to vote then you don't have to worry about the above. For me it is the lesser of the evils in tomorrow's vote.
So you have no answer to my question. There's a surprise and sadly typical of the Yes campaign.
The Tories are the evil ones imo. I don't expect a free Scotland will be the land of milk and honey but a UK after a no vote will an appalling mess when austerity comes into being.
As for the Tories, you do realise that voting for independence means they are far more likely to be in power now as as you want to keep our currency and therefore still be be under their control. No to mention complaining about the current and temporary government you are helping to make permanent isn't exactly rational thinking.
-
That's the typical naive nonsense the Yes campaign is based on.
on the contrary - your position for NO is a naive FUD.
-
The difference is that Salmond is an elected leader of an elected party. Something that Farage will never be. What he will do is split the vote in England which means that Ed Milliband will never become an elected leader. :(
Yet you want to remove the Labour vote from Scotland too.
Farrage is the leader of an elected party which are much like SNP was when they first started. The crap both come out with is indistinguishable, yet somehow Scottish nationalism is OK but Farrage's equally blinkered nationalistic view isn't.
Both are also sucking up to the TTIP which makes an utter mockery of everything they say with regards to self determination and only shows them for the career politicians they are as opposed to men of substance.
-
on the contrary - your position for NO is a naive FUD.
Rather than post some random words try and argue a point for a change.
I'm actually neutral about this in many ways, but think the current Yes campaign is all hope and zero substance and would not vote for it even if I wanted independence.
Thinking about it, it's the Yes campaign that are spreading FUD because they have no idea as what going to happen next. If they had real plans, I there would be less concern.
-
JJJ you said a few weeks back - more than once - you were leaving the forum. Have you left and returned or not left at all? After a Yes you will be left behind with Cameron, Milliband and Farage. ;D
-
I feel the sudden urge to remind people who complain Scotland never gets fair representation that the previous 2 Prime Minister's of the UK were in fact Scottish.
This is why there is a Scottish Parliament (I think we can all embrace the concept of more regional representation for the UK)
There isn't really a case for separation that makes any kind of sense least I can't see it. But I see the "wee greedy eyes" all over Salmond's face he is not a man to be trusted
he is a phoney and a fake who will just like Cameron say anything it takes to get power for himself. If the people of Scotland want him well you are welcome to him..
The modern trend of separation and splitting up has not worked in other regions merely creates more tensions.
-
JJJ you said a few weeks back - more than once - you were leaving the forum. Have you left and returned or not left at all? After a Yes you will be left behind with Cameron, Milliband and Farage. ;D
I said I was fed up with morons on LuLa and have little time to waste on them, but I've blocked the posters who having nothing more than insults, bile and and nastiness in their posts. I'm baffled as to how they've not being banned, as they've said things far worse than anyone whose been banned before. I only come on here when I have time anyway, so may not post on here for months at a time anyway.
If you think you are getting rid of our nasty politicians, you are mistaken. You're helping them gain power which as you want to use our money, they'll be in charge of you too.
-
I feel the sudden urge to remind people who complain Scotland never gets fair representation that the previous 2 Prime Minister's of the UK were in fact Scottish.
This is why there is a Scottish Parliament (I think we can all embrace the concept of more regional representation for the UK)
Don't let facts get in the way of the yes voters.
I seem to recall that the previous parliament was referred to as the Scottish or Tartan Mafia at times because it was so heavily Scottish
There isn't really a case for separation that makes any kind of sense least I can't see it. But I see the "wee greedy eyes" all over Salmond's face he is not a man to be trusted
he is a phoney and a fake who will just like Cameron say anything it takes to get power for himself. If the people of Scotland want him well you are welcome to him..
The modern trend of separation and splitting up has not worked in other regions merely creates more tensions.
Nationalism is a poison that affects all sides negatively.
-
Apart from as Barry pointed out that the previous two PMs were Scottish who ruled for three long terms and is conveniently forgotten about by those who claim to want Scots to be in charge, this is a typical meaningless soundbite from Salmond.
"It's inconceivable that the land of Adam Smith can't run their own finances."
Obviously he doesn't know much about Scottish history either as that's basically how the Union was formed in the first place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme).
-
Quote JJJ Reply #313
As for the Tories, you do realise that voting for independence means they are far more likely to be in power now as as you want to keep our currency and therefore still be be under their control.
unquote
The bank of England is in control of the currency. It's powers are independent of any government and has been for quite a few years. So if Scotland gets to share the pound then the Tories can't control Scotland via the currency. Do you have any truthful scare stories? ::) ;D
-
The bank of England is in control of the currency. It's powers are independent of any government and has been for quite a few years. So if Scotland gets to share the pound then the Tories can't control Scotland via the currency. Do you have any truthful scare stories? ::) ;D
Ahem! From the horse's mouth (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/annualreport/2011/corepurposes2011.pdf)
Core Purpose 1 Monetary Stability
Monetary stability means stable prices and confidence in the currency. Stable prices are defined by the Government’s inflation target, which the Bank seeks to meet through the decisions delegated to the Monetary Policy Committee, explaining those decisions transparently and implementing them effectively in the money markets.
"The Bank performs all the functions of a central bank. The most important of these is supposed to be maintaining price stability and supporting the economic policies of the Government, thus promoting economic growth."
-
Jeremy I take it you are trying to get your own back? At least I have a positive vote available with respect to my future. You have the choice of Tories/Labour/Lib dems or a combination of two of them. Or maybe Ukip. Which do you prefer for the austerity future? ;D
Get my own back for what? My comment was confined to the fatuity of the sentiment behind the quotation.
Jeremy
-
The bank of England is in control of the currency. It's powers are independent of any government and has been for quite a few years. So if Scotland gets to share the pound then the Tories can't control Scotland via the currency.
That's naive beyond belief. Scotland won't share the pound because there will be no monetary union. Scotland may well use the pound, but monetary policy will be set by the Bank of England for the benefit of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, irrespective of any harm which might be done to what would by then be a foreign country. In some ways, of course, that would be good for UK business: a custom-designed economic environment and yet no currency costs incurred in trading with Scotland.
Jeremy
-
Here's something a friend commented...
So if the Bank of England is a UK creation, set up with UK funds for the UK, then Scotland gets to share it, and the UK oil rigs paid for with UK money for the UK are entirely Scottish, have I got that right?.
Another friend said this when I mentioned three recent governments being rather Scottish in nature including both PMs....
Indeed, the UK has been run by Scottish people or Scots-educated (e.g. Blair/Fettes) for I don't know how long - they are over-represented in all the major institutions. If they don't like the status quo then they only have themselves to blame.
Both of these hint at the hypocrisy of the Yes campaign.
-
Both of these hint at the hypocrisy of the Yes campaign.
only about your friends...
-
only about your friends...
do you have reading problems or are you simply trolling?
You certainly ignore any points raised and carefully dodge any questions. So maybe you're a SNP candidate.... ;D
-
Things like interest rates are controlled by the Monetary Policy Committee which as far as I'm aware consists mostly of English people and a few Welsh ones. Not seeing a Scot on the list
Anyone fooling themselves that an independent Scotland would be using a currency that they have been to date is living in a dream world these people set the interest rates for one why an independent Scotland would want to be tied to a a non Scottish institute is a mystery to me. It's a mere cop out Salmond wants to keep a "few bits" for his convenience £ Sterling and the Queen (at least for now)
When you start to dig a bit deeper there are an awful lot of unanswered questions. When the UK chancellor says the pound will not be shared in the event of a yes vote you can bet 100% that it won't be. The currency problem is a very big one, not to mention infrastructure and social services. It's a mess and the SNP has not answered these questions instead reliant on flag waving. I only hope the people of Scotland have the sense to see past this
Anyway it's up to them now so let it take it's course whatever happens will happen. It's been a very divisive period and I think that's a real shame
-
Ahem! From the horse's mouth (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/annualreport/2011/corepurposes2011.pdf)
Core Purpose 1 Monetary Stability
Monetary stability means stable prices and confidence in the currency. Stable prices are defined by the Government’s inflation target, which the Bank seeks to meet through the decisions delegated to the Monetary Policy Committee, explaining those decisions transparently and implementing them effectively in the money markets.
"The Bank performs all the functions of a central bank. The most important of these is supposed to be maintaining price stability and supporting the economic policies of the Government, thus promoting economic growth."
The Bank of England sets the interest rates. This comes before any decisions about inflation. ???
-
Whatever they choose, I hope they are happy. Lord knows they haven't always done well on that front in the past.
David
(Clan MacLaren)
-
The Bank of England sets the interest rates. This comes before any decisions about inflation. ???
Well according to the Bank of England, not you, they do the Government's bidding if need be. So if they set rates that interfere with inflation, then they'll have to change them.
This is why Salmond's talk about keeping sterling is utter BS if he wants independence. He's all hot air and empty promises, lets hope he doesn't destroy Scotland and the rest of UK along with it.
-
Well according to the Bank of England, not you, they do the Government's bidding if need be. So if they set rates that interfere with inflation, then they'll have to change them.
This is why Salmond's talk about keeping sterling is utter BS if he wants independence. He's all hot air and empty promises, lets hope he doesn't destroy Scotland and the rest of UK along with it.
JJJ what is that you don't understand about the Bank of England being Independent? If any government tried to influence the bank there would be a serious political row that would be damaging to the incumbent government. The interest rate has been unchanged for over 5 years so no interference has taken place. As stated inflation rate setting comes only about when the interest rate is changed. You have it arse for elbow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29234667
-
Polls yet to close but the current betting says
Yes 4/1
No 1/5
so a Yes vote seems unlikely.
Guess the Scots did their math: "We have a lot of oil and some Muslims, so if the Yanks ever figured out we weren't part of England, well..."
-
JJJ what is that you don't understand about the Bank of England being Independent? If any government tried to influence the bank there would be a serious political row that would be damaging to the incumbent government. The interest rate has been unchanged for over 5 years so no interference has taken place. As stated inflation rate setting comes only about when the interest rate is changed. You have it arse for elbow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29234667
What the bit you do not understand about the Bank of England's very own code? They are only independent up to a point.
-
There's something else that the yes voters haven't taken into consideration
If they lose Britain surely they lose the pound? In which case jokes on them....none of their shopping trolleys will work.
-
What the bit you do not understand about the Bank of England's very own code? They are only independent up to a point.
JJJ this is an obvious oxymoronic statement.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoronic
I now understand why you aren't popular on this forum. :(
-
JJJ this is an obvious oxymoronic statement.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoronic
I now understand why you aren't popular on this forum. :(
I know exactly what an oxymoron is. 'Independent up to a point', is a turn of phrase which describes this particular situation, which is the illusion of [total] independence. The whole point is that it is a contradictory statement.
Either way the BoE is not, as you still falsely claim completely independent. Despite the fact I demonstrated they are not with evidence from the bank's ethos itself, you then continue to deny this incontrovertible evidence. :-\
The truth often upsets people as it get in the way of their blinkered prejudices. Being disliked by such folks is hardly a problem in my books, I'd be more worried if such people liked me to be honest. If you also want to deny any facts that get in the way of your biases, go ahead hate me too. It still won't change the truth, no matter how inconvenient it is to you.
I don't mind in the slightest that you are in favour of independence. However basing it on mistruths and blindly optimistic nonsense as Salmond does, is not a good way to argue the case.
-
Nice to have their support even if they don't have votes:
(http://www.premier-pages.co.uk/murrays.jpg)
.
-
There's something else that the yes voters haven't taken into consideration
If they lose Britain surely they lose the pound? In which case jokes on them....none of their shopping trolleys will work.
Asda & Morrisons in my town have free trolleys.
-
There's something else that the yes voters haven't taken into consideration
If they lose Britain surely they lose the pound? In which case jokes on them....none of their shopping trolleys will work.Asda & Morrisons in my town have free trolleys.
Obviously you are lacking a sense of humour here. :-\
-
Darn, looks like the Welsh flag isn't going to be on the Union Flag after all.
-
Whatever they choose, I hope they are happy. Lord knows they haven't always done well on that front in the past.
"It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine." P G Wodehouse.
Jeremy
-
And what do YOU think Jeremy? It is cowardly to hide behind someone else's statements. :(
-
Shite being Scottish (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1tJJO_pVvQ), eh, living in a country where the majority is brainwashed and scared?
-
Shite being Scottish (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1tJJO_pVvQ), eh, living in a country where the majority is brainwashed and scared?
Separatism isn't the way forward nobody wanted to see a country split up
I found the entire event very divisive and damaging I only hope the message for ALL the people of the UK has got through about wanting proper democracy, not just Scotland
Salmond has wasted a lot of money on a personal ego trip
-
And what do YOU think Jeremy? It is cowardly to hide behind someone else's statements. :(
Much better I guess to simply be rude and insulting. :-\
An awful lot of people on LuLa have quoted other people's saying or phrases at some point, are they all cowards too?
-
Separatism isn't the way forward nobody wanted to see a country split up
I found the entire event very divisive and damaging I only hope the message for ALL the people of the UK has got through about wanting proper democracy, not just Scotland.
The thing that separatists do not get is that Holyroyd is quite possibly viewed by say Shetland or the Orkneys in the same way as those in Glasgow/Endigburgh view Westminster. Now if distant areas who very definitely voted no didn't want to be part of a separate Scotland, surely they should be allowed to go their own way too. So at what point do we stop this getting one's own independence malarky?
Salmond has wasted a lot of money on a personal ego trip
Indeed, but he was quite gracious in his concessionary speech.
-
In my opinion, the No campaign did not win the independence vote, it was the Yes campaign that lost it.
Because having watched all this unfold over the months, I think we can all agree after the fact, that there were indeed many more people in Scotland who really did want to vote for independence than did so in the end, so why didn’t they? Because, and even though this might be difficult to digest for some folk from the Yes side, the majority of people had become scared of the febrile nature of the Soltire waving separatists and the underlying racism of the Union flag burning outer sections of the Yes camp, strong feelings had been ignited and looked to burn out of anyone’s control should the Yes side win. Because to your ordinary person on the street, the Yes campaign, along with the cybernats, the shouty, in your face banner waving hordes, the people daubing painted Yes’s on monuments and defacing natural areas of beauty and rock structures etc and the irrational and wildly overlapping arguments put out by the fringes of the Yes side, from the bug-eyed pond life of the barmy left, through to the twittering absurdities of the barmy right, scared voters away from the Yes camp in their droves, it scared the hell out of them because of what might follow if the Yes side won.
So having said all this, I would also add that for the Yes side to then start blaming and name calling the No side, for having the temerity to achieve victory, even under the spoken threat of ‘you will vote for independence or else there will be consequences’, is nothing more than puerile, because the majority of people in this brave land have shown their true mettle by standing up to Salmond and his cohorts and firmly telling him No, we do not want your brand of independence thank you, so I think we should be rejoicing in this show of democracy and how it has so clearly triumphed over what appeared to be descending into mob rule, rather than decrying it.
I absolutely applaud the outcome of this referendum and my fellow people of Scotland, for having been brave enough to make this difficult decision to stay part of the 300 year old union.
Dave
-
Anyway let's smooth things over and spread the love....
.
.
-
In my opinion, the No campaign did Not win the independence vote, it was the Yes campaign that lost it.
Because having watched all this unfold over the months, I think we can all agree after the fact, that there were indeed many more people in Scotland who really did want to vote for independence than did so in the end, so why didn’t they? Because, and even though this might be difficult to digest for some folk from the Yes side, the majority of people had become scared of the febrile nature of the Soltire waving separatists and the underlying racism of the Union flag burning outer sections of the Yes camp, strong feelings had been ignited and looked to burn out of anyone’s control should the Yes side win. Because to your ordinary person on the street, the Yes campaign, along with the cybernats, the shouty, in your face banner waving hordes, the people daubing painted Yes’s on monuments and defacing natural areas of beauty and rock structures etc and the irrational and wildly overlapping arguments put out by the fringes of the Yes side, from the bug-eyed pond life of the barmy left, through to the twittering absurdities of the barmy right, scared voters away from the Yes camp in their droves, it scared the hell out of them because of what might follow if the Yes side won.
I'd agree that it was more the Yes campaign losing the election. If I was in favour of separation, I still wouldn't have voted yes because Salmond and company seemed to be clueless about the reality of what came next. With currency + retaining EU membership both being completely unknown quantities, it's like saying you're going to build a house, despite not knowing whether the foundations are reinforced concrete or sand until the build is fully underway with no way of starting over.
I also loath nationalism as it is something that unnecessarily drives wedges between people. Plus I think that there is little difference between Scottish Nationalism where folks are wanting to divest themselves of England and Farrage/UKIP and his supporters wanting to divest them selves of Europe. Yet for some reason they are seen very differently. Somehow though, those waving Scottish flags are seen as proud Scots whilst those waving English flags are usually seen racist loonies when in reality they both want the same thing for their respective countries. Also the dichotomy of wanting to split from the UK, but strengthen ties with Europe makes me think this whole thing is an anti-English vote, not an independence vote. :-\
-
The threat of import taxes on Bucky clearly swayed quite a few people.
Anyway, glad you're staying. Can we now get on with getting shot of this ToryDem government?
-
Anyway, glad you're staying. Can we now get on with getting shot of this ToryDem government?
Getting shot of the Tories you mean. The Lib Dems tempered the Tories and stopped them being as awful than they otherwise would liked to have been. Things would have been even nastier without the limited restraint imposed by a more moderate party. Be thankful that wasn't the case.
-
And what do YOU think Jeremy? It is cowardly to hide behind someone else's statements. :(
I agree with him. I've never had any difficulty. But you're obviously and childishly wrong about "hiding": I quote because I approve of the way in which someone with greater facility with words than I has expressed a sentiment. Many educated and well-informed people do.
Jeremy
-
Salmond has wasted a lot of money on a personal ego trip
Well, he's gone now. This (http://thesteepletimes.com/the-fog/picture-week-lying-scotsman/) was rather droll: it reminded of an episode of The Thick of It.
Jeremy
-
I found the entire event very divisive and damaging I only hope the message for ALL the people of the UK has got through about wanting proper democracy, not just Scotland
The big question about the Prime Minister's plan to hand more control over taxes, spending and welfare to the four nations is how far this would end the subsidy of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by England (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29278544), and especially by London and the South East.
…
The English enjoy public-service spending per annum equivalent to under 40% of the income they generate, whereas annual outlays on public services in Wales are equivalent to more than 60% of nationally generated income per head.
The ratios for Scotland and Northern Ireland are just over 50% and not far off 70% respectively.
-
Getting shot of the Tories you mean. The Lib Dems tempered the Tories and stopped them being as awful than they otherwise would liked to have been. Things would have been even nastier without the limited restraint imposed by a more moderate party. Be thankful that wasn't the case.
Hmm. I think you'll find they facilitated Tory nastiness, rather than reduced it
-
Hmm. I think you'll find they facilitated Tory nastiness, rather than reduced it
No they reduced a lot of the crap the tories wanted to implement. The tories got the most votes, but not enough to be a stable government. The only other option was to have another re-election if Lib Dem didn't pair up with the Tories. That wouldn't have gone down well. Pairing up with Labour didn't seem viable/doable, not that there's much difference between Tory and Labour anymore anyway. New Labour are basically Old Tory.
I think Cameron was made up about the Lib Dems joining up as whatever shit the Tories did, LD got the blame even if they reduced the amount of shit being poured on top of us.
Anyway here a photo of Clegg the day before he drank from the poisoned chalice...
.
.
-
Trillions of dollars at stake, aka the TPTB. If voting were able to change anything, it would be illegal in the first place. Love your freedom because it's in fact slavery as George Orwell famously put it.
-
Trillions of dollars at stake, aka the TPTB. If voting were able to change anything, it would be illegal in the first place. Love your freedom because it's in fact slavery as George Orwell famously put it.
Drivel.
-
Drivel.
"I often emphasize that a significant percentage of the population is incapable of thought and rational response. They want to hear what they want to hear and go into a rage when they don’t. They read not to learn but to have their ignorant biases substantiated."
— Paul Craig Roberts
-
Ooh, you can cut and paste. You're still spouting drivel.
-
Ooh, you can cut and paste. You're still spouting drivel.
Yes, Ben Franklin famously wrote, "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
-
Yes, Ben Franklin famously wrote, "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Ooh, the troll can use Google. Go away, troll.
-
It is a shame that this thread, along with the other next to it, no longer reflect the passionate but reasoned and civilized tone of the vast majority of those who live and voted in Scotland.
Topics locked