This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Horrible Mr.Barosso has told the Scots it will be difficult for an independent Scotland to join the EU. No doubt he'll getting a letter from Mr.Salmond telling him what a big bully he is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963
Mind you, it does seem pretty obvious to me that Scotland should get fast track membership and Barosso should stop being a dick
In reply to Postmanpat:
What's going to happen to the membership application of the other part of the dividing state? You know, the anti-European part?
What's going to happen to the membership application of the other part of the dividing state? You know, the anti-European part?
Post edited at 17:14
In reply to Jim Fraser:
It's not anti European but never mind the details. It retains it's existing membership because it remains the UK. Keep up at the back.
> What's going to happen to the membership application of the other part of the dividing state? You know, the anti-European part?
It's not anti European but never mind the details. It retains it's existing membership because it remains the UK. Keep up at the back.
Post edited at 17:20
In reply to Postmanpat:
Seems a bit harsh to boot out 5 million EU citizens that have been fully paid up members of the club for some 40 years...
Seems a bit harsh to boot out 5 million EU citizens that have been fully paid up members of the club for some 40 years...
In reply to JLS:
It isn't a case of being booted out, if Scotland votes for independence they're choosing to leave the EU, no one is making them.
> Seems a bit harsh to boot out 5 million EU citizens that have been fully paid up members of the club for some 40 years...
It isn't a case of being booted out, if Scotland votes for independence they're choosing to leave the EU, no one is making them.
In reply to JLS:
Write a letter to Mr.Barosso.
> Seems a bit harsh to boot out 5 million EU citizens that have been fully paid up members of the club for some 40 years...
Write a letter to Mr.Barosso.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I suspect Barosso is just reflecting the fact that some EU members will never support entry newly independent countries that were formally part of larger EU states, notably Spain. It is not a prescient they are prepared to allow.
I suspect Barosso is just reflecting the fact that some EU members will never support entry newly independent countries that were formally part of larger EU states, notably Spain. It is not a prescient they are prepared to allow.
In reply to Postmanpat:
It took Greenland 6 years to negotiate its exit from the EU (it joined as part of Denmark, held a referendum in 1979, voted to leave, and finally got to leave in 1985).
According to Mr Barroso, however, Scotland would be out on day 1.
It took Greenland 6 years to negotiate its exit from the EU (it joined as part of Denmark, held a referendum in 1979, voted to leave, and finally got to leave in 1985).
According to Mr Barroso, however, Scotland would be out on day 1.
In reply to Douglas Griffin: According to Wikipedia Greenland didn't secede from an EU member state. But it is only wikipedia and doubtless no more reliable than Barroso.
In reply to Postmanpat: Mr Barroso likened Scotland applying to join the EU with Kosovo's EU application!
Firstly Scotland is an ancient country unlike Kosovo
Secondly, we're fully up to date with EU regulations/standards.
We are the EU's biggest oil supplier (by far)
We're also a huge area of European sea territories, would be a shame to lose all that EU fishing etc....
barroso is yet another mouth piece, who is trying to undermine Scotland's independence bid, to meet his own political aims.....strange how Spain is very nervous about the Catalonian bid for self rule and how Scotland's success will only encourage the Catalonians to succeed....not to mention the Basques as well....
Firstly Scotland is an ancient country unlike Kosovo
Secondly, we're fully up to date with EU regulations/standards.
We are the EU's biggest oil supplier (by far)
We're also a huge area of European sea territories, would be a shame to lose all that EU fishing etc....
barroso is yet another mouth piece, who is trying to undermine Scotland's independence bid, to meet his own political aims.....strange how Spain is very nervous about the Catalonian bid for self rule and how Scotland's success will only encourage the Catalonians to succeed....not to mention the Basques as well....
In reply to Postmanpat:
Wrong.
Without Scotland there is only one kingdom left so no United Kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites.
> It's not anti European but never mind the details. It retains it's existing membership because it remains the UK. Keep up at the back.
Wrong.
Without Scotland there is only one kingdom left so no United Kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites.
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Exactly. He's a plonker.
Finland joined in 31 months overall but 13 months from the start of the proper negotiations. That also is not an analogous situation, bearing in mind that Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years, but it serves to discredit much of the rubbish that is being spoken by such idiots.
> It took Greenland 6 years to negotiate its exit from the EU (it joined as part of Denmark, held a referendum in 1979, voted to leave, and finally got to leave in 1985).
> According to Mr Barroso, however, Scotland would be out on day 1.
Exactly. He's a plonker.
Finland joined in 31 months overall but 13 months from the start of the proper negotiations. That also is not an analogous situation, bearing in mind that Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years, but it serves to discredit much of the rubbish that is being spoken by such idiots.
I don't reply directly to racists. But Kosovo not an ancient country? Words fail me.
There's ignorance, and then... wow. No, words really do fail me.
There's ignorance, and then... wow. No, words really do fail me.
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Unless correction- Spain bows to pressure, he is right, ( in a way) as it needs everyone to agree, Spain for his own narrow political reasons, does not want Scotland to 'get in ' ( or remain in) so in theory they will not.
However, Scotland will not stop being in the EU immediately after a yes vote, so does that mean Scotland will be in limbo? Not fully in, but not out?
( unless there is perhaps a time limit on applications, that Spain would continue to be the blocker, and once that passes, Scotland is denied continued membership?)
> It took Greenland 6 years to negotiate its exit from the EU (it joined as part of Denmark, held a referendum in 1979, voted to leave, and finally got to leave in 1985).
> According to Mr Barroso, however, Scotland would be out on day 1.
Unless correction- Spain bows to pressure, he is right, ( in a way) as it needs everyone to agree, Spain for his own narrow political reasons, does not want Scotland to 'get in ' ( or remain in) so in theory they will not.
However, Scotland will not stop being in the EU immediately after a yes vote, so does that mean Scotland will be in limbo? Not fully in, but not out?
( unless there is perhaps a time limit on applications, that Spain would continue to be the blocker, and once that passes, Scotland is denied continued membership?)
Post edited at 19:48
I thought we wanted to be like Norway, so why would we want to be in the EU? They're doing ok.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
The UK is a member state of the EU, Scotland (in the event of independence) is seceding from the UK. So a newly independent Scotland wouldn't be an EU member. Apparently that's a really difficult concept for the hard of thinking.
> Wrong.
> Without Scotland there is only one kingdom left so no United Kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites.
The UK is a member state of the EU, Scotland (in the event of independence) is seceding from the UK. So a newly independent Scotland wouldn't be an EU member. Apparently that's a really difficult concept for the hard of thinking.
In reply to Tim Chappell: Kosovo didn't get it's first president until 1974 prior to that it was referred to as "The Vilayet of Kosovo" by its Ottoman rulers...prior to the Ottomans ruling the place, the Serbians were in there....I fact it's never been recognised as a country called Kosovo until about 1974....maybe a bit earlier but only 10 years or so.
To compare Scotland with Kosovo (not disrespect to the Kosovo people) is Fcuking complete and utter tosh!
You Britnats surprise me, do you really think the Scots are that frickin' stupid!
To compare Scotland with Kosovo (not disrespect to the Kosovo people) is Fcuking complete and utter tosh!
You Britnats surprise me, do you really think the Scots are that frickin' stupid!
In reply to lynx3555:
Is when a country got a President significant? If it is, I've got some bad news for you.
The ancientness of a country has little relevance to EU entry.
Is when a country got a President significant? If it is, I've got some bad news for you.
The ancientness of a country has little relevance to EU entry.
In reply to The New NickB:
Scotland however became a internationally recognised country called Scotland, formally Pictland in the 9th century, around about the same time England took shape...
> Is when a country got a President significant? If it is, I've got some bad news for you.
It means that it first became a self ruling (ish) country for the first time only recentlyScotland however became a internationally recognised country called Scotland, formally Pictland in the 9th century, around about the same time England took shape...
In reply to Sir Chasm:
First, the basis on which the current member state is constituted disappears upon Scottish independence.
Second, we already know that removing a part of a member state from the EU does not happen by magic. Amongst other things, I and five million others here are EU citizens and removing citizenship without proper cause is a serious matter in international law.
Third, if you ask for a show of hands around Europe about who wants anti-European England and who wants pro-European Scotland then it might be uncomfortable viewing for you. Only the English themselves think they are team players.
> The UK is a member state of the EU, Scotland (in the event of independence) is seceding from the UK. So a newly independent Scotland wouldn't be an EU member. Apparently that's a really difficult concept for the hard of thinking.
First, the basis on which the current member state is constituted disappears upon Scottish independence.
Second, we already know that removing a part of a member state from the EU does not happen by magic. Amongst other things, I and five million others here are EU citizens and removing citizenship without proper cause is a serious matter in international law.
Third, if you ask for a show of hands around Europe about who wants anti-European England and who wants pro-European Scotland then it might be uncomfortable viewing for you. Only the English themselves think they are team players.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Totally agree. It is bullying. The clarifying of the future of the sterling was not.
But this is out of order. Cameron or someone should make a stand and state that we will not veto and think it should be expedited should Scotland vote to leave the UK.
Totally agree. It is bullying. The clarifying of the future of the sterling was not.
But this is out of order. Cameron or someone should make a stand and state that we will not veto and think it should be expedited should Scotland vote to leave the UK.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Agree with some. But anti-European England?
I don't think that is true. If it came to a referendum I think we'd vote to stay. Businesses would dictate that. Leaving the EU would be a huge error.
Agree with some. But anti-European England?
I don't think that is true. If it came to a referendum I think we'd vote to stay. Businesses would dictate that. Leaving the EU would be a huge error.
In reply to lynx3555:
So what? Your kosovo statement is truly ignorant. That's a pretty poor statement regardless of which side of this debate you are on. Why would a pro-independent person even mutter such comments? Nonsensical.
> It means that it first became a self ruling (ish) country for the first time only recently
> Scotland however became a internationally recognised country called Scotland, formally Pictland in the 9th century, around about the same time England took shape...
So what? Your kosovo statement is truly ignorant. That's a pretty poor statement regardless of which side of this debate you are on. Why would a pro-independent person even mutter such comments? Nonsensical.
In reply to IainRUK: not as ignorant as the Bawbag that compared Scotland's case for EU membership with Kosovo's.
In reply to IainRUK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10637931/Wythenshawe-by-elect...
> Agree with some. But anti-European England?
> I don't think that is true. ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10637931/Wythenshawe-by-elect...
In reply to lynx3555:
Well now we're growing up.. he's more wrong than I am.. ner ner ner ner..
That's about the quality of Sturgeon's debating style..
Well now we're growing up.. he's more wrong than I am.. ner ner ner ner..
That's about the quality of Sturgeon's debating style..
In reply to lynx3555:
Yes, the ignorant president of the European commission. Curse these uninformed commentators.
> not as ignorant as the Bawbag that compared Scotland's case for EU membership with Kosovo's.
Yes, the ignorant president of the European commission. Curse these uninformed commentators.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
You've just quoted cameron.. what has that to do with the UK? They are the majority party. But much less than 50% of the electorate. Plus many Tories are pro European.
They say they are not, but then we make these pesky immigrants leave or get official status, apply for work permits.. we need Europe.. we need staff we need trade..
We should join the Euro.. But I am very pro Europe.
But I think there is zero chance of us leaving the EU. Its the main reason I oppose the tories. No party really appeals right now, but the tories have damaged our status.
You've just quoted cameron.. what has that to do with the UK? They are the majority party. But much less than 50% of the electorate. Plus many Tories are pro European.
They say they are not, but then we make these pesky immigrants leave or get official status, apply for work permits.. we need Europe.. we need staff we need trade..
We should join the Euro.. But I am very pro Europe.
But I think there is zero chance of us leaving the EU. Its the main reason I oppose the tories. No party really appeals right now, but the tories have damaged our status.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Results in full
Labour 13,261 votes - 55.34%
Ukip 4,301 votes - 17.95%
Conservatives 3,479 votes - 14.52%
Lib Dems 1,176 votes - 4.91%
Others - Green 748 votes - 3.12%; BNP 708 votes - 2.95%; Monster Raving Loony 288 votes - 1.20%
Turnout: 28.4%
I do like that MRL took almost 50% of the BNP's total..
But over 60% was labour, lib dem, or Green..
About 35% Tory, UKIP or BNP
Results in full
Labour 13,261 votes - 55.34%
Ukip 4,301 votes - 17.95%
Conservatives 3,479 votes - 14.52%
Lib Dems 1,176 votes - 4.91%
Others - Green 748 votes - 3.12%; BNP 708 votes - 2.95%; Monster Raving Loony 288 votes - 1.20%
Turnout: 28.4%
I do like that MRL took almost 50% of the BNP's total..
But over 60% was labour, lib dem, or Green..
About 35% Tory, UKIP or BNP
In reply to Postmanpat:
Whatever the political commentators have to say I would have confidently bet a lot of my own cash on a no vote a couple of weeks ago and now wouldn't dare after the Westminster opposition decided to team up with the ghastly toffs, Big Oil mocked the independence agenda, and then the euros stuck the boot in. Total misjudgement of the national character from proud patriots and fearsome soldiery to tetchy anti-Englishness and giant shoulder chips: you couldn't pick a worse nation to assail in this way
Whatever the political commentators have to say I would have confidently bet a lot of my own cash on a no vote a couple of weeks ago and now wouldn't dare after the Westminster opposition decided to team up with the ghastly toffs, Big Oil mocked the independence agenda, and then the euros stuck the boot in. Total misjudgement of the national character from proud patriots and fearsome soldiery to tetchy anti-Englishness and giant shoulder chips: you couldn't pick a worse nation to assail in this way
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Doug,
You should write to Mr Barroso and point that out to him. Obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about and I'm sure that if you phrased your email sensitively he'd accept his mistake and quietly backtrack on his observations on the politics of the real world.
;=)
> It took Greenland 6 years to negotiate its exit from the EU (it joined as part of Denmark, held a referendum in 1979, voted to leave, and finally got to leave in 1985).
> According to Mr Barroso, however, Scotland would be out on day 1.
Doug,
You should write to Mr Barroso and point that out to him. Obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about and I'm sure that if you phrased your email sensitively he'd accept his mistake and quietly backtrack on his observations on the politics of the real world.
;=)
In reply to janiejonesworld:
Bollocks.
> Whatever the political commentators have to say I would have confidently bet a lot of my own cash on a no vote a couple of weeks ago and now wouldn't dare after the Westminster opposition decided to team up with the ghastly toffs, Big Oil mocked the independence agenda, and then the euros stuck the boot in. Total misjudgement of the national character from proud patriots and fearsome soldiery to tetchy anti-Englishness and giant shoulder chips: you couldn't pick a worse nation to assail in this way
Bollocks.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I can read, so I do.
In the past, territories DELIBERATELY leaving the EU, being the responsibility of a member state, or at the same time as ceasing to be a part of a member state, have taken many years to complete the process. It is impossible that any broadly similar process could take place instantly or automatically. It is inconceivable that the EU would deliberately put itself through the 5 to 10 years of effort and turmoil that might result from an attempt to expel, for no reason, a country that has previously been a part of a member state, has committed no breach of treaty, and does not wish to leave.
UDHR
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
> Yes dear, the rules are wot you say they are.
I can read, so I do.
In the past, territories DELIBERATELY leaving the EU, being the responsibility of a member state, or at the same time as ceasing to be a part of a member state, have taken many years to complete the process. It is impossible that any broadly similar process could take place instantly or automatically. It is inconceivable that the EU would deliberately put itself through the 5 to 10 years of effort and turmoil that might result from an attempt to expel, for no reason, a country that has previously been a part of a member state, has committed no breach of treaty, and does not wish to leave.
UDHR
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
In reply to Removed User:
Perhaps if you address it to Mr Barroso's secretary, you might get a more informed response?
> Doug,
> You should write to Mr Barroso and point that out to him. Obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about and I'm sure that if you phrased your email sensitively he'd accept his mistake and quietly backtrack on his observations on the politics of the real world.
> ;=)
Perhaps if you address it to Mr Barroso's secretary, you might get a more informed response?
Post edited at 21:06
In reply to Jim Fraser: My dear chap, nobody is being arbitrarily deprived, it's a democratic choice. If Scotland democratically chooses to leave the EU it's a free choice.
In reply to Removed User:
Nicely argued, I must concede the point. It's a shame the debate isn't carried out with such intellectual clarity and honesty at the national level
> Bollocks.
Nicely argued, I must concede the point. It's a shame the debate isn't carried out with such intellectual clarity and honesty at the national level
In reply to janiejonesworld:
what has westminster done?
The currency statement was understandable. I've yet to hear an argument why it was wrong.. so far it's been 'bullying'.. 'its our currency'.. which it is you can use it, just not share control.. but no actual argument...
what has westminster done?
The currency statement was understandable. I've yet to hear an argument why it was wrong.. so far it's been 'bullying'.. 'its our currency'.. which it is you can use it, just not share control.. but no actual argument...
In reply to Jim Fraser:
May be of interest, Jim:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20757450
May be of interest, Jim:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20757450
In reply to Jim Fraser:
It's a kingdom and united aka.....
That's a done deal and belated whining won't change it. Think of it like this: if you choose to leave a club you don't get to keep the perks of membership. Like I say, the nasty Europeans are being real meanies about this but hey, it's your choice.....
> Wrong.
> Without Scotland there is only one kingdom left so no United Kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites.
It's a kingdom and united aka.....
That's a done deal and belated whining won't change it. Think of it like this: if you choose to leave a club you don't get to keep the perks of membership. Like I say, the nasty Europeans are being real meanies about this but hey, it's your choice.....
In reply to Postmanpat:
Apart from the debt, of course.
> Think of it like this: if you choose to leave a club you don't get to keep the perks of membership.
Apart from the debt, of course.
In reply to IainRUK:
Don't get me wrong - I'm firmly in support of the no camp
But I strongly believe that there are many many Scots who at a gut emotional level would vote for independence, indeed might be superficially passionate about it, but who fear for the economic status quo, their own jobs, the long term interests of their families. To set about riling these people and whipping up their nationalist feelings is extremely unwise and I think the apparent ganging up of the otherwise opposed Westminster parties is disastrous in this regard. Push people enough and the emotions will overcome the reason
Don't get me wrong - I'm firmly in support of the no camp
But I strongly believe that there are many many Scots who at a gut emotional level would vote for independence, indeed might be superficially passionate about it, but who fear for the economic status quo, their own jobs, the long term interests of their families. To set about riling these people and whipping up their nationalist feelings is extremely unwise and I think the apparent ganging up of the otherwise opposed Westminster parties is disastrous in this regard. Push people enough and the emotions will overcome the reason
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Maybe you can have 10% of EU membership?
> Apart from the debt, of course.
Maybe you can have 10% of EU membership?
In reply to Removed User:
There's no point. His term of office ends in October so his views are irrelevant.
> Doug,
> You should write to Mr Barroso and point that out to him.
There's no point. His term of office ends in October so his views are irrelevant.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Aye, he knows nowt.
> There's no point. His term of office ends in October so his views are irrelevant.
Aye, he knows nowt.
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Legally different because Greenland still isn't independent of Denmark, so it's not a sovereign state (although likely to be soon by the looks of things!).
Legally different because Greenland still isn't independent of Denmark, so it's not a sovereign state (although likely to be soon by the looks of things!).
In reply to janiejonesworld:
I Agree to a point, the EU statement was dangerous and plays into the 'bullying' accusations of sturgeon, basically never make back someone into a corner like the statement did.. I dont think the Gov. stance on the currency was. That was just welcome definite policy decisions, something the SNP miss.
Someone said yesterday or today, there's time to dot the i's and cross the t's.. not really, the vote is soon and independence will come soon after. Big businesses will be making plans for what happens now, the SNP have to have a clear policy of how they will progress if they think the instability argument is scare mongering.. at the moment they seem to have little of substance to add.
I Agree to a point, the EU statement was dangerous and plays into the 'bullying' accusations of sturgeon, basically never make back someone into a corner like the statement did.. I dont think the Gov. stance on the currency was. That was just welcome definite policy decisions, something the SNP miss.
Someone said yesterday or today, there's time to dot the i's and cross the t's.. not really, the vote is soon and independence will come soon after. Big businesses will be making plans for what happens now, the SNP have to have a clear policy of how they will progress if they think the instability argument is scare mongering.. at the moment they seem to have little of substance to add.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
No it's not, because Finland's EU application was supported by all existing member states - particularly so by the UK. Barroso's point is that accession requires unanimity in the Council of Europe, and you might not get that if Spain cares more about making a point to Catalonia than it does the economic interests of Scotland.
There have been lots treaty changes as well so the legal basis now is somewhat different for accession than it was for either the Swe/Fin/Aus or the Visegrad enlargement.
> That also is not an analogous situation,
No it's not, because Finland's EU application was supported by all existing member states - particularly so by the UK. Barroso's point is that accession requires unanimity in the Council of Europe, and you might not get that if Spain cares more about making a point to Catalonia than it does the economic interests of Scotland.
There have been lots treaty changes as well so the legal basis now is somewhat different for accession than it was for either the Swe/Fin/Aus or the Visegrad enlargement.
In reply to janiejonesworld:
These are real issues with real implications. At a guess there is no legal precedent or treaty rules for what 'should' happen if Scotland becomes 'independent'. Salmond is obviously assuming that the EU automatically wants another member state - being the spectacularly successful economist that he once was (ahem...) he may have missed a few local difficulties that have recently occurred in the EU.
Barroso is in fact stating the bleeding obvious: 1) an independent Scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU, it would to all legal intents and purposes be a brand new country that has to apply for membership; 2) some of the other 27 states might have certain reservations about agreeing.
If Salmond and his self aggrandising mates want to cast Scotland adrift in uncharted seas, don't whinge when other people point out possible downsides.
These are real issues with real implications. At a guess there is no legal precedent or treaty rules for what 'should' happen if Scotland becomes 'independent'. Salmond is obviously assuming that the EU automatically wants another member state - being the spectacularly successful economist that he once was (ahem...) he may have missed a few local difficulties that have recently occurred in the EU.
Barroso is in fact stating the bleeding obvious: 1) an independent Scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU, it would to all legal intents and purposes be a brand new country that has to apply for membership; 2) some of the other 27 states might have certain reservations about agreeing.
If Salmond and his self aggrandising mates want to cast Scotland adrift in uncharted seas, don't whinge when other people point out possible downsides.
In reply to janiejonesworld: What you are saying is coming to pass...regardless of which side you're on, the overwhelming majority of Scots will unite against personal attacks on there dignity and pride.....only the hard core fanatical Scots, like the protestant unionist loyalists (blue noses), seem to gloat over such attacks on Scotland....attacks from an American businessman, a Spanish EU rouge, and dare I say an English chancellor....I say bring it on
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8745-backlash-against-we...
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8745-backlash-against-we...
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Oh come on Jim, the majority of people in all parts of the UK have rubbished the EU for years, right down to the colour of passports, so I don't think anyone is going to be convinced that losing EU citizenship now is really like losing your national citizenship. If Scotland wasn't allowed automatically into the EU it doesn't stop Scots from being Scottish.
> UDHR
> Article 15.
Oh come on Jim, the majority of people in all parts of the UK have rubbished the EU for years, right down to the colour of passports, so I don't think anyone is going to be convinced that losing EU citizenship now is really like losing your national citizenship. If Scotland wasn't allowed automatically into the EU it doesn't stop Scots from being Scottish.
In reply to lynx3555:
Please what was the personal attack from the English Chancellor?
That was not bullying.
Could you explain with no more emotive statements, just outline why it was a threat?
Please what was the personal attack from the English Chancellor?
That was not bullying.
Could you explain with no more emotive statements, just outline why it was a threat?
In reply to TobyA:
Correction....Spanish EU Rogue.
Correction....Spanish EU Rogue.
In reply to lynx3555: "the overwhelming majority of Scots will unite"
Do you speak for all of "your people"?
Do you speak for all of "your people"?
In reply to lynx3555:
Problem us the Act of Crowns and Act of Union predate the EU a little, so as far as they are concerned, Scotland is basically just a UK region. Let's remember Italy and Germany basically didn't exist in 1707.
I just dong think Scotland's long history before the Act of Union is particularly relevant.
Just for the record, I have no axe to grind on Scottish independence, I'm just trying to understand the perspectives of all parties involved.
Problem us the Act of Crowns and Act of Union predate the EU a little, so as far as they are concerned, Scotland is basically just a UK region. Let's remember Italy and Germany basically didn't exist in 1707.
I just dong think Scotland's long history before the Act of Union is particularly relevant.
Just for the record, I have no axe to grind on Scottish independence, I'm just trying to understand the perspectives of all parties involved.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No but I am one of my people......so if a certain role was reversed and say, a Spanish Politician made out that England would struggle to Enter the EU, you don't think there would be an up roar out of the English, I'm sure there would be, and what if some Smirky Scottish chancellor told you that you couldn't have the Pound, well I'm sure haggis would be off the menu down south.....
No but I am one of my people......so if a certain role was reversed and say, a Spanish Politician made out that England would struggle to Enter the EU, you don't think there would be an up roar out of the English, I'm sure there would be, and what if some Smirky Scottish chancellor told you that you couldn't have the Pound, well I'm sure haggis would be off the menu down south.....
In reply to lynx3555:
You seem like a nice, well balanced, welcoming kind of person. Were you the snarling Argentina shirt wearing guy that I met in the pub outside of Stirling during the 2002 WC when England were playing Denmark. You sound like him.
(Ps there was friendly banter with everyone else in the pub but not with your sound-a-like)
You seem like a nice, well balanced, welcoming kind of person. Were you the snarling Argentina shirt wearing guy that I met in the pub outside of Stirling during the 2002 WC when England were playing Denmark. You sound like him.
(Ps there was friendly banter with everyone else in the pub but not with your sound-a-like)
In reply to lynx3555:
Haggis isn't my menu because it tastes horrible, nothing to do with its origin.
Haggis isn't my menu because it tastes horrible, nothing to do with its origin.
In reply to lynx3555:
Drinking's great, innit? It's like you can rite any old crap.
> No but I am one of my people......so if a certain role was reversed and say, a Spanish Politician made out that England would struggle to Enter the EU, you don't think there would be an up roar out of the English, I'm sure there would be, and what if some Smirky Scottish chancellor told you that you couldn't have the Pound, well I'm sure haggis would be off the menu down south.....
Drinking's great, innit? It's like you can rite any old crap.
In reply to lynx3555:
you seem to be missing a major point..... Scotland can use the pound there will simply be no currency union. A huge difference
Scotland is voting for independence not independence and tie the country it leaves in to all sorts of agreements that impacts the citizens of the country it just left.
you seem to be missing a major point..... Scotland can use the pound there will simply be no currency union. A huge difference
Scotland is voting for independence not independence and tie the country it leaves in to all sorts of agreements that impacts the citizens of the country it just left.
In reply to lynx3555:
Can you explain for the umpteenth time I've asked. Why should you have a share of control?
What should happen if we disagreed on key decisions?
Why should the rUK expose itself to the risks of Scottish independence?
As said, I think the Barroso was wrong.. I don't think Westminster is. Its rare all parties are so united. This isn't a threat. Its good for the SNP to be clearly told now, now you can plan for it.
> No but I am one of my people......so if a certain role was reversed and say, a Spanish Politician made out that England would struggle to Enter the EU, you don't think there would be an up roar out of the English, I'm sure there would be, and what if some Smirky Scottish chancellor told you that you couldn't have the Pound, well I'm sure haggis would be off the menu down south.....
Can you explain for the umpteenth time I've asked. Why should you have a share of control?
What should happen if we disagreed on key decisions?
Why should the rUK expose itself to the risks of Scottish independence?
As said, I think the Barroso was wrong.. I don't think Westminster is. Its rare all parties are so united. This isn't a threat. Its good for the SNP to be clearly told now, now you can plan for it.
Post edited at 22:33
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Och . . . . . Dinnae diss the haggis or we'll be doomed. . . DOOMED I say !
> Haggis isn't my menu because it tastes horrible, nothing to do with its origin.
Och . . . . . Dinnae diss the haggis or we'll be doomed. . . DOOMED I say !
In reply to lynx3555:
When asked, "Would Scotland being prevented from keeping the pound change your vote in the independence referendum?"
Jesus christ.. look at the lies.
Where has Scotland been prevented from using the pound?
The yes campaign has accused the better together of spreading fear, yet what is that?
Its deliberately misleading the public.. but that's OK...
When asked, "Would Scotland being prevented from keeping the pound change your vote in the independence referendum?"
Jesus christ.. look at the lies.
Where has Scotland been prevented from using the pound?
The yes campaign has accused the better together of spreading fear, yet what is that?
Its deliberately misleading the public.. but that's OK...
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Pure semantics. The UK entered Europe as a state. ONE constituent part of that state leaves. No requirement for the rUK to renegotiate simply because its title is now less than accurate.
> Wrong.
> Without Scotland there is only one kingdom left so no United Kingdom
Pure semantics. The UK entered Europe as a state. ONE constituent part of that state leaves. No requirement for the rUK to renegotiate simply because its title is now less than accurate.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
In a stottie . . .?
With ham . . ..?
Yum yum. . . ( not nom firkin nom ! )
In a stottie . . .?
With ham . . ..?
Yum yum. . . ( not nom firkin nom ! )
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Complete nonsense.
It is in the interests of EU Member States for as many wealthy and democratic European countries as possible to be members of the union. The evidence for this is overwhelming in the form of a list of member states that are less wealthy and have less developed democracies than Scotland. Trade is the lifeblood of the European Union and trade with Scotland has been important for several of the member states throughout many centuries of their history. Neither wild horses not Daily Torygraph front pages will drag Polish or French or Dutch or Danish businesses away from a good deal. If the English want to fantasise about still trading with a world of pink-shaded colonies then they are welcome to their fantasy but please step aside, we're coming through.
The main issue in any membership application is the adjustment of legal and trading arrangement in line with EU treaties and directives. Job done.
This is not about Alex F3cking Salmond. He's a small detail.
> These are real issues with real implications. At a guess there is no legal precedent or treaty rules for what 'should' happen if Scotland becomes 'independent'. Salmond is obviously assuming that the EU automatically wants another member state - being the spectacularly successful economist that he once was (ahem...) he may have missed a few local difficulties that have recently occurred in the EU.
> Barroso is in fact stating the bleeding obvious: 1) an independent Scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU, it would to all legal intents and purposes be a brand new country that has to apply for membership; 2) some of the other 27 states might have certain reservations about agreeing.
> If Salmond and his self aggrandising mates want to cast Scotland adrift in uncharted seas, don't whinge when other people point out possible downsides.
Complete nonsense.
It is in the interests of EU Member States for as many wealthy and democratic European countries as possible to be members of the union. The evidence for this is overwhelming in the form of a list of member states that are less wealthy and have less developed democracies than Scotland. Trade is the lifeblood of the European Union and trade with Scotland has been important for several of the member states throughout many centuries of their history. Neither wild horses not Daily Torygraph front pages will drag Polish or French or Dutch or Danish businesses away from a good deal. If the English want to fantasise about still trading with a world of pink-shaded colonies then they are welcome to their fantasy but please step aside, we're coming through.
The main issue in any membership application is the adjustment of legal and trading arrangement in line with EU treaties and directives. Job done.
This is not about Alex F3cking Salmond. He's a small detail.
In reply to IainRUK:
If country/ area/region A wishes to leave state B, but to keep using state B's currency, that obviously needs to be workable for both sides and to have the consent of both sides. (It seems an odd idea, anyway; if area A REALLY wants to secede from B, that means leaving B's currency behind along with everything else. Anything else is not full independence.)
If the state from which the area is seceding thinks that the risks would be impossibly asymmetrical, it's entitled to say that it doesn't think that the currency-sharing idea is feasible, and that it doesn't want it.
To point to the case for ruling out currency-sharing on economic grounds is perfectly reasonable. The SNP should have seen this coming, and made another plan.
The tone of the debate gets nastier and nastier. It makes me very unhappy that it's all being presented as English vs Scots. It's not. It's SNP vs the Union.
Talk of bullying in this context is both ridiculous and inflames an already inflamed situation.
One of my biggest fears about the referendum process would that it would create hatred and bitterness between England and Scotland. I am very sorry to say that I think that this is now happening. Worse still, the SNP's leaders are making it happen, because it suits their political ends.
I think it's a tragedy, I really do.
If country/ area/region A wishes to leave state B, but to keep using state B's currency, that obviously needs to be workable for both sides and to have the consent of both sides. (It seems an odd idea, anyway; if area A REALLY wants to secede from B, that means leaving B's currency behind along with everything else. Anything else is not full independence.)
If the state from which the area is seceding thinks that the risks would be impossibly asymmetrical, it's entitled to say that it doesn't think that the currency-sharing idea is feasible, and that it doesn't want it.
To point to the case for ruling out currency-sharing on economic grounds is perfectly reasonable. The SNP should have seen this coming, and made another plan.
The tone of the debate gets nastier and nastier. It makes me very unhappy that it's all being presented as English vs Scots. It's not. It's SNP vs the Union.
Talk of bullying in this context is both ridiculous and inflames an already inflamed situation.
One of my biggest fears about the referendum process would that it would create hatred and bitterness between England and Scotland. I am very sorry to say that I think that this is now happening. Worse still, the SNP's leaders are making it happen, because it suits their political ends.
I think it's a tragedy, I really do.
Post edited at 22:46
In reply to Postmanpat:
Num Num would tell Barosso to swivel, invite Trump back and adopt the dollar.
Num Num would tell Barosso to swivel, invite Trump back and adopt the dollar.
In reply to IainRUK:
> Can you explain for the umpteenth time I've asked. Why should you have a share of control?
Because it is in the interest of Scotland to do this and if England could possibly bring themselves to admit that it is in there best interests to....but they won't, they've chosen to "spit the dummy out"> What should happen if we disagreed on key decisions?
Talk about it, politicians are good at that....although I do expect it'll be a while before the ruk get over the shock of Scotland's nationalists winning the election> Why should the rUK expose itself to the risks of Scottish independence?
Risks involved in Scotland becoming independent you say...with international support - recognition coupled with cooperation from the ruk there will be virtually no risk....Scotland has a lot of wealth and will do very well for its self thank you.> As said, I think the Barroso was wrong.. I don't think Westminster is. Its rare all parties are so united. This isn't a threat. Its good for the SNP to be clearly told now, now you can plan for it.
In reply to lynx3555:
What the feck are you on about? What personal attacks?
As I feared, the majority of ignorant fukwits only saw an eton-educated arse but completely missed the point and relevance of what he was saying.
It's pathetic, can't even do independence properly without whining like children about it being unfair when others point out actual facts about the consequences of such actions.
> the overwhelming majority of Scots will unite against personal attacks on there dignity and pride.....
What the feck are you on about? What personal attacks?
As I feared, the majority of ignorant fukwits only saw an eton-educated arse but completely missed the point and relevance of what he was saying.
It's pathetic, can't even do independence properly without whining like children about it being unfair when others point out actual facts about the consequences of such actions.
In reply to coinneach:
No way. Was up at me folk's last night in Sunderland (to watch us beat Soton, haway the lads) and was offered a stottie, ham and pease pudding sarnie before we went out to the match. I had to say no to me ma, some nice mango chutney but no pease pudding.
Heritage is fine but not when it's shite
After all sending kids chimney's is part of our heritage
No way. Was up at me folk's last night in Sunderland (to watch us beat Soton, haway the lads) and was offered a stottie, ham and pease pudding sarnie before we went out to the match. I had to say no to me ma, some nice mango chutney but no pease pudding.
Heritage is fine but not when it's shite
After all sending kids chimney's is part of our heritage
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Totally agree, the SNP have acted pretty badly since. They've played the bullying card yet not provided any plans. It really does seem to suggest they have no plan B.
They are perfectly entitled to keep the pound, just not share control. Many areas use the $US. Its not without precedent.
Totally agree, the SNP have acted pretty badly since. They've played the bullying card yet not provided any plans. It really does seem to suggest they have no plan B.
They are perfectly entitled to keep the pound, just not share control. Many areas use the $US. Its not without precedent.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
The problem for Scotland is the impact of Spanish politics on the likelihood of re joining the EU. Nobody's saying it would be reasonable but if they do veto your application then it's game over player one.
The problem for Scotland is the impact of Spanish politics on the likelihood of re joining the EU. Nobody's saying it would be reasonable but if they do veto your application then it's game over player one.
In reply to lynx3555:
WHY? WHY IS IT IN THE UKs (NOT ENGLAND.. I WAS WRONG TO SAY ENGLAND BUT YOU CAN.. SUPERB!) INTEREST?
OF COURSE THERE WILL BE RISK. SO WELL, LIKE YOUR UNI's HAVE... Oh wait..
> Because it is in the interest of Scotland to do this and if England could possibly bring themselves to admit that it is in there best interests to....but they won't, they've chosen to "spit the dummy out"
WHY? WHY IS IT IN THE UKs (NOT ENGLAND.. I WAS WRONG TO SAY ENGLAND BUT YOU CAN.. SUPERB!) INTEREST?
> Talk about it, politicians are good at that....although I do expect it'll be a while before the ruk get over the shock of Scotland's nationalists winning the election
> Risks involved in Scotland becoming independent you say...with international support - recognition coupled with cooperation from the ruk there will be virtually no risk....Scotland has a lot of wealth and will do very well for its self thank you.
OF COURSE THERE WILL BE RISK. SO WELL, LIKE YOUR UNI's HAVE... Oh wait..
In reply to 999thAndy:
which is wrong.. I hate the whole veto idea. The UN needs to get rid of it. Totally undemocratic.
> The problem for Scotland is the impact of Spanish politics on the likelihood of re joining the EU. Nobody's saying it would be reasonable but if they do veto your application then it's game over player one.
which is wrong.. I hate the whole veto idea. The UN needs to get rid of it. Totally undemocratic.
In reply to lynx3555:
Barosso isn't Spanish but Portuguese so I don't think he is likely to care munch about Scotland. He does probably understand the rules and systems of the EU quite well though as he is the president of it.
Barosso isn't Spanish but Portuguese so I don't think he is likely to care munch about Scotland. He does probably understand the rules and systems of the EU quite well though as he is the president of it.
In reply to IainRUK:
You are right to underline the way in which some on the SNP side are now openly treating the currency question as England vs Scotland.
When I was five, I used to play bang-bang-you're-dead games in the playground involving one group against another. I think in our playground it was cowboys and Indians, usually.
When I was six, I grew out of this.
You are right to underline the way in which some on the SNP side are now openly treating the currency question as England vs Scotland.
When I was five, I used to play bang-bang-you're-dead games in the playground involving one group against another. I think in our playground it was cowboys and Indians, usually.
When I was six, I grew out of this.
In reply to lynx3555:
I would be wanting to know whether he was right or not. Whilst it is fun to be outraged everytime someone disagrees with me it isnt overly productive.
Thats a safe bet since its rarely on the menu outside of a few days of the year.
However if Salmond said currency union isnt an option I dont think I would be overly upset. It would be Scotlands choice, just like it is the UK governments choice to decide against it.
Personally I would be against currency union on the grounds that unless political union is part of it then its risky.
> No but I am one of my people......so if a certain role was reversed and say, a Spanish Politician made out that England would struggle to Enter the EU, you don't think there would be an up roar out of the English,
I would be wanting to know whether he was right or not. Whilst it is fun to be outraged everytime someone disagrees with me it isnt overly productive.
> I'm sure there would be, and what if some Smirky Scottish chancellor told you that you couldn't have the Pound, well I'm sure haggis would be off the menu down south.....
Thats a safe bet since its rarely on the menu outside of a few days of the year.
However if Salmond said currency union isnt an option I dont think I would be overly upset. It would be Scotlands choice, just like it is the UK governments choice to decide against it.
Personally I would be against currency union on the grounds that unless political union is part of it then its risky.
In reply to PeterM:
At least this ignorant Fcuk wit knows he was educated at Oxford.....Osbourne's a horrible man a real role model for the Britnats.....
At least this ignorant Fcuk wit knows he was educated at Oxford.....Osbourne's a horrible man a real role model for the Britnats.....
In reply to lynx3555:
That wouldnt stop him being educated at Eton, with the two dealing with rather different age groups (although as it happens he wasnt).
Yes we all look up to him. I practice towel folding everyday in honour of him.
> (In reply to PeterM)
> At least this ignorant Fcuk wit knows he was educated at Oxford.....
> At least this ignorant Fcuk wit knows he was educated at Oxford.....
That wouldnt stop him being educated at Eton, with the two dealing with rather different age groups (although as it happens he wasnt).
> Osbourne's a horrible man a real role model for the Britnats.....
Yes we all look up to him. I practice towel folding everyday in honour of him.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
I think you must be reading the Daily Mail too much, it's true that some English are anti-EU, about 3% at the last elections voted UKIP, the BNP got less, so in terms of political parties not that many people are anti-EU. All the main parties are pro EU and the referendum to join gave 67.2% for and 32.8% against back in 1975. The attempt to revote seems to be blocked at present so it seems to me you are a little under the influence of someone or something
On the other hand the SNP proposals which the present breakup referendum is based on are so pro-EU that they prefer to keep the British Pound rather than push for a rapid adhesion to the Euro!
> who wants anti-European England
I think you must be reading the Daily Mail too much, it's true that some English are anti-EU, about 3% at the last elections voted UKIP, the BNP got less, so in terms of political parties not that many people are anti-EU. All the main parties are pro EU and the referendum to join gave 67.2% for and 32.8% against back in 1975. The attempt to revote seems to be blocked at present so it seems to me you are a little under the influence of someone or something
On the other hand the SNP proposals which the present breakup referendum is based on are so pro-EU that they prefer to keep the British Pound rather than push for a rapid adhesion to the Euro!
In reply to lynx3555:
So you haven't answered any question.. just stupid insults like the below..
How can we share control of the pound with no formal political union. i.e. you want independence.. or don't you.. its getting kind of laughable now. Are you arguing for further devolution then? But maintaining the union?
Try to answer with some structure not throw away insults or open statements. Just how can a currency union work?
So you haven't answered any question.. just stupid insults like the below..
How can we share control of the pound with no formal political union. i.e. you want independence.. or don't you.. its getting kind of laughable now. Are you arguing for further devolution then? But maintaining the union?
> At least this ignorant Fcuk wit knows he was educated at Oxford.....Osbourne's a horrible man a real role model for the
Britnats.....Try to answer with some structure not throw away insults or open statements. Just how can a currency union work?
In reply to TobyA:
He means Barroso, he thinks he's Spanish. It's an easy mistake, foreigners are all sort of foreign.
> But who is Spanish?
He means Barroso, he thinks he's Spanish. It's an easy mistake, foreigners are all sort of foreign.
In reply to TobyA:
Ironic that someone who complains about Scotland being seen as part of England calls a Portuguese a Spaniard.
Or maybe it isn't ironic that someone who is xenophobic is ignorant.
Ironic that someone who complains about Scotland being seen as part of England calls a Portuguese a Spaniard.
Or maybe it isn't ironic that someone who is xenophobic is ignorant.
Post edited at 23:16
In reply to lynx3555:
Pretty much illustrates my point. I don't like the man either but his statement still stands. It's not bullying, it's a statement of fact. More than the SNP has come up with...
As for the 'Eton-educated' - just a generalisation about posh English politicians. I think he was St somethings in London. I'll check it out..
> Osbourne's a horrible man a real role model for the Britnats.....
Pretty much illustrates my point. I don't like the man either but his statement still stands. It's not bullying, it's a statement of fact. More than the SNP has come up with...
As for the 'Eton-educated' - just a generalisation about posh English politicians. I think he was St somethings in London. I'll check it out..
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Here is a link to a legal analysis of the actual treaties by a law professor who was a senior judge in the EU courts.
http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPos...
His conclusions are:
19. On those assumptions, my opinion is that, in accordance with their obligations of good faith, sincere cooperation and solidarity, the EU institutions and all the Member States (including the UK as existing), would be obliged to enter into negotiations, before separation took effect, to determine the future relationship within the EU of the separate parts of the former UK and the other Member States.
20. The outcome of such negotiations, unless they failed utterly, would be agreed amendment of the existing Treaties, not a new Accession Treaty. The simplified revision procedure provided by Article 48 TEU would not apply, so ratification of the amended Treaties would be necessary.
> Barroso is in fact stating the bleeding obvious: 1) an independent Scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU, it would to all legal intents and purposes be a brand new country that has to apply for membership; 2) some of the other 27 states might have certain reservations about agreeing.
Here is a link to a legal analysis of the actual treaties by a law professor who was a senior judge in the EU courts.
http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPos...
His conclusions are:
19. On those assumptions, my opinion is that, in accordance with their obligations of good faith, sincere cooperation and solidarity, the EU institutions and all the Member States (including the UK as existing), would be obliged to enter into negotiations, before separation took effect, to determine the future relationship within the EU of the separate parts of the former UK and the other Member States.
20. The outcome of such negotiations, unless they failed utterly, would be agreed amendment of the existing Treaties, not a new Accession Treaty. The simplified revision procedure provided by Article 48 TEU would not apply, so ratification of the amended Treaties would be necessary.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
...And thinks Kosovo is of recent invention.
If we want to see what can happen if we all insist on glorifying our own ethnic groups and demonising everyone else, a quick lesson in Balkan history might be quite a good idea, actually.
...And thinks Kosovo is of recent invention.
If we want to see what can happen if we all insist on glorifying our own ethnic groups and demonising everyone else, a quick lesson in Balkan history might be quite a good idea, actually.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
I was actually chatting with a mate who holds a reasonably senior position in the Finnish foreign ministry yesterday at his sprog's birthday party - I'm proud godparent to said sprog. He actually knows Scotland pretty well having lived in Stirling for the best part of a year whilst teaching at the uni some years back.
I asked him what the word in the ministry canteen is on Scottish independence and implications for EU - and he said, "received wisdom - it's a non event, not going to happen." Then there was a moment of silence and slight look of panic crossed his face and he says: "Why? What do you think is going to happen?! What have you heard? Of bollocks maybe we should get someone to write some research on this..."
The tyranny of reporting from a London based diplomatic core eh?
It amused me anyway.
I was actually chatting with a mate who holds a reasonably senior position in the Finnish foreign ministry yesterday at his sprog's birthday party - I'm proud godparent to said sprog. He actually knows Scotland pretty well having lived in Stirling for the best part of a year whilst teaching at the uni some years back.
I asked him what the word in the ministry canteen is on Scottish independence and implications for EU - and he said, "received wisdom - it's a non event, not going to happen." Then there was a moment of silence and slight look of panic crossed his face and he says: "Why? What do you think is going to happen?! What have you heard? Of bollocks maybe we should get someone to write some research on this..."
The tyranny of reporting from a London based diplomatic core eh?
It amused me anyway.
In reply to coinneach:
Geordies are nice intelligent people. Just like all you jocks are the first at the bar
Geordies are nice intelligent people. Just like all you jocks are the first at the bar
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You've spoilt the fun, I was wondering how long Mr Lynx was going to take to work out the difference. Portuguese don't like being mixed up with their bigger neighbours - you'd think a 'Scotsnats' would be sensitive to such things eh?
You've spoilt the fun, I was wondering how long Mr Lynx was going to take to work out the difference. Portuguese don't like being mixed up with their bigger neighbours - you'd think a 'Scotsnats' would be sensitive to such things eh?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: apropos of not much http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/the-snps-currency-nig... you can google professor Tomkins and see if you think his contribution is valuable.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You missed out 1-18, which basically said negotiations must happen ie not a done deal like Salmond (and you) is saying.
You missed out 1-18, which basically said negotiations must happen ie not a done deal like Salmond (and you) is saying.
Post edited at 23:26
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
OK, so you are willing to bet your economic and social future on the views of 1 law professor? Who is relying on phrases like 'with their obligations of good faith, sincere cooperation and solidarity'... . Hmm.
How hard have you searched for equally qualified professors who take a contrary view?
OK, so you are willing to bet your economic and social future on the views of 1 law professor? Who is relying on phrases like 'with their obligations of good faith, sincere cooperation and solidarity'... . Hmm.
How hard have you searched for equally qualified professors who take a contrary view?
In reply to lynx3555:
you arent coming across well... you confuse England and the UK.. Spain and Portugal.. and its all OK.. yet others doing similar is not good..
Interesting how much the polls vary right now.. there's a good 10-15% swing either way depending on the poll.
you arent coming across well... you confuse England and the UK.. Spain and Portugal.. and its all OK.. yet others doing similar is not good..
Interesting how much the polls vary right now.. there's a good 10-15% swing either way depending on the poll.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Best pall
"Bang Bang, your dead."
Me
"No I'm not, everyone knows you are a rotten shot - I am only wounded- and armed"
(And it was cowboys an Indians for us too)
I guess they play suicide bombers nowadays?
> When I was five, I used to play bang-bang-you're-dead games in the playground involving one group against another. I think in our playground it was cowboys and Indians, usually.
Best pall
"Bang Bang, your dead."
Me
"No I'm not, everyone knows you are a rotten shot - I am only wounded- and armed"
(And it was cowboys an Indians for us too)
I guess they play suicide bombers nowadays?
In reply to lynx3555:
Well said, you English tw@!
> Spanish or Portuguese I personally don't give a sh*t, I don't like the man....
Well said, you English tw@!
In reply to lynx3555:
Of course you don't care where he is from, xenophobes just hate everyone.
> Spanish or Portuguese I personally don't give a sh*t, I don't like the man....
Of course you don't care where he is from, xenophobes just hate everyone.
In reply to lynx3555:
Try calming down and understanding this simple point. Bear in mind that Scotland's economy is around 10 - 15% of the total UK economy and that is the stake Scotland could expect in a currency union. What happens if Scotland want to change interest rates but rUK don't? Scotland lose the vote 15/85. It would be like that with every currency based decision, Scotland would have its hands tied. It's no good for either side.
Losing every financial decision 15/85 would make finance the same as rugby for Scotland, and that really be a disaster.
Try calming down and understanding this simple point. Bear in mind that Scotland's economy is around 10 - 15% of the total UK economy and that is the stake Scotland could expect in a currency union. What happens if Scotland want to change interest rates but rUK don't? Scotland lose the vote 15/85. It would be like that with every currency based decision, Scotland would have its hands tied. It's no good for either side.
Losing every financial decision 15/85 would make finance the same as rugby for Scotland, and that really be a disaster.
In reply to lynx3555:
Can this be framed somehow?
> Spanish or Portuguese I personally don't give a sh*t, I don't like the man....
Can this be framed somehow?
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Yes. He said Scotland wasn't automatically in or automatically out but that the treaties compelled negotiation in good faith "to determine the future relationship within the EU of the separate parts of the former UK and the other Member States."
So the EU have leverage on the Euro, Schengen and the UK's rebate on contributions. Which wouldn't worry me personally because the Euro and Schengen are good things anyway and Scotland will easily save more by not funding an entire layer of government in Westminster than the rebate on the EU contribution is worth.
> You missed out 1-18, which basically said negotiations must happen ie not a done deal like Salmond (and you) is saying.
Yes. He said Scotland wasn't automatically in or automatically out but that the treaties compelled negotiation in good faith "to determine the future relationship within the EU of the separate parts of the former UK and the other Member States."
So the EU have leverage on the Euro, Schengen and the UK's rebate on contributions. Which wouldn't worry me personally because the Euro and Schengen are good things anyway and Scotland will easily save more by not funding an entire layer of government in Westminster than the rebate on the EU contribution is worth.
Post edited at 23:46
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
So you agree that Salmond is lying when he says it's a done deal?
And how would being part of Schengen square with an open border agreement. You can't have both can you? No you can't.
So you agree that Salmond is lying when he says it's a done deal?
And how would being part of Schengen square with an open border agreement. You can't have both can you? No you can't.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think so too.. I want us to join both..
But re the saving.. maybe but then add all the infrastructure needed. Its all a tad woolly right now. How much for customs, immigration, foreign office.. there's a huge amount to add yet.
I think so too.. I want us to join both..
But re the saving.. maybe but then add all the infrastructure needed. Its all a tad woolly right now. How much for customs, immigration, foreign office.. there's a huge amount to add yet.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Sorry Bruce but the actual numbers are irrelevant. What IS relevant is that UKIP makes a sufficient dent in the political landscape that the leader of the largest party in the governing coalition has to bend over backwards to accommodate the weird views of a significant slice of his support that might vote for UKIP and rob him of success at the next election. This in turn threatens the governing coalition, makes EU relations strained and, particularly with the background of decades of Tory EU bitching, makes the entire UK look like clowns.
Sorry Bruce but the actual numbers are irrelevant. What IS relevant is that UKIP makes a sufficient dent in the political landscape that the leader of the largest party in the governing coalition has to bend over backwards to accommodate the weird views of a significant slice of his support that might vote for UKIP and rob him of success at the next election. This in turn threatens the governing coalition, makes EU relations strained and, particularly with the background of decades of Tory EU bitching, makes the entire UK look like clowns.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Sure. England can join Schengen too.
> So you agree that Salmond is lying when he says it's a done deal?
> And how would being part of Schengen square with an open border agreement. You can't have both can you? No you can't.
Sure. England can join Schengen too.
In reply to TobyA:
Yes, you might think that a 95 year old republic of 5 million straight-talking north Europeans might like to take an informed position on this.
[On the subject of straight-talking, I can almost imagine my Alice wanting to be Scottish ambassador to Finland. Anything to get back to Helsinki, Doric-Soumi dictionary in hand. ]
Yes, you might think that a 95 year old republic of 5 million straight-talking north Europeans might like to take an informed position on this.
[On the subject of straight-talking, I can almost imagine my Alice wanting to be Scottish ambassador to Finland. Anything to get back to Helsinki, Doric-Soumi dictionary in hand. ]
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
But if they don't (y'know, just possibly) and if Scotland manages to join the EU,then Scotland will have to maintain a border.
> Sure. England can join Schengen too.
But if they don't (y'know, just possibly) and if Scotland manages to join the EU,then Scotland will have to maintain a border.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
But rUk (see how you are demeaning others as much as you accuse the English) won't be joining Schengen just to make iScotlnd's life easier.
Don't you get it? rUK won't bend over backwards to help iScotland if it makes rUK's life hard. But you seem to think we will.
You will have to join Schengen to join the EU, or at least you will have to spend a long time negotiating with the EU if you want it any different.
Why won't Salmond admit that it isn't a done deal?
But rUk (see how you are demeaning others as much as you accuse the English) won't be joining Schengen just to make iScotlnd's life easier.
Don't you get it? rUK won't bend over backwards to help iScotland if it makes rUK's life hard. But you seem to think we will.
You will have to join Schengen to join the EU, or at least you will have to spend a long time negotiating with the EU if you want it any different.
Why won't Salmond admit that it isn't a done deal?
Post edited at 00:16
In reply to Jim Fraser:
In all due respect, why is Cameron accommodating them? because he has no majority...
Labour, Libdems and Greens are all pro EU..
In all due respect, why is Cameron accommodating them? because he has no majority...
Labour, Libdems and Greens are all pro EU..
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
TBF Spain and Portugal are fairly close now.. there will be pressure..
> He means Barroso, he thinks he's Spanish. It's an easy mistake, foreigners are all sort of foreign.
TBF Spain and Portugal are fairly close now.. there will be pressure..
In reply to Postmanpat:
It seems Scotland wouldn't want the Euro (BBC News)
Mr Swinney also denied Scotland would have to join the euro if it became a member of the EU in its own right.
He said to adopt the euro, countries first had to be a member of the exchange rate mechanism and Scotland had "no intention" of signing up.
However, according to the oracle that is wiki:
all current and future members of the EU are obliged to adopt the Euro as their currency, thus replacing their current ones
It seems there are more and more situations where the SNP are telling people before the independence party that yes, you can have your cake and eat it. They seem to be relying on a Scotland-positive result from every person/party/country they negotiate with.
It seems Scotland wouldn't want the Euro (BBC News)
Mr Swinney also denied Scotland would have to join the euro if it became a member of the EU in its own right.
He said to adopt the euro, countries first had to be a member of the exchange rate mechanism and Scotland had "no intention" of signing up.
However, according to the oracle that is wiki:
all current and future members of the EU are obliged to adopt the Euro as their currency, thus replacing their current ones
It seems there are more and more situations where the SNP are telling people before the independence party that yes, you can have your cake and eat it. They seem to be relying on a Scotland-positive result from every person/party/country they negotiate with.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
I think they do a bit! It's true there are some anti-EU people around and the extreme right in Britain has grown a bit, like all over Europe even if much less than France - Le Pen is credited with over 30% agreeing with "her view" at present if you can believe a recent poll - but even back in 1975 33% voted no, I doubt that this percentage has changed very much. Given the important of banking and services nowadays it would be madness to leave the EU at present and I'm sure that the majority still knows this, even if many have reserves about the way the EU functions - I do myself. From there to throwing the baby out with the bath water is a big step.
> Sorry Bruce but the actual numbers are irrelevant.
I think they do a bit! It's true there are some anti-EU people around and the extreme right in Britain has grown a bit, like all over Europe even if much less than France - Le Pen is credited with over 30% agreeing with "her view" at present if you can believe a recent poll - but even back in 1975 33% voted no, I doubt that this percentage has changed very much. Given the important of banking and services nowadays it would be madness to leave the EU at present and I'm sure that the majority still knows this, even if many have reserves about the way the EU functions - I do myself. From there to throwing the baby out with the bath water is a big step.
In reply to Loughan:
Look up convergence criteria. In the short term we couldn't use the Euro as our currency even if we wanted to.
Sweden is an example. Also see how long it's taking Bulgaria to meet convergence criteria.
Might happen in the future but it's a way off from now.
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/
Look up convergence criteria. In the short term we couldn't use the Euro as our currency even if we wanted to.
Sweden is an example. Also see how long it's taking Bulgaria to meet convergence criteria.
Might happen in the future but it's a way off from now.
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/
In reply to Tim Chappell:
No, it's not the SNP v the Union.
There are plenty of people who support Independence but not the SNP.
> The tone of the debate gets nastier and nastier. It makes me very unhappy that it's all being presented as English vs Scots. It's not. It's SNP vs the Union.
No, it's not the SNP v the Union.
There are plenty of people who support Independence but not the SNP.
In reply to Postmanpat:
If the scots vote for independents they get exactly that.
They are on there own and should apply as any other country. If there economy doesnt come up to scratch why should they be let in.
Sorry boys you cant have you cake and eat it.
Good luck!
If the scots vote for independents they get exactly that.
They are on there own and should apply as any other country. If there economy doesnt come up to scratch why should they be let in.
Sorry boys you cant have you cake and eat it.
Good luck!
In reply to floss_81:
> If the scots vote for independents they get exactly that.
No shit Sherlock!> They are on there own and should apply as any other country. If there economy doesnt come up to scratch why should they be let in.
Oh don't worry our economy will do just fine thank you.> Sorry boys you cant have you cake and eat it.
We'll only take what is rightfully ours.....> Good luck!
In reply to lynx3555:
You've still answered no questions.. just idiotic statements.
Explain how a shared currency can possibly work?
You want the much smaller Scotland to dictate to the much larger UK..
You've still answered no questions.. just idiotic statements.
Explain how a shared currency can possibly work?
You want the much smaller Scotland to dictate to the much larger UK..
In reply to lynx3555:
Except under the proposals to carry on using the Pound, Scotland doesn't get financial independence. It has to rely on a foreign bank for decisions on interest rates and exchange rates, would be reliant on a foreign bank to the lender of last resort, would have to agree borrowing and spending with a foreign bank.
Funny kind of independence, tying yourself to a foreign country you've just been trying to get rid of.
> If the scots vote for independents they get exactly that.
> No shit Sherlock!
> No shit Sherlock!
> They are on there own and should apply as any other country. If there economy doesnt come up to scratch why should they be let in.
> Oh don't worry our economy will do just fine thank you.
> Oh don't worry our economy will do just fine thank you.
Except under the proposals to carry on using the Pound, Scotland doesn't get financial independence. It has to rely on a foreign bank for decisions on interest rates and exchange rates, would be reliant on a foreign bank to the lender of last resort, would have to agree borrowing and spending with a foreign bank.
Funny kind of independence, tying yourself to a foreign country you've just been trying to get rid of.
In reply to Tim Chappell: you Britnats have a cheek accusing the Independence supporters of bing racist.....your Britnat anthem, the one that brings a tear to your eye is anti Scottish.
verse 6.
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
May he sedition hush
And like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush
God save the King
‘Rebellious Scots’ will remain crushed in God Save the Queen
"The UK government has rejected calls to remove an “anti-Scottish” verse from the British National Anthem to make it more inclusive."
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews10/100214-rebel.html
verse 6.
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
May he sedition hush
And like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush
God save the King
‘Rebellious Scots’ will remain crushed in God Save the Queen
"The UK government has rejected calls to remove an “anti-Scottish” verse from the British National Anthem to make it more inclusive."
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews10/100214-rebel.html
I wonder what the EU will do when their fishing fleet is met by a couple of Jock Navy frigates.
In reply to lynx3555:
I think that is the problem. No one actually knows what is rightfully Scottish or rightfully eUKish. It is all up for grabs. Unfortunately, the way Salmond is talking, you would get the impression it is a done deal and the rUK is going back on its word.
> We'll only take what is rightfully ours.....
I think that is the problem. No one actually knows what is rightfully Scottish or rightfully eUKish. It is all up for grabs. Unfortunately, the way Salmond is talking, you would get the impression it is a done deal and the rUK is going back on its word.
In reply to lynx3555:
Fair point, well made re verse 6, it should be removed. It can't, unfortunately, be unwritten, so maybe it's time for a new national anthem. Preferably something with a tune ...
Fair point, well made re verse 6, it should be removed. It can't, unfortunately, be unwritten, so maybe it's time for a new national anthem. Preferably something with a tune ...
In reply to 999thAndy:
Not really since there is no "official" version and that verse is never sung. Agree overall it's a poor anthem though.
> Fair point, well made re verse 6, it should be removed.
Not really since there is no "official" version and that verse is never sung. Agree overall it's a poor anthem though.
In reply to lynx3555:
Ah yes, verse 6 of the National Anthem. That well known verse that I have heard precisely zero times in my entire life. In fact until you pointed it out I hadn't even realised that the doleful dirge went beyond verse 2.
Still at least your posting helps remind us of the deep divisions within our country, and the bitterness and prejudice directed at those Scots who might dare to disagree with independence. Which currently is about 50 percent of the population.
Ah yes, verse 6 of the National Anthem. That well known verse that I have heard precisely zero times in my entire life. In fact until you pointed it out I hadn't even realised that the doleful dirge went beyond verse 2.
Still at least your posting helps remind us of the deep divisions within our country, and the bitterness and prejudice directed at those Scots who might dare to disagree with independence. Which currently is about 50 percent of the population.
In reply to MG:
Well it is the 6th verse, most people have left the auditorium before the end of the 6th bar.
The anthem is p1ss poor, the tune's a dirge and it bigs up royalty. What's to like?
Well it is the 6th verse, most people have left the auditorium before the end of the 6th bar.
The anthem is p1ss poor, the tune's a dirge and it bigs up royalty. What's to like?
In reply to 999thAndy:
Looking at the news today, and looking at this thread, it really does seem to me now that one side of this debate is just trying to keep things together, normal, sane, and amicable. While the other is trying to stoke up hatred and bitterness between the English and the Scots, and to rip up the script we've been working with--overall with tremendous success--for 300 years.
The case for separatism seems to be based, and increasingly based, on gut feelings, grudges, and tribalism. And anyone who tries to work out the nuts and bolts of what would actually be involved in separation is "bullying". If anyone tries to get into the detail, the pro-independence side switch off and retreat into a fantasy world inhabited by the Loch Ness Monster, Mel Gibson, and the Corries. They're much happier exchanging finger-jabbing playground taunts about national anthems than they are discussing how a currency union is actually supposed to work, or what happens to their borders if they and rUK end up different sides of Schengen. Waving the flag and gesturing at "the opposition supporters" is their level. Politics and economics really aren't their thing.
I just think this is immensely sad. And if it's meant to be a basis for a political settlement, profoundly alarming.
Looking at the news today, and looking at this thread, it really does seem to me now that one side of this debate is just trying to keep things together, normal, sane, and amicable. While the other is trying to stoke up hatred and bitterness between the English and the Scots, and to rip up the script we've been working with--overall with tremendous success--for 300 years.
The case for separatism seems to be based, and increasingly based, on gut feelings, grudges, and tribalism. And anyone who tries to work out the nuts and bolts of what would actually be involved in separation is "bullying". If anyone tries to get into the detail, the pro-independence side switch off and retreat into a fantasy world inhabited by the Loch Ness Monster, Mel Gibson, and the Corries. They're much happier exchanging finger-jabbing playground taunts about national anthems than they are discussing how a currency union is actually supposed to work, or what happens to their borders if they and rUK end up different sides of Schengen. Waving the flag and gesturing at "the opposition supporters" is their level. Politics and economics really aren't their thing.
I just think this is immensely sad. And if it's meant to be a basis for a political settlement, profoundly alarming.
Post edited at 09:51
In reply to lynx3555:
Did you know that Marshal Wade was Irish? His bridge at Aberfeldy is a fine piece of work.
> Lord grant that Marshal Wade
Did you know that Marshal Wade was Irish? His bridge at Aberfeldy is a fine piece of work.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Your're right. It would be nice to see a "reconciliation plan" being formed so there is an emphasis on pulling together and less resentment after the vote.
Your're right. It would be nice to see a "reconciliation plan" being formed so there is an emphasis on pulling together and less resentment after the vote.
Post edited at 09:51
In reply to IainRUK:
> Explain how a shared currency can possibly work?
You must mistake me for an Accountant or Economist, I'm a frickin' Rigger! I pull chains etc and install lumps of steel....surely you can use google, just like me. > You want the much smaller Scotland to dictate to the much larger UK..
We don't intend dictating to the ruk, only getting what is rightfully hours and of course Fair Play during the negotiations.In reply to lynx3555: Do you think a currency union is "rightfully" yours? How do you intend to force a foreign country to enter a currency union if it doesn't want to?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
A transitional period will be required and no doubt the ruk will want this.....more than likely the ruk will want to maintain this situation also but we'll just have to wait and see. Mean while Scotland will look at the options and then choose one that suites us.....it would be very unreasonable to expect any other situation.....anyway, just imagine what would happen to your precious £ if Scotland did leave it.
A transitional period will be required and no doubt the ruk will want this.....more than likely the ruk will want to maintain this situation also but we'll just have to wait and see. Mean while Scotland will look at the options and then choose one that suites us.....it would be very unreasonable to expect any other situation.....anyway, just imagine what would happen to your precious £ if Scotland did leave it.
In reply to lynx3555:
Why don't you google how the EU works then? And Barosso's nationality whilst you're at it.
> surely you can use google, just like me.
Why don't you google how the EU works then? And Barosso's nationality whilst you're at it.
In reply to lynx3555:
So if you can see that Scotland choosing an option that suits it being the perfectly reasonable expectation, why can you not see that rUK choosing an option that suits it is perfectly reasonable too? When anyone in rUK states what their option of choice would be, you start spitting out your dummy and bleating about bullying and turning it into a fight.
You seem to be forgetting that whether to stay in the Union or not is entirely Scotland's decision, but what part you will play in rUK's monetary policy post independence is not up to you. Post independence you will be a foreign country. Greece and Ireland don't dictate to us what our monetary policy is, and neither will Scotland, however much you might want to. Channel your energy into working out what you're going to do for yourselves that best suits you, not how you're going to try and control rUK, over which you'll have none of the influence you currently have.
> A transitional period will be required and no doubt the ruk will want this.....more than likely the ruk will want to maintain this situation also but we'll just have to wait and see. Mean while Scotland will look at the options and then choose one that suites us.....it would be very unreasonable to expect any other situation.....anyway, just imagine what would happen to your precious £ if Scotland did leave it.
So if you can see that Scotland choosing an option that suits it being the perfectly reasonable expectation, why can you not see that rUK choosing an option that suits it is perfectly reasonable too? When anyone in rUK states what their option of choice would be, you start spitting out your dummy and bleating about bullying and turning it into a fight.
You seem to be forgetting that whether to stay in the Union or not is entirely Scotland's decision, but what part you will play in rUK's monetary policy post independence is not up to you. Post independence you will be a foreign country. Greece and Ireland don't dictate to us what our monetary policy is, and neither will Scotland, however much you might want to. Channel your energy into working out what you're going to do for yourselves that best suits you, not how you're going to try and control rUK, over which you'll have none of the influence you currently have.
In reply to lynx3555:
Erm, a currency union has been ruled out by the treasury,the BoE,the Tories, Labour and, for what they're worth,the Liberals. Do try and keep up with the news.
> A transitional period will be required and no doubt the ruk will want this.....more than likely the ruk will want to maintain this situation also but we'll just have to wait and see. Mean while Scotland will look at the options and then choose one that suites us.....it would be very unreasonable to expect any other situation.....anyway, just imagine what would happen to your precious £ if Scotland did leave it.
Erm, a currency union has been ruled out by the treasury,the BoE,the Tories, Labour and, for what they're worth,the Liberals. Do try and keep up with the news.
In reply to tony:
Aye, good old Northern Irish Protestant stock....he didn't build such impressive bridges up here, just big Barracks that he filled up with UK troops. The troops then systematically enforced eviction notices for thousands of people....also forced the local male population into the British army and sent them away to fight in foreign wars....a real unionist hero.
Aye, good old Northern Irish Protestant stock....he didn't build such impressive bridges up here, just big Barracks that he filled up with UK troops. The troops then systematically enforced eviction notices for thousands of people....also forced the local male population into the British army and sent them away to fight in foreign wars....a real unionist hero.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Interested to read this this morning, from a former European editor of the Guardian and former political director of the European Policy Centre:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludic...
Interested to read this this morning, from a former European editor of the Guardian and former political director of the European Policy Centre:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludic...
In reply to lynx3555:
Joining the euro has been ruled out (despite it being the preferred position a few years ago when the Pound was described as being a millstone round Scotland's neck). There seems no appetite for a genuinely independent Scottish currency, or not one that Salmond, Swinney and Sturgeon are prepared to share with the electorate. So, what are the options, other than using the pound but not in a formal currency union?
Give in - what would happen to Sterling?
> A transitional period will be required and no doubt the ruk will want this.....more than likely the ruk will want to maintain this situation also but we'll just have to wait and see. Mean while Scotland will look at the options and then choose one that suites us
Joining the euro has been ruled out (despite it being the preferred position a few years ago when the Pound was described as being a millstone round Scotland's neck). There seems no appetite for a genuinely independent Scottish currency, or not one that Salmond, Swinney and Sturgeon are prepared to share with the electorate. So, what are the options, other than using the pound but not in a formal currency union?
> anyway, just imagine what would happen to your precious £ if Scotland did leave it.
Give in - what would happen to Sterling?
In reply to lynx3555:
No, he was from Westmeath, pretty much bang in the middle, and definitely not Ulster. I've no idea if he was Protestant or Catholic. Does it matter now?
> Aye, good old Northern Irish Protestant stock....
No, he was from Westmeath, pretty much bang in the middle, and definitely not Ulster. I've no idea if he was Protestant or Catholic. Does it matter now?
In reply to lynx3555:
why is it rightfully yours..
So how come you seem to think you leaving the £ will be a negative?
why is it rightfully yours..
So how come you seem to think you leaving the £ will be a negative?
In reply to tony:
That is the rub isn't it. It is easy to stand up and tell a patriotic electorate that an Independent Scotland will see free comprehensive healthcare, free university education, low taxes, high oil revenue, no nuclear missiles, will be the darling of Europe and keep the pound under a cosy arrangement with London....
... but then the reality sinks in as the other sides have their say. Salmond is talking a very good campaign but I am yet to see any factual meat on his words.
> or not one that Salmond, Swinney and Sturgeon are prepared to share with the electorate.
That is the rub isn't it. It is easy to stand up and tell a patriotic electorate that an Independent Scotland will see free comprehensive healthcare, free university education, low taxes, high oil revenue, no nuclear missiles, will be the darling of Europe and keep the pound under a cosy arrangement with London....
... but then the reality sinks in as the other sides have their say. Salmond is talking a very good campaign but I am yet to see any factual meat on his words.
In reply to tony:
Given that it was then pretty well illegal to be Catholic, and given that General Wade was in command of a large proportion of His Protestant Majesty's forces and charged with putting down what was an essentially a Catholic rebellion (NB *not* essentially a Scottish one), I should think that General Wade would have been Protestant even if he was Catholic. If you see what I mean. Cp. Edmund Burke.
Given that it was then pretty well illegal to be Catholic, and given that General Wade was in command of a large proportion of His Protestant Majesty's forces and charged with putting down what was an essentially a Catholic rebellion (NB *not* essentially a Scottish one), I should think that General Wade would have been Protestant even if he was Catholic. If you see what I mean. Cp. Edmund Burke.
> No, he was from Westmeath, pretty much bang in the middle, and definitely not Ulster. I've no idea if he was Protestant or Catholic. Does it matter now?
In reply to tony:
"Give in - what would happen to Sterling? "
Lynxx pulls chains for a living. Unless you need a toilet flushed, I wouldn't hold your breath for a qualified answer.
"Give in - what would happen to Sterling? "
Lynxx pulls chains for a living. Unless you need a toilet flushed, I wouldn't hold your breath for a qualified answer.
In reply to lynx3555:
There would be a negative impact for the £, but a new independent Scottish currency would really struggle, so it is really an idle threat. The default positions would be Scotland continues to use the pound without any agreement... a situation then would benefit both countries.
> just imagine what would happen to your precious £ if Scotland did leave it.
There would be a negative impact for the £, but a new independent Scottish currency would really struggle, so it is really an idle threat. The default positions would be Scotland continues to use the pound without any agreement... a situation then would benefit both countries.
In reply to Papillon:
Not really 'independence' though.
> There would be a negative impact for the £, but a new independent Scottish currency would really struggle, so it is really an idle threat. The default positions would be Scotland continues to use the pound without any agreement... a situation then would benefit both countries.
Not really 'independence' though.
In reply to ByEek:
None, its pretty scary how many empty statements him and sturgeon make.. the response of bullying claims when the UK Gov. said we wont share the pound typified everything...
Then the poll question asking if us not allowing Scotland to keep the £ affected decisions.. just misinformation being spread. We never said that, just no control.. the SNP are panicking right now.
> I am yet to see any factual meat on his words.
None, its pretty scary how many empty statements him and sturgeon make.. the response of bullying claims when the UK Gov. said we wont share the pound typified everything...
Then the poll question asking if us not allowing Scotland to keep the £ affected decisions.. just misinformation being spread. We never said that, just no control.. the SNP are panicking right now.
In reply to Papillon:
Is Salmond on holiday? Sturgeon is taking all the flack here as the wheels come off and floundering badly. Maybe she is just absorbing the bad news whilst Alex busily tries to come up with Plan D?
Is Salmond on holiday? Sturgeon is taking all the flack here as the wheels come off and floundering badly. Maybe she is just absorbing the bad news whilst Alex busily tries to come up with Plan D?
In reply to Papillon:
Probably not. The numbers are estimates rather than official but Scotland seems to run a small current account deficit with both the rUK and the rest of the world. On that basis Scotland's departure might even be a minor positive for sterling.
> There would be a negative impact for the £,
Probably not. The numbers are estimates rather than official but Scotland seems to run a small current account deficit with both the rUK and the rest of the world. On that basis Scotland's departure might even be a minor positive for sterling.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
No, Salmond's in Aberdeen today where he'll be addressing business leaders:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638
> Is Salmond on holiday? Sturgeon is taking all the flack here as the wheels come off and floundering badly. Maybe she is just absorbing the bad news whilst Alex busily tries to come up with Plan D?
No, Salmond's in Aberdeen today where he'll be addressing business leaders:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
He's speaking in Aberdeen today. Apparently he's going to tell everyone exactly why rUK WILL be in a currency union with Scotland, whether they like it or not.
> Is Salmond on holiday? Sturgeon is taking all the flack here as the wheels come off and floundering badly. Maybe she is just absorbing the bad news whilst Alex busily tries to come up with Plan D?
He's speaking in Aberdeen today. Apparently he's going to tell everyone exactly why rUK WILL be in a currency union with Scotland, whether they like it or not.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
UKIP get less votes in England than the much ridiculed Scottish Tories do in Scotland.... even in the European elections.
Some countries in Europe would embrace an independent Scotland .....but clearly others would not. When you get this kind of disagreement in Europe nothing tend to happen.
> Link to UKIP story which doesn't work
UKIP get less votes in England than the much ridiculed Scottish Tories do in Scotland.... even in the European elections.
Some countries in Europe would embrace an independent Scotland .....but clearly others would not. When you get this kind of disagreement in Europe nothing tend to happen.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Don't worry, I'm not. Still breathing, quite happily.
> "Give in - what would happen to Sterling? "
> Lynxx pulls chains for a living. Unless you need a toilet flushed, I wouldn't hold your breath for a qualified answer.
Don't worry, I'm not. Still breathing, quite happily.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I agree either way it will be minor, though I'd still go for slightly negative. Either way I don't think it has the sort of potential effect that would force England to the negotiating table so I guess we are in general agreement.
> Probably not. The numbers are estimates rather than official but Scotland seems to run a small current account deficit with both the rUK and the rest of the world. On that basis Scotland's departure might even be a minor positive for sterling.
I agree either way it will be minor, though I'd still go for slightly negative. Either way I don't think it has the sort of potential effect that would force England to the negotiating table so I guess we are in general agreement.
In reply to Papillon: approximately 70 newly independent countries, island nations etc..continued to use the £ after they became independent, it went without saying....however, the bitter together mob make unreasonable threats (not unlike historical similar threats) to try and scare the Scottish electorate into submission.
In reply to lynx3555:
How many of those 70 were we in a currency union with?
> approximately 70 newly independent countries, island nations etc..continued to use the £ after they became independent, it went without saying....however, the bitter together mob make unreasonable threats (not unlike historical similar threats) to try and scare the Scottish electorate into submission.
How many of those 70 were we in a currency union with?
In reply to Cú Chullain:
No but it is an essential step to full independence, and gives them plenty of options. There is a lot of scare mongering over this, from both sides.
> Not really 'independence' though.
No but it is an essential step to full independence, and gives them plenty of options. There is a lot of scare mongering over this, from both sides.
In reply to lynx3555:
What.Is.Your.Problem ?
There is nothing unreasonable about not wanting a currency union with iScotland. It is not a threat, it is basic common sense.
What.Is.Your.Problem ?
There is nothing unreasonable about not wanting a currency union with iScotland. It is not a threat, it is basic common sense.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Life isn't a done deal. If Scotland stays in the UK it could well end up outside the EU. The thing is though that every outcome creates opportunities as well as costs and if you are smart, adaptable and work hard you can make it work for you.
Right now Salmond is stating what he hopes the outcome of negotiations will be. The UK and to some extent the EU are stating what they think is the worst possible outcome for Scotland in order to get a NO vote and avoid even starting negotiations. The actual outcome in the event of a YES vote will be a reasonable and pragmatic compromise to minimise disruption.
> Why won't Salmond admit that it isn't a done deal?
Life isn't a done deal. If Scotland stays in the UK it could well end up outside the EU. The thing is though that every outcome creates opportunities as well as costs and if you are smart, adaptable and work hard you can make it work for you.
Right now Salmond is stating what he hopes the outcome of negotiations will be. The UK and to some extent the EU are stating what they think is the worst possible outcome for Scotland in order to get a NO vote and avoid even starting negotiations. The actual outcome in the event of a YES vote will be a reasonable and pragmatic compromise to minimise disruption.
In reply to lynx3555:
Oh FFS has it really come to this?
> Aye, good old Northern Irish Protestant stock....he didn't build such impressive bridges up here, just big Barracks that he filled up with UK troops. The troops then systematically enforced eviction notices for thousands of people....also forced the local male population into the British army and sent them away to fight in foreign wars....a real unionist hero.
Oh FFS has it really come to this?
In reply to Papillon:
I would not call it scare mongering, a debate is finally being had on the very real consequences of Scottish independence and as canny a politician Salmond may be he seems to be struggling with providing the nuts and bolts details with regards to currency options when challenged. Pointing the finger at Westminster or the EU and screaming bully when your demands are not unilaterally met is coming across as a bit desperate. Personally I dont want Scotland to leave the UK, but if they do, I would expect Westminster to act in the best interests of England, Wales and NI, not Scotland, and if that means not allowing the Scots a say in any monetary control decisions then so be it. I also think Sturgeon needs to be kept away from the media as she has come across very badly, the threats to default on any UK debt share was remarkably stupid.
> No but it is an essential step to full independence, and gives them plenty of options. There is a lot of scare mongering over this, from both sides.
I would not call it scare mongering, a debate is finally being had on the very real consequences of Scottish independence and as canny a politician Salmond may be he seems to be struggling with providing the nuts and bolts details with regards to currency options when challenged. Pointing the finger at Westminster or the EU and screaming bully when your demands are not unilaterally met is coming across as a bit desperate. Personally I dont want Scotland to leave the UK, but if they do, I would expect Westminster to act in the best interests of England, Wales and NI, not Scotland, and if that means not allowing the Scots a say in any monetary control decisions then so be it. I also think Sturgeon needs to be kept away from the media as she has come across very badly, the threats to default on any UK debt share was remarkably stupid.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
No, I don't think he is doing that. He's been consistently saying everything will be as he wants it to be. He did it with EU membership, saying it would be automatic, and regardless of Barroso's clumsiness, it's not likely to be automatic. He's doing it with Sterling, by simply ignoring the possibility that he won't get what he wants. He seems to be suggesting that while there may be negotiations, those negotiations will lead to Scotland getting everything it wants. It's dishonest - he can't on the one hand say there will be negotiations and on the other hand say he'll get everything he wants.
Petulant whinging about being bullied isn't really a very edifying spectacle from someone who has pretences to leading an independent nation. He'd do better, in my eyes, to adopt a more grown-up tone and not dismiss everyone who disagrees with him as absurd or preposterous. After all, some of the people he's calling absurd and preposterous might well be people he's having to negotiate with in the future.
> Life isn't a done deal. If Scotland stays in the UK it could well end up outside the EU. The thing is though that every outcome creates opportunities as well as costs and if you are smart, adaptable and work hard you can make it work for you.
> Right now Salmond is stating what he hopes the outcome of negotiations will be.
No, I don't think he is doing that. He's been consistently saying everything will be as he wants it to be. He did it with EU membership, saying it would be automatic, and regardless of Barroso's clumsiness, it's not likely to be automatic. He's doing it with Sterling, by simply ignoring the possibility that he won't get what he wants. He seems to be suggesting that while there may be negotiations, those negotiations will lead to Scotland getting everything it wants. It's dishonest - he can't on the one hand say there will be negotiations and on the other hand say he'll get everything he wants.
Petulant whinging about being bullied isn't really a very edifying spectacle from someone who has pretences to leading an independent nation. He'd do better, in my eyes, to adopt a more grown-up tone and not dismiss everyone who disagrees with him as absurd or preposterous. After all, some of the people he's calling absurd and preposterous might well be people he's having to negotiate with in the future.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
With all due respect, I haven't heard anything from Salmond that comes across as aspirational. His language is much more authoritative than that. To take the BBC article "Scotland's first minister is vowing to deconstruct the chancellor's case against a currency union."
That isn't saying "We really want a currency union and look forward to negociations after a YES vote". That is saying "When we leave the party, we WILL continue to dictate the playlist and here is a list of reasons why your objections to this statement are wrong."
If there is a protagonist / bully in this discussion it is surely Salmond.
> Right now Salmond is stating what he hopes the outcome of negotiations will be.
With all due respect, I haven't heard anything from Salmond that comes across as aspirational. His language is much more authoritative than that. To take the BBC article "Scotland's first minister is vowing to deconstruct the chancellor's case against a currency union."
That isn't saying "We really want a currency union and look forward to negociations after a YES vote". That is saying "When we leave the party, we WILL continue to dictate the playlist and here is a list of reasons why your objections to this statement are wrong."
If there is a protagonist / bully in this discussion it is surely Salmond.
In reply to Postmanpat:
The wet pair of salmon and sturgeon are just making the Scots seem like a whiny bunch of school children with all their accusations of 'bullying'.
I find it interesting that the fish-duo are most definitely correct but the three major UK political parties AND the EU seem to be totally incorrect. Hmmmm. Or perhaps there is something fishy going on?
The wet pair of salmon and sturgeon are just making the Scots seem like a whiny bunch of school children with all their accusations of 'bullying'.
I find it interesting that the fish-duo are most definitely correct but the three major UK political parties AND the EU seem to be totally incorrect. Hmmmm. Or perhaps there is something fishy going on?
In reply to Cú Chullain:
I would for the following reason. They are being told quite resonanbly that currency union is not on the cards but aren't being told that continuing to use the pound without a currency union is propbaby better anyway. At the same time the SNP isn't pointing this out because they want to pretend they would have some influence in this currency union when they won't, or that they can force the Auld Enemy to the negotiating table.
> I would not call it scare mongering,
I would for the following reason. They are being told quite resonanbly that currency union is not on the cards but aren't being told that continuing to use the pound without a currency union is propbaby better anyway. At the same time the SNP isn't pointing this out because they want to pretend they would have some influence in this currency union when they won't, or that they can force the Auld Enemy to the negotiating table.
Post edited at 11:34
In reply to tony:
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely.
Q. What's your money going to be?
A. Euro.£ is a weight round our neck
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. Do you want to be in the EU?
A. Maybe, are they voting on that?
Q. No, they are not voting on that, but they should think about it when they vote on it.
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. What's your money going to be?
A. £, but in Union with rUK and back stopped by the Bank of England
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. Do you want to be in the EU?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. What's your money going to be?
A. £. For now, but maybe euro later.
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, how many times? definitely!
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Please stop...this is bullying!
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely.
Q. What's your money going to be?
A. Euro.£ is a weight round our neck
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. Do you want to be in the EU?
A. Maybe, are they voting on that?
Q. No, they are not voting on that, but they should think about it when they vote on it.
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. What's your money going to be?
A. £, but in Union with rUK and back stopped by the Bank of England
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. Do you want to be in the EU?
A. Yes, definitely
Q. What's your money going to be?
A. £. For now, but maybe euro later.
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Yes, how many times? definitely!
Q. Do you want Scotland to be independent?
A. Please stop...this is bullying!
In reply to Mark Westerman:
I am wondering if they are just bored and trolling.
Its the not bothering to respond to anything beyond just lobbing more accusations which makes me suspicious.
> Oh FFS has it really come to this?
I am wondering if they are just bored and trolling.
Its the not bothering to respond to anything beyond just lobbing more accusations which makes me suspicious.
In reply to Papillon:
And so we come back to the paradox I pointed out before. Right now Scotland has a say, via Westminster, in the fiscal policy that controls the currency that Scotland uses. Post-separatism, on the separatists' current plans, Scotland would have no say.
This is a clear and obvious sense in which a vote for Yes is a vote for LESS independence for Scotland, not more.
And so we come back to the paradox I pointed out before. Right now Scotland has a say, via Westminster, in the fiscal policy that controls the currency that Scotland uses. Post-separatism, on the separatists' current plans, Scotland would have no say.
This is a clear and obvious sense in which a vote for Yes is a vote for LESS independence for Scotland, not more.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
There is also nothing wrong with Scotland wanting to be independent, it's not a threat, it is basic common sense......I look forward to the challenges I face in a newly independent Scotland, I also look forward to the success that will come from whatever currency we adopt.
I have every confidence that Scotland will succeed, but I also don't doubt that there will be many that won't want it to succeed.
> What.Is.Your.Problem ?
> There is nothing unreasonable about not wanting a currency union with iScotland. It is not a threat, it is basic common sense.
There is also nothing wrong with Scotland wanting to be independent, it's not a threat, it is basic common sense......I look forward to the challenges I face in a newly independent Scotland, I also look forward to the success that will come from whatever currency we adopt.
I have every confidence that Scotland will succeed, but I also don't doubt that there will be many that won't want it to succeed.
In reply to PeterM:
That's what I thought......do the Scots want to be independent or not?
> I thought we wanted to be like Norway, so why would we want to be in the EU? They're doing ok.
That's what I thought......do the Scots want to be independent or not?
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Pretty much what Jim Fraser was saying either up thread or on another thread. Scotland as part of the UK has already met the majority of EU membership criteria but to join the Euro the currency issues would have to be sorted out. I really can't see any insurmountable problems with EU membership for an independent Scotland and I think Barros is mostly blowing hot air.
Still no chance of monetary union with rUK though, for very valid reasons for both rUK's and Scotland's best interests and Sturgeon needs to stop throwing her toys out of the pram like a petulant 2 year old.
> Interested to read this this morning, from a former European editor of the Guardian and former political director of the European Policy Centre:
Pretty much what Jim Fraser was saying either up thread or on another thread. Scotland as part of the UK has already met the majority of EU membership criteria but to join the Euro the currency issues would have to be sorted out. I really can't see any insurmountable problems with EU membership for an independent Scotland and I think Barros is mostly blowing hot air.
Still no chance of monetary union with rUK though, for very valid reasons for both rUK's and Scotland's best interests and Sturgeon needs to stop throwing her toys out of the pram like a petulant 2 year old.
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
It's interesting how this debate is pushing Scots into a defacto pro-EU position. Scots are a little bit more pro-EU than England/Wales but it's only about 6 percent difference. Not huge, and interestingly at least a year ago when I found the IPSO-Mori polling data from, of those who want to leave the EU split by party, the party with the most "leavers" was the SNP - more than even the Scottish Tories.
It's interesting how this debate is pushing Scots into a defacto pro-EU position. Scots are a little bit more pro-EU than England/Wales but it's only about 6 percent difference. Not huge, and interestingly at least a year ago when I found the IPSO-Mori polling data from, of those who want to leave the EU split by party, the party with the most "leavers" was the SNP - more than even the Scottish Tories.
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Not really..we want to make as big a song and dance about it as possible and piss everyone off. We couldn't possibly just make a dignified plan, oh no, we want our deep-fried cake and eat it. Spineless, childless and downright disingenuous. Always the victim. Alex Salmond is currently 'debunking' Osborne's statement about Sterling. How he'll debunk such an absolute statement remains to be seen, but his gambit so far during the admittedly short time I watched was a combination of 'Liar liar pants on fire' and the tried and tested 'La La La, fingers in ears, I'm not listening..'
Not really..we want to make as big a song and dance about it as possible and piss everyone off. We couldn't possibly just make a dignified plan, oh no, we want our deep-fried cake and eat it. Spineless, childless and downright disingenuous. Always the victim. Alex Salmond is currently 'debunking' Osborne's statement about Sterling. How he'll debunk such an absolute statement remains to be seen, but his gambit so far during the admittedly short time I watched was a combination of 'Liar liar pants on fire' and the tried and tested 'La La La, fingers in ears, I'm not listening..'
In reply to teflonpete:
there's a reason for that and this post from todays BBC comments board sums it up
The UK Government is just plain wrong ...the SNP know better...
The UK Treasury is just plain wrong ...the SNP know better
The EU is just plain wrong.... the SNP know better
The EU President is just plain wrong....the SNP know better
Reading that board is depressing now so much anti English/Scottish sentiment I think there is danger of both nations becoming increasingly suspicious of each other.
> Still no chance of monetary union with rUK though, for very valid reasons for both rUK's and Scotland's best interests and Sturgeon needs to stop throwing her toys out of the pram like a petulant 2 year old.
there's a reason for that and this post from todays BBC comments board sums it up
The UK Government is just plain wrong ...the SNP know better...
The UK Treasury is just plain wrong ...the SNP know better
The EU is just plain wrong.... the SNP know better
The EU President is just plain wrong....the SNP know better
Reading that board is depressing now so much anti English/Scottish sentiment I think there is danger of both nations becoming increasingly suspicious of each other.
In reply to lynx3555:
>however, the bitter together mob .....
You seem unable to post any comment without resorting to childish name calling. I suspect you to be the illigitemate offspring of alex and nicola. Do you go round all day with the saltire painted on your face?
>however, the bitter together mob .....
You seem unable to post any comment without resorting to childish name calling. I suspect you to be the illigitemate offspring of alex and nicola. Do you go round all day with the saltire painted on your face?
In reply to lynx3555:
I have every confidence that both Scotland and rUK will succeed if Scots decide to be independent, what pleasure would anyone take in seeing Scotland fail?
Eire needed a bailout a few years ago, and Greece last year, did you see anyone laughing about that? I didn't.
You seem to be confusing the opinions of some people that Scotland's position is stronger within the UK with a desire to see it fail as an independent country. Why? So we can say 'told you so'? Unlikely.
There seems to be a paranoia in the Yes camp that everything is pitched against them. Scots voted in a party with an independence referendum on their agenda, the UK government agreed to that referendum being on Scots terms and have been working through what their position will be as rUK in the event that independence is the result of what Scots want in their referendum. The UK government would prefer Scotland to stay as part of the Union but that decision is up to Scots to decide for themselves. I really can't see what your problem is.
> I have every confidence that Scotland will succeed, but I also don't doubt that there will be many that won't want it to succeed.
I have every confidence that both Scotland and rUK will succeed if Scots decide to be independent, what pleasure would anyone take in seeing Scotland fail?
Eire needed a bailout a few years ago, and Greece last year, did you see anyone laughing about that? I didn't.
You seem to be confusing the opinions of some people that Scotland's position is stronger within the UK with a desire to see it fail as an independent country. Why? So we can say 'told you so'? Unlikely.
There seems to be a paranoia in the Yes camp that everything is pitched against them. Scots voted in a party with an independence referendum on their agenda, the UK government agreed to that referendum being on Scots terms and have been working through what their position will be as rUK in the event that independence is the result of what Scots want in their referendum. The UK government would prefer Scotland to stay as part of the Union but that decision is up to Scots to decide for themselves. I really can't see what your problem is.
In reply to lynx3555:
I hope your whole case for independence isn't based on some spurious and long defunct addendum to the national anthem ?
"Around 1745, anti-Jacobite sentiment was captured in a verse appended to the song, with a prayer for the success of Field Marshal George Wade's army then assembling at Newcastle. These words attained some short-term use, although they did not appear in the published version in the October 1745 Gentleman's Magazine. This verse was first documented as an occasional addition to the original anthem by Richard Clark in 1822,[38] and was also mentioned in a later article on the song, published by the Gentleman's Magazine in 1837. Therein, it is presented as an "additional verse... though being of temporary application only... stored in the memory of an old friend... who was born in the very year 1745, and was thus the associate of those who heard it first sung", the lyrics given being:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
The 1837 article and other sources make it clear that this verse was not used soon after 1745, and certainly before the song became accepted as the British national anthem in the 1780s and 1790s.[39][40] It was included as an integral part of the song in the Oxford Book of Eighteenth Century Verse of 1926, although erroneously referencing the "fourth verse" to the Gentleman's Magazine article of 1745.[41]
On the opposing side, Jacobite beliefs were demonstrated in an alternative verse used during the same period:[42]
God bless the prince, I pray,
God bless the prince, I pray,
Charlie I mean;
That Scotland we may see
Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,
Both George and his Feckie,
Ever so, Amen."
I hope your whole case for independence isn't based on some spurious and long defunct addendum to the national anthem ?
"Around 1745, anti-Jacobite sentiment was captured in a verse appended to the song, with a prayer for the success of Field Marshal George Wade's army then assembling at Newcastle. These words attained some short-term use, although they did not appear in the published version in the October 1745 Gentleman's Magazine. This verse was first documented as an occasional addition to the original anthem by Richard Clark in 1822,[38] and was also mentioned in a later article on the song, published by the Gentleman's Magazine in 1837. Therein, it is presented as an "additional verse... though being of temporary application only... stored in the memory of an old friend... who was born in the very year 1745, and was thus the associate of those who heard it first sung", the lyrics given being:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
The 1837 article and other sources make it clear that this verse was not used soon after 1745, and certainly before the song became accepted as the British national anthem in the 1780s and 1790s.[39][40] It was included as an integral part of the song in the Oxford Book of Eighteenth Century Verse of 1926, although erroneously referencing the "fourth verse" to the Gentleman's Magazine article of 1745.[41]
On the opposing side, Jacobite beliefs were demonstrated in an alternative verse used during the same period:[42]
God bless the prince, I pray,
God bless the prince, I pray,
Charlie I mean;
That Scotland we may see
Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,
Both George and his Feckie,
Ever so, Amen."
In reply to graeme jackson:
Plenty of insults etc...oozing out of the Unionists on here....you, like a lot of unionists, love to try and put the nasty nationalist down, make them out to be "toilet chain pullers" or some other insignificant entity that should just shut up and butt out of the discussion.
Plenty of insults etc...oozing out of the Unionists on here....you, like a lot of unionists, love to try and put the nasty nationalist down, make them out to be "toilet chain pullers" or some other insignificant entity that should just shut up and butt out of the discussion.
In reply to ByEek:
Sure. He is saying "X will happen" rather than "We will try and achieve X". So what, everyone trying to sell anything does that trick. Everybody knows there is uncertainty and plans will change but politicians don't get the luxury of admitting it, they have to present one possible scenario as if it was the only one. Just like someone taking a business plan to the bank or a general with a plan for a battle has to pretend it's actually going to happen when everyone knows that as soon as the business opens or the battle starts the plan will get changed in the face of events.
George Osborne et al are playing exactly the same game with their 'end of' style of negotiation. Things would look very different after a YES vote when they actually had to face the consequences of their position i.e. a land border with a country in the Euro and Schengen, massive selling of the pound as Scotland converts assets into Euros and compensation for Scotland's share of the assets of Bank of England.
Sharing the pound, joining the euro or having a new currency could all be made to work. They would require different strategies to leverage the opportunities and Salmond doesn't have the luxury of publishing three different plans so he has to focus on the most likely or preferred option.
> With all due respect, I haven't heard anything from Salmond that comes across as aspirational. His language is much more authoritative than that.
Sure. He is saying "X will happen" rather than "We will try and achieve X". So what, everyone trying to sell anything does that trick. Everybody knows there is uncertainty and plans will change but politicians don't get the luxury of admitting it, they have to present one possible scenario as if it was the only one. Just like someone taking a business plan to the bank or a general with a plan for a battle has to pretend it's actually going to happen when everyone knows that as soon as the business opens or the battle starts the plan will get changed in the face of events.
George Osborne et al are playing exactly the same game with their 'end of' style of negotiation. Things would look very different after a YES vote when they actually had to face the consequences of their position i.e. a land border with a country in the Euro and Schengen, massive selling of the pound as Scotland converts assets into Euros and compensation for Scotland's share of the assets of Bank of England.
Sharing the pound, joining the euro or having a new currency could all be made to work. They would require different strategies to leverage the opportunities and Salmond doesn't have the luxury of publishing three different plans so he has to focus on the most likely or preferred option.
In reply to teflonpete:
Finally!! Somebody puts it in language i can understand :p
> Losing every financial decision 15/85 would make finance the same as rugby for Scotland, and that really be a disaster.
Finally!! Somebody puts it in language i can understand :p
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: In other words, although he's been told in words of one syllable that there won't be a currency union and that eu membership isn't the sinecure he claims, his response is to stick his fingers in his ears and say "lalalala,I can't hear you".
In reply to lynx3555:
No there isn't. But by "Scotland" you must mean "a democratic consensus of those living in Scotland"
it's not a threat, it is basic common sense......
It's not "basic common sense" - it is an arguable position - with a whole variety of pros and cons, otherwise there would be no need for a referendum and the Yes campaign would already have an overwhelming majority, rather than splitting the country.
I look forward to the challenges I face in a newly independent Scotland,
Fair enough. I would prefer that the plans for those challenges had at least been formulated with a degree more precision than the appearent leap into the unknown with "It'll be alright" ringing in one's ears.
I also look forward to the success that will come from whatever currency we adopt.
I hope whatever currency Scotland adopts is successful, but as previously, a more well-thought out plan would be preferable than leaping into the void with one's hands fiscally tied behind one's back by an inability to influence the currency of one's own newly independent country.
I hope Scotland will succeed, regardless of thte vote. I'm not sure anyone wants it to fail, it would be detrimental for everyone, in Scotland and the rest of the UK, though a newly independent Scotland might suffer more due to it's isolation from the rest of the UK.
> There is also nothing wrong with Scotland wanting to be independent,
No there isn't. But by "Scotland" you must mean "a democratic consensus of those living in Scotland"
it's not a threat, it is basic common sense......
It's not "basic common sense" - it is an arguable position - with a whole variety of pros and cons, otherwise there would be no need for a referendum and the Yes campaign would already have an overwhelming majority, rather than splitting the country.
I look forward to the challenges I face in a newly independent Scotland,
Fair enough. I would prefer that the plans for those challenges had at least been formulated with a degree more precision than the appearent leap into the unknown with "It'll be alright" ringing in one's ears.
I also look forward to the success that will come from whatever currency we adopt.
I hope whatever currency Scotland adopts is successful, but as previously, a more well-thought out plan would be preferable than leaping into the void with one's hands fiscally tied behind one's back by an inability to influence the currency of one's own newly independent country.
> I have every confidence that Scotland will succeed, but I also don't doubt that there will be many that won't want it to succeed.
I hope Scotland will succeed, regardless of thte vote. I'm not sure anyone wants it to fail, it would be detrimental for everyone, in Scotland and the rest of the UK, though a newly independent Scotland might suffer more due to it's isolation from the rest of the UK.
In reply to off-duty & lynx:
I hope Scotland will succeed, regardless of thte vote. I'm not sure anyone wants it to fail, it would be detrimental for everyone, in Scotland and the rest of the UK, though a newly independent Scotland might suffer more due to it's isolation from the rest of the UK.
To which I would add, I have no problem with Scotland succeeding (or any other country) provided that it's not at my expense.
The SNP keep saying a Stirling zone/ currency union is in the best interests of the UK, without actually saying why.
> I have every confidence that Scotland will succeed, but I also don't doubt that there will be many that won't want it to succeed.
I hope Scotland will succeed, regardless of thte vote. I'm not sure anyone wants it to fail, it would be detrimental for everyone, in Scotland and the rest of the UK, though a newly independent Scotland might suffer more due to it's isolation from the rest of the UK.
To which I would add, I have no problem with Scotland succeeding (or any other country) provided that it's not at my expense.
The SNP keep saying a Stirling zone/ currency union is in the best interests of the UK, without actually saying why.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
.. his response is to stick his fingers in his ears and say "lalalala,I can't hear you".
It is more to stick his fingers in his ears and say:-
'Yeah yeah, we dont believe you, your bluffing.'
Anyway, (apparently) today he is going to take their argument for no Currency Union apart(might be entertaining)
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
.. his response is to stick his fingers in his ears and say "lalalala,I can't hear you".
It is more to stick his fingers in his ears and say:-
'Yeah yeah, we dont believe you, your bluffing.'
Anyway, (apparently) today he is going to take their argument for no Currency Union apart(might be entertaining)
In reply to 999thAndy:
Yes they did, the SNP said that the UK has a 20 billion disparity on sales in favour of the rest of the UK selling into Scotland, that would attaract a transaction tax to be paid if there was no currency union. (True or not I don't know enough about it. )
> (In reply to off-duty & lynx)
>
> [...]
>
> >
> The SNP keep saying a Stirling zone/ currency union is in the best interests of the UK, without actually saying why.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> The SNP keep saying a Stirling zone/ currency union is in the best interests of the UK, without actually saying why.
Yes they did, the SNP said that the UK has a 20 billion disparity on sales in favour of the rest of the UK selling into Scotland, that would attaract a transaction tax to be paid if there was no currency union. (True or not I don't know enough about it. )
Post edited at 12:27
In reply to lynx3555:
Speaking as someone who isn't sure which way they are going to vote, you are doing a terrible job of representing the Yes campaign to be anything other than sentimental, ill informed, wishful, and nasty. I suggest you piss off and give someone with a basic grasp how to debate in a half rational way a chance.
> Plenty of insults etc...oozing out of the Unionists on here....you, like a lot of unionists, love to try and put the nasty nationalist down, make them out to be "toilet chain pullers" or some other insignificant entity that should just shut up and butt out of the discussion.
Speaking as someone who isn't sure which way they are going to vote, you are doing a terrible job of representing the Yes campaign to be anything other than sentimental, ill informed, wishful, and nasty. I suggest you piss off and give someone with a basic grasp how to debate in a half rational way a chance.
In reply to Jim C:
The "bluffing" line from Salmond is risible. As the Tories, Labour and the Liberals have said no to a currency union it would be political suicide for any of them to u-turn.
Erm, he's made his speech already. Haven't you got the internet there?
> .. his response is to stick his fingers in his ears and say "lalalala,I can't hear you".
> It is more to stick his fingers in his ears and say:-
> 'Yeah yeah, we dont believe you, your bluffing.'
The "bluffing" line from Salmond is risible. As the Tories, Labour and the Liberals have said no to a currency union it would be political suicide for any of them to u-turn.
> Anyway, (apparently) today he is going to take their argument for no Currency Union apart(might be entertaining)
Erm, he's made his speech already. Haven't you got the internet there?
In reply to nw:
<<Applause!>>
> Speaking as someone who isn't sure which way they are going to vote, you are doing a terrible job of representing the Yes campaign to be anything other than sentimental, ill informed, wishful, and nasty. I suggest you piss off and give someone with a basic grasp how to debate in a half rational way a chance.
<<Applause!>>
In reply to Jim C:
Me neither. I had a quick look at the BBC website, but this didn't make it clearer. What exactly is he proposing will happen? I don't quite understand what he's getting at.
> that would attract a transaction tax to be paid if there was no currency union. (True or not I don't know enough about it. )
Me neither. I had a quick look at the BBC website, but this didn't make it clearer. What exactly is he proposing will happen? I don't quite understand what he's getting at.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Well Salmond he did say he would take it apart point by point so still waiting for that particular speach.
> Erm, he's made his speech already. Haven't you got the internet there?
Well Salmond he did say he would take it apart point by point so still waiting for that particular speach.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Yes, what suprises me is that Alex has decided to go down fighting with so long to go. It's almost as if it's become a matter of personal pride to him that he's not going to equivocate on anything despite being told in the clearest of terms that things aren't going to happen the way he wants them to.
Regarding a backlash. I've no doubt that in September many committed nationalists will be standing in the voting booths scoring a cross even more deeply against the "yes" option, maybe even breaking the lead in the pencil but so what? Most Scots don't buy into the Braveheart pish and of course none of the other voters, English, Welsh, Irish, Polish etc will either.
If the yes campaign had any sense they'd sideline Alex now, leave him ranting from Bute house, come up with a sensible strategy for a new currency and life outside Europe.
Another thought, it seems to me that Scots should be starting to understand that perhaps the EU isn't such a great club to belong to. Certainly a more lukewarm approach to EU membership would be a far better negotiating position. If Scotland were daft enough to vote for Independence we'd turn up in Brussels with no option but to bend over and take it from the Eurocrats. What I believe Barrosso is really saying is not that an independent Scotland would never get membership but that the terms and the process would be so unpleasant that no other region in Europe would ever want to try the same thing.
> Looking at the news today, and looking at this thread, it really does seem to me now that one side of this debate is just trying to keep things together, normal, sane, and amicable. While the other is trying to stoke up hatred and bitterness between the English and the Scots, and to rip up the script we've been working with--overall with tremendous success--for 300 years.
Yes, what suprises me is that Alex has decided to go down fighting with so long to go. It's almost as if it's become a matter of personal pride to him that he's not going to equivocate on anything despite being told in the clearest of terms that things aren't going to happen the way he wants them to.
Regarding a backlash. I've no doubt that in September many committed nationalists will be standing in the voting booths scoring a cross even more deeply against the "yes" option, maybe even breaking the lead in the pencil but so what? Most Scots don't buy into the Braveheart pish and of course none of the other voters, English, Welsh, Irish, Polish etc will either.
If the yes campaign had any sense they'd sideline Alex now, leave him ranting from Bute house, come up with a sensible strategy for a new currency and life outside Europe.
Another thought, it seems to me that Scots should be starting to understand that perhaps the EU isn't such a great club to belong to. Certainly a more lukewarm approach to EU membership would be a far better negotiating position. If Scotland were daft enough to vote for Independence we'd turn up in Brussels with no option but to bend over and take it from the Eurocrats. What I believe Barrosso is really saying is not that an independent Scotland would never get membership but that the terms and the process would be so unpleasant that no other region in Europe would ever want to try the same thing.
In reply to dissonance:
I'm wondering what parts of "it's not going to happen" he'll be taking apart.
(You've spelled speech wrong btw).
> Well Salmond he did say he would take it apart point by point so still waiting for that particular speach.
I'm wondering what parts of "it's not going to happen" he'll be taking apart.
(You've spelled speech wrong btw).
In reply to dissonance:
It's reported here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638
It's a bit rich attacking the UK for imposing costs on UK business when it's what he would have done if he'd stuck with his original preferred option of using the euro.
> Well Salmond he did say he would take it apart point by point so still waiting for that particular speach.
It's reported here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638
It's a bit rich attacking the UK for imposing costs on UK business when it's what he would have done if he'd stuck with his original preferred option of using the euro.
In reply to Alan M:
It seems to me the Scots have historically been suspicious of the English Alan. (I am of English Origin by the way, and my Surname name gives that away, so I occaisonaly get comments (only occasionally though)
There are a few greivences that I hear most often, probably McCrone being one of the more recent. It is percieved to have been 'a bit sneaky', and few English are even aware of it, hence they don't see what the Scots point is.
The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be "embarrassing", making the country "as rich as Switzerland."[1] It also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe "with the exception of the Norwegian kronor"[1]
The report went on to advise UK government ministers on the various methods they could use to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".
The incoming Labour administration classified the document as SECRET over fears it could give a further boost to the SNP's policy of Scottish independence.[2][3][4]
A year after Professor McCrone had submitted his report to the government, civil servants (including McCrone) met again in London to discuss its implications.
They concluded that his findings had been accurate, and that the average income in Scotland would increase by up to 30% per head if the country became an independent state. They also concluded that Scotland's "economic problems would disappear", and it would become "the Kuwait of the Western world",
> (In reply to teflonpete)
>
> [...]
>
> t>
... I think there is danger of both nations becoming increasingly suspicious of each other.>
> [...]
>
> t>
It seems to me the Scots have historically been suspicious of the English Alan. (I am of English Origin by the way, and my Surname name gives that away, so I occaisonaly get comments (only occasionally though)
There are a few greivences that I hear most often, probably McCrone being one of the more recent. It is percieved to have been 'a bit sneaky', and few English are even aware of it, hence they don't see what the Scots point is.
The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be "embarrassing", making the country "as rich as Switzerland."[1] It also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe "with the exception of the Norwegian kronor"[1]
The report went on to advise UK government ministers on the various methods they could use to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".
The incoming Labour administration classified the document as SECRET over fears it could give a further boost to the SNP's policy of Scottish independence.[2][3][4]
A year after Professor McCrone had submitted his report to the government, civil servants (including McCrone) met again in London to discuss its implications.
They concluded that his findings had been accurate, and that the average income in Scotland would increase by up to 30% per head if the country became an independent state. They also concluded that Scotland's "economic problems would disappear", and it would become "the Kuwait of the Western world",
In reply to GrahamD:
Not quite....personally I don't hold grudges but I also don't suppress or warp history.....historically Scotland has been, and will be again, an independent country....if you take the time to study Scotland's history you"ll notice how politically and culturally distict we were from our Anglo-Saxon neighbours...the First major attempt by the Angles to Squash the pesky Norther tribes and absorb the Pictish Territories, failed dramatically at the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 635...the entire Angle army was defeated, decapitated and their heads proudly displayed outside their houses.
Thankfully it's not like those days anymore, but the same national pride and identity is still flowing through the veins of most of the Scottish people.
Not quite....personally I don't hold grudges but I also don't suppress or warp history.....historically Scotland has been, and will be again, an independent country....if you take the time to study Scotland's history you"ll notice how politically and culturally distict we were from our Anglo-Saxon neighbours...the First major attempt by the Angles to Squash the pesky Norther tribes and absorb the Pictish Territories, failed dramatically at the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 635...the entire Angle army was defeated, decapitated and their heads proudly displayed outside their houses.
Thankfully it's not like those days anymore, but the same national pride and identity is still flowing through the veins of most of the Scottish people.
In reply to lynx3555:
And its been said you can....
What has the threat been?
You can use the £ you just can't dictate policy on it..
Its been twisted by ignorant people like you that you'll be left bartering for bread with monopoly money..
> approximately 70 newly independent countries, island nations etc..continued to use the £ after they became independent, it went without saying....however, the bitter together mob make unreasonable threats (not unlike historical similar threats) to try and scare the Scottish electorate into submission.
And its been said you can....
What has the threat been?
You can use the £ you just can't dictate policy on it..
Its been twisted by ignorant people like you that you'll be left bartering for bread with monopoly money..
In reply to lynx3555:
You do realise that many of those "Scottish people" currently live outside Scotland and can't vote, whilst many of those voting in the election are born and bred outside Scotland.
So the sectarian history lessons are probably a bit pointless.
> Not quite....personally I don't hold grudges but I also don't suppress or warp history.....historically Scotland has been, and will be again, an independent country....if you take the time to study Scotland's history you"ll notice how politically and culturally distict we were from our Anglo-Saxon neighbours...the First major attempt by the Angles to Squash the pesky Norther tribes and absorb the Pictish Territories, failed dramatically at the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 635...the entire Angle army was defeated, decapitated and their heads proudly displayed outside their houses.
> Thankfully it's not like those days anymore, but the same national pride and identity is still flowing through the veins of most of the Scottish people.
You do realise that many of those "Scottish people" currently live outside Scotland and can't vote, whilst many of those voting in the election are born and bred outside Scotland.
So the sectarian history lessons are probably a bit pointless.
In reply to lynx3555:
Its always nice to see rhetoric done well
> ..but the same national pride and identity is still flowing through the veins of most of the Scottish people.
Its always nice to see rhetoric done well
In reply to nw:
exactly.. there's ill-formed speculation on both sides but some of the trash spoken since the currency statement in the press has been nothing short of outright lies.
But Barrasso did a lot of damage with his quotes tbh, there was just no need for it, the currency was then wrapped up with that as a threat, when it was nothing of the sort. The SNP should have welcomed clarification on that, and have a concrete plan on what next, which can include using the sterling..
> Speaking as someone who isn't sure which way they are going to vote, you are doing a terrible job of representing the Yes campaign to be anything other than sentimental, ill informed, wishful, and nasty. I suggest you piss off and give someone with a basic grasp how to debate in a half rational way a chance.
exactly.. there's ill-formed speculation on both sides but some of the trash spoken since the currency statement in the press has been nothing short of outright lies.
But Barrasso did a lot of damage with his quotes tbh, there was just no need for it, the currency was then wrapped up with that as a threat, when it was nothing of the sort. The SNP should have welcomed clarification on that, and have a concrete plan on what next, which can include using the sterling..
In reply to lynx3555:
Your description of the clearances earlier made me think you read a certain type of Scottish history.
Blood and soil eh?
Your description of the clearances earlier made me think you read a certain type of Scottish history.
> the same national pride and identity is still flowing through the veins of most of the Scottish people
Blood and soil eh?
In reply to nw: speaking as someone who doesn't give a sh*t what you think! I'm not on here to recruit "weak minded" and undecided straddles into the Yes camp.....if you can't think for yourself and you just can't make up your mind, then you probably need the security of the Uk
In reply to lynx3555:
The Better together should pay you to go on a lecture tour to convince Scotland of independence..
The Better together should pay you to go on a lecture tour to convince Scotland of independence..
In reply to TobyA:
My knowledge of Scottish history is very extensive and varied, my interest isn't fuelled by nationalism, it's an interest and that's it, no more....but history is very relevant to politics and it has a place in an argue meant sometimes.
My knowledge of Scottish history is very extensive and varied, my interest isn't fuelled by nationalism, it's an interest and that's it, no more....but history is very relevant to politics and it has a place in an argue meant sometimes.
In reply to lynx3555:
Hilarious! One day you'll grow up to be a proper troll....
> speaking as someone who doesn't give a sh*t what you think! I'm not on here to recruit "weak minded" and undecided straddles into the Yes camp.....if you can't think for yourself and you just can't make up your mind, then you probably need the security of the Uk
Hilarious! One day you'll grow up to be a proper troll....
In reply to TobyA:
Outright tribalism based on confused and distorted history, with the racial motive completely explicit. The Yes campaign has backers who think the clearances were the fault of the English, and that Culloden was a battle between the Scots and the English, but who haven't noticed that Lothian is historically the northernmost part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria. It has backers who can tell you the year of the battle of Dunnichen (give or take fifty years), and imagine that was a battle between the Scots and the English when neither nationality even existed at the time... but who can't tell you what currency an independent Scotland would use. It chills the blood really.
And I see Donald Trump's come out on the No side. It's been a bad week for Better Together right enough
Outright tribalism based on confused and distorted history, with the racial motive completely explicit. The Yes campaign has backers who think the clearances were the fault of the English, and that Culloden was a battle between the Scots and the English, but who haven't noticed that Lothian is historically the northernmost part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria. It has backers who can tell you the year of the battle of Dunnichen (give or take fifty years), and imagine that was a battle between the Scots and the English when neither nationality even existed at the time... but who can't tell you what currency an independent Scotland would use. It chills the blood really.
And I see Donald Trump's come out on the No side. It's been a bad week for Better Together right enough
Post edited at 13:17
In reply to lynx3555 / McGlashan:
I don't think what happened at Dun Nechtain in 685 (not 635, as you stated above) is in any way relevant to the debate.
> My knowledge of Scottish history is very extensive and varied, my interest isn't fuelled by nationalism, it's an interest and that's it, no more....but history is very relevant to politics and it has a place in an argue meant sometimes.
I don't think what happened at Dun Nechtain in 685 (not 635, as you stated above) is in any way relevant to the debate.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
[Aside: Dun Nechtain is a better term, because there's a convincing argument to be made that the site of the battle was in Badenoch (near modern Kincraig) rather than at its 'traditional' site at Dunnichen in Angus.]
[Aside: Dun Nechtain is a better term, because there's a convincing argument to be made that the site of the battle was in Badenoch (near modern Kincraig) rather than at its 'traditional' site at Dunnichen in Angus.]
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I haven't read up on this. But in a general way, as an adoptive Dundonian, I like to imagine that everything of real importance in world history happened no further away than Forfar
I haven't read up on this. But in a general way, as an adoptive Dundonian, I like to imagine that everything of real importance in world history happened no further away than Forfar
Post edited at 13:24
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Well if you're interested, here's a link to Alex Woolf's paper: http://tinyurl.com/noogotx
Well if you're interested, here's a link to Alex Woolf's paper: http://tinyurl.com/noogotx
In reply to Jim C:
1. If Scotland continues to use Sterling, without a currency union, the cross border transaction is completed in Sterling, so no currency exchange required.
2. Do we pay transaction taxes now? or do you mean some other tax like import duty?
3. Could we not solve the import duty problem by declaring a 'British Isles Free Trade Area?' (still no need for currency union)
> Yes they did, the SNP said that the UK has a 20 billion disparity on sales in favour of the rest of the UK selling into Scotland, that would attaract a transaction tax to be paid if there was no currency union. (True or not I don't know enough about it. )
1. If Scotland continues to use Sterling, without a currency union, the cross border transaction is completed in Sterling, so no currency exchange required.
2. Do we pay transaction taxes now? or do you mean some other tax like import duty?
3. Could we not solve the import duty problem by declaring a 'British Isles Free Trade Area?' (still no need for currency union)
In reply to 999thAndy:
>
Fixed that for you. Solves all the other problems about independence, too
>
> 3. Could we not solve the import duty problem by voting No? (still no need for currency union)
Fixed that for you. Solves all the other problems about independence, too
In reply to 999thAndy:
That looks to me like a threat from Salmond to put additional tax on UK goods and services sales into Scotland if he doesn't get his way with currency union.
That looks to me like a threat from Salmond to put additional tax on UK goods and services sales into Scotland if he doesn't get his way with currency union.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Working.......
> (In reply to Jim C)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The "bluffing" line from Salmond is risible. As the Tories, Labour and the Liberals have said no to a currency union it would be political suicide for any of them to u-turn.
>
> [...]
>
> Erm, he's made his speech already. Haven't you got the internet there?
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The "bluffing" line from Salmond is risible. As the Tories, Labour and the Liberals have said no to a currency union it would be political suicide for any of them to u-turn.
>
> [...]
>
> Erm, he's made his speech already. Haven't you got the internet there?
Working.......
In reply to Removed User:
I think he will be explaining why the notion of self determination doesnt apply to the UK and why it will need to agree to anything he wants.
Nope I havent.
Doesnt matter how many sources you have to support the fact I ballsed up it didnt happen. I will do a point by point breakdown later to support this (hopefully by which time you will have forgotten).
> I'm wondering what parts of "it's not going to happen" he'll be taking apart.
I think he will be explaining why the notion of self determination doesnt apply to the UK and why it will need to agree to anything he wants.
> (You've spelled speech wrong btw).
Nope I havent.
Doesnt matter how many sources you have to support the fact I ballsed up it didnt happen. I will do a point by point breakdown later to support this (hopefully by which time you will have forgotten).
In reply to teflonpete:
Think you are reading something into it that isn't there. It cost money to do currency transactions.
Think you are reading something into it that isn't there. It cost money to do currency transactions.
Post edited at 13:53
In reply to Removed User:
And what would that mean for Scots? For instance, if a Scot made a purchase from an rUK based company on mail order, the company would up the price (possibly in P&P) to cover the transaction charge so goods and services in Scotland would be dearer, although the central Scottish treasury would net the transaction charge.
Why would there need to be a transaction charge anyway if Scotland was still using Sterling?
> Think you are reading something into it that isn't there. It cost money to do currency transactions.
And what would that mean for Scots? For instance, if a Scot made a purchase from an rUK based company on mail order, the company would up the price (possibly in P&P) to cover the transaction charge so goods and services in Scotland would be dearer, although the central Scottish treasury would net the transaction charge.
Why would there need to be a transaction charge anyway if Scotland was still using Sterling?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Yes, the lothians were briefly a part of the Angles territories....it was called Gododdin prior to the Angle insurgence, but the Scots took it back at a later date. The 6th century poem called Y-Gododdin makes good reading and describes the Battle of Catraeth very well.
You make many wrong assumptions about my knowledge....Culloden was a UK civil war and the clearances was a UK issue.
Yes, the lothians were briefly a part of the Angles territories....it was called Gododdin prior to the Angle insurgence, but the Scots took it back at a later date. The 6th century poem called Y-Gododdin makes good reading and describes the Battle of Catraeth very well.
You make many wrong assumptions about my knowledge....Culloden was a UK civil war and the clearances was a UK issue.
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I think that battle is very relevant to today, it was one of many battles being raged against the indigenous population in the north of Britain then known as Pictland. It was a campaign by the newly arrived Angles to create one big country called England....had the Angles won that battle then Scotland may never have existed.
Prior to the battle of Dun Nechain the Angles had just defeated the Britains at Dumbarton Castle (Dumbarton meaning the fort of the Britains), with the help of the southern Picts; the southern Picts then egged on the Angles to attack the Northern Picts...the southern Picts it seems, then joined their northern cousins once they got to the battle site.
It set the English expansion back by at least 200 years.....
> I don't think what happened at Dun Nechtain in 685 (not 635, as you stated above) is in any way relevant to the debate.
I think that battle is very relevant to today, it was one of many battles being raged against the indigenous population in the north of Britain then known as Pictland. It was a campaign by the newly arrived Angles to create one big country called England....had the Angles won that battle then Scotland may never have existed.
Prior to the battle of Dun Nechain the Angles had just defeated the Britains at Dumbarton Castle (Dumbarton meaning the fort of the Britains), with the help of the southern Picts; the southern Picts then egged on the Angles to attack the Northern Picts...the southern Picts it seems, then joined their northern cousins once they got to the battle site.
It set the English expansion back by at least 200 years.....
In reply to lynx3555:
Well maybe, just maybe, if you are trying to win a referendum (that's where they ask everybody what they want to do, and we all vote on it?)then us 'weak minded straddles' (whatever they are) are exactly the people you should be trying to recruit. You know, so you can win.
Edit: Thinking about it, how would winning fit in your perpetual victim narrative?Maybe it would be too much for you to compute, and so you are trying to lose.
> speaking as someone who doesn't give a sh*t what you think! I'm not on here to recruit "weak minded" and undecided straddles into the Yes camp.....if you can't think for yourself and you just can't make up your mind, then you probably need the security of the Uk
Well maybe, just maybe, if you are trying to win a referendum (that's where they ask everybody what they want to do, and we all vote on it?)then us 'weak minded straddles' (whatever they are) are exactly the people you should be trying to recruit. You know, so you can win.
Edit: Thinking about it, how would winning fit in your perpetual victim narrative?Maybe it would be too much for you to compute, and so you are trying to lose.
Post edited at 14:17
In reply to nw:
I'm not on here to canvass for Yes voters, would be nice but as you can see canvassing isn't my strong point....you insult me and I'll insult you, and why wouldn't I.
I'm not on here to canvass for Yes voters, would be nice but as you can see canvassing isn't my strong point....you insult me and I'll insult you, and why wouldn't I.
In reply to nw:
Racial mysticism, distorted history, victim psychology, voodoo economics, rhetoric over substance, faux environmentalism, demonising of outsiders, the blood and the soil, the destiny of the Volk... remind me where I've heard this song before.
Oh yes.
Racial mysticism, distorted history, victim psychology, voodoo economics, rhetoric over substance, faux environmentalism, demonising of outsiders, the blood and the soil, the destiny of the Volk... remind me where I've heard this song before.
Oh yes.
Post edited at 14:24
In reply to lynx3555:
Not really clear how. It would have given some interesting consequences later on, particularly during the Norman invasion if Northumbria had remained a powerful kingdom. Which given the Norman influence on Scotland could have proved interesting, no Bruce, Douglas or Stewart.
However alternative history is always tricky particularly for a time and place where what actually went on isnt clear eg what exactly happened with the Picts vs the Scots.
> It set the English expansion back by at least 200 years.....
Not really clear how. It would have given some interesting consequences later on, particularly during the Norman invasion if Northumbria had remained a powerful kingdom. Which given the Norman influence on Scotland could have proved interesting, no Bruce, Douglas or Stewart.
However alternative history is always tricky particularly for a time and place where what actually went on isnt clear eg what exactly happened with the Picts vs the Scots.
In reply to teflonpete:
I think the transaction charges would be banking charges therefore it would affect both sides of cross border trade and benefit nobody except the banks. Off course if both sides were suing Sterling then no issue. I don't believe Salmond was talking tariffs or the likes, he'd be as well cancelling the referendum there and then.
I think the transaction charges would be banking charges therefore it would affect both sides of cross border trade and benefit nobody except the banks. Off course if both sides were suing Sterling then no issue. I don't believe Salmond was talking tariffs or the likes, he'd be as well cancelling the referendum there and then.
In reply to lynx3555:
Also in 685:Cædwalla, manages to fully re-unite the sub-kingdoms of Wessex. He attacks with a large army Sussex and kills king Æthelwealh in battle in the South Downs (Hampshire).[2] He is expelled by Æthelwealh's ealdorman, Berthun and Andhun, who are jointly rule the South Saxons. Cædwalla invades Kent, lays it waste, and carries of an immense booty.[3]
How long will this go unavenged????!!!
Also in 685:Cædwalla, manages to fully re-unite the sub-kingdoms of Wessex. He attacks with a large army Sussex and kills king Æthelwealh in battle in the South Downs (Hampshire).[2] He is expelled by Æthelwealh's ealdorman, Berthun and Andhun, who are jointly rule the South Saxons. Cædwalla invades Kent, lays it waste, and carries of an immense booty.[3]
How long will this go unavenged????!!!
In reply to teflonpete:
This point raises one of the many unanswered questions in this whole debate. There are numerous UK institutions which impact on Scottish day to day life. never mind currency and the EU. Will Scotland still have access to a Royal Mail? Will the BBC have to charge Scotland a separate licence fee. Etc etc.So many of our common institutions are intertwined, its difficult to even envisage a separate state.
This point raises one of the many unanswered questions in this whole debate. There are numerous UK institutions which impact on Scottish day to day life. never mind currency and the EU. Will Scotland still have access to a Royal Mail? Will the BBC have to charge Scotland a separate licence fee. Etc etc.So many of our common institutions are intertwined, its difficult to even envisage a separate state.
In reply to Removed User:
I don't really understand the statement then. Tbh, I can't really understand why he would want a monetary union and be in the same situation post independence as Scotland is now with regard to interest rates, QE, exchange rates etc, union just wouldn't give Scots power to pursue their own financial control. Is he trying to set the stage for watering independence down to devo max, which most concerned seem to prefer, or is he just making stuff up. Hard to tell.
> Of course if both sides were suing Sterling then no issue. I don't believe Salmond was talking tariffs or the likes, he'd be as well cancelling the referendum there and then.
I don't really understand the statement then. Tbh, I can't really understand why he would want a monetary union and be in the same situation post independence as Scotland is now with regard to interest rates, QE, exchange rates etc, union just wouldn't give Scots power to pursue their own financial control. Is he trying to set the stage for watering independence down to devo max, which most concerned seem to prefer, or is he just making stuff up. Hard to tell.
In reply to teflonpete:
Technically yes, but politically - not so sure. The problem is that sovereign countries don't really like it when regions decide to declare independence as Scotland is finding out. If Scotland were to get its independence and then just trot into Europe with all the benefits it offers smaller nations, Scotland would set a risky precedent for other separatist movements from getting their way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe
> I really can't see any insurmountable problems with EU membership for an independent Scotland and I think Barros is mostly blowing hot air.
Technically yes, but politically - not so sure. The problem is that sovereign countries don't really like it when regions decide to declare independence as Scotland is finding out. If Scotland were to get its independence and then just trot into Europe with all the benefits it offers smaller nations, Scotland would set a risky precedent for other separatist movements from getting their way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe
In reply to lynx3555:
Dont be so hard on yourself. I am busy looking up house prices in Scotland since you have convinced me to move so I can vote.
> (In reply to nw)
> I'm not on here to canvass for Yes voters, would be nice but as you can see canvassing isn't my strong point
> I'm not on here to canvass for Yes voters, would be nice but as you can see canvassing isn't my strong point
Dont be so hard on yourself. I am busy looking up house prices in Scotland since you have convinced me to move so I can vote.
In reply to dissonance:
Just looking over Mr Fishy's "deconstruction of Osborne" speech today. I still find it staggering that the SNP when they started this ball rolling had apparently not thought through any of the three biggest practical issues facing them about independence: (1) currency, (2) EU membership, (3) Schengen membership. All they can do is whine about bullying and threats, and retaliate with some threats of their own.
Aside from their intended threat value, Salmond's remarks about the cost of no currency union to rUK are especially interesting because he's pretty much admitting that the post-Yes-vote endgame, if it comes to that, will be a costly and nasty mess. The question is why he imagines anyone whose head is screwed on straight would vote to put themselves in that mess in the first place.
After the events of the last week, even if I was Yes-inclined I think I'd now be saying "Not now, and not like this".
Just looking over Mr Fishy's "deconstruction of Osborne" speech today. I still find it staggering that the SNP when they started this ball rolling had apparently not thought through any of the three biggest practical issues facing them about independence: (1) currency, (2) EU membership, (3) Schengen membership. All they can do is whine about bullying and threats, and retaliate with some threats of their own.
Aside from their intended threat value, Salmond's remarks about the cost of no currency union to rUK are especially interesting because he's pretty much admitting that the post-Yes-vote endgame, if it comes to that, will be a costly and nasty mess. The question is why he imagines anyone whose head is screwed on straight would vote to put themselves in that mess in the first place.
After the events of the last week, even if I was Yes-inclined I think I'd now be saying "Not now, and not like this".
In reply to Postmanpat: interesting article from a unionist rag.....
http://m.scotsman.com/news/lesley-riddoch-osborne-misjudged-mood-on-currenc...
http://m.scotsman.com/news/lesley-riddoch-osborne-misjudged-mood-on-currenc...
In reply to lynx3555:
You are missing the point spectacularly again. George Osbourne was speaking for the rUK (should independence be voted in) representing approx 50 million people. So was Ed Balls and Danny Alexander. They appear to have caught the mood of those 50 odd million pretty well and as such, have played "a blinder". The fact it may have annoyed some Scots is not really their concern at all.
Politics is all about power. Salmond and Sturgeon are realising this very publically right now.
You are missing the point spectacularly again. George Osbourne was speaking for the rUK (should independence be voted in) representing approx 50 million people. So was Ed Balls and Danny Alexander. They appear to have caught the mood of those 50 odd million pretty well and as such, have played "a blinder". The fact it may have annoyed some Scots is not really their concern at all.
Politics is all about power. Salmond and Sturgeon are realising this very publically right now.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
so what you are saying is that over 50% of 50 million ruk citizens endorse the nasty underhanded behavior of your mouth piece leaders.
That majority of ruk citizens are so spiteful that they would expect their shoddy, slime ball leaders to give the Scots a good thrashing when it comes to making deals....please tell me more....
so what you are saying is that over 50% of 50 million ruk citizens endorse the nasty underhanded behavior of your mouth piece leaders.
That majority of ruk citizens are so spiteful that they would expect their shoddy, slime ball leaders to give the Scots a good thrashing when it comes to making deals....please tell me more....
Post edited at 15:32
In reply to lynx3555:
You seem to assume that anything other than agreeing to the SNPs demands is spiteful.
Many people are wary of monetary unions, given the Euro experience. Its a risky option tying yourself to another country which may have different objectives and needs.
> That majority of ruk citizens are so spiteful that they would expect their shoddy, slime ball leaders to give the Scots a good thrashing when it comes to making deals....please tell me more....
You seem to assume that anything other than agreeing to the SNPs demands is spiteful.
Many people are wary of monetary unions, given the Euro experience. Its a risky option tying yourself to another country which may have different objectives and needs.
In reply to lynx3555:
Do you not mean those living in Scotland? I know it's a bit awkward and not exactly as you'd have it, but if you could live in the here and now and face facts instead of living in the distant past and being such a victim, you might find that Scotland is not for the Scots alone, it's for who ever wants to live here. A whole bunch of 'Johnny foreigners' will have a say and a whole bunch of expats jocks won't. I hate to think of what you must think of them deserting their homeland.
> That majority of ruk citizens are so spiteful that they would expect their shoddy, slime ball leaders to give the Scots a good thrashing when it comes to making deals....please tell me more....
Do you not mean those living in Scotland? I know it's a bit awkward and not exactly as you'd have it, but if you could live in the here and now and face facts instead of living in the distant past and being such a victim, you might find that Scotland is not for the Scots alone, it's for who ever wants to live here. A whole bunch of 'Johnny foreigners' will have a say and a whole bunch of expats jocks won't. I hate to think of what you must think of them deserting their homeland.
In reply to lynx3555:
PLease point out in detail what is nasty and underhand about not wishing to be in a currency union with a newly independent country?
Firstly, I will say it is not underhand, as it has been unequivocally pointed out 6 months prior to the referendum so that Scots have a "fact" they can take to the polling booth (not many of them coming from the SNP)
Also, it is not nasty. It is an extremely sensible and correct policy that has nothing but the best interests of the people they represent at heart. Those being the people that are left after the Scots have decided they want to be independent from them.
PLease point out in detail what is nasty and underhand about not wishing to be in a currency union with a newly independent country?
Firstly, I will say it is not underhand, as it has been unequivocally pointed out 6 months prior to the referendum so that Scots have a "fact" they can take to the polling booth (not many of them coming from the SNP)
Also, it is not nasty. It is an extremely sensible and correct policy that has nothing but the best interests of the people they represent at heart. Those being the people that are left after the Scots have decided they want to be independent from them.
In reply to lynx3555:
i think the rUk polpulace would be exceedingly pissed off if their leaders didn't ensure that the rUK had the best deal for itself. Why should they give up any rights or freedoms to benefit a foreign country?
i think the rUk polpulace would be exceedingly pissed off if their leaders didn't ensure that the rUK had the best deal for itself. Why should they give up any rights or freedoms to benefit a foreign country?
In reply to teflonpete:
Read a WSJ blog at the weekend and whilst I'm no financial expert it seemed to eb of the view that most currencies float with either the Dollar, Euro or Pound and there was very little autonomy anywhere (example cited was that the Bank of Cananda was pretty much beholden to the Fed and the NOK to the dollar and Euro). Makes me wonder how much control countries actually have (including the UK where the BoE is independent of Govt. and probably keeps an close eye on Dollar and Euro issues when making decisions).
Read a WSJ blog at the weekend and whilst I'm no financial expert it seemed to eb of the view that most currencies float with either the Dollar, Euro or Pound and there was very little autonomy anywhere (example cited was that the Bank of Cananda was pretty much beholden to the Fed and the NOK to the dollar and Euro). Makes me wonder how much control countries actually have (including the UK where the BoE is independent of Govt. and probably keeps an close eye on Dollar and Euro issues when making decisions).
In reply to lynx3555:
Why is putting a point of view that is contrary to that of your own seen as underhanded or nasty?
If anyone is being underhand or nasty, it is Salmond. He is playing the fear card right now saying that a non-union currency will mean businesses south of the border will incur hefty conversion fees when trading with Scotland. He seems to have forgotten that this could be avoided by keeping the pound, but not be in a union. Any trade fees will also hit Scottish business as well as rUK business.
> so what you are saying is that over 50% of 50 million ruk citizens endorse the nasty underhanded behavior of your mouth piece leaders.
Why is putting a point of view that is contrary to that of your own seen as underhanded or nasty?
If anyone is being underhand or nasty, it is Salmond. He is playing the fear card right now saying that a non-union currency will mean businesses south of the border will incur hefty conversion fees when trading with Scotland. He seems to have forgotten that this could be avoided by keeping the pound, but not be in a union. Any trade fees will also hit Scottish business as well as rUK business.
In reply to graeme jackson:
When Scotland decides to leave the union through the democratic vote, it should get to do so with out resentment from the ruk, or any other foreign government. The Britnats are hell bent on painting Scotland's independent future as dark and dreary, were the English, Welsh and Northern Irish view us as nasty foreigners, and give us the big cold shoulder...etc....etc...you're Britnat overlords have no intention of making any agreement with the Scottish nationalists, I would say that they are the unreasonable ones and I'm sure history will contest this in years to come.
When Scotland decides to leave the union through the democratic vote, it should get to do so with out resentment from the ruk, or any other foreign government. The Britnats are hell bent on painting Scotland's independent future as dark and dreary, were the English, Welsh and Northern Irish view us as nasty foreigners, and give us the big cold shoulder...etc....etc...you're Britnat overlords have no intention of making any agreement with the Scottish nationalists, I would say that they are the unreasonable ones and I'm sure history will contest this in years to come.
In reply to Removed User:
Agreed, although the UK gov (as it stands now) does have some sway with the BoE regarding QE and some other tools in the box. I just think Scotland would be in a better position to control their own financial destiny if they had their own currency. I may be wrong but I think lynx and some other posters on here seem to think that no currency union means rUK is going to try and withold Scotland's share of Sterling assets. That isn't the case. It's things like QE, interest rates and the like that rUK treasury wouldn't want influenced internally by another country with a different agenda. I wouldn't have thought an independent Scottish government would either. That's why I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing what the furore is all about.
> Makes me wonder how much control countries actually have (including the UK where the BoE is independent of Govt. and probably keeps an close eye on Dollar and Euro issues when making decisions).
Agreed, although the UK gov (as it stands now) does have some sway with the BoE regarding QE and some other tools in the box. I just think Scotland would be in a better position to control their own financial destiny if they had their own currency. I may be wrong but I think lynx and some other posters on here seem to think that no currency union means rUK is going to try and withold Scotland's share of Sterling assets. That isn't the case. It's things like QE, interest rates and the like that rUK treasury wouldn't want influenced internally by another country with a different agenda. I wouldn't have thought an independent Scottish government would either. That's why I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing what the furore is all about.
In reply to lynx3555:
I really think you need to see a doctor. How the boys on the rig put up with you for weeks on end I have no idea.
I really think you need to see a doctor. How the boys on the rig put up with you for weeks on end I have no idea.
In reply to lynx3555:
Exactly what does this rant have to do with the UK government saying no to monetary union?
Are you incapable of understanding the point being made.
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
> When Scotland decides to leave the union through the democratic vote, it should get to do so with out resentment from the ruk, or any other foreign government.
> When Scotland decides to leave the union through the democratic vote, it should get to do so with out resentment from the ruk, or any other foreign government.
Exactly what does this rant have to do with the UK government saying no to monetary union?
Are you incapable of understanding the point being made.
In reply to lynx3555:
Lynx, pls tell me you're a troll and I will gladly put my hands up and say you got me.
Lynx, pls tell me you're a troll and I will gladly put my hands up and say you got me.
In reply to teflonpete:
It is rather strange since being in a monetary union would reduce the independence quite dramatically, since any agreement would have to be biased towards the larger economy and given the disparity it would be close to just being pegged to the pound instead.
Even if it is suggested as a short term measure then the question is whats in it for the UK. Dont really be wanting to have decisions influenced by someone with no real investment in the currency (even compared to the short term political approach).
> That's why I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing what the furore is all about.
It is rather strange since being in a monetary union would reduce the independence quite dramatically, since any agreement would have to be biased towards the larger economy and given the disparity it would be close to just being pegged to the pound instead.
Even if it is suggested as a short term measure then the question is whats in it for the UK. Dont really be wanting to have decisions influenced by someone with no real investment in the currency (even compared to the short term political approach).
In reply to teflonpete:
I think it's more do with Osborne's speech being perceived as "do as you are f*cking told", prbably not his best move in Scotland tbh, then again he got booed at the Olympics, I'm sure he doesn't give a fck. Sweeping out not taking questions didn't help matters either.
> seeing what the furore is all about.
I think it's more do with Osborne's speech being perceived as "do as you are f*cking told", prbably not his best move in Scotland tbh, then again he got booed at the Olympics, I'm sure he doesn't give a fck. Sweeping out not taking questions didn't help matters either.
In reply to lynx3555:
My britnat overlords have instructed me to tell you that very few people will resent your democratically asserted right to be an independent country; if that's the result, good luck.
Nobody here at Bitter Together Towers is hell bent on destroying Scotland or any other country.
In the event of a yes vote, we will do what's best for us, just like you will. Right now it doesn't look like a currency union is good for us, but that doesn't stop you using the pound, euro, dollar, NOK or any other currency.
My britnat overlords have instructed me to tell you that very few people will resent your democratically asserted right to be an independent country; if that's the result, good luck.
Nobody here at Bitter Together Towers is hell bent on destroying Scotland or any other country.
In the event of a yes vote, we will do what's best for us, just like you will. Right now it doesn't look like a currency union is good for us, but that doesn't stop you using the pound, euro, dollar, NOK or any other currency.
In reply to lynx3555:
You are more than welcome to leave. However, if you think you are going to walk out of the door with the family silver and no questions asked, you need to think again.
> When Scotland decides to leave the union through the democratic vote, it should get to do so with out resentment from the ruk
You are more than welcome to leave. However, if you think you are going to walk out of the door with the family silver and no questions asked, you need to think again.
In reply to Removed User:
I must be missing something here. Since the only person saying do as you told seems to be Salmond saying there will be a monetary union.
> I think it's more do with Osborne's speech being perceived as "do as you are f*cking told", prbably not his best move in Scotland tbh
I must be missing something here. Since the only person saying do as you told seems to be Salmond saying there will be a monetary union.
In reply to teflonpete:
Don't really discuss politics much offshore, and nope, don't need to see the doctor...you Britnats can stoop low, nasty bunch really, aren't you.
Don't really discuss politics much offshore, and nope, don't need to see the doctor...you Britnats can stoop low, nasty bunch really, aren't you.
In reply to lynx3555:
You are a right genocidal lunatic, aren't you!
Anyway, more fuel for the Britnats to burn you tartan wearing nats with (twats?) http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scotland-joining-eurovisio...
You are a right genocidal lunatic, aren't you!
Anyway, more fuel for the Britnats to burn you tartan wearing nats with (twats?) http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scotland-joining-eurovisio...
In reply to lynx3555:
How do you know? Isn't that all subject to negotiation? You do realise that negotiating often means you don't get everything you want?
> we will leave with what we are entitled to, no more, no less.
How do you know? Isn't that all subject to negotiation? You do realise that negotiating often means you don't get everything you want?
In reply to tony:
"My tribe is jolly nice. Your tribe is jolly horrid. Yah boo!"
Even chimpanzees can work collectively on a more carefully thought-out basis than this.
"My tribe is jolly nice. Your tribe is jolly horrid. Yah boo!"
Even chimpanzees can work collectively on a more carefully thought-out basis than this.
In reply to tony:
Bully
> How do you know? Isn't that all subject to negotiation? You do realise that negotiating often means you don't get everything you want?
Bully
In reply to lynx3555:
Do you really believe that? Fascinating.
Reading through this thread (why did I bother) you're coming across pretty poorly, not that I imagine you really care. It might be worth extending your off-shore policy of avoiding politics to on-line as well?
Whichever way the vote goes we'll all deal with the fallout eventually I'm sure.
jk
> ...you Britnats can stoop low, nasty bunch really, aren't you.
Do you really believe that? Fascinating.
Reading through this thread (why did I bother) you're coming across pretty poorly, not that I imagine you really care. It might be worth extending your off-shore policy of avoiding politics to on-line as well?
Whichever way the vote goes we'll all deal with the fallout eventually I'm sure.
jk
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Agreed. It's pretty much what you did at 09:42 this morning, though:
"Looking at the news today, and looking at this thread, it really does seem to me now that one side of this debate is just trying to keep things together, normal, sane, and amicable. While the other is trying to stoke up hatred and bitterness between the English and the Scots, and to rip up the script we've been working with--overall with tremendous success--for 300 years.", etc.
Not all supporters of Independence are raving lunatics.
> "My tribe is jolly nice. Your tribe is jolly horrid. Yah boo!"
> Even chimpanzees can work collectively on a more carefully thought-out basis than this.
> Even chimpanzees can work collectively on a more carefully thought-out basis than this.
Agreed. It's pretty much what you did at 09:42 this morning, though:
"Looking at the news today, and looking at this thread, it really does seem to me now that one side of this debate is just trying to keep things together, normal, sane, and amicable. While the other is trying to stoke up hatred and bitterness between the English and the Scots, and to rip up the script we've been working with--overall with tremendous success--for 300 years.", etc.
Not all supporters of Independence are raving lunatics.
In reply to Removed User:
No I didnt. I am just baffled as to how that perception was achieved. Are there really people that clueless?
> You missed the word "perceived".
No I didnt. I am just baffled as to how that perception was achieved. Are there really people that clueless?
In reply to lynx3555:
Entitled to? Makes Scotland sound like the bitch ex-wife trying to get her sticky paws on the man's cash, house, kids and even his dog
> we will leave with what we are entitled to, no more, no less.
Entitled to? Makes Scotland sound like the bitch ex-wife trying to get her sticky paws on the man's cash, house, kids and even his dog
In reply to crayefish:
Nice, a bit of good old fashioned misogyny.
> Entitled to? Makes Scotland sound like the bitch ex-wife trying to get her sticky paws on the man's cash, house, kids and even his dog
Nice, a bit of good old fashioned misogyny.
In reply to Cú Chullain:
Sorry.
The whole negotiation thing does confuse me. For example, the SNP says it wouldn't host UK or NATO nuclear weapons after independence (which I'd support). But what happens if it's nuclear weapons or the £? Given the SNP u-turn on membership on NATO, I can make a guess, but there does seem to be a slightly naive notion from some quarters that negotiations would all be peace and light, with just a few formal crossing of ts and dotting and is, and nobody would be inconvenienced.
> Bully
Sorry.
The whole negotiation thing does confuse me. For example, the SNP says it wouldn't host UK or NATO nuclear weapons after independence (which I'd support). But what happens if it's nuclear weapons or the £? Given the SNP u-turn on membership on NATO, I can make a guess, but there does seem to be a slightly naive notion from some quarters that negotiations would all be peace and light, with just a few formal crossing of ts and dotting and is, and nobody would be inconvenienced.
In reply to lynx3555:
Neanderthal sums you up, doesn't it!
> Aye, Chimpanzee's, that about sums up the "Better Together" mob.
Neanderthal sums you up, doesn't it!
In reply to lynx3555:
Britnat?
Me?
Maybe you just missed all the posts on this and two other threads where I said I can understand the Scots reasons for wanting independence, how I can understand how they wouldn't have much faith in Westminster, how I think that an independent Scotland and rUK could both prosper after separation, how I think that Scotland as part of the UK has already met the criteria for membership of the EU and only have the currency issue to sort out, how Barros is blowing hot air, how I wish Scots the best of luck with their future regardless of the result of the referendum.
The person coming out with most of the xenophobic hatred on this thread is YOU. Hatred of the English, hatred of your fellow Scots who are in the no or undecided camps and sectarian hatred.
> Don't really discuss politics much offshore, and nope, don't need to see the doctor...you Britnats can stoop low, nasty bunch really, aren't you.
Britnat?
Me?
Maybe you just missed all the posts on this and two other threads where I said I can understand the Scots reasons for wanting independence, how I can understand how they wouldn't have much faith in Westminster, how I think that an independent Scotland and rUK could both prosper after separation, how I think that Scotland as part of the UK has already met the criteria for membership of the EU and only have the currency issue to sort out, how Barros is blowing hot air, how I wish Scots the best of luck with their future regardless of the result of the referendum.
The person coming out with most of the xenophobic hatred on this thread is YOU. Hatred of the English, hatred of your fellow Scots who are in the no or undecided camps and sectarian hatred.
In reply to teflonpete:
Lynx3535 is Tim Chappel in disguise and I claim my £5!
> Britnat?
> Me?
> Maybe you just missed all the posts on this and two other threads where I said I can understand the Scots reasons for wanting independence, how I can understand how they wouldn't have much faith in Westminster, how I think that an independent Scotland and rUK could both prosper after separation, how I think that Scotland as part of the UK has already met the criteria for membership of the EU and only have the currency issue to sort out, how Barros is blowing hot air, how I wish Scots the best of luck with their future regardless of the result of the referendum.
> The person coming out with most of the xenophobic hatred on this thread is YOU. Hatred of the English, hatred of your fellow Scots who are in the no or undecided camps and sectarian hatred.
Lynx3535 is Tim Chappel in disguise and I claim my £5!
In reply to jonnie3430:
Bugger, he really had me there! ;0)
> Lynx3535 is Tim Chappel in disguise and I claim my £5!
Bugger, he really had me there! ;0)
In reply to crayefish: it seems that the ruk will not be taking into account the service done by Scotland over the past 300 years, just cast us off, "twoddle off Scotland, see ya". We are entitled to about 10% of The UK's assets, we are entitled to a portion of Antarctica, and we are also entitled to receive fair play and reasonable cooperation during discussions.
In reply to lynx3555:
Do you also want 10% of Gibraltar and the Falklands? Perhaps 10% of Wales and Northern Ireland too?
> we are entitled to a portion of Antarctica
Do you also want 10% of Gibraltar and the Falklands? Perhaps 10% of Wales and Northern Ireland too?
In reply to teflonpete:
Actually I really take offence to the Sectarian comment, if there's one thing that really pisses me off here in Scotland it's the Sectarian bullshit....!
> The person coming out with most of the xenophobic hatred on this thread is YOU. Hatred of the English, hatred of your fellow Scots who are in the no or undecided camps and sectarian hatred.
You are entitled to your opinion....personally I don't do "Hatred".... if I hated the English or anyone else for that matter, I'm sure I would have received a ticking off by now amongst my friends. Actually I really take offence to the Sectarian comment, if there's one thing that really pisses me off here in Scotland it's the Sectarian bullshit....!
In reply to lynx3555:
Gosh - that's one of the odder things I've heard in this discussion!
In reply to tony:
What is the SNP's suggest defence policy position currently? I must say I haven't followed that too carefully, which is silly as defence policy is something I actually know something about! Maybe they should go Nordic and institute conscription for all 18 year olds. It's very popular over here. It sounds like Mr Lynx3555 would be keen to serve.
> we are entitled to a portion of Antarctica
Gosh - that's one of the odder things I've heard in this discussion!
In reply to tony:
What is the SNP's suggest defence policy position currently? I must say I haven't followed that too carefully, which is silly as defence policy is something I actually know something about! Maybe they should go Nordic and institute conscription for all 18 year olds. It's very popular over here. It sounds like Mr Lynx3555 would be keen to serve.
In reply to lynx3555:
In which case, I salute you as a master of disguise. You come across as a ranting loon, whereas you are in fact a mild-mannered and gentle soul. It's not always easy to see through such disguises online.
> You are entitled to your opinion....personally I don't do "Hatred".... if I hated the English or anyone else for that matter, I'm sure I would have received a ticking off by now amongst my friends.
> Actually I really take offence to the Sectarian comment, if there's one thing that really pisses me off here in Scotland it's the Sectarian bullshit....!
In which case, I salute you as a master of disguise. You come across as a ranting loon, whereas you are in fact a mild-mannered and gentle soul. It's not always easy to see through such disguises online.
In reply to crayefish:
We've already got a bid from Spain for our 10% of Gibralter and we're sticking our share of the Falklands on e-bay.
> Do you also want 10% of Gibraltar and the Falklands?
We've already got a bid from Spain for our 10% of Gibralter and we're sticking our share of the Falklands on e-bay.
In reply to TobyA:
According to the White Paper, the intention is to increase to 15,000 the number of regular and 5,000 reserve forces and initial force structures, retain current military bases, buy some ships and remove Trident from Faslane. Membership of NATO is retained, after the u-turn a couple of years ago. There's a belief that withdrawing from support for Trident would free up significant cash to support increased per capita spending.
> Gosh - that's one of the odder things I've heard in this discussion!
> In reply to tony:
> What is the SNP's suggest defence policy position currently?
According to the White Paper, the intention is to increase to 15,000 the number of regular and 5,000 reserve forces and initial force structures, retain current military bases, buy some ships and remove Trident from Faslane. Membership of NATO is retained, after the u-turn a couple of years ago. There's a belief that withdrawing from support for Trident would free up significant cash to support increased per capita spending.
In reply to TobyA:
http://www.scottishtimes.com/anglo_scottish_talks_over_antarctica
And "gosh" why wouldn't we be entitled to a share of Antarctica....plenty of Scots spent a lot of time down around Antarctica and after all it's an asset that we are entitled to have a share of....yet again, the nasty Britnats want to snatch away what is rightfully Scotland's....tut, tut, tut
http://www.scottishtimes.com/anglo_scottish_talks_over_antarctica
And "gosh" why wouldn't we be entitled to a share of Antarctica....plenty of Scots spent a lot of time down around Antarctica and after all it's an asset that we are entitled to have a share of....yet again, the nasty Britnats want to snatch away what is rightfully Scotland's....tut, tut, tut
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I agree Doug, not all of them.
Unfortunately Alex has been behaving like he's been hitting the crack pipe a bit too often lately. Same goes for whenever one those folk for Business for Separatism come on the radio/TV to speak for the SNP.
> Not all supporters of Independence are raving lunatics.
I agree Doug, not all of them.
Unfortunately Alex has been behaving like he's been hitting the crack pipe a bit too often lately. Same goes for whenever one those folk for Business for Separatism come on the radio/TV to speak for the SNP.
In reply to lynx3555:
The location of the Home Rule Boulder., I remember it well through the 70's
> Prior to the battle of Dun Nechain the Angles had just defeated the Britains at Dumbarton Castle (Dumbarton meaning the fort of the Britains),
The location of the Home Rule Boulder., I remember it well through the 70's
In reply to lynx3555:
Obviously: the UK's claim comes from *Scott* of the Antartic.
> And "gosh" why wouldn't we be entitled to a share of Antarctica..
Obviously: the UK's claim comes from *Scott* of the Antartic.
In reply to IainRUK:
Or Cameron's non-debating style.
> That's about the quality of Sturgeon's debating style..
Or Cameron's non-debating style.
In reply to lynx3555:
And what would you like to do with 'your' bit of Antarctica? We've already got plenty of penguins in Edinburgh Zoo.
> And "gosh" why wouldn't we be entitled to a share of Antarctica....plenty of Scots spent a lot of time down around Antarctica and after all it's an asset that we are entitled to have a share of....yet again, the nasty Britnats want to snatch away what is rightfully Scotland's....tut, tut, tut
And what would you like to do with 'your' bit of Antarctica? We've already got plenty of penguins in Edinburgh Zoo.
In reply to tony:
I'm not sure how much of this is naivety and how much is cynicism by a group of people who have spent their entire adult lives working to separate Scotland from the UK and are prepared to do so at any cost.
All they need to do is convince enough people to vote to leave the UK and they've achieved their end. I'm not sure how much they care about how they do that. We know from leaked cabinet documents that what is said in public by the SNP is quite different to what they acknowledge amongst themselves.
> Sorry.
> Given the SNP u-turn on membership on NATO, I can make a guess, but there does seem to be a slightly naive notion from some quarters that negotiations would all be peace and light,
I'm not sure how much of this is naivety and how much is cynicism by a group of people who have spent their entire adult lives working to separate Scotland from the UK and are prepared to do so at any cost.
All they need to do is convince enough people to vote to leave the UK and they've achieved their end. I'm not sure how much they care about how they do that. We know from leaked cabinet documents that what is said in public by the SNP is quite different to what they acknowledge amongst themselves.
In reply to tony:
I'm sure we could keep a few climbers/ scientists employed and based in Antarctica....
I'm sure we could keep a few climbers/ scientists employed and based in Antarctica....
In reply to PeterM:
Just watched it on TV , he seems to think that after a yes vote, he will be in the driving seat, and all parties will want to keep Scottish revenues including oil, within the Sterling Zone and be beating a path to his door to court him.
(Seems unlikely, but they are all politicians,you can't trust anything they say)
> Me neither. I had a quick look at the BBC website, but this didn't make it clearer. What exactly is he proposing will happen? I don't quite understand what he's getting at.
Just watched it on TV , he seems to think that after a yes vote, he will be in the driving seat, and all parties will want to keep Scottish revenues including oil, within the Sterling Zone and be beating a path to his door to court him.
(Seems unlikely, but they are all politicians,you can't trust anything they say)
In reply to Redacted:
Why debate? There is nothing to debate.
They are right. Look how the SNP have acted 'you bullies'
So in 5 years time we share the economy, Scotland want to raise interest we want it to drop.. 85% of the currency want lower.. 15% want higher.. rUK gets their way.. then 'you bully'...
Its just unworkable.. any sane person can see that.
> Or Cameron's non-debating style.
Why debate? There is nothing to debate.
They are right. Look how the SNP have acted 'you bullies'
So in 5 years time we share the economy, Scotland want to raise interest we want it to drop.. 85% of the currency want lower.. 15% want higher.. rUK gets their way.. then 'you bully'...
Its just unworkable.. any sane person can see that.
In reply to tony:
But we would be tied to the ECB(Germany) if it was the Euro so either way another country would dictate the above,so what's the difference ?
We don't want rid of anyone,we(many of us)just want to be a nation again ....that fought and died for your....oop ! sorry about that.
> Except under the proposals to carry on using the Pound, Scotland doesn't get financial independence. It has to rely on a foreign bank for decisions on interest rates and exchange rates, would be reliant on a foreign bank to the lender of last resort, would have to agree borrowing and spending with a foreign bank.
But we would be tied to the ECB(Germany) if it was the Euro so either way another country would dictate the above,so what's the difference ?
> Funny kind of independence, tying yourself to a foreign country you've just been trying to get rid of.
We don't want rid of anyone,we(many of us)just want to be a nation again ....that fought and died for your....oop ! sorry about that.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Aye and the bitter together campaign has Orange loyalists and fascists that like to shout about some Queen or other(i don't think it's the pop group)and attack Catholics.
So, what ?
> The Yes campaign has backers who think the clearances were the ...
Aye and the bitter together campaign has Orange loyalists and fascists that like to shout about some Queen or other(i don't think it's the pop group)and attack Catholics.
So, what ?
In reply to tony:
Oil, it's all about the oil. ;0)
> And what would you like to do with 'your' bit of Antarctica? We've already got plenty of penguins in Edinburgh Zoo.
Oil, it's all about the oil. ;0)
In reply to Postmanpat: and as for Barraso....
Quote: "This is not the first time that Mr Barroso's sentiments have been trumpeted in this way, and given that he repeats them regularly it will presumably not be the last.
So far none of the mainstream media reports have really questioned the basis of Mr Barroso's claim – a bizarre comparison between Scotland, which is pursuing a constitutional referendum on the issue of statehood, and Kosovo, which has attempted an unconstitutional secession. They have not reported what the Spanish government has actually said (as distinct from what it is being assumed or implied to have said). Nor have they pointed out that Mr Barroso's opinion cannot simply be taken as that of the European Commission, which has protocol on such issues, but is rather the personal viewpoint of a conservative Portugese politician with a particular agenda."
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/20167
Quote: "This is not the first time that Mr Barroso's sentiments have been trumpeted in this way, and given that he repeats them regularly it will presumably not be the last.
So far none of the mainstream media reports have really questioned the basis of Mr Barroso's claim – a bizarre comparison between Scotland, which is pursuing a constitutional referendum on the issue of statehood, and Kosovo, which has attempted an unconstitutional secession. They have not reported what the Spanish government has actually said (as distinct from what it is being assumed or implied to have said). Nor have they pointed out that Mr Barroso's opinion cannot simply be taken as that of the European Commission, which has protocol on such issues, but is rather the personal viewpoint of a conservative Portugese politician with a particular agenda."
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/20167
In reply to teflonpete:
Wtf is that garbage all about ?
Who the hell are you ?
> I really think you need to see a doctor. How the boys on the rig put up with you for weeks on end I have no idea.
Wtf is that garbage all about ?
Who the hell are you ?
In reply to lynx3555:
You realise what most of world thinks of all the sovereignty claims over Antarctica don't you? I would have thought that the last thing a progressive, social democratic Scotland would want to do once independent would be to start grasping at the last few pathetic shreds of the British imperial legacy saying "mine! mine! Go away rest of the world, this is our stretch of an uninhabited continent 10,000 kms away! Hands of! All mine!!!".
BTW, there is precedent on this but it doesn't favour Scotland; when the USSR broke up, Russia took over the Soviet antarctic claim, Ukraine for example didn't claim a 20% slice of the Soviet claim.
You realise what most of world thinks of all the sovereignty claims over Antarctica don't you? I would have thought that the last thing a progressive, social democratic Scotland would want to do once independent would be to start grasping at the last few pathetic shreds of the British imperial legacy saying "mine! mine! Go away rest of the world, this is our stretch of an uninhabited continent 10,000 kms away! Hands of! All mine!!!".
BTW, there is precedent on this but it doesn't favour Scotland; when the USSR broke up, Russia took over the Soviet antarctic claim, Ukraine for example didn't claim a 20% slice of the Soviet claim.
In reply to IainRUK:
Perhaps there are many more issues other than the one you sited that should be debated,either way Hooray Henry won't do it.At least our wee Nicola is.
> Why debate? There is nothing to debate.
Perhaps there are many more issues other than the one you sited that should be debated,either way Hooray Henry won't do it.At least our wee Nicola is.
In reply to TobyA:
Well, not really, but it will be likely that Scottish Scientists will be interested in having the facility.
> BTW, there is precedent on this but it doesn't favour Scotland; when the USSR broke up, Russia took over the Soviet antarctic claim, Ukraine for example didn't claim a 20% slice of the Soviet claim.
I really don't understand why anyone would think that we wouldn't have our share, we have a shared history with the place....I'd trust us more with it than a ruk Tory government...they'd frack the shit out of the place were as the Scots will likely just cover it with wind turbines Well, not really, but it will be likely that Scottish Scientists will be interested in having the facility.
In reply to lynx3555:
Which Scottish scientists will that be, the ones working at rUK universities perhaps?
Which Scottish scientists will that be, the ones working at rUK universities perhaps?
In reply to lynx3555:
Quite apart from anything else, I would have thought it was well worth postponing any serious discussion of separation for at least 25 years to avoid any danger of Alex Salmond having anything to do with it.
Quite apart from anything else, I would have thought it was well worth postponing any serious discussion of separation for at least 25 years to avoid any danger of Alex Salmond having anything to do with it.
In reply to Redacted:
'....that fought and died for your....oop ! sorry about that. '
C'mon Shona, finish the sentence, I have no idea what you were about to say.
'....that fought and died for your....oop ! sorry about that. '
C'mon Shona, finish the sentence, I have no idea what you were about to say.
In reply to Redacted:
Nice of you to start slagging the English.
Nicola has nothing to do with me, or most Scots for that matter.
> Perhaps there are many more issues other than the one you sited that should be debated,either way Hooray Henry won't do it.At least our wee Nicola is.
Nice of you to start slagging the English.
Nicola has nothing to do with me, or most Scots for that matter.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
He's the best they've got.
Good piece of deconstruction by Brian Wilson (Labour politician) on Alex here: http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-salmond-loses-round-of-call-my-bl...
"Bluff, bluster and bullying – nobody is better qualified to recognise these commodities than Alex Salmond and if he wants to see them personified he need only look in the political mirror.
On the two biggest issues affecting jobs, savings and pensions – EU membership and the currency – Salmond has cynically sought to mislead the people of Scotland, using exactly the tactics of which he now complains. Bluff, bluster and bullying. Heaven help the dissenter who questioned his groundless assertions.
The “legal advice” on which he based his claims about an entitlement to remain in the EU never existed – a prolonged deception which should not be forgiven or forgotten. By the same token, there has never been a shred of evidence to support his central contention that a currency union would be acceptable to the state from which he wants to separate."
He's the best they've got.
Good piece of deconstruction by Brian Wilson (Labour politician) on Alex here: http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-salmond-loses-round-of-call-my-bl...
"Bluff, bluster and bullying – nobody is better qualified to recognise these commodities than Alex Salmond and if he wants to see them personified he need only look in the political mirror.
On the two biggest issues affecting jobs, savings and pensions – EU membership and the currency – Salmond has cynically sought to mislead the people of Scotland, using exactly the tactics of which he now complains. Bluff, bluster and bullying. Heaven help the dissenter who questioned his groundless assertions.
The “legal advice” on which he based his claims about an entitlement to remain in the EU never existed – a prolonged deception which should not be forgiven or forgotten. By the same token, there has never been a shred of evidence to support his central contention that a currency union would be acceptable to the state from which he wants to separate."
In reply to Removed User:
I like wee Brian Wilson,he used to be quite a wee Commie back in the day i'm told.
> Nice of you to start slagging the English.
Thanks,it's good fun you should give it a go.> Nicola has nothing to do with me, or most Scots for that matter.
She's not in my Party either but i like her fighting spirit.I like wee Brian Wilson,he used to be quite a wee Commie back in the day i'm told.
Post edited at 20:07
In reply to graeme jackson:
I've been making the argument on here that an "independent" Scotland which kept the pound would actually have less autonomy than it currently has. Because they currently have a say on fiscal policy at Westminster, because they currently send MPS to Westminster. After a Yes vote, they would just have to accept whatever the Treasury did, in the interests of the population of rUK, and not, any more, in the interests of the UK including Scotland.
But enough about me. Here's Douglas Fraser on the BBC website making the same point:
'Embedded in Treasury thinking is an instinct to fight its corner ferociously, even with departments in its own government.
And all the more firmly embedded after the banking and Eurozone crisis, it protects its own independence.
But just suppose they do a U-turn on negotiating a deal after a 'Yes' vote, it's worth noting two sentences in particular from Scotland Analysis: Assessment of a sterling currency union.
"Regular monitoring of an independent Scottish state's fiscal position by the continuing UK would be required in a currency union, including some mechanism for intervention and correction if fiscal risks to the stability of the currency union were to arise.
"These constraints would limit a future Scottish government's ability to use fiscal policy to support the economy."
In other words, Treasury officials from London would treat the Scottish Treasury as accountable to them, requiring regular updates, with London expecting to have the power to overturn spending and taxation decisions.
That's more power than it currently has over Holyrood.'
I've been making the argument on here that an "independent" Scotland which kept the pound would actually have less autonomy than it currently has. Because they currently have a say on fiscal policy at Westminster, because they currently send MPS to Westminster. After a Yes vote, they would just have to accept whatever the Treasury did, in the interests of the population of rUK, and not, any more, in the interests of the UK including Scotland.
But enough about me. Here's Douglas Fraser on the BBC website making the same point:
'Embedded in Treasury thinking is an instinct to fight its corner ferociously, even with departments in its own government.
And all the more firmly embedded after the banking and Eurozone crisis, it protects its own independence.
But just suppose they do a U-turn on negotiating a deal after a 'Yes' vote, it's worth noting two sentences in particular from Scotland Analysis: Assessment of a sterling currency union.
"Regular monitoring of an independent Scottish state's fiscal position by the continuing UK would be required in a currency union, including some mechanism for intervention and correction if fiscal risks to the stability of the currency union were to arise.
"These constraints would limit a future Scottish government's ability to use fiscal policy to support the economy."
In other words, Treasury officials from London would treat the Scottish Treasury as accountable to them, requiring regular updates, with London expecting to have the power to overturn spending and taxation decisions.
That's more power than it currently has over Holyrood.'
Post edited at 20:28
In reply to Redacted:
>>Nice of you to start slagging the English.
Just listen to them.
>>Nice of you to start slagging the English.
> Thanks,it's good fun you should give it a go.
Just listen to them.
In reply to Removed User:
You'll need to do better than Brian Wilson, now theirs a turn coat...once a member of the SNP you know, switched to Labour at the same time he set up the West Highland Free press...in 1978 he was chairman of the "Labour Vote No Campaign", which called for a "no" vote in the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979 on whether to have a Scottish Assembly. So I'm sure you won't get a none bias article written by him.
You'll need to do better than Brian Wilson, now theirs a turn coat...once a member of the SNP you know, switched to Labour at the same time he set up the West Highland Free press...in 1978 he was chairman of the "Labour Vote No Campaign", which called for a "no" vote in the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979 on whether to have a Scottish Assembly. So I'm sure you won't get a none bias article written by him.
In reply to Removed User:
Calling Osborne a Hooray Henry doesn't really count as "slagging the English" TBH. I think of the current cabinet in much the same way.
Calling Osborne a Hooray Henry doesn't really count as "slagging the English" TBH. I think of the current cabinet in much the same way.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
This increasingly seems like a half baked idea that has got legs it doesn't deserve because of a combination of circumstances (oily chancer as 1st minister, grim recession, half baked Tory economics that as ever ignored social consequences) that could turn into something really serious.
It's becoming childish, petulant and nasty, when those adjectives are applied to politics then it can become very nasty indeed.
The SNP has not prepared the case yet for independence. It's not enough to say 'ah well, with a bit of good will it'll all come out in the wash.' If Salmond wants genuine independence (whatever that might look like in the context of the EU, a shared currency, NATO and all the rest) then he should have the humility and bottle to recognise it's a 25 year project. He can start that project now and have a decent enough place in history; what he's doing is massively destabilising a complex situation with no thought of the possible consequences other than the possibility of becoming King Jock the First.
And anyone who thinks that shaking things up like he's doing might not have tragic outcomes has learnt nothing from history.
This increasingly seems like a half baked idea that has got legs it doesn't deserve because of a combination of circumstances (oily chancer as 1st minister, grim recession, half baked Tory economics that as ever ignored social consequences) that could turn into something really serious.
It's becoming childish, petulant and nasty, when those adjectives are applied to politics then it can become very nasty indeed.
The SNP has not prepared the case yet for independence. It's not enough to say 'ah well, with a bit of good will it'll all come out in the wash.' If Salmond wants genuine independence (whatever that might look like in the context of the EU, a shared currency, NATO and all the rest) then he should have the humility and bottle to recognise it's a 25 year project. He can start that project now and have a decent enough place in history; what he's doing is massively destabilising a complex situation with no thought of the possible consequences other than the possibility of becoming King Jock the First.
And anyone who thinks that shaking things up like he's doing might not have tragic outcomes has learnt nothing from history.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I totally agree.
I think it's relatively easy to predict that the referendum will result in a No, somewhere between 30/70 and 40/60. What's harder to tell is the long-term damage to England's and Scotland's common life, to our mutual trust and respect.
The trouble with this referendum is, it's bringing out the loons and the haters. So far as I can see, Salmond is happy for this to happen if it serves his end of separation. And that really worries me.
I totally agree.
I think it's relatively easy to predict that the referendum will result in a No, somewhere between 30/70 and 40/60. What's harder to tell is the long-term damage to England's and Scotland's common life, to our mutual trust and respect.
The trouble with this referendum is, it's bringing out the loons and the haters. So far as I can see, Salmond is happy for this to happen if it serves his end of separation. And that really worries me.
Post edited at 20:50
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Lighten up for god sake Tim,Your sphincter is tighter than a Tory fist that's holding on to a fiver.Surely you have been in Scotland long enough to recognize a bit of banter when you see it ?
> >>Nice of you to start slagging the English.
> Thanks,it's good fun you should give it a go.
> Thanks,it's good fun you should give it a go.
> Just listen to them.
Lighten up for god sake Tim,Your sphincter is tighter than a Tory fist that's holding on to a fiver.Surely you have been in Scotland long enough to recognize a bit of banter when you see it ?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
How to put the nationalist genie back in the bottle? All-together type things like the Olympics help. Anything coming up or planned in 2015?
How to put the nationalist genie back in the bottle? All-together type things like the Olympics help. Anything coming up or planned in 2015?
In reply to lynx3555:
I never knew that,cheers.
> You'll need to do better than Brian Wilson, now theirs a turn coat..
I never knew that,cheers.
Post edited at 20:55
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> The trouble with this referendum is, it's bringing out the loons and the haters.
By that you mean anyone that disagrees with youIn reply to lynx3555:
So who do you think would write a good non biased article?
Seems like there will be very few people left who wont show a bias towards one side or the other.
> So I'm sure you won't get a none bias article written by him.
So who do you think would write a good non biased article?
Seems like there will be very few people left who wont show a bias towards one side or the other.
In reply to Redacted:
So if you make racist remarks about the English, that's banter?
Remind me: if I make racist remarks about the Scots, what's that? Is that banter too?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
So if you make racist remarks about the English, that's banter?
Remind me: if I make racist remarks about the Scots, what's that? Is that banter too?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Post edited at 21:02
In reply to dissonance:
His credentials lean very much against independence, and have been for a long time.
His credentials lean very much against independence, and have been for a long time.
In reply to MG:
Dunno. I'll have some friends round for drinks, maybe, and probably loads of them will be Scottish. Assuming, that is, I haven't been deported by then for being English. (Deported in a playful, banterish manner, to be sure.)
> How to put the nationalist genie back in the bottle? All-together type things like the Olympics help. Anything coming up or planned in 2015?
Dunno. I'll have some friends round for drinks, maybe, and probably loads of them will be Scottish. Assuming, that is, I haven't been deported by then for being English. (Deported in a playful, banterish manner, to be sure.)
Post edited at 21:14
In reply to Tim Chappell:
oh dear !Where to start !You know what i can't be arsed tbh,you carry on thinking we all hate the English if it gives you a wee bit of excitement in your life Tim.And don't let anyone tell you any different.
oh dear !Where to start !You know what i can't be arsed tbh,you carry on thinking we all hate the English if it gives you a wee bit of excitement in your life Tim.And don't let anyone tell you any different.
In reply to Tim Chappell: you know, the English have a lot of derogatory terms/ words they use to describe us Scots, quite a few nasty ones I can think off...I can't think of one single word, I or any other Scot that I know uses, to describe an Englishman.....other than just "An Englishman"
Whereas we get called "Jocks", "Sweaty Socks", Porridge wogs" and the list goes on......
I
Whereas we get called "Jocks", "Sweaty Socks", Porridge wogs" and the list goes on......
I
In reply to Redacted:
It's not hatred that is the problem currently. It's that large parts of the population in Scotland and England (mainly) are growing resentful of each other and being egged on by the likes of Salmond and Co. on one side and the loonier parts of the Tory party on the other. Every one loses as a result and its very difficult to overcome that sort of feeling in the longer term, whatever the result of the referendum.
It's not hatred that is the problem currently. It's that large parts of the population in Scotland and England (mainly) are growing resentful of each other and being egged on by the likes of Salmond and Co. on one side and the loonier parts of the Tory party on the other. Every one loses as a result and its very difficult to overcome that sort of feeling in the longer term, whatever the result of the referendum.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Maybe they made the mistake of examining the facts instead of anticipating ill-informed tirades from imperial fantasists.
Maybe they noticed that there is a list of viable currency alternatives.
Maybe they noticed that in practice countries can use almost any currency they like.
Maybe they noticed that Scotland is already in the EU.
Maybe they noticed that it takes years to leave the EU.
Maybe they noticed that Scotland already operates EU law and taxation.
Maybe they have examined the examples of those leaving and joining the EU.
Maybe they understand that in every other similar event around the world, once armed conflict has been discounted, practical diplomacy emerges.
> ... the SNP when they started this ball rolling had apparently not thought through any of the three biggest practical issues facing them about independence: (1) currency, (2) EU membership, (3) Schengen membership. ...
Maybe they made the mistake of examining the facts instead of anticipating ill-informed tirades from imperial fantasists.
Maybe they noticed that there is a list of viable currency alternatives.
Maybe they noticed that in practice countries can use almost any currency they like.
Maybe they noticed that Scotland is already in the EU.
Maybe they noticed that it takes years to leave the EU.
Maybe they noticed that Scotland already operates EU law and taxation.
Maybe they have examined the examples of those leaving and joining the EU.
Maybe they understand that in every other similar event around the world, once armed conflict has been discounted, practical diplomacy emerges.
In reply to lynx3555:
'English cnut' seems to do the trick in my experience.
> you know, the English have a lot of derogatory terms/ words they use to describe us Scots, quite a few nasty ones I can think off...I can't think of one single word, I or any other Scot that I know uses, to describe an Englishman.....other than just "An Englishman"
> Whereas we get called "Jocks", "Sweaty Socks", Porridge wogs" and the list goes on......
'English cnut' seems to do the trick in my experience.
In reply to MG:
It would be nice if we could get away from the playground for a minute, wouldn't it?
A bit up this thread I posted some remarks from Douglas Fraser of the BBC. They constituted, like, an argument, with premisses and conclusions and logical connections and everything. You know, actual fact-based discourse, as opposed to racist jeering.
Could the spokesmen for separatism on here possibly apply their no doubt prodigious intellectual powers to responding to those?
It would be nice if we could get away from the playground for a minute, wouldn't it?
A bit up this thread I posted some remarks from Douglas Fraser of the BBC. They constituted, like, an argument, with premisses and conclusions and logical connections and everything. You know, actual fact-based discourse, as opposed to racist jeering.
Could the spokesmen for separatism on here possibly apply their no doubt prodigious intellectual powers to responding to those?
In reply to Jim Fraser:
So name one. Just one.
> Maybe they noticed that there is a list of viable currency alternatives.
So name one. Just one.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
It would appear they noticed none or few of those things and certainly didn't factor them in to their thinking. Which is rather bizarre really given they have had decades to plan for this but then produced a White Paper that is just a list of assertions, aspirations and assumptions. It's quite laughably bad. Now that they are being undermined one by one from various quarters they are getting upset.
It would appear they noticed none or few of those things and certainly didn't factor them in to their thinking. Which is rather bizarre really given they have had decades to plan for this but then produced a White Paper that is just a list of assertions, aspirations and assumptions. It's quite laughably bad. Now that they are being undermined one by one from various quarters they are getting upset.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
'Maybe they understand that in every other similar event around the world, once armed conflict has been discounted, practical diplomacy emerges. '
Yep, we can of course discount any sort of physical nastiness. After all, no one in N Ireland - 80 miles away? - ever resorted to any sort of violence once their claim to sovereignty was knocked back, did they? Far too civilised for that.
'Maybe they understand that in every other similar event around the world, once armed conflict has been discounted, practical diplomacy emerges. '
Yep, we can of course discount any sort of physical nastiness. After all, no one in N Ireland - 80 miles away? - ever resorted to any sort of violence once their claim to sovereignty was knocked back, did they? Far too civilised for that.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Too simple. Just keep using the pound. It's not a new approach. So long as one believes that the English economy has a sound future, it looks like a relatively safe approach.
> So name one. Just one.
Too simple. Just keep using the pound. It's not a new approach. So long as one believes that the English economy has a sound future, it looks like a relatively safe approach.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Tim doesn't want us to use the Pound, the pounds not allowed.....he's all for giving the Scots a good thrashing and giving them nowt....
Tim doesn't want us to use the Pound, the pounds not allowed.....he's all for giving the Scots a good thrashing and giving them nowt....
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Then see the piece by Douglas Fraser, and my repeated argument that if a post-yes Scotland were to do this then it would have LESS autonomy than it has now, not more.
This is one fundamental reason why the argument for independence simply does not add up. But there are plenty more.
Actually it looks like economic free-riding, unworthy of and inappropriate for a supposedly independent nation with a long and proud history of, among other things, banking.
What I'd like to come out of this process is a deal, both for the rUK and for Scotland, that gives both sides the best future possible. If there is any evidence at all that the way to achieve this outcome is to vote Yes on Sept.18, I have yet to see it. And there's stacks of evidence the other way.
> Too simple. Just keep using the pound.
Then see the piece by Douglas Fraser, and my repeated argument that if a post-yes Scotland were to do this then it would have LESS autonomy than it has now, not more.
This is one fundamental reason why the argument for independence simply does not add up. But there are plenty more.
> So long as one believes that the English economy has a sound future, it looks like a relatively safe approach.
Actually it looks like economic free-riding, unworthy of and inappropriate for a supposedly independent nation with a long and proud history of, among other things, banking.
What I'd like to come out of this process is a deal, both for the rUK and for Scotland, that gives both sides the best future possible. If there is any evidence at all that the way to achieve this outcome is to vote Yes on Sept.18, I have yet to see it. And there's stacks of evidence the other way.
Post edited at 21:48
In reply to lynx3555:
Are you going to back that up with facts?
Or do you still not get the difference between using a currency and having an actual say in it via a monetary union?
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
> Tim doesn't want us to use the Pound, the pounds not allowed
> Tim doesn't want us to use the Pound, the pounds not allowed
Are you going to back that up with facts?
Or do you still not get the difference between using a currency and having an actual say in it via a monetary union?
In reply to lynx3555:
So ... you use the pound, OK rUK can't stop you. You need to borrow x billion to pay for your social fund, or whatever. rUK has a wobble, which you have no control over, and you suddenly have to pay increased interest, if you can pay at all.
This hasn't been thought through at all.
How about adopting the dollar, the influence of the Scots economy on he dollar will be minimal so at least you'll know where you stand.
So ... you use the pound, OK rUK can't stop you. You need to borrow x billion to pay for your social fund, or whatever. rUK has a wobble, which you have no control over, and you suddenly have to pay increased interest, if you can pay at all.
This hasn't been thought through at all.
How about adopting the dollar, the influence of the Scots economy on he dollar will be minimal so at least you'll know where you stand.
In reply to lynx3555:
Forget about Tim and forget about the pound. Use penguins as your currency, there's billions of them Scotland's bit of the Antarctic.
> Tim doesn't want us to use the Pound, the pounds not allowed.....he's all for giving the Scots a good thrashing and giving them nowt....
Forget about Tim and forget about the pound. Use penguins as your currency, there's billions of them Scotland's bit of the Antarctic.
In reply to Tim Chappell: After just reading his personal profile I could see that you're just promoting another Britnat voice piece......
"Hullo, I'm Douglas Fraser, and I'm business and economy editor at BBC Scotland. Welcome to my blog, where you can read my take on money matters, viewed from a Scottish perspective."
The BBC are a disgraceful bunch of rogues and I wouldn't beleive anything they say on this subject.
"Hullo, I'm Douglas Fraser, and I'm business and economy editor at BBC Scotland. Welcome to my blog, where you can read my take on money matters, viewed from a Scottish perspective."
The BBC are a disgraceful bunch of rogues and I wouldn't beleive anything they say on this subject.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Or say (I know it's an absurd idea) a major Scottish bank goes bankrupt and Scotland stacks of cash to prop it up....
Or say (I know it's an absurd idea) a major Scottish bank goes bankrupt and Scotland stacks of cash to prop it up....
In reply to dissonance:
Diss, I've got a spare bit of wall here if you need it, the rest of it's covered in dents the shape of my head.
> Are you going to back that up with facts?
> Or do you still not get the difference between using a currency and having an actual say in it via a monetary union?
Diss, I've got a spare bit of wall here if you need it, the rest of it's covered in dents the shape of my head.
In reply to teflonpete:
I've got it. I know what they should use...
http://www.thechocolatereview.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tunnocks-milk-...
I've got it. I know what they should use...
http://www.thechocolatereview.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tunnocks-milk-...
In reply to lynx3555:
In four years of living in Scotland I was abused only twice on the basis of where I was born. In those cases they seemed happy enough to go with the simple "you f***ing English..." or "you English-f***er". So you don't really need a rude word specifically for every nationality; language is flexible like that eh? I'm sure Poles, Somalis, Syrians and others who the haters haven't produced a good insult specifically for yet, face racist slurs along similar linguistic lines in the UK now from time to time.
BTW, have you been called any of those things you've stated here? Are they things that Scots living in England often get called?
In four years of living in Scotland I was abused only twice on the basis of where I was born. In those cases they seemed happy enough to go with the simple "you f***ing English..." or "you English-f***er". So you don't really need a rude word specifically for every nationality; language is flexible like that eh? I'm sure Poles, Somalis, Syrians and others who the haters haven't produced a good insult specifically for yet, face racist slurs along similar linguistic lines in the UK now from time to time.
BTW, have you been called any of those things you've stated here? Are they things that Scots living in England often get called?
Post edited at 21:53
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
For all its proximity, a ludicrous example.
However, I commend the practical diplomacy that continues to emerge in NI every day.
And nip out and buy a new ruler. It's 12 miles away.
> 'Maybe they understand that in every other similar event around the world, once armed conflict has been discounted, practical diplomacy emerges. '
> Yep, we can of course discount any sort of physical nastiness. After all, no one in N Ireland - 80 miles away? - ever resorted to any sort of violence once their claim to sovereignty was knocked back, did they? Far too civilised for that.
For all its proximity, a ludicrous example.
However, I commend the practical diplomacy that continues to emerge in NI every day.
And nip out and buy a new ruler. It's 12 miles away.
In reply to MG:
Keep the banks small...if they go bust then tough....I like Iceland's model, they did the right thing.
Keep the banks small...if they go bust then tough....I like Iceland's model, they did the right thing.
In reply to TobyA:
At one stage in my life I lived in Edinburgh for two years. At a later stage (the present one) I moved to Dundee. Some little scrotes in a park in Dundee were vandalising the swings that my toddler daughters were playing on. I asked them to stop. They called me a f*cking wanker and went away.
And then I did a double take, and realised the difference from living in Edinburgh: they hadn't called me a f*cking English wanker.
Great place, Dundee. Much less racism than in the central belt. One of the many things I love about it.
At one stage in my life I lived in Edinburgh for two years. At a later stage (the present one) I moved to Dundee. Some little scrotes in a park in Dundee were vandalising the swings that my toddler daughters were playing on. I asked them to stop. They called me a f*cking wanker and went away.
And then I did a double take, and realised the difference from living in Edinburgh: they hadn't called me a f*cking English wanker.
Great place, Dundee. Much less racism than in the central belt. One of the many things I love about it.
In reply to TobyA: I got called "jock" and "sweaty Sock" while working in London, you know, at first it didn't bother me but after a while it got a bit boring.
In reply to teflonpete:
its an entertaining break from the code review I am doing. I do wonder how many people are confusing the two since it would explain the otherwise bizarre outrage.
> Diss, I've got a spare bit of wall here if you need it, the rest of it's covered in dents the shape of my head.
its an entertaining break from the code review I am doing. I do wonder how many people are confusing the two since it would explain the otherwise bizarre outrage.
Post edited at 22:07
In reply to lynx3555:
On behalf of my compatriots, I would like to apologise to you for any offence that this caused.
You're right; racism is very boring.
On behalf of my compatriots, I would like to apologise to you for any offence that this caused.
You're right; racism is very boring.
In reply to lynx3555:
Brill! I hadn't heard 2/3 of them.
> Whereas we get called "Jocks", "Sweaty Socks", Porridge wogs" and the list goes on......
Brill! I hadn't heard 2/3 of them.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
But only as part of the EU-member state the United Kingdom. That's the problem for the EU, this situation is unprecedented so they don't know how it should work.
It's fascinating how this could (or could not!) work.
> Maybe they noticed that Scotland is already in the EU.
But only as part of the EU-member state the United Kingdom. That's the problem for the EU, this situation is unprecedented so they don't know how it should work.
It's fascinating how this could (or could not!) work.
In reply to lynx3555:
Playing to imperialist and germanic stereotypes again eh? That's sure to bring us round!
Talking of germanic, you missed out the local translation of Englishman.
> Tim doesn't want us to use the Pound, the pounds not allowed.....he's all for giving the Scots a good thrashing and giving them nowt....
Playing to imperialist and germanic stereotypes again eh? That's sure to bring us round!
Talking of germanic, you missed out the local translation of Englishman.
In reply to MG:
Yeah nice summary
"ut just suppose they do a U-turn on negotiating a deal after a 'Yes' vote, it's worth noting two sentences in particular from Scotland Analysis: Assessment of a sterling currency union.
"Regular monitoring of an independent Scottish state's fiscal position by the continuing UK would be required in a currency union, including some mechanism for intervention and correction if fiscal risks to the stability of the currency union were to arise.
"These constraints would limit a future Scottish government's ability to use fiscal policy to support the economy."
In other words, Treasury officials from London would treat the Scottish Treasury as accountable to them, requiring regular updates, with London expecting to have the power to overturn spending and taxation decisions.
That's more power than it currently has over Holyrood, and without any hint in the assessment that such an intrusion into an independent nation's finances would be reciprocated."
Thats the key bit for me, and why I just don't get it. If they want independence then they should not want to share the pound, there's just no way they wouldn't be dictated to by the rUK..
Yeah nice summary
"ut just suppose they do a U-turn on negotiating a deal after a 'Yes' vote, it's worth noting two sentences in particular from Scotland Analysis: Assessment of a sterling currency union.
"Regular monitoring of an independent Scottish state's fiscal position by the continuing UK would be required in a currency union, including some mechanism for intervention and correction if fiscal risks to the stability of the currency union were to arise.
"These constraints would limit a future Scottish government's ability to use fiscal policy to support the economy."
In other words, Treasury officials from London would treat the Scottish Treasury as accountable to them, requiring regular updates, with London expecting to have the power to overturn spending and taxation decisions.
That's more power than it currently has over Holyrood, and without any hint in the assessment that such an intrusion into an independent nation's finances would be reciprocated."
Thats the key bit for me, and why I just don't get it. If they want independence then they should not want to share the pound, there's just no way they wouldn't be dictated to by the rUK..
In reply to Jim Fraser: I was tempted to add "Sasanach", but literally it just translates to mean Saxon....I guess the highlanders had anger in there voices when they uttered that word.
In reply to lynx3555:
Dont be such a soft lad. I've lived or spent time in NZ, the States, Scotland and Wales and have played ball sports in most of these countries.. you get all sorts of insults.. if you were ginger you'd be insulted for that, fat for that, english for that, scottish for that.. its just life, grow a pair and have a laugh back.
> I got called "jock" and "sweaty Sock" while working in London, you know, at first it didn't bother me but after a while it got a bit boring.
Dont be such a soft lad. I've lived or spent time in NZ, the States, Scotland and Wales and have played ball sports in most of these countries.. you get all sorts of insults.. if you were ginger you'd be insulted for that, fat for that, english for that, scottish for that.. its just life, grow a pair and have a laugh back.
In reply to TobyA:
Get up to date Toby. It's not the European Coal and Steel Community any more.
And it's not unprecedented either.
Get up to date Toby. It's not the European Coal and Steel Community any more.
And it's not unprecedented either.
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't need to "man up" thank you, I'm sure you would soon get sick of some Aussie bloke calling you pommie all day, and the next day.......
> Dont be such a soft lad. I've lived or spent time in NZ, the States, Scotland and Wales and have played ball sports in most of these countries.. you get all sorts of insults.. if you were ginger you'd be insulted for that, fat for that, english for that, scottish for that.. its just life, grow a pair and have a laugh back.
I don't need to "man up" thank you, I'm sure you would soon get sick of some Aussie bloke calling you pommie all day, and the next day.......
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Anything else on that list of yours, Jim?
Fair play to you, you are at least trying to argue the case, rather than shouting childish insults like all the other separatists on here at the moment.
The trouble is, trying to argue the case looks like one hell of an uphill struggle. It's clear that some find the insults easier.
(Though actually they even manage to go wrong with their preferred race-obsessed discourse; for instance, 'Sassanach' in Gaelic often means 'Lowlander'. Cp. my comment about Edinburgh and Northumbria above.)
Anything else on that list of yours, Jim?
Fair play to you, you are at least trying to argue the case, rather than shouting childish insults like all the other separatists on here at the moment.
The trouble is, trying to argue the case looks like one hell of an uphill struggle. It's clear that some find the insults easier.
(Though actually they even manage to go wrong with their preferred race-obsessed discourse; for instance, 'Sassanach' in Gaelic often means 'Lowlander'. Cp. my comment about Edinburgh and Northumbria above.)
Post edited at 22:20
In reply to lynx3555:
So the fact that you have been the subject of some low level racism justifies your persistent xenophobia.
So the fact that you have been the subject of some low level racism justifies your persistent xenophobia.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
It doesn't mean low lander it means Saxon
From Old Irish Saxanach; synchronically Sasana +‎ -ach; derived from the Irish word meaning "Saxon" (compare Welsh Saesneg.)
> (Though actually they even manage to go wrong with their preferred race-obsessed discourse; for instance, 'Sassanach' in Gaelic often means 'Lowlander'. Cp. my comment about Edinburgh and Northumbria above.)
It doesn't mean low lander it means Saxon
From Old Irish Saxanach; synchronically Sasana +‎ -ach; derived from the Irish word meaning "Saxon" (compare Welsh Saesneg.)
In reply to lynx3555:
I lived in NZ it was bloody constant.. seriously if that upsets you so much then you have anger issues..
> I don't need to "man up" thank you, I'm sure you would soon get sick of some Aussie bloke calling you pommie all day, and the next day.......
I lived in NZ it was bloody constant.. seriously if that upsets you so much then you have anger issues..
In reply to Graeme Alderson: no, personally I wasn't that bothered by it...if you know Londoners, they have a bit of a superiority thing going on.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I am used to it. Look at some of my larger contributions on UKC like the SAR Helicopter Service threads. Fact-based discussion pushing aside bullshit and fantasy.
> The trouble is, trying to argue the case looks like one hell of an uphill struggle.
I am used to it. Look at some of my larger contributions on UKC like the SAR Helicopter Service threads. Fact-based discussion pushing aside bullshit and fantasy.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
You forgot to mention the complete fabrication bit Tim. It seems there are a few on here arguing that they should be able to use the pound and no one is saying they can't. As Dissonance says, it seems some seperatists are incapable of recognising the difference between having a share of assets and monetary union.
Even Donald isn't arguing about it!
> Anything else on that list of yours, Jim?
> Fair play to you, you are at least trying to argue the case, rather than shouting childish insults like all the other separatists on here at the moment.
> The trouble is, trying to argue the case looks like one hell of an uphill struggle. It's clear that some find the insults easier.
> (Though actually they even manage to go wrong with their preferred race-obsessed discourse; for instance, 'Sassanach' in Gaelic often means 'Lowlander'. Cp. my comment about Edinburgh and Northumbria above.)
You forgot to mention the complete fabrication bit Tim. It seems there are a few on here arguing that they should be able to use the pound and no one is saying they can't. As Dissonance says, it seems some seperatists are incapable of recognising the difference between having a share of assets and monetary union.
Even Donald isn't arguing about it!
In reply to lynx3555:
Really? Thanks for pointing that out.
> ...if you know Londoners, they have a bit of a superiority thing going on.
Really? Thanks for pointing that out.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I'm not sure that it does. The Gaelic word for 'lowlander' (or 'stranger') is gall.
> for instance, 'Sassanach' in Gaelic often means 'Lowlander'
I'm not sure that it does. The Gaelic word for 'lowlander' (or 'stranger') is gall.
In reply to lynx3555:
You don't seem to have a very clear grasp of who was behind the Clearances though.
> My knowledge of Scottish history is very extensive and varied,
You don't seem to have a very clear grasp of who was behind the Clearances though.
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Sorley Maclean uses "sasanach" to mean "Lowlander", in The Cuillin. (An excellent poem about the clearances, too, though it has a bit of a tendency to demonise Edinburgh lawyers.)
There's a hill somewhere called Meall nan Sasanaich; I've seen the name translated as "Hill of the Lowlander".
My deeper point is that the racial demonising of the Saxons is idiotic and offensive in lots of ways, but not least of these is that, on any accurate racial history of the UK, most of the indigenous Scots south of the Forth and east of the M74 are very probably Saxons.
Sorley Maclean uses "sasanach" to mean "Lowlander", in The Cuillin. (An excellent poem about the clearances, too, though it has a bit of a tendency to demonise Edinburgh lawyers.)
There's a hill somewhere called Meall nan Sasanaich; I've seen the name translated as "Hill of the Lowlander".
My deeper point is that the racial demonising of the Saxons is idiotic and offensive in lots of ways, but not least of these is that, on any accurate racial history of the UK, most of the indigenous Scots south of the Forth and east of the M74 are very probably Saxons.
Post edited at 22:51
In reply to Jim Fraser:
So then, this evening I asked for sensible arguments for their case from the nationalist side. And I've seen precisely nothing.
The nearest we've got has been from Jim Fraser, but even he hasn't done any arguing. Jim has promised a list of alternative options to currency union, but actually produced just one alternative. And he's said nothing about the obvious objections that I and thousands of others have pointed out face that alternative.
Meanwhile there's been plenty of pretty repellent tribalism, racial mysticism, muddled history, and straightforward racism.
Is that it? Do the Yes campaign's advocates on here have anything else?
So then, this evening I asked for sensible arguments for their case from the nationalist side. And I've seen precisely nothing.
The nearest we've got has been from Jim Fraser, but even he hasn't done any arguing. Jim has promised a list of alternative options to currency union, but actually produced just one alternative. And he's said nothing about the obvious objections that I and thousands of others have pointed out face that alternative.
Meanwhile there's been plenty of pretty repellent tribalism, racial mysticism, muddled history, and straightforward racism.
Is that it? Do the Yes campaign's advocates on here have anything else?
Post edited at 23:05
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I have a very strong grasp of who was behind the clearances..and I am fully aware of who policed the clearances. Yes, a few Scots, particularly the duke of Sutherland played a big role in what was a shameful event...but ultimately the act of Union was the catalyst and then the systematic persecution inflicted by the UK government....very similar to Ireland's plight under the UK's rule.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
>
We can probably add them to lynxy's little list then.
>
> My deeper point is that the racial demonising of the Saxons is idiotic and offensive in lots of ways, but not least of these is that, on any accurate racial history of the UK, most of the indigenous Scots south of the Forth and east of the M74 are very probably Saxons.
We can probably add them to lynxy's little list then.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Have you got some DNA results to back up that claim....for a brief period in Edinburgh's long history the English had control, and you think they totally wiped out the local population in the Lothians....Replaced them with the superior Saxon farmers....don't think so.
> Sorley Maclean uses "sasanach" to mean "Lowlander", in The Cuillin.
> There's a hill somewhere called Meall nan Sasanaich; I've seen the name translated as "Hill of the Lowlander".
It means Saxon and nothing else...> My deeper point is that the racial demonising of the Saxons is idiotic and offensive in lots of ways, but not least of these is that, on any accurate racial history of the UK, most of the indigenous Scots south of the Forth and east of the M74 are very probably Saxons.
Have you got some DNA results to back up that claim....for a brief period in Edinburgh's long history the English had control, and you think they totally wiped out the local population in the Lothians....Replaced them with the superior Saxon farmers....don't think so.
Post edited at 23:07
In reply to Postmanpat:
Phew. Not much on this thread this evening in the way of argument for separatism, is there? Just rancorously muddled history, racial mysticism, and, let's face it, straightforward racism.
Two honourable exceptions: Douglas, who's been perfectly nice but hasn't actually made any arguments, and Jim, who has offered one currency option from a list that he says he has, but hasn't argued for that option or addressed the obvious objections to it that I and Douglas Fraser have pointed out.
Is that it, then?
Phew. Not much on this thread this evening in the way of argument for separatism, is there? Just rancorously muddled history, racial mysticism, and, let's face it, straightforward racism.
Two honourable exceptions: Douglas, who's been perfectly nice but hasn't actually made any arguments, and Jim, who has offered one currency option from a list that he says he has, but hasn't argued for that option or addressed the obvious objections to it that I and Douglas Fraser have pointed out.
Is that it, then?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Lynx is wolfie smith and I claim my £5.
> We can probably add them to lynxy's little list then.
Lynx is wolfie smith and I claim my £5.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Naedanger is Wolfie so you can't have your fiver.
Lynx is more Alf Garnett
Naedanger is Wolfie so you can't have your fiver.
Lynx is more Alf Garnett
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Iceland uses its Krona, Man uses the pound, Luxembourg used the Belgian franc, and now the Euro, but still the world turns, the sun shines and the sky does not fall in.
Countries the size of the Highland and Islands survive out there but Scotland with 5 million well-educated and skilled people with well-developed agriculture, banking and financial services, oil and gas, manufacturing and power generation is told it is going to struggle.
They are even saying that oil and gas will be a disadvantage to Scotland because of the volatility caused by oil prices. (Better warn Norges Bank Investment Management!)
You know, I think we might just get over it.
The real truth is that running a country isn't all that special. Lot's of people do it. In northern Europe, we are all quite good at it. The UK is a bit of a lack-lustre economic performer in relation to regional norms but struggles through in spite of its institutionalised post-imperial neurosese.
Iceland uses its Krona, Man uses the pound, Luxembourg used the Belgian franc, and now the Euro, but still the world turns, the sun shines and the sky does not fall in.
Countries the size of the Highland and Islands survive out there but Scotland with 5 million well-educated and skilled people with well-developed agriculture, banking and financial services, oil and gas, manufacturing and power generation is told it is going to struggle.
They are even saying that oil and gas will be a disadvantage to Scotland because of the volatility caused by oil prices. (Better warn Norges Bank Investment Management!)
You know, I think we might just get over it.
The real truth is that running a country isn't all that special. Lot's of people do it. In northern Europe, we are all quite good at it. The UK is a bit of a lack-lustre economic performer in relation to regional norms but struggles through in spite of its institutionalised post-imperial neurosese.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
>but Scotland with 5 million well-educated and skilled people
Not sure all of them fit your description. 49% of them are below average intelligence
>but Scotland with 5 million well-educated and skilled people
Not sure all of them fit your description. 49% of them are below average intelligence
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Wow, see what participation in UKC discussions has done for your brain power
Wow, see what participation in UKC discussions has done for your brain power
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Yes, this does sound like many of the arguments of the No campaign.
- true for all of the UK and not just Scotland
- bleeding obvious to the other 51%
- completely irrelevant
> >but Scotland with 5 million well-educated and skilled people
> Not sure all of them fit your description. 49% of them are below average intelligence
Yes, this does sound like many of the arguments of the No campaign.
- true for all of the UK and not just Scotland
- bleeding obvious to the other 51%
- completely irrelevant
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I suppose one of the basic reasons for independence is people's desire to stand on their own feet. I feel that if Scotland can stand on its own feet then it should, I'm also aware that is a personal opinion which I don't expect everybody to agree with. Iain's consistently made point about the currency union - the remainder of the UK having to act in effect as guarantor - is spot on. There's independence and inter-dependence, I think I've got a grip on both but a currency union would exceed the latter so much as to make a mockery of independence, and why would the remainder of the UK put itself in that position? On the other hand if Scotland can't stand on its own feet then we should be looking at the UK setup and wondering why that is, just think a second on how this debate would be panning out if England had decided to have a vote on independence and we were discussing the same currency and EU membership. I can't say I'd be happy thinking Scotland relies on largesse from our larger neighbour to get by, and I don't think that is the case.
The thread is descending into personal attack and that is a shame as I'm sure there are a few people with the vote still seeking answers and answers come from everywhere these days - including UKC. Personally I don't need all the answers, most of those will come on a vote for independence, to me that is what it kind of stands for - the party putting out the manifesto for independence may be voted out after any Yes vote, I've met many who say they should cease to exist after such a vote having achieved their job. I still think I'm going to end up in the minority with a Yes vote but whatever happens I'd like to think the Scots and English can remain friends - with a bit of banter of course. Keep it civil folks, I know emotions sometimes run high but I've seen rancour on both sides - we (UK) are demonstrating to the world how grown up about these things we can be. I've deleted or not pushed submit with most of my posts on this thread and similar, I've no desire to get into a long winded debate which would descend into argument on the internet but I'll leave this one - maybe
Ach, sod it "submit message".
I suppose one of the basic reasons for independence is people's desire to stand on their own feet. I feel that if Scotland can stand on its own feet then it should, I'm also aware that is a personal opinion which I don't expect everybody to agree with. Iain's consistently made point about the currency union - the remainder of the UK having to act in effect as guarantor - is spot on. There's independence and inter-dependence, I think I've got a grip on both but a currency union would exceed the latter so much as to make a mockery of independence, and why would the remainder of the UK put itself in that position? On the other hand if Scotland can't stand on its own feet then we should be looking at the UK setup and wondering why that is, just think a second on how this debate would be panning out if England had decided to have a vote on independence and we were discussing the same currency and EU membership. I can't say I'd be happy thinking Scotland relies on largesse from our larger neighbour to get by, and I don't think that is the case.
The thread is descending into personal attack and that is a shame as I'm sure there are a few people with the vote still seeking answers and answers come from everywhere these days - including UKC. Personally I don't need all the answers, most of those will come on a vote for independence, to me that is what it kind of stands for - the party putting out the manifesto for independence may be voted out after any Yes vote, I've met many who say they should cease to exist after such a vote having achieved their job. I still think I'm going to end up in the minority with a Yes vote but whatever happens I'd like to think the Scots and English can remain friends - with a bit of banter of course. Keep it civil folks, I know emotions sometimes run high but I've seen rancour on both sides - we (UK) are demonstrating to the world how grown up about these things we can be. I've deleted or not pushed submit with most of my posts on this thread and similar, I've no desire to get into a long winded debate which would descend into argument on the internet but I'll leave this one - maybe
Ach, sod it "submit message".
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Erm, actually the sky did fall in on Iceland. If you remember.
Comparing Man with Scotland is like comparing Colwyn Bay with Scotland.
As for Luxembourg, they gave up their own currency and joined the Belgian Franc, then gave up the FrB and joined the Euro, for a reason: because not being in a larger economic and political union was costly, wasteful, and divisive. Ring any bells?
In any case, none of this addresses the argument I actually made, which was that when it comes to fiscal autonomy for Scotland, Yes means less.
Two good reasons for thinking that are the obvious point I made, about a post-Yes Scotland having zero political representation at Westminster, and the points from the Treasury that Douglas Fraser makes.
Care to comment on any of this at all?
Erm, actually the sky did fall in on Iceland. If you remember.
Comparing Man with Scotland is like comparing Colwyn Bay with Scotland.
As for Luxembourg, they gave up their own currency and joined the Belgian Franc, then gave up the FrB and joined the Euro, for a reason: because not being in a larger economic and political union was costly, wasteful, and divisive. Ring any bells?
In any case, none of this addresses the argument I actually made, which was that when it comes to fiscal autonomy for Scotland, Yes means less.
Two good reasons for thinking that are the obvious point I made, about a post-Yes Scotland having zero political representation at Westminster, and the points from the Treasury that Douglas Fraser makes.
Care to comment on any of this at all?
Post edited at 23:46
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Was trying to think up a suitable response to 'whinging ginger' and 'jock' today but all I could think of was the Monty Python Belgian sketch.
youtube.com/watch?v=19fcN3VaXs4&
Was trying to think up a suitable response to 'whinging ginger' and 'jock' today but all I could think of was the Monty Python Belgian sketch.
youtube.com/watch?v=19fcN3VaXs4&
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Great link, thanks, put a smile on my face.
Ps not all jocks are gingers, not all gingers are jocks but all gingers are of course gingers
Great link, thanks, put a smile on my face.
Ps not all jocks are gingers, not all gingers are jocks but all gingers are of course gingers
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Compared to what?
Debt peaked at 99.1% GDP and now dropping. UK debt at 88.7% GDP in 2012, rising, and forecast 99% GDP for 2014.
Icelandic GDP per capita remains ahead of the UK.
A chequered history there because people kept invading them. When Luxembourg started using Francs on a par with Belgian Francs, I don't think currency had been made as complicated as it is these days. I don't think they ever had an independent floating currency. Too busy counting other people's money and making a fortune out of it anyway. They top the ILO's table of world average wages by a healthy margin.
> Erm, actually the sky did fall in on Iceland. If you remember.
Compared to what?
Debt peaked at 99.1% GDP and now dropping. UK debt at 88.7% GDP in 2012, rising, and forecast 99% GDP for 2014.
Icelandic GDP per capita remains ahead of the UK.
> As for Luxembourg, they gave up their own currency and joined the Belgian Franc, then gave up the FrB and joined the Euro, for a reason: because not being in a larger economic and political union was costly, wasteful, and divisive. Ring any bells?
A chequered history there because people kept invading them. When Luxembourg started using Francs on a par with Belgian Francs, I don't think currency had been made as complicated as it is these days. I don't think they ever had an independent floating currency. Too busy counting other people's money and making a fortune out of it anyway. They top the ILO's table of world average wages by a healthy margin.
In reply to lynx3555:
Not getting involved in this debate but what do these mean? Thanks.
> I got called "jock" and "sweaty Sock" while working in London, you know, at first it didn't bother me but after a while it got a bit boring.
Not getting involved in this debate but what do these mean? Thanks.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
I'd be wary about using Iceland as a good comparison to Scotland. By population it would be more akin to Edinburgh becoming independent, except that Edinburgh is bigger.
I'd be wary about using Iceland as a good comparison to Scotland. By population it would be more akin to Edinburgh becoming independent, except that Edinburgh is bigger.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Again, I'm not sure that this is the case. I think recent DNA studies have indicated that 'indigenous' people throughout Britain are genetically very similar (the main exception being the Northern Isles, which are of course Norse). So genetically we're all 'Celts', it's just that in most of England and the areas of Scotland that you mention, people started speaking English, initially under the influence of an Anglo-Saxon elite.
(Which kind of reinforces the point you were making, I know...)
> on any accurate racial history of the UK, most of the indigenous Scots south of the Forth and east of the M74 are very probably Saxons.
Again, I'm not sure that this is the case. I think recent DNA studies have indicated that 'indigenous' people throughout Britain are genetically very similar (the main exception being the Northern Isles, which are of course Norse). So genetically we're all 'Celts', it's just that in most of England and the areas of Scotland that you mention, people started speaking English, initially under the influence of an Anglo-Saxon elite.
(Which kind of reinforces the point you were making, I know...)
In reply to Postmanpat: Nice short piece from Iain MacWhirter....so I wasn't the only one outraged at Barroso's remarks, particularly comparing us with Kosovo!!! No disrespect to Kosovo but......
"Mr Barroso may think he is doing the UK a good turn here, but he will get precious little reward. It will make no difference to David Cameron’s determination to hold a referendum on withdrawal from the EU. But it will make the one country in the UK that supports the EU think seriously about the whole project. Even as the UK is threatening to leave, here is the president trying to prevent Scotland from staying in.
The president of the EU is going beyond his remit with this attempt to interfere with the democratic processes in a member nation – and remember Scotland remained a nation despite the union with England in 1707. It is the voice of a bureaucrat who clearly has no understanding of British and Scottish history. There can be only one possible response: no way Jose."
http://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/no-way-jose-scotland-is-not-...
"Mr Barroso may think he is doing the UK a good turn here, but he will get precious little reward. It will make no difference to David Cameron’s determination to hold a referendum on withdrawal from the EU. But it will make the one country in the UK that supports the EU think seriously about the whole project. Even as the UK is threatening to leave, here is the president trying to prevent Scotland from staying in.
The president of the EU is going beyond his remit with this attempt to interfere with the democratic processes in a member nation – and remember Scotland remained a nation despite the union with England in 1707. It is the voice of a bureaucrat who clearly has no understanding of British and Scottish history. There can be only one possible response: no way Jose."
http://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/no-way-jose-scotland-is-not-...
In reply to lynx3555:
very few, if any have defended Barrosso. He's played right into the SNP's hands, letting them play the bully card and align it with osbornes sensible, predictable statement.
Your comments on Kosovo were ignorant.
There is no threat from the UK to leave the EU.
You've still not explained how a shared currency can work when one of the major partners is far greater in size and contribution? You live in cuckoo land if you think the rUK would enact policies which damage the rUK but would help Scotland..
A clean split is far better for Scotland.
very few, if any have defended Barrosso. He's played right into the SNP's hands, letting them play the bully card and align it with osbornes sensible, predictable statement.
Your comments on Kosovo were ignorant.
There is no threat from the UK to leave the EU.
You've still not explained how a shared currency can work when one of the major partners is far greater in size and contribution? You live in cuckoo land if you think the rUK would enact policies which damage the rUK but would help Scotland..
A clean split is far better for Scotland.
In reply to lynx3555:
Apart from anything else, I'm not entirely convinced in the credibility of an article that describes the 5 year process of negotiation for Latvia to join the EU as "a nanosecond", dramatic license notwithstanding.
Apart from anything else, I'm not entirely convinced in the credibility of an article that describes the 5 year process of negotiation for Latvia to join the EU as "a nanosecond", dramatic license notwithstanding.
In reply to lynx3555:
It is interesting to see the difference of language used. Mr Borroso said he thought it unlikely. The rhetoric from the likes of yourself seem to say it is a done deal. I am sure the application may well be accepted, but it requires every member state to vote for Scotland to enter. It is at this point that politics kicks in and the rule book goes out of the window. What does Scotland have to offer Europe?
It is interesting to see the difference of language used. Mr Borroso said he thought it unlikely. The rhetoric from the likes of yourself seem to say it is a done deal. I am sure the application may well be accepted, but it requires every member state to vote for Scotland to enter. It is at this point that politics kicks in and the rule book goes out of the window. What does Scotland have to offer Europe?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Did you see the Channel 4 poll results? Not for the queemish....
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1bjntrrT_1zy4eEdG8FNAPJB_-usej61UgerYAD3t-g...
Did you see the Channel 4 poll results? Not for the queemish....
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1bjntrrT_1zy4eEdG8FNAPJB_-usej61UgerYAD3t-g...
In reply to Postmanpat:
And the poll on the "No Scotland" website....how embarrassing that must be for the No Scotland group....
No 9.05% (5,193 votes)
Yes 90.95% (52,168 votes)
Total Votes: 57,361
And the poll on the "No Scotland" website....how embarrassing that must be for the No Scotland group....
No 9.05% (5,193 votes)
Yes 90.95% (52,168 votes)
Total Votes: 57,361
In reply to lynx3555:
What pointless questions. The currency one in particular its meaningless.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> Did you see the Channel 4 poll results? Not for the queemish....
> Did you see the Channel 4 poll results? Not for the queemish....
What pointless questions. The currency one in particular its meaningless.
In reply to ByEek:
We have lots to offer, in fact we are currently contributing to Europe and have been for some time.
Oil, manufacturing, farming, huge sea territories, engineering, food and drinks industry, nice place to go on holiday....etc...etc
We have lots to offer, in fact we are currently contributing to Europe and have been for some time.
Oil, manufacturing, farming, huge sea territories, engineering, food and drinks industry, nice place to go on holiday....etc...etc
In reply to lynx3555:
And he's as mistaken as you too. Scotland is not in the EU as a member state. Shite article too, just to get to that punch-line, although I thought he was Portuguese not Spanish.
And he's as mistaken as you too. Scotland is not in the EU as a member state. Shite article too, just to get to that punch-line, although I thought he was Portuguese not Spanish.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
You're not missing much.
> Your link doesn't work for me. What does it say?
You're not missing much.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
On there online poll...yes 86% and when asked if they thought Scotland should keep the pound and allowed access into Europe it was pretty much the same....
On there online poll...yes 86% and when asked if they thought Scotland should keep the pound and allowed access into Europe it was pretty much the same....
In reply to lynx3555:
Did the they also say yes when asked if there should be free money for everyone and 50 bank holidays a year?
Did the they also say yes when asked if there should be free money for everyone and 50 bank holidays a year?
In reply to lynx3555:
Ok. And on the monetary union issue, the people who will actually make the decision (George Osbourne/Ed Balls) what did they say?
I would like to see an opinion poll asking 63m citizens of UK if they would like monetary union with an independent Scotland.
I don't know, but I suspect it would be split approximately 60.5m against a monetary union vs 2.5m for.So GO and EB seem to have understood the implications better than AS and NS.But i'm only guessing.
Ok. And on the monetary union issue, the people who will actually make the decision (George Osbourne/Ed Balls) what did they say?
I would like to see an opinion poll asking 63m citizens of UK if they would like monetary union with an independent Scotland.
I don't know, but I suspect it would be split approximately 60.5m against a monetary union vs 2.5m for.So GO and EB seem to have understood the implications better than AS and NS.But i'm only guessing.
In reply to PeterM:
You're Chambers and I claim my £5
> It's a cashless society - no currency and everything is free...
You're Chambers and I claim my £5
In reply to lynx3555:
Actually the question didnt say that. it said should they be allowed. Which isnt necessarily the same thing. For example if I was Scottish I might think we should be allowed to join the EU but might actually be against doing so.
The question about Sterling is even worse since it doesnt cover what is meant by "keeping the pound".
> (In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus)
> On there online poll...yes 86% and when asked if they thought Scotland should keep the pound and allowed access into Europe it was pretty much the same....
> On there online poll...yes 86% and when asked if they thought Scotland should keep the pound and allowed access into Europe it was pretty much the same....
Actually the question didnt say that. it said should they be allowed. Which isnt necessarily the same thing. For example if I was Scottish I might think we should be allowed to join the EU but might actually be against doing so.
The question about Sterling is even worse since it doesnt cover what is meant by "keeping the pound".
In reply to IainRUK:
..apart from the small matter of a referendum on leaving the EU promised by the current government in 2017.
> There is no threat from the UK to leave the EU.
..apart from the small matter of a referendum on leaving the EU promised by the current government in 2017.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
That's if the Tories get a majority at the next election.... unlikely.
> ..apart from the small matter of a referendum on leaving the EU promised by the current government in 2017.
That's if the Tories get a majority at the next election.... unlikely.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I find it quite paradoxical that the Yes campiagn want to break away from the Union that is Scotland-UK.... but remain in the larger Union that is Europe.
I find it quite paradoxical that the Yes campiagn want to break away from the Union that is Scotland-UK.... but remain in the larger Union that is Europe.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I'm sure they'll waffle the same old threats.....Scotland is a prosperous, well off country, that won't be of ANY risk to the £, actually, if you give it a chance you'll no doubt find that it benefits you. Only a nasty Spiteful ruk would deny Scotland this. On top of that you further insult us by portraying an independent Scotland, maintaining a monitory union of sorts with the ruk, as some kind of threat to your currency!!
> Ok. And on the monetary union issue, the people who will actually make the decision (George Osbourne/Ed Balls) what did they say?
I'm sure they'll waffle the same old threats.....Scotland is a prosperous, well off country, that won't be of ANY risk to the £, actually, if you give it a chance you'll no doubt find that it benefits you. Only a nasty Spiteful ruk would deny Scotland this. On top of that you further insult us by portraying an independent Scotland, maintaining a monitory union of sorts with the ruk, as some kind of threat to your currency!!
> I would like to see an opinion poll asking 63m citizens of UK if they would like monetary union with an independent Scotland.
So would I......> I don't know, but I suspect it would be split approximately 60.5m against a monetary union vs 2.5m for.So GO and EB seem to have understood the implications better than AS and NS.But i'm only guessing.
So, what you are trying to say here is, Scotland faces the "Spiteful" revenge from 60 million rabid ruk citizens? Children, babies and old people as well?> So, what you are trying to say here is, Scotland faces the "Spiteful" revenge from 60 million rabid ruk citizens? Children, babies and old people as well?
What? Now the old can't vote or have an opinion? Dammit....I'll be old soon..
In reply to Papillon:
As unlikely as a Tory lib dem alliance seemed before the last election? The point is, the no campaign cannot argue with any degree of certainty that voting to stay in the uk will keep us in europe. There is an element of risk either way.
> That's if the Tories get a majority at the next election.... unlikely.
As unlikely as a Tory lib dem alliance seemed before the last election? The point is, the no campaign cannot argue with any degree of certainty that voting to stay in the uk will keep us in europe. There is an element of risk either way.
In reply to lynx3555:
We seem to be covering old ground here, but what the hell....Can you explain to us what benefit there is for the rUK to maintain a currency union with iScotland? Or do you think the rUK owe it to iScotland to hand hold them all the way and backstop/protect all iScotlands future and existing debts?
You seem to think there is no risk to rUK and that it's just a spiteful nasty revengeful attack on you... which is delusional and pretty worrying if you are not in a tiny minority!
We seem to be covering old ground here, but what the hell....Can you explain to us what benefit there is for the rUK to maintain a currency union with iScotland? Or do you think the rUK owe it to iScotland to hand hold them all the way and backstop/protect all iScotlands future and existing debts?
You seem to think there is no risk to rUK and that it's just a spiteful nasty revengeful attack on you... which is delusional and pretty worrying if you are not in a tiny minority!
In reply to lynx3555:
The author of that, Jim Fraser further up and yourself are seeing this through the prism of British politics, like Peter Hitchens here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560410/PETER-HITCHENS-We-ask-Scots...
The truth is Hitchens is completely wrong.... the last thing the powerful countries of Europe want is a blueprint for succesful and easy split for national separatists. Basques and Catalans are the obvious ones but if it looks easy you'll get the Bretons , Bavarians, Walloon ect There's loads of sleeping nationalist movements all over Europe and the last thing the EU wants is to wake them up..... they've got other things to worry about.
> Nice short piece from Iain MacWhirter....so I wasn't the only one outraged at Barroso's remarks, particularly comparing us with Kosovo!!! No disrespect to Kosovo but......
> "Mr Barroso may think he is doing the UK a good turn here, but he will get precious little reward. It will make no difference to David Cameron’s determination to hold a referendum on withdrawal from the EU. But it will make the one country in the UK that supports the EU think seriously about the whole project. Even as the UK is threatening to leave, here is the president trying to prevent Scotland from staying in.
The author of that, Jim Fraser further up and yourself are seeing this through the prism of British politics, like Peter Hitchens here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560410/PETER-HITCHENS-We-ask-Scots...
The truth is Hitchens is completely wrong.... the last thing the powerful countries of Europe want is a blueprint for succesful and easy split for national separatists. Basques and Catalans are the obvious ones but if it looks easy you'll get the Bretons , Bavarians, Walloon ect There's loads of sleeping nationalist movements all over Europe and the last thing the EU wants is to wake them up..... they've got other things to worry about.
Post edited at 10:59
In reply to Jon Wylie:
That was quite likely... I expected it, just didn't realise how daft Clegg was.
Ok, but I would say the less risky way is a 'no' vote.
> As unlikely as a Tory lib dem alliance seemed before the last election?
That was quite likely... I expected it, just didn't realise how daft Clegg was.
> The point is, the no campaign cannot argue with any degree of certainty that voting to stay in the uk will keep us in europe. There is an element of risk either way.
Ok, but I would say the less risky way is a 'no' vote.
In reply to Papillon:
I have to admit, I just didn't see it coming at all. I've never voted lib dem but if I had I'd probably be quite annoyed with myself right now.
As a public sector worker, my wages have been frozen (or below inflation rises) for longer than I care to remember. I pay more for fuel than many people in Europe yet crude is being picked up less than 100 miles away. At the same time a government I never voted for are patronising me with statements about economic recovery. The nhs is being slowly destroyed down South by farming out to private medical companies who are major Conservative party benefactors.There is no guarantee any of this will change going independent but I for one have had enough of successive Tory governments and a Labour Party which is now indistinguishable from the conservatives
> That was quite likely... I expected it, just didn't realise how daft Clegg was.
I have to admit, I just didn't see it coming at all. I've never voted lib dem but if I had I'd probably be quite annoyed with myself right now.
> Ok, but I would say the less risky way is a 'no' vote.
Yeah, I mean well probably just agree to differ there. On both sides of that argument there is an element, at least, of gut feeling. I think, though, what irks many people is that the no camp often profess to be dealing in absolute certainties when this isn't reality. The same goes for the yes camp I guess: it's just politics. As a public sector worker, my wages have been frozen (or below inflation rises) for longer than I care to remember. I pay more for fuel than many people in Europe yet crude is being picked up less than 100 miles away. At the same time a government I never voted for are patronising me with statements about economic recovery. The nhs is being slowly destroyed down South by farming out to private medical companies who are major Conservative party benefactors.There is no guarantee any of this will change going independent but I for one have had enough of successive Tory governments and a Labour Party which is now indistinguishable from the conservatives
In reply to Papillon:
That comment is full of the usual incorrect Britnat fear mongering.....Scotland "is, and has been for a very long time", a COUNTRY...even the Spannish leader acknowledged this when he gave his response, he could clearly see the difference between Scotland campaign and the campaign in Catalan.
Some how the Britnats have convinced themselves that Scotland is a wee Shire, and that the right for Scotland to have its independence was stamped out long ago..
> The truth is Hitchens is completely wrong.... the last thing the powerful countries of Europe want is a blueprint for succesful and easy split for national separatists. Basques and Catalans are the obvious ones but if it looks easy you'll get the Bretons , Bavarians, Walloon ect There's loads of sleeping nationalist movements all over Europe and the last thing the EU wants is to wake them up..... they've got other things to worry about.
That comment is full of the usual incorrect Britnat fear mongering.....Scotland "is, and has been for a very long time", a COUNTRY...even the Spannish leader acknowledged this when he gave his response, he could clearly see the difference between Scotland campaign and the campaign in Catalan.
Some how the Britnats have convinced themselves that Scotland is a wee Shire, and that the right for Scotland to have its independence was stamped out long ago..
In reply to lynx3555:
It's not spite it's weighing the risk of having to bail out a Scottish bank, versus the benefits of having to bail out that bank. At the moment I don't see an upside for the UK.
> So, what you are trying to say here is, Scotland faces the "Spiteful" revenge from 60 million rabid ruk citizens? Children, babies and old people as well?
It's not spite it's weighing the risk of having to bail out a Scottish bank, versus the benefits of having to bail out that bank. At the moment I don't see an upside for the UK.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
"As a public sector worker, my wages have been frozen (or below inflation rises) for longer than I care to remember. I pay more for fuel than many people in Europe yet crude is being picked up less than 100 miles away. At the same time a government I never voted for are patronising me with statements about economic recovery. The nhs is being slowly destroyed.."
..with you up to here. I thought you were talking about the Scottish lot...but the english lot are no different I suppose
"As a public sector worker, my wages have been frozen (or below inflation rises) for longer than I care to remember. I pay more for fuel than many people in Europe yet crude is being picked up less than 100 miles away. At the same time a government I never voted for are patronising me with statements about economic recovery. The nhs is being slowly destroyed.."
..with you up to here. I thought you were talking about the Scottish lot...but the english lot are no different I suppose
In reply to 999thAndy:
With the amount of flooding down there if bailing out is going to be needed I'd be much more worried about Canary Wharf and the Bank of England.
> It's not spite it's weighing the risk of having to bail out a Scottish bank, versus the benefits of having to bail out that bank. At the moment I don't see an upside for the UK.
With the amount of flooding down there if bailing out is going to be needed I'd be much more worried about Canary Wharf and the Bank of England.
In reply to Papillon:
I couldn't agree more. There isn't much to argue about with regard to Scotland's technical right to apply for EU membership. However, each state has to vote on Scotland's entry and that is where it becomes political. Like you say, there are many regions of Europe whose quest for independence goes against many of the principals of the European project. There is also the recent bitter memories of many of Europe's smaller nations trying to punch above their financial weight. Had Scotland been in Europe as a separate country in 2008, it would have been in the same boat as Ireland.
> The truth is Hitchens is completely wrong.... the last thing the powerful countries of Europe want is a blueprint for succesful and easy split for national separatists. Basques and Catalans are the obvious ones but if it looks easy you'll get the Bretons , Bavarians, Walloon ect There's loads of sleeping nationalist movements all over Europe and the last thing the EU wants is to wake them up..... they've got other things to worry about.
I couldn't agree more. There isn't much to argue about with regard to Scotland's technical right to apply for EU membership. However, each state has to vote on Scotland's entry and that is where it becomes political. Like you say, there are many regions of Europe whose quest for independence goes against many of the principals of the European project. There is also the recent bitter memories of many of Europe's smaller nations trying to punch above their financial weight. Had Scotland been in Europe as a separate country in 2008, it would have been in the same boat as Ireland.
In reply to lynx3555:
We're doing no such thing. It isn't in Scotland's or rUK's best interests to be tied together with monetary union.
I know you said up thread that you're not an economist, and neither am I, but just think about this for a moment.
If you take what is rightfully yours in assets and debt from the UK economy, in pounds, and set up your own monetary system with it, you're in control of your own interest rates on loans and mortgages, your government can put more money into or out of circulation to adjust what your money is worth in comparison to the dollar and euro. You can do these things purely to suit yourselves, whatever is best for Scotland and no one else.
rUK can do the same.
If there was monetary union between rUK and Scotland, you'd end up with those things being set by the bigger partner because rUK would be the majority stakeholder.
How would that make things different to how they are for Scotland now? The whole point of independence was for you to earn and spend your money how you wanted without rUK holding the purse strings.
Again, no one is suggesting that Scotland should not get it's fair share of pound notes, of course it should, Scots earned those pound notes just the same as the rest of us did, but post independence, you spend and invest yours how it suits you and so will we.
How is that anti Scottish or forcing you to do anything?
> I'm sure they'll waffle the same old threats.....Scotland is a prosperous, well off country, that won't be of ANY risk to the £, actually, if you give it a chance you'll no doubt find that it benefits you. Only a nasty Spiteful ruk would deny Scotland this. On top of that you further insult us by portraying an independent Scotland, maintaining a monitory union of sorts with the ruk, as some kind of threat to your currency!!
We're doing no such thing. It isn't in Scotland's or rUK's best interests to be tied together with monetary union.
I know you said up thread that you're not an economist, and neither am I, but just think about this for a moment.
If you take what is rightfully yours in assets and debt from the UK economy, in pounds, and set up your own monetary system with it, you're in control of your own interest rates on loans and mortgages, your government can put more money into or out of circulation to adjust what your money is worth in comparison to the dollar and euro. You can do these things purely to suit yourselves, whatever is best for Scotland and no one else.
rUK can do the same.
If there was monetary union between rUK and Scotland, you'd end up with those things being set by the bigger partner because rUK would be the majority stakeholder.
How would that make things different to how they are for Scotland now? The whole point of independence was for you to earn and spend your money how you wanted without rUK holding the purse strings.
Again, no one is suggesting that Scotland should not get it's fair share of pound notes, of course it should, Scots earned those pound notes just the same as the rest of us did, but post independence, you spend and invest yours how it suits you and so will we.
How is that anti Scottish or forcing you to do anything?
In reply to lynx3555:
No,actually they haven't.
By the way, who are the "Britnats" to whom you keep referring ?
>
> Some how the Britnats have convinced themselves that Scotland is a wee Shire, and that the right for Scotland to have its independence was stamped out long ago..
No,actually they haven't.
By the way, who are the "Britnats" to whom you keep referring ?
Post edited at 11:26
In reply to Postmanpat:
They're like the Spetznats, but more polite and like tea , unlike the Scotnats who are a poor bullied oppressed bunch who like porridge and beards and living in the past and don't like 'other' people who aren't them..
> By the way, who're the "Britnats"?
They're like the Spetznats, but more polite and like tea , unlike the Scotnats who are a poor bullied oppressed bunch who like porridge and beards and living in the past and don't like 'other' people who aren't them..
In reply to 999thAndy:
So, what you are saying is, Scotland isn't a rich country, it doesn't have what is currently has....do you know something I don't? Is the ruk confiscating our oil, and all our manufacturing? I personally don't agree with you, Scotland is a small risk partner for any prosperous partner....the only threat Scotland faces to it's economy is the spiteful revenge of the Britnats, how pathetic is that.....
> It's not spite it's weighing the risk of having to bail out a Scottish bank, versus the benefits of having to bail out that bank. At the moment I don't see an upside for the UK.
So, what you are saying is, Scotland isn't a rich country, it doesn't have what is currently has....do you know something I don't? Is the ruk confiscating our oil, and all our manufacturing? I personally don't agree with you, Scotland is a small risk partner for any prosperous partner....the only threat Scotland faces to it's economy is the spiteful revenge of the Britnats, how pathetic is that.....
In reply to PeterM:
I think the scottish government have protected the nhs in Scotland from many of these changes. That's definitely a positive in my book. They also brought in the smoking ban well before Westminster. This was another positive for me. They attempted minimum pricing on alcohol last term: for me this is the only way to go. I see the level of alcohol consumption in Scotland (and the rest of the uk) as our most important health and social issue.
They are by no means perfect and I don't agree with many statements and decisions the snp have made but I think they're doing a pretty good job.
I may even vote scottish labour if we go independent and there is a marked shift to the left...
I think the scottish government have protected the nhs in Scotland from many of these changes. That's definitely a positive in my book. They also brought in the smoking ban well before Westminster. This was another positive for me. They attempted minimum pricing on alcohol last term: for me this is the only way to go. I see the level of alcohol consumption in Scotland (and the rest of the uk) as our most important health and social issue.
They are by no means perfect and I don't agree with many statements and decisions the snp have made but I think they're doing a pretty good job.
I may even vote scottish labour if we go independent and there is a marked shift to the left...
In reply to lynx3555:
Don't get your sporran in a twist, I'm no nationalist of any kind.
I'm just pointing out it isn't as simple as you, Jim and Peter Hitchens make out. There is clearly a tendency for the emotive desire for independence to cloud judgement. For example, the reason the SNP is no longer advocating joining the Euro is because there is a major flaw with the Euro, that is fiscal union without political union.... but you want the rUK to accept fiscal union of Sterling without political union?!? It's non nonsensical.
I've got no axe to grind, but as an observer it is obvious that the real choice for Scotland is political union within the UK or the Eurozone (assuming quick entry can be be negotiated). The SNP should have waited a few years to see what shape the Eurozone takes so the people of Scotland could make an informed choice.
> That comment is full of the usual incorrect Britnat fear mongering.....
Don't get your sporran in a twist, I'm no nationalist of any kind.
I'm just pointing out it isn't as simple as you, Jim and Peter Hitchens make out. There is clearly a tendency for the emotive desire for independence to cloud judgement. For example, the reason the SNP is no longer advocating joining the Euro is because there is a major flaw with the Euro, that is fiscal union without political union.... but you want the rUK to accept fiscal union of Sterling without political union?!? It's non nonsensical.
I've got no axe to grind, but as an observer it is obvious that the real choice for Scotland is political union within the UK or the Eurozone (assuming quick entry can be be negotiated). The SNP should have waited a few years to see what shape the Eurozone takes so the people of Scotland could make an informed choice.
Post edited at 11:44
In reply to lynx3555:
No they are saying something quite different. Lets try something else.
Do you believe the Scottish economy would be likely to be better than the UK economy after independence?
Or will it stay in pretty perfect sync?
> So, what you are saying is
No they are saying something quite different. Lets try something else.
Do you believe the Scottish economy would be likely to be better than the UK economy after independence?
Or will it stay in pretty perfect sync?
In reply to Papillon:
The SNP should have tabled a referendum for Devo Max, that's what it sounds like the Scotnats really want.
> The SNP should have waited a few years to see what shape the Eurozone so the people of Scotland could make an informed choice.
The SNP should have tabled a referendum for Devo Max, that's what it sounds like the Scotnats really want.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Salmond said: "My submission is that this charge – let us call it the George tax – would be impossible to sell to English business"
Sorry Alex, but they bought it.
"Britain's two leading business organisations have dealt a blow to Alex Salmond in his fightback against the rejection by Britain's three main political parties of a currency union with an independent Scotland.
The leaders of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors both warned that a currency union would be "unstable" as David Cameron said that the Scottish first minister was "now a man without a plan".
In a direct challenge to the Scottish first minister, Salmond was told that his warnings of increased transaction charges for businesses on both sides of the border were outweighed by the disadvantages of creating a currency union outside a full political union."
So what's plan B Alex?
Can someone explain to me why the SNP losing the economic debate around independence so badly right now is recruiting so many more new yes voters? That's the bit I don't get.
Salmond said: "My submission is that this charge – let us call it the George tax – would be impossible to sell to English business"
Sorry Alex, but they bought it.
"Britain's two leading business organisations have dealt a blow to Alex Salmond in his fightback against the rejection by Britain's three main political parties of a currency union with an independent Scotland.
The leaders of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors both warned that a currency union would be "unstable" as David Cameron said that the Scottish first minister was "now a man without a plan".
In a direct challenge to the Scottish first minister, Salmond was told that his warnings of increased transaction charges for businesses on both sides of the border were outweighed by the disadvantages of creating a currency union outside a full political union."
So what's plan B Alex?
Can someone explain to me why the SNP losing the economic debate around independence so badly right now is recruiting so many more new yes voters? That's the bit I don't get.
In reply to teflonpete:
That would have needed the rest of the UK to agree though.
> The SNP should have tabled a referendum for Devo Max, that's what it sounds like the Scotnats really want.
That would have needed the rest of the UK to agree though.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
The NHS here is going down the pan rapidly. Granted NHS England is worse, but that's not really helpful and they don't deserve it either. The smoking ban was happening either way, just happened a year earlier. Alcohol nice try, but education is probably more effective and as you say a nationwide problem. I actually think teh SNP are storing up a load of financial problems for the NHS Scotland by providing so much free.
The NHS here is going down the pan rapidly. Granted NHS England is worse, but that's not really helpful and they don't deserve it either. The smoking ban was happening either way, just happened a year earlier. Alcohol nice try, but education is probably more effective and as you say a nationwide problem. I actually think teh SNP are storing up a load of financial problems for the NHS Scotland by providing so much free.
In reply to dissonance:
I don't remember a referendum on devolution at all. Was there one?
> That would have needed the rest of the UK to agree though.
I don't remember a referendum on devolution at all. Was there one?
In reply to teflonpete:
nope but full devo max would have been pushing it.
Wouldnt put it past the politicans to try but to have the Scottish voting on it and not having everyone else have a say would have been a bit much even for them I would think.
> I don't remember a referendum on devolution at all. Was there one?
nope but full devo max would have been pushing it.
Wouldnt put it past the politicans to try but to have the Scottish voting on it and not having everyone else have a say would have been a bit much even for them I would think.
In reply to teflonpete:
Yeah you'd need political reform throughout the UK for that. I think that may happen if and when Ed Milliband makes it 10 Downing Street with a low popular vote. Tories and UKIP supporters my realise that their 'conservatism' isn't doing them any favours.
> The SNP should have tabled a referendum for Devo Max, that's what it sounds like the Scotnats really want.
Yeah you'd need political reform throughout the UK for that. I think that may happen if and when Ed Milliband makes it 10 Downing Street with a low popular vote. Tories and UKIP supporters my realise that their 'conservatism' isn't doing them any favours.
In reply to dissonance:
Actually, no it wouldn't. You may feel it should but technically it doesn't. Your elected officials make that decision, i.e. Cameron said no, and as a nationalist party the SNP didn't want it either. All the experts and analysts had it down as a sure fire winner if it had been on the ballot.
> That would have needed the rest of the UK to agree though.
Actually, no it wouldn't. You may feel it should but technically it doesn't. Your elected officials make that decision, i.e. Cameron said no, and as a nationalist party the SNP didn't want it either. All the experts and analysts had it down as a sure fire winner if it had been on the ballot.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
As far as I can tell its because, as demonstrated by lynx3555 on this thread, there are a lot of people who didnt understand what Osborne (and the other two) actually said. So decided to get upset about it instead.
> Can someone explain to me why the SNP losing the economic debate around independence so badly right now is recruiting so many more new yes voters? That's the bit I don't get.
As far as I can tell its because, as demonstrated by lynx3555 on this thread, there are a lot of people who didnt understand what Osborne (and the other two) actually said. So decided to get upset about it instead.
In reply to PeterM:
sorry to be more precise, it would have been political suicide for a politican to say yes to it and not have a whole of UK vote.
> Actually, no it wouldn't. You may feel it should but technically it doesn't. Your elected officials make that decision, i.e. Cameron said no, and as a nationalist party the SNP didn't want it either.
sorry to be more precise, it would have been political suicide for a politican to say yes to it and not have a whole of UK vote.
In reply to lynx3555:
I wrote about Scotland and Kosovar recognition on my blog in 2009. http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.fr/2009/03/scotland-and-not-recognising-k... It's funny, re-reading what I wrote now, I had forgotten what other EU members haven't recognised Kosovo besides Spain - Cyprus, Greece, Romania and Slovakia. Does anyone know if they have recognised Kosovo since?
But anyway, I hope the nascent Scottish ministry of foreign affairs has some diplomatic boots on the ground schmoozing in Bratislava and Nicosia, along with Madrid. A liberal application of fine single malts works wonders on European friends and allies, I've seen British diplomats do it!
I wrote about Scotland and Kosovar recognition on my blog in 2009. http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.fr/2009/03/scotland-and-not-recognising-k... It's funny, re-reading what I wrote now, I had forgotten what other EU members haven't recognised Kosovo besides Spain - Cyprus, Greece, Romania and Slovakia. Does anyone know if they have recognised Kosovo since?
But anyway, I hope the nascent Scottish ministry of foreign affairs has some diplomatic boots on the ground schmoozing in Bratislava and Nicosia, along with Madrid. A liberal application of fine single malts works wonders on European friends and allies, I've seen British diplomats do it!
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Because an Englishman, a posh one at that, said something that they didn't like. Despite it being factually correct and very pertinent to the debate, all they saw was a posh Englishman - Alex Salmond apparently soiled himself with delight..win win for him.
> Can someone explain to me why the SNP losing the economic debate around independence so badly right now is recruiting so many more new yes voters? That's the bit I don't get.
Because an Englishman, a posh one at that, said something that they didn't like. Despite it being factually correct and very pertinent to the debate, all they saw was a posh Englishman - Alex Salmond apparently soiled himself with delight..win win for him.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Once arguments about money turn nasty people get angry and it is no longer about money.
> Can someone explain to me why the SNP losing the economic debate around independence so badly right now is recruiting so many more new yes voters? That's the bit I don't get.
Once arguments about money turn nasty people get angry and it is no longer about money.
In reply to dissonance:
I agree, although I suspect very few actually. Did anyone else think AS was being a tad insulting to the intelligence of the Scottish voters when he said this will elicit a resolute response that will be uncomfortable for the no campaign?
I agree, although I suspect very few actually. Did anyone else think AS was being a tad insulting to the intelligence of the Scottish voters when he said this will elicit a resolute response that will be uncomfortable for the no campaign?
In reply to PeterM:
The impression I get is that Alex Salmond has lost the economic argument for Scottish independence. His last desperate hope is to create a climate of hostility between the Scottish people and the rest of the UK. A ploy which seems to be working with a few but I expect not with the Scottish people in the real world.
The impression I get is that Alex Salmond has lost the economic argument for Scottish independence. His last desperate hope is to create a climate of hostility between the Scottish people and the rest of the UK. A ploy which seems to be working with a few but I expect not with the Scottish people in the real world.
In reply to lynx3555:
Are you calling Catalonia a "wee shire" of Spain? You should try explaining that on the terraces at the Nou Camp. Or would you be willing to tell some tough lads in a bar in the wrong end of Bilbao that the Basque Country isn't really a country?
> Some how the Britnats have convinced themselves that Scotland is a wee Shire,
Are you calling Catalonia a "wee shire" of Spain? You should try explaining that on the terraces at the Nou Camp. Or would you be willing to tell some tough lads in a bar in the wrong end of Bilbao that the Basque Country isn't really a country?
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
In his defence, I think Salmond has always understood that appealing to the emotions alone was never going to attract enough votes so he had to make an argument for the economic and other benefits of independence. Now his bluff has been called on these arguments the question is whether
that has made the emotional reaction bigger and stronger enough to win a "yes".
> The impression I get is that Alex Salmond has lost the economic argument for Scottish independence. His last desperate hope is to create a climate of hostility between the Scottish people and the rest of the UK. A ploy which seems to be working with a few but I expect not with the Scottish people in the real world.
In his defence, I think Salmond has always understood that appealing to the emotions alone was never going to attract enough votes so he had to make an argument for the economic and other benefits of independence. Now his bluff has been called on these arguments the question is whether
that has made the emotional reaction bigger and stronger enough to win a "yes".
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
One would hope. Unfortunately the loud minority will give the impression there is more of them than there are, and some will fall for it and will not won't to be in the 'imagined' minority.
One would hope. Unfortunately the loud minority will give the impression there is more of them than there are, and some will fall for it and will not won't to be in the 'imagined' minority.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Anyone who doesn't agree with them, anyone who tells them they can't have every little thing they want as soon as they want it, anyone who tries to help point out what they might have trouble with or watch out for.
TBH, I've had it with these debates on here, it's like trying to reason with a 20 month old having a paddy tantrum. I hope they do vote for independence, I really do.
> Nasty? who's playing nasty though?
Anyone who doesn't agree with them, anyone who tells them they can't have every little thing they want as soon as they want it, anyone who tries to help point out what they might have trouble with or watch out for.
TBH, I've had it with these debates on here, it's like trying to reason with a 20 month old having a paddy tantrum. I hope they do vote for independence, I really do.
In reply to PeterM:
What do you mean helpful? At what point did I say people in England deserved it? The point is I see us in Scotland as having an opportunity for change from this inexorable uk shift to the ultra right. Seems to me you are making a lot of unfair assumptions about my viewpoint and trying to infer some sort of anti Englishness...just got off the phone to my mum who happens to be English. Apparently as someone who believes in an independent Scotland, according to some zany no camp supporters, I am somehow anti English?
We both agree the situation with the nhs in England is worse. It is my view that the scottish government have protected us, to a degree, from these changes. Presumably your view is that this is not the case.. The scottish government can't win in your eyes: bringing in the smoking ban a year before Westminster was somehow insignificant.
Education around alcohol consumption is an important factor but the bottom line is it's too cheap. When you can buy 2.5ltre bottles of cider for less than a pound something is wrong. It is costing the nhs, police, social services a fortune which could be used elsewhere. This issue was seen as party political by a right wing labour and lib dem party who put their own aspirations of power above public health.
What do you mean helpful? At what point did I say people in England deserved it? The point is I see us in Scotland as having an opportunity for change from this inexorable uk shift to the ultra right. Seems to me you are making a lot of unfair assumptions about my viewpoint and trying to infer some sort of anti Englishness...just got off the phone to my mum who happens to be English. Apparently as someone who believes in an independent Scotland, according to some zany no camp supporters, I am somehow anti English?
We both agree the situation with the nhs in England is worse. It is my view that the scottish government have protected us, to a degree, from these changes. Presumably your view is that this is not the case.. The scottish government can't win in your eyes: bringing in the smoking ban a year before Westminster was somehow insignificant.
Education around alcohol consumption is an important factor but the bottom line is it's too cheap. When you can buy 2.5ltre bottles of cider for less than a pound something is wrong. It is costing the nhs, police, social services a fortune which could be used elsewhere. This issue was seen as party political by a right wing labour and lib dem party who put their own aspirations of power above public health.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
You are utterly missing the point.
You are taking a short term view that because currently the politics of the Scottish are more inline with your own views than those of the English, so independence is a good thing.
But Independence is forever. Politics can change. Until 1979 the Tories were getting 30% of the Scottish popular vote and before that getting 50%. There is nothing to say that in 10, 20 or 50 years time in an independent Scotland that won't be true again.( Arguably it is more likely to be true when the "right" in Scotland can throw off the English/Thatcher legacy through independence.)
You really need to vote on the basis that being independent is better, right or left.
> What do you mean helpful? At what point did I say people in England deserved it? The point is I see us in Scotland as having an opportunity for change from this inexorable uk shift to the ultra right.
>You are utterly missing the point.
You are taking a short term view that because currently the politics of the Scottish are more inline with your own views than those of the English, so independence is a good thing.
But Independence is forever. Politics can change. Until 1979 the Tories were getting 30% of the Scottish popular vote and before that getting 50%. There is nothing to say that in 10, 20 or 50 years time in an independent Scotland that won't be true again.( Arguably it is more likely to be true when the "right" in Scotland can throw off the English/Thatcher legacy through independence.)
You really need to vote on the basis that being independent is better, right or left.
In reply to lynx3555:
If you could just wipe the spittle off your keyboard and let me know what the benefits of a currency union would be to the UK after independence that'd be a great step forward in this debate.
> So, what you are saying is, Scotland isn't a rich country, it doesn't have what is currently has....do you know something I don't? Is the ruk confiscating our oil, and all our manufacturing? I personally don't agree with you, Scotland is a small risk partner for any prosperous partner....the only threat Scotland faces to it's economy is the spiteful revenge of the Britnats, how pathetic is that.....
If you could just wipe the spittle off your keyboard and let me know what the benefits of a currency union would be to the UK after independence that'd be a great step forward in this debate.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
I'm not making any assumptions and apologies for giving that impression. The comparison between the respective NHS' is often made and I don't think it's helpful - my personal view - as neither of them are as good as they could or should be. Again. it is my personal view, that as those south of the border pay the same tax and NI as the rest of us they deserve a better service than they currently receive. The smoking ban is very significant, but was going to happen with or with out them. Our NHS is not being protected enough by them, regardless of the state of the English NHS.
I'm not making any assumptions and apologies for giving that impression. The comparison between the respective NHS' is often made and I don't think it's helpful - my personal view - as neither of them are as good as they could or should be. Again. it is my personal view, that as those south of the border pay the same tax and NI as the rest of us they deserve a better service than they currently receive. The smoking ban is very significant, but was going to happen with or with out them. Our NHS is not being protected enough by them, regardless of the state of the English NHS.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Thank you for telling me that independence is forever. Until you had crystallised this point I had no idea..
Thank you for also telling me the basis on which I should vote, I'm beginning to slowly catch up now....
So your point is that 35 years ago the Conservative party were more popular in Scotland than they are now? So for too many years we had a government that wasn't representative of the electorate in Scotland. I can tell you with a good degree of certainty that UKIP have a stronger foothold in uk politics than they did 5 years ago.
As with all things both side of this debate, there are no certainties.
> You are utterly missing the point.
> You are taking a short term view that because currently the politics of the Scottish are more inline with your own views than those of the English, so independence is a good thing.
> But Independence is forever. Politics can change. Until 1979 the Tories were getting 30% of the Scottish popular vote and before that getting 50%. There is nothing to say that in 10, 20 or 50 years time in an independent Scotland that won't be true again.( Arguably it is more likely to be true when the "right" in Scotland can throw off the English/Thatcher legacy through independence.)
> You really need to vote on the basis that being independent is better, right or left.
Thank you for telling me that independence is forever. Until you had crystallised this point I had no idea..
Thank you for also telling me the basis on which I should vote, I'm beginning to slowly catch up now....
So your point is that 35 years ago the Conservative party were more popular in Scotland than they are now? So for too many years we had a government that wasn't representative of the electorate in Scotland. I can tell you with a good degree of certainty that UKIP have a stronger foothold in uk politics than they did 5 years ago.
As with all things both side of this debate, there are no certainties.
In reply to PeterM:
No problem, fair does. I agree, with you on the point that people down South should be getting a better deal with the nhs. I feel sorry for people who are suffering as a result.
Interestingly, I was speaking to a pal of my sister's the other day who has just returned from a stint working in Canada as a gp. She is pretty right wing in her politics but was raving about how great our nhs is compared to the system out there. I think a lot of people sometimes think the grass is greener and don't appreciate the level of care we have in the uk
> I'm not making any assumptions and apologies for giving that impression. The comparison between the respective NHS' is often made and I don't think it's helpful - my personal view - as neither of them are as good as they could or should be. Again. it is my personal view, that as those south of the border pay the same tax and NI as the rest of us they deserve a better service than they currently receive. The smoking ban is very significant, but was going to happen with or with out them. Our NHS is not being protected enough by them, regardless of the state of the English NHS.
No problem, fair does. I agree, with you on the point that people down South should be getting a better deal with the nhs. I feel sorry for people who are suffering as a result.
Interestingly, I was speaking to a pal of my sister's the other day who has just returned from a stint working in Canada as a gp. She is pretty right wing in her politics but was raving about how great our nhs is compared to the system out there. I think a lot of people sometimes think the grass is greener and don't appreciate the level of care we have in the uk
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
From an rUK point of view, Scotland using the pound with no currency union is better than Scotland using the pound with currency union, but Salmond's point is that Scotland using the pound with currency union is better for the rUK than Scotland abandoning the pound entirely and using the Euro or the Scottish Pound or something.
I think he's probably right on this.
What he then has to demonstrate is that there's an alternative where Scotland abandons the pound entirely that's better for Scotland than using the pound with no currency union. If he can do that then he can say "if that's your attitude then you can keep your pound and we'll do X" and expect some sheepish backpedalling. If not, he'd either have to accept that after independence they'd continue using the pound without currency union or risk cutting their nose off to spite their face.
I'm not convinced that he's managed this second part yet, although I haven't gone through the arguments in much detail.
From an rUK point of view, Scotland using the pound with no currency union is better than Scotland using the pound with currency union, but Salmond's point is that Scotland using the pound with currency union is better for the rUK than Scotland abandoning the pound entirely and using the Euro or the Scottish Pound or something.
I think he's probably right on this.
What he then has to demonstrate is that there's an alternative where Scotland abandons the pound entirely that's better for Scotland than using the pound with no currency union. If he can do that then he can say "if that's your attitude then you can keep your pound and we'll do X" and expect some sheepish backpedalling. If not, he'd either have to accept that after independence they'd continue using the pound without currency union or risk cutting their nose off to spite their face.
I'm not convinced that he's managed this second part yet, although I haven't gone through the arguments in much detail.
Post edited at 12:54
In reply to Jon Wylie:
Well, judging by your reply you haven't. You have cited three or four recent policies that Scotland have adopted as a rationale for voting for independence. I guess it's more rational than citing three or four policies they have adopted that you don't like but not a lot more.
No, that is just an example I used to make the point. I'll tell you what. You repeat my point back to me so we both understand what it is and then tell me why it is wrong.
> Thank you for telling me that independence is forever. Until you had crystallised this point I had no idea..
> Thank you for also telling me the basis on which I should vote, I'm beginning to slowly catch up now....
Well, judging by your reply you haven't. You have cited three or four recent policies that Scotland have adopted as a rationale for voting for independence. I guess it's more rational than citing three or four policies they have adopted that you don't like but not a lot more.
> So your point is that 35 years ago the Conservative party were more popular in Scotland than they are now?
No, that is just an example I used to make the point. I'll tell you what. You repeat my point back to me so we both understand what it is and then tell me why it is wrong.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
I'm afraid it's you that is wrong.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom of England and Scotland as you imply.
The Acts of Union between England and Scotland created the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was formed when the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland was passed in 1800, creating the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland. When the Irish Repulic gained independence, this was amended to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore, if Scotland left, there will still be two kingdoms and still be a United Kingdom.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> Wrong.
>
> Without Scotland there is only one kingdom left so no United Kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites.
>
> [...]
>
> Wrong.
>
> Without Scotland there is only one kingdom left so no United Kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites.
I'm afraid it's you that is wrong.
The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom of England and Scotland as you imply.
The Acts of Union between England and Scotland created the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was formed when the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland was passed in 1800, creating the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland. When the Irish Repulic gained independence, this was amended to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore, if Scotland left, there will still be two kingdoms and still be a United Kingdom.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
It's quite scary, because it seems the more awkward and difficult the process of independence appears, the more people support the idea...
Charging into the great unknown but with only a half-baked clue on how to make it work...
I'll be voting for the first time in a few decades, to add my 'no' vote to what I hope is a silent majority of 'no' voters.
Hopefully to stop this madness turning into reality.
I can sort of understand the thick as mince mentality of some of the 'yes' camp, but it's the intelligent, thoughtful 'yes' voters I can't understand, surely a few doubts would be creeping in after this currency set-back, but apparently not.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Can someone explain to me why the SNP losing the economic debate around independence so badly right now is recruiting so many more new yes voters? That's the bit I don't get.
>
> Can someone explain to me why the SNP losing the economic debate around independence so badly right now is recruiting so many more new yes voters? That's the bit I don't get.
It's quite scary, because it seems the more awkward and difficult the process of independence appears, the more people support the idea...
Charging into the great unknown but with only a half-baked clue on how to make it work...
I'll be voting for the first time in a few decades, to add my 'no' vote to what I hope is a silent majority of 'no' voters.
Hopefully to stop this madness turning into reality.
I can sort of understand the thick as mince mentality of some of the 'yes' camp, but it's the intelligent, thoughtful 'yes' voters I can't understand, surely a few doubts would be creeping in after this currency set-back, but apparently not.
In reply to teflonpete:
You really shouldn't take all of the opinions expressed on this thread as representative.
> TBH, I've had it with these debates on here, it's like trying to reason with a 20 month old having a paddy tantrum. I hope they do vote for independence, I really do.
You really shouldn't take all of the opinions expressed on this thread as representative.
In reply to Postmanpat:
. I'll tell you what. You repeat my point back to me so we both understand what it is and then tell me why it is wrong.
Your point is that voting for independence is no guarantee of policy changes happening which I may agree with. I have already stated there is no certainty on either side but feel an independent Scotland is likely to have a more left wing viewpoint than a Westminster government which is moving inexorably further to the right.
Your argument seems to be that more people in Scotland voted conservative 35 years ago. I can't see that really validates your argument.
I wouldn't dream of telling you on what basis you should vote yes (if you have a vote) yet you presume to lecture me on why I should vote and that independence is permanent. That's not helpful to the debate.
. I'll tell you what. You repeat my point back to me so we both understand what it is and then tell me why it is wrong.
Your point is that voting for independence is no guarantee of policy changes happening which I may agree with. I have already stated there is no certainty on either side but feel an independent Scotland is likely to have a more left wing viewpoint than a Westminster government which is moving inexorably further to the right.
Your argument seems to be that more people in Scotland voted conservative 35 years ago. I can't see that really validates your argument.
I wouldn't dream of telling you on what basis you should vote yes (if you have a vote) yet you presume to lecture me on why I should vote and that independence is permanent. That's not helpful to the debate.
In reply to Postmanpat:
veering ever so slightly, both sides of the argument are keen to present statisitics from surveys. My question is this... Who is carrying out these surveys and who is being surveyed? I've not been approached at all on the subject. How are we to know that the survey samples represent a true picture of opinion?
veering ever so slightly, both sides of the argument are keen to present statisitics from surveys. My question is this... Who is carrying out these surveys and who is being surveyed? I've not been approached at all on the subject. How are we to know that the survey samples represent a true picture of opinion?
In reply to Jon Wylie:
Fair enough, and you appear to be support this on the basis of a few recent SNP policies. Seems to be quite a flimsy justification but maybe you have other rationales to support your view.
It demonstrates that there is nothing set in stone about Scotland being more left than the UK as a whole.
Well, the point of debating the subject is to discuss the relative merits of a Yes or a No vote or outcome. .This is pretty difficult if one is debarred from outlining the relative merits of a Yes or a No vote.
> Your point is that voting for independence is no guarantee of policy changes happening which I may agree with. I have already stated there is no certainty on either side but feel an independent Scotland is likely to have a more left wing viewpoint than a Westminster government which is moving inexorably further to the right.
Fair enough, and you appear to be support this on the basis of a few recent SNP policies. Seems to be quite a flimsy justification but maybe you have other rationales to support your view.
> Your argument seems to be that more people in Scotland voted conservative 35 years ago. I can't see that really validates your argument.
It demonstrates that there is nothing set in stone about Scotland being more left than the UK as a whole.
> I wouldn't dream of telling you on what basis you should vote yes (if you have a vote) yet you presume to lecture me on why I should vote and that independence is permanent. That's not helpful to the debate.
Well, the point of debating the subject is to discuss the relative merits of a Yes or a No vote or outcome. .This is pretty difficult if one is debarred from outlining the relative merits of a Yes or a No vote.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Personally, i don't put much credence in many of the surveys on either side. I suppose some of the more official pollsters may be more accurate but people will decide on the day either way..
> veering ever so slightly, both sides of the argument are keen to present statisitics from surveys. My question is this... Who is carrying out these surveys and who is being surveyed? I've not been approached at all on the subject. How are we to know that the survey samples represent a true picture of opinion?
Personally, i don't put much credence in many of the surveys on either side. I suppose some of the more official pollsters may be more accurate but people will decide on the day either way..
In reply to Jon Wylie:
I have heard that alot of labour voting Scots describe the SNP as " bastard Scottish Tories".
So it may be possible that the SNP is really the Tories in disguise.
A mouth watering prospect.
I have heard that alot of labour voting Scots describe the SNP as " bastard Scottish Tories".
So it may be possible that the SNP is really the Tories in disguise.
A mouth watering prospect.
In reply to graeme jackson:
It will vary. A proper polling organisation should be reasonably accurate.
However for example the Channel 4 one lynx3555 used above looks to be just a online survey.
As such unreliable as hell since can be easily gamed by having people pile in on it (even assuming it has been written to try and limit multiple votes).
> How are we to know that the survey samples represent a true picture of opinion?
It will vary. A proper polling organisation should be reasonably accurate.
However for example the Channel 4 one lynx3555 used above looks to be just a online survey.
As such unreliable as hell since can be easily gamed by having people pile in on it (even assuming it has been written to try and limit multiple votes).
In reply to Postmanpat:
Which I have agreed with. What we disagree on is the likelihood of a continuing uk moving to the right and an independent Scotland moving to the left.
The point is, you made the point that I shouldn't factor in the above politics into my decision. Whether you agree with it or not it is a bit presumptuous to tell someone how their thought process should work regarding this. By all means, create an argument but your post came across as a little Orwellian if I'm honest. That said, it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick over the internet so perhaps I've misunderstood...
> It demonstrates that there is nothing set in stone about Scotland being more left than the UK as a whole.
Which I have agreed with. What we disagree on is the likelihood of a continuing uk moving to the right and an independent Scotland moving to the left.
> Well, the point of debating the subject is to discuss the relative merits of a Yes or a No vote or outcome. .This is pretty difficult if one is debarred from outlining the relative merits of a Yes or a No vote.
The point is, you made the point that I shouldn't factor in the above politics into my decision. Whether you agree with it or not it is a bit presumptuous to tell someone how their thought process should work regarding this. By all means, create an argument but your post came across as a little Orwellian if I'm honest. That said, it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick over the internet so perhaps I've misunderstood...
In reply to Jon Wylie:
"I'll tell you what. You repeat my point back to me so we both understand what it is and then tell me why it is wrong."
did seem somewhat patronising.
> By all means, create an argument but your post came across as a little Orwellian if I'm honest. That said, it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick over the internet so perhaps I've misunderstood...
"I'll tell you what. You repeat my point back to me so we both understand what it is and then tell me why it is wrong."
did seem somewhat patronising.
In reply to teflonpete:
Pete, just for clarification I'm not sure if you are referring to me or postman as the above quote was post mans not mine. It just didn't come up As a quote when I reposted it for some reason.
Water under the bridge anyway, no big deal.
Pete, just for clarification I'm not sure if you are referring to me or postman as the above quote was post mans not mine. It just didn't come up As a quote when I reposted it for some reason.
Water under the bridge anyway, no big deal.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
Lots of focus on if Scotland should or shouldn't vote yes but appears to be little on WHY this is even being raised... seems that Salmond has gotten greedy with the degree of devolved power from Westminster and is now on a self-indulgent, idealistic path to disrupt the UK for little benefit for the average Scot on the street.
When the Europeans are pushing for complete fiscal (and inevitable political) union, and the Scots are pro-European, I really don't get why they'd vote yes to take a step backwards from integration.
Surely there are better things to spend money and time on.
Lots of focus on if Scotland should or shouldn't vote yes but appears to be little on WHY this is even being raised... seems that Salmond has gotten greedy with the degree of devolved power from Westminster and is now on a self-indulgent, idealistic path to disrupt the UK for little benefit for the average Scot on the street.
When the Europeans are pushing for complete fiscal (and inevitable political) union, and the Scots are pro-European, I really don't get why they'd vote yes to take a step backwards from integration.
Surely there are better things to spend money and time on.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
In the context of this debate it seems reasonable to me to try and identify the criteria on which one should vote but don't worry, I won't get you locked up if you choose to ignore me
> The point is, you made the point that I shouldn't factor in the above politics into my decision. Whether you agree with it or not it is a bit presumptuous to tell someone how their thought process should work regarding this. By all means, create an argument but your post came across as a little Orwellian if I'm honest. That said, it's easy to get the wrong end of the stick over the internet so perhaps I've misunderstood...
In the context of this debate it seems reasonable to me to try and identify the criteria on which one should vote but don't worry, I won't get you locked up if you choose to ignore me
In reply to teflonpete:
Actually it's the first time I've tried this approach and it saved a lot of time talking at cross purposes.
> "I'll tell you what. You repeat my point back to me so we both understand what it is and then tell me why it is wrong."
> did seem somewhat patronising.
Actually it's the first time I've tried this approach and it saved a lot of time talking at cross purposes.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
British business seems to disagree, the IoD said that they think there'll be less downside to accepting currency conversion costs than taking on the risk of bailing out the Scottish financial sector if it all goes tits up again a la 2008. They may have a point as we seem to manage to trade with Ireland and the rest of Europe reasonably well. In the age of electronic money, what currency you deal in is a pretty minor detail. Having Scotland use the pound without currency union will probably be the easiest for all concerned, though if that doesn't happen I would rather Scotland used the Euro than be in a mismatched union with a country bent on following a different path on government policy and spending.
> From an rUK point of view, Scotland using the pound with no currency union is better than Scotland using the pound with currency union, but Salmond's point is that Scotland using the pound with currency union is better for the rUK than Scotland abandoning the pound entirely and using the Euro or the Scottish Pound or something.
British business seems to disagree, the IoD said that they think there'll be less downside to accepting currency conversion costs than taking on the risk of bailing out the Scottish financial sector if it all goes tits up again a la 2008. They may have a point as we seem to manage to trade with Ireland and the rest of Europe reasonably well. In the age of electronic money, what currency you deal in is a pretty minor detail. Having Scotland use the pound without currency union will probably be the easiest for all concerned, though if that doesn't happen I would rather Scotland used the Euro than be in a mismatched union with a country bent on following a different path on government policy and spending.
In reply to TOS:
I think the answer is that there's a difference between underlying logic and short-term tactics. There is an underlying logic in Scottish independence which many outside Scotland are happy to support, but it means acceptance of change (Euro, EU admission process, Schengen, nuclear Nato, etc). The SNP's tactic is to harvest votes for the "Yes" campaign by telling people what they want to hear (pound, no border controls, etc) and "not frightening the horses".
> .. but it's the intelligent, thoughtful 'yes' voters I can't understand, surely a few doubts would be creeping in after this currency set-back, but apparently not.
I think the answer is that there's a difference between underlying logic and short-term tactics. There is an underlying logic in Scottish independence which many outside Scotland are happy to support, but it means acceptance of change (Euro, EU admission process, Schengen, nuclear Nato, etc). The SNP's tactic is to harvest votes for the "Yes" campaign by telling people what they want to hear (pound, no border controls, etc) and "not frightening the horses".
In reply to Jon Wylie:
I was saying that I thought postmanpat was being a bit patronising to you.
I can see postie's point, and yours, but you didn't come across as having your opinion without having given the matter a lot of thought. No worries.
> Pete, just for clarification I'm not sure if you are referring to me or postman as the above quote was post mans not mine. It just didn't come up As a quote when I reposted it for some reason.
> Water under the bridge anyway, no big deal.
I was saying that I thought postmanpat was being a bit patronising to you.
I can see postie's point, and yours, but you didn't come across as having your opinion without having given the matter a lot of thought. No worries.
Post edited at 14:28
In reply to silhouette:
The Better together of course want to do the opposite, i.e frighten the sh** out of everyone.
If there is any good news, we will never hear it from them.
As I pointed out earlier, when McCrone advised (correctly) that Scotland would be very wealthy (if they were to be independent) with oil revenues, Westminster, scoffed at the SNP who claiming that would be the case, but Westminster kept that report secret for 30 years, and so never gave the Scots an oppertunity to make voting decisions based on that good news. Now they tell us that the oil has all but gone, and so it is not worth risking going it alone (they could very well be right)
Back then the SNP were right, and Westminster denied it (despite knowing it to be true)
This time they are asking us to believe them and not believe the SNP.
So Westminster and the SNP are not exactly being even handed, and none of them , on either side are particularly trustworthy, and the voter has to decide what the truth is .
> (In reply to TOS)
>
>
>
> [...]
>
The SNP's tactic is to harvest votes for the "Yes" campaign by telling people what they want to hear (pound, no border controls, etc) and "not frightening the horses".>
>
>
> [...]
>
The Better together of course want to do the opposite, i.e frighten the sh** out of everyone.
If there is any good news, we will never hear it from them.
As I pointed out earlier, when McCrone advised (correctly) that Scotland would be very wealthy (if they were to be independent) with oil revenues, Westminster, scoffed at the SNP who claiming that would be the case, but Westminster kept that report secret for 30 years, and so never gave the Scots an oppertunity to make voting decisions based on that good news. Now they tell us that the oil has all but gone, and so it is not worth risking going it alone (they could very well be right)
Back then the SNP were right, and Westminster denied it (despite knowing it to be true)
This time they are asking us to believe them and not believe the SNP.
So Westminster and the SNP are not exactly being even handed, and none of them , on either side are particularly trustworthy, and the voter has to decide what the truth is .
Post edited at 14:50
In reply to Jim C:
Surely the "Better together" campaign (i'm ambivalent BTW) have recently injected some facts (no currency union if independent) If that happens to "frighten the sh*t" out of everyone then maybe take a good look at what your voting for.
I don't think that's a scare tactic as AS suggests. A scare tactic (and totally unreasonable) would be for Westminster to say it would veto an iScotlands application for EU membership for example. That would be worthy of getting annoyed about. But so far, sitting from here, I can't see why this has caused such consternation. In fact, i'm suprised AS has got away with away without some serious questioning from his own supporters.
Surely the "Better together" campaign (i'm ambivalent BTW) have recently injected some facts (no currency union if independent) If that happens to "frighten the sh*t" out of everyone then maybe take a good look at what your voting for.
I don't think that's a scare tactic as AS suggests. A scare tactic (and totally unreasonable) would be for Westminster to say it would veto an iScotlands application for EU membership for example. That would be worthy of getting annoyed about. But so far, sitting from here, I can't see why this has caused such consternation. In fact, i'm suprised AS has got away with away without some serious questioning from his own supporters.
In reply to robbo99:
Independence removes a layer of government. It will go Scotland -> Europe instead of Scotland -> UK -> Europe. That will save money and more of the tax spend on administrators and advisors will get spent in Scotland.
> When the Europeans are pushing for complete fiscal (and inevitable political) union, and the Scots are pro-European, I really don't get why they'd vote yes to take a step backwards from integration.
Independence removes a layer of government. It will go Scotland -> Europe instead of Scotland -> UK -> Europe. That will save money and more of the tax spend on administrators and advisors will get spent in Scotland.
In reply to teflonpete:
Cool, I just wanted to clarify as I looked at my repost and it hadn't come up properly, that was all
> I was saying that I thought postmanpat was being a bit patronising to you.
> I can see postie's point, and yours, but you didn't come across as having your opinion without having given the matter a lot of thought. No worries.
Cool, I just wanted to clarify as I looked at my repost and it hadn't come up properly, that was all
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
not sure I agree, independence is going to increase the size and complexity of its existing government, who's sovereignty may well then be lost anyway once Europe properly integrates into a US of Europe. Personally I think this is inevitable. Are the Scots ok with accepting the reality of a French or German effective rule?
Perhaps Salmond should be offering the Scots either integration with Europe (assuming that the UK will continue to try to disassociate itself from) or stay with the UK for better or worse.
> Independence removes a layer of government. It will go Scotland -> Europe instead of Scotland -> UK -> Europe. That will save money and more of the tax spend on administrators and advisors will get spent in Scotland.
not sure I agree, independence is going to increase the size and complexity of its existing government, who's sovereignty may well then be lost anyway once Europe properly integrates into a US of Europe. Personally I think this is inevitable. Are the Scots ok with accepting the reality of a French or German effective rule?
Perhaps Salmond should be offering the Scots either integration with Europe (assuming that the UK will continue to try to disassociate itself from) or stay with the UK for better or worse.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
UK ultra right? I think you need to travel... Cameron is under pressure (UKIP etc) from not being right enough. Basically both parties know the centre ground is the future but the tail wags the dog at the times and they shift back to their roots too quickly.
> What do you mean helpful? At what point did I say people in England deserved it? The point is I see us in Scotland as having an opportunity for change from this inexorable uk shift to the ultra right.
UK ultra right? I think you need to travel... Cameron is under pressure (UKIP etc) from not being right enough. Basically both parties know the centre ground is the future but the tail wags the dog at the times and they shift back to their roots too quickly.
In reply to lynx3555:
Very.
> ...the only threat Scotland faces to it's economy is the spiteful revenge of the Britnats, how pathetic is that.....
Very.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Where exactly has it been said that the rUK would destroy your economy after independance?
Also if you feel that will happen I would be more concerned that your economy is that weak.
Just my opinion and I personally don't care if scotland gets independance or not. I just wish Alec Salmond would disappear
Where exactly has it been said that the rUK would destroy your economy after independance?
Also if you feel that will happen I would be more concerned that your economy is that weak.
Just my opinion and I personally don't care if scotland gets independance or not. I just wish Alec Salmond would disappear
In reply to Graham T:
I think lynx (and Jim) must mean pro union Scots by 'Britnats'. Anyone I talk to down here couldn't give a toss what the Scots do.
I think lynx (and Jim) must mean pro union Scots by 'Britnats'. Anyone I talk to down here couldn't give a toss what the Scots do.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Yes, that's right, if an independent Scotland's economy fails, it won't be down to the likely drawn-out (and expensive) process of becoming an independent state, or mismanagement of the economy by the new government, or cautious overseas businesses delaying investment while the economy settles, or a possible big future drop in the oil price, no...
It'll be down to someone else. It'll be Westminster / those 'britnats'/ the English <delete as applicable>
If this victim / blame mentality is the attitude of the independence movement, then fck me, Scotland's going to be in serious bother when it comes to this whole concept of a nation standing on it's own feet business.
Everyone keeps going on about how great AS is, well after this last week's events, I wouldn't trust him to look after a piggy bank full of 2p peices, the man is an idiot and an embarrassment to Scotland.
> (In reply to lynx3555)
>
> Very.
>
> Very.
Yes, that's right, if an independent Scotland's economy fails, it won't be down to the likely drawn-out (and expensive) process of becoming an independent state, or mismanagement of the economy by the new government, or cautious overseas businesses delaying investment while the economy settles, or a possible big future drop in the oil price, no...
It'll be down to someone else. It'll be Westminster / those 'britnats'/ the English <delete as applicable>
If this victim / blame mentality is the attitude of the independence movement, then fck me, Scotland's going to be in serious bother when it comes to this whole concept of a nation standing on it's own feet business.
Everyone keeps going on about how great AS is, well after this last week's events, I wouldn't trust him to look after a piggy bank full of 2p peices, the man is an idiot and an embarrassment to Scotland.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
How is it revenge?
Lynx nor you, have yet explained how it can work. If we share the sterling and we need contrasting strategies for our economies?
Lynx can say scotlands is 20%, 25%, 30% its still the UK is dominant and will rightly have control.. so you'd be screwed.
Why would you want that?
I don't think the UK will do anything vengeful, just protect its interests.. if that means Scotland gets negatively affected if we share the pound so be it.. it's primary responsibility is, and rightly, the UK.. not Scotland...
Would Scotland make a decision which harms itself in favour of its good old neighbours.. would they f*ck.. yet the English may and its them being vengeful.
Of course a government will have vested interests. It will award contracts to resident companies where possible, you want to keep trade where possible.. that sort of thing. All countries do it. It's not out of spite its just protectionism.
Look forget the 'evil english'.. seriously most don't care. I do more than many because I've lived up there for 4 years, parents have a house, sister lives there..
But I wouldn't be angry or upset if Scotland voted to leave.. and I'd say only a very tiny minority would be. Are all Scots like Lynx? Of course not, most are sensible like Doug, yourself.. The lynx is just an ignorant shouter.. the Kosovo statement summed him up, but so have his rants on the sterling, yet when you ask how it can work, he just say 'well I'm not an expert'... but he knows enough that its just wrong...
It's incredible..
> Very.
How is it revenge?
Lynx nor you, have yet explained how it can work. If we share the sterling and we need contrasting strategies for our economies?
Lynx can say scotlands is 20%, 25%, 30% its still the UK is dominant and will rightly have control.. so you'd be screwed.
Why would you want that?
I don't think the UK will do anything vengeful, just protect its interests.. if that means Scotland gets negatively affected if we share the pound so be it.. it's primary responsibility is, and rightly, the UK.. not Scotland...
Would Scotland make a decision which harms itself in favour of its good old neighbours.. would they f*ck.. yet the English may and its them being vengeful.
Of course a government will have vested interests. It will award contracts to resident companies where possible, you want to keep trade where possible.. that sort of thing. All countries do it. It's not out of spite its just protectionism.
Look forget the 'evil english'.. seriously most don't care. I do more than many because I've lived up there for 4 years, parents have a house, sister lives there..
But I wouldn't be angry or upset if Scotland voted to leave.. and I'd say only a very tiny minority would be. Are all Scots like Lynx? Of course not, most are sensible like Doug, yourself.. The lynx is just an ignorant shouter.. the Kosovo statement summed him up, but so have his rants on the sterling, yet when you ask how it can work, he just say 'well I'm not an expert'... but he knows enough that its just wrong...
It's incredible..
In reply to TOS:
Serious question: has Mr Fishy ever publicly acknowledged the difference between "the Scots" and "the people of Scotland"? I've never heard him do it. And of course I have a particular interest in this question, seeing as how I fall into the latter category but not the former. While, as we know, lots and lots of expatriates like Brian Cox and Sean Connery fall into the former but not the latter.
It's bad enough the way Salmond sets himself and his party up as a spokesman for all Scots, as if you couldn't be "a real Scot" without being a separatist. His claim to speak for the people of Scotland is even more nauseating. Take it from me, pal, you're no spokesman for us.
Serious question: has Mr Fishy ever publicly acknowledged the difference between "the Scots" and "the people of Scotland"? I've never heard him do it. And of course I have a particular interest in this question, seeing as how I fall into the latter category but not the former. While, as we know, lots and lots of expatriates like Brian Cox and Sean Connery fall into the former but not the latter.
It's bad enough the way Salmond sets himself and his party up as a spokesman for all Scots, as if you couldn't be "a real Scot" without being a separatist. His claim to speak for the people of Scotland is even more nauseating. Take it from me, pal, you're no spokesman for us.
Post edited at 19:22
In reply to PeterM:
And if the vote looks like being too close Peter , that is just what the BT parties will 'promise' to swing the vote.
Whether, after a No vote, any of them would bother to deliver it, is very doubtful.
Why would they, it's not as if the Scots will have anything left to negotiate with.
A politician's promise is worth nothing.
> Shockaroony!
And if the vote looks like being too close Peter , that is just what the BT parties will 'promise' to swing the vote.
Whether, after a No vote, any of them would bother to deliver it, is very doubtful.
Why would they, it's not as if the Scots will have anything left to negotiate with.
A politician's promise is worth nothing.
In reply to Jim C:
What, you mean like when he stands there with no plan whatsoever on the three biggest practical issues facing an independent Scotland, and says "Trust me, I promise you, it's all going to come up roses if you just vote Yes"?
Yup, you're right there--that promise is certainly worthless.
> A politician's promise is worth nothing.
What, you mean like when he stands there with no plan whatsoever on the three biggest practical issues facing an independent Scotland, and says "Trust me, I promise you, it's all going to come up roses if you just vote Yes"?
Yup, you're right there--that promise is certainly worthless.
Post edited at 19:30
In reply to Jim C:
Well history suggests it will happen. Powers have increasingly been devolved in Scotland and Wales for a good few decades.
Politicians do lie, but it seems a fair enough option going on past actions.
Well history suggests it will happen. Powers have increasingly been devolved in Scotland and Wales for a good few decades.
Politicians do lie, but it seems a fair enough option going on past actions.
In reply to IainRUK:
If it comes to lying, what about spending your whole political career emoting about the evils of the clearances etc. etc., and then doing everything you can to help Donald Trump evict 'real Scots' from his prospective golf course?
Such a parcel of rogues in a nationalist suit.
If it comes to lying, what about spending your whole political career emoting about the evils of the clearances etc. etc., and then doing everything you can to help Donald Trump evict 'real Scots' from his prospective golf course?
Such a parcel of rogues in a nationalist suit.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Salmonds coming out of this badly.. his attacks since have been poor.. the 'if you don't share the pound we wont share the debt' was just pathetic. Just a baseless argument.
But his political legacy is on the line.
Some things make sense to devolve, some things don't.. But full independence should be full independence. I think the UK gambled on trying to put the independence debate to bed and it may backfire.
Salmonds coming out of this badly.. his attacks since have been poor.. the 'if you don't share the pound we wont share the debt' was just pathetic. Just a baseless argument.
But his political legacy is on the line.
Some things make sense to devolve, some things don't.. But full independence should be full independence. I think the UK gambled on trying to put the independence debate to bed and it may backfire.
In reply to IainRUK:
>and it may backfire
I don't think so. I think Mr Fishy has a week or so of his place in the sun at about 31% of the poll share given a three-way choice, which is where he is today. Then once the anti-Osborne gut feelings die down, the tide goes out for him. And it won't come back.
Salmond's performance over the last week, in the view of a lot of commentators I've been looking at, has been utterly atrocious. To his own core audience it plays as beleaguered hero; to everyone else it plays as spoilt brat. That will sink in. And once it does, he's sunk.
>and it may backfire
I don't think so. I think Mr Fishy has a week or so of his place in the sun at about 31% of the poll share given a three-way choice, which is where he is today. Then once the anti-Osborne gut feelings die down, the tide goes out for him. And it won't come back.
Salmond's performance over the last week, in the view of a lot of commentators I've been looking at, has been utterly atrocious. To his own core audience it plays as beleaguered hero; to everyone else it plays as spoilt brat. That will sink in. And once it does, he's sunk.
Post edited at 19:47
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I'm actually surprised at some, I've many Scottish mates on FB due to living there and racing a lot, some really seem to be buying into Salmonds rants that Scotland deserve to share the pound..
Even if they did, I just cannot for the life of me understand why they would want to when we'd just dictate policy..
I have noticed a few have gone quiet, one who is very financially minded, and I wonder if there is a bit of an 'oh shit' moment going on.
I'm actually surprised at some, I've many Scottish mates on FB due to living there and racing a lot, some really seem to be buying into Salmonds rants that Scotland deserve to share the pound..
Even if they did, I just cannot for the life of me understand why they would want to when we'd just dictate policy..
I have noticed a few have gone quiet, one who is very financially minded, and I wonder if there is a bit of an 'oh shit' moment going on.
In reply to IainRUK:
Iain, I have to agree with you 100% after a YES vote the whole context of Westminster will be geared to protect and get the best possible outcome for the rUK. The Scottish government will be geared to get the best deal for Scotland also. It is nothing to do with revenge it is simply an elected government of that country doing what it is elected to do, protect the interests of the country and its people. I think many in the We want Independence (but not that much independence) group like Lynx aren't grasping it.
In really simple and generic terms Scotland and the rUK will be competitors fighting for the same things to grow the economy yes trade will exist between the two countries it might even increase, it might even decrease. If for example we purchase x from Scotland but there's no benefit to us in the long run compared to say purchasing x from another country (B) ie we purchase x from B and they purchase XX from us in return then simple economics means that the trade of X with Scotland stops or decreases. Scotland will after independence be one of many competitors and partners etc.
I agree about the English comment on the street in England or down the pub no one really gives a toss. The only thing I have heard is someone in work say the Scots can do what they want as long as my mortgage doesn't go up!! It sums it up really...the ironic thing is a currency union with two countries pulling in different directions could see mortgage rates go up!!
>
> I don't think the UK will do anything vengeful, just protect its interests.. if that means Scotland gets negatively affected if we share the pound so be it.. it's primary responsibility is, and rightly, the UK.. not Scotland...
> I don't think the UK will do anything vengeful, just protect its interests.. if that means Scotland gets negatively affected if we share the pound so be it.. it's primary responsibility is, and rightly, the UK.. not Scotland...
> Would Scotland make a decision which harms itself in favour of its good old neighbours.. would they f*ck.. yet the English may and its them being vengeful.
> Of course a government will have vested interests. It will award contracts to resident companies where possible, you want to keep trade where possible.. that sort of thing. All countries do it. It's not out of spite its just protectionism.
> Look forget the 'evil english'.. seriously most don't care. I do more than many because I've lived up there for 4 years, parents have a house, sister lives there..
Iain, I have to agree with you 100% after a YES vote the whole context of Westminster will be geared to protect and get the best possible outcome for the rUK. The Scottish government will be geared to get the best deal for Scotland also. It is nothing to do with revenge it is simply an elected government of that country doing what it is elected to do, protect the interests of the country and its people. I think many in the We want Independence (but not that much independence) group like Lynx aren't grasping it.
In really simple and generic terms Scotland and the rUK will be competitors fighting for the same things to grow the economy yes trade will exist between the two countries it might even increase, it might even decrease. If for example we purchase x from Scotland but there's no benefit to us in the long run compared to say purchasing x from another country (B) ie we purchase x from B and they purchase XX from us in return then simple economics means that the trade of X with Scotland stops or decreases. Scotland will after independence be one of many competitors and partners etc.
I agree about the English comment on the street in England or down the pub no one really gives a toss. The only thing I have heard is someone in work say the Scots can do what they want as long as my mortgage doesn't go up!! It sums it up really...the ironic thing is a currency union with two countries pulling in different directions could see mortgage rates go up!!
In reply to Postmanpat:
did anyone see 8 out of 10 cats last night??
the p*ss take of "which old European currency should Scotland use" was a total classic!
my vote gets the "escudo". a Scottish accent helps...
did anyone see 8 out of 10 cats last night??
the p*ss take of "which old European currency should Scotland use" was a total classic!
my vote gets the "escudo". a Scottish accent helps...
In reply to IainRUK:
There will be no 'Devo Max ' under any circumstances, according to the PM Iain, but that is not to say he will not now be persuaded offer by the BT camp it as a political expedient , and get the Scots vote for it, (by voting No. )
(But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4216-no-devo-max-says-c...
> Well history suggests it will happen. Powers have increasingly been devolved in Scotland and Wales for a good few decades.
> Politicians do lie, but it seems a fair enough option going on past actions.
There will be no 'Devo Max ' under any circumstances, according to the PM Iain, but that is not to say he will not now be persuaded offer by the BT camp it as a political expedient , and get the Scots vote for it, (by voting No. )
(But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4216-no-devo-max-says-c...
In reply to Jim C:
Frame this, everybody.
He's right, of course; once good old Scottish common sense kicks back in and overrides the instinctive dislike of Tories that so many of us English share, it will indeed not even be close.
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
> (But, that will only happen if the vote is close, which looks unlikely. )
Frame this, everybody.
He's right, of course; once good old Scottish common sense kicks back in and overrides the instinctive dislike of Tories that so many of us English share, it will indeed not even be close.
In reply to TOS:
The Guardian don't think much of his performance either.
...."Since Mr Salmond's stance is that both the currency union and EU membership are desirable and achievable, the Aberdeen speech was a major test for the nationalist leader.
It is a test that Mr Salmond failed. His speech was typically combative and personalised. It contained the usual trenchant phrasemaking that makes Mr Salmond such an effective politician, especially with those who already support him. But at its heart was a failure to recognise that the challenges posed by Mr Osborne and Mr Barroso were meant seriously and had to be addressed as such. Since there could hardly be two more serious warnings, this was a misjudgment. By not taking the two challenges seriously, Mr Salmond risks appearing reckless, just when he needed to sound a reasoned and reassuring note. Scots voters surely cannot afford to be so cavalier when their future is at stake.
The first minister's response to Mr Osborne was particularly reckless. There is no point in a currency union unless both sides want to make it work. But where is the evidence that the SNP wants such a thing, with all that it entails, on a stable and long-term basis? There is little sign of it in the endless claims, much repeated today, of London bad faith. There is no doubt that the SNP, and many other Scots, are angered at last week's outright refusal of a currency union. They have every right to be. But to reduce this issue to an allegation of bullying by London is frankly pathetic. It did the first minister no credit that he preferred to tweak Mr Osborne's tail rather than give the serious response that his words actually deserved."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/scotland-future-salmon...
He's blown it.
> Everyone keeps going on about how great AS is, well after this last week's events, I wouldn't trust him to look after a piggy bank full of 2p peices, the man is an idiot and an embarrassment to Scotland.
The Guardian don't think much of his performance either.
...."Since Mr Salmond's stance is that both the currency union and EU membership are desirable and achievable, the Aberdeen speech was a major test for the nationalist leader.
It is a test that Mr Salmond failed. His speech was typically combative and personalised. It contained the usual trenchant phrasemaking that makes Mr Salmond such an effective politician, especially with those who already support him. But at its heart was a failure to recognise that the challenges posed by Mr Osborne and Mr Barroso were meant seriously and had to be addressed as such. Since there could hardly be two more serious warnings, this was a misjudgment. By not taking the two challenges seriously, Mr Salmond risks appearing reckless, just when he needed to sound a reasoned and reassuring note. Scots voters surely cannot afford to be so cavalier when their future is at stake.
The first minister's response to Mr Osborne was particularly reckless. There is no point in a currency union unless both sides want to make it work. But where is the evidence that the SNP wants such a thing, with all that it entails, on a stable and long-term basis? There is little sign of it in the endless claims, much repeated today, of London bad faith. There is no doubt that the SNP, and many other Scots, are angered at last week's outright refusal of a currency union. They have every right to be. But to reduce this issue to an allegation of bullying by London is frankly pathetic. It did the first minister no credit that he preferred to tweak Mr Osborne's tail rather than give the serious response that his words actually deserved."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/scotland-future-salmon...
He's blown it.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Of course, I'm only 'right' when I suggest that things are going in favour of BT.
The counter argument is, ( being even handed Tim ) that IF the polls do not look like it is going to be close, perhaps more undecided Scots may feel safe to vote yes to make it close , without 'risking ' winning.
And so, by the very fact that it is predicted NOT to be close , it might actually end up being closer than the pollsters predict.
( you may have to be Scottish to understand that logic of course
BT do think they will win, but they want to win well, and put it to bed, ideally without having to promise to devolve any more powers .
We have to accept of course that there is Political Game Theory at work, we are all the pawns, whether we have a vote or not.
> Frame this, everybody.
> He's right, of course; once good old Scottish common sense kicks back in and overrides the instinctive dislike of Tories that so many of us English share, it will indeed not even be close.
Of course, I'm only 'right' when I suggest that things are going in favour of BT.
The counter argument is, ( being even handed Tim ) that IF the polls do not look like it is going to be close, perhaps more undecided Scots may feel safe to vote yes to make it close , without 'risking ' winning.
And so, by the very fact that it is predicted NOT to be close , it might actually end up being closer than the pollsters predict.
( you may have to be Scottish to understand that logic of course
BT do think they will win, but they want to win well, and put it to bed, ideally without having to promise to devolve any more powers .
We have to accept of course that there is Political Game Theory at work, we are all the pawns, whether we have a vote or not.
In reply to Jim C:
I'm completely open-minded on more powers. And I do think, if parties promise a thing, then it's bad if they don't deliver it.
But I have to say this: every time I watch Holyrood, the level of debate is almost the most embarrassing thing. But not quite, because what is absolutely the most embarrassing thing is the number of empty seats in the chamber.
For crying out loud. These people get, what is it, £70K PA each, of our money, and they can't even be bothered to turn up when the cameras are there!
I'm curbing my enthusiasm for more powers for Holyrood till I see a bit more bums-on-seats commitment from the buggers we pay to send there.
And if your response is "Westminster has the same problem" my response to your response is "Yes indeed, and they should fix it there too".
I'm completely open-minded on more powers. And I do think, if parties promise a thing, then it's bad if they don't deliver it.
But I have to say this: every time I watch Holyrood, the level of debate is almost the most embarrassing thing. But not quite, because what is absolutely the most embarrassing thing is the number of empty seats in the chamber.
For crying out loud. These people get, what is it, £70K PA each, of our money, and they can't even be bothered to turn up when the cameras are there!
I'm curbing my enthusiasm for more powers for Holyrood till I see a bit more bums-on-seats commitment from the buggers we pay to send there.
And if your response is "Westminster has the same problem" my response to your response is "Yes indeed, and they should fix it there too".
In reply to Removed User:
Then again, show me a newspaper that would have reported anything different, no matter how well he performed.
I don't like him either, but that is by the by, I do sometimes feel a little sorry for him for being such an underdog with everyone against him.
He could play a blinder, but it will always be reported as he has ' blown it'
> The Guardian don't think much of his performance either.
> He's blown it.
Then again, show me a newspaper that would have reported anything different, no matter how well he performed.
I don't like him either, but that is by the by, I do sometimes feel a little sorry for him for being such an underdog with everyone against him.
He could play a blinder, but it will always be reported as he has ' blown it'
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Ok so given that Westminster has done nothing about it, how long should we wait?
Which powers are you in favour of having in Scotland?
Ok so given that Westminster has done nothing about it, how long should we wait?
Which powers are you in favour of having in Scotland?
In reply to Jim C: Have you been watching City Barca quaffing a few beers? This is the easiest argument I've pissed on I think since I joined UKC in 2001...
1. "A politician's promise is worth nothing. " Jim C just a few short hours ago...
2. In the UK we have limited terms.. so cameron could be out barely 6 months after the vote..
3. Salmonds preferred option was the euro..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4143731/Alex-Salmond-Euro-m...
Now he wants the £..
Yet he can change his mind...
'under any circumstances'.. well apart from the three above..
1. "A politician's promise is worth nothing. " Jim C just a few short hours ago...
2. In the UK we have limited terms.. so cameron could be out barely 6 months after the vote..
3. Salmonds preferred option was the euro..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4143731/Alex-Salmond-Euro-m...
Now he wants the £..
Yet he can change his mind...
'under any circumstances'.. well apart from the three above..
In reply to Saor Alba:
Like I said, my mind is open on this. But the status quo looks OK to me; just as things are now, I think Scotland is doing quite well at having its social-inclusion cake and eating it, without being exposed to the crazier winds of start-a-small-business-or-starve economic liberalism that are chafing too many folk in England.
Like I said, my mind is open on this. But the status quo looks OK to me; just as things are now, I think Scotland is doing quite well at having its social-inclusion cake and eating it, without being exposed to the crazier winds of start-a-small-business-or-starve economic liberalism that are chafing too many folk in England.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Dont ask dont get..
I'm doubtful benefits can work.. people will move. But I think a federal UK is the future.. semi-independent states with a higher level. At the moment its a joke, namely scots voting on english issues. We need to modernise the union.
Dont ask dont get..
I'm doubtful benefits can work.. people will move. But I think a federal UK is the future.. semi-independent states with a higher level. At the moment its a joke, namely scots voting on english issues. We need to modernise the union.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
And therein lies the problem, much as you might disagree with the White Paper, SNP, Yes Scotland etc, there is a vision and information.
However, there is nothing other than the vague opinions such as your post above. Of course that is fine if you don't want any more powers devolved (please clarify).
Presuming you do, which ones, when and how? These are the questions Better Together is asking of Yes Scotland so can you answer your own questions?
And therein lies the problem, much as you might disagree with the White Paper, SNP, Yes Scotland etc, there is a vision and information.
However, there is nothing other than the vague opinions such as your post above. Of course that is fine if you don't want any more powers devolved (please clarify).
Presuming you do, which ones, when and how? These are the questions Better Together is asking of Yes Scotland so can you answer your own questions?
In reply to IainRUK:
Nae chance of federalism. Lib Dems are dead and both Labours and Tories are against it. It's not going to be in any party manifesto.
The UK could deliver on it today, but doesn't.
Nae chance of federalism. Lib Dems are dead and both Labours and Tories are against it. It's not going to be in any party manifesto.
The UK could deliver on it today, but doesn't.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I see the issues against it. Few states, one state will dominate.. But I think its how we should try to go..
The US is a vast area, many states, a few areas do have undue influence but thats kind of inevitable.. NY, TX, CA.. etc..
RI for example would really struggle to oppose NY without help.
I see the issues against it. Few states, one state will dominate.. But I think its how we should try to go..
The US is a vast area, many states, a few areas do have undue influence but thats kind of inevitable.. NY, TX, CA.. etc..
RI for example would really struggle to oppose NY without help.
In reply to Saor Alba:
You want me to be definite? Right, I'll be definite: we're fine where we are. No change please, except that if MSPs are paid all that moolah, they can bloody well turn up for the show.
That's my starting position. It's completely specific. It's based on the utterly reliable principle "If it ain't broke" etc.
What's your position? How specific is it? For example, what currency do you deal in? I deal in Pounds
I'll be frank, Saor: we've missed you. At least you argue, instead of just shouting childish racist abuse like that Jackal fellow, and whatever Shona the Commie is calling herself these days
You want me to be definite? Right, I'll be definite: we're fine where we are. No change please, except that if MSPs are paid all that moolah, they can bloody well turn up for the show.
That's my starting position. It's completely specific. It's based on the utterly reliable principle "If it ain't broke" etc.
What's your position? How specific is it? For example, what currency do you deal in? I deal in Pounds
I'll be frank, Saor: we've missed you. At least you argue, instead of just shouting childish racist abuse like that Jackal fellow, and whatever Shona the Commie is calling herself these days
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't drink, and I don't watch football.
You are assuming that I have taken sides on which politicians 'lie' , I have not said one side or another is being truthful, I am no fan of politicians in general and trust none of them.
Write almost anything against Salmond you like and I will probably agree with you.
( or Blair, or Brown, or Cameron or Milliband )
I don't drink, and I don't watch football.
You are assuming that I have taken sides on which politicians 'lie' , I have not said one side or another is being truthful, I am no fan of politicians in general and trust none of them.
Write almost anything against Salmond you like and I will probably agree with you.
( or Blair, or Brown, or Cameron or Milliband )
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Ok as you're representing BT, is that their official position?
My position is simple - all powers held by Westminster transfered to Holyrood.
Actually I take issue with your faux praise above. You still haven't addressed your disgraceful assertion about anti-Englishness which does your campaign no favours. When I asked you you avoided it as if it didn't happen but clearly you seem to believe this to be a major part of the Yes Scotland campaign.
I have been teaching skiing in Gaelic at the Lecht (much more skiing available than Cairn Gorm as you don't have to queue). You can see me on BBC An Là.
There was a car in the car park with massive yes stickers. No BT ones seen.
Ok as you're representing BT, is that their official position?
My position is simple - all powers held by Westminster transfered to Holyrood.
Actually I take issue with your faux praise above. You still haven't addressed your disgraceful assertion about anti-Englishness which does your campaign no favours. When I asked you you avoided it as if it didn't happen but clearly you seem to believe this to be a major part of the Yes Scotland campaign.
I have been teaching skiing in Gaelic at the Lecht (much more skiing available than Cairn Gorm as you don't have to queue). You can see me on BBC An Là.
There was a car in the car park with massive yes stickers. No BT ones seen.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Come off it. The anti-English racism is all over this very thread. Read it and weep.
Don't tell me I'm disgraceful. Tell the racists on YOUR side. When you've sorted them out, then you might have a leg to stand on to buttonhole me.
Come off it. The anti-English racism is all over this very thread. Read it and weep.
Don't tell me I'm disgraceful. Tell the racists on YOUR side. When you've sorted them out, then you might have a leg to stand on to buttonhole me.
In reply to Saor Alba:
TBF Lynx hasnt been a great advert..
Re your desire.. that wont and cant happen. It needs full independence for that. How can you have differences in welfare yet in the same state so close to each other?
> Ok as you're representing BT, is that their official position?
> My position is simple - all powers held by Westminster transfered to Holyrood.
> Actually I take issue with your faux praise above. You still haven't addressed your disgraceful assertion about anti-Englishness which does your campaign no favours. When I asked you you avoided it as if it didn't happen but clearly you seem to believe this to be a major part of the Yes Scotland campaign.
> I have been teaching skiing in Gaelic at the Lecht (much more skiing available than Cairn Gorm as you don't have to queue). You can see me on BBC An Là.
> There was a car in the car park with massive yes stickers. No BT ones seen.
TBF Lynx hasnt been a great advert..
Re your desire.. that wont and cant happen. It needs full independence for that. How can you have differences in welfare yet in the same state so close to each other?
In reply to IainRUK:
As to stickers--I have asked and asked and asked Better Together to send me some, and they haven't. So I'll be making my own.
As to stickers--I have asked and asked and asked Better Together to send me some, and they haven't. So I'll be making my own.
In reply to Saor Alba:
probably because the BT supporters know they'll get their car windows stoved in if they display stickers. (which has happened to several folk around here)
> There was a car in the car park with massive yes stickers. No BT ones seen.
probably because the BT supporters know they'll get their car windows stoved in if they display stickers. (which has happened to several folk around here)
In reply to IainRUK:
I'm not admitting anything, Iain, and we are not disagreeing , my link on Cameron's ruling out Devo Max was meant not to be taken at all seriously, as I pointed out in the next sentence .
it is obvious that Cameron could be persuaded to change that statement if it suits him.
( why would we believe any politician, we need to look elsewhere for the truth before we make up our minds)
> So you admit Camerons statement isn't worth the paper written on?
I'm not admitting anything, Iain, and we are not disagreeing , my link on Cameron's ruling out Devo Max was meant not to be taken at all seriously, as I pointed out in the next sentence .
it is obvious that Cameron could be persuaded to change that statement if it suits him.
( why would we believe any politician, we need to look elsewhere for the truth before we make up our minds)
In reply to Jim C:
I certainly look elsewhere than to here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians. I look at the extraordinary achievement that the Union is, at the astonishing things that Britain has done by being united since 1707--and that's where I get my deepest reasons for wanting the Union to continue.
Britain isn't perfect, no nation is, but it has changed the world, massively for the better. The modern world is unimaginable without our input. If it wasn't for Britain there would be no industrial revolution, no America, no philosophical basis for democracy (Locke), no philosophical basis for free trade (Smith). Napoleon would have won, and so would the Kaiser, and so would Hitler.
Neither England nor Scotland could have done it alone. We really are better together. And we should stay together.
I certainly look elsewhere than to here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians. I look at the extraordinary achievement that the Union is, at the astonishing things that Britain has done by being united since 1707--and that's where I get my deepest reasons for wanting the Union to continue.
Britain isn't perfect, no nation is, but it has changed the world, massively for the better. The modern world is unimaginable without our input. If it wasn't for Britain there would be no industrial revolution, no America, no philosophical basis for democracy (Locke), no philosophical basis for free trade (Smith). Napoleon would have won, and so would the Kaiser, and so would Hitler.
Neither England nor Scotland could have done it alone. We really are better together. And we should stay together.
Post edited at 22:58
In reply to IainRUK:
So if UKIP are lobbying the Tories to move to the right as you say how does this move both parties to the centre ground exactly? Your statement makes no sense.
Also, can you explain your guarantee that the uk will no leave Europe despite the fact our current government is promising a referendum on Europe?
> UK ultra right? I think you need to travel... Cameron is under pressure (UKIP etc) from not being right enough. Basically both parties know the centre ground is the future but the tail wags the dog at the times and they shift back to their roots too
So if UKIP are lobbying the Tories to move to the right as you say how does this move both parties to the centre ground exactly? Your statement makes no sense.
Also, can you explain your guarantee that the uk will no leave Europe despite the fact our current government is promising a referendum on Europe?
In reply to Saor Alba:
Can you clarify a statement by yourself on a recent post? Someone asked what currency Scotland would use if it became independent and you said the pound. Which pound were you referring to? Perhaps the Egyptian pound?
And while we are at it. Can you also clarify your Scotland in the EU position that you have previously mentioned?
Thanks.
Can you clarify a statement by yourself on a recent post? Someone asked what currency Scotland would use if it became independent and you said the pound. Which pound were you referring to? Perhaps the Egyptian pound?
And while we are at it. Can you also clarify your Scotland in the EU position that you have previously mentioned?
Thanks.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
To put it to bed.. People say no europe.. when their bosses say no europe = job losses people switch..
We want to be an isolated independent isle.. in reality that just doesn't fit the modern world. We need Europe. We need to work out how and how much but no Europe will not happen. Academia and business needs it.
> So if UKIP are lobbying the Tories to move to the right as you say how does this move both parties to the centre ground exactly? Your statement makes no sense.
> Also, can you explain your guarantee that the uk will no leave Europe despite the fact our current government is promising a referendum on Europe?
To put it to bed.. People say no europe.. when their bosses say no europe = job losses people switch..
We want to be an isolated independent isle.. in reality that just doesn't fit the modern world. We need Europe. We need to work out how and how much but no Europe will not happen. Academia and business needs it.
In reply to Blobb:
They can use the £.. they just cant share control. Its perfectly normal to do that.
> Can you clarify a statement by yourself on a recent post? Someone asked what currency Scotland would use if it became independent and you said the pound. Which pound were you referring to? Perhaps the Egyptian pound?
> And while we are at it. Can you also clarify your Scotland in the EU position that you have previously mentioned?
> Thanks.
They can use the £.. they just cant share control. Its perfectly normal to do that.
In reply to IainRUK:
Can't argue with that. It's been going on for centuries.
> They can use the £.. they just cant share control. Its perfectly normal to do that.
Can't argue with that. It's been going on for centuries.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
That post will have done more good than all the negativity we have seen on here, which is counterproductive. ( in my view)
The problem with BT is they play good cop bad cop on a weekly basis.
> I certainly look elsewhere than to here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians. I look at the extraordinary achievement that the Union is......
That post will have done more good than all the negativity we have seen on here, which is counterproductive. ( in my view)
The problem with BT is they play good cop bad cop on a weekly basis.
In reply to Jim C:
Do you not think the SNP have done that? I think Salmonds 'you bully' response was just as dangerous? It shows a lack of foresight.
Re TinE's point.. England dominates the UK political scene. We know that. In Scotland the central belt does Scotlands, in Wales Cardiff and Wales do Wales'. Its inevitable.
> That post will have done more good than all the negativity we have seen on here, which is counterproductive. ( in my view)
> The problem with BT is they play good cop bad cop on a weekly basis.
Do you not think the SNP have done that? I think Salmonds 'you bully' response was just as dangerous? It shows a lack of foresight.
Re TinE's point.. England dominates the UK political scene. We know that. In Scotland the central belt does Scotlands, in Wales Cardiff and Wales do Wales'. Its inevitable.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> I certainly look elsewhere than to here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians. I look at the extraordinary achievement that the Union is, at the astonishing things that Britain has done by being united since 1707--and that's where I get my deepest reasons for wanting the Union to continue.
Aye, lots of Scots sent by the UK and as aggressors, to force foreigners to submit to britains might....some may have benefitted in Scotland but a hell of a lot of people didn't....we could have done quite well on our own.> Britain isn't perfect, no nation is, but it has changed the world, massively for the better. The modern world is unimaginable without our input. If it wasn't for Britain there would be no industrial revolution, no America, no philosophical basis for democracy (Locke), no philosophical basis for free trade (Smith). Napoleon would have won, and so would the Kaiser, and so would Hitler.
Excuse me while I spew in this bucket....> Neither England nor Scotland could have done it alone. We really are better together. And we should stay together.
Aye, those were the days, brings a tear to your eye....No, I think you need Scotland...but to be honest we could do quite well on our own...so could you, the ruk will be just fine, it'll hurt, but you'll just need to "man up", "stiff upper lip" and all that...In reply to Jim C:
Thank you. It's so easy for us to be distracted from stating loud and clear what really drives us.
What really drives me? What's the emotional motor of my belief in the Union? Well, lots of personal affections which I can't really retail on here. But also, behind that, what Scots and English did shoulder to shoulder to build a new and better world in all sorts of inconspicuous ways. And also in conspicuous ones, like at Waterloo on June 18 1815, and at the Somme on July 1 1916, and on Normandy's beaches on June 6 1944.
Yes, I really am that Churchillian...
PS I totally agree about Better Together; they're a bloody nightmare, especially if you're on their side
Thank you. It's so easy for us to be distracted from stating loud and clear what really drives us.
What really drives me? What's the emotional motor of my belief in the Union? Well, lots of personal affections which I can't really retail on here. But also, behind that, what Scots and English did shoulder to shoulder to build a new and better world in all sorts of inconspicuous ways. And also in conspicuous ones, like at Waterloo on June 18 1815, and at the Somme on July 1 1916, and on Normandy's beaches on June 6 1944.
Yes, I really am that Churchillian...
PS I totally agree about Better Together; they're a bloody nightmare, especially if you're on their side
In reply to IainRUK:
Iain, the problem is neither you nor me speak for the rest of the uk. You can't guarantee the result of a referendum on europe any more than you can guarantee UKIP won't pick up more by elections and therefore more lobbying power.
All I'm saying is that the notion that a no vote is also a definite vote to stay in Europe is a false one
> To put it to bed.. People say no europe.. when their bosses say no europe = job losses people switch..
> We want to be an isolated independent isle.. in reality that just doesn't fit the modern world. We need Europe. We need to work out how and how much but no Europe will not happen. Academia and business needs it.
Iain, the problem is neither you nor me speak for the rest of the uk. You can't guarantee the result of a referendum on europe any more than you can guarantee UKIP won't pick up more by elections and therefore more lobbying power.
All I'm saying is that the notion that a no vote is also a definite vote to stay in Europe is a false one
In reply to lynx3555:
I appreciate you might not be fully equipped to win an intellectual argument, but on this evidence it's an effort to believe there is any conscious thought prior to hitting the submit button.
You are a troll, aren't you?
> Aye, lots of Scots sent by the UK and as aggressors, to force foreigners to submit to britains might....some may have benefitted in Scotland but a hell of a lot of people didn't....we could have done quite well on our own.
> Excuse me while I spew in this bucket....
> Aye, those were the days, brings a tear to your eye....No, I think you need Scotland...but to be honest we could do quite well on our own...so could you, the ruk will be just fine, it'll hurt, but you'll just need to "man up", "stiff upper lip" and all that...
I appreciate you might not be fully equipped to win an intellectual argument, but on this evidence it's an effort to believe there is any conscious thought prior to hitting the submit button.
You are a troll, aren't you?
In reply to Jon Wylie:
I'm a bit late to this debate, so excuse me if it's already been discussed, but I'm curious to know what thoughts are re. Scotland possibly keeping Stirling?... Seems to be a lot of debate, on the news, about that recently.
I'm a bit late to this debate, so excuse me if it's already been discussed, but I'm curious to know what thoughts are re. Scotland possibly keeping Stirling?... Seems to be a lot of debate, on the news, about that recently.
In reply to Clauso:
I think the point we got to in the negotiations was that England would accept East Kilbride and Cumbernauld as a job lot, provided Scotland took on Barrow-in-Furness.
To my mind Scotland got the worse end of this deal
I think the point we got to in the negotiations was that England would accept East Kilbride and Cumbernauld as a job lot, provided Scotland took on Barrow-in-Furness.
To my mind Scotland got the worse end of this deal
Post edited at 00:01
In reply to IainRUK:
Why wouldn't he accuse them of bullying....it's not just the SNP that is noticing the underhanded bullying tactics that the UK government has been using....sadly it seems, a lot of Britnats are supporting these dispicable acts.
Quote: "Instead of letting the Scottish voters make a reasoned and unpressured decision, the London establishment has increasingly been playing it dirty. As the Irish economics commentator David McWilliams has pointed out, London’s “bully-boy” tactics have been so clumsy that they may backfire."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/02/18/as-scotland-mulls-in...
> Do you not think the SNP have done that? I think Salmonds 'you bully' response was just as dangerous? It shows a lack of foresight.
Why wouldn't he accuse them of bullying....it's not just the SNP that is noticing the underhanded bullying tactics that the UK government has been using....sadly it seems, a lot of Britnats are supporting these dispicable acts.
Quote: "Instead of letting the Scottish voters make a reasoned and unpressured decision, the London establishment has increasingly been playing it dirty. As the Irish economics commentator David McWilliams has pointed out, London’s “bully-boy” tactics have been so clumsy that they may backfire."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/02/18/as-scotland-mulls-in...
In reply to Tim Chappell:
So Stirling is now off the table. Thanks for the clarification... God knows why Mark Carney was sticking his oar in there? He really ought to stick to monetary matters.
So Stirling is now off the table. Thanks for the clarification... God knows why Mark Carney was sticking his oar in there? He really ought to stick to monetary matters.
In reply to Clauso:
Mind you, I do think Cameron should hold out for Balamory. Lovely spot, and so many English people take their kids on holiday there.
In exchange, we'll give the Scots Blackpool. Actually, screw the exchange bit. Somebody, anybody, just please take Blackpool.
Mind you, I do think Cameron should hold out for Balamory. Lovely spot, and so many English people take their kids on holiday there.
In exchange, we'll give the Scots Blackpool. Actually, screw the exchange bit. Somebody, anybody, just please take Blackpool.
Post edited at 00:09
In reply to Tim Chappell:
.......... provided Scotland took on Barrow-in-Furness.
Although the Barovians could teach them how to build ships!
I'll get my coat!
.......... provided Scotland took on Barrow-in-Furness.
> To my mind Scotland got the worse end of this deal
Although the Barovians could teach them how to build ships!
I'll get my coat!
Post edited at 00:10
In reply to IainRUK:
I'm not an SNP supporter, and they might well have made a mistake playing the downtrodden, victim. Time will tell.
My gut feeling is that it will put off as many 'floaters ' as it will appeal to, so be fairly neutral.
Those hard core for and against voters are irrelevant, nothing can be said that will change their minds.
I would rather they would all do what they signed up to do, and follow the spirit Edinburgh agreement.
"be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people
deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect"
> Do you not think the SNP have done that? I think Salmonds 'you bully' response was just as dangerous? It shows a lack of foresight.
I'm not an SNP supporter, and they might well have made a mistake playing the downtrodden, victim. Time will tell.
My gut feeling is that it will put off as many 'floaters ' as it will appeal to, so be fairly neutral.
Those hard core for and against voters are irrelevant, nothing can be said that will change their minds.
I would rather they would all do what they signed up to do, and follow the spirit Edinburgh agreement.
"be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people
deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect"
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
No you have had a small degree of control for centuries, probably more than your pro rota share. You will have zero control if you iScotland chooses to use GBP.
> Can't argue with that. It's been going on for centuries.
No you have had a small degree of control for centuries, probably more than your pro rota share. You will have zero control if you iScotland chooses to use GBP.
In reply to Jim C:
As a matter of fact, and if anyone cares, the whole referendum process from day one has not commanded my confidence.
For a very simple reason: it started with a fundamental confusion.
The question of the minimum age for voting is a constitutional question that can reasonably be asked.
If it is asked, that question can and must be kept separate from all questions of party-political interest.
In the referendum negotiations David Cameron allowed this question to be mixed up with the Yes Campaign's calculations of their political advantage.
I believe that was a fundamental betrayal of constitutional principles on David Cameron's part.
I therefore believe that this whole process is fundamentally flawed.
I don't actually think that the SNP are right to think that letting 16-year-olds vote in the referendum will help them at all. But their move to gerrymander the referendum in their favour was an atrocious piece of electoral chicanery. I understand why Cameron let it happen (it was a quid pro quo for no third option on the ballot-paper). Nonetheless I am appalled that he did.
>
> I would rather they would all do what they signed up to do, and follow the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement.
> I would rather they would all do what they signed up to do, and follow the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement.
> "be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people
As a matter of fact, and if anyone cares, the whole referendum process from day one has not commanded my confidence.
For a very simple reason: it started with a fundamental confusion.
The question of the minimum age for voting is a constitutional question that can reasonably be asked.
If it is asked, that question can and must be kept separate from all questions of party-political interest.
In the referendum negotiations David Cameron allowed this question to be mixed up with the Yes Campaign's calculations of their political advantage.
I believe that was a fundamental betrayal of constitutional principles on David Cameron's part.
I therefore believe that this whole process is fundamentally flawed.
I don't actually think that the SNP are right to think that letting 16-year-olds vote in the referendum will help them at all. But their move to gerrymander the referendum in their favour was an atrocious piece of electoral chicanery. I understand why Cameron let it happen (it was a quid pro quo for no third option on the ballot-paper). Nonetheless I am appalled that he did.
Post edited at 00:27
In reply to lynx3555:
Great link. Did you actually read it??
"British pound notes circulated interchangeably with Irish pound notes up to 1979, when finally, in preparation for Ireland’s transition to the euro, the Irish pound’s link with sterling was broken."
Euro transition? 1979? WTF. Must try harder.
LD
Great link. Did you actually read it??
"British pound notes circulated interchangeably with Irish pound notes up to 1979, when finally, in preparation for Ireland’s transition to the euro, the Irish pound’s link with sterling was broken."
Euro transition? 1979? WTF. Must try harder.
LD
In reply to Lurking Dave:
Just a little typo, nothing to get to excited about hawk eye.....The Irish pound was superseded by the euro on 1 January 1999...1979 should have been 1999.
Just a little typo, nothing to get to excited about hawk eye.....The Irish pound was superseded by the euro on 1 January 1999...1979 should have been 1999.
In reply to lynx3555:
Ahh, good. And the rest of the article??
"Barroso’s intervention is particularly anomalous given that the European Commission has no official role in deciding who joins the EU. That prerogative lies with the governments of individual member nations."
Is this not exactly what Barroso said?
"the Conservatives, Labor, and the Liberal Democrats – last week concurred in saying that the U.K. would not allow an independent Scotland to use the pound."
Funny I thought that they said that an independent Scotland would not be part of a currency union?
I like to be clear what are typo's and what is spin.
Cheers
LD
Ahh, good. And the rest of the article??
"Barroso’s intervention is particularly anomalous given that the European Commission has no official role in deciding who joins the EU. That prerogative lies with the governments of individual member nations."
Is this not exactly what Barroso said?
"the Conservatives, Labor, and the Liberal Democrats – last week concurred in saying that the U.K. would not allow an independent Scotland to use the pound."
Funny I thought that they said that an independent Scotland would not be part of a currency union?
I like to be clear what are typo's and what is spin.
Cheers
LD
On behalf of most of England and Wales could I say
"I think we might be OK this month, the council tax starts again in April
"Oh ,good, we're not as skint as we thought, we can get the girls new school jumpers and pay for the field trip
"yes, did you hear that Scotland might leave the UK and is arguing about not being able to link to the Pound"
"Really, can you Put the cat litter in the bin, I will be home late, bloody Chinese want to change the order again...."
Post edited at 00:58
In reply to lynx3555:
Your previous statement that you aren't an economist is holding up. The Euro started it's life as a real currency on 1/1/2002 NOT 1999.
I am not an economist but even I knew that.
Your previous statement that you aren't an economist is holding up. The Euro started it's life as a real currency on 1/1/2002 NOT 1999.
I am not an economist but even I knew that.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Well on hundreds of websites it says you're wrong
I thought I'd give you this link....
http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Irish_pound
Well on hundreds of websites it says you're wrong
I thought I'd give you this link....
http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Irish_pound
In reply to lynx3555:
Okay, got that slightly wrong. The Euro took over from other currencies on 1/1/2002. Apologies.
However the Euro only superseded the Irish Pound on that day. So I guess you are correct in saying you aren't an economist.
Okay, got that slightly wrong. The Euro took over from other currencies on 1/1/2002. Apologies.
However the Euro only superseded the Irish Pound on that day. So I guess you are correct in saying you aren't an economist.
In reply to lynx3555:
so is an UN-presssured decision the £ f*cked whilst we watch on C5...?
> Why wouldn't he accuse them of bullying....it's not just the SNP that is noticing the underhanded bullying tactics that the UK government has been using....sadly it seems, a lot of Britnats are supporting these dispicable acts.
> Quote: "Instead of letting the Scottish voters make a reasoned and unpressured decision, the London establishment has increasingly been playing it dirty. As the Irish economics commentator David McWilliams has pointed out, London’s “bully-boy” tactics have been so clumsy that they may backfire."
so is an UN-presssured decision the £ f*cked whilst we watch on C5...?
In reply to no-one in particular:
For everyone arguing about how strong Scotland's economy is, we can find out the market's view on that from next year now the Scots can issue their own bonds which will be guaranteed by Edinburgh rather than Westminster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26245684
For everyone arguing about how strong Scotland's economy is, we can find out the market's view on that from next year now the Scots can issue their own bonds which will be guaranteed by Edinburgh rather than Westminster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26245684
In reply to Saor Alba:
There was a car in the car park with massive yes stickers. No BT ones seen.
Hardly surprising if you were teaching in gaelic!
There was a car in the car park with massive yes stickers. No BT ones seen.
Hardly surprising if you were teaching in gaelic!
In reply to Postmanpat:
Did anyone else read http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21596525-scotlands-independence-refer... ? I thought it was rather interesting.
The problem with referendums is once you start having them, it's really hard to stop other people from wanting them!
Did anyone else read http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21596525-scotlands-independence-refer... ? I thought it was rather interesting.
The problem with referendums is once you start having them, it's really hard to stop other people from wanting them!
In reply to Al Evans:
???????
Eh? I was walking through a car park. As far as I know, people don't park somewhere according to which language they think someone might speak.
You really have almost no idea about anything related to this subject or Scotland in general.
> There was a car in the car park with massive yes stickers. No BT ones seen.
> Hardly surprising if you were teaching in gaelic!
???????
Eh? I was walking through a car park. As far as I know, people don't park somewhere according to which language they think someone might speak.
You really have almost no idea about anything related to this subject or Scotland in general.
In reply to TobyA:
Yes I agree with you on that which is one of the reasons I think independence is inevitable.
Yes I agree with you on that which is one of the reasons I think independence is inevitable.
In reply to TobyA: We'll just have to see how the talks went on Monday, between the Shetlanders and Scottish Government.
"Both sides emerged saying talks had been “positive” and “constructive” as work continues on producing a prospectus, to be published in June, outlining what new powers island councils may be given."
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/8016-carmichael-criticises-snp-over-isles-au...
"Both sides emerged saying talks had been “positive” and “constructive” as work continues on producing a prospectus, to be published in June, outlining what new powers island councils may be given."
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/8016-carmichael-criticises-snp-over-isles-au...
In reply to lynx3555:
It's interesting isn't it? I guess an independent Scotland under an SNP govt. would have to give Shetland "devo-super-max" if they asked for it purely because politically they couldn't really refuse a referendum on separation if Shetland asked for it!
I wonder if Shetland has looked at the Åland Islands for constitutional inspiration - there really are some intriguing parallels.
It's interesting isn't it? I guess an independent Scotland under an SNP govt. would have to give Shetland "devo-super-max" if they asked for it purely because politically they couldn't really refuse a referendum on separation if Shetland asked for it!
I wonder if Shetland has looked at the Åland Islands for constitutional inspiration - there really are some intriguing parallels.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Actually it's not.....but then that's just wishful thinking on your behalf.
> Good for them. It is, after all, Shetland's oil
Actually it's not.....but then that's just wishful thinking on your behalf.
In reply to Saor Alba:
What Al was alluding to, and which must be obvious to everyone reading this thread, is that if you're teaching Gaelic at a location, then that location is likely to have a much higher than average percentage of YES supporters. So in that specific instance people do park somewhere according to which language they speak.
It reads like only point of your reply was to say "You really have almost no idea about anything related to this subject or Scotland in general."
A very dismissive comment, with a concomitant amount of arrogance.
What Al was alluding to, and which must be obvious to everyone reading this thread, is that if you're teaching Gaelic at a location, then that location is likely to have a much higher than average percentage of YES supporters. So in that specific instance people do park somewhere according to which language they speak.
It reads like only point of your reply was to say "You really have almost no idea about anything related to this subject or Scotland in general."
A very dismissive comment, with a concomitant amount of arrogance.
In reply to 999thAndy:
Yes I knew that and that is where his ignorance lies. To think that about the Lecht is pretty telling. In fact, if you think that as well then you also have no idea about it either. the truth is the opposite of what you think as 1) the Lecht is not like that and 2) there is no connection between Gaelic and the Yes campaign.
Try harder.
Yes I knew that and that is where his ignorance lies. To think that about the Lecht is pretty telling. In fact, if you think that as well then you also have no idea about it either. the truth is the opposite of what you think as 1) the Lecht is not like that and 2) there is no connection between Gaelic and the Yes campaign.
Try harder.
In reply to Saor Alba:
There is a wave of populism across Europe now. Perhaps its a good thing in that it has necessarily repoliticized political elites who have sunk into a very comfortable managerial politics based on the social-democratic compact across so much of Europe, but it has inherent dangers too. The PVV's study on the advantages of the Netherlands leaving the EU demonstrates this, or Le Penn's rise, but I think the recent Swiss referendum should give Scots some pause for thought.
I hope regardless of the outcome, one side wins clearly - the more a landslide the better. Because look at Switzerland - 50.3% on a not spectacular turn out. It could utterly change the country's international relations and hence economy yet you have huge sections of the population (49.7%!) and other interest groups, really angry about it and denying the legitimacy of the decision.
If the Yes campaign wins, I hope they, in the nicest possible way, kick the arse of the No campaign (or vice versa). You do not want 48-49% of your voting population embittered and blaming everything that does not work out perfectly over the next generation on the referendum. To their credit, the SNP has said that if they lose, that's it for this generation but I wonder what happens if they scrape a win? In such a 'Yes' situation you could see momentum then gathering for further constitutional shuffling - Shetland independence for example - and bitter and divisive politics at the Edinburgh level.
There is a wave of populism across Europe now. Perhaps its a good thing in that it has necessarily repoliticized political elites who have sunk into a very comfortable managerial politics based on the social-democratic compact across so much of Europe, but it has inherent dangers too. The PVV's study on the advantages of the Netherlands leaving the EU demonstrates this, or Le Penn's rise, but I think the recent Swiss referendum should give Scots some pause for thought.
I hope regardless of the outcome, one side wins clearly - the more a landslide the better. Because look at Switzerland - 50.3% on a not spectacular turn out. It could utterly change the country's international relations and hence economy yet you have huge sections of the population (49.7%!) and other interest groups, really angry about it and denying the legitimacy of the decision.
If the Yes campaign wins, I hope they, in the nicest possible way, kick the arse of the No campaign (or vice versa). You do not want 48-49% of your voting population embittered and blaming everything that does not work out perfectly over the next generation on the referendum. To their credit, the SNP has said that if they lose, that's it for this generation but I wonder what happens if they scrape a win? In such a 'Yes' situation you could see momentum then gathering for further constitutional shuffling - Shetland independence for example - and bitter and divisive politics at the Edinburgh level.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I guess Gaelic speakers are actually electorally not terribly important a group on the national level, but has polling been done that looks at this? Do Gaelic speakers break yes and no roughly in line with the rest of Scotland? Or are they more one way or t'other?
> 2) there is no connection between Gaelic and the Yes campaign.
I guess Gaelic speakers are actually electorally not terribly important a group on the national level, but has polling been done that looks at this? Do Gaelic speakers break yes and no roughly in line with the rest of Scotland? Or are they more one way or t'other?
In reply to TobyA:
Not as far as I know. I am speaking from personal knowledge on this of which I have quite a lot on Gaelic. You'll just have to accept what I say or dismiss it.
When I was at the BBC debates, I would say it was about 50/50.
Not as far as I know. I am speaking from personal knowledge on this of which I have quite a lot on Gaelic. You'll just have to accept what I say or dismiss it.
When I was at the BBC debates, I would say it was about 50/50.
Post edited at 10:38
In reply to Saor Alba:
But you clearly had something in mind when you wrote -
"the truth is the opposite of what you think as 1) the Lecht is not like that"
> Em, I don't know. What did you think?
But you clearly had something in mind when you wrote -
"the truth is the opposite of what you think as 1) the Lecht is not like that"
In reply to dissonance:
Scotland is an established country that has it's own Exclusive economic zone. Shetland has never been an independent country ever, if it did manage to become independent then that independence doesn't entitle it to an Exclusive economic zone....like Gibraltar and many, many more countries that are attached too, or in close proximity too, a much larger established country. You would have to be a real hard nose unionist to argue with that case, "so the Shetland isles are entitled to a 200 mile Exclusive economic zone"? I think not and so does International law...and you'll find that this is widely known by the islanders themselves...Britain had it's attempt to have a 200 mile Exclusive economic zone around the Ascension Isles rejected recently and they're in the middle of nowhere.
Scotland is an established country that has it's own Exclusive economic zone. Shetland has never been an independent country ever, if it did manage to become independent then that independence doesn't entitle it to an Exclusive economic zone....like Gibraltar and many, many more countries that are attached too, or in close proximity too, a much larger established country. You would have to be a real hard nose unionist to argue with that case, "so the Shetland isles are entitled to a 200 mile Exclusive economic zone"? I think not and so does International law...and you'll find that this is widely known by the islanders themselves...Britain had it's attempt to have a 200 mile Exclusive economic zone around the Ascension Isles rejected recently and they're in the middle of nowhere.
Post edited at 11:15
In reply to Saor Alba:
Fair enough - being a speaker of a minority language isn't always a prime factor in political identity. In Finland there is the Swedish-speakers party but plenty of Swedish speaking Finns DON'T vote for it.
Fair enough - being a speaker of a minority language isn't always a prime factor in political identity. In Finland there is the Swedish-speakers party but plenty of Swedish speaking Finns DON'T vote for it.
In reply to lynx3555:
Would you be against Shetland succession then? If Scotland has a right to self determination, would you deny it to Shetlanders?
Would you be against Shetland succession then? If Scotland has a right to self determination, would you deny it to Shetlanders?
In reply to lynx3555:
Jesus you spout shite..
> Scotland is an established country that has it's own Exclusive economic zone. Shetland has never been an independent country ever, if it did manage to become independent then that independence doesn't entitle it to an Exclusive economic zone....like Gibraltar and many, many more countries that are attached too, or in close proximity too, a much larger established country. You would have to be a real hard nose unionist to argue with that case, "so the Shetland isles are entitled to a 200 mile Exclusive economic zone"? I think not and so does International law...and you'll find that this is widely known by the islanders themselves...Britain had it's attempt to have a 200 mile Exclusive economic zone around the Ascension Isles rejected recently and they're in the middle of nowhere.
Jesus you spout shite..
In reply to lynx3555:
Look at international law..
> Actually it's not.....but then that's just wishful thinking on your behalf.
Look at international law..
In reply to lynx3555:
So, as far as you're concerned, Shetland could have independence from Scotland, so long as Scotland kept the oil. Interesting.
> nope, wouldn't have a problem with that
So, as far as you're concerned, Shetland could have independence from Scotland, so long as Scotland kept the oil. Interesting.
In reply to lynx3555:
Reading this thread is almost as depressing as listening to the SNP witter on about independence. Yes, it is a legitimate and understandable aspiration for a clearly defined geographical entity such as Scotland. No, in the 21st century it cannot be achieved by the stroke of a pen by King Alex; the devil will be in the detail, some large and some small.
Patently the SNP hasn't even thought through what currency they either want or will be able to use; they haven't considered what their legal relationship to the EU will be. They seem to be assuming everyone will just like bonny Scotland so much that they will accede to whatever they want. Well they won't and what's more, it will be much worse than that. The moment the yes vote wins, then that will open up an unimaginable world of pain. Every civil servant south of the border will cease to give a toss for any Scottish issue; every southern politician will cease to care because there's nothing in it for them. Dealing with devolution and independence will be the lowest possible priority. And as for the EU: if you're an EU bureaucrat and have to prioritise between the interests of an existing and powerful member like rUK, and the interests of a small prospective member like Scotland, which are you going to choose?
And the moment any institution, law, regulation or process starts unravelling or causing loss then there will be an army of lawyers ready to pounce on the Scottish government with class actions or actions on behalf of individual institutions and companies demanding compensation for losses incurred because of the actions of the Scottish government.
Disentangling the interests of the two countries in the 21st century in an orderly and sensible way has got to be a 10 year project minimum, there will be enough unintended consequences to deal with anyway even with that amount of planning and forethought. Obviously Salmond doesn't know that because he's never done a proper day's work in his life; about time the rest of you got real.
Down here in rUK we really don't want to be overrun by you lot flooding south because your roads, schools and hospitals are falling apart, through lack of funds and inability to borrow (as well as plain incompetence and lack of experience); your institutions are failing, your employment opportunities are drying up because multinationals are quietly moving to a more stable environment with more clearly defined trading links. Think I'm exaggerating? Maybe. Let's hope your kids don't find out that I'm right.
Reading this thread is almost as depressing as listening to the SNP witter on about independence. Yes, it is a legitimate and understandable aspiration for a clearly defined geographical entity such as Scotland. No, in the 21st century it cannot be achieved by the stroke of a pen by King Alex; the devil will be in the detail, some large and some small.
Patently the SNP hasn't even thought through what currency they either want or will be able to use; they haven't considered what their legal relationship to the EU will be. They seem to be assuming everyone will just like bonny Scotland so much that they will accede to whatever they want. Well they won't and what's more, it will be much worse than that. The moment the yes vote wins, then that will open up an unimaginable world of pain. Every civil servant south of the border will cease to give a toss for any Scottish issue; every southern politician will cease to care because there's nothing in it for them. Dealing with devolution and independence will be the lowest possible priority. And as for the EU: if you're an EU bureaucrat and have to prioritise between the interests of an existing and powerful member like rUK, and the interests of a small prospective member like Scotland, which are you going to choose?
And the moment any institution, law, regulation or process starts unravelling or causing loss then there will be an army of lawyers ready to pounce on the Scottish government with class actions or actions on behalf of individual institutions and companies demanding compensation for losses incurred because of the actions of the Scottish government.
Disentangling the interests of the two countries in the 21st century in an orderly and sensible way has got to be a 10 year project minimum, there will be enough unintended consequences to deal with anyway even with that amount of planning and forethought. Obviously Salmond doesn't know that because he's never done a proper day's work in his life; about time the rest of you got real.
Down here in rUK we really don't want to be overrun by you lot flooding south because your roads, schools and hospitals are falling apart, through lack of funds and inability to borrow (as well as plain incompetence and lack of experience); your institutions are failing, your employment opportunities are drying up because multinationals are quietly moving to a more stable environment with more clearly defined trading links. Think I'm exaggerating? Maybe. Let's hope your kids don't find out that I'm right.
In reply to lynx3555:
I'm not certain (and I don't think you are either) what the international law implications of Shetland independence and claiming an EEZ, but the house of lords took evidence on what would happen if the Shetland and Orkney decided to stay in the UK - then it's likely that the UK would claim its EEZ around the island and that would mess up Scottish plans rather.
I'm not certain (and I don't think you are either) what the international law implications of Shetland independence and claiming an EEZ, but the house of lords took evidence on what would happen if the Shetland and Orkney decided to stay in the UK - then it's likely that the UK would claim its EEZ around the island and that would mess up Scottish plans rather.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Hot of the press, well last year!
http://www.williamhillmedia.com/index.php/politics-all-stories/1243-you-bet...
Apparently William hill don't agree with guarantees placed on this thread that the uk won't vote to leave Europe. But what do they know, their business is only based on statistical analysis
I may even have a flutter myself
Hot of the press, well last year!
http://www.williamhillmedia.com/index.php/politics-all-stories/1243-you-bet...
Apparently William hill don't agree with guarantees placed on this thread that the uk won't vote to leave Europe. But what do they know, their business is only based on statistical analysis
I may even have a flutter myself
In reply to Jon Wylie:
Well they seem pretty certain it won't happen by offering those odds. If you're interested in betting, see this
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...
Well they seem pretty certain it won't happen by offering those odds. If you're interested in betting, see this
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...
In reply to 999thAndy:
The odds on a no vote are 1/5 (ish) at the moment.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...
> 7/1 odds, in a 2-horse race?
> How do bookies ever make a living?
The odds on a no vote are 1/5 (ish) at the moment.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...
In reply to IainRUK:
Just have been...very interesting actually....and it looks like the Blair-Dewer line will be easily done away with and our original boarder reinstated. England will have very little success Stirring up shit when it comes to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea....as they recently found when they applied for the limits extension to the Ascension Isles.
So you seriously think that a brand new country, a tiny little one for that, should be entitled to a 200 mile exclusion zone? I'm sure we could spare them some.
You Britnats just love getting a hold of a good scare story, right morbid lot aren't you.
Just have been...very interesting actually....and it looks like the Blair-Dewer line will be easily done away with and our original boarder reinstated. England will have very little success Stirring up shit when it comes to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea....as they recently found when they applied for the limits extension to the Ascension Isles.
So you seriously think that a brand new country, a tiny little one for that, should be entitled to a 200 mile exclusion zone? I'm sure we could spare them some.
You Britnats just love getting a hold of a good scare story, right morbid lot aren't you.
Post edited at 12:08
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Seems like Salmonds plan of keeping as much as possible the same after independence is what someone would come up with if they realised that disentangling things in an orderly and sensible way would take some time.
And if never having done a proper day's work in your life disqualified you from running the country we would lose an awful lot of UK cabinet ministers.
> Disentangling the interests of the two countries in the 21st century in an orderly and sensible way has got to be a 10 year project minimum, there will be enough unintended consequences to deal with anyway even with that amount of planning and forethought. Obviously Salmond doesn't know that because he's never done a proper day's work in his life; about time the rest of you got real.
Seems like Salmonds plan of keeping as much as possible the same after independence is what someone would come up with if they realised that disentangling things in an orderly and sensible way would take some time.
And if never having done a proper day's work in your life disqualified you from running the country we would lose an awful lot of UK cabinet ministers.
In reply to lynx3555:
Sorry no.. only countries with at least 100 years recent post independence history can have exclusion zones...
Jesus.. one minute Kosovo has no history... now you need Lynx's approval of when you are a proper country...
> So you seriously think that a brand new country, a tiny little one for that, should be entitled to a 200 mile exclusion zone? I'm sure we could spare them some.
Sorry no.. only countries with at least 100 years recent post independence history can have exclusion zones...
Jesus.. one minute Kosovo has no history... now you need Lynx's approval of when you are a proper country...
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Thats fine.. as said use the pound until you decide if you do go independent. Just don't expect the tail to wag the dog.
> Seems like Salmonds plan of keeping as much as possible the same after independence is what someone would come up with if they realised that disentangling things in an orderly and sensible way would take some time.
Thats fine.. as said use the pound until you decide if you do go independent. Just don't expect the tail to wag the dog.
In reply to lynx:
'So you seriously think that a brand new country, a tiny little one for that'
And your difference is?
'So you seriously think that a brand new country, a tiny little one for that'
And your difference is?
In reply to IainRUK:
Can you imagine the frothing rage they would be in if we suggested the same about Scotland?
> Jesus.. one minute Kosovo has no history... now you need Lynx's approval of when you are a proper country...
Can you imagine the frothing rage they would be in if we suggested the same about Scotland?
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Absolutely spot on - you've pretty much summed up my thoughts on this.
Already the oil industry onshore in Aberdeen is unusually quiet at this time of year (with the current oil price) with projects not being released... with hints being dropped it's down to the independence vote.
I've already seen people laid off this year, and given we're running up to shutdown season and the oil price isn't bad, that's very unusual...
Absolutely spot on - you've pretty much summed up my thoughts on this.
Already the oil industry onshore in Aberdeen is unusually quiet at this time of year (with the current oil price) with projects not being released... with hints being dropped it's down to the independence vote.
I've already seen people laid off this year, and given we're running up to shutdown season and the oil price isn't bad, that's very unusual...
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Sounds like a plan.
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
>
> And if never having done a proper day's work in your life disqualified you from running the country we would lose an awful lot of UK cabinet ministers.
Sounds like a plan.
In reply to lynx3555:
Not sure what the relevance of an application to extend the EEZ beyond the usual 200 miles has to Shetland and Orkney independence.
I believe where the claim overlaps a neighbouring country then it would normally be settled based on the median line, but otherwise, yes. Why wouldn't you?
> England will have very little success Stirring up shit when it comes to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea....as they recently found when they applied for the limits extension to the Ascension Isles.
Not sure what the relevance of an application to extend the EEZ beyond the usual 200 miles has to Shetland and Orkney independence.
> So you seriously think that a brand new country, a tiny little one for that, should be entitled to a 200 mile exclusion zone?
I believe where the claim overlaps a neighbouring country then it would normally be settled based on the median line, but otherwise, yes. Why wouldn't you?
In reply to TobyA:
Before Shetland would have any hope of having what it had prior to 1469, it would firstly need to politically return to that time. The hard core island nationalists seem to think that they require the full implementation of "Udal Law", this would then receive international recognition and they'd get their waters back.
Before Shetland would have any hope of having what it had prior to 1469, it would firstly need to politically return to that time. The hard core island nationalists seem to think that they require the full implementation of "Udal Law", this would then receive international recognition and they'd get their waters back.
In reply to MG:
The point is people supporting the no camp (or at least one person) has offered an absolute guarantee that the uk will not vote to leave Europe. The premise being that staying with the uk is somehow a safe bet, it isn't.
I reckon I may just have a flutter now as those odds are likely to shrink soon..
The point is people supporting the no camp (or at least one person) has offered an absolute guarantee that the uk will not vote to leave Europe. The premise being that staying with the uk is somehow a safe bet, it isn't.
I reckon I may just have a flutter now as those odds are likely to shrink soon..
In reply to TOS: So you don't think the combination of "Grounded Euro choppers" and very unusually long periods of bad weather, has anything to do with the cancelled work and major delays?
I haven't got home on time for about 7 months! Regularly it's 2 upto 8 days stuck offshore due to the winds and excessive sea states....some storms produced 26m waves!!...it's certainly having an effect on projects right across the North Sea.
Nice try at trying to blame all the nasty weather and helicopter issues on the "nasty" Scottish Nationalists.
I haven't got home on time for about 7 months! Regularly it's 2 upto 8 days stuck offshore due to the winds and excessive sea states....some storms produced 26m waves!!...it's certainly having an effect on projects right across the North Sea.
Nice try at trying to blame all the nasty weather and helicopter issues on the "nasty" Scottish Nationalists.
In reply to lynx3555:
Jesus.. are you actually mega pro-union trying to turn everyone against the pro-independents..
Too small.. no history.. blah blah,.. none of which mean anything.
Of course an island state, if independent, takes its territorial waters according to international law.
> Before Shetland would have any hope of having what it had prior to 1469, it would firstly need to politically return to that time.
Jesus.. are you actually mega pro-union trying to turn everyone against the pro-independents..
Too small.. no history.. blah blah,.. none of which mean anything.
Of course an island state, if independent, takes its territorial waters according to international law.
In reply to lynx3555:
Of everyone I know around town not one has a new project started this year, they're all finishing off existing work... Nothing new being released.
No offence, but I know a little more about how work is assigned for offshore construction than you do. Sea state and chopper problems don't stop design and build onshore, only oil companies do that. That's exactly what they're doing right this second.
If this continues for a few months, there will be nothing for the likes of you guys offshore to work on.
Already conversations are going on like "'x' project will miss this year's shutdown, and so will 'y' project if the client doesn't change their mind soon".
Of everyone I know around town not one has a new project started this year, they're all finishing off existing work... Nothing new being released.
No offence, but I know a little more about how work is assigned for offshore construction than you do. Sea state and chopper problems don't stop design and build onshore, only oil companies do that. That's exactly what they're doing right this second.
If this continues for a few months, there will be nothing for the likes of you guys offshore to work on.
Already conversations are going on like "'x' project will miss this year's shutdown, and so will 'y' project if the client doesn't change their mind soon".
In reply to IainRUK:
I'm curious about where the division is if Shetland is too small but Scotland big enough. What's the crucial size for independence to be possible? Should Singapore be worried?
> Too small.. no history.. blah blah,.. none of which mean anything.
I'm curious about where the division is if Shetland is too small but Scotland big enough. What's the crucial size for independence to be possible? Should Singapore be worried?
In reply to IainRUK:
I've got it! He is actually George Gideon Osborne and I claim my £5...
> Jesus.. are you actually mega pro-union trying to turn everyone against the pro-independents..
I've got it! He is actually George Gideon Osborne and I claim my £5...
In reply to wbo:
I would personally like to think that my Shetland Island, Nationalist Brothers, get a share of the oil and gas but it wouldn't be all the oil and gas like you Britnats would like it to be, wouldn't you al just "party" if Scotland was to lose anything that rightfully belonged to it.
I would personally like to think that my Shetland Island, Nationalist Brothers, get a share of the oil and gas but it wouldn't be all the oil and gas like you Britnats would like it to be, wouldn't you al just "party" if Scotland was to lose anything that rightfully belonged to it.
In reply to MG:
The Shetlands have a proud history of their own. They're a true Nordic nation of pure-blooded Vikings who have been overrun by the evil, mixed-race Scotnats for too long. Wicked apologists for a shameful, blood-spattered history of genocide exploitation land-theft imperialism drone drone blah blah blah.
Time for them to take what is rightfully theirs. The whole of Sutherland, for a start, and the Western Isles too.
The Shetlands have a proud history of their own. They're a true Nordic nation of pure-blooded Vikings who have been overrun by the evil, mixed-race Scotnats for too long. Wicked apologists for a shameful, blood-spattered history of genocide exploitation land-theft imperialism drone drone blah blah blah.
Time for them to take what is rightfully theirs. The whole of Sutherland, for a start, and the Western Isles too.
Post edited at 13:30
In reply to lynx3555:
So hold on.. you rightfully own Shetland because it was given to you so some guy could marry his missus... so 20,000 odd people have no right to independence...
You live in a strange strange world..
So hold on.. you rightfully own Shetland because it was given to you so some guy could marry his missus... so 20,000 odd people have no right to independence...
You live in a strange strange world..
In reply to TOS:
And with all your knowledge and experience you come to the conclusion that the coming election is to blame....and you gained this knowledge from here say....well I''m seeing and hearing of quite a few good things in the pipe line....I doubt it could be any worse than the old days....wasn't that long ago that oil sat around $15 Per Barrel I even remember it hitting near $10 per barrel.
Maybe you just need to change companies.
And with all your knowledge and experience you come to the conclusion that the coming election is to blame....and you gained this knowledge from here say....well I''m seeing and hearing of quite a few good things in the pipe line....I doubt it could be any worse than the old days....wasn't that long ago that oil sat around $15 Per Barrel I even remember it hitting near $10 per barrel.
Maybe you just need to change companies.
In reply to IainRUK: Personally I like the Shetlands and would like nothing more than them all being happy....they will get what is proportionately equivalent to what everyone else in Scotland has a right to.....not sure how big that will be but they can have that as a minimum....
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I don't doubt that he is. The problem, is not what Scotland keeps the same, it is how others perceive Scotland and that includes Scottish business which could relocate anywhere it choose. In a world where the global market is king I find the idea of wanting to be separate a bit worrying.
> Seems like Salmonds plan of keeping as much as possible the same after independence is what someone would come up with if they realised that disentangling things in an orderly and sensible way would take some time.
I don't doubt that he is. The problem, is not what Scotland keeps the same, it is how others perceive Scotland and that includes Scottish business which could relocate anywhere it choose. In a world where the global market is king I find the idea of wanting to be separate a bit worrying.
In reply to lynx3555:
Well you think wrong. You do not divide up international waters like that. Will the rUK claim 85% of UK waters? No, you use maritime law to set borders and claim waters.
Seriously you aren't coming across as the smartest cookie..
You don't seem to see the irony in your comments. You'd be doing far worse than what you claim the UK is doing.
A huge amount of the Oil goes through Shetland, plus it contains vast areas of untapped oil.
Well you think wrong. You do not divide up international waters like that. Will the rUK claim 85% of UK waters? No, you use maritime law to set borders and claim waters.
Seriously you aren't coming across as the smartest cookie..
You don't seem to see the irony in your comments. You'd be doing far worse than what you claim the UK is doing.
A huge amount of the Oil goes through Shetland, plus it contains vast areas of untapped oil.
In reply to ByEek:
From the point of view of the global market we need to be in the EU. The US and China want to deal with the EU not 30 odd individual countries.
Once we are in the EU we don't actually need another layer of government between us and Brussels.
> In a world where the global market is king I find the idea of wanting to be separate a bit worrying.
From the point of view of the global market we need to be in the EU. The US and China want to deal with the EU not 30 odd individual countries.
Once we are in the EU we don't actually need another layer of government between us and Brussels.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Exactly, which is why the UK or rUK won't leave.
But you want to duplicate the other services.. immigration.. customs.. currency.. military.. DVLA..
Exactly, which is why the UK or rUK won't leave.
But you want to duplicate the other services.. immigration.. customs.. currency.. military.. DVLA..
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And there, post-Yes, would be the rub.
Except--you know what? Scotland's already in the EU!
The current Yes campaign's main narrative seems to be a story (a pretty threadbare one) about how it wouldn't be THAT hard for Scotland to get back most of the UK's benefits that it loses by leaving the UK. But you know what? Scotland already has those benefits. And can keep them indefinitely, just by staying in the UK.
If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.
> Once we are in the EU
And there, post-Yes, would be the rub.
Except--you know what? Scotland's already in the EU!
The current Yes campaign's main narrative seems to be a story (a pretty threadbare one) about how it wouldn't be THAT hard for Scotland to get back most of the UK's benefits that it loses by leaving the UK. But you know what? Scotland already has those benefits. And can keep them indefinitely, just by staying in the UK.
If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.
Post edited at 14:06
In reply to lynx3555:
'hints' from the rig owner and other people I know connected to senior management (up to CEO level). A bit more reliable than the craic from the offshore tea shack.
You obviously don't get this concept, but anything you offshore guys install has to be designed and built onshore first, if that stage doesn't happen, you don't get anything to install.
Onshore design projects often over a year in advance of them appearing offshore, so if anything was on it's way, onshore would know about it a long time before you guys offshore would... and like I said, nothing *new* is being released right now, by anyone.
> (In reply to TOS)
> And with all your knowledge and experience you come to the conclusion that the coming election is to blame....and you gained this knowledge from here say....
> And with all your knowledge and experience you come to the conclusion that the coming election is to blame....and you gained this knowledge from here say....
'hints' from the rig owner and other people I know connected to senior management (up to CEO level). A bit more reliable than the craic from the offshore tea shack.
You obviously don't get this concept, but anything you offshore guys install has to be designed and built onshore first, if that stage doesn't happen, you don't get anything to install.
Onshore design projects often over a year in advance of them appearing offshore, so if anything was on it's way, onshore would know about it a long time before you guys offshore would... and like I said, nothing *new* is being released right now, by anyone.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There would no difference in the number of layers
UK>EU
Scotland>EU
And Scotland would have much less clout than the UK currently does.
There would no difference in the number of layers
UK>EU
Scotland>EU
And Scotland would have much less clout than the UK currently does.
Post edited at 14:07
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I completely agree. The problem is that there will be an interim period of several years between declaring independence and potentially being allowed to rejoin Europe. That is the crux of the matter.
Are you advocating an EU superstate? Controversial!
> From the point of view of the global market we need to be in the EU. The US and China want to deal with the EU not 30 odd individual countries.
I completely agree. The problem is that there will be an interim period of several years between declaring independence and potentially being allowed to rejoin Europe. That is the crux of the matter.
> Once we are in the EU we don't actually need another layer of government between us and Brussels.
Are you advocating an EU superstate? Controversial!
In reply to MG:
Not only do the nationalists have no idea what they're going to do about the EU, the currency, Schengen, and university funding. They have no idea what they're going to do about pensions, either:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26015455
Or are ICAS vicious mean-spirited Britnats too?
Not only do the nationalists have no idea what they're going to do about the EU, the currency, Schengen, and university funding. They have no idea what they're going to do about pensions, either:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26015455
Or are ICAS vicious mean-spirited Britnats too?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
No, it's all right. 'The Yes Scotland campaign has insisted pensions "will continue to be paid".'
So don't worry about that.
No, it's all right. 'The Yes Scotland campaign has insisted pensions "will continue to be paid".'
So don't worry about that.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> The Shetlands have a proud history of their own. They're a true Nordic nation of pure-blooded Vikings who have been overrun by the evil, mixed-race Scotnats for too long. Wicked apologists for a shameful, blood-spattered history of genocide exploitation land-theft imperialism drone drone blah blah blah.
Proud Vikings who claim they massacred all the Pictish men and boys but kept all the women for breeding...so technically they still have Pictish blood.> Time for them to take what is rightfully theirs. The whole of Sutherland, for a start, and the Western Isles too.
Just throw in York and Dublin as wellIn reply to IainRUK: you Britnats just love to mention the Shetlands and "Scotland losing the oil" in your arguments, just so you can draw out your analogy and then Jib with your dagger.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
That is a good point. All of my pension funds are currently managed by Scottish institutions. Should I be looking to move them do you think?
That is a good point. All of my pension funds are currently managed by Scottish institutions. Should I be looking to move them do you think?
In reply to TOS:
Just need to point out that I've been a project manager for a few years, done plenty of projects being involved from conception right through to completion....I have a very good idea of how it all works.
At no point have I heard of, or read of, any projects being cancelled, any confirmed cancellations of any work at all attributable to the independence campaign....I'm sure if this was the case then the Better Together mob would spew it out all over the media....Canteen talk is really just "white collar gossip", you're better just talking about the footie like us knuckle duster, pond life that work offshore.
Just need to point out that I've been a project manager for a few years, done plenty of projects being involved from conception right through to completion....I have a very good idea of how it all works.
At no point have I heard of, or read of, any projects being cancelled, any confirmed cancellations of any work at all attributable to the independence campaign....I'm sure if this was the case then the Better Together mob would spew it out all over the media....Canteen talk is really just "white collar gossip", you're better just talking about the footie like us knuckle duster, pond life that work offshore.
In reply to lynx3555:
I think Chris j is right and you really are George Osborne.
Well that or Salmond.
> (In reply to IainRUK) you Britnats just love to mention the Shetlands and "Scotland losing the oil" in your arguments, just so you can draw out your analogy and then Jib with your dagger.
I think Chris j is right and you really are George Osborne.
Well that or Salmond.
In reply to Postmanpat:
OH no, Rumpy Pumpy has weighed in now ! Not to mention Danny Alexander. He'll be one of those BritNat "blue nose" people I guess. What a bunch of meanies….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10648683/Alex-Salmonds-debt...
OH no, Rumpy Pumpy has weighed in now ! Not to mention Danny Alexander. He'll be one of those BritNat "blue nose" people I guess. What a bunch of meanies….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10648683/Alex-Salmonds-debt...
In reply to lynx3555:
So if you haven't heard of projects being cancelled or delayed, you must be right? Silly us.
So if you haven't heard of projects being cancelled or delayed, you must be right? Silly us.
In reply to lynx3555:
I don't think oil is so important, neither should Scotland..
I think its no coincidence the UK is now offering Scotland independence..
I don't think oil is so important, neither should Scotland..
I think its no coincidence the UK is now offering Scotland independence..
In reply to MG:
Right now Scotland has zero clout because it loses its voice at the UK level before it even gets to Brussels. The UK government has more votes than an independent Scotland but it doesn't vote them the same way as an independent Scotland would.
> And Scotland would have much less clout than the UK currently does.
Right now Scotland has zero clout because it loses its voice at the UK level before it even gets to Brussels. The UK government has more votes than an independent Scotland but it doesn't vote them the same way as an independent Scotland would.
Shetland would be encouraged to split with Scotland and stay with the UK, the UK would keep most of oil, have you seen the southern maritime Scotland/England boundary? What oil was left in Scotland would lie untapped the oil companies not wanting to do business with such an unstable undemocratic lawless country. Scotland would be denied the pound and kicked out the EU. We'd have no armed forces except for a Trident nuclear submarine base we can't get rid of which belongs to another country and our economy would make a banana republic look like a secure investment. We'd start life with a massive debt because previously some British banks had Scottish names, anyway they have now relocated to London along with all businesses capable of moving. Millions of Scots would be heading towards a closed border manned with guards, and our universities would fail overnight, pensioners would set up camps near Ecclefechan in order to collect their former UK pensions from an England angry at having to help the bloody Jocks. The lights would go off and we'd end up eating the dead.
I hear what you're all saying but you're just not presenting anything that scares me. Anything else to fling into the mix? We've not had aliens yet, aliens, the Black Death and Cliff Richard and you might be onto something.
I hear what you're all saying but you're just not presenting anything that scares me. Anything else to fling into the mix? We've not had aliens yet, aliens, the Black Death and Cliff Richard and you might be onto something.
In reply to drmarten:
As a result pif all of that people would start voting Tory so you end up in a market driven economy with low taxes and a small State. Scared now?'d
> I hear what you're all saying but you're just not presenting anything that scares me. Anything else to fling into the mix? We've not had aliens yet, aliens, the Black Death and Cliff Richard and you might be onto something.
As a result pif all of that people would start voting Tory so you end up in a market driven economy with low taxes and a small State. Scared now?'d
In reply to Postmanpat:
You've taken that too far.
> (In reply to drmarten)
>
> [...]
>
> As a result pif all of that people would start voting Tory
>
> [...]
>
> As a result pif all of that people would start voting Tory
You've taken that too far.
In reply to MG:
That remains to be seen. My guess is an independent Scotland would be less worried about immigration from new EU members and human rights laws, less interested in protecting the City of London and more interested in exchange rates being favourable for export industry.
> How does it vote differently do you think?
That remains to be seen. My guess is an independent Scotland would be less worried about immigration from new EU members and human rights laws, less interested in protecting the City of London and more interested in exchange rates being favourable for export industry.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I didn't realise that MEPs could vote to change exchange rates.
> That remains to be seen. My guess is an independent Scotland would be [...] more interested in exchange rates being favourable for export industry.
I didn't realise that MEPs could vote to change exchange rates.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
It's not the SNP or independence that created the problem of underfunded pension schemes. It's the UK regulator that allowed it and the companies that didn't put in enough cash. Independence is bringing an existing problem to light which would otherwise be ignored and allowed to get worse.
> They have no idea what they're going to do about pensions, either:
It's not the SNP or independence that created the problem of underfunded pension schemes. It's the UK regulator that allowed it and the companies that didn't put in enough cash. Independence is bringing an existing problem to light which would otherwise be ignored and allowed to get worse.
In reply to 999thAndy:
I didn't realise we were talking about MEPs. We were talking about how the UK uses its 'clout' in Europe. Governments can and do seek to influence exchange rates e.g. Germany doesn't like the Euro going too high against the dollar because it messes up their exports.
> I didn't realise that MEPs could vote to change exchange rates.
I didn't realise we were talking about MEPs. We were talking about how the UK uses its 'clout' in Europe. Governments can and do seek to influence exchange rates e.g. Germany doesn't like the Euro going too high against the dollar because it messes up their exports.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
the pensions crisis cant be blamed on the UK.. its a developed world problem. There's very very few developed countries not shitting it due to demographic imbalances and early retirement ages.
> It's not the SNP or independence that created the problem of underfunded pension schemes. It's the UK regulator that allowed it and the companies that didn't put in enough cash. Independence is bringing an existing problem to light which would otherwise be ignored and allowed to get worse.
the pensions crisis cant be blamed on the UK.. its a developed world problem. There's very very few developed countries not shitting it due to demographic imbalances and early retirement ages.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
So... without the SNP, we'd never have noticed there was a pensions crisis?
Goodness me, aren't the SNP amazing!
> Independence is bringing an existing problem to light which would otherwise be ignored and allowed to get worse.
So... without the SNP, we'd never have noticed there was a pensions crisis?
Goodness me, aren't the SNP amazing!
In reply to IainRUK:
> I don't think oil is so important, neither should Scotland..
I personally would still want independence, oil, or no oil, doesn't change my view....but alas, it is our (Scotland and Shetlands) oil, and as you don't see any value in having it, both for the present and the future, well I suppose you won't miss it will you.> I think its no coincidence the UK is now offering Scotland independence..
The UK is offering Scotland Independence....how very nice of them.In reply to drmarten:
Brilliant post, really made me chuckle
I'm particularly loving the latest "terror"threat of all the oil companies buggering off in the event of Scotland becoming independent. They worked in Libya under gadaffi, nigeria, Angola etc etc etc but an independent Scotland would be too frightening a prospect one things for sure, if there's oil, companies will be there to make a profit....
Yet to here anything positive about the Valhalla that is the current uk. Apart from staying in Europe, maybe.....
> Shetland would be encouraged to split with Scotland and stay with the UK, the UK would keep most of oil, have you seen the southern maritime Scotland/England boundary? What oil was left in Scotland would lie untapped the oil companies not wanting to do business with such an unstable undemocratic lawless country. Scotland would be denied the pound and kicked out the EU. We'd have no armed forces except for a Trident nuclear submarine base we can't get rid of which belongs to another country and our economy would make a banana republic look like a secure investment. We'd start life with a massive debt because previously some British banks had Scottish names, anyway they have now relocated to London along with all businesses capable of moving. Millions of Scots would be heading towards a closed border manned with guards, and our universities would fail overnight, pensioners would set up camps near Ecclefechan in order to collect their former UK pensions from an England angry at having to help the bloody Jocks. The lights would go off and we'd end up eating the dead.
> I hear what you're all saying but you're just not presenting anything that scares me. Anything else to fling into the mix? We've not had aliens yet, aliens, the Black Death and Cliff Richard and you might be onto something.
Brilliant post, really made me chuckle
I'm particularly loving the latest "terror"threat of all the oil companies buggering off in the event of Scotland becoming independent. They worked in Libya under gadaffi, nigeria, Angola etc etc etc but an independent Scotland would be too frightening a prospect one things for sure, if there's oil, companies will be there to make a profit....
Yet to here anything positive about the Valhalla that is the current uk. Apart from staying in Europe, maybe.....
In reply to lynx3555:
"The UK is offering Scotland Independence....how very nice of them."
See your point, but Westminster *could* have said no and then we might have gone the way of a civil war...
Neil
"The UK is offering Scotland Independence....how very nice of them."
See your point, but Westminster *could* have said no and then we might have gone the way of a civil war...
Neil
In reply to 999thAndy:
Well, they could vote to run a fiscal policy likely to result in a weaker currency and better exchange rates for exporting. Except they can't because they want to use the pound or maybe the Euro, neither of which they'll have control over.
> I didn't realise that MEPs could vote to change exchange rates.
Well, they could vote to run a fiscal policy likely to result in a weaker currency and better exchange rates for exporting. Except they can't because they want to use the pound or maybe the Euro, neither of which they'll have control over.
In reply to IainRUK:
I think you have caught a big one!
> I think its no coincidence the UK is now offering Scotland independence..
I think you have caught a big one!
In reply to lynx3555:
you are quite an angry young man.. try and move that chip..
It has value (I'm trying to work out how you took what I said as no value), but for the future it will have less and less. I think the oil under the falklands was a factor... also a small island with huge marine area.. which you wouldn't allow Shetland to have..
So I think the gov. will be looking at reserves for the next 10-20-50 years and north sea oil is declining.
I just don't think North sea oil is as crucial as it was 30-40 years ago when the drilling started.
withnail if the UK offers nothing why are you so enraged about not getting to share the pound?
Of course the debts will get shared. That's not to do with banks, that's just investments, benefits, infrastructure.
I'm quite surprised how little was spoken last week about concrete figures. Solid estimations of costs involved. What will be saved, what will have to be created..
Oil companies will work anywhere
But we've already seen a Scottish Marine centre close because an English Higher Education funding body wouldn't invest. Others will do the same. That's understandable when no one knows what is going on. Its why Salmonds responses have been staggering.
The main argument is instability, which the Scotnats say is just a fallacy, yet he had no plan.. just nothing factual and solid. Of course it will set off alarm bells. The Scotnats have spent too much time saying 'we'll be fine' and not enough time locked in negotiations with the EU and UK government to have a strategy, some sort of road map setting out how it will work.
> I personally would still want independence, oil, or no oil, doesn't change my view....but alas, it is our (Scotland and Shetlands) oil, and as you don't see any value in having it, both for the present and the future, well I suppose you won't miss it will you.
> The UK is offering Scotland Independence....how very nice of them.
you are quite an angry young man.. try and move that chip..
It has value (I'm trying to work out how you took what I said as no value), but for the future it will have less and less. I think the oil under the falklands was a factor... also a small island with huge marine area.. which you wouldn't allow Shetland to have..
So I think the gov. will be looking at reserves for the next 10-20-50 years and north sea oil is declining.
I just don't think North sea oil is as crucial as it was 30-40 years ago when the drilling started.
withnail if the UK offers nothing why are you so enraged about not getting to share the pound?
Of course the debts will get shared. That's not to do with banks, that's just investments, benefits, infrastructure.
I'm quite surprised how little was spoken last week about concrete figures. Solid estimations of costs involved. What will be saved, what will have to be created..
Oil companies will work anywhere
But we've already seen a Scottish Marine centre close because an English Higher Education funding body wouldn't invest. Others will do the same. That's understandable when no one knows what is going on. Its why Salmonds responses have been staggering.
The main argument is instability, which the Scotnats say is just a fallacy, yet he had no plan.. just nothing factual and solid. Of course it will set off alarm bells. The Scotnats have spent too much time saying 'we'll be fine' and not enough time locked in negotiations with the EU and UK government to have a strategy, some sort of road map setting out how it will work.
Post edited at 16:55
In reply to lynx3555:
I do know Londoners, I am one, and none I know are like that... Maybe you know the wrong sort of Londoners? Are they real cockneys? Are they really from London or is this in your head? Or could it be that some Londoners are idiots just like some people from anywhere else?
This thing about Scots being insulted comes up every long thread on this subject eventually, I can only say I've never heard it. Maybe you are unlucky, or maybe if you speak to people the way you've been posting here that could explain why you are often victim of such unpleasantness?
Often in life you get back what you give out.
> ...if you know Londoners, they have a bit of a superiority thing going on.
I do know Londoners, I am one, and none I know are like that... Maybe you know the wrong sort of Londoners? Are they real cockneys? Are they really from London or is this in your head? Or could it be that some Londoners are idiots just like some people from anywhere else?
This thing about Scots being insulted comes up every long thread on this subject eventually, I can only say I've never heard it. Maybe you are unlucky, or maybe if you speak to people the way you've been posting here that could explain why you are often victim of such unpleasantness?
Often in life you get back what you give out.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
worth quoting and bumping:
"For all of these reasons, surrendering all control over monetary policy is a deeply unattractive option, which is why — perfectly sensibly — the Scottish Government has not proposed it (and why its Fiscal Commission recommended against it). It may well be, however, that it is the position which the Scottish Government will be driven to now that the “three Chancellors” have ruled out a currency union. Their only alternative is to concede that the current SNP leadership have got it all horribly wrong and that the likes of Jim Sillars have been right all along, and that an independent Scotland should have a new currency of its own.
Pausing there, why have the SNP leadership not already adopted this as their policy for an independent Scotland? The Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission was surely correct to say that it’s this option that would give policy makers in Scotland “maximum policy flexibility”, representing “a significant increase in economic sovereignty”. The answer, of course, is that it would be very expensive, especially in the short term. Everything that currently happens in Scotland in sterling would have to be re-denominated into the new Scottish currency. Every contract. Every mortgage. Every salary. Every wage packet. The new currency might fly. Or it might sink. It would be immediately vulnerable to the verdict of the bond markets, which are notoriously ruthless in attacking perceived points of weakness. Sterling is a safe bet (or as safe a bet as you can get in this game). A new Scottish currency might not be. This is not to say that Scotland is too poor or too wee to have a currency of her own. But it is to say that the SNP have quite rightly realised that the risks are such as to make the option unattractive to the naturally risk-averse Scottish electorate."
> apropos of not much http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/the-snps-currency-nig... you can google professor Tomkins and see if you think his contribution is valuable.
worth quoting and bumping:
"For all of these reasons, surrendering all control over monetary policy is a deeply unattractive option, which is why — perfectly sensibly — the Scottish Government has not proposed it (and why its Fiscal Commission recommended against it). It may well be, however, that it is the position which the Scottish Government will be driven to now that the “three Chancellors” have ruled out a currency union. Their only alternative is to concede that the current SNP leadership have got it all horribly wrong and that the likes of Jim Sillars have been right all along, and that an independent Scotland should have a new currency of its own.
Pausing there, why have the SNP leadership not already adopted this as their policy for an independent Scotland? The Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission was surely correct to say that it’s this option that would give policy makers in Scotland “maximum policy flexibility”, representing “a significant increase in economic sovereignty”. The answer, of course, is that it would be very expensive, especially in the short term. Everything that currently happens in Scotland in sterling would have to be re-denominated into the new Scottish currency. Every contract. Every mortgage. Every salary. Every wage packet. The new currency might fly. Or it might sink. It would be immediately vulnerable to the verdict of the bond markets, which are notoriously ruthless in attacking perceived points of weakness. Sterling is a safe bet (or as safe a bet as you can get in this game). A new Scottish currency might not be. This is not to say that Scotland is too poor or too wee to have a currency of her own. But it is to say that the SNP have quite rightly realised that the risks are such as to make the option unattractive to the naturally risk-averse Scottish electorate."
In reply to Morgan Woods:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10650071/Ll...
> Lloyds Banking Group has opted to domicile TSB in England rather than Scotland ahead of the new bank’s £1.5bn stock market float.
> In a move which will be taken by some as another sign that big business is increasingly concerned about the prospect of an independent Scotland, the bank is to place its 631-branch subsidiary into a new holding company registered in London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10650071/Ll...
In reply to Morgan Woods:
I think this is huge now. There own currency would isolate them and be an expensive short term gap until presumably joining the Euro. I just can't believe its 6 months to go and this is all up in the air.
I think this is huge now. There own currency would isolate them and be an expensive short term gap until presumably joining the Euro. I just can't believe its 6 months to go and this is all up in the air.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It's a big place London...maybe it was confined to the class of Londoner I was working with.
I met some good people down there and I met some arse holes, same everywhere you go really....
Here, this might lighten things up...
If you think my mild attack on your home town was bad....imagine how a lot of Scots would view this satirical article.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/19/scottish-independence-76-th...
It's a big place London...maybe it was confined to the class of Londoner I was working with.
I met some good people down there and I met some arse holes, same everywhere you go really....
Here, this might lighten things up...
If you think my mild attack on your home town was bad....imagine how a lot of Scots would view this satirical article.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/19/scottish-independence-76-th...
In reply to lynx3555:
Aye, just make it like Margaret Thatcher was never born and we'll forgive you anything.
Aye, just make it like Margaret Thatcher was never born and we'll forgive you anything.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Judging from the voting figures there are quite a few Scots who do forgive the tories. They dont have that shabby turn out.
> Aye, just make it like Margaret Thatcher was never born and we'll forgive you anything.
Judging from the voting figures there are quite a few Scots who do forgive the tories. They dont have that shabby turn out.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not sure what this means from the Yes campaign's website:
"So you're voting No?
We are sorry that you don't agree with us that decisions about the future of Scotland are best made by the people who live in Scotland.
We welcome questions and comments from people on all sides of the debate about our country’s future.
If you really don’t agree with us, you can make contact with the No campaign - or the other No campaign or the other No campaign."
What's the "other No campaign"?
Not sure what this means from the Yes campaign's website:
"So you're voting No?
We are sorry that you don't agree with us that decisions about the future of Scotland are best made by the people who live in Scotland.
We welcome questions and comments from people on all sides of the debate about our country’s future.
If you really don’t agree with us, you can make contact with the No campaign - or the other No campaign or the other No campaign."
What's the "other No campaign"?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
You are right.
What WERE they thinking letting Gordon Brown loose talking about how pensions would be worse off after a yes vote.
(My mate who is very definitely pro union and confirmed no - never voter, was cringing at the stupidity of letting anyone with so little credibility on pensions put that point.
Anyone but Brown could have made that point. ( even if it is true)
The Nats in the office were rolling around laughing at that gaff, an easy target for them to say:-
, “The last person anyone in Scotland will take lessons from when it comes to pensions is Gordon Brown – the man who destroyed final-salary pension schemes with his £100 billion raid...
“Mr Brown's track record means that he lacks all credibility on this subject...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-cost...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1608722/Browns-tax-raid-on-...
> PS I totally agree about Better Together; they're a bloody nightmare, especially if you're on their side
You are right.
What WERE they thinking letting Gordon Brown loose talking about how pensions would be worse off after a yes vote.
(My mate who is very definitely pro union and confirmed no - never voter, was cringing at the stupidity of letting anyone with so little credibility on pensions put that point.
Anyone but Brown could have made that point. ( even if it is true)
The Nats in the office were rolling around laughing at that gaff, an easy target for them to say:-
, “The last person anyone in Scotland will take lessons from when it comes to pensions is Gordon Brown – the man who destroyed final-salary pension schemes with his £100 billion raid...
“Mr Brown's track record means that he lacks all credibility on this subject...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-cost...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1608722/Browns-tax-raid-on-...
In reply to Jim C:
whatsbeen forgotten is why would the tories want Scotland? They aren't being vengeful.. they will have basically won every general election bar 1 or 2 in the last 50 years...
whatsbeen forgotten is why would the tories want Scotland? They aren't being vengeful.. they will have basically won every general election bar 1 or 2 in the last 50 years...
In reply to dissonance:
Fixed.
> Judging from the voting figures there are quite few Scots who do forgive the tories.
Fixed.
In reply to IainRUK:
not true. Think there is just the one, a hung parliament back in the 50-60s where Scottish MPs would have altered the results. Be some closer ones but no clear cut.
After all the tories were rather popular in Scotland until recently and still have a fair amount of support. Just like the lib dems in England it isnt reflected in the seats won (or rather like the lib dems used to be).
> (In reply to Jim C)
>
> whatsbeen forgotten is why would the tories want Scotland? They aren't being vengeful.. they will have basically won every general election bar 1 or 2 in the last 50 years...
>
> whatsbeen forgotten is why would the tories want Scotland? They aren't being vengeful.. they will have basically won every general election bar 1 or 2 in the last 50 years...
not true. Think there is just the one, a hung parliament back in the 50-60s where Scottish MPs would have altered the results. Be some closer ones but no clear cut.
After all the tories were rather popular in Scotland until recently and still have a fair amount of support. Just like the lib dems in England it isnt reflected in the seats won (or rather like the lib dems used to be).
In reply to neilh:
The Scottish nationalists don't like the term "tartan Tories" but if you look at election results it's pretty likely that many old tory voters turned to voting SNP. I can't see any other plausible possibility... It's unlikely that tories moved to voting Labour and Labour voters moved to voting SNP, isn't it?
> So it may be possible that the SNP is really the Tories in disguise.
The Scottish nationalists don't like the term "tartan Tories" but if you look at election results it's pretty likely that many old tory voters turned to voting SNP. I can't see any other plausible possibility... It's unlikely that tories moved to voting Labour and Labour voters moved to voting SNP, isn't it?
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Apart from the biggest decision about the future of Scotland, which is being made by the people who live in Scotland! Bizarre phraseology.
> We are sorry that you don't agree with us that decisions about the future of Scotland are best made by the people who live in Scotland.
Apart from the biggest decision about the future of Scotland, which is being made by the people who live in Scotland! Bizarre phraseology.
In reply to IainRUK:
I wouldn't say "enraged". more mildly unsurprised that parties on all sides are playing politics, if you want to put an emotional context on it. I have been enraged a few times in my life though. Once, when I came 4th out of 5 competitors in the egg and spoon race in primary 6., just out of medal contention. The thing is, 2 out of those 3 of those medal winners cheated by using their spare hand to hold the egg on the spoon when teacher wasn't looking. Im not saying I could've been an egg and spoon world champion or anything but at the time it felt like a really big deal...
Agreed
Which is why your assertion that the uk will definitely stay in Europe despite the conservative party's promised referendum on Europe is just not true...
> withnail if the UK offers nothing why are you so enraged about not getting to share the pound?
I wouldn't say "enraged". more mildly unsurprised that parties on all sides are playing politics, if you want to put an emotional context on it. I have been enraged a few times in my life though. Once, when I came 4th out of 5 competitors in the egg and spoon race in primary 6., just out of medal contention. The thing is, 2 out of those 3 of those medal winners cheated by using their spare hand to hold the egg on the spoon when teacher wasn't looking. Im not saying I could've been an egg and spoon world champion or anything but at the time it felt like a really big deal...
> Oil companies will work anywhere
Agreed
> The main argument is instability
Which is why your assertion that the uk will definitely stay in Europe despite the conservative party's promised referendum on Europe is just not true...
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You are, afaik, partly correct. "Many" tories have defected, many being a relative term as the tories never had that much to lose up here in the first place. New Labour have lost a bit to the SNP and the Libdems have lost significantly, remember the Libdems were very strong in the Highlands.
You are, afaik, partly correct. "Many" tories have defected, many being a relative term as the tories never had that much to lose up here in the first place. New Labour have lost a bit to the SNP and the Libdems have lost significantly, remember the Libdems were very strong in the Highlands.
In reply to Jon Wylie:
We will, we have to.. when your boss says vote to leave and you lose your job.. thats what it will be...
We will, we have to.. when your boss says vote to leave and you lose your job.. thats what it will be...
In reply to dissonance:
OK thought it was.. but do think labour would be forced central..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427
OK thought it was.. but do think labour would be forced central..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427
In reply to IainRUK:
It doesn't fit with an old world either. Trade is nothing new, nor is the "global economy" really, trade has been pretty global for a long time. Britain has depended on trade for centuries. If you even look at wars like the 100 years War the underlying cause was when the wool trade was being messed about with in Flanders and that was 6 centuries ago!
> We want to be an isolated independent isle.. in reality that just doesn't fit the modern world.
It doesn't fit with an old world either. Trade is nothing new, nor is the "global economy" really, trade has been pretty global for a long time. Britain has depended on trade for centuries. If you even look at wars like the 100 years War the underlying cause was when the wool trade was being messed about with in Flanders and that was 6 centuries ago!
In reply to Jon Wylie:
Do you think its politics? I just can't see how it can work.. noone has answered that. I cant see how there was another option. But I think a new currency will be a nail in Scotlands coffin.. so expensive and a trade barrier.
I really do think this has put Salmond on the back foot and his responses have basically demonstrated that the SNP aren't fit to govern Scotland. I can't see how people think the UK isn't open to further devolution. We need that and to restructure the system.. mainly to prevent expense claims.. just deal with UK wide issues maybe every quarter.. or every month but devolve and let each countries MPs run their country and then debate UK wide issues on their own.
I think that is the future.
Bruce true, but I think there is an ignorance that little blighty can be fine on its own.. when in reality it can't and never did. Its like the anti-immigrant issue, when we need immigrant workers.
> I wouldn't say "enraged". more mildly unsurprised that parties on all sides are playing politics, if you want to put an emotional context on it. I have been enraged a few times in my life though. Once, when I came 4th out of 5 competitors in the egg and spoon race in primary 6., just out of medal contention. The thing is, 2 out of those 3 of those medal winners cheated by using their spare hand to hold the egg on the spoon when teacher wasn't looking. Im not saying I could've been an egg and spoon world champion or anything but at the time it felt like a really big deal...
> Agreed
> Which is why your assertion that the uk will definitely stay in Europe despite the conservative party's promised referendum on Europe is just not true...
Do you think its politics? I just can't see how it can work.. noone has answered that. I cant see how there was another option. But I think a new currency will be a nail in Scotlands coffin.. so expensive and a trade barrier.
I really do think this has put Salmond on the back foot and his responses have basically demonstrated that the SNP aren't fit to govern Scotland. I can't see how people think the UK isn't open to further devolution. We need that and to restructure the system.. mainly to prevent expense claims.. just deal with UK wide issues maybe every quarter.. or every month but devolve and let each countries MPs run their country and then debate UK wide issues on their own.
I think that is the future.
Bruce true, but I think there is an ignorance that little blighty can be fine on its own.. when in reality it can't and never did. Its like the anti-immigrant issue, when we need immigrant workers.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
If by 'Tory' you mean economically conservative then I'd plead guilty to swapping to the SNP. The thing is you just can't vote Tory in Scotland firstly because in most constituencies they have no chance and it's a waste of a vote, second because their candidates are crap (because they know they have no chance) and third because at the Westminster level the price of voting for financial conservatism is empowering the Eton Rifles.
I really hope that if we get independence we end up with the Labour and Conservative names and the historic baggage that goes with them getting dumped and new left and right of centre parties getting formed.
If by 'Tory' you mean economically conservative then I'd plead guilty to swapping to the SNP. The thing is you just can't vote Tory in Scotland firstly because in most constituencies they have no chance and it's a waste of a vote, second because their candidates are crap (because they know they have no chance) and third because at the Westminster level the price of voting for financial conservatism is empowering the Eton Rifles.
I really hope that if we get independence we end up with the Labour and Conservative names and the historic baggage that goes with them getting dumped and new left and right of centre parties getting formed.
Post edited at 23:46
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Do you think? I'd expect a further left.. I've always found (maybe that was Glasgow) Scots to be very socialistic, the old hard left.
I just think Scottish Labour will shift. Not sure on the right side, will be interesting.
TBH part of me wants to see it just because it will be so fascinating to watch such a dynamic time happen in the UK..
> I really hope that if we get independence we end up with the Labour and Conservative names and the historic baggage that goes with them getting dumped and new left and right of centre parties getting formed.
Do you think? I'd expect a further left.. I've always found (maybe that was Glasgow) Scots to be very socialistic, the old hard left.
I just think Scottish Labour will shift. Not sure on the right side, will be interesting.
TBH part of me wants to see it just because it will be so fascinating to watch such a dynamic time happen in the UK..
In reply to Saor Alba:
You're not coming back to that old bit of nonsense again? No connection with Gaelic and Scottish independence, eh? To requote you, you really are showing your ignorance of nationalist movements throughout the world here.
You are finding it hard to contain your anger here, have the last weeks' events shaken your confidence a bit?
> there is no connection between Gaelic and the Yes campaign.
You're not coming back to that old bit of nonsense again? No connection with Gaelic and Scottish independence, eh? To requote you, you really are showing your ignorance of nationalist movements throughout the world here.
You are finding it hard to contain your anger here, have the last weeks' events shaken your confidence a bit?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Perhaps you could explain what you think the 'link' is between Gaelic and support for Scottish
Independence? It might be self-evident to you but it's not to me.
Gaelic isn't the national language of Scotland. It's a national language of Scotland.
The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gave it official recognition as such. This was an Act passed by a Labour administration in Holyrood.
Perhaps you could explain what you think the 'link' is between Gaelic and support for Scottish
Independence? It might be self-evident to you but it's not to me.
Gaelic isn't the national language of Scotland. It's a national language of Scotland.
The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gave it official recognition as such. This was an Act passed by a Labour administration in Holyrood.
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Throughout the world nationalist movements use the language issue to strengthen the feeling of "difference", national identity and so on. You say that Gaelic isn't the only Scottish language, which is true, but it is the one which is the most different to English, Scots having similar roots to English in it's origins. It's hard to think that the English language typifies the national identity of an independent Scotland.
But with been through all this in the past so many times and basically the Scottish Nationalist position is that their nationalism isn't like other nationalisms, so you can never admit the language issue any more than you can admit that nationalism is essentially a right wing political stream.
Throughout the world nationalist movements use the language issue to strengthen the feeling of "difference", national identity and so on. You say that Gaelic isn't the only Scottish language, which is true, but it is the one which is the most different to English, Scots having similar roots to English in it's origins. It's hard to think that the English language typifies the national identity of an independent Scotland.
But with been through all this in the past so many times and basically the Scottish Nationalist position is that their nationalism isn't like other nationalisms, so you can never admit the language issue any more than you can admit that nationalism is essentially a right wing political stream.
In reply to IainRUK:
Bob Dudley of BP has already pointed out the currency issue is knocking business confidence in the oil industry.
(For the hard of thinking, 'low business confidence = less investment').
Investment by people with the right technical expertise and financial means can give you the likes of this;
http://www.zcmchina.com/sites/files/data/20131217135102319.pdf
However, if political and / or economic conditions are unfavourable, you can end up with this;
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Miller_Decomm_Programme.pdf
This latter example is now reality, thanks to a previous government.
Why am I pointing this example out? The Miller field has oil, it's still down there, it could have produced until 2030.
People can kid themselves by looking Angola and Nigeria, but it's not that simple.
Would you invest money in a country that doesn't even know what currency it'll be using in the next few years? I know I wouldn't.
Much as I think both recent UK governments have been hamfisted with the oil industry, the SNP are currently looking like the Keystone Cops in comparison.
> (In reply to Withnail)
>
> But I think a new currency will be a nail in Scotlands coffin.. so expensive and a trade barrier.
>
> I really do think this has put Salmond on the back foot and his responses have basically demonstrated that the SNP aren't fit to govern Scotland.
>
> But I think a new currency will be a nail in Scotlands coffin.. so expensive and a trade barrier.
>
> I really do think this has put Salmond on the back foot and his responses have basically demonstrated that the SNP aren't fit to govern Scotland.
Bob Dudley of BP has already pointed out the currency issue is knocking business confidence in the oil industry.
(For the hard of thinking, 'low business confidence = less investment').
Investment by people with the right technical expertise and financial means can give you the likes of this;
http://www.zcmchina.com/sites/files/data/20131217135102319.pdf
However, if political and / or economic conditions are unfavourable, you can end up with this;
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Miller_Decomm_Programme.pdf
This latter example is now reality, thanks to a previous government.
Why am I pointing this example out? The Miller field has oil, it's still down there, it could have produced until 2030.
People can kid themselves by looking Angola and Nigeria, but it's not that simple.
Would you invest money in a country that doesn't even know what currency it'll be using in the next few years? I know I wouldn't.
Much as I think both recent UK governments have been hamfisted with the oil industry, the SNP are currently looking like the Keystone Cops in comparison.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Bruce, genuinely you've made some reasonable points in this debate but this is completely bizarre. By your logic, anyone who speaks English in Scotland is then a fervent unionist?
Attacking Gaelic in this way (or people who speak)isn't really helping the debate and is showing you to be a little ignorant and fearful of an issue which isn't even an issue and that which you clearly don't understand. Would you suggest "dotaman" is outlawed for kids?
For the record, I don't speak Gaelic but I do have a few friends that do. Some of them are voting no at the referendum.
Genuinely I'd back off from this point before people start accusing you of being xenophobic....
> Throughout the world nationalist movements use the language issue to strengthen the feeling of "difference", national identity and so on. You say that Gaelic isn't the only Scottish language, which is true, but it is the one which is the most different to English, Scots having similar roots to English in it's origins. It's hard to think that the English language typifies the national identity of an independent Scotland.
> But with been through all this in the past so many times and basically the Scottish Nationalist position is that their nationalism isn't like other nationalisms, so you can never admit the language issue any more than you can admit that nationalism is essentially a right wing political stream.
Bruce, genuinely you've made some reasonable points in this debate but this is completely bizarre. By your logic, anyone who speaks English in Scotland is then a fervent unionist?
Attacking Gaelic in this way (or people who speak)isn't really helping the debate and is showing you to be a little ignorant and fearful of an issue which isn't even an issue and that which you clearly don't understand. Would you suggest "dotaman" is outlawed for kids?
For the record, I don't speak Gaelic but I do have a few friends that do. Some of them are voting no at the referendum.
Genuinely I'd back off from this point before people start accusing you of being xenophobic....
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You're right that the issue has been discussed before. As I recall, you didn't provide any evidence then and you haven't provided any this time. Just saying it must be so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid, at least not in other people's eyes.
Why would Gaelic be used to strengthen the feeling of national identity when it's spoken by fewer than 100,000 out of a population of over 5 million? If we were talking about a movement for Independence for the Western Isles, where it's in everyday use, your argument would make sense.
You've not commented on the fact that it was a Labour administration that first formally recognised Gaelic as an national language of Scotland, in 2005?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/20/media.scotland
An article from that time written by Brian Wilson, a former Labour MP and Energy Secretary who was at that time Scottish Office minister for Gaelic. He's well known in Scotland as being an arch-Unionist (he even campaigned against the creation of a devolved Scottish parliament) and one of nationalism's most outspoken critics.
You're right that the issue has been discussed before. As I recall, you didn't provide any evidence then and you haven't provided any this time. Just saying it must be so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid, at least not in other people's eyes.
Why would Gaelic be used to strengthen the feeling of national identity when it's spoken by fewer than 100,000 out of a population of over 5 million? If we were talking about a movement for Independence for the Western Isles, where it's in everyday use, your argument would make sense.
You've not commented on the fact that it was a Labour administration that first formally recognised Gaelic as an national language of Scotland, in 2005?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/20/media.scotland
An article from that time written by Brian Wilson, a former Labour MP and Energy Secretary who was at that time Scottish Office minister for Gaelic. He's well known in Scotland as being an arch-Unionist (he even campaigned against the creation of a devolved Scottish parliament) and one of nationalism's most outspoken critics.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Bruce, you really are showing your ignorance of Scotland here. How many people speak Gaelic in Scotland?
And this is just twaddle. Nationalism has and does take political positions from hard left to hard right and all points in between.
Bruce, you really are showing your ignorance of Scotland here. How many people speak Gaelic in Scotland?
> that their nationalism isn't like other nationalisms, so you can never admit the language issue any more than you can admit that nationalism is essentially a right wing political stream.
And this is just twaddle. Nationalism has and does take political positions from hard left to hard right and all points in between.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
it's the SNP's fault she got in in the first place so that's something I'll never forgive them for.
> Aye, just make it like Margaret Thatcher was never born and we'll forgive you anything.
it's the SNP's fault she got in in the first place so that's something I'll never forgive them for.
I think this article sums it all up, really.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/alex-salmond-acting-sp...
In reply to Tim Chappell:
It absolutely does. But Roald Dahl put the argument better:
youtube.com/watch?v=QriZJ-X3wbU&
> I think this article sums it all up, really.
It absolutely does. But Roald Dahl put the argument better:
youtube.com/watch?v=QriZJ-X3wbU&
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Since the Britnats and there allies have been using a constant barrage of "grape Shot" all week it doesn't suprize me seeing the media going around "bayoneting" all the wounded
After all that's what you do to squash pesky rebels.
I don't doubt they'll really be going for Alex but he'll not be as easy to catch out as you might be hoping for.
Since the Britnats and there allies have been using a constant barrage of "grape Shot" all week it doesn't suprize me seeing the media going around "bayoneting" all the wounded
After all that's what you do to squash pesky rebels.
I don't doubt they'll really be going for Alex but he'll not be as easy to catch out as you might be hoping for.
In reply to Postmanpat:
"The Financial Times’ front page yesterday exclusively revealed it has received evidence the Ministry of Defence is putting pressure on defence companies to intervene in the Scottish independence debate on behalf of the No Campaign.
Maybe history isn't that important after all, have we really learned from the past? Doesn't look like it to me. In the unlikely event of a No vote a lot of pissed off Scots will hang out the Britnats Laundry for all to see.
"The Financial Times’ front page yesterday exclusively revealed it has received evidence the Ministry of Defence is putting pressure on defence companies to intervene in the Scottish independence debate on behalf of the No Campaign.
Maybe history isn't that important after all, have we really learned from the past? Doesn't look like it to me. In the unlikely event of a No vote a lot of pissed off Scots will hang out the Britnats Laundry for all to see.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The Scots rightly complain when they are depicted as a dependency culture: rightly, because that's not actually what the statistics say.
But at the moment Alex Salmond certainly sounds like the spokesman for a dependency culture: whiny, bitter, petulant, and with no real practical plan.
When people point out to him the practical flaws in the plans he's suggested on the currency, the EU, the borders, the universities, pensions, and pretty much everything else, does he come back with an answer?
I'm afraid not; he stamps his foot and screams 'bully' and tells his critics that he doesn't believe them, and they have to do what he wants them to. That is the psychology of a dependent child, not of an independent leader.
To be honest, that this man and his party should be running Scotland, and hoping to run an independent Scotland, is something I find deeply alarming.
The Scots rightly complain when they are depicted as a dependency culture: rightly, because that's not actually what the statistics say.
But at the moment Alex Salmond certainly sounds like the spokesman for a dependency culture: whiny, bitter, petulant, and with no real practical plan.
When people point out to him the practical flaws in the plans he's suggested on the currency, the EU, the borders, the universities, pensions, and pretty much everything else, does he come back with an answer?
I'm afraid not; he stamps his foot and screams 'bully' and tells his critics that he doesn't believe them, and they have to do what he wants them to. That is the psychology of a dependent child, not of an independent leader.
To be honest, that this man and his party should be running Scotland, and hoping to run an independent Scotland, is something I find deeply alarming.
Post edited at 10:32
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: So has the Government, so have the Britnats, but then, when you have an overwhelming bias directed against you, then it's not surprising that it's starting to look bad for the SNP.....Aye, you Britnats have got some impressive weaponry, some of it imported from Europe even, and now Ziggy Stardust!
In reply to Tim Chappell:
How is he supposed to come up with an answer on details when the other side won't negotiate until after a YES vote. No matter what he says the UK government will just say "We absolutely won't allow that".
> When people point out to him the practical flaws in the plans he's suggested on the currency, the EU, the borders, the universities, pensions, and pretty much everything else, does he come back with an answer?
How is he supposed to come up with an answer on details when the other side won't negotiate until after a YES vote. No matter what he says the UK government will just say "We absolutely won't allow that".
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
In effect they are negotiating. As they have to, to make this process credible. How can anyone vote Yes or No when they don't know what the details are?
And if the UK government say nothing but no to the SNP, how come we have a referendum in the first place?
In effect they are negotiating. As they have to, to make this process credible. How can anyone vote Yes or No when they don't know what the details are?
And if the UK government say nothing but no to the SNP, how come we have a referendum in the first place?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If he can't answer questions then he could say "I don't know". But to state that there will be a currency union after everyone else has told him there won't be one looks a little desperate.
> How is he supposed to come up with an answer on details when the other side won't negotiate until after a YES vote. No matter what he says the UK government will just say "We absolutely won't allow that".
If he can't answer questions then he could say "I don't know". But to state that there will be a currency union after everyone else has told him there won't be one looks a little desperate.
In reply to Tim Chappell: you seem to forget a lot don't you....."Scottish Independence isn't about the SNP"
What all you blind Britnats don't realise is, when you think you're attacking Alex by highlighting failures, particularly ones concerning currencies and Europe, you're actually agreeing with the preposterous suggestion that Scotland is "too risky" to share the £ with and too much like Kosovo to get into the EU.....if you beleive that then you're insulting every one in Scotland.
What all you blind Britnats don't realise is, when you think you're attacking Alex by highlighting failures, particularly ones concerning currencies and Europe, you're actually agreeing with the preposterous suggestion that Scotland is "too risky" to share the £ with and too much like Kosovo to get into the EU.....if you beleive that then you're insulting every one in Scotland.
In reply to lynx3555:
Amongst all your angry sloganeering have you considered that David Bowie might just really like Scotland? Like lots of us non-Scottish British people do?
> and now Ziggy Stardust!
Amongst all your angry sloganeering have you considered that David Bowie might just really like Scotland? Like lots of us non-Scottish British people do?
In reply to lynx3555:
Seriously mate, if you gonna keep harking on about the EU issue - you really should put some effort into understanding how the basic politics and legal structures of the Union actually work.
Try this - http://ceps.eu/book/ever-changing-union-introduction-history-institutions-a... it's free, clear and only about 100 pages long.
> and too much like Kosovo to get into the EU.
Seriously mate, if you gonna keep harking on about the EU issue - you really should put some effort into understanding how the basic politics and legal structures of the Union actually work.
Try this - http://ceps.eu/book/ever-changing-union-introduction-history-institutions-a... it's free, clear and only about 100 pages long.
In reply to lynx3555:
It's not about Scotland being too 'risky', it's about avoiding currency unions without political union. It is the lesson of the Euro crisis and it is why SNP is no longer wishing to join the Euro.
> you're actually agreeing with the preposterous suggestion that Scotland is "too risky" to share the £ with
It's not about Scotland being too 'risky', it's about avoiding currency unions without political union. It is the lesson of the Euro crisis and it is why SNP is no longer wishing to join the Euro.
Post edited at 10:58
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There is no 'other side'. There is only one party that wants change. No-one else has to negotiate about anything.
> How is he supposed to come up with an answer on details when the other side won't negotiate ..
There is no 'other side'. There is only one party that wants change. No-one else has to negotiate about anything.
In reply to lynx3555:
wow.. can you answer the question about how a shared currency can work? What happens if we want different things?
> So has the Government, so have the Britnats, but then, when you have an overwhelming bias directed against you, then it's not surprising that it's starting to look bad for the SNP.....Aye, you Britnats have got some impressive weaponry, some of it imported from Europe even, and now Ziggy Stardust!
wow.. can you answer the question about how a shared currency can work? What happens if we want different things?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Those are the questions. By refusing to negotiate first and have a referendum on the actual deal the UK government has decided to make the referendum a contest between fear and anger.
They are having a referendum because they expect the fear tactic to result in a NO vote by a sufficient margin that the Scotland issue goes away for a generation. At which point they will start arguing Scotland gets more than its share of UK public expenditure because they really hate that Scotland has different policies on free University education and personal care and would much rather spend money in London than Scotland.
> In effect they are negotiating. As they have to, to make this process credible. How can anyone vote Yes or No when they don't know what the details are?
> And if the UK government say nothing but no to the SNP, how come we have a referendum in the first place?
Those are the questions. By refusing to negotiate first and have a referendum on the actual deal the UK government has decided to make the referendum a contest between fear and anger.
They are having a referendum because they expect the fear tactic to result in a NO vote by a sufficient margin that the Scotland issue goes away for a generation. At which point they will start arguing Scotland gets more than its share of UK public expenditure because they really hate that Scotland has different policies on free University education and personal care and would much rather spend money in London than Scotland.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Thats good and should be welcomed. It allows the SNP to plan. There's no 'maybe'.. it won't and should not happen.
As has been said most in the UK wont give a toss about Scotland leaving but they will about the pound potentially being affected.. its basically the only thing that will seriously impact, to even discuss offering share of the £ will be a vote loser.
> How is he supposed to come up with an answer on details when the other side won't negotiate until after a YES vote. No matter what he says the UK government will just say "We absolutely won't allow that".
Thats good and should be welcomed. It allows the SNP to plan. There's no 'maybe'.. it won't and should not happen.
As has been said most in the UK wont give a toss about Scotland leaving but they will about the pound potentially being affected.. its basically the only thing that will seriously impact, to even discuss offering share of the £ will be a vote loser.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
fees will come in.. almost (maybe even everyone) everyone in academia wants it.
The UK government has done nothing of the sort.
> Those are the questions. By refusing to negotiate first and have a referendum on the actual deal the UK government has decided to make the referendum a contest between fear and anger.
> They are having a referendum because they expect the fear tactic to result in a NO vote by a sufficient margin that the Scotland issue goes away for a generation. At which point they will start arguing Scotland gets more than its share of UK public expenditure because they really hate that Scotland has different policies on free University education and personal care and would much rather spend money in London than Scotland.
fees will come in.. almost (maybe even everyone) everyone in academia wants it.
The UK government has done nothing of the sort.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
That's not what I see. What I see is a contest between real-world politics and fantasy politics.
> the UK government has decided to make the referendum a contest between fear and anger.
That's not what I see. What I see is a contest between real-world politics and fantasy politics.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
That is one possible outcome, but any such negotiation is likely to take years. Seriously - years. I have heard anything from 3 to 10 years to broker a deal. Why would any politician want to do that before the referendum? Not only would it make the whole issue exceedingly complicated for the electorate, but there would also be a strong possibility they will be out off office before any deal is completed and a future administration could stop talks mid track thereby scuppering any chance of a vote at all.
So for all Salmond's bluster about the Westminster dragging its heels and not cooperating, in reality he wants a simple in / out referendum as quickly as possible.
The devil in the detail can be hidden away whilst everyone is patriotically waving their willys at rUK afterwards.
> By refusing to negotiate first and have a referendum on the actual deal the UK government has decided to make the referendum a contest between fear and anger.
That is one possible outcome, but any such negotiation is likely to take years. Seriously - years. I have heard anything from 3 to 10 years to broker a deal. Why would any politician want to do that before the referendum? Not only would it make the whole issue exceedingly complicated for the electorate, but there would also be a strong possibility they will be out off office before any deal is completed and a future administration could stop talks mid track thereby scuppering any chance of a vote at all.
So for all Salmond's bluster about the Westminster dragging its heels and not cooperating, in reality he wants a simple in / out referendum as quickly as possible.
The devil in the detail can be hidden away whilst everyone is patriotically waving their willys at rUK afterwards.
Post edited at 11:21
In reply to IainRUK: It won't work because you already know that don't you....Scotland could make it work but the Britnats have absolutely no intention of making it work....all this stinks of "Ye olde Alien Act"....history repeating it's self once more, but then I guess it worked well to force on the Union in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705
In reply to lynx3555:
It's been ruled out and it wouldn't work anyway. So let's have plan C for a post-independence currency.
> It won't work because you already know that don't you....Scotland could make it work but the Britnats have absolutely no intention of making it work....all this stinks of "Ye olde Alien Act"....history repeating it's self once more, but then I guess it worked well to force on the Union in the first place.
It's been ruled out and it wouldn't work anyway. So let's have plan C for a post-independence currency.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I might add: a fantasy politics based, among far too many SNP supporters, on the mystical worship of the Scottish race and its history. (Or the history of other races that are ignorantly confused by these racial mystics with the Scots.) Take a look back up this thread, for a start, and you'll see what I mean.
Do I need to remind anyone how dangerous racial mysticism is as a political force?
When I moved to Scotland for the second time in 1998, I was pretty open-minded about independence. I knew I liked the Union, but I wasn't committed to it; I was open to persuasion that there might be a better future for Scotland, and for that matter England, within a new constitutional setup. Tabloid-led British politics have often been pretty harsh, strident, and inhumane. I was definitely on for a bit of social democracy and inclusion.
What's changed my attitudes? Listening to actual Nationalists. Again, see above.
I might add: a fantasy politics based, among far too many SNP supporters, on the mystical worship of the Scottish race and its history. (Or the history of other races that are ignorantly confused by these racial mystics with the Scots.) Take a look back up this thread, for a start, and you'll see what I mean.
Do I need to remind anyone how dangerous racial mysticism is as a political force?
When I moved to Scotland for the second time in 1998, I was pretty open-minded about independence. I knew I liked the Union, but I wasn't committed to it; I was open to persuasion that there might be a better future for Scotland, and for that matter England, within a new constitutional setup. Tabloid-led British politics have often been pretty harsh, strident, and inhumane. I was definitely on for a bit of social democracy and inclusion.
What's changed my attitudes? Listening to actual Nationalists. Again, see above.
Post edited at 11:36
In reply to lynx3555:
>...the Britnats have absolutely no intention of making it work....
Why should they (whoever 'they' are) ? Its not up to them to make an independent Scotland work. Its up to an independent Scotland.
>...the Britnats have absolutely no intention of making it work....
Why should they (whoever 'they' are) ? Its not up to them to make an independent Scotland work. Its up to an independent Scotland.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Isn't "racial mysticism" as you put, it the force that holds you Britnats together? The same force that applied it's "racial mysticism" on millions of people throughout the world...The Brits were great at moving in on a nation, steeling it's gold, slagging off its religion and culture, turning them all into a bunch of opium addicts, slaughtered them...etc...etc...but at the same time keeping it's Home Counties nice and safe.
The UK has no intention of applying fair play into this referendum, in there view it's all out war.
> Do I need to remind anyone how dangerous racial mysticism is as a political force?
Isn't "racial mysticism" as you put, it the force that holds you Britnats together? The same force that applied it's "racial mysticism" on millions of people throughout the world...The Brits were great at moving in on a nation, steeling it's gold, slagging off its religion and culture, turning them all into a bunch of opium addicts, slaughtered them...etc...etc...but at the same time keeping it's Home Counties nice and safe.
The UK has no intention of applying fair play into this referendum, in there view it's all out war.
In reply to IainRUK:
Personally, I'm an internationalist. For me the forces that hold society together are mutual respect and love of our fellow humans, whatever the colour of their skin or the shape of their DNA, and of the world we live in.
What races people originate from, and who decapitated who 1400 years ago, is at the very most neither here nor there, and more likely a dangerous source of completely irrelevant and divisive passions.
Society is about the human community. The question of what political units and entities the human community should subdivide into is completely secondary. The main questions under that heading are simply (1) what have we already got that works? and (2) which politicial subdivisions, and unions, will cause the least rancour between people?
I don't at present see an independent Scotland as a good answer to either question.
Personally, I'm an internationalist. For me the forces that hold society together are mutual respect and love of our fellow humans, whatever the colour of their skin or the shape of their DNA, and of the world we live in.
What races people originate from, and who decapitated who 1400 years ago, is at the very most neither here nor there, and more likely a dangerous source of completely irrelevant and divisive passions.
Society is about the human community. The question of what political units and entities the human community should subdivide into is completely secondary. The main questions under that heading are simply (1) what have we already got that works? and (2) which politicial subdivisions, and unions, will cause the least rancour between people?
I don't at present see an independent Scotland as a good answer to either question.
Post edited at 12:07
In reply to lynx3555:
And they hired a lot of jocks to do it
haven't you got a bunker to be in?
> Isn't "racial mysticism" as you put, it the force that holds you Britnats together? The same force that applied it's "racial mysticism" on millions of people throughout the world...The Brits were great at moving in on a nation, steeling it's gold, slagging off its religion and culture, turning them all into a bunch of opium addicts, slaughtered them...etc...etc...but at the same time keeping it's Home Counties nice and safe.
And they hired a lot of jocks to do it
> The UK has no intention of applying fair play into this referendum, in there view it's all out war.
haven't you got a bunker to be in?
In reply to dissonance:
And just to make sure they are continued to be disliked, they went for the Bedroon Tax just to reinforce their unpopularity !
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> After all the tories were rather popular in Scotland until recently ..
The Poll Tax Fixed that.> [...]
>
> After all the tories were rather popular in Scotland until recently ..
And just to make sure they are continued to be disliked, they went for the Bedroon Tax just to reinforce their unpopularity !
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...