This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
...to try and balance out all the English living in Scotland who are voting No! Unfortunately most of the Poles I've spoken to feel it isn't for them to decide the future of a country they aren't from.
In reply to yer maw:
im a scot living in england and would vote no. hopefully any poles/anyone else for that matter will vote no as well.
im a scot living in england and would vote no. hopefully any poles/anyone else for that matter will vote no as well.
In reply to marsbar:
lol. all welcome as long as they like what they see and vote yes. If not I'll nut them.
lol. all welcome as long as they like what they see and vote yes. If not I'll nut them.
In reply to yer maw:
You're talking pish in my view. Most English-born pals who are settled in Scotland are voting YES. The old small 'c' conservatives (English & Scottish) were always going to vote no.
You're talking pish in my view. Most English-born pals who are settled in Scotland are voting YES. The old small 'c' conservatives (English & Scottish) were always going to vote no.
In reply to moffatross:
Unless the poles are made up there are a lot of non-conservatives who are voting no...
Unless the poles are made up there are a lot of non-conservatives who are voting no...
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't normally correct people's English on UKC, but that had me confused for ages. I wouldn't put it past the OP to imagine the poles he's been taking to, but I couldn't see the connection!
> Unless the polls are made up there are a lot of non-conservatives who are voting no...
I don't normally correct people's English on UKC, but that had me confused for ages. I wouldn't put it past the OP to imagine the poles he's been taking to, but I couldn't see the connection!
Post edited at 20:33
In reply to yer maw:
I've done a quick straw poll of all my English friends living here who have expressed an opinion/intention and a c.65% majority are voting yes.
I've done a quick straw poll of all my English friends living here who have expressed an opinion/intention and a c.65% majority are voting yes.
In reply to IainRUK:
But that's why I said small 'c'. A lot of people just don't like change, a lot of people don't like Salmond and a lot of them just can't distinguish between the SNP and a vote for independence. In the office I was working at in Glasgow, the proportion of people voting YES was a lot higher amongst those with English accents than Scottish ones.
Wings over Scotland recently ran a story about the divisive pish myth of the English skewing the vote in favour of NO which was actually peddled by an English right-wing newspaper. A very few raving right-wing loonies in Scotland who'd actually like to see some kind of Scottish version of the BNP like to keep the pish alive.
But that's why I said small 'c'. A lot of people just don't like change, a lot of people don't like Salmond and a lot of them just can't distinguish between the SNP and a vote for independence. In the office I was working at in Glasgow, the proportion of people voting YES was a lot higher amongst those with English accents than Scottish ones.
Wings over Scotland recently ran a story about the divisive pish myth of the English skewing the vote in favour of NO which was actually peddled by an English right-wing newspaper. A very few raving right-wing loonies in Scotland who'd actually like to see some kind of Scottish version of the BNP like to keep the pish alive.
In reply to yer maw:
it's all hard to judge to be honest as all the English and Northern Irish I know are clearly voting No.
Even if Scotland votes Yes, I think there will always be an affinity between all the countries and in fact (typing while thinking- always dangerous) it may improve relations as Scots would then have no-one other than themselves to blame for things going pear shaped. When I say improve relations, I mean those that may have an anti-English chip on their shoulder. Is that possible?
it's all hard to judge to be honest as all the English and Northern Irish I know are clearly voting No.
Even if Scotland votes Yes, I think there will always be an affinity between all the countries and in fact (typing while thinking- always dangerous) it may improve relations as Scots would then have no-one other than themselves to blame for things going pear shaped. When I say improve relations, I mean those that may have an anti-English chip on their shoulder. Is that possible?
In reply to moffatross:
I think Salmond would do well to raise this as an issue and highlight the fact that it would be a new beginning for all parties in Scotland.
I think Salmond would do well to raise this as an issue and highlight the fact that it would be a new beginning for all parties in Scotland.
In reply to yer maw:
You're right that Salmond should try harder to distinguish a vote for independence from being a vote for the SNP. Re. anti-English shoulder chips, anyone that's got one is just as likely to have anti Euro, anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-women/men etc chips on their shoulders too. There're always a few intolerant people in every population but most other people ignore them because they come across as nutters.
You're right that Salmond should try harder to distinguish a vote for independence from being a vote for the SNP. Re. anti-English shoulder chips, anyone that's got one is just as likely to have anti Euro, anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-women/men etc chips on their shoulders too. There're always a few intolerant people in every population but most other people ignore them because they come across as nutters.
In reply to yer maw:
Your experience chimes with mine. I have been trying to facilitate a debate for people from Poland, Romania etc but it's hard going. I'll keep trying.
Your experience chimes with mine. I have been trying to facilitate a debate for people from Poland, Romania etc but it's hard going. I'll keep trying.
In reply to yer maw:
Free your heels! Way to go Susan Boyle.
Oh, you meant telly? Shame.
=P
free the heel and free your mind (I actually ride AT...)
Free your heels! Way to go Susan Boyle.
Oh, you meant telly? Shame.
=P
free the heel and free your mind (I actually ride AT...)
Post edited at 00:03
In reply to yer maw:
There is a new chap in the office who is Polish , not here long enough to vote, but if he had been he also said he would not vote anyway for the same reason., not his country . ( interesting that he has been in the UK for many years, but does not seem see even the UK as his country , not yet at least.
> ...to try and balance out all the English living in Scotland who are voting No! Unfortunately most of the Poles I've spoken to feel it isn't for them to decide the future of a country they aren't from.
There is a new chap in the office who is Polish , not here long enough to vote, but if he had been he also said he would not vote anyway for the same reason., not his country . ( interesting that he has been in the UK for many years, but does not seem see even the UK as his country , not yet at least.
In reply to Jim C:
As someone who has lived in quite a few diffrent counties (but Cumbria is still home), I can completely see the Poles etc. point of view. I had no ties or family in any of the countries I worked, I was there to make money and had no intention of staying long term, I didn't particulary care to get involved with local politics (typical expat really). Any Poles who do vote because one side or the other has convinced them to do so are being manipulated IMO and that strikes me as being a bit flakey.
As someone who has lived in quite a few diffrent counties (but Cumbria is still home), I can completely see the Poles etc. point of view. I had no ties or family in any of the countries I worked, I was there to make money and had no intention of staying long term, I didn't particulary care to get involved with local politics (typical expat really). Any Poles who do vote because one side or the other has convinced them to do so are being manipulated IMO and that strikes me as being a bit flakey.
In reply to yer maw:
Why should the poles vote yes. If Scotland has to leave the eu then have they been assured that they can remain?
Why should the poles vote yes. If Scotland has to leave the eu then have they been assured that they can remain?
In reply to DaveN:
The Scots who vote yes are like the 'little Englanders' who would vote yes to a referendum to isolate England. This is all fueled by nationalism, something I hoped I would see the demise of before I died. It looks like this will not be the case.
The Scots who vote yes are like the 'little Englanders' who would vote yes to a referendum to isolate England. This is all fueled by nationalism, something I hoped I would see the demise of before I died. It looks like this will not be the case.
In reply to cander:
Or you could take the view, as in reality, that some will stay, some will go. Some will vote, some might not. So they might vote because they care about where they live. Just a thought.
Or you could take the view, as in reality, that some will stay, some will go. Some will vote, some might not. So they might vote because they care about where they live. Just a thought.
In reply to Saor Alba:
But it doesn't sound like thats the view of the Poles though does it - I happen to think yer Maws right - the Easter Europeans I work with are keeping well out of it (mind you so are most of the Scots - whilst being very proud to be Scottish the majority are firmly in the No camp)
But it doesn't sound like thats the view of the Poles though does it - I happen to think yer Maws right - the Easter Europeans I work with are keeping well out of it (mind you so are most of the Scots - whilst being very proud to be Scottish the majority are firmly in the No camp)
In reply to cander:
It is the view of some Poles I know. Most agree with what was said above. If they don't want to vote then fine, if they do then fine also.
This debate I am trying to facilitate is proving to be hard work though as the structures (Polish Associations etc) are not as well networked as I thought.
I see you are in France; how many people (whether they are Scots is irrelevant) who have a vote have you spoken to?
It is the view of some Poles I know. Most agree with what was said above. If they don't want to vote then fine, if they do then fine also.
This debate I am trying to facilitate is proving to be hard work though as the structures (Polish Associations etc) are not as well networked as I thought.
I see you are in France; how many people (whether they are Scots is irrelevant) who have a vote have you spoken to?
Post edited at 09:43
In reply to yer maw:
Most of the non-Brits (EU or Commonwealth citizens) I know in Scotland seem likely to vote for independence. Not sure if people who have packed up and moved abroad are less risk-averse and think that an independent Scotland will find a way to make things works one way or another? On the other hand, in my circle of friends/colleagues it seems to be the English who are most reluctant to vote as they feel it isn't for them to decide the future of Scotland.
Most of the non-Brits (EU or Commonwealth citizens) I know in Scotland seem likely to vote for independence. Not sure if people who have packed up and moved abroad are less risk-averse and think that an independent Scotland will find a way to make things works one way or another? On the other hand, in my circle of friends/colleagues it seems to be the English who are most reluctant to vote as they feel it isn't for them to decide the future of Scotland.
In reply to moffatross:
It's hardly only the old conservatives (with a small c) intending to vote no, the polling http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independenc... suggests that the young aren't too keen on limiting their opportunities either.
> You're talking pish in my view. Most English-born pals who are settled in Scotland are voting YES. The old small 'c' conservatives (English & Scottish) were always going to vote no.
It's hardly only the old conservatives (with a small c) intending to vote no, the polling http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independenc... suggests that the young aren't too keen on limiting their opportunities either.
In reply to Al Evans:
I think that is a bit broad brush to say that, there are people I know who might consider voting Yes , and they are not at all like you describe, many just dont like the way the Westminster Goverment is taking the country.
So yes there are plenty of those around , but you can't ascribe these sentiments to everyone who then votes yes, just because they vote yes. (No more than I would try say everyone who votes nois one type of person. They all with valid reasons for voting the way they do.)
That may be how you see them, and you are entitled to take that view if you wish, but it is a bit too black and white, there is more to voting either way than you say.
> (In reply to DaveN)
>
> The Scots who vote yes are like the 'little Englanders' who would vote yes to a referendum to isolate England. This is all fueled by nationalism, something I hoped I would see the demise of before I died. It looks like this will not be the case.
>
> The Scots who vote yes are like the 'little Englanders' who would vote yes to a referendum to isolate England. This is all fueled by nationalism, something I hoped I would see the demise of before I died. It looks like this will not be the case.
I think that is a bit broad brush to say that, there are people I know who might consider voting Yes , and they are not at all like you describe, many just dont like the way the Westminster Goverment is taking the country.
So yes there are plenty of those around , but you can't ascribe these sentiments to everyone who then votes yes, just because they vote yes. (No more than I would try say everyone who votes nois one type of person. They all with valid reasons for voting the way they do.)
That may be how you see them, and you are entitled to take that view if you wish, but it is a bit too black and white, there is more to voting either way than you say.
Post edited at 12:15
In reply to Jim C:
Many English don't like the way the Westminster Government is taking the country, I just think it would be better if we all stuck together and changed things with a united front rather than fragmenting into a load of 'little cliques'.
> I think that is a bit broad brush to say that, there are people I know who might consider voting Yes , and they are not at all like you describe, many just dont like the way the Westminster Goverment is taking the country.
Many English don't like the way the Westminster Government is taking the country, I just think it would be better if we all stuck together and changed things with a united front rather than fragmenting into a load of 'little cliques'.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Let me try and give you an example of how I think, In the commonwealth games I support England, but I am pleased if Scotland, Wales or NI win medals.
In the Olympics or world championships, I am delighted if any GB team wins a medal, be it from E,S,W or NI based mixed teams. Politically I agree with most of the Scots independence opinions on Westminster but it is sooooooo! irrelevant compared to how I would like all the working and middle class people in the UK, be they Scots or whatever work together to change the face politically of what is a great union, possibly the best in the world rather than break it up for small minded nationalism.
Let me try and give you an example of how I think, In the commonwealth games I support England, but I am pleased if Scotland, Wales or NI win medals.
In the Olympics or world championships, I am delighted if any GB team wins a medal, be it from E,S,W or NI based mixed teams. Politically I agree with most of the Scots independence opinions on Westminster but it is sooooooo! irrelevant compared to how I would like all the working and middle class people in the UK, be they Scots or whatever work together to change the face politically of what is a great union, possibly the best in the world rather than break it up for small minded nationalism.
Post edited at 14:40
In reply to yer maw:
I really don't get why Tories are campaigning for a no vote... when they will clearly benefit from a yes vote as Labour will be properly shafted by loosing the Scots' vote. Maybe it's reverse psychology
I really don't get why Tories are campaigning for a no vote... when they will clearly benefit from a yes vote as Labour will be properly shafted by loosing the Scots' vote. Maybe it's reverse psychology
In reply to Al Evans:
It is interesting to see that you oppose the concept of nationalism (as in Scottish) yet talk about "the English".
It is interesting to see that you oppose the concept of nationalism (as in Scottish) yet talk about "the English".
In reply to Al Evans:
You're equating independence with country nationalism (which I've never liked and I'm not voting for). Saltire, St George's Cross and Union Jack painted morons at Scottish, English or British nationalist rallies and sports events make me cringe. I like the stabilising, levelling influence of European cooperation but if Scotland remains in the UK, it will inevitably become just an 8% part of an even more bombastic, jingoistic and isolated Britain after Cameron's UKIP-led referendum on EU membership.
You're equating independence with country nationalism (which I've never liked and I'm not voting for). Saltire, St George's Cross and Union Jack painted morons at Scottish, English or British nationalist rallies and sports events make me cringe. I like the stabilising, levelling influence of European cooperation but if Scotland remains in the UK, it will inevitably become just an 8% part of an even more bombastic, jingoistic and isolated Britain after Cameron's UKIP-led referendum on EU membership.
In reply to yer maw:
Isn't it weird that they're voting at all?
There's no EU requirement for them to vote in a devolved parliament and after the vote, if it was a Yes, then there would still be no requirement for them to have Scottish Parliament vote.
So they could effectively vote themselves out of a vote.
Isn't it weird that they're voting at all?
There's no EU requirement for them to vote in a devolved parliament and after the vote, if it was a Yes, then there would still be no requirement for them to have Scottish Parliament vote.
So they could effectively vote themselves out of a vote.
In reply to ByEek:
Thats a ridiculous statement, I also talk about me being a Yorkshireman and a Sheffielder. It has nothing to do with nationalism, more to do with geography.
> It is interesting to see that you oppose the concept of nationalism (as in Scottish) yet talk about "the English".
Thats a ridiculous statement, I also talk about me being a Yorkshireman and a Sheffielder. It has nothing to do with nationalism, more to do with geography.
In reply to moffatross:
'inevitably'….
have you seen the polls?
You are just spreading fear.. wrong when the no do it.. ok when the yes do it...
'inevitably'….
have you seen the polls?
You are just spreading fear.. wrong when the no do it.. ok when the yes do it...
Post edited at 16:01
In reply to moffatross:
how are UKIP going to lead a referendum? do you know how many MP's they have? and how many they are expected to win in the next election?
how are UKIP going to lead a referendum? do you know how many MP's they have? and how many they are expected to win in the next election?
In reply to yer maw:
From where I sit (in England) the whole debate has already led to anti-Scottish sentiments being expressed. Whatever the result I think relations will take a turn for the worse. If the vote is Yes I wouldn't count on anything that requires goodwill from the rUK.
> Even if Scotland votes Yes, I think there will always be an affinity between all the countries and in fact (typing while thinking- always dangerous) it may improve relations
From where I sit (in England) the whole debate has already led to anti-Scottish sentiments being expressed. Whatever the result I think relations will take a turn for the worse. If the vote is Yes I wouldn't count on anything that requires goodwill from the rUK.
In reply to Saor Alba:
So its an opinion if it helps.. fear mongering if it persuades people to vote no…
the calm down is a childish response.
A better response would be to answer my questions.. but you know he was talking shite..
So its an opinion if it helps.. fear mongering if it persuades people to vote no…
the calm down is a childish response.
A better response would be to answer my questions.. but you know he was talking shite..
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
It'll be interesting how it affects things within Scotland as well.. I've seen a few fairly insulting face book posts about people being scared.. not brave.. if they say no.
> From where I sit (in England) the whole debate has already led to anti-Scottish sentiments being expressed. Whatever the result I think relations will take a turn for the worse. If the vote is Yes I wouldn't count on anything that requires goodwill from the rUK.
It'll be interesting how it affects things within Scotland as well.. I've seen a few fairly insulting face book posts about people being scared.. not brave.. if they say no.
In reply to IainRUK:
>"have you seen the polls?"<
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/21/eu-referendum-majority-leav...
>"how are UKIP going to lead a referendum? do you know how many MP's they have? and how many they are expected to win in the next election?"<
UKIP led the issue because their appeal to middle England through their stance on Europe, immigration, etc. led Cameron to promise the referendum.
>"have you seen the polls?"<
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/21/eu-referendum-majority-leav...
>"how are UKIP going to lead a referendum? do you know how many MP's they have? and how many they are expected to win in the next election?"<
UKIP led the issue because their appeal to middle England through their stance on Europe, immigration, etc. led Cameron to promise the referendum.
In reply to moffatross:
The election polls.. which will lead to this 'inevitability'……
I think you will find, well I know you will, you are talking nonsense…
UKIP are much much weaker in the parliamentary elections.. incomparably so..
Look at the actual odds of bookies of their being an actual referendum… there is no 'inevitability'.. you are fear mongering..
The election polls.. which will lead to this 'inevitability'……
I think you will find, well I know you will, you are talking nonsense…
UKIP are much much weaker in the parliamentary elections.. incomparably so..
Look at the actual odds of bookies of their being an actual referendum… there is no 'inevitability'.. you are fear mongering..
Post edited at 16:46
In reply to moffatross:
Similar here. They know what they've found!
> You're talking pish in my view. Most English-born pals who are settled in Scotland are voting YES. The old small 'c' conservatives (English & Scottish) were always going to vote no.
Similar here. They know what they've found!
In reply to Jim Fraser:
So the English born residents are voting yes, everyone saor talks to is voting yes, lynx doesn't know any no voters. Yes have it in the bag really, it'll be a whitewash.
> Similar here. They know what they've found!
So the English born residents are voting yes, everyone saor talks to is voting yes, lynx doesn't know any no voters. Yes have it in the bag really, it'll be a whitewash.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Its interesting, not living in the UK I struggle to keep up with current affairs..
Soar et al are great for this.. without them I didn't know it was inevitable the UK will leave the EU and that Scotland will leave the UK.. and the rUK will then fall in on itself in a huge economic mess as the Scots don't laugh.. well apart from Lynx..
Its interesting, not living in the UK I struggle to keep up with current affairs..
Soar et al are great for this.. without them I didn't know it was inevitable the UK will leave the EU and that Scotland will leave the UK.. and the rUK will then fall in on itself in a huge economic mess as the Scots don't laugh.. well apart from Lynx..
In reply to cander:
Maybe some of the ones from the 40's feel at home by now?
> As someone who has lived in quite a few diffrent counties (but Cumbria is still home), I can completely see the Poles etc. point of view.
Maybe some of the ones from the 40's feel at home by now?
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I agree with him. The US is my home and I want to stay here so I'll become a citizen and vote.. Germany and NZ were always temporary visits and I had no intention of getting citizenship or voting..
If the EU, UK, Scotland could clear up Scotland's European status post independence, workers rights, then maybe more would vote yes.. but generally people don't like to rock the status quo..
Its why even if the UK had a referendum on the EU its likely to be lost despite what the polls on that issue say.
I agree with him. The US is my home and I want to stay here so I'll become a citizen and vote.. Germany and NZ were always temporary visits and I had no intention of getting citizenship or voting..
If the EU, UK, Scotland could clear up Scotland's European status post independence, workers rights, then maybe more would vote yes.. but generally people don't like to rock the status quo..
Its why even if the UK had a referendum on the EU its likely to be lost despite what the polls on that issue say.
In reply to IainRUK:
Ah so you believe the polls when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. How convenient.
"It's"
Ah so you believe the polls when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. How convenient.
"It's"
In reply to Saor Alba:
when did I say that.. I posted an article last week explaining why the status quo will win. At the moment its 50-50.. its bounced around recently about 40% for 40% against 20% not sure…
As usual you haven't actually answered any questions or brought anything to the debate..
You know moffa was fear mongering with his inevitability talk… just what you constantly accuse the no side of..
The election polls quite clearly show a tory victory is far from 'inevitable'.. on top of that Cameron has also reneged on a promise to have a referendum, so even if the tory's did win a referendum is far from certain.. there is just no 'inevitability'..
The only inevitable outcome is that should the unlikely outcome happen, and scotland votes to leave, they will have to apply to join the EU and workers rights could be impacted...
when did I say that.. I posted an article last week explaining why the status quo will win. At the moment its 50-50.. its bounced around recently about 40% for 40% against 20% not sure…
As usual you haven't actually answered any questions or brought anything to the debate..
You know moffa was fear mongering with his inevitability talk… just what you constantly accuse the no side of..
The election polls quite clearly show a tory victory is far from 'inevitable'.. on top of that Cameron has also reneged on a promise to have a referendum, so even if the tory's did win a referendum is far from certain.. there is just no 'inevitability'..
The only inevitable outcome is that should the unlikely outcome happen, and scotland votes to leave, they will have to apply to join the EU and workers rights could be impacted...
In reply to IainRUK:
"Unless the poles are made up there are a lot of non-conservatives who are voting no..." (sic)
"Its why even if the UK had a referendum on the EU its likely to be lost despite what the polls on that issue say."
Which questions? You have so many posts and they are so confused that I don't bother reading many of them.
"Unless the poles are made up there are a lot of non-conservatives who are voting no..." (sic)
"Its why even if the UK had a referendum on the EU its likely to be lost despite what the polls on that issue say."
Which questions? You have so many posts and they are so confused that I don't bother reading many of them.
In reply to Saor Alba:
In reply to moffatross:
'inevitably'….
have you seen the polls?
You are just spreading fear.. wrong when the no do it.. ok when the yes do it...
Post edited at 16:01
Reply
IainRUK - on 16:09 Thu
In reply to moffatross:
how are UKIP going to lead a referendum? do you know how many MP's they have? and how many they are expected to win in the next election?
In reply to moffatross:
'inevitably'….
have you seen the polls?
You are just spreading fear.. wrong when the no do it.. ok when the yes do it...
Post edited at 16:01
Reply
IainRUK - on 16:09 Thu
In reply to moffatross:
how are UKIP going to lead a referendum? do you know how many MP's they have? and how many they are expected to win in the next election?
In reply to Saor Alba:
he's saying it's inevitable the UK will leave the EU.
Do you think he was right? Yes or No?
Answer that simple question, no sniping.. no avoiding..
he's saying it's inevitable the UK will leave the EU.
Do you think he was right? Yes or No?
Answer that simple question, no sniping.. no avoiding..
In reply to IainRUK:
No I don't think it's inevitable. Clear?
You are saying on one hand you believe the polls on independence, but on the other you don't on the EU question. Do you believe the Poles though?
No I don't think it's inevitable. Clear?
You are saying on one hand you believe the polls on independence, but on the other you don't on the EU question. Do you believe the Poles though?
In reply to Al Evans:
I have (quite a bit) more than a little sympathy for this view but can't see how you can square it with your usual dismissal of Yes-voting Scots as nothing better than parochial wee nationalists. Where does that leave my many English friends who are voting yes (some of whom are active, no, make that rabid, campaigners too)?
> Politically I agree with most of the Scots independence opinions on Westminster but it is sooooooo! irrelevant compared to how I would like all the working and middle class people in the UK, be they Scots or whatever work together to change the face politically of what is a great union, possibly the best in the world rather than break it up for small minded nationalism.
I have (quite a bit) more than a little sympathy for this view but can't see how you can square it with your usual dismissal of Yes-voting Scots as nothing better than parochial wee nationalists. Where does that leave my many English friends who are voting yes (some of whom are active, no, make that rabid, campaigners too)?
In reply to Saor Alba:
Thanks, so he was fear mongering.. I was right.. clear.
The polls on independence have been very clear.. very stable.. they have fluctuated a few points either way, which was probably natural variations rather than rises or falls in actual voting numbers.
In comparison..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100270107/if-it-comes-down-t...
We've just come through a global recession, survived much better than most and have a growing economy..
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5f5ba3ca-132e-11e4-8244-00144feabdc0.html#ax...
The boat won't be rocked..
If a referendum was to be called on the EU businesses would push for the status quo.. as has happened with independence.. people don't want the boat rocking.
Thanks, so he was fear mongering.. I was right.. clear.
The polls on independence have been very clear.. very stable.. they have fluctuated a few points either way, which was probably natural variations rather than rises or falls in actual voting numbers.
In comparison..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100270107/if-it-comes-down-t...
We've just come through a global recession, survived much better than most and have a growing economy..
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5f5ba3ca-132e-11e4-8244-00144feabdc0.html#ax...
The boat won't be rocked..
If a referendum was to be called on the EU businesses would push for the status quo.. as has happened with independence.. people don't want the boat rocking.
Post edited at 19:27
In reply to IainRUK:
No I didn't say that. You have imagined it. I said I didn't think it was inevitable. Nothing else.
Like I say, you quote polls when you are in agreement but suddenly when you don't you think they are wrong.
You need to polish up your reading of the polls and Poles. Would a pole help?
> Thanks, so he was fear mongering.. I was right.. clear.
No I didn't say that. You have imagined it. I said I didn't think it was inevitable. Nothing else.
> The polls on independence have been very clear.. very stable.. they have fluctuated a few points either way, which was probably natural variations rather than rises or falls in actual voting numbers.
> In comparison..
> We've just come through a global recession, survived much better than most and have a growing economy..
> The boat won't be rocked..
> If a referendum was to be called on the EU businesses would push for the status quo.. as has happened with independence.. people don't want the boat rocking.
Like I say, you quote polls when you are in agreement but suddenly when you don't you think they are wrong.
You need to polish up your reading of the polls and Poles. Would a pole help?
In reply to Saor Alba:
Brilliant I made an error yesterday and immediately said oops when spotted… what an arse!
You do make me laugh..
No, I'm saying the polls are all over the show on the EU, there have been massive swings. Any potential referendum is many years ago and the Tory's have shown they will not call a referendum if it is likely to be a leave vote…
So no, I doubt there will be a referendum, and if it was to be allowed it would be done when it looks a safe call.. that's why Cameron is pushing for changes in the EU but his constant 'we'll leave' has left him isolated..
He's damaged himself this week again and is why we'll probably see a Labour government and therefore no referendum..
The independence polls, for an imminent referendum, have been static for months..
If the no side says some negative thing will happen.. it's fear mongering.. when the yes side says it.. it's not...
Brilliant I made an error yesterday and immediately said oops when spotted… what an arse!
You do make me laugh..
No, I'm saying the polls are all over the show on the EU, there have been massive swings. Any potential referendum is many years ago and the Tory's have shown they will not call a referendum if it is likely to be a leave vote…
So no, I doubt there will be a referendum, and if it was to be allowed it would be done when it looks a safe call.. that's why Cameron is pushing for changes in the EU but his constant 'we'll leave' has left him isolated..
He's damaged himself this week again and is why we'll probably see a Labour government and therefore no referendum..
The independence polls, for an imminent referendum, have been static for months..
If the no side says some negative thing will happen.. it's fear mongering.. when the yes side says it.. it's not...
Post edited at 19:38
In reply to IainRUK:
Glad to hear it. Remember, about 85% of activity is not available through the internet. I am 50/50 about it btw.
I love they way you have to be right...and also point it out...
Glad to hear it. Remember, about 85% of activity is not available through the internet. I am 50/50 about it btw.
I love they way you have to be right...and also point it out...
In reply to Removed User:
If people are voting yes who are non Scots but get a vote for whatever reason, then rather than voting that way for nationalistic reasons, they are voting yes because they think it will benefit them personally economically, a poor reason for splitting up a nation.
If people are voting yes who are non Scots but get a vote for whatever reason, then rather than voting that way for nationalistic reasons, they are voting yes because they think it will benefit them personally economically, a poor reason for splitting up a nation.
In reply to Al Evans:
Have you considered that people might vote for the common good despite the effects on their personal situation, whether good or bad? Sounds like you have gone all Thatcher again.
Have you considered that people might vote for the common good despite the effects on their personal situation, whether good or bad? Sounds like you have gone all Thatcher again.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I don't have to be right.. I just like pointing out when people spout shite..
I don't have to be right.. I just like pointing out when people spout shite..
In reply to Saor Alba:
People do, but not many… the personal situation is a huge driver in politics, hence why peoples politics often change with age.
However the 'common good' is an horrifically subjective term.. wooly nonsense tbh..
> Have you considered that people might vote for the common good despite the effects on their personal situation, whether good or bad? Sounds like you have gone all Thatcher again.
People do, but not many… the personal situation is a huge driver in politics, hence why peoples politics often change with age.
However the 'common good' is an horrifically subjective term.. wooly nonsense tbh..
In reply to IainRUK:
You're suggesting that I'm fear-mongering through the semantics of an ill-chosen word and you're asserting there's next to no possibility of the UK leaving the EU because you don't think the boat can get rocked. I think I can see the double standards you're taking about now.
You're suggesting that I'm fear-mongering through the semantics of an ill-chosen word and you're asserting there's next to no possibility of the UK leaving the EU because you don't think the boat can get rocked. I think I can see the double standards you're taking about now.
In reply to Al Evans:
For whatever reason ? The right to vote is through residency. Is there a hint you'd feel more comfortable if there'd been some kind of ethnic qualification instead ?
> "If people are voting ... who are non Scots but get a vote for whatever reason ..." <
For whatever reason ? The right to vote is through residency. Is there a hint you'd feel more comfortable if there'd been some kind of ethnic qualification instead ?
In reply to IainRUK:
I was attempting to point out that there have been 2 big polish influxes to the UK, and many of the older generation really should feel at home now. Certainly they did in the east midlands, I assume that's true in Scotland as well?
I was attempting to point out that there have been 2 big polish influxes to the UK, and many of the older generation really should feel at home now. Certainly they did in the east midlands, I assume that's true in Scotland as well?
In reply to IainRUK:
How do you know this given that you are nowhere near the grassroots movement which you wont find on the internet?
How do you know this given that you are nowhere near the grassroots movement which you wont find on the internet?
In reply to moffatross:
Semantics.. inevitable.. semantics is arguing about a subjective word, probable, possible.. not a definitive term..
I think there is very little chance, yeah.
You think it is inevitable..
So far there will not be a referendum if Labour win, Labour are leading in the polls. There maybe a referendum if the Tory's win.. something they campaigned on last time and did not deliver..
Look at the odds of a referendum after the next election?
the UK is one of the world's strongest economies.. which is why its crazy Scotland wants out.. but anyway, why would you want to rock that boat? I think you live in cuckoo land if you think any PM would risk the economy.
If people want out so badly they will vote for the Tories… that's the only way the UK will leave the EU and so far that's not happening.. it's actually not that big of an issue to many.
> You're suggesting that I'm fear-mongering through the semantics of an ill-chosen word and you're asserting there's next to no possibility of the UK leaving the EU because you don't think the boat can get rocked. I think I can see the double standards you're taking about now.
Semantics.. inevitable.. semantics is arguing about a subjective word, probable, possible.. not a definitive term..
I think there is very little chance, yeah.
You think it is inevitable..
So far there will not be a referendum if Labour win, Labour are leading in the polls. There maybe a referendum if the Tory's win.. something they campaigned on last time and did not deliver..
Look at the odds of a referendum after the next election?
the UK is one of the world's strongest economies.. which is why its crazy Scotland wants out.. but anyway, why would you want to rock that boat? I think you live in cuckoo land if you think any PM would risk the economy.
If people want out so badly they will vote for the Tories… that's the only way the UK will leave the EU and so far that's not happening.. it's actually not that big of an issue to many.
Post edited at 20:52
In reply to Saor Alba:
Yes.. you are right as always. polls are made up.. go to bed Soar.. you've started talking shite.. night..
Yes.. you are right as always. polls are made up.. go to bed Soar.. you've started talking shite.. night..
In reply to yer maw:
I was born in England but live in Scotland and I am undecided.
Maybe rather than alienating English people you should use reasoned arguments to persuade them that voting Yes is in their interest.
I was born in England but live in Scotland and I am undecided.
Maybe rather than alienating English people you should use reasoned arguments to persuade them that voting Yes is in their interest.
In reply to Al Evans:
You should come for a holiday here. Aside from hopefully enjoying the place you might get a feel of why people are voting in a particular way and realise that for the overwhelming majority of yes voters it has bugger all to do with what nationaity you are or some imagined personal economic benefits.
You should come for a holiday here. Aside from hopefully enjoying the place you might get a feel of why people are voting in a particular way and realise that for the overwhelming majority of yes voters it has bugger all to do with what nationaity you are or some imagined personal economic benefits.
In reply to IainRUK:
I just wondered how you knew in the absence of any practical knowledge? Care to enlighten up?
Instead you just resort to your usual anger. Is it the southern blood?
> Yes.. you are right as always. polls are made up.. go to bed Soar.. you've started talking shite.. night..
I just wondered how you knew in the absence of any practical knowledge? Care to enlighten up?
Instead you just resort to your usual anger. Is it the southern blood?
In reply to Saor Alba:
Always comes back to the blood, so sad, we look around the world and see the strife caused by so called ethic divisions and here you are propagating the same old conflict.
> I just wondered how you knew in the absence of any practical knowledge? Care to enlighten up?
> Instead you just resort to your usual anger. Is it the southern blood?
Always comes back to the blood, so sad, we look around the world and see the strife caused by so called ethic divisions and here you are propagating the same old conflict.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No. I was taking the piss out of Iain's northern claim which I know he likes.
If you think It's anything to do with ethnicity you are wrong.
No. I was taking the piss out of Iain's northern claim which I know he likes.
If you think It's anything to do with ethnicity you are wrong.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Haha anger.. brilliant from the sniper.. how was I angry, using the word shite? Poor guy...
So the polls are wrong.. despite being static Scotland will go independent.. the bookies are wrong too….
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...
Night night… or is that anger again? You are quality Soar.. come on this is a piece of piss.. come back with some substance?
Haha anger.. brilliant from the sniper.. how was I angry, using the word shite? Poor guy...
So the polls are wrong.. despite being static Scotland will go independent.. the bookies are wrong too….
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...
Night night… or is that anger again? You are quality Soar.. come on this is a piece of piss.. come back with some substance?
Post edited at 01:14
In reply to Saor Alba:
So like Chicago being midwest USA.. yet very much eastern.. quality.. as I said make it harder..
So like Chicago being midwest USA.. yet very much eastern.. quality.. as I said make it harder..
In reply to Removed User:
I have been on holiday in Scotland many times, I see no reason why it would be better independant than remaining as it is. Indeed it could end up a lot worse, all those areas of wilderness will be seen as prime industrial development areas to a government strapped for cash.
> You should come for a holiday here. Aside from hopefully enjoying the place you might get a feel of why people are voting in a particular way and realise that for the overwhelming majority of yes voters it has bugger all to do with what nationaity you are or some imagined personal economic benefits.
I have been on holiday in Scotland many times, I see no reason why it would be better independant than remaining as it is. Indeed it could end up a lot worse, all those areas of wilderness will be seen as prime industrial development areas to a government strapped for cash.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Grassroots and internet go hand in hand these days. Tell Obama otherwise.
> How do you know this given that you are nowhere near the grassroots movement which you wont find on the internet?
Grassroots and internet go hand in hand these days. Tell Obama otherwise.
In reply to Al Evans:
There are lots of concerns, anyone who thinks it will be instant utopia is a fool. Environmental concerns are certainly one, which is one of the reasons why I never have and never would vote for the SNP. FWIW in the event of a yes vote I think we (in Scotland) will most likely be worse off in the short to medium term, but voting for something as big as this is not something anyone with half a brain does for immediate gain (unless they're living under some extraordinary Gaza-type condition but that's not the case here).
> I have been on holiday in Scotland many times, I see no reason why it would be better independant than remaining as it is. Indeed it could end up a lot worse, all those areas of wilderness will be seen as prime industrial development areas to a government strapped for cash.
There are lots of concerns, anyone who thinks it will be instant utopia is a fool. Environmental concerns are certainly one, which is one of the reasons why I never have and never would vote for the SNP. FWIW in the event of a yes vote I think we (in Scotland) will most likely be worse off in the short to medium term, but voting for something as big as this is not something anyone with half a brain does for immediate gain (unless they're living under some extraordinary Gaza-type condition but that's not the case here).
In reply to Removed User:
TBH I can't see much changing.. for better or worse.. I don't think things change that much even when we change Governments. For me the biggest potential plus would be getting rid of/minimising the victim mentality, I know its not all but too often it's an excuse used which would no long hold water.
Issues like the currency will cause an economic bump but our economies are pretty resistant and our riding the recession and rebounding has emphasised that. We actually came through the financial crash relatively unscathed compared to much of Europe.
But with any sudden change you often get a surge with actually changing little, like when you change a football manager, or when Blair came in.. or Obama in the US, people think there will suddenly be some great new world when in fact it soon settles to the same old…
TBH I can't see much changing.. for better or worse.. I don't think things change that much even when we change Governments. For me the biggest potential plus would be getting rid of/minimising the victim mentality, I know its not all but too often it's an excuse used which would no long hold water.
Issues like the currency will cause an economic bump but our economies are pretty resistant and our riding the recession and rebounding has emphasised that. We actually came through the financial crash relatively unscathed compared to much of Europe.
But with any sudden change you often get a surge with actually changing little, like when you change a football manager, or when Blair came in.. or Obama in the US, people think there will suddenly be some great new world when in fact it soon settles to the same old…
In reply to Removed User:
>"I never have and never would vote for the SNP. FWIW in the event of a yes vote I think we (in Scotland) will most likely be worse off in the short to medium term, but voting for something as big as this is not something anyone with half a brain does for immediate gain ..."<
About a quarter of the last general election's Labour voters in Scotland are expected to vote YES which could be a massive contribution in terms of tipping the scales. Post secession though, the SNP would have faithful, if blind support from a large slice of the YES voters because they'd be seen to have brought along the opportunity. It'll be quite interesting to see what new political alliances/parties emerge.
>"I never have and never would vote for the SNP. FWIW in the event of a yes vote I think we (in Scotland) will most likely be worse off in the short to medium term, but voting for something as big as this is not something anyone with half a brain does for immediate gain ..."<
About a quarter of the last general election's Labour voters in Scotland are expected to vote YES which could be a massive contribution in terms of tipping the scales. Post secession though, the SNP would have faithful, if blind support from a large slice of the YES voters because they'd be seen to have brought along the opportunity. It'll be quite interesting to see what new political alliances/parties emerge.
In reply to Brev:
Same for me most of my "EU" friends in Edinburgh will vote yes, and many who are not planning to stay in Scotland won't vote.
> Most of the non-Brits (EU or Commonwealth citizens) I know in Scotland seem likely to vote for independence. Not sure if people who have packed up and moved abroad are less risk-averse and think that an independent Scotland will find a way to make things works one way or another? On the other hand, in my circle of friends/colleagues it seems to be the English who are most reluctant to vote as they feel it isn't for them to decide the future of Scotland.
Same for me most of my "EU" friends in Edinburgh will vote yes, and many who are not planning to stay in Scotland won't vote.
In reply to moffatross:
I'm not sure on a point of mathematics how that is tipping the scales? if 25% of a subset of the population vote yes, then how is that going to increase the proportion of the overall population voting yes if the average is sitting at 40% ? current polling data will of course have included at least some of that 25%.......
> About a quarter of the last general election's Labour voters in Scotland are expected to vote YES which could be a massive contribution in terms of tipping the scales. Post secession though, the SNP would have faithful, if blind support from a large slice of the YES voters because they'd be seen to have brought along the opportunity. It'll be quite interesting to see what new political alliances/parties emerge.
I'm not sure on a point of mathematics how that is tipping the scales? if 25% of a subset of the population vote yes, then how is that going to increase the proportion of the overall population voting yes if the average is sitting at 40% ? current polling data will of course have included at least some of that 25%.......
In reply to moffatross:
This is potentially the most exciting thing to come out of a Yes vote for me, as whilst you may be right that the SNP could dominate the first parliament or two, it is an amazing opportunity to develop a new kind of ethos for the traditional parties who will have to think out the box a wee bit, to tap into what sort of future the people of Scotland want. Politically it is a totally new beginning.
> About a quarter of the last general election's Labour voters in Scotland are expected to vote YES which could be a massive contribution in terms of tipping the scales. Post secession though, the SNP would have faithful, if blind support from a large slice of the YES voters because they'd be seen to have brought along the opportunity. It'll be quite interesting to see what new political alliances/parties emerge.
This is potentially the most exciting thing to come out of a Yes vote for me, as whilst you may be right that the SNP could dominate the first parliament or two, it is an amazing opportunity to develop a new kind of ethos for the traditional parties who will have to think out the box a wee bit, to tap into what sort of future the people of Scotland want. Politically it is a totally new beginning.
In reply to yer maw:
>, a new kind of ethos for the traditional parties who will have to think out the box a wee bit, to tap into what sort of future the people of Scotland want. Politically it is a totally new beginning.
I suspect that "what the people of Scotland" want will be as diverse as "what the people of the UK want". Unless there is an obvious consensus between a crofter near Inverness, a landowner in Perthshire, an innercity inhabitant of Glasgow, and a banker in Edinburgh.
>, a new kind of ethos for the traditional parties who will have to think out the box a wee bit, to tap into what sort of future the people of Scotland want. Politically it is a totally new beginning.
I suspect that "what the people of Scotland" want will be as diverse as "what the people of the UK want". Unless there is an obvious consensus between a crofter near Inverness, a landowner in Perthshire, an innercity inhabitant of Glasgow, and a banker in Edinburgh.
In reply to yer maw:
Agreed and to some extent this is already happening through things like the Jimmy Reid Foundation etc.
Clearly currently politicians on the No side are unable to say if they agree with any aspect of the Yes campaign despite many of them doing so. This is why the No campaign is singling out Alec Salmond and the SNP as it's much easier to gain the loyalty of Labour voters, for example, by presenting the case for Yes as a one man band or one political party movement.
This isn't true though but I think their tactic is quite effective in this case though but has a limited shelf life.
Agreed and to some extent this is already happening through things like the Jimmy Reid Foundation etc.
Clearly currently politicians on the No side are unable to say if they agree with any aspect of the Yes campaign despite many of them doing so. This is why the No campaign is singling out Alec Salmond and the SNP as it's much easier to gain the loyalty of Labour voters, for example, by presenting the case for Yes as a one man band or one political party movement.
This isn't true though but I think their tactic is quite effective in this case though but has a limited shelf life.
In reply to off-duty:
The trad parties are tied to the Westminster model and way of thinking. Free from that and given a Yes vote means a vote for significant change, to simply then plod along using a pseudo Westminster approach would be a huge mistake.
So that for me would be the start of the next debate i.e. how do we want Scotland to change and how do we facilitate it, because the reality is, the Westminster approach is already turning voters off politics in huge numbers and isn't looking likely to change.
The trad parties are tied to the Westminster model and way of thinking. Free from that and given a Yes vote means a vote for significant change, to simply then plod along using a pseudo Westminster approach would be a huge mistake.
So that for me would be the start of the next debate i.e. how do we want Scotland to change and how do we facilitate it, because the reality is, the Westminster approach is already turning voters off politics in huge numbers and isn't looking likely to change.
In reply to yer maw:
How do you know it's not just politics in general that's turning folk off rather than a Westminster approach?
> ...because the reality is, the Westminster approach is already turning voters off politics in huge numbers and isn't looking likely to change.
How do you know it's not just politics in general that's turning folk off rather than a Westminster approach?
In reply to Fraser:
well as Westminster is our politics and they provide us with what they want us to have, it stands to reason. The late Robin Cook wrote a lot about UK politics needing to change.
well as Westminster is our politics and they provide us with what they want us to have, it stands to reason. The late Robin Cook wrote a lot about UK politics needing to change.
In reply to yer maw:
I'm excited too by the possibility of a new kind of politics emerging if we vote yes in September. I've already seen a big surge in grassroots participation from people with ideas and the confidence and optimism to promote those ideas. If you don't live in Scotland and haven't experienced that first hand it's probably too easy to be cynical about the chance we have to change things for the better. Whatever the outcome in September things will never be the same again in Scotland and that's good.
I'm excited too by the possibility of a new kind of politics emerging if we vote yes in September. I've already seen a big surge in grassroots participation from people with ideas and the confidence and optimism to promote those ideas. If you don't live in Scotland and haven't experienced that first hand it's probably too easy to be cynical about the chance we have to change things for the better. Whatever the outcome in September things will never be the same again in Scotland and that's good.
In reply to IainRUK:
every five years apparently ha ha. You either want to change or you stay where you are. Any politician who thinks they should carry on as they are after a Yes vote would be missing what the vote was all about in the first place and it would be for them to seize that opportunity to 'make the difference' they all purport to be in it for. Absolutely nothing endears me to UK politics and I genuinely believe Scotland has the will and desire to change away from what we currently have. For me that's what it's about and not oil or money in your pocket, but more to be part of a change that is already happening via the Scottish Parliament.
every five years apparently ha ha. You either want to change or you stay where you are. Any politician who thinks they should carry on as they are after a Yes vote would be missing what the vote was all about in the first place and it would be for them to seize that opportunity to 'make the difference' they all purport to be in it for. Absolutely nothing endears me to UK politics and I genuinely believe Scotland has the will and desire to change away from what we currently have. For me that's what it's about and not oil or money in your pocket, but more to be part of a change that is already happening via the Scottish Parliament.
In reply to yer maw:
I think the politicians will stay.. a lot of seats are safe.. I can't see their being that much change compared to a typical election but we'll see.
What makes you so confident the will is there? The polls do look very stable?
I think the politicians will stay.. a lot of seats are safe.. I can't see their being that much change compared to a typical election but we'll see.
What makes you so confident the will is there? The polls do look very stable?
Post edited at 14:53
In reply to alastairmac:
hmmmm, I take your (and Saor Alba's) point about being hard to gauge things on the ground from outwith Scotland - but I do wonder if you could be in something of a bubble?
hmmmm, I take your (and Saor Alba's) point about being hard to gauge things on the ground from outwith Scotland - but I do wonder if you could be in something of a bubble?
In reply to yer maw:
I wish I shared your optimism about that.
The change I see is towards a heavily centralised state with a controlling executive that fails to understand the concept of separation of powers.
> but more to be part of a change that is already happening via the Scottish Parliament.
I wish I shared your optimism about that.
The change I see is towards a heavily centralised state with a controlling executive that fails to understand the concept of separation of powers.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Undoubtedly we are as is everyone to a point. My point is though that everyone is and someone who can only access the info through the internet is missing out on most of what is happening and behind in the debate.
Whenever I see Yes campaigners I always make the point of asking how it is going. 99% of times people say it's going extremely well. I then ask how an impartial observer would assess things and the response is less positive but still very positive.
I think it's about 50/50 right now. The whole of Inverness has now been canvassed and the results are looking good overall.
In the balance I think.
Undoubtedly we are as is everyone to a point. My point is though that everyone is and someone who can only access the info through the internet is missing out on most of what is happening and behind in the debate.
Whenever I see Yes campaigners I always make the point of asking how it is going. 99% of times people say it's going extremely well. I then ask how an impartial observer would assess things and the response is less positive but still very positive.
I think it's about 50/50 right now. The whole of Inverness has now been canvassed and the results are looking good overall.
In the balance I think.
In reply to Saor Alba: It'll be interesting to see whose polling turns out to be most accurate http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independenc...
I wonder if people are more likely to give honest answers to independent polling companies or to the chap wearing a big YES badge with the blue and white face.
I wonder if people are more likely to give honest answers to independent polling companies or to the chap wearing a big YES badge with the blue and white face.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Interesting, I haven't been canvassed and amongst people I know in Inverness, and that is a wide (but not complete) spread of background from the poorest to the middle classes, the vast majority are no voters. I was asked a couple of weeks ago, by a colleague, if I knew anyone who was voting yes! (He is certainly in a bubble)
I suspect that there are many different groups or bubbles that think that they are representative of the whole but aren't (a bit like UKclimbing, a world that thinks it's a universe) and that opinion is in pockets rather than an even spread.
I quite agree.
> The whole of Inverness has now been canvassed and the results are looking good overall.
Interesting, I haven't been canvassed and amongst people I know in Inverness, and that is a wide (but not complete) spread of background from the poorest to the middle classes, the vast majority are no voters. I was asked a couple of weeks ago, by a colleague, if I knew anyone who was voting yes! (He is certainly in a bubble)
I suspect that there are many different groups or bubbles that think that they are representative of the whole but aren't (a bit like UKclimbing, a world that thinks it's a universe) and that opinion is in pockets rather than an even spread.
> In the balance I think.
I quite agree.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Agree with that. It really depends on peer group, what the lead up to the conversation is and so on. Another thing you can't find on the internet...
Agree with that. It really depends on peer group, what the lead up to the conversation is and so on. Another thing you can't find on the internet...
In reply to rogerwebb:
Heavily centralised?? We are a wee country already divided up too much e.g. Clackmannanshire council is tiny. Loads of states in the US are much bigger than Scotland or even the UK for that matter.
Independence takes away a tier which can only be a good thing as we currently have local, Scotland, Westminster and European parliament.
You can have centralisation that still has local representation but is much more efficient with less CEOs and duplication which does my head in.
> I wish I shared your optimism about that.
> The change I see is towards a heavily centralised state with a controlling executive that fails to understand the concept of separation of powers.
Heavily centralised?? We are a wee country already divided up too much e.g. Clackmannanshire council is tiny. Loads of states in the US are much bigger than Scotland or even the UK for that matter.
Independence takes away a tier which can only be a good thing as we currently have local, Scotland, Westminster and European parliament.
You can have centralisation that still has local representation but is much more efficient with less CEOs and duplication which does my head in.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Seconded. It's the same as people not seeing poverty because the circles they move in don't ever cross paths, or have never even experienced poverty beyond getting some shopping at Aldi instead of Sainsbury.
> I suspect that there are many different groups or bubbles that think that they are representative of the whole but aren't (a bit like UKclimbing, a world that thinks it's a universe) and that opinion is in pockets rather than an even spread.
> I quite agree.
Seconded. It's the same as people not seeing poverty because the circles they move in don't ever cross paths, or have never even experienced poverty beyond getting some shopping at Aldi instead of Sainsbury.
In reply to yer maw:
A State in the US is more like a European country than a county. Or indeed more like Scotland within the UK. Though from my experience in England you'd do well to do away with the costly and bureaucratic 2-level County and Borough structure and go for unitary authorities instead.
Neil
A State in the US is more like a European country than a county. Or indeed more like Scotland within the UK. Though from my experience in England you'd do well to do away with the costly and bureaucratic 2-level County and Borough structure and go for unitary authorities instead.
Neil
Post edited at 18:01
In reply to yer maw:
Single police force, planning applications called in, prosecution centralised, decisions removed from councils to Edinburgh.
An executive that consults and ignores.
Too much power in too few hands.
> Heavily centralised??
Single police force, planning applications called in, prosecution centralised, decisions removed from councils to Edinburgh.
An executive that consults and ignores.
Too much power in too few hands.
In reply to rogerwebb:
We already have that.
And how about?
> Single police force,
We already have that.
And how about?
> A Government that consults and ignores.
> Too much power in other people's hands.
In reply to aln:
That is the point, the trajectory under the current administration is that power is concentrated. The single police force is an example of that. The decision to allow armed police to routinely patrol Inverness, a rather fundamental change in policing style, without local consultation is an egregious example of that.
The actions of the current Scottish Government do not give me great confidence for the future of civil liberties in this country.
I would liked to have seen a detailed constitution before I vote.
> We already have that.
That is the point, the trajectory under the current administration is that power is concentrated. The single police force is an example of that. The decision to allow armed police to routinely patrol Inverness, a rather fundamental change in policing style, without local consultation is an egregious example of that.
The actions of the current Scottish Government do not give me great confidence for the future of civil liberties in this country.
I would liked to have seen a detailed constitution before I vote.
In reply to rogerwebb:
The decision to allow armed police to routinely patrol Inverness,
Is that true, and if so what's the justification?
The decision to allow armed police to routinely patrol Inverness,
Is that true, and if so what's the justification?
In reply to rogerwebb:
Much of that is due to budget cuts as well as any centralist mentality. You can't cut the budget and then expect the same service with the same cost base. Centralised services are cheaper.
I would point out also that you have just as much ignoring of consultation in the UK so you are voting for more of the same.
Much of that is due to budget cuts as well as any centralist mentality. You can't cut the budget and then expect the same service with the same cost base. Centralised services are cheaper.
I would point out also that you have just as much ignoring of consultation in the UK so you are voting for more of the same.
In reply to aln:
yes, and unknown apart from corporate speak about allowing equal access to services.
It may be that the decision is justified, it may be that it isn't. It's the way the decision was made without consultation and the way the objections of Highland Council were dismissed as' mischievous that is alarming.
>
> Is that true, and if so what's the justification?
yes, and unknown apart from corporate speak about allowing equal access to services.
It may be that the decision is justified, it may be that it isn't. It's the way the decision was made without consultation and the way the objections of Highland Council were dismissed as' mischievous that is alarming.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Is it though? How much more would a local police board cost? Norway has a single police force but it is divided into 27 autonomous divisions that answer to local and central authorities (it also has a number of other autonomous law enforcement agencies) hence they make savings on common services but retain independence and accountability.
I know but there are more centres of power that are jealous of each other in the UK and to an extent that keeps them in check.
I'm not saying Scotland couldn't do it better but for all the resounding declarations such as 'in Scotland sovereignty lies with the people' there doesn't seem to be any planning for structures that will make that reality, and at the moment the best we can hope for, from either side, is more of the same.
> Much of that is due to budget cuts as well as any centralist mentality.
Is it though? How much more would a local police board cost? Norway has a single police force but it is divided into 27 autonomous divisions that answer to local and central authorities (it also has a number of other autonomous law enforcement agencies) hence they make savings on common services but retain independence and accountability.
> I would point out also that you have just as much ignoring of consultation in the UK so you are voting for more of the same.
I know but there are more centres of power that are jealous of each other in the UK and to an extent that keeps them in check.
I'm not saying Scotland couldn't do it better but for all the resounding declarations such as 'in Scotland sovereignty lies with the people' there doesn't seem to be any planning for structures that will make that reality, and at the moment the best we can hope for, from either side, is more of the same.
In reply to yer maw:
That seems a bit of an odd comparison considering the state-level in the US is not the smallest level of government. Within the 50 states there are more than 3000 counties, and within those counties there are about 35,000 municipalities and townships, all with their own governing bodies.
> Heavily centralised?? We are a wee country already divided up too much e.g. Clackmannanshire council is tiny. Loads of states in the US are much bigger than Scotland or even the UK for that matter.
That seems a bit of an odd comparison considering the state-level in the US is not the smallest level of government. Within the 50 states there are more than 3000 counties, and within those counties there are about 35,000 municipalities and townships, all with their own governing bodies.
In reply to Brev:
And there tend to be separate boards and elections for schools, police and even judges. This produces its own problems at times but overall the US and most countries have much more local accountability than any part of the UK.
The Scottish government is currently centralising rapidly and has a strong authoritarian streak while the Westminster one is going in the other direction.
And there tend to be separate boards and elections for schools, police and even judges. This produces its own problems at times but overall the US and most countries have much more local accountability than any part of the UK.
The Scottish government is currently centralising rapidly and has a strong authoritarian streak while the Westminster one is going in the other direction.
In reply to yer maw:
I'm confused. Divided up too much (so big is good!) so should definitely divide away from the UK (so small is good!) ?
> We are a wee country already divided up too much e.g. Clackmannanshire council is tiny. Loads of states in the US are much bigger than Scotland or even the UK for that matter.
> Independence takes away a tier which can only be a good thing as we currently have local, Scotland, Westminster and European parliament.
I'm confused. Divided up too much (so big is good!) so should definitely divide away from the UK (so small is good!) ?
In reply to rogerwebb:
Less in the hands of councillors whose ignorance can be baffling at times, is better in my book. The whole concept of how we deliver national and local services and oversee that needs an overhaul. But I absolutely deplore duplication and think there is also a case for some services in private hands as councils consistently fail to provide best value and lack accountability. You can argue centralisation does that too, but if there are less tiers then there are less opportunities for corruption, fiddling, crazy decisions and more accountability.
Less in the hands of councillors whose ignorance can be baffling at times, is better in my book. The whole concept of how we deliver national and local services and oversee that needs an overhaul. But I absolutely deplore duplication and think there is also a case for some services in private hands as councils consistently fail to provide best value and lack accountability. You can argue centralisation does that too, but if there are less tiers then there are less opportunities for corruption, fiddling, crazy decisions and more accountability.
In reply to climbwhenready:
You're twisting the words fella. Scotland is already small and doesn't need to have tiny councils. Neither does the UK for that matter as there are far too many MPs, especially post devolution. But alas Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
All just my opinion of course.
You're twisting the words fella. Scotland is already small and doesn't need to have tiny councils. Neither does the UK for that matter as there are far too many MPs, especially post devolution. But alas Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
All just my opinion of course.
In reply to rogerwebb:
It would cost more. Everything is under budgetary pressure and I can see why the movement was made. For financial reasons.
We have to prioritise. For example I would say that there are many things more important that local police boards.
When you cut the income you have to cut the cost to maintain a similar service. That's why Police Scotland etc was formed not through some master plan to centralise things.
I note that the champion on non-centralisation (DA) is not actually offering any solutions. There's a surprise.
It would cost more. Everything is under budgetary pressure and I can see why the movement was made. For financial reasons.
We have to prioritise. For example I would say that there are many things more important that local police boards.
When you cut the income you have to cut the cost to maintain a similar service. That's why Police Scotland etc was formed not through some master plan to centralise things.
I note that the champion on non-centralisation (DA) is not actually offering any solutions. There's a surprise.
In reply to yer maw:
Well you deplore duplication of effort - fine - but you are in favour of constructing a massive duplication of every service by making Scotland independent. I was just wondering why you think the best unit of governance is Scotland and not just one big United States of Europe, for example.
Well you deplore duplication of effort - fine - but you are in favour of constructing a massive duplication of every service by making Scotland independent. I was just wondering why you think the best unit of governance is Scotland and not just one big United States of Europe, for example.
In reply to climbwhenready:
Forget government for a minute. The control of jobs and investment for Scotland is increasingly out of Scotland's hands and more and more of its economic activity is run from London, if not Europe or beyond. In my view, becoming fully self governed may help Scotland reverse that corporate 'off shoring' and long-term should be in the best interests of our health, wealth and happiness.
Forget government for a minute. The control of jobs and investment for Scotland is increasingly out of Scotland's hands and more and more of its economic activity is run from London, if not Europe or beyond. In my view, becoming fully self governed may help Scotland reverse that corporate 'off shoring' and long-term should be in the best interests of our health, wealth and happiness.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I do not have the figures to hand and I may be wrong but I seem to remember a recent report that the single police force has not actually saved money and is not projected to for some years. Presumably long term it ought to, but changing the way we are policed, to react to short term budgetary pressure when in the short term no savings are made seems unwise at best.
I object to the slow march to a more authoritarian state
I don't think that anyone in the current government has a master plan to make a centralised authoritarian state, I think they are doing it carelessly, assuming that a)they cannot be wrong and b)that all who follow will be as benign as they.
No surprise to me!
> It would cost more. Everything is under budgetary pressure and I can see why the movement was made. For financial reasons.
I do not have the figures to hand and I may be wrong but I seem to remember a recent report that the single police force has not actually saved money and is not projected to for some years. Presumably long term it ought to, but changing the way we are policed, to react to short term budgetary pressure when in the short term no savings are made seems unwise at best.
> We have to prioritise. For example I would say that there are many things more important that local police boards.
I object to the slow march to a more authoritarian state
> When you cut the income you have to cut the cost to maintain a similar service. That's why Police Scotland etc was formed not through some master plan to centralise things.
I don't think that anyone in the current government has a master plan to make a centralised authoritarian state, I think they are doing it carelessly, assuming that a)they cannot be wrong and b)that all who follow will be as benign as they.
> I note that the champion on non-centralisation (DA) is not actually offering any solutions. There's a surprise.
No surprise to me!
In reply to rogerwebb:
Long term planning isn't an option as the budgets are short term under devolution. You can only operate in a short term fashion currently.
This will continue with a No vote. Pointless complaining about it as the structure is a short term one we have.
Long term planning isn't an option as the budgets are short term under devolution. You can only operate in a short term fashion currently.
This will continue with a No vote. Pointless complaining about it as the structure is a short term one we have.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I will have to disagree with you there as if that was the case then the short to medium term increase in policing costs before the long term decrease would have meant that the single police force would have been a non starter.
I think that any who expect a major change in the way politics will be conducted after independence will be disappointed. One only has to compare First Minister's questions with Prime ministers questions to see the same rather childish behaviour and realise that despite the assertions behaviour in Holyrood is little different to that in Westminster.
> Long term planning isn't an option as the budgets are short term under devolution. You can only operate in a short term fashion currently.
> This will continue with a No vote. Pointless complaining about it as the structure is a short term one we have.
I will have to disagree with you there as if that was the case then the short to medium term increase in policing costs before the long term decrease would have meant that the single police force would have been a non starter.
I think that any who expect a major change in the way politics will be conducted after independence will be disappointed. One only has to compare First Minister's questions with Prime ministers questions to see the same rather childish behaviour and realise that despite the assertions behaviour in Holyrood is little different to that in Westminster.
In reply to moffatross:
have you got any examples? How it 'increasingly'?
> Forget government for a minute. The control of jobs and investment for Scotland is increasingly out of Scotland's hands and more and more of its economic activity is run from London,
have you got any examples? How it 'increasingly'?
In reply to IainRUK:
They are my personal experiences over the last 10 years working out of the Glasgow office of a very well known international corporate technology company which sold technology to and supported all manner of businesses. The consolidation of our customer's decision making out of Scotland mostly into London & the SE (but beyond too) and their outsourcing of many services to organisations based in the south had major impacts on our business operations.
I'm assuming you live and work in Scotland. Do you have different experiences then ?
They are my personal experiences over the last 10 years working out of the Glasgow office of a very well known international corporate technology company which sold technology to and supported all manner of businesses. The consolidation of our customer's decision making out of Scotland mostly into London & the SE (but beyond too) and their outsourcing of many services to organisations based in the south had major impacts on our business operations.
I'm assuming you live and work in Scotland. Do you have different experiences then ?
In reply to rogerwebb:
Disagree and I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite of what you are saying. Granted this wont be obvious to No voters.
The Yes campaign, I mean the community organised bit independent of any top down approach, has already shown that there is a new politics through public forums on policy, childcare, arts and public meetings. This had been absent until the referendum campaign came along.
The No campaign hasn't organised any events as they don't want to facilitate change.
The new politics is here but you have to engage to find it.
Disagree and I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite of what you are saying. Granted this wont be obvious to No voters.
The Yes campaign, I mean the community organised bit independent of any top down approach, has already shown that there is a new politics through public forums on policy, childcare, arts and public meetings. This had been absent until the referendum campaign came along.
The No campaign hasn't organised any events as they don't want to facilitate change.
The new politics is here but you have to engage to find it.
In reply to climbwhenready:
I bet you know the German National anthem of by heart too!!
I think it is far better for Scotland to be able to fully govern itself and make its own way ahead instead of Westminster, which has never really given a toss about Scotland until now.
I bet you know the German National anthem of by heart too!!
I think it is far better for Scotland to be able to fully govern itself and make its own way ahead instead of Westminster, which has never really given a toss about Scotland until now.
In reply to yer maw:
Do you think the all the MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster don't give a toss about Scotland?
> I bet you know the German National anthem of by heart too!!
> I think it is far better for Scotland to be able to fully govern itself and make its own way ahead instead of Westminster, which has never really given a toss about Scotland until now.
Do you think the all the MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster don't give a toss about Scotland?
In reply to rogerwebb:
Because there appears to be absolutely no engagement in a new style. No public meetings, no discussion of social policy (within the union I mean), no opportunity to quiz people on more powers etc. Nothing.
Where is the No version of the Common Weal for example?
Because there appears to be absolutely no engagement in a new style. No public meetings, no discussion of social policy (within the union I mean), no opportunity to quiz people on more powers etc. Nothing.
Where is the No version of the Common Weal for example?
In reply to yer maw:
What a bizarre reply. I don't understand the National Anthem comment, but you didn't answer my question.
> I bet you know the German National anthem of by heart too!!
> I think it is far better for Scotland to be able to fully govern itself and make its own way ahead instead of Westminster, which has never really given a toss about Scotland until now.
What a bizarre reply. I don't understand the National Anthem comment, but you didn't answer my question.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Where is the Yes version?
"Our response has been the Common Weal Project. This project sets out a wide-ranging vision of the kind of society Scotland could become if it followed progressive politics. This project is specifically designed to apply to Scotland irrespective of the outcome of the referendum with a set of policies which can be pursued no matter the outcome."
http://reidfoundation.org/about-us/
> Where is the No version of the Common Weal for example?
Where is the Yes version?
"Our response has been the Common Weal Project. This project sets out a wide-ranging vision of the kind of society Scotland could become if it followed progressive politics. This project is specifically designed to apply to Scotland irrespective of the outcome of the referendum with a set of policies which can be pursued no matter the outcome."
http://reidfoundation.org/about-us/
In reply to Saor Alba:
Which of those is a 'new style'? It seems very old school (and nothing wrong with that) to me.
Agreed the 'Yes' campaign seems far more dynamic, which is unsurprising as that is the side that actually wants to have a referendum.
The issue I was referring to was that behaviour and conduct in Holyrood seems to parallel that of Westminster, sort of Glasgow Uni debating club style circa 1980; not massively edifying.
How you change that I do not know, I'm sure it puts a lot of people off even trying to get into either institution.
> Because there appears to be absolutely no engagement in a new style. No public meetings, no discussion of social policy (within the union I mean), no opportunity to quiz people on more powers etc. Nothing.
Which of those is a 'new style'? It seems very old school (and nothing wrong with that) to me.
Agreed the 'Yes' campaign seems far more dynamic, which is unsurprising as that is the side that actually wants to have a referendum.
The issue I was referring to was that behaviour and conduct in Holyrood seems to parallel that of Westminster, sort of Glasgow Uni debating club style circa 1980; not massively edifying.
How you change that I do not know, I'm sure it puts a lot of people off even trying to get into either institution.
In reply to MG:
That is a Yes version Martin. Jimmy Reid supported independence.
This is why the people from the foundation are speaking on the Yes side at public events.
That is a Yes version Martin. Jimmy Reid supported independence.
This is why the people from the foundation are speaking on the Yes side at public events.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I don't actually thing there is a No campaign at community level. They appear to be able to get no one to work for them.
I also think the idea that Westminster is some kind of crucible of talent is a myth maintained by never opening it to scrutiny. Take Sturgeon Versus Moore on STV. He was destroyed as was Carmichael.
Another way this myth is maintained is by pretending to open things to scrutiny but not actually doing it. Take the Yvette Cooper visit to Inverness in the spring. There was a "public meeting" at Eden Court. I went along but couldn't get in as you had to be vetted a least a week in advance. No invitations were sent out.
They said there might be some standing room but I would have to wait until the meeting started. No bother I said as I watched various parliamentary assistants file in pretending to be from the public. So I waited until the meeting started and before I went to the desk again I went outside to look in the windows (it was in the Bishop's Palace). The meeting had started but there was plenty of room for seating and standing.
I went back to the desk and they told me it was full. I showed them the picture I had taken about a minute before showing plenty of room. They then said Eden Court had limited them to 70 in the audience. I went to the staff of Eden Court who said this was nonsense and there were seats for 100.
I went back again and the response was "computer says no".
It's a myth.
I don't actually thing there is a No campaign at community level. They appear to be able to get no one to work for them.
I also think the idea that Westminster is some kind of crucible of talent is a myth maintained by never opening it to scrutiny. Take Sturgeon Versus Moore on STV. He was destroyed as was Carmichael.
Another way this myth is maintained is by pretending to open things to scrutiny but not actually doing it. Take the Yvette Cooper visit to Inverness in the spring. There was a "public meeting" at Eden Court. I went along but couldn't get in as you had to be vetted a least a week in advance. No invitations were sent out.
They said there might be some standing room but I would have to wait until the meeting started. No bother I said as I watched various parliamentary assistants file in pretending to be from the public. So I waited until the meeting started and before I went to the desk again I went outside to look in the windows (it was in the Bishop's Palace). The meeting had started but there was plenty of room for seating and standing.
I went back to the desk and they told me it was full. I showed them the picture I had taken about a minute before showing plenty of room. They then said Eden Court had limited them to 70 in the audience. I went to the staff of Eden Court who said this was nonsense and there were seats for 100.
I went back again and the response was "computer says no".
It's a myth.
In reply to Saor Alba: They could always have a nice debate, if Alec can find a space in his diary http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10999560/Alex-Salmond-rejects-two-...
In reply to Saor Alba:
You are amazing. The website clearly states the contrary but in Donald world its part of the Yes campaign.
How's you £10 looking?
You are amazing. The website clearly states the contrary but in Donald world its part of the Yes campaign.
How's you £10 looking?
In reply to Saor Alba:
they didn't let me in either, but I went more quietly!
> I don't actually thing there is a No campaign at community level. They appear to be able to get no one to work for them.
> I also think the idea that Westminster is some kind of crucible of talent is a myth maintained by never opening it to scrutiny. Take Sturgeon Versus Moore on STV. He was destroyed as was Carmichael.
> Another way this myth is maintained is by pretending to open things to scrutiny but not actually doing it. Take the Yvette Cooper visit to Inverness in the spring. There was a "public meeting" at Eden Court. I went along but couldn't get in as you had to be vetted a least a week in advance. No invitations were sent out.
> They said there might be some standing room but I would have to wait until the meeting started. No bother I said as I watched various parliamentary assistants file in pretending to be from the public. So I waited until the meeting started and before I went to the desk again I went outside to look in the windows (it was in the Bishop's Palace). The meeting had started but there was plenty of room for seating and standing.
> I went back to the desk and they told me it was full. I showed them the picture I had taken about a minute before showing plenty of room. They then said Eden Court had limited them to 70 in the audience. I went to the staff of Eden Court who said this was nonsense and there were seats for 100.
> I went back again and the response was "computer says no".
they didn't let me in either, but I went more quietly!
In reply to MG:
I do wonder about you. The quote you give doesn't say if they support independence or not but says they have designed a project regardless of the result.
In your head that says something else.
The common weal does support independence. If you want to believe otherwise it makes no difference to anyone else.
50/50 on use bet. I am just back from canvassing and that was the result.
I do wonder about you. The quote you give doesn't say if they support independence or not but says they have designed a project regardless of the result.
In your head that says something else.
The common weal does support independence. If you want to believe otherwise it makes no difference to anyone else.
50/50 on use bet. I am just back from canvassing and that was the result.
In reply to Saor Alba:
That's funny because on their own website they ask that very question:-
IS IT PRO-INDEPENDENCE?
The Jimmy Reid Foundation was set up to provide a space for everyone who is interested in progressive politics and so will always remain politically neutral. Common Weal simply asks 'if you could do anything, what would you do?'. Most authors wrote in the context of independence and certainly a large marjority of those involved believe that Scotland needs the full powers of independence to realise this. But not all do. What they do all agree on is that Common Weal should represent Scotland's future – whether there is a Yes vote or not.
> I do wonder about you. The quote you give doesn't say if they support independence or not but says they have designed a project regardless of the result.
> In your head that says something else.
> The common weal does support independence. If you want to believe otherwise it makes no difference to anyone else.
That's funny because on their own website they ask that very question:-
IS IT PRO-INDEPENDENCE?
The Jimmy Reid Foundation was set up to provide a space for everyone who is interested in progressive politics and so will always remain politically neutral. Common Weal simply asks 'if you could do anything, what would you do?'. Most authors wrote in the context of independence and certainly a large marjority of those involved believe that Scotland needs the full powers of independence to realise this. But not all do. What they do all agree on is that Common Weal should represent Scotland's future – whether there is a Yes vote or not.
In reply to off-duty:
I know funny that. Maybe you should go to one of there events and hear directly. Check out Robin McAlpine.
I know funny that. Maybe you should go to one of there events and hear directly. Check out Robin McAlpine.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Unfortunately too far for me to travel.
So they are misrepresenting their position on their website?
Why would they do that?
> I know funny that. Maybe you should go to one of there events and hear directly. Check out Robin McAlpine.
Unfortunately too far for me to travel.
So they are misrepresenting their position on their website?
Why would they do that?
In reply to off-duty:
I think it's a question of situations and so on. It's one of these things where the internet doesn't give you the whole story.
I think it's a question of situations and so on. It's one of these things where the internet doesn't give you the whole story.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I know the internet doesn't give you the whole story.
I just think it is "interesting" that rather than state that the Common Weal is predicated on independence, the website (and the Reid foundation) make a point of saying that it is NOT.
It's almost as if the sites are trying to give a false impression of the goals of the common weal philosophy.
> I think it's a question of situations and so on. It's one of these things where the internet doesn't give you the whole story.
I know the internet doesn't give you the whole story.
I just think it is "interesting" that rather than state that the Common Weal is predicated on independence, the website (and the Reid foundation) make a point of saying that it is NOT.
It's almost as if the sites are trying to give a false impression of the goals of the common weal philosophy.
In reply to yer maw:
Campaigning for Independence on UKClimbing.com, this website is a true symbol of how our sassenach friends can come up here and climb our mountains then post photos of their conquests. It even tells them where the crags are so they can assign stars to the routes, I'm sure they berate routes in Scotland as these nasty English types wouldn't want Scotland to profit from increased interest in their crags. Remember no crag is better than Stanage.
We should start a albaclimbing.scot then they will have to change their name to RUKclimbing.com because we have broken the union and we feel it necessary to assign some slightly derogatory term to whats left.
Let's keep the forums for climbing free of this Saor Alba pish. These forums should be about bringing climbers together across the UK. Throwing up a border, controlled or not, is in no way to bring people together it never has done in the past.
Personally I'm surprised anyone with true romance of the stone, who is interested in experiencing the wilderness is holding truck with this independence debate as where you are from is far deeper than a patch of soil with a line drawn.
Campaigning for Independence on UKClimbing.com, this website is a true symbol of how our sassenach friends can come up here and climb our mountains then post photos of their conquests. It even tells them where the crags are so they can assign stars to the routes, I'm sure they berate routes in Scotland as these nasty English types wouldn't want Scotland to profit from increased interest in their crags. Remember no crag is better than Stanage.
We should start a albaclimbing.scot then they will have to change their name to RUKclimbing.com because we have broken the union and we feel it necessary to assign some slightly derogatory term to whats left.
Let's keep the forums for climbing free of this Saor Alba pish. These forums should be about bringing climbers together across the UK. Throwing up a border, controlled or not, is in no way to bring people together it never has done in the past.
Personally I'm surprised anyone with true romance of the stone, who is interested in experiencing the wilderness is holding truck with this independence debate as where you are from is far deeper than a patch of soil with a line drawn.
In reply to off-duty:
That's an unusual post with the underlining, italics, big black upper case, etc. How'd you do that?
That's an unusual post with the underlining, italics, big black upper case, etc. How'd you do that?
In reply to aln:
UKC let's you use some tags. b - Bold, U - underline, i - italics.
They are typed inside brackets <>
Start the section you want to "tag" with eg < b > finish using a backslash eg < / B >
(But omit all the spaces!)
UKC let's you use some tags. b - Bold, U - underline, i - italics.
They are typed inside brackets <>
Start the section you want to "tag" with eg < b > finish using a backslash eg < / B >
(But omit all the spaces!)
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Who in the world would listen to two debates with Alistair Darling? The debate should be leader to leader: Salmond vs Cameron but Cameron is chicken. Putting up Darling is the UK government's way of refusing a face-to-face debate. The Tories lose nothing and Salmond gains very little by winning a debate with a washed up Labour politician.
> They could always have a nice debate, if Alec can find a space in his diary
Who in the world would listen to two debates with Alistair Darling? The debate should be leader to leader: Salmond vs Cameron but Cameron is chicken. Putting up Darling is the UK government's way of refusing a face-to-face debate. The Tories lose nothing and Salmond gains very little by winning a debate with a washed up Labour politician.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The RUK doesn't have a leader so Salmond would have nobody to talk to if he doesn't talk to his opposite number at the NO campaign.
> Who in the world would listen to two debates with Alistair Darling? The debate should be leader to leader: Salmond vs Cameron but Cameron is chicken. Putting up Darling is the UK government's way of refusing a face-to-face debate. The Tories lose nothing and Salmond gains very little by winning a debate with a washed up Labour politician.
The RUK doesn't have a leader so Salmond would have nobody to talk to if he doesn't talk to his opposite number at the NO campaign.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Why are you conflating Better Together with the Tories? Let's face it Salmond only wants a 'debate' with Cameron because he is so hated, it would be no debate at all merely a chance for Salmond to distort the debate to look as though the choice is between independence and right wing old Etonians. The reason he doesn't want to debate Darling, presumably, is because he would actually have to discuss the real issues instead of populist Tory bashing
> The Tories lose nothing and Salmond gains very little by winning
Why are you conflating Better Together with the Tories? Let's face it Salmond only wants a 'debate' with Cameron because he is so hated, it would be no debate at all merely a chance for Salmond to distort the debate to look as though the choice is between independence and right wing old Etonians. The reason he doesn't want to debate Darling, presumably, is because he would actually have to discuss the real issues instead of populist Tory bashing
Post edited at 23:22
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Are you suggesting that the debate should be with someone who doesn't even get to vote on the issue.
Are you suggesting that the debate should be with someone who doesn't even get to vote on the issue.
In reply to yer maw:
I hope when rUK can see what Scotland can achieve, it will encourage our neighbours to demand a new political model of social equality.
http://aworkingclassman.com/50-days-go-50-reasons-vote-yes/
It is a no brainer for myself, completely reinforced the more deceit i see propagated from the BBC and Westminster along with the removal of YES saltires and badges from those at the commonwealth games, whilst at the same time encouraging union flags, coincidently non competing flags are banned and the last time I looked Scotland was competing and the UK was not.
They even refused the red arrows use of blue and white for the opening ceremony, probably one of the few times they have declined a request from their host.
We are all going to benefit from this, apart from those whose wealth is based on the misery of others.
I hope when rUK can see what Scotland can achieve, it will encourage our neighbours to demand a new political model of social equality.
http://aworkingclassman.com/50-days-go-50-reasons-vote-yes/
It is a no brainer for myself, completely reinforced the more deceit i see propagated from the BBC and Westminster along with the removal of YES saltires and badges from those at the commonwealth games, whilst at the same time encouraging union flags, coincidently non competing flags are banned and the last time I looked Scotland was competing and the UK was not.
They even refused the red arrows use of blue and white for the opening ceremony, probably one of the few times they have declined a request from their host.
We are all going to benefit from this, apart from those whose wealth is based on the misery of others.
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
How?
> .
> We are all going to benefit from this, apart from those whose wealth is based on the misery of others.
How?
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
Possibly. Though it is only a vote for independence, not a vote for the party that will subsequently govern, nor a vote for replacing the current Scottish system with some kind of political utopia.
It isn't a vote for redistribution of wealth either.
> I hope when rUK can see what Scotland can achieve, it will encourage our neighbours to demand a new political model of social equality.
Possibly. Though it is only a vote for independence, not a vote for the party that will subsequently govern, nor a vote for replacing the current Scottish system with some kind of political utopia.
> We are all going to benefit from this, apart from those whose wealth is based on the misery of others.
It isn't a vote for redistribution of wealth either.
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
I agree. That "workingclassman" list of 50 reasons is astonishing...
> Btw, some of the posts on this thread are ridiculous.
I agree. That "workingclassman" list of 50 reasons is astonishing...
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
>
You mean the same model that was tried and failed for decades?
> I hope when rUK can see what Scotland can achieve, it will encourage our neighbours to demand a new political model of social equality.
>
You mean the same model that was tried and failed for decades?
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
Oh I agree - yours included. Your attempt to politicise the Games in this rather pathetic way simply comes across as bitter nonsense.
> Btw, some of the posts on this thread are ridiculous.
Oh I agree - yours included. Your attempt to politicise the Games in this rather pathetic way simply comes across as bitter nonsense.
In reply to Saor Alba:
So they are being deliberately misleading on the website?
> I think it's a question of situations and so on. It's one of these things where the internet doesn't give you the whole story.
So they are being deliberately misleading on the website?
In reply to dissonance:
Or during the meetings, possibly....?
> So they are being deliberately misleading on the website?
Or during the meetings, possibly....?
In reply to off-duty:
Or just overly optimistic interpretation.
I was taking his statement as correct for the purposes of querying whether it was being deliberately misleading.
Since I would have thought anyone reasonable would consider that a bad thing. Even if the bias was in their favour.
> Or during the meetings, possibly....?
Or just overly optimistic interpretation.
I was taking his statement as correct for the purposes of querying whether it was being deliberately misleading.
Since I would have thought anyone reasonable would consider that a bad thing. Even if the bias was in their favour.
In reply to dissonance: I think any reasonable person would have to accept as true saor's online statement that you don't get the truth from the Jimmy Reid foundation online. Obviously you have to talk to someone in person to get the truth.
Obviously the above does not apply to saor's online statements.
Obviously the above does not apply to saor's online statements.
In reply to off-duty:
And incoherent
#11 says the MOD is blocking the exploitation of oil and gas fields off the west coast of Scotland, so independence will allow this hydrocarbon reserve to be tapped
#17 says an independent Scotland will move towards a greener and more sustainable future.
They could have put these two a bit further apart in the list so the glaring contradiction wasn't so easy to spot...
And incoherent
#11 says the MOD is blocking the exploitation of oil and gas fields off the west coast of Scotland, so independence will allow this hydrocarbon reserve to be tapped
#17 says an independent Scotland will move towards a greener and more sustainable future.
They could have put these two a bit further apart in the list so the glaring contradiction wasn't so easy to spot...
In reply to off-duty:
Just read #38
I don't think aworkingclassman understands what 'renewable' means...
Just read #38
I don't think aworkingclassman understands what 'renewable' means...
In reply to off-duty:
Wealth gets redistributed all the time. In the UK mostly towards the South East.
Boris Johnson just came out with a £1.3Tn (i.e. the size of the UK's entire national debt in 2012) wish list for infrastructure projects in London and nobody calls this socialism or wealth redistribution.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/30/london-orbital-railway-infra...
> It isn't a vote for redistribution of wealth either.
Wealth gets redistributed all the time. In the UK mostly towards the South East.
Boris Johnson just came out with a £1.3Tn (i.e. the size of the UK's entire national debt in 2012) wish list for infrastructure projects in London and nobody calls this socialism or wealth redistribution.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/30/london-orbital-railway-infra...
In reply to dissonance:
How would I know? Why not ask them. The posts on this suject get more absurd by the day. You are asking me if I know what the intent of an organisation I have nothing to do with was.
Utterly absurd again. Just ask them.
How would I know? Why not ask them. The posts on this suject get more absurd by the day. You are asking me if I know what the intent of an organisation I have nothing to do with was.
Utterly absurd again. Just ask them.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Just out of interest are you the same Saor Alba having a pop at Jenny Hjul in the Telegraph?
Just out of interest are you the same Saor Alba having a pop at Jenny Hjul in the Telegraph?
In reply to Saor Alba:
I was asking you to elaborate on your claim about "situations". As such I would have thought you would have been the best person to ask.
I could drop them a note saying "this random bod on a forum says that despite your website being clear you dont take a position apparently at events you do. Are you being deliberately misleading or are they talking crap?". However I doubt it would get a response.
I am asking you, based on your apparently superior knowledge, whether the website is deliberately misleading. Given that it says they dont take a position if, as you claim, at their events they do then it would count as deliberately misleading. Well that or incompetent web work.
Which do you think it is?
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> How would I know?
>
> How would I know?
I was asking you to elaborate on your claim about "situations". As such I would have thought you would have been the best person to ask.
> Why not ask them.
I could drop them a note saying "this random bod on a forum says that despite your website being clear you dont take a position apparently at events you do. Are you being deliberately misleading or are they talking crap?". However I doubt it would get a response.
> You are asking me if I know what the intent of an organisation I have nothing to do with was.
I am asking you, based on your apparently superior knowledge, whether the website is deliberately misleading. Given that it says they dont take a position if, as you claim, at their events they do then it would count as deliberately misleading. Well that or incompetent web work.
Which do you think it is?
In reply to cander:
Are you referring to the impartial, unbiased, objective 'Jenny Hijul' ...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jennyhjul/
Are you referring to the impartial, unbiased, objective 'Jenny Hijul' ...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jennyhjul/
In reply to dissonance:
Why not pop them an email saying someone was at an event where one of your directors spoke on the side supporting Scottish independence. That would represent my position.
IF you can't understand that I am not saying anything about their website then I can't help you any more.
I think the main issue is we are talking about different things and the entirety of your understanding is based upon what you can read on a computer screen.
Why not pop them an email saying someone was at an event where one of your directors spoke on the side supporting Scottish independence. That would represent my position.
IF you can't understand that I am not saying anything about their website then I can't help you any more.
I think the main issue is we are talking about different things and the entirety of your understanding is based upon what you can read on a computer screen.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Wow there are actually two of you ... guess thats one way of winning the vote
Wow there are actually two of you ... guess thats one way of winning the vote
In reply to moffatross:
It's not a terribly pleasant piece of journalism - but the Telegraph isn't and doesnt pretend to be; impartial, unbiased or objective ... but there again neither are you!
It's not a terribly pleasant piece of journalism - but the Telegraph isn't and doesnt pretend to be; impartial, unbiased or objective ... but there again neither are you!
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You claimed this before and then about the only basis for your claim you could think up was that the high court should be moved out of London.
Do you want to have another go?
> Wealth gets redistributed all the time. In the UK mostly towards the South East.
You claimed this before and then about the only basis for your claim you could think up was that the high court should be moved out of London.
Do you want to have another go?
In reply to Postmanpat:
No. I'm sure Boris spending £1.3 Trillion on infrastructure for London is completely proportionate. It is a really great idea to turn London into a Tokyo like city of 20 million people living in super expensive micro-apartments with train lines every couple of hundred meters while every other area of the UK gets run down but gratefully receives handouts from London.
As long as Scotland gets to cut loose in September you are welcome to keep on centralizing everything in London until the whole place is a mile deep in concrete.
> You claimed this before and then about the only basis for your claim you could think up was that the high court should be moved out of London.
> Do you want to have another go?
No. I'm sure Boris spending £1.3 Trillion on infrastructure for London is completely proportionate. It is a really great idea to turn London into a Tokyo like city of 20 million people living in super expensive micro-apartments with train lines every couple of hundred meters while every other area of the UK gets run down but gratefully receives handouts from London.
As long as Scotland gets to cut loose in September you are welcome to keep on centralizing everything in London until the whole place is a mile deep in concrete.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
How, have you done the numbers (obviously including the cost of the High Court) spread over fifty years as a % of tax revenues and relative to the rest of the UK??
PS. You seem to be confused by the difference between a long term "wish list" and actual expenditure. You know, like when you wish you could solo the Walker Spur in winter it does't mean you actually get to do it. Pip,pip.
> No. I'm sure Boris spending £1.3 Trillion on infrastructure for London is completely proportionate.
How, have you done the numbers (obviously including the cost of the High Court) spread over fifty years as a % of tax revenues and relative to the rest of the UK??
PS. You seem to be confused by the difference between a long term "wish list" and actual expenditure. You know, like when you wish you could solo the Walker Spur in winter it does't mean you actually get to do it. Pip,pip.
Post edited at 22:16
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think you may be exaggerating somewhat, have you been to Bristol, Leeds, Manchester Birmingham and so on lately? I don't think they're relying on hand outs from London.
> while every other area of the UK gets run down but gratefully receives handouts from London.
> keep on centralizing everything in London until the whole place is a mile deep in concrete.
I think you may be exaggerating somewhat, have you been to Bristol, Leeds, Manchester Birmingham and so on lately? I don't think they're relying on hand outs from London.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Err, I think you have misunderstood my meaning. "Redistribution of wealth" is commonly understood as a description of the transfer of money from one group to another based on some form of social mechanism - ie transfer from the rich to the poor.
If you didn't recognise the phrase then the second clue would have been in the comment I was replying to - namely :-
"> We are all going to benefit from this, apart from those whose wealth is based on the misery of others.
"
(You clearly did understand the phrase at some level - by your reference to "socialism")
The suggestion that you don't want to subsidise London is reasonable - though it is an extremely wishfull wishlist by Boris with no suggestion of how exactly it is going to be paid for.
Conversely you have to expect that within Scotland similar unequal amounts of spending are likely to occur - I'm not sure how the residents of Aberdeen feel about the £800 million spent on Edinburgh's trams...
> Wealth gets redistributed all the time. In the UK mostly towards the South East.
Err, I think you have misunderstood my meaning. "Redistribution of wealth" is commonly understood as a description of the transfer of money from one group to another based on some form of social mechanism - ie transfer from the rich to the poor.
If you didn't recognise the phrase then the second clue would have been in the comment I was replying to - namely :-
"> We are all going to benefit from this, apart from those whose wealth is based on the misery of others.
"
> Boris Johnson just came out with a £1.3Tn (i.e. the size of the UK's entire national debt in 2012) wish list for infrastructure projects in London and nobody calls this socialism or wealth redistribution.
(You clearly did understand the phrase at some level - by your reference to "socialism")
The suggestion that you don't want to subsidise London is reasonable - though it is an extremely wishfull wishlist by Boris with no suggestion of how exactly it is going to be paid for.
Conversely you have to expect that within Scotland similar unequal amounts of spending are likely to occur - I'm not sure how the residents of Aberdeen feel about the £800 million spent on Edinburgh's trams...
In reply to rogerwebb:
Here is what Boris says:
"What is good for London is good for them, in the sense that there will be a massive tax export from this city to the rest of the UK. This is not London wanting a bigger slice of the pie, it's increasing the size of the pie."
Boris is just more honest and blatant about the make-London-a-world-class-mega-city agenda than Cameron, Osborne, Miliband and the rest of them. They all live in London, own property in London, have children and relations working in the city and buy into the basic 'there can be only one world-class city in the UK' argument.
Probably Boris won't get £1.3Tn, that's just a crazy placeholder. But he will get tens or hundreds of billions for infrastructure, massively more than any other part of the UK and the result will be more of the UK economy moving to London and another round of infrastructure spending on London.
It is unbelievable we are even talking about building a North-South Crossrail in London for tens of bilions as soon as the East-West one is done instead of something actually game changing outside of London like building a bridge or tunnel to Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_fixed_crossing
> I think you may be exaggerating somewhat, have you been to Bristol, Leeds, Manchester Birmingham and so on lately? I don't think they're relying on hand outs from London.
Here is what Boris says:
"What is good for London is good for them, in the sense that there will be a massive tax export from this city to the rest of the UK. This is not London wanting a bigger slice of the pie, it's increasing the size of the pie."
Boris is just more honest and blatant about the make-London-a-world-class-mega-city agenda than Cameron, Osborne, Miliband and the rest of them. They all live in London, own property in London, have children and relations working in the city and buy into the basic 'there can be only one world-class city in the UK' argument.
Probably Boris won't get £1.3Tn, that's just a crazy placeholder. But he will get tens or hundreds of billions for infrastructure, massively more than any other part of the UK and the result will be more of the UK economy moving to London and another round of infrastructure spending on London.
It is unbelievable we are even talking about building a North-South Crossrail in London for tens of bilions as soon as the East-West one is done instead of something actually game changing outside of London like building a bridge or tunnel to Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_fixed_crossing
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You've not travelled very far have you. Either that or you are so bitterly stuck in your confirmatory bias zone that you simply rely on the utterly stupid to try to make a point,(and I mean stupid, because looking out of my window 200 miles away from London your impression of "every other area of the UK" is nowhere near the truth. Lazy generalisations).
> while every other area of the UK gets run down but gratefully receives handouts from London.
You've not travelled very far have you. Either that or you are so bitterly stuck in your confirmatory bias zone that you simply rely on the utterly stupid to try to make a point,(and I mean stupid, because looking out of my window 200 miles away from London your impression of "every other area of the UK" is nowhere near the truth. Lazy generalisations).
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You are Walter Mitty and I claim my £5.
> It is unbelievable we are even talking about building a North-South Crossrail in London for tens of bilions as soon as the East-West one is done instead of something actually game changing outside of London like building a bridge or tunnel to Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_fixed_crossing
You are Walter Mitty and I claim my £5.
In reply to Rampikino:
No, you are just demonstrating my point that there is an expectation that London will get large infrastructure projects and disbelief that they could go elsewhere. Not because they are more justified in London but because the people who make these decisions and the media that influence them are located in London.
Boris asks for £1.3Tn to build railways in London including starting a North-South Crossrail immediately after the £15Bn East West Crossrail finishes and nobody thinks there is anything surprising. Nobody thinks there is anything surprising about spending £40Bn for HS2. But suggest building a bridge/tunnel to Ireland and people think you are crazy despite the fact that in engineering terms a link from Scotland to Ireland is very possible. It is shorter than the channel tunnel and shorter than a bunch of stuff the Chinese and Japanese have built. It might well be cheaper than Crossrail or HS2 because it wouldn't involve masses of disputes with and payments to property owners and dealing with other infrastructure that got in the way.
> You are Walter Mitty and I claim my £5.
No, you are just demonstrating my point that there is an expectation that London will get large infrastructure projects and disbelief that they could go elsewhere. Not because they are more justified in London but because the people who make these decisions and the media that influence them are located in London.
Boris asks for £1.3Tn to build railways in London including starting a North-South Crossrail immediately after the £15Bn East West Crossrail finishes and nobody thinks there is anything surprising. Nobody thinks there is anything surprising about spending £40Bn for HS2. But suggest building a bridge/tunnel to Ireland and people think you are crazy despite the fact that in engineering terms a link from Scotland to Ireland is very possible. It is shorter than the channel tunnel and shorter than a bunch of stuff the Chinese and Japanese have built. It might well be cheaper than Crossrail or HS2 because it wouldn't involve masses of disputes with and payments to property owners and dealing with other infrastructure that got in the way.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And you seem to be missing the point that a large part of the reason London gets more infrastructure projects is that lots of people live, work and want to live and work there. There is feedback obviously in that good infrastructure means more people want to live somewhere and so on. But in comparison to most large cities globally London's infrastructure is unexceptional. Proposing a fixed link to Ireland which has a tiny population is absurd economically (of course its possible technically) - the Channel Tunnel that links two of the largest and most densely populated areas of the world is still struggling to make money.
> No, you are just demonstrating my point that there is an expectation that London will get large infrastructure projects and disbelief that they could go elsewhere. Not because they are more justified in London but because the people who make these decisions and the media that influence them are located in London.
And you seem to be missing the point that a large part of the reason London gets more infrastructure projects is that lots of people live, work and want to live and work there. There is feedback obviously in that good infrastructure means more people want to live somewhere and so on. But in comparison to most large cities globally London's infrastructure is unexceptional. Proposing a fixed link to Ireland which has a tiny population is absurd economically (of course its possible technically) - the Channel Tunnel that links two of the largest and most densely populated areas of the world is still struggling to make money.
In reply to MG:
The population of Eire + Northern Ireland combined is about 7 million compared to London's 8.2 million.
Economically we would be better off putting new infrastructure where there is most potential for growth rather than heavily developed regions which are already over populated. An obvious reason why the population of Ireland is low compared to its land area is its relative isolation: put in a fixed link and you address that factor and potentially get substantially faster economic development. Put in another railway in London and at best you get incremental benefit in a region which already has plenty of railways.
The way we are headed is more infrastructure in London -> more business moves to London -> more people move to London -> more infrastructure in London and round and round until the place looks like Tokyo.
> Proposing a fixed link to Ireland which has a tiny population is absurd economically (of course its possible technically)
The population of Eire + Northern Ireland combined is about 7 million compared to London's 8.2 million.
Economically we would be better off putting new infrastructure where there is most potential for growth rather than heavily developed regions which are already over populated. An obvious reason why the population of Ireland is low compared to its land area is its relative isolation: put in a fixed link and you address that factor and potentially get substantially faster economic development. Put in another railway in London and at best you get incremental benefit in a region which already has plenty of railways.
The way we are headed is more infrastructure in London -> more business moves to London -> more people move to London -> more infrastructure in London and round and round until the place looks like Tokyo.
In reply to yer maw:
they would be pretty naive to vote yes and then find themselves living in a country that potentially isn't in the EU
> ...to try and balance out all the English living in Scotland who are voting No! Unfortunately most of the Poles I've spoken to feel it isn't for them to decide the future of a country they aren't from.
they would be pretty naive to vote yes and then find themselves living in a country that potentially isn't in the EU
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
We? Who is "We". You want out. Why should you care?
But joking aside, to try to compare the populations of London with the populations of Northern/Republic of Ireland is like comparing apples with oranges. The density is not the same and it also crosses international boundaries rather than local ones. Think population density too as well as proximity to the continent via the channel tunnel. Then add the other existing transport links and London's position on the world financial stage and you will start to get an idea why comparing it with Ireland is ludicrous.
I'm afraid, to my mind, you are throwing around ideas in a vain attempt to support some kind of anti-London argument that you just can't cling onto. I think you need to get back to an argument as to why Scotland should become independent and not why London shouldn't have another rail link because the structure of your argument is so tenuous as to be flimsy.
We? Who is "We". You want out. Why should you care?
But joking aside, to try to compare the populations of London with the populations of Northern/Republic of Ireland is like comparing apples with oranges. The density is not the same and it also crosses international boundaries rather than local ones. Think population density too as well as proximity to the continent via the channel tunnel. Then add the other existing transport links and London's position on the world financial stage and you will start to get an idea why comparing it with Ireland is ludicrous.
I'm afraid, to my mind, you are throwing around ideas in a vain attempt to support some kind of anti-London argument that you just can't cling onto. I think you need to get back to an argument as to why Scotland should become independent and not why London shouldn't have another rail link because the structure of your argument is so tenuous as to be flimsy.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Problem is its not a matter of London alone,
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_of_europe.shtml (fig 3.
In this debate somehow the problems of Scotland are seen entirely through the prism of London.
Problem is its not a matter of London alone,
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_of_europe.shtml (fig 3.
In this debate somehow the problems of Scotland are seen entirely through the prism of London.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think the argument is much more complex than simple demographics. Per capita London is a real powerhouse. It is growing at an alarming rate. The economic case for investing in more infrastructure is pretty solid. By contrast the case for investment in declining parts of the country is less than clear cut. There is a long history of investing in large infrastructure projects in such areas only to see negligible changes in economic activity within their vicinity.
> The population of Eire + Northern Ireland combined is about 7 million compared to London's 8.2 million.
I think the argument is much more complex than simple demographics. Per capita London is a real powerhouse. It is growing at an alarming rate. The economic case for investing in more infrastructure is pretty solid. By contrast the case for investment in declining parts of the country is less than clear cut. There is a long history of investing in large infrastructure projects in such areas only to see negligible changes in economic activity within their vicinity.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Interesting that the population density across Germany which has a federal structure is much more uniform than that in France and the UK where power is centralised in the capital.
> Problem is its not a matter of London alone,
> In this debate somehow the problems of Scotland are seen entirely through the prism of London.
Interesting that the population density across Germany which has a federal structure is much more uniform than that in France and the UK where power is centralised in the capital.
In reply to tom_in_edinbuwasn't
Last time I looked Eire wasn't part of the UK. Shouldn't they pay for it?
> The population of Eire + Northern Ireland combined is about 7 million compared to London's 8.2 million.
Last time I looked Eire wasn't part of the UK. Shouldn't they pay for it?
In reply to off-duty:
Maybe they should, or half of it, or maybe the EU should pay for a chunk of it. I'm not hung up on building a link to Ireland the point I'm making is we are so focused on London that it is considered ridiculous to propose that there could be much more effective ways of spending billions on infrastructure than putting more railways into London.
For my money connecting 2 million people in Northern Ireland to the UK mainland with a bridge or tunnel is a far more effective way to spend £15Bn than putting yet another rail tunnel under London. The whole idea of facilitating London's population growing from 8M to 20M in the next 30 years is undesirable. Just imagine how London's interests will dominate UK government thinking with 20 million residents rather than 8 million.
The way the UK government has bought in to the inexorable growth of London is a compelling argument for Scottish Independence. Things aren't going to get better for regions hundreds of miles from London if things follow the current trajectory they are going to become economically marginalized and depopulated.
> In reply to tom_in_edinbuwasn't
> Last time I looked Eire wasn't part of the UK. Shouldn't they pay for it?
Maybe they should, or half of it, or maybe the EU should pay for a chunk of it. I'm not hung up on building a link to Ireland the point I'm making is we are so focused on London that it is considered ridiculous to propose that there could be much more effective ways of spending billions on infrastructure than putting more railways into London.
For my money connecting 2 million people in Northern Ireland to the UK mainland with a bridge or tunnel is a far more effective way to spend £15Bn than putting yet another rail tunnel under London. The whole idea of facilitating London's population growing from 8M to 20M in the next 30 years is undesirable. Just imagine how London's interests will dominate UK government thinking with 20 million residents rather than 8 million.
The way the UK government has bought in to the inexorable growth of London is a compelling argument for Scottish Independence. Things aren't going to get better for regions hundreds of miles from London if things follow the current trajectory they are going to become economically marginalized and depopulated.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Is it?
http://mapas.owje.com/maps/13463_german-population-density-2007.html
> Interesting that the population density across Germany which has a federal structure is much more uniform than that in France and the UK where power is centralised in the capital.
Is it?
http://mapas.owje.com/maps/13463_german-population-density-2007.html
n reply to rogerwebb:
There's a noticeable difference between the former East Germany and West Germany and obviously there are geographic factors like mountains but it is *much* more even than France and the UK on the map on your previous link which showed all of Europe.
> Is it?
There's a noticeable difference between the former East Germany and West Germany and obviously there are geographic factors like mountains but it is *much* more even than France and the UK on the map on your previous link which showed all of Europe.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
take your point about France but the distribution in Germany doesn't look that different to England. Scotland is of course extremely concentrated, as are Sweden and Italy.
The point I am trying to make is that population follows physical geography and wealth, government can do little about it (at least in a liberal democracy). Even when you move the government, Brasilia, Canberra, Washington it doesn't seem to have a lot of effect.
take your point about France but the distribution in Germany doesn't look that different to England. Scotland is of course extremely concentrated, as are Sweden and Italy.
The point I am trying to make is that population follows physical geography and wealth, government can do little about it (at least in a liberal democracy). Even when you move the government, Brasilia, Canberra, Washington it doesn't seem to have a lot of effect.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There is huge inequality in Germany, compare Munich and Rostock… just incomparable cost of living, house prices, longevity..
There's definitely certain key areas which have a huge hold on the country. Look at the massive conurbation around Essen, dortmund, dusseldorf..
Its a very strange comparison though, you are comparing two countries with massively different history and geography.
I think London's growth is a bit chicken and the egg.. I don't think the UK government really 'bought into it'..
There is huge inequality in Germany, compare Munich and Rostock… just incomparable cost of living, house prices, longevity..
There's definitely certain key areas which have a huge hold on the country. Look at the massive conurbation around Essen, dortmund, dusseldorf..
Its a very strange comparison though, you are comparing two countries with massively different history and geography.
I think London's growth is a bit chicken and the egg.. I don't think the UK government really 'bought into it'..
In reply to rogerwebb:
I think part of the issue is the way things are viewed.
London is clearly heavily subsidised per head of population from the rest of the UK. Look at railway expenditure. So are many part of Scotland also and to some extent everywhere is subsidised.
I think part of the issue is the way things are viewed.
London is clearly heavily subsidised per head of population from the rest of the UK. Look at railway expenditure. So are many part of Scotland also and to some extent everywhere is subsidised.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Have you got figures to back this up?
Holistically, not sector by sector...
I'm not a fan of London but I was under the impression it brought in its fair share…
Certainly amazed to see 'clearly heavily subsidised'..
> London is clearly heavily subsidised per head of population from the rest of the UK.
Have you got figures to back this up?
Holistically, not sector by sector...
I'm not a fan of London but I was under the impression it brought in its fair share…
Certainly amazed to see 'clearly heavily subsidised'..
Post edited at 04:48
In reply to IainRUK:
Looks like according to the DM London subsidises the rest of the country, that has got to be right. Oh hold on, it also says Scotland received NO subsidy, what kind of nonsense is this.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-...
> Have you got figures to back this
> I'm not a fan of London but I was under the impression it brought in its fair share…
> Certainly amazed to see 'clearly heavily subsidised'..
> Certainly amazed to see 'clearly heavily subsidised'..
Looks like according to the DM London subsidises the rest of the country, that has got to be right. Oh hold on, it also says Scotland received NO subsidy, what kind of nonsense is this.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-...
In reply to IainRUK:
London gets £374 per head per railways spending, West Midlands get £74. London couldn't and didn't pay for Crossrail or will pay for Crossrail 2.
London can't provide its own food, can't generate its own power, relies on imported Labour and so on. Looking at a simplistic model doesn't show this. Everywhere is subsidised to with something from somewhere else.
Anyway none of these are reasons for a Yes vote. I am voting Yes as I want Scotland to get the government it votes for, want to take a different direction from that Westminster (all parties) are taking us in and want to use resources in a different way, etc.....
London gets £374 per head per railways spending, West Midlands get £74. London couldn't and didn't pay for Crossrail or will pay for Crossrail 2.
London can't provide its own food, can't generate its own power, relies on imported Labour and so on. Looking at a simplistic model doesn't show this. Everywhere is subsidised to with something from somewhere else.
Anyway none of these are reasons for a Yes vote. I am voting Yes as I want Scotland to get the government it votes for, want to take a different direction from that Westminster (all parties) are taking us in and want to use resources in a different way, etc.....
In reply to Saor Alba:
Wow! I agree with you in general!
Apart from your first point, none of your other reasons are natural (or necessarily expected) consequences of independence.
> London can't provide its own food, can't generate its own power, relies on imported Labour and so on. Looking at a simplistic model doesn't show this. Everywhere is subsidised to with something from somewhere else.
Wow! I agree with you in general!
> Anyway none of these are reasons for a Yes vote. I am voting Yes as I want Scotland to get the government it votes for, want to take a different direction from that Westminster (all parties) are taking us in and want to use resources in a different way, etc.....
Apart from your first point, none of your other reasons are natural (or necessarily expected) consequences of independence.
In reply to Saor Alba:
What an utterly mad definition of "subsidy" you must be using! If I buy food from sainsburys are they subsidising me? If I pay a bloke from the next town to fix my plumbing am I subsidising him as "imported labour"?
And you can't just take one aspect on a gross basis (rail) and use it to show a region is subsidised overall.
> London gets £374 per head per railways spending, West Midlands get £74. London couldn't and didn't pay for Crossrail or will pay for Crossrail 2.
> London can't provide its own food, can't generate its own power, relies on imported Labour and so on.
What an utterly mad definition of "subsidy" you must be using! If I buy food from sainsburys are they subsidising me? If I pay a bloke from the next town to fix my plumbing am I subsidising him as "imported labour"?
And you can't just take one aspect on a gross basis (rail) and use it to show a region is subsidised overall.
In reply to off-duty:
No but it's about no guarantees, only opportunities. Nothing is certain but I know I want Scotland to have more control of its own future. The Union doesn't give that.
No but it's about no guarantees, only opportunities. Nothing is certain but I know I want Scotland to have more control of its own future. The Union doesn't give that.
In reply to Saor Alba:
At least you are honest about it. A blind leap into the future, concentrating on possible opportunities, without concerning ourselves unduly with consequences.
> No but it's about no guarantees, only opportunities. Nothing is certain but I know I want Scotland to have more control of its own future. The Union doesn't give that.
At least you are honest about it. A blind leap into the future, concentrating on possible opportunities, without concerning ourselves unduly with consequences.
In reply to Saor Alba:
No you can't back it up.. some sectors will gain, some losses.. economically London is a huge plus for the UK.. to insinuate the rest of the Uk 'clearly subsidises it' is just an outright lie and you know it...
> London gets £374 per head per railways spending, West Midlands get £74. London couldn't and didn't pay for Crossrail or will pay for Crossrail 2.
> London can't provide its own food, can't generate its own power, relies on imported Labour and so on. Looking at a simplistic model doesn't show this. Everywhere is subsidised to with something from somewhere else.
> Anyway none of these are reasons for a Yes vote. I am voting Yes as I want Scotland to get the government it votes for, want to take a different direction from that Westminster (all parties) are taking us in and want to use resources in a different way, etc.....
No you can't back it up.. some sectors will gain, some losses.. economically London is a huge plus for the UK.. to insinuate the rest of the Uk 'clearly subsidises it' is just an outright lie and you know it...
In reply to IainRUK:
I think you need to think about the meaning of "insinuation" and "lie" and as a bonus, "anger".
I think you need to think about the meaning of "insinuation" and "lie" and as a bonus, "anger".
In reply to off-duty:
I don't think it's a blind leap.
Anyway, since I wrote my post this morning I have been out to the Yes stall in Inverness. This involves giving out leaflets and speaking to people. Now and again you get the occasional aggressive person on the No side but today was a special treat. There was a family who clearly hadn't thought about what No or Yes means in this case but very keen to give their views in favour of No. Their main issues were "blacks", immigrants and retention of the Queen. Rarely do you meet such overt racism and in no way is this representative of your general No voter but there is clearly a race issue that Better Together needs to get a grip on.
I don't think it's a blind leap.
Anyway, since I wrote my post this morning I have been out to the Yes stall in Inverness. This involves giving out leaflets and speaking to people. Now and again you get the occasional aggressive person on the No side but today was a special treat. There was a family who clearly hadn't thought about what No or Yes means in this case but very keen to give their views in favour of No. Their main issues were "blacks", immigrants and retention of the Queen. Rarely do you meet such overt racism and in no way is this representative of your general No voter but there is clearly a race issue that Better Together needs to get a grip on.
In reply to Saor Alba: I met a lovely Glaswegian on Ardnamurchan last week, plans to vote yes because he doesn't like "Westminster's" immigration policy, thinks being independent will make it much easier to keep out the "n*ggers and p*kis". Apparently there are arseholes on both sides.
In reply to Saor alba
There was a family who clearly hadn't thought about what No or Yes means in this case but very keen to give their views in favour of No. Their main issues were "blacks", immigrants and retention of the Queen. Rarely do you meet such overt racism and in no way is this representative of your general No voter but there is clearly a race issue that Better Together needs to get a grip on.
Err, if it is "rare" and "in no way representative" then how does that indicate that there is "clearly....an issue".
Post edited at 00:19
In reply to Saor Alba:
So justify your point... You cant.. It was an idiotically ignorant indefensible statement...
So justify your point... You cant.. It was an idiotically ignorant indefensible statement...
In reply to Saor Alba:
Do you know about the oilfield west of Shetland? It's the biggest in the whole world. But keep it to yourself, it's secret.
> Do you know the Eiger Sanction?
Do you know about the oilfield west of Shetland? It's the biggest in the whole world. But keep it to yourself, it's secret.
In reply to yer maw: The poles even have a Facebook page...Poles for an Independent Scotland jest dla Polaków którzy wspierają niepodległościowe dążenia Szkocji, jak również i dla tych niezdecydowanych, jak i dla tych którzy poszukują informacji.
They've got 1984 likes, smashing your average Britnat Facebook pages like counts.
The poles bailed us out during the Battle of Britain etc fighting nasty fascists during world war 2....now they're helping us get rid of that nasty right wing Government down in Westminister.
They've got 1984 likes, smashing your average Britnat Facebook pages like counts.
The poles bailed us out during the Battle of Britain etc fighting nasty fascists during world war 2....now they're helping us get rid of that nasty right wing Government down in Westminister.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It's no secret really, only you lesser informed mortals are missing what's going on over on the west side of Scotland.
> Do you know about the oilfield west of Shetland? It's the biggest in the whole world. But keep it to yourself, it's secret.
It's no secret really, only you lesser informed mortals are missing what's going on over on the west side of Scotland.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Yes I do. Arthur Kennedy right? Turns out he's the bad guy.
> You know the bit at the end where Clint says "you're limping Ben"?
Yes I do. Arthur Kennedy right? Turns out he's the bad guy.
In reply to Saor Alba: The Orange Lodge, Britain First, EDL, and BNP, all rabid supporters of the Union and all extremely racist....don't doubt that you will get some Nationalists that are racists but none are organised into groups like they are on the Britnat side.
In reply to lynx3555:
I think linking fascism with the David C is a wee bit strong, and breaking up the UK is no way to get rid of the Tories.
I think linking fascism with the David C is a wee bit strong, and breaking up the UK is no way to get rid of the Tories.
In reply to silhouette:
Aye he was and Clint took out the others under false pretenses.
Anyway, the reason I mention is whenever IainRUK comes back with one of his getting-angry-and-I-am-right responses it always makes me think of Clint's voice but with the phrase "you're getting angry Iain".
Aye he was and Clint took out the others under false pretenses.
Anyway, the reason I mention is whenever IainRUK comes back with one of his getting-angry-and-I-am-right responses it always makes me think of Clint's voice but with the phrase "you're getting angry Iain".
In reply to lynx3555:
That's right because nationalism "against the English" doesn't count as racism does it.
> The Orange Lodge, Britain First, EDL, and BNP, all rabid supporters of the Union and all extremely racist....don't doubt that you will get some Nationalists that are racists but none are organised into groups like they are on the Britnat side.
That's right because nationalism "against the English" doesn't count as racism does it.
In reply to lynx3555:
Of course they are. They can happily exist within ready made organisations:the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein etc. They don't need to create separate organisations. Which is not to say that the above organisations are based on racism.
> The Orange Lodge, Britain First, EDL, and BNP, all rabid supporters of the Union and all extremely racist....don't doubt that you will get some Nationalists that are racists but none are organised into groups like they are on the Britnat side.
Of course they are. They can happily exist within ready made organisations:the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein etc. They don't need to create separate organisations. Which is not to say that the above organisations are based on racism.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I'm using quotation marks to highlight/emphasise. Quite probably incorrectly grammatically.
> Who are you quoting?
I'm using quotation marks to highlight/emphasise. Quite probably incorrectly grammatically.
In reply to Saor Alba:
How am I being angry?
I'm just asking you to justify your ignorant statement...3 times now you've insulted and not justified it.. You are the angry one..
Now can you please justify how 'London is clearly subsidized by the rest of the UK'
Not just the odd sector.. Holistically?
My bet is you can't? You are suggesting I'm angry yet I'm just asking provide some evidence... But as always you hide behind snippet remarks and are unable to justify so you try to side step into a petty fight ..
So justify it.. Provide some links? I'm open to be proved wrong.. I just expect it won't happen because no matter how much I dislike London's dominance I know it is a huge plus for the UK...
To suggest it is subsidized by the UK is just pushing misinformation, something you say the no campaign do yet are happy to do do in support of the yes.. .
How am I being angry?
I'm just asking you to justify your ignorant statement...3 times now you've insulted and not justified it.. You are the angry one..
Now can you please justify how 'London is clearly subsidized by the rest of the UK'
Not just the odd sector.. Holistically?
My bet is you can't? You are suggesting I'm angry yet I'm just asking provide some evidence... But as always you hide behind snippet remarks and are unable to justify so you try to side step into a petty fight ..
So justify it.. Provide some links? I'm open to be proved wrong.. I just expect it won't happen because no matter how much I dislike London's dominance I know it is a huge plus for the UK...
To suggest it is subsidized by the UK is just pushing misinformation, something you say the no campaign do yet are happy to do do in support of the yes.. .
Post edited at 15:17
In reply to lynx3555:
Have you seen the likes? Look at the names... Not many polish.. I think claiming they are helping you to rid of your nasty neighbors is a tad unsubstantiated..
> The poles even have a Facebook page...Poles for an Independent Scotland jest dla Polaków którzy wspierają niepodległościowe dążenia Szkocji, jak również i dla tych niezdecydowanych, jak i dla tych którzy poszukują informacji.
> They've got 1984 likes, smashing your average Britnat Facebook pages like counts.
> The poles bailed us out during the Battle of Britain etc fighting nasty fascists during world war 2....now they're helping us get rid of that nasty right wing Government down in Westminister.
Have you seen the likes? Look at the names... Not many polish.. I think claiming they are helping you to rid of your nasty neighbors is a tad unsubstantiated..
In reply to lynx3555:
Are you really comparing hitler and Cameron?
Also the yes side keeps saying this isn't about short term politics, you are voting for independence not the SNP, yet you seem to be arguing this is about not having a Tory government...
All very confusing...
It's like Soar talking about the no side spreading fear, yet it's ok to spread his unsubstantiated rants for the yes side...
Are you really comparing hitler and Cameron?
Also the yes side keeps saying this isn't about short term politics, you are voting for independence not the SNP, yet you seem to be arguing this is about not having a Tory government...
All very confusing...
It's like Soar talking about the no side spreading fear, yet it's ok to spread his unsubstantiated rants for the yes side...
In reply to IainRUK:
I'm not directly comparing hitler to Cameron, although I think the right wing Tories etc do have a bit in common with Adolf.
And your comment regarding how is London being subsidised....well do you really think London can afford to spend this amount and not draw in funding from the rest of the UK.
http://www.cityam.com/1406740920/how-13-trillion-needs-be-spent-infrastruct...
What was it Boris said, a pound spent in London is better than spending it I Clyde side...or something like that.
I'm not directly comparing hitler to Cameron, although I think the right wing Tories etc do have a bit in common with Adolf.
And your comment regarding how is London being subsidised....well do you really think London can afford to spend this amount and not draw in funding from the rest of the UK.
http://www.cityam.com/1406740920/how-13-trillion-needs-be-spent-infrastruct...
What was it Boris said, a pound spent in London is better than spending it I Clyde side...or something like that.
In reply to off-duty:
I think the anti Scottish English balance that one out....I still don't know any one who hates the English up here in Scotland. I know a lot of Scots who detest the Tories and also the British establishment, most of them just happen to be English. Remember, Cameron's dad was and Aberdonian, who ancestors included slave traders and no doubt a few other rouges.
Coincidently, the Scottish version of the EDL (SDL) are also Britnats....is it because they think big is best? And united we can continue to fight illegal wars together, or just an ego thing maybe?
I think the anti Scottish English balance that one out....I still don't know any one who hates the English up here in Scotland. I know a lot of Scots who detest the Tories and also the British establishment, most of them just happen to be English. Remember, Cameron's dad was and Aberdonian, who ancestors included slave traders and no doubt a few other rouges.
Coincidently, the Scottish version of the EDL (SDL) are also Britnats....is it because they think big is best? And united we can continue to fight illegal wars together, or just an ego thing maybe?
In reply to lynx3555:
Whats that then?
They want to gas jews?
They want to invade poland?
Go on, tell us. ..
> I'm not directly comparing hitler to Cameron, although I think the right wing Tories etc do have a bit in common with Adolf.
Whats that then?
They want to gas jews?
They want to invade poland?
Go on, tell us. ..
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't have the full list of 1986 names who have joined the page, but I'm sure there's many amongst them. Those names just appeared when I tried to link the page, guess you are an expert in polish names then....must google a few.....
> Have you seen the likes? Look at the names... Not many polish.. I think claiming they are helping you to rid of your nasty neighbors is a tad unsubstantiated..
I don't have the full list of 1986 names who have joined the page, but I'm sure there's many amongst them. Those names just appeared when I tried to link the page, guess you are an expert in polish names then....must google a few.....
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: actually, your scumbag of a prime-minister thinks it's really cool that Israel is knocking the shit out of the Palestinian people in Gaza, we sold them 12 billion quids worth of Weapons with which they can carry out this destruction and murder.
In reply to lynx3555:
Absolutely. None of the Scottish nationalists hate the English. No way Not at all.
Just like the EDL don't hate "pakis" just them Muslimists, innit.
> I think the anti Scottish English balance that one out....I still don't know any one who hates the English up here in Scotland. I know a lot of Scots who detest the Tories and also the British establishment, most of them just happen to be English. Remember, Cameron's dad was and Aberdonian, who ancestors included slave traders and no doubt a few other rouges.
> Coincidently, the Scottish version of the EDL (SDL) are also Britnats....is it because they think big is best? And united we can continue to fight illegal wars together, or just an ego thing maybe?
Absolutely. None of the Scottish nationalists hate the English. No way Not at all.
Just like the EDL don't hate "pakis" just them Muslimists, innit.
In reply to lynx3555:
You need to get out more
> I think the anti Scottish English balance that one out....I still don't know any one who hates the English up here in Scotland.
You need to get out more
In reply to off-duty:
Hate is a very strong word to use.....I would say that a lot of Scots dis trust England large elite, do you blame them? I'm sure a lot of English do as well.
Hate is a very strong word to use.....I would say that a lot of Scots dis trust England large elite, do you blame them? I'm sure a lot of English do as well.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
To be a bit more accurate....Quote: "The Prime Minister has reassured Israel of Britain's support in the ongoing conflict between the Jewish state and Hamas in Gaza"
Whereas in Scotland....
Breaking: West Dunbartonshire Council fly Palestinian flag on municipal buildings and the Scottish government has contributed to the relief fund.
http://www.dumbartonreporter.co.uk/news/thisweek/articles/2014/07/31/505583...
To be a bit more accurate....Quote: "The Prime Minister has reassured Israel of Britain's support in the ongoing conflict between the Jewish state and Hamas in Gaza"
Whereas in Scotland....
Breaking: West Dunbartonshire Council fly Palestinian flag on municipal buildings and the Scottish government has contributed to the relief fund.
http://www.dumbartonreporter.co.uk/news/thisweek/articles/2014/07/31/505583...
In reply to lynx3555:
This is just getting ridiculous.
For what it's worth Tower Hamlets and Preston were flying the Palestinian flag.
And do you honestly think that Westminster - and hence you and me - are not donating millions in aid to Gaza?
> Whereas in Scotland....
> Breaking: West Dunbartonshire Council fly Palestinian flag on municipal buildings and the Scottish government has contributed to the relief fund.
This is just getting ridiculous.
For what it's worth Tower Hamlets and Preston were flying the Palestinian flag.
And do you honestly think that Westminster - and hence you and me - are not donating millions in aid to Gaza?
In reply to IainRUK:
> Are you really comparing hitler and Cameron?
Kind of> Also the yes side keeps saying this isn't about short term politics, you are voting for independence not the SNP, yet you seem to be arguing this is about not having a Tory government...
Not having a Tory gov. Is just one of the benefits, far too many to list.> All very confusing...
Tell me about it, one minute Scotland's running out of oil and the next it's booming, booming being the right situation> It's like Soar talking about the no side spreading fear, yet it's ok to spread his unsubstantiated rants for the yes side...
The use of Fear against the Scottish people has been acknowledged by many, many people, John Snow to name but one.....and you think the better together gaggle have substantiated any of there horror stories, not as far as I can see, and you seem to be a big mouth piece for that bunch.In reply to lynx3555:
Suggest you look at my posts on the various gaza threads before making any assumptions about what my view on that conflict may be
Or any assumptions about who 'my' prime minister is. Hes every bit as much yours as mine and you voted for him as much as I did.
Its just really poor, and childish, to compare people you dont like to Hitler, for no reason other than you don't like them
Unless you can give some real reasons why you think tory mps are like Hitler. I suggested some for you, are there any others you would like to add?
Suggest you look at my posts on the various gaza threads before making any assumptions about what my view on that conflict may be
Or any assumptions about who 'my' prime minister is. Hes every bit as much yours as mine and you voted for him as much as I did.
Its just really poor, and childish, to compare people you dont like to Hitler, for no reason other than you don't like them
Unless you can give some real reasons why you think tory mps are like Hitler. I suggested some for you, are there any others you would like to add?
In reply to lynx3555:
Interesting that you say "the use of fear against the Scottish people".
I'm presuming you ACTUALLY mean "the use of fear against those Scottish people intending to vote for independence"
> The use of Fear against the Scottish people has been acknowledged by many, many people, John Snow to name but one.....and you think the better together gaggle have substantiated any of there horror stories, not as far as I can see, and you seem to be a big mouth piece for that bunch.
Interesting that you say "the use of fear against the Scottish people".
I'm presuming you ACTUALLY mean "the use of fear against those Scottish people intending to vote for independence"
In reply to lynx3555:
So you are comparing Cameron to Hitler?
Hitler: responsible for the gassing of 6 million Jews
Cameron: supports the self declared Jewish state of Israel despite its grotesquely disproportionate use of force against a civilian population.
I agree, there's barely a cigarette paper between them
> Kind of
So you are comparing Cameron to Hitler?
Hitler: responsible for the gassing of 6 million Jews
Cameron: supports the self declared Jewish state of Israel despite its grotesquely disproportionate use of force against a civilian population.
I agree, there's barely a cigarette paper between them
In reply to off-duty:
Is it....the Tories have donated only weapons to the Israelis with which to bomb Gaza, and they openly support this offensive....the Scottish government and many other world governments condemn this action. But that's Tories for you, and you obviously have a lot of them in England, they put money before human life, unless it their own life of course.
Israel needs Gaza's gas, and I'm sure that Cameron will get BP involved.
http://mondediplo.com/blogs/israel-s-war-for-gaza-s-gas
Is it....the Tories have donated only weapons to the Israelis with which to bomb Gaza, and they openly support this offensive....the Scottish government and many other world governments condemn this action. But that's Tories for you, and you obviously have a lot of them in England, they put money before human life, unless it their own life of course.
Israel needs Gaza's gas, and I'm sure that Cameron will get BP involved.
http://mondediplo.com/blogs/israel-s-war-for-gaza-s-gas
In reply to lynx3555:
1) The tories have "donated weapons to the Israelis" ? Really?
2)The tories "openly support the offensive" - "Mr Cameron said the Government had been 'very clear that there needs to be an immediate comprehensive humanitarian ceasefire, that we want this conflict to stop'"
3)Do you really believe that whatever government gets elected in a post-independencee Scotland will do and say every single thing that YOU want it to do and say?
> Is it....the Tories have donated only weapons to the Israelis with which to bomb Gaza, and they openly support this offensive....the Scottish government and many other world governments condemn this action. But that's Tories for you, and you obviously have a lot of them in England, they put money before human life, unless it their own life of course.
> Israel needs Gaza's gas, and I'm sure that Cameron will get BP involved.
1) The tories have "donated weapons to the Israelis" ? Really?
2)The tories "openly support the offensive" - "Mr Cameron said the Government had been 'very clear that there needs to be an immediate comprehensive humanitarian ceasefire, that we want this conflict to stop'"
3)Do you really believe that whatever government gets elected in a post-independencee Scotland will do and say every single thing that YOU want it to do and say?
In reply to off-duty:
No I don't expect that any Scottish government will do everything that I want them to do or be...but they will be a Scottish government and will be answerable to the Scottish people.....better than Westminster governments just thinking that we're an ungrateful bunch up here in Scotland....mr Cameron says a lot doesn't he, he has openly supported Israel's attack on Gaza and when suddenly he feels the heat, he turns around and comes out with a statement like you posted...but I think a lot of people are aware of his real thoughts on the crisis, after all they are a huge customer for our biggest industry, weapons.
No I don't expect that any Scottish government will do everything that I want them to do or be...but they will be a Scottish government and will be answerable to the Scottish people.....better than Westminster governments just thinking that we're an ungrateful bunch up here in Scotland....mr Cameron says a lot doesn't he, he has openly supported Israel's attack on Gaza and when suddenly he feels the heat, he turns around and comes out with a statement like you posted...but I think a lot of people are aware of his real thoughts on the crisis, after all they are a huge customer for our biggest industry, weapons.
In reply to lynx3555:
Just as a Westminster government can "ignore" the views of those in, for example, Preston.
...mr Cameron says a lot doesn't he, he has openly supported Israel's attack on Gaza and when suddenly he feels the heat, he turns around and comes out with a statement like you posted...but I think a lot of people are aware of his real thoughts on the crisis, after all they are a huge customer for our biggest industry, weapons.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the reasons for Cameron's change of heart, but nor do I particularly support his position.
Still at least you acknowledge Scotland's role in "our biggest industry"
Perhaps you could get back to defending your casual racism now.
> No I don't expect that any Scottish government will do everything that I want them to do or be...but they will be a Scottish government and will be answerable to the Scottish people.....better than Westminster governments just thinking that we're an ungrateful bunch up here in Scotland.
Just as a Westminster government can "ignore" the views of those in, for example, Preston.
...mr Cameron says a lot doesn't he, he has openly supported Israel's attack on Gaza and when suddenly he feels the heat, he turns around and comes out with a statement like you posted...but I think a lot of people are aware of his real thoughts on the crisis, after all they are a huge customer for our biggest industry, weapons.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the reasons for Cameron's change of heart, but nor do I particularly support his position.
Still at least you acknowledge Scotland's role in "our biggest industry"
Perhaps you could get back to defending your casual racism now.
In reply to lynx3555:
Any thoughts yet on how tories are just like Nazis?
I was looking at their manifesto for the bit where Cameron promised to implement the final solution but I couldn't find it. Perhaps its in your copy?
Any thoughts yet on how tories are just like Nazis?
I was looking at their manifesto for the bit where Cameron promised to implement the final solution but I couldn't find it. Perhaps its in your copy?
Post edited at 21:58
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Actually, if you could read back on the thread you will see that I didn't actually compare Cameron to the Natzi party...it started with poles fighting Natzi's and then helping us here in Scotland gain our independence from the UK and present Tory party. But I do understand that certain individuals on here do like to twist things a bit...bit like the Tories really, and the Labour Party as well.
Actually, if you could read back on the thread you will see that I didn't actually compare Cameron to the Natzi party...it started with poles fighting Natzi's and then helping us here in Scotland gain our independence from the UK and present Tory party. But I do understand that certain individuals on here do like to twist things a bit...bit like the Tories really, and the Labour Party as well.
In reply to off-duty:
Preston is in England, Scotland is Scotland, you may have noticed the signs if you are heading up here that tell you this....and we don't have many Tories up here, which isn't very fair when you think that we have them as our main government.
Preston is in England, Scotland is Scotland, you may have noticed the signs if you are heading up here that tell you this....and we don't have many Tories up here, which isn't very fair when you think that we have them as our main government.
In reply to lynx3555:
20.09 tonight, your reply to iain
Iain: are you really comparing Cameron to Hitler?
You: kind of
Well, kind of how?
If you don't want your thread derailed, don't post absurd comments like that.
20.09 tonight, your reply to iain
Iain: are you really comparing Cameron to Hitler?
You: kind of
Well, kind of how?
If you don't want your thread derailed, don't post absurd comments like that.
In reply to lynx3555:
If the bare bones of your argument are localism, then I trust you will be arguing for further repartitioning if, in a post-independence Scotland, the government don't do what you want.
Breakaway republics of Glasgow, Edinburgh or even Shetland. Maybe we should divide ourselves into small bands of like-minded individuals.
We could have a distinctive patterned clothing to distinguish each band.....
> Preston is in England, Scotland is Scotland, you may have noticed the signs if you are heading up here that tell you this....and we don't have many Tories up here, which isn't very fair when you think that we have them as our main government.
If the bare bones of your argument are localism, then I trust you will be arguing for further repartitioning if, in a post-independence Scotland, the government don't do what you want.
Breakaway republics of Glasgow, Edinburgh or even Shetland. Maybe we should divide ourselves into small bands of like-minded individuals.
We could have a distinctive patterned clothing to distinguish each band.....
In reply to off-duty:
If Milliband gets in do you think there will be a "freedom for Kent and Surrey" party?
> If the bare bones of your argument are localism, then I trust you will be arguing for further repartitioning if, in a post-independence Scotland, the government don't do what you want.
> Breakaway republics of Glasgow, Edinburgh or even Shetland. Maybe we should divide ourselves into small bands of like-minded individuals.
> We could have a distinctive patterned clothing to distinguish each band.....
If Milliband gets in do you think there will be a "freedom for Kent and Surrey" party?
Post edited at 22:38
In reply to lynx3555:
What about the Scottish elites? Or will there be no more ruling elites, no fat cat bankers etc in this socialist paradise you are seemingly voting for? When push comes to shove the pursuit of power and money, corruption and greed are no defined by borders or nationality but by human nature, not by where you happen to be born. Let's face it the idea of English and Scottish nationalism was born of the ruling elite's need to have people rally around and help them protect their wealth and power. It was more palatable to say "Do it for your country" rather than "Do it to help me keep my privileged position". Plus ca change
> I would say that a lot of Scots dis trust England large elite.
What about the Scottish elites? Or will there be no more ruling elites, no fat cat bankers etc in this socialist paradise you are seemingly voting for? When push comes to shove the pursuit of power and money, corruption and greed are no defined by borders or nationality but by human nature, not by where you happen to be born. Let's face it the idea of English and Scottish nationalism was born of the ruling elite's need to have people rally around and help them protect their wealth and power. It was more palatable to say "Do it for your country" rather than "Do it to help me keep my privileged position". Plus ca change
In reply to Tyler:
Apparently the plan is to ship Morningside into the North Sea somewhere east of Grantham.
> What about the Scottish elites? Or will there be no more ruling elites, no fat cat bankers etc in this socialist paradise you are seemingly voting for?
Apparently the plan is to ship Morningside into the North Sea somewhere east of Grantham.
In reply to Tyler:
no, you dont understand, a Scottish elite would be pure and would not fall prey to such venal Anglo-saxon traits.
and any that do- well, no true scotsman would, so they would be stripped of their citizenship and deported to carlisle...
> What about the Scottish elites? Or will there be no more ruling elites, no fat cat bankers etc in this socialist paradise you are seemingly voting for? When push comes to shove the pursuit of power and money, corruption and greed are no defined by borders or nationality but by human nature, not by where you happen to be born.
no, you dont understand, a Scottish elite would be pure and would not fall prey to such venal Anglo-saxon traits.
and any that do- well, no true scotsman would, so they would be stripped of their citizenship and deported to carlisle...
In reply to lynx3555:
17% of the population at the last general election. Interesting you dismiss so many people.
> Preston is in England, Scotland is Scotland, you may have noticed the signs if you are heading up here that tell you this....and we don't have many Tories up here
17% of the population at the last general election. Interesting you dismiss so many people.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
bugger. Does that mean we cant send Gove back?
> no, you dont understand, a Scottish elite would be pure and would not fall prey to such venal Anglo-saxon traits.
bugger. Does that mean we cant send Gove back?
In reply to lynx3555:
I just looked it up - you can dig into the figures more if you want but the UK govt. says it spends about 30 million quid a year in Gaza , and has just given an additional 10 million to the WFP for the current crisis in Gaza. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-uk-aid-to-get-food-into-gaza
I just looked it up - you can dig into the figures more if you want but the UK govt. says it spends about 30 million quid a year in Gaza , and has just given an additional 10 million to the WFP for the current crisis in Gaza. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-uk-aid-to-get-food-into-gaza
In reply to lynx3555:
You're aware, presumably, that survey evidence suggests that there's actually not much difference between Scottish and a English attitudes on key issues like welfare, immigration and the EU?
You're aware, presumably, that survey evidence suggests that there's actually not much difference between Scottish and a English attitudes on key issues like welfare, immigration and the EU?
In reply to Postmanpat:
I am. But there's a difference in what people in Scotland vote for and the UK as a whole votes for.
> You're aware, presumably, that survey evidence suggests that there's actually not much difference between Scottish and a English attitudes on key issues like welfare, immigration and the EU?
I am. But there's a difference in what people in Scotland vote for and the UK as a whole votes for.
In reply to Donnie:
Which rather implies that one or both lot aren't voting on the basis of their attitudes.
> I am. But there's a difference in what people in Scotland vote for and the UK as a whole votes for.
Which rather implies that one or both lot aren't voting on the basis of their attitudes.
In reply to lynx3555:
How?
> Kind of
> Not having a Tory gov. Is just one of the benefits, far too many to list.
> Tell me about it, one minute Scotland's running out of oil and the next it's booming, booming being the right situation
> The use of Fear against the Scottish people has been acknowledged by many, many people, John Snow to name but one.....and you think the better together gaggle have substantiated any of there horror stories, not as far as I can see, and you seem to be a big mouth piece for that bunch.
How?
In reply to Postmanpat:
I expect that's partly true - a lot of people vote based on habit or loyalty.
But it's probably also true that the survey results don't properly reflect differences in views. The questions in these things are often very leading.
Eitherway, I'm fairly sure the political center ground in Scotland would be to the left of where it is in the UK today. That's probably partly to do with habit and loyalty and partly to do with actual attidudes.
> Which rather implies that one or both lot aren't voting on the basis of their attitudes.
I expect that's partly true - a lot of people vote based on habit or loyalty.
But it's probably also true that the survey results don't properly reflect differences in views. The questions in these things are often very leading.
Eitherway, I'm fairly sure the political center ground in Scotland would be to the left of where it is in the UK today. That's probably partly to do with habit and loyalty and partly to do with actual attidudes.
In reply to Donnie:
That's a big comparison.. North england with Scotland is probably very similar.. North to South would be similar as with scotland to south.. generally the north is left, labour strong hold..
> I expect that's partly true - a lot of people vote based on habit or loyalty.
> But it's probably also true that the survey results don't properly reflect differences in views. The questions in these things are often very leading.
> Eitherway, I'm fairly sure the political center ground in Scotland would be to the left of where it is in the UK today. That's probably partly to do with habit and loyalty and partly to do with actual attidudes.
That's a big comparison.. North england with Scotland is probably very similar.. North to South would be similar as with scotland to south.. generally the north is left, labour strong hold..
In reply to TobyA:
Well, I guess we've got to keep the people of Gaza well fed, so the Israelis have some game to shot with the weapons that we keep selling them.....It would be interesting to see what profits Britain has made, from selling the billions and Billions of pounds worth of weapons to the Israelis. Of course, we had no idea that Israel would use those weapon sales to massacre women and children, it's not as if they hadn't done it before.
> I just looked it up - you can dig into the figures more if you want but the UK govt. says it spends about 30 million quid a year in Gaza , and has just given an additional 10 million to the WFP for the current crisis in Gaza. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-uk-aid-to-get-food-into-gaza
Well, I guess we've got to keep the people of Gaza well fed, so the Israelis have some game to shot with the weapons that we keep selling them.....It would be interesting to see what profits Britain has made, from selling the billions and Billions of pounds worth of weapons to the Israelis. Of course, we had no idea that Israel would use those weapon sales to massacre women and children, it's not as if they hadn't done it before.
Post edited at 05:25
In reply to lynx3555:
If you want to discuss the UK role in Gaza there are numerous other threads to do so.
If you want to try and make some facile political point about how the Scottish government will be so much "better" in its response post independence, then perhaps you should consider that it has the power now to call for sanctions and boycotts of Israel as you seem to believe it should (and would post independence).
It hasn't done so.
In the meantime, having claimed and complained that the UK government isn't doing anything to help, you are now complaining that it is. It's an odd way of arguing.
> Well, I guess we've got to keep the people of Gaza well fed, so the Israelis have some game to shot with the weapons that we keep selling them.....It would be interesting to see what profits Britain has made, from selling the billions and Billions of pounds worth of weapons to the Israelis. Of course, we had no idea that Israel would use those weapon sales to massacre women and children, it's not as if they hadn't done it before.
If you want to discuss the UK role in Gaza there are numerous other threads to do so.
If you want to try and make some facile political point about how the Scottish government will be so much "better" in its response post independence, then perhaps you should consider that it has the power now to call for sanctions and boycotts of Israel as you seem to believe it should (and would post independence).
It hasn't done so.
In the meantime, having claimed and complained that the UK government isn't doing anything to help, you are now complaining that it is. It's an odd way of arguing.
In reply to lynx3555:
Morning.
Any thoughts on what you meant when you said Cameron is like Hitler yet?
Morning.
Any thoughts on what you meant when you said Cameron is like Hitler yet?
In reply to lynx3555:
That's the opposite of what you were saying yesterday.
> Well, I guess we've got to keep the people of Gaza well fed,
That's the opposite of what you were saying yesterday.
In reply to lynx3555:
I thought you said we donated weapons? now we sell them?
> Well, I guess we've got to keep the people of Gaza well fed, so the Israelis have some game to shot with the weapons that we keep selling them.....It would be interesting to see what profits Britain has made, from selling the billions and Billions of pounds worth of weapons to the Israelis. Of course, we had no idea that Israel would use those weapon sales to massacre women and children, it's not as if they hadn't done it before.
I thought you said we donated weapons? now we sell them?
In reply to IainRUK:
Thats how perfidious Albion is.
> I thought you said we donated weapons? now we sell them?
Thats how perfidious Albion is.
In reply to dissonance:
Don't you think perfidious is an underused word?
Anyway, to summarize Lynx's views, are they something like this? Nazi Cameron openly supports Israel by condemning their actions while doing nothing to help the Gazans but feed them so the Israelis can use the weapons we donated in return for billions and billions. And this obviously means Scotland must be independent.
Don't you think perfidious is an underused word?
Anyway, to summarize Lynx's views, are they something like this? Nazi Cameron openly supports Israel by condemning their actions while doing nothing to help the Gazans but feed them so the Israelis can use the weapons we donated in return for billions and billions. And this obviously means Scotland must be independent.
Post edited at 08:55
In reply to MG: Shurely shome mishtake, you mean "Natzi". Which could be a new name for hardcore YES supporters.
In reply to IainRUK: I'm sure they throw in a few freedees to lob into Gaza just to try them out....anyway I've been reprimanded for harping on about Gaza, so no more on that subject.
Looking forward to the live debate tonight?
Looking forward to the live debate tonight?
In reply to lynx3555:
It's not so much "harping on" as making unsubstantiated/unsupported allegations about the UK govt position and failing to justify how this relates in any meaningful way to the independence debate.
I think it will be interesting.
> I'm sure they throw in a few freedees to lob into Gaza just to try them out....anyway I've been reprimanded for harping on about Gaza, so no more on that subject.
It's not so much "harping on" as making unsubstantiated/unsupported allegations about the UK govt position and failing to justify how this relates in any meaningful way to the independence debate.
> Looking forward to the live debate tonight?
I think it will be interesting.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Cameron's use of Hitlers "Big Lie technique" when trying to Scare Scotland into staying in the Union...."The oils going to run out soon", We'll need boarder controls, you can't have this, you can't have that, you won't be able to get organ transplants, no Dr Who and because you will no longer be in the UK we won't want to buy your oatcakes because they aren't British....I'm sure that Cameron, and all the Etonian boys, sneak a read of Mein Kampf at some point.
In reply to MG:
It's something like that.....but that is just one of many good reasons to become independent.
I'm sure England would be delighted if The EU collected all your income and then just handed back a bit just to tidy you over. Don't you think it would be better for the Scots to collect all it's own revenue from all it's own recourses, set it's own taxes, pay it's own way...isn't that what a country does? Then if England wants a union with Scotland regarding defences or any other business then I'm sure we could come to an arrangement.
> (In reply to dissonance) Don't you think perfidious is an underused word?
>
>
> Anyway, to summarize Lynx's views, are they something like this? Nazi Cameron openly supports Israel by condemning their actions while doing nothing to help the Gazans but feed them so the Israelis can use the weapons we donated in return for billions and billions. And this obviously means Scotland must be independent.
>
>
> Anyway, to summarize Lynx's views, are they something like this? Nazi Cameron openly supports Israel by condemning their actions while doing nothing to help the Gazans but feed them so the Israelis can use the weapons we donated in return for billions and billions. And this obviously means Scotland must be independent.
It's something like that.....but that is just one of many good reasons to become independent.
I'm sure England would be delighted if The EU collected all your income and then just handed back a bit just to tidy you over. Don't you think it would be better for the Scots to collect all it's own revenue from all it's own recourses, set it's own taxes, pay it's own way...isn't that what a country does? Then if England wants a union with Scotland regarding defences or any other business then I'm sure we could come to an arrangement.
In reply to lynx3555:
Err right. I was being sarcastic but if that really is your view, fair enough.
. Don't you think it would be better for the Scots to collect all it's own revenue from all it's own recourses, set it's own taxes, pay it's own way..
No. For myriad reasons in makes sense to pool some taxes, resources and decisions. Much like with EU membership.
.isn't that what a country does?
Some do, many don't.
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> It's something like that...
> [...]
>
> It's something like that...
Err right. I was being sarcastic but if that really is your view, fair enough.
. Don't you think it would be better for the Scots to collect all it's own revenue from all it's own recourses, set it's own taxes, pay it's own way..
No. For myriad reasons in makes sense to pool some taxes, resources and decisions. Much like with EU membership.
.isn't that what a country does?
Some do, many don't.
In reply to off-duty: This cartoon sums up Cameron's attitude to the Gaza crisis.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/aug/03/ben-jennings-c...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/aug/03/ben-jennings-c...
In reply to lynx3555:
He named it he didnt invent it. His usage was also to attack the Jews and accuse them of using it. So dont think it is quite the usage you intend.
That or he could just read George Orwell.
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs) Cameron's use of Hitlers "Big Lie technique" when trying to Scare Scotland into staying in the Union
He named it he didnt invent it. His usage was also to attack the Jews and accuse them of using it. So dont think it is quite the usage you intend.
> I'm sure that Cameron, and all the Etonian boys, sneak a read of Mein Kampf at some point.
That or he could just read George Orwell.
In reply to MG: that's if we are still in the EU after that wee referendum passes....personally I would rather Scotland had it's own wee star on the EU flag, and looked after it's own affairs and had a government elected by its people....with independence we will double our representation in the European parliament....what's wrong with that? Sounds perfectly reasonable for the Scots to want this.
In reply to dissonance: Aye, and Cameron's not very good at using it anyway, I would hope that most of Britain can see right through his lies....but then, it's obviously to the benefit of Unionist that he does tell pork pies, and the Unionists then bellow out the bullsh*t through the BBC, and all the other media out lets, soup boxes and social media out lets.
In reply to lynx3555:
But are the two ideas not contrary? By being in the EU, you are subjected to implement laws that you have not voted for by people you didn't elect. I genuinely don't understand why you don't want to be in a Union with the UK, but do want to be in a Union with the rest of Europe? Was it something we said?
> personally I would rather Scotland had it's own wee star on the EU flag, and looked after it's own affairs and had a government elected by its people....with independence we will double our representation in the European parliament....what's wrong with that? Sounds perfectly reasonable for the Scots to want this.
But are the two ideas not contrary? By being in the EU, you are subjected to implement laws that you have not voted for by people you didn't elect. I genuinely don't understand why you don't want to be in a Union with the UK, but do want to be in a Union with the rest of Europe? Was it something we said?
In reply to yer maw: in answer to your deleted question By Eck.....
In reply to ByEek: Actually some of the richest, fairest countries in the world are small countries.
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Dubai
I could list many more.....
In reply to ByEek: Actually some of the richest, fairest countries in the world are small countries.
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Dubai
I could list many more.....
In reply to lynx3555:
Before you do so could you please explain your definition of fairest?
> (In reply to yer maw) in answer to your deleted question By Eck.....
> In reply to ByEek: Actually some of the richest, fairest countries in the world are small countries.
> In reply to ByEek: Actually some of the richest, fairest countries in the world are small countries.
> Dubai
> I could list many more.....
> I could list many more.....
Before you do so could you please explain your definition of fairest?
In reply to lynx3555:
There you go again. "Perfectly reasonable for some Scots to want this." (Obviously apart from the larger number of Scots who appear not to want it)
> that's if we are still in the EU after that wee referendum passes....personally I would rather Scotland had it's own wee star on the EU flag, and looked after it's own affairs and had a government elected by its people....with independence we will double our representation in the European parliament....what's wrong with that? Sounds perfectly reasonable for the Scots to want this.
There you go again. "Perfectly reasonable for some Scots to want this." (Obviously apart from the larger number of Scots who appear not to want it)
In reply to ByEek:
> (In reply to lynx3555)
> [...]
>
> But are the two ideas not contrary? By being in the EU, you are subjected to implement laws that you have not voted for by people you didn't elect. I genuinely don't understand why you don't want to be in a Union with the UK, but do want to be in a Union with the rest of Europe? Was it something we said?
So you would be happy if England had all it's income collected by the parliament in Edinburgh, and we gave you back what we think you need, mean while Edinburgh swells to a colossal size, partly funded by profits from England's wealth....you know, none of this has anything to do with being anti English.> [...]
>
> But are the two ideas not contrary? By being in the EU, you are subjected to implement laws that you have not voted for by people you didn't elect. I genuinely don't understand why you don't want to be in a Union with the UK, but do want to be in a Union with the rest of Europe? Was it something we said?
In reply to off-duty:
Just prior to
> (In reply to lynx3555)
>
> [...]
>
> There you go again. "Perfectly reasonable for some Scots to want this." (Obviously apart from the larger number of Scots who appear not to want it)
Not wishing to sound anti English, or anti white settler etc....but when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence. But don't concern yourself about this fact, we don't intend running about chanting "Sock and Englishman" you know just like the English coined the praise "Sock a Jock" back in the early eighties.>
> [...]
>
> There you go again. "Perfectly reasonable for some Scots to want this." (Obviously apart from the larger number of Scots who appear not to want it)
Just prior to
In reply to lynx3555:
can you link to the Polls that have shown this please? thought not.
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
> Not wishing to sound anti English, or anti white settler etc....but when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence.
> [...]
> Not wishing to sound anti English, or anti white settler etc....but when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence.
can you link to the Polls that have shown this please? thought not.
In reply to lynx3555:
Come down here and you'll find that this is true.
> ( mean while Edinburgh swells to a colossal size, partly funded by profits from England's wealth
Come down here and you'll find that this is true.
In reply to lynx3555:
Really? Still at least you are being honest in your racism. Note - that is racism against the Scots, not just the English.
But don't concern yourself about this fact, we don't intend running about chanting "Sock and Englishman" you know just like the English coined the praise "Sock a Jock" back in the early eighties.
Genuinely lost for words.
> Not wishing to sound anti English, or anti white settler etc....but when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence.
Really? Still at least you are being honest in your racism. Note - that is racism against the Scots, not just the English.
But don't concern yourself about this fact, we don't intend running about chanting "Sock and Englishman" you know just like the English coined the praise "Sock a Jock" back in the early eighties.
Genuinely lost for words.
In reply to lynx3555:
Only that couldn't be further from the truth as it happens.
> So you would be happy if England had all it's income collected by the parliament in Edinburgh, and we gave you back what we think you need, mean while Edinburgh swells to a colossal size, partly funded by profits from England's wealth....you know, none of this has anything to do with being anti English.
Only that couldn't be further from the truth as it happens.
In reply to graeme jackson:
So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
> Come down here and you'll find that this is true.
So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
In reply to lynx3555:
Edinburgh (and other places in Scotland) has been developed using United Kingdom taxpayers money. this is made up of contributions from all the countries of the union.
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....
Edinburgh (and other places in Scotland) has been developed using United Kingdom taxpayers money. this is made up of contributions from all the countries of the union.
In reply to off-duty:
> Genuinely lost for words.
Good, because I'm getting sick of hearing people using the racist card to undermine independence supporters who try to discuss this topic.In reply to graeme jackson:
There you go, and I thought a lot of the money came from EU funding....which it does actually....good old Winnie Ewing fought and gained 500 million for the western isles, more for the rest of the highlands....and if you think Scotland has been subsidised by the English, Welsh, and Northern Ireland tax payers then you are a very sad person.
It's actually the other way around.
There you go, and I thought a lot of the money came from EU funding....which it does actually....good old Winnie Ewing fought and gained 500 million for the western isles, more for the rest of the highlands....and if you think Scotland has been subsidised by the English, Welsh, and Northern Ireland tax payers then you are a very sad person.
It's actually the other way around.
In reply to lynx3555:
How do you know this?
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
> Not wishing to sound anti English, or anti white settler etc....but when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence.
> [...]
> Not wishing to sound anti English, or anti white settler etc....but when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence.
How do you know this?
In reply to graeme jackson:
Into to which Scotland has paid and continues to do so.
I see Nick Clegg is signing a pledge for more powers. Funny wee world the old Westminster.
Into to which Scotland has paid and continues to do so.
I see Nick Clegg is signing a pledge for more powers. Funny wee world the old Westminster.
In reply to lynx3555:
No. Because that is currently what happens. Per head of population, Scotland does better than England in terms of public spending. So what exactly are you saying?
> So you would be happy if England had all it's income collected by the parliament in Edinburgh, and we gave you back what we think you need, mean while Edinburgh swells to a colossal size, partly funded by profits from England's wealth....you know, none of this has anything to do with being anti English.
No. Because that is currently what happens. Per head of population, Scotland does better than England in terms of public spending. So what exactly are you saying?
In reply to lynx3555:
Presumably by "discussing this topic" you mean continuing to make assertions and claims which all either implicitly or explicitly suggest that the independence campaign can be differentiated from the better together campaign as it's supporters are Scottish.
In which case you aren't half as sick of the racism as I am.
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
>
> [...]
> Good, because I'm getting sick of hearing people using the racist card to undermine independence supporters who try to discuss this topic.
>
>
> [...]
> Good, because I'm getting sick of hearing people using the racist card to undermine independence supporters who try to discuss this topic.
Presumably by "discussing this topic" you mean continuing to make assertions and claims which all either implicitly or explicitly suggest that the independence campaign can be differentiated from the better together campaign as it's supporters are Scottish.
In which case you aren't half as sick of the racism as I am.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Try this for starters.....
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eng...
I suspect that this bit of info was published by the Scotsman to attempt to encourage anti Englishness in Scotland....but it didn't and won't work.
> can you link to the Polls that have shown this please? thought not.
Try this for starters.....
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eng...
I suspect that this bit of info was published by the Scotsman to attempt to encourage anti Englishness in Scotland....but it didn't and won't work.
In reply to lynx3555:
You seem very confused about the UK government vs London Mayor (plus MPs for that matter)
You also dont seem to get the difference between a wishlist and what they are getting.
To take just the refurbishment of the Houses of Commons. I am assuming you are referring to the one which the government has said isnt going to happen for that price?
> The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
You seem very confused about the UK government vs London Mayor (plus MPs for that matter)
You also dont seem to get the difference between a wishlist and what they are getting.
To take just the refurbishment of the Houses of Commons. I am assuming you are referring to the one which the government has said isnt going to happen for that price?
In reply to dissonance:
Well that's some wish list, I doubt that London could finance that through it's own finances....but Scotland's resources will go a long way towards helping them achieve this I suppose.
Well that's some wish list, I doubt that London could finance that through it's own finances....but Scotland's resources will go a long way towards helping them achieve this I suppose.
In reply to lynx3555:
Bearing in mind you fail to understand the difference between MPs, UK government and the London mayor I am not sure your doubts really count for much.
yes you have hit on the secret scheme. All the money from Scotland is going to be spent on London cycle lanes with just 5p per person remaining in Scotland.
> (In reply to dissonance)
> Well that's some wish list, I doubt that London could finance that through it's own finances
> Well that's some wish list, I doubt that London could finance that through it's own finances
Bearing in mind you fail to understand the difference between MPs, UK government and the London mayor I am not sure your doubts really count for much.
> but Scotland's resources will go a long way towards helping them achieve this I suppose.
yes you have hit on the secret scheme. All the money from Scotland is going to be spent on London cycle lanes with just 5p per person remaining in Scotland.
In reply to lynx3555:
I'm not entirely convinced that one survey of a thousand people demonstrating a 2% difference in opinion between pro and anti independence voters who identify as Scottish (44 to 42%) can be used to make quite the bold claims you want to make.
I suspect that this bit of info was published by the Scotsman to attempt to encourage anti Englishness in Scotland....but it didn't and won't work.
Absolutely. I bet some of your best friends are English too....
> Try this for starters.....
> [link removed]
I'm not entirely convinced that one survey of a thousand people demonstrating a 2% difference in opinion between pro and anti independence voters who identify as Scottish (44 to 42%) can be used to make quite the bold claims you want to make.
I suspect that this bit of info was published by the Scotsman to attempt to encourage anti Englishness in Scotland....but it didn't and won't work.
Absolutely. I bet some of your best friends are English too....
In reply to lynx3555:
and how much does london bring in?
not 'looking for'.. actual hard balances?
U
you assume all money spent is given by the RUK, yet for Scotland claim its EU money.. I think EU money would probably make a chunk…
what bastards the english are trying to make their capital greener… scum!
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
and how much does london bring in?
not 'looking for'.. actual hard balances?
U
you assume all money spent is given by the RUK, yet for Scotland claim its EU money.. I think EU money would probably make a chunk…
what bastards the english are trying to make their capital greener… scum!
Post edited at 13:15
In reply to lynx3555:
Ah, so in making the case for a 'no' vote, he says some things that in your opinion aren't accurate and are designed to sway people to vote against the outcome you want (bizarre you could only cite two that could possibly be true before starting with the absurd ones)
I don't think that this is quite comparable with the nazis use of the Big Lie to stoke up antisemitism and so pave the way to genocide.
Not the same thing at all. And repulsive that you would consider misusing this to try to score debating points.
We know you don't like the Conservative party. But the nazis aren't really remembered by history for their use of spin to win elections; it was their tendency to try to take over the world and to commit genocide that were their defining features in most people's eyes. So far you've not really convinced anyone that these are key aspects of current Tory party policy
So basically you are just engaging in name calling. As a scot in England, it embarrasses me to see someone associated with me by nationality behaving like this. Not sure how many more 'yes' votes you think you'll get from your contributions to this thread. If you really want to do your cause a favour, its probably a good idea to stay away from computers til after the vote,
Best wishes
Gregor
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs) Cameron's use of Hitlers "Big Lie technique" when trying to Scare Scotland into staying in the Union...."The oils going to run out soon", We'll need boarder controls, you can't have this, you can't have that, you won't be able to get organ transplants, no Dr Who and because you will no longer be in the UK we won't want to buy your oatcakes because they aren't British....I'm sure that Cameron, and all the Etonian boys, sneak a read of Mein Kampf at some point.
Ah, so in making the case for a 'no' vote, he says some things that in your opinion aren't accurate and are designed to sway people to vote against the outcome you want (bizarre you could only cite two that could possibly be true before starting with the absurd ones)
I don't think that this is quite comparable with the nazis use of the Big Lie to stoke up antisemitism and so pave the way to genocide.
Not the same thing at all. And repulsive that you would consider misusing this to try to score debating points.
We know you don't like the Conservative party. But the nazis aren't really remembered by history for their use of spin to win elections; it was their tendency to try to take over the world and to commit genocide that were their defining features in most people's eyes. So far you've not really convinced anyone that these are key aspects of current Tory party policy
So basically you are just engaging in name calling. As a scot in England, it embarrasses me to see someone associated with me by nationality behaving like this. Not sure how many more 'yes' votes you think you'll get from your contributions to this thread. If you really want to do your cause a favour, its probably a good idea to stay away from computers til after the vote,
Best wishes
Gregor
In reply to Saor Alba:
I could have sworn you wanted more devolution and said it was very popular, surely you're not going to start whining that that's what the party leaders are signing up to?
Anyway, we can all play the drinking game tonight http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2014/aug/04/scottish-independ...
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> Into to which Scotland has paid and continues to do so.
>
> I see Nick Clegg is signing a pledge for more powers. Funny wee world the old Westminster.
>
> Into to which Scotland has paid and continues to do so.
>
> I see Nick Clegg is signing a pledge for more powers. Funny wee world the old Westminster.
I could have sworn you wanted more devolution and said it was very popular, surely you're not going to start whining that that's what the party leaders are signing up to?
Anyway, we can all play the drinking game tonight http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2014/aug/04/scottish-independ...
In reply to lynx3555:
Well Scotland has much more sectarian violence too..
But regarding ancestors.. that's just crazy talk.. not liking someone for their ancestry when we probably all have some unsavoury characters.. my Gran was a proud Irish Catholic, when we went through her ancestors we found out she was from a proud orange family… she's have been disgusted..
Going through ours we mainly only pick up those who have served time as prison records are a good source of info, a fair few had the death penalty for forgery and such like…
> (In reply to off-duty)
> I think the anti Scottish English balance that one out....I still don't know any one who hates the English up here in Scotland. I know a lot of Scots who detest the Tories and also the British establishment, most of them just happen to be English. Remember, Cameron's dad was and Aberdonian, who ancestors included slave traders and no doubt a few other rouges.
> Coincidently, the Scottish version of the EDL (SDL) are also Britnats....is it because they think big is best? And united we can continue to fight illegal wars together, or just an ego thing maybe?
> I think the anti Scottish English balance that one out....I still don't know any one who hates the English up here in Scotland. I know a lot of Scots who detest the Tories and also the British establishment, most of them just happen to be English. Remember, Cameron's dad was and Aberdonian, who ancestors included slave traders and no doubt a few other rouges.
> Coincidently, the Scottish version of the EDL (SDL) are also Britnats....is it because they think big is best? And united we can continue to fight illegal wars together, or just an ego thing maybe?
Well Scotland has much more sectarian violence too..
But regarding ancestors.. that's just crazy talk.. not liking someone for their ancestry when we probably all have some unsavoury characters.. my Gran was a proud Irish Catholic, when we went through her ancestors we found out she was from a proud orange family… she's have been disgusted..
Going through ours we mainly only pick up those who have served time as prison records are a good source of info, a fair few had the death penalty for forgery and such like…
In reply to IainRUK:
You rarely hear of, or as in my case I've never heard of, Catholics murdering Protestants; Catholics marching through Protestant areas stirring shit and singing Papal songs; and just general bias including being prevented from getting work due to there religion. It's a nasty legacy that we carry and have done for a long time....maybe they'll all move south or over to Northern Ireland come independence.
> Well Scotland has much more sectarian violence
Well, personally I think that when Scotland becomes independent then that will go a long way towards sorting that mess out....it seems that in Scotland, it's the Protestant, Loyalist, Unionist types that are the real agressors.You rarely hear of, or as in my case I've never heard of, Catholics murdering Protestants; Catholics marching through Protestant areas stirring shit and singing Papal songs; and just general bias including being prevented from getting work due to there religion. It's a nasty legacy that we carry and have done for a long time....maybe they'll all move south or over to Northern Ireland come independence.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
The rest are actually true, try googling them....and your entitled to your opinion.
The rest are actually true, try googling them....and your entitled to your opinion.
In reply to lynx3555:
I think gregor's advice was probably best.
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
> Well, personally I think that when Scotland becomes independent then that will go a long way towards sorting that mess out....it seems that in Scotland, it's the Protestant, Loyalist, Unionist types that are the real agressors.
> You rarely hear of, or as in my case I've never heard of, Catholics murdering Protestants; Catholics marching through Protestant areas stirring shit and singing Papal songs; and just general bias including being prevented from getting work due to there religion. It's a nasty legacy that we carry and have done for a long time....maybe they'll all move south or over to Northern Ireland come independence.
>
> [...]
> Well, personally I think that when Scotland becomes independent then that will go a long way towards sorting that mess out....it seems that in Scotland, it's the Protestant, Loyalist, Unionist types that are the real agressors.
> You rarely hear of, or as in my case I've never heard of, Catholics murdering Protestants; Catholics marching through Protestant areas stirring shit and singing Papal songs; and just general bias including being prevented from getting work due to there religion. It's a nasty legacy that we carry and have done for a long time....maybe they'll all move south or over to Northern Ireland come independence.
I think gregor's advice was probably best.
In reply to off-duty:
nah I want to see if they come out with any more gems. the Mein Kampf reference was particularly good since the only reference in there is Hitler using it to attack the Jews as opposed to saying how to use it himself.
> I think gregor's advice was probably best.
nah I want to see if they come out with any more gems. the Mein Kampf reference was particularly good since the only reference in there is Hitler using it to attack the Jews as opposed to saying how to use it himself.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Factual as ever.. No actual come back..
Just admit you got all angry had a rant and made an indefensible claim?
If not justify it?
You can't.. I'm off for run number 1.. You have a think..
Factual as ever.. No actual come back..
Just admit you got all angry had a rant and made an indefensible claim?
If not justify it?
You can't.. I'm off for run number 1.. You have a think..
In reply to lynx3555:
Wow..
How about the Celtic fan who murdered his rangers supporting neighbour? Left the scene with a 'fighting tims' cap.. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/life-for-celtic-fan-who-mu...
To claim it's one side just to support your case it just Soar Alba like... Are you two the same person?
Raging away about misinformation and bias than spouting constant drivel..
I'm still waiting for soar to justify his 'clearly subsidized' remark... I somehow suspect I'll see he'll freeze over before he does that...
Nothing much will change.. I don't think Scotland will be noticeably worse off or prosperous.. You'll possibly have less of the likes of you just lazily blaming the English for all of Scotland's ills...
> Well, personally I think that when Scotland becomes independent then that will go a long way towards sorting that mess out....it seems that in Scotland, it's the Protestant, Loyalist, Unionist types that are the real agressors.
> You rarely hear of, or as in my case I've never heard of, Catholics murdering Protestants; Catholics marching through Protestant areas stirring shit and singing Papal songs; and just general bias including being prevented from getting work due to there religion. It's a nasty legacy that we carry and have done for a long time....maybe they'll all move south or over to Northern Ireland come independence.
Wow..
How about the Celtic fan who murdered his rangers supporting neighbour? Left the scene with a 'fighting tims' cap.. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/life-for-celtic-fan-who-mu...
To claim it's one side just to support your case it just Soar Alba like... Are you two the same person?
Raging away about misinformation and bias than spouting constant drivel..
I'm still waiting for soar to justify his 'clearly subsidized' remark... I somehow suspect I'll see he'll freeze over before he does that...
Nothing much will change.. I don't think Scotland will be noticeably worse off or prosperous.. You'll possibly have less of the likes of you just lazily blaming the English for all of Scotland's ills...
Post edited at 15:32
In reply to lynx3555:
What you don't mention is the UK financial industry, of which London dominates, brings in 65 billion a year in tax? What does the Scottish oil and Gas bring in?
Where does your 12 trillion come from?
4 billion + 86 billion isn't 12 trillion…And where do the 4 and 86 billion come from?
The 65 billion comes from here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11003499/If-Britain-doesnt-kee...
I know it is alien to you and Soar but can you provide some source for your claims.. you both have a record of quite outrageous claims..
The cameron = just a better version of hitler one remains my all time favourite though...
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
What you don't mention is the UK financial industry, of which London dominates, brings in 65 billion a year in tax? What does the Scottish oil and Gas bring in?
Where does your 12 trillion come from?
4 billion + 86 billion isn't 12 trillion…And where do the 4 and 86 billion come from?
The 65 billion comes from here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11003499/If-Britain-doesnt-kee...
I know it is alien to you and Soar but can you provide some source for your claims.. you both have a record of quite outrageous claims..
The cameron = just a better version of hitler one remains my all time favourite though...
In reply to IainRUK:
I suspect he took Boris's recent whish list costed at £1.3tr, misread it, multiplied by ten, assumed it would all happen because Boris said so and then that nasty Westminster would take it all from Scotland.
> Where does your 12 trillion come from?
I suspect he took Boris's recent whish list costed at £1.3tr, misread it, multiplied by ten, assumed it would all happen because Boris said so and then that nasty Westminster would take it all from Scotland.
In reply to lynx3555:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Transport%20Supporting%20Pape...
This states 2-4 billion for cycle lanes by 2050? Where's the other 82 billion?
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
>
> [...]
>
> So you can prove that Edinburgh has been developed by English tax payers money....so 400 billion in collected revenue from the North Sea, Scotland's share of revenue etc hasn't achieved this? And by the way, Edinburgh's development is minuscule compared to London....The Westminster government is looking for 4 billion to refurb it's parliament, 86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050....12 trillion is what London wants to spend on it's self by 2050.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Transport%20Supporting%20Pape...
This states 2-4 billion for cycle lanes by 2050? Where's the other 82 billion?
In reply to MG:
I do love how all figures from the no side need to be questioned and analysed.. yet the no side can throw around any figure and its gospel..
I do love how all figures from the no side need to be questioned and analysed.. yet the no side can throw around any figure and its gospel..
In reply to lynx3555:
Please vote YES, then you can pay for this £414M fiasco!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/cheaper-to-tear-down-scot...
Please vote YES, then you can pay for this £414M fiasco!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/cheaper-to-tear-down-scot...
In reply to dissonance: The very fact that hitler accused the Jews was in its self a lie....Cameron tells quite a few fibs.
Any way, haven't you anything other to say other than talk about Hitler?
Any way, haven't you anything other to say other than talk about Hitler?
In reply to Lusk:
Well you can't blame the SNP for that, as far as I'm aware they had nothing to do with it's design selection or cost....you have the Labour Party to thank for that, some of the culprits are actually Unionists.
> Please vote YES, then you can pay for this £414M fiasco!
Well you can't blame the SNP for that, as far as I'm aware they had nothing to do with it's design selection or cost....you have the Labour Party to thank for that, some of the culprits are actually Unionists.
In reply to IainRUK:
Do you know what etc. means, did you not notice it was written after cycle lanes?
Please do pay attention Iain, I expect better from you than that
Do you know what etc. means, did you not notice it was written after cycle lanes?
Please do pay attention Iain, I expect better from you than that
In reply to lynx3555:
Cameron is a liar
Hitler was a liar
Therefore Cameron= Hitler
That is your most absurd post yet. Are you 14?
It certainly seems that you don't. Ive lost count of the number of Tory= nazi comparisons you've made.
And if reductio ad hitlerum arguments are all you've got, I really think you should ask yourself whether you are helping your side or bringing it into disrepute
Cheers
Gregor
> The very fact that hitler accused the Jews was in its self a lie....Cameron tells quite a few fibs.
Cameron is a liar
Hitler was a liar
Therefore Cameron= Hitler
That is your most absurd post yet. Are you 14?
> Any way, haven't you anything other to say other than talk about Hitler?
It certainly seems that you don't. Ive lost count of the number of Tory= nazi comparisons you've made.
And if reductio ad hitlerum arguments are all you've got, I really think you should ask yourself whether you are helping your side or bringing it into disrepute
Cheers
Gregor
Post edited at 16:58
In reply to IainRUK: 12 trillion was just a wee bit of an exaggeration, meant to reinforce my argument that London wants a large amount of cash to tart it's self up.....Ofcourse London dominates, but I doubt it'll afford 1.3 trillion to spend over that period of time with out sacrificing other areas of the country's prosperity.
By the way, London's a horrible place, in my opinion.
By the way, London's a horrible place, in my opinion.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: no but I must say some on here that keep going on about hitler most probably are.
In reply to lynx3555:
I was commenting on the fact you were trying to use the big lie reference in Mein Kampf. In which he uses the same way you do as an attempt to attack others. So if Cameron and co had read it then I would have thought thats what they would do.
Yes among other things I pointed out you were absolutely clueless about the UK government, MPs and the London Mayor. Specifically with regard to your claim about the cost to refurbish, or rather repair, the Houses of Parliament there is the minor detail that the UK government rejected the 4 billion. Others have gone on to rip apart the other figures you have provided.
Its interesting though you dont attempt to defend your claims but instead just throw some more shit at the wall and hope it sticks.
> (In reply to dissonance) The very fact that hitler accused the Jews was in its self a lie
I was commenting on the fact you were trying to use the big lie reference in Mein Kampf. In which he uses the same way you do as an attempt to attack others. So if Cameron and co had read it then I would have thought thats what they would do.
> Any way, haven't you anything other to say other than talk about Hitler?
Yes among other things I pointed out you were absolutely clueless about the UK government, MPs and the London Mayor. Specifically with regard to your claim about the cost to refurbish, or rather repair, the Houses of Parliament there is the minor detail that the UK government rejected the 4 billion. Others have gone on to rip apart the other figures you have provided.
Its interesting though you dont attempt to defend your claims but instead just throw some more shit at the wall and hope it sticks.
In reply to lynx3555:
Helpful hint. If you need to reinforce an argument by making shit up it generally means your argument is flawed.
> (In reply to IainRUK) 12 trillion was just a wee bit of an exaggeration, meant to reinforce my argument that London wants a large amount of cash to tart it's self up
Helpful hint. If you need to reinforce an argument by making shit up it generally means your argument is flawed.
> And if reductio ad hitlerum arguments are all you've got, I really think you should ask yourself whether you are helping your side or bringing it into disrepute
It was ridiculous that some one originally assumed that I had compared hitler to cameron....
And I'm not a member of any group, don't tend to take sides unless people are being unfairly treated etc....by the way, I'm not on here canvassing for the SNP, just having a wee chat.
> Cheers
> Lynx
In reply to yer maw: Great to see Clegg and Cameron promising more powers for Scotland in the event of a no vote. From the men who promised to oppose tuition fees and avoid top down reorganisations of the NHS. We were fooled by rogues and liars in 79 but let's hope we don't make the same mistake again.
In reply to lynx3555:
Lynx, Its in the record up thread, repeatedly, eg from your post on Monday night at 20.09, in reply to Iain:
Iain: are you really comparing Cameron to Hitler?
You: kind of
And today i asked you to clarify what you meant by that; you posted that stuff this afternoon comparing Cameron's contributions to the independence debate to the nazi use of propaganda against the Jews to create the sort of hatred that led to the Final Solution.
I think it's pretty clear to anyone that can read that you do compare Cameron to hitler.
Well, people will take you more seriously and might respond to the points you make more positively if you stop the absurd Nazi comparisons!
Best wishes
Gregor
> It was ridiculous that some one originally assumed that I had compared hitler to cameron....
Lynx, Its in the record up thread, repeatedly, eg from your post on Monday night at 20.09, in reply to Iain:
Iain: are you really comparing Cameron to Hitler?
You: kind of
And today i asked you to clarify what you meant by that; you posted that stuff this afternoon comparing Cameron's contributions to the independence debate to the nazi use of propaganda against the Jews to create the sort of hatred that led to the Final Solution.
I think it's pretty clear to anyone that can read that you do compare Cameron to hitler.
> And I'm not a member of any group, don't tend to take sides unless people are being unfairly treated etc....by the way, I'm not on here canvassing for the SNP, just having a wee chat.
Well, people will take you more seriously and might respond to the points you make more positively if you stop the absurd Nazi comparisons!
Best wishes
Gregor
Post edited at 17:41
In reply to lynx3555:
So... Big gasp Boris asks for more than he'll expect to get... That's how people negotiate.. You want 60 million... Grandeur your plans, ask for 100 hope to get somewhere in the 60 range..
Boris champions the needs of London, like claims from salmons re Scotland the truth normally lies between such claims..
I can't believe you just make figures up to support an argument.. You do realise everything you now say will be taken as bullshit unless you source your figures..
It's like soars.. Clearly subsidised... Yet 3 days later remains to show it.. That's not angry soar.. I just like to see such claims justified.. Nice 6.5 miler done now lay in a hammock in 80F sunshine....
Your last point? I think white inch is a shit hole.. I'm not sure it's relevant at all..
Alistairmac: look at the devolution timeline, we've seen constant devolution and all major parties remain committed to that, their votes in Scotland are too important.. Labour want Scotland in the UK they know devolution will continue...
> 12 trillion was just a wee bit of an exaggeration, meant to reinforce my argument that London wants a large amount of cash to tart it's self up.....Ofcourse London dominates, but I doubt it'll afford 1.3 trillion to spend over that period of time with out sacrificing other areas of the country's prosperity.
> By the way, London's a horrible place, in my opinion.
So... Big gasp Boris asks for more than he'll expect to get... That's how people negotiate.. You want 60 million... Grandeur your plans, ask for 100 hope to get somewhere in the 60 range..
Boris champions the needs of London, like claims from salmons re Scotland the truth normally lies between such claims..
I can't believe you just make figures up to support an argument.. You do realise everything you now say will be taken as bullshit unless you source your figures..
It's like soars.. Clearly subsidised... Yet 3 days later remains to show it.. That's not angry soar.. I just like to see such claims justified.. Nice 6.5 miler done now lay in a hammock in 80F sunshine....
Your last point? I think white inch is a shit hole.. I'm not sure it's relevant at all..
Alistairmac: look at the devolution timeline, we've seen constant devolution and all major parties remain committed to that, their votes in Scotland are too important.. Labour want Scotland in the UK they know devolution will continue...
In reply to alastairmac:
No, being taken in by Salmond would be a big mistake.
> We were fooled by rogues and liars in 79 but let's hope we don't make the same mistake again.
No, being taken in by Salmond would be a big mistake.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: "Well kind of" isn't exactly a major comparison, when certain individuals kept egging me on, I admit I did think hard to find the big lie comparison.
But it's not the first time I've had that sort of distraction fired at me and I'm afraid, if people ask stupid questions then they are getting stupid answers.
Any way, I still support any Pole that helps us win the election and rid us of those slimy, perverted, greedy Tories.
But it's not the first time I've had that sort of distraction fired at me and I'm afraid, if people ask stupid questions then they are getting stupid answers.
Any way, I still support any Pole that helps us win the election and rid us of those slimy, perverted, greedy Tories.
In reply to MG:
> No, being taken in by Salmond would be a big mistake.
He's a nice guy, a far better politician than any of that bunch in London....but I guess name calling and denial of this fact is all you Unionists have left. In reply to alastairmac:
I guess it's lose/lose really. I take it you don't fall into the camp that accuses the better together campaign of failing to give any positives if Scotland remains part of the union.
> Great to see Clegg and Cameron promising more powers for Scotland in the event of a no vote. From the men who promised to oppose tuition fees and avoid top down reorganisations of the NHS. We were fooled by rogues and liars in 79 but let's hope we don't make the same mistake again.
I guess it's lose/lose really. I take it you don't fall into the camp that accuses the better together campaign of failing to give any positives if Scotland remains part of the union.
In reply to lynx3555:
Did you really just say that after comparing Cameron to Hilter and admitting to making up 'facts'…
", I still support any Pole that helps us win the election and rid us of those slimy, perverted, greedy Tories. "
But you don't like name calling...
> He's a nice guy, a far better politician than any of that bunch in London....but I guess name calling and denial of this fact is all you Unionists have left.
Did you really just say that after comparing Cameron to Hilter and admitting to making up 'facts'…
", I still support any Pole that helps us win the election and rid us of those slimy, perverted, greedy Tories. "
But you don't like name calling...
Post edited at 18:37
In reply to IainRUK:
> Boris champions the needs of London, like claims from salmons re Scotland the truth normally lies between such claims..
Sea levels will likely rise and swamp London around 2050.....they'll need a tad more than 1.3 trillion to secure London's future.> It's like soars.. Clearly subsidised... Yet 3 days later remains to show it.. That's not angry soar.. I just like to see such claims justified.. Nice 6.5 miler done now lay in a hammock in 80F sunshine....
What was clearly subsidised?> Your last point? I think white inch is a shit hole.. I'm not sure it's relevant at all..
London's just horrible, they've even now got rats as big as cats! In reply to lynx3555:
Is that another lynx FACT(tm)?
> London's just horrible, they've even now got rats as big as cats!
Is that another lynx FACT(tm)?
In reply to lynx3555:
Ah. That's alright then. He's only a bit like hitler. How does that work then? He plans to implement the Interim Solution, rather than the Final Solution, and invade some polish grocers rather the whole country, or something? Is that what you were meaning?
The only stupid thing on this this thread is your repeated nazi comparisons and making up stuff because you don't have any evidence to support your position!
Best wishes
Gregor
> "Well kind of" isn't exactly a major comparison
Ah. That's alright then. He's only a bit like hitler. How does that work then? He plans to implement the Interim Solution, rather than the Final Solution, and invade some polish grocers rather the whole country, or something? Is that what you were meaning?
> But it's not the first time I've had that sort of distraction fired at me and I'm afraid, if people ask stupid questions then they are getting stupid answers.
The only stupid thing on this this thread is your repeated nazi comparisons and making up stuff because you don't have any evidence to support your position!
Best wishes
Gregor
In reply to lynx3555:
Did you really just post that?
After two days spent comparing Tories to nazis?
You should probably read this....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
> He's a nice guy, a far better politician than any of that bunch in London....but I guess name calling and denial of this fact is all you Unionists have left.
Did you really just post that?
After two days spent comparing Tories to nazis?
You should probably read this....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
In reply to IainRUK:
Can't argue with that
> That's a big comparison.. North england with Scotland is probably very similar.. North to South would be similar as with scotland to south.. generally the north is left, labour strong hold..
Can't argue with that
In reply to IainRUK:
I have a good chuckle about the way the Oil and Gas industry is presented as the Goose that lays the Golden Egg. With rigs literally rusting to pieces that are 15 years over design life, an Industry that's response to a number of fatal crashes has been to introduce a new lifejacket (like that stops under maintained and overworked helecopters crashing) and finally an Oil Industry owned by Americans, Canadians and Abu Dhabi.There isn't one single Scottish Oil production company...
If the figures added up then fair enough, sadly they are about as sensible as the costing of the Edinburgh Tram....
I have a good chuckle about the way the Oil and Gas industry is presented as the Goose that lays the Golden Egg. With rigs literally rusting to pieces that are 15 years over design life, an Industry that's response to a number of fatal crashes has been to introduce a new lifejacket (like that stops under maintained and overworked helecopters crashing) and finally an Oil Industry owned by Americans, Canadians and Abu Dhabi.There isn't one single Scottish Oil production company...
If the figures added up then fair enough, sadly they are about as sensible as the costing of the Edinburgh Tram....
In reply to dissonance:
Naw, it's a Sun fact....
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3104027/Gnaws-II-Giant-rat-caught...
where theres one you'll likely find millions of them...good cas for Scotland having tight boarder controls maybe.....
Naw, it's a Sun fact....
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3104027/Gnaws-II-Giant-rat-caught...
where theres one you'll likely find millions of them...good cas for Scotland having tight boarder controls maybe.....
Post edited at 19:15
In reply to IainRUK:
That's not really name calling in some respect....the Tories are slimy, defiantly perverts and greedy, well plenty of evidence to prove that....whereas, Alex doesn't fit any of the insults that have been thrown at him...well other than the one which the unionists used...what was it again, oh yes, they call him a Jaffa, because he shoots blanks and one very unpleasant unionist tweeted "that's good at least the likes of him can't breed". Very nasty....
> Did you really just say that after comparing Cameron to Hilter and admitting to making up 'facts'…
> ", I still support any Pole that helps us win the election and rid us of those slimy, perverted, greedy Tories. "
> But you don't like name calling...
That's not really name calling in some respect....the Tories are slimy, defiantly perverts and greedy, well plenty of evidence to prove that....whereas, Alex doesn't fit any of the insults that have been thrown at him...well other than the one which the unionists used...what was it again, oh yes, they call him a Jaffa, because he shoots blanks and one very unpleasant unionist tweeted "that's good at least the likes of him can't breed". Very nasty....
In reply to lynx3555:
It is... Disgusting insult...
So is labeling whole parties perverts on the actions of a few...
It is... Disgusting insult...
So is labeling whole parties perverts on the actions of a few...
In reply to muppetfilter:
Plenty of new fields to open up on the west coast...and plenty of exploration yet to be done with early indications that there is a vast amount of oil and Gas still to be extracted.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0F10MQ20140626?irpc=932
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/4084-bp-and-shell-extend-life-of-schiehallio...
http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/987/worlds-largest-oil-field-not-found-...
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/bank-of-scotland-39000-jobs-to-be-crea...
And as for the choppers...Like the S92' the Euro chopper had major faults with the gearbox and rotor shaft...so what you're saying isn't exactly true.
Quote: "The move comes after an initial Air Accidents Investigation Branch examination of the EC225 which went down while carrying 12 passengers and two crew showed it suffered a crack to a gearbox shaft."
"A gearbox failure was responsible for the downing of a AS332L2 Super Puma helicopter flying to Aberdeen from the Miller Platform in the North Sea in April 2009, causing the death of 14 offshore workers and two crewmen."
These modifications have been carried out both on the S92's and the EC225's you may have been aware of the S92 which went down off the Grand Banks in Canada due to catastrophic failure of the gear box.
And yes, isn't it sad that Scotland doesn't have it's own oil company, but then at present it's to UK that manages the oil fields...I guess you have bp and Shell being big players.
And as for the Trams....yet again it was Labour who were in charge of that fiasco not the fault of the SNP.
> I have a good chuckle about the way the Oil and Gas industry is presented as the Goose that lays the Golden Egg. With rigs literally rusting to pieces that are 15 years over design life, an Industry that's response to a number of fatal crashes has been to introduce a new lifejacket (like that stops under maintained and overworked helecopters crashing) and finally an Oil Industry owned by Americans, Canadians and Abu Dhabi.There isn't one single Scottish Oil production company...
> If the figures added up then fair enough, sadly they are about as sensible as the costing of the Edinburgh Tram....
Plenty of new fields to open up on the west coast...and plenty of exploration yet to be done with early indications that there is a vast amount of oil and Gas still to be extracted.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0F10MQ20140626?irpc=932
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/4084-bp-and-shell-extend-life-of-schiehallio...
http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/987/worlds-largest-oil-field-not-found-...
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/bank-of-scotland-39000-jobs-to-be-crea...
And as for the choppers...Like the S92' the Euro chopper had major faults with the gearbox and rotor shaft...so what you're saying isn't exactly true.
Quote: "The move comes after an initial Air Accidents Investigation Branch examination of the EC225 which went down while carrying 12 passengers and two crew showed it suffered a crack to a gearbox shaft."
"A gearbox failure was responsible for the downing of a AS332L2 Super Puma helicopter flying to Aberdeen from the Miller Platform in the North Sea in April 2009, causing the death of 14 offshore workers and two crewmen."
These modifications have been carried out both on the S92's and the EC225's you may have been aware of the S92 which went down off the Grand Banks in Canada due to catastrophic failure of the gear box.
And yes, isn't it sad that Scotland doesn't have it's own oil company, but then at present it's to UK that manages the oil fields...I guess you have bp and Shell being big players.
And as for the Trams....yet again it was Labour who were in charge of that fiasco not the fault of the SNP.
In reply to IainRUK:
Like the rats in London, if there's one or two that you can see then you know there's much more hiding.
> It is... Disgusting insult...
> So is labeling whole parties perverts on the actions of a few...
Like the rats in London, if there's one or two that you can see then you know there's much more hiding.
In reply to lynx3555:
Scotland: http://www.glasgowpestcontrol.com/emergence-super-rats/
Ireland: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596975/Giant-rat-size-cat-cornered...
Wales: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Rats-big-cats-tearing-bin-bags/stor...
Aye yeah.. its a London issue..
You are doing what Soar does.. make a point against London and not look at comparable issues in your own state… i.e. railways being subsidised or other issues.. its just cheap shoddy politics..
Scotland: http://www.glasgowpestcontrol.com/emergence-super-rats/
Ireland: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596975/Giant-rat-size-cat-cornered...
Wales: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Rats-big-cats-tearing-bin-bags/stor...
Aye yeah.. its a London issue..
You are doing what Soar does.. make a point against London and not look at comparable issues in your own state… i.e. railways being subsidised or other issues.. its just cheap shoddy politics..
In reply to alastairmac:
Yeah Salmond is a man of his word.. what was it?
The pound was a millstone around Scotlands neck… 5 years later.. please Sir can I have your pound…
He's a politician…
> Great to see Clegg and Cameron promising more powers for Scotland in the event of a no vote. From the men who promised to oppose tuition fees and avoid top down reorganisations of the NHS. We were fooled by rogues and liars in 79 but let's hope we don't make the same mistake again.
Yeah Salmond is a man of his word.. what was it?
The pound was a millstone around Scotlands neck… 5 years later.. please Sir can I have your pound…
He's a politician…
In reply to lynx3555:
slightly more reliable then.
Unfortunately thats behind a paywall so I cant learn how bad London is for rats. I am slightly puzzled as to why its got Lincoln in the url though rather than London?
> (In reply to dissonance) Naw, it's a Sun fact....
slightly more reliable then.
Unfortunately thats behind a paywall so I cant learn how bad London is for rats. I am slightly puzzled as to why its got Lincoln in the url though rather than London?
In reply to ByEek:
The numbers are not collected in a way which make sit possible to tell if Scotland does better than England in public spending. The numbers are spending 'for the benefit' of a region not spending in a region. Lots of expenditure 'for the benefit of' Scotland is actually spent in the South East of England.
> (In reply to lynx3555)
>
> No. Because that is currently what happens. Per head of population, Scotland does better than England in terms of public spending.
>
> No. Because that is currently what happens. Per head of population, Scotland does better than England in terms of public spending.
The numbers are not collected in a way which make sit possible to tell if Scotland does better than England in public spending. The numbers are spending 'for the benefit' of a region not spending in a region. Lots of expenditure 'for the benefit of' Scotland is actually spent in the South East of England.
In reply to lynx3555:.
Well, once again Alex has totally failed to tell us anything useful and STV news are reporting their viewers poll has swung in favour of the better togethers.
excellent stuff. can hardly wait till the next debate. Let's hope Alex still has enough ammunition to shoot himself in the other foot.
> Looking forward to the live debate tonight?
Well, once again Alex has totally failed to tell us anything useful and STV news are reporting their viewers poll has swung in favour of the better togethers.
excellent stuff. can hardly wait till the next debate. Let's hope Alex still has enough ammunition to shoot himself in the other foot.
In reply to graeme jackson:
I thought it was poor.. Downing grew after s bad start but neither won, most commentators thought similar... I thought downing let salmond get away with too much.. The 'we'll keep young people in Scotland, they will work, we'll be successful' left a huge ruddy 'how?'...
Salmond is a much better politician, just a much better public speaker, a bit of a Hague..
I thought it was poor.. Downing grew after s bad start but neither won, most commentators thought similar... I thought downing let salmond get away with too much.. The 'we'll keep young people in Scotland, they will work, we'll be successful' left a huge ruddy 'how?'...
Salmond is a much better politician, just a much better public speaker, a bit of a Hague..
In reply to graeme jackson:
> .
> Well, once again Alex has totally failed to tell us anything useful and STV news are reporting their viewers poll has swung in favour of the better togethers.
Of course they did, I guess trying to win the support of the Unionist media out lets would be similar to trying to persuade an orange man to convert to Catholicism. In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. From your own daily rag:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/public-spending-per-head-in-scotland-reveal...
"SCOTS enjoy £1,300 more spending per head on public services such as the NHS and schools than the average UK citizen, official figures have shown."
> The numbers are not collected in a way which make sit possible to tell if Scotland does better than England in public spending. The numbers are spending 'for the benefit' of a region not spending in a region. Lots of expenditure 'for the benefit of' Scotland is actually spent in the South East of England.
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. From your own daily rag:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/public-spending-per-head-in-scotland-reveal...
"SCOTS enjoy £1,300 more spending per head on public services such as the NHS and schools than the average UK citizen, official figures have shown."
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
How much? Is this the High Courts you're obsessing about again?
> The numbers are not collected in a way which make sit possible to tell if Scotland does better than England in public spending. The numbers are spending 'for the benefit' of a region not spending in a region. Lots of expenditure 'for the benefit of' Scotland is actually spent in the South East of England.
How much? Is this the High Courts you're obsessing about again?
In reply to lynx3555:
One can't help but admire your attempt to put a positive spin on wee eck's shite performance.
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
> Of course they did, I guess trying to win the support of the Unionist media out lets would be similar to trying to persuade an orange man to convert to Catholicism.
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
> Of course they did, I guess trying to win the support of the Unionist media out lets would be similar to trying to persuade an orange man to convert to Catholicism.
One can't help but admire your attempt to put a positive spin on wee eck's shite performance.
In reply to lynx3555:
Whereas the Herald, which has come out in favour of independence, has this to say about last night:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/darling-draws-first-...
So, what would be the currency in an independent Scotland?
Whereas the Herald, which has come out in favour of independence, has this to say about last night:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/darling-draws-first-...
So, what would be the currency in an independent Scotland?
In reply to graeme jackson:
What did you think of the tax dodging, economy ruining Darling?
Alex Salmond, which is his real name not wee Eck as you call him, could have argued the currency case all night, but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we? And don't give me the usual dribble that unionists spurt out in response to that question.
With out proper negotiations on independence, between both governments, then of course there will be no solid answers, Westminster made the choice not to waist their time doing this as they anticipated the No vote would win....
The Undecided voters at the the event were the most important votes to watch and they unanimously swung their vote towards Alex....interesting piece in yet another unionist rag giving the views of some of the undecided voters.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-debate-u...
Stats...
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-only-stat-that-matters/#more-59416
What did you think of the tax dodging, economy ruining Darling?
Alex Salmond, which is his real name not wee Eck as you call him, could have argued the currency case all night, but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we? And don't give me the usual dribble that unionists spurt out in response to that question.
With out proper negotiations on independence, between both governments, then of course there will be no solid answers, Westminster made the choice not to waist their time doing this as they anticipated the No vote would win....
The Undecided voters at the the event were the most important votes to watch and they unanimously swung their vote towards Alex....interesting piece in yet another unionist rag giving the views of some of the undecided voters.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-debate-u...
Stats...
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-only-stat-that-matters/#more-59416
In reply to tony:
Quite interesting that, contradicts the actual polls with regards no voters and also the daily records findings.....I'll look into that.
> Whereas the Herald, which has come out in favour of independence, has this to say about last night:
> So, what would be the currency in an independent Scotland?
Quite interesting that, contradicts the actual polls with regards no voters and also the daily records findings.....I'll look into that.
In reply to lynx3555:
Really? Or is that another of you invented "facts"
economy ruining Darling?
Yep, all his fault the global financial crisis. Definitely with you there.
but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we?
Because you will be a country without a central bank as rUK won't want a currency union with Scotland
Unanimously? Even your beloved Wings site doesn't come close to saying that.
You seem rather detached from reality.
> What did you think of the tax dodging,
Really? Or is that another of you invented "facts"
economy ruining Darling?
Yep, all his fault the global financial crisis. Definitely with you there.
but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we?
Because you will be a country without a central bank as rUK won't want a currency union with Scotland
> The Undecided voters at the the event were the most important votes to watch and they unanimously swung their vote towards Alex.
Unanimously? Even your beloved Wings site doesn't come close to saying that.
You seem rather detached from reality.
Post edited at 12:41
In reply to lynx3555:
This is indeed true. However on the question of currency, all political parties south of the border have stated that their starting position with regard to the negotiation on a currency union, is that there will be no currency union. So just exactly what is Salmond going to negociate?
I am sure there will be lots of wiggle room with regard to the divying up of assets, debts, defense and the like, but the position of rUK on the future of the pound seems to be quite clear to me.
> With out proper negotiations on independence, between both governments, then of course there will be no solid answers
This is indeed true. However on the question of currency, all political parties south of the border have stated that their starting position with regard to the negotiation on a currency union, is that there will be no currency union. So just exactly what is Salmond going to negociate?
I am sure there will be lots of wiggle room with regard to the divying up of assets, debts, defense and the like, but the position of rUK on the future of the pound seems to be quite clear to me.
In reply to lynx3555:
Fine, and as Darling pointing out, if this is without the agreement of the rUK there are significant downsides.
If you want to do this with the agreement of the rUK it amounts to devo-max, and that will amount to whatever the rUK agrees to.
> Alex Salmond, which is his real name not wee Eck as you call him, could have argued the currency case all night, but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we?
Fine, and as Darling pointing out, if this is without the agreement of the rUK there are significant downsides.
If you want to do this with the agreement of the rUK it amounts to devo-max, and that will amount to whatever the rUK agrees to.
In reply to lynx3555:
Because a currency union requires the agreement of two governments and two electorates.
Alex Salmond declaring that 'it is clearly in the rest of the Uk's interests' does not make it so.
It is their choice and if they choose not to agree such a union there is nothing that the Scottish Government could do about it.
There must be a plan 'B', it should be declared, then in the event that Alex Salmond is wrong on this we will know what we are getting into and can make an informed judgement before we vote.
>
> and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we?
>
>Because a currency union requires the agreement of two governments and two electorates.
Alex Salmond declaring that 'it is clearly in the rest of the Uk's interests' does not make it so.
It is their choice and if they choose not to agree such a union there is nothing that the Scottish Government could do about it.
There must be a plan 'B', it should be declared, then in the event that Alex Salmond is wrong on this we will know what we are getting into and can make an informed judgement before we vote.
In reply to lynx3555:
Why do you want to be dependent on the UK's decisions regarding a currency?
It just makes no sense..
You've done that thing where you ignore one poll and accept another...
Why do you want to be dependent on the UK's decisions regarding a currency?
It just makes no sense..
You've done that thing where you ignore one poll and accept another...
In reply to lynx3555:
also known as Mr Potato-head, Shrek, or the Fat Controller
Because you want to be independent? How can Scotland be independent if it depends on the Bank of England to set interest rates and exchange rates?
> Alex Salmond, which is his real name not wee Eck as you call him,
also known as Mr Potato-head, Shrek, or the Fat Controller
> could have argued the currency case all night, but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we?
Because you want to be independent? How can Scotland be independent if it depends on the Bank of England to set interest rates and exchange rates?
In reply to lynx3555:
Economy ruining? Lets see what Salmond had to say in 2007
"We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in 'gold-plated' regulation."
if only he had been in charge eh? Everything would have been fine.
> What did you think of the tax dodging, economy ruining Darling?
Economy ruining? Lets see what Salmond had to say in 2007
"We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in 'gold-plated' regulation."
if only he had been in charge eh? Everything would have been fine.
In reply to lynx3555:
At least I haven't compared him to Hitler. more like rab C nesbit.
> Alex Salmond, which is his real name not wee Eck as you call him,
At least I haven't compared him to Hitler. more like rab C nesbit.
In reply to tony:
>
Alternatively, Papa Dolmio or my personal favourite Toad of Toad Hall.
> also known as Mr Potato-head, Shrek, or the Fat Controller
>
Alternatively, Papa Dolmio or my personal favourite Toad of Toad Hall.
In reply to yer maw:
Did anybody else think that the format was bollocks? Taking five or six question at at time and then not really focusing on any of them just gave them too much wiggle room. One question at a time would be much better. Apparently I missed the bit at the beginning where they were asking each other questions. WTF? And continually cutting away to the 'spin room' was a waste of time.I thought the whole thing was unilluminating, and I can't imagine it helped any undecided voters choose or swayed any minds.
Did anybody else think that the format was bollocks? Taking five or six question at at time and then not really focusing on any of them just gave them too much wiggle room. One question at a time would be much better. Apparently I missed the bit at the beginning where they were asking each other questions. WTF? And continually cutting away to the 'spin room' was a waste of time.I thought the whole thing was unilluminating, and I can't imagine it helped any undecided voters choose or swayed any minds.
In reply to tony:
Point of correction - the Herald has not come out in favour of independence. The Sunday Herald has cut not the daily which has a separate editorial.
Point of correction - the Herald has not come out in favour of independence. The Sunday Herald has cut not the daily which has a separate editorial.
In reply to IainRUK:
We'll use it for as long as it takes until we get another currency, if that takes 10 years then so be it....Scotland's entitled to do that and there won't be a frickin' thing you can do about it...so dry your eyes and grow a pair.
We'll use it for as long as it takes until we get another currency, if that takes 10 years then so be it....Scotland's entitled to do that and there won't be a frickin' thing you can do about it...so dry your eyes and grow a pair.
In reply to graeme jackson:
You're obviously a tad up set that some horrible nasty nationalist, is leading a large proportion of the Scottish population, through a democratic process and to lead us to independence....how dare he, Hitler would never have allowed such a right to happen, Hail Hitler.....
> At least I haven't compared him to Hitler. more like rab C nesbit.
You're obviously a tad up set that some horrible nasty nationalist, is leading a large proportion of the Scottish population, through a democratic process and to lead us to independence....how dare he, Hitler would never have allowed such a right to happen, Hail Hitler.....
In reply to lynx3555:
Eh?
Why would we care about you using it? Many countries use the US dollar..
It's the sterling zone we are discussing...
And you'd not have independence.. Nor could satisfy requirements to join the euro.. You'd also use the finance industry...
You'd be at the RUKs mercy regarding all monetary policy.. Many countries use the British Pound .. People like you and more unsavoury elements of the press think we want to stop you using the pound.. WE DO NOT...
We just don't think you should have a say in its management...
Small things are volatile.. That can be good and bad... Why risk the UK economy, one of the fastest growing in the world, one of the worlds most traded currencies..
Scotland joined the UK and ditched their pound which was worth far less... Now you want to leave and take the pound out...
> We'll use it for as long as it takes until we get another currency, if that takes 10 years then so be it....Scotland's entitled to do that and there won't be a frickin' thing you can do about it...so dry your eyes and grow a pair.
Eh?
Why would we care about you using it? Many countries use the US dollar..
It's the sterling zone we are discussing...
And you'd not have independence.. Nor could satisfy requirements to join the euro.. You'd also use the finance industry...
You'd be at the RUKs mercy regarding all monetary policy.. Many countries use the British Pound .. People like you and more unsavoury elements of the press think we want to stop you using the pound.. WE DO NOT...
We just don't think you should have a say in its management...
Small things are volatile.. That can be good and bad... Why risk the UK economy, one of the fastest growing in the world, one of the worlds most traded currencies..
Scotland joined the UK and ditched their pound which was worth far less... Now you want to leave and take the pound out...
Post edited at 18:55
In reply to lynx3555:
So Cameron who has allowed the referendum.. Is not at all like hitler?
So you are retracting your ignorant insulting statement?
You are just coming across as pig-ignorant... Soar has his moments.. Still waiting to hear his justifications, but you spout constant drivel and admit to just making up figures....
> You're obviously a tad up set that some horrible nasty nationalist, is leading a large proportion of the Scottish population, through a democratic process and to lead us to independence....how dare he, Hitler would never have allowed such a right to happen, Hail Hitler.....
So Cameron who has allowed the referendum.. Is not at all like hitler?
So you are retracting your ignorant insulting statement?
You are just coming across as pig-ignorant... Soar has his moments.. Still waiting to hear his justifications, but you spout constant drivel and admit to just making up figures....
In reply to MG:
"What those numbers show is that – astoundingly – people who were Yes voters before the debate thought Salmond won, and those who were No voters before the debate thought Darling won, both by enormous margins. Colour us shocked. But the telling stats are among the people the debate was targeted at – the Don’t Knows.
And what the poll discovered is that among voters who’d started out as undecideds, Salmond won by 55-45. Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26."
> Really? Or is that another of you invented "facts"
> economy ruining Darling?
> Yep, all his fault the global financial crisis. Definitely with you there.
> but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we?
> Because you will be a country without a central bank as rUK won't want a currency union with Scotland
> Unanimously? Even your beloved Wings site doesn't come close to saying that.
> You seem rather detached from reality.
"What those numbers show is that – astoundingly – people who were Yes voters before the debate thought Salmond won, and those who were No voters before the debate thought Darling won, both by enormous margins. Colour us shocked. But the telling stats are among the people the debate was targeted at – the Don’t Knows.
And what the poll discovered is that among voters who’d started out as undecideds, Salmond won by 55-45. Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26."
In reply to lynx3555:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/05/uk-scotland-independence-idUKKBN0G...
also ladbrokes lengthened the odds of a yes vote...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/05/uk-scotland-independence-idUKKBN0G...
also ladbrokes lengthened the odds of a yes vote...
In reply to lynx3555:
>
I just did a quick chi squared goodness of fit test in that, n = 57, 26 no, 31 yes..
I get its not significant, which didn't surprise me, wit such low n values and quite close results I wouldn't take too much either way from such a low n value…
Certainly not 'unanimously'.. do you even know what that term means?
> What did you think of the tax dodging, economy ruining Darling?
> Alex Salmond, which is his real name not wee Eck as you call him, could have argued the currency case all night, but thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted that we will retain the £. Ey Why shouldn't we? And don't give me the usual dribble that unionists spurt out in response to that question.
> With out proper negotiations on independence, between both governments, then of course there will be no solid answers, Westminster made the choice not to waist their time doing this as they anticipated the No vote would win....
> The Undecided voters at the the event were the most important votes to watch and they unanimously swung their vote towards Alex....interesting piece in yet another unionist rag giving the views of some of the undecided voters.
>
> Stats...
>
I just did a quick chi squared goodness of fit test in that, n = 57, 26 no, 31 yes..
I get its not significant, which didn't surprise me, wit such low n values and quite close results I wouldn't take too much either way from such a low n value…
Certainly not 'unanimously'.. do you even know what that term means?
Post edited at 19:51
In reply to rogerwebb:
Well, it would be interesting to see what the ruk electorate would chose if they had a currency union on Scotland retaining the pound....particularly if the facts were laid out to them about the benefits of Scotland retaining the pound....all that oil and gas that helps to prop up the currency, and Scotland's healthy economy which will also add to the strength of the pound.....but I wouldn't be surprised if the ruk cuts it's nose off to spite it's face.
Well, it would be interesting to see what the ruk electorate would chose if they had a currency union on Scotland retaining the pound....particularly if the facts were laid out to them about the benefits of Scotland retaining the pound....all that oil and gas that helps to prop up the currency, and Scotland's healthy economy which will also add to the strength of the pound.....but I wouldn't be surprised if the ruk cuts it's nose off to spite it's face.
In reply to lynx3555:
If only Salmond had had your grasp of the facts....
> Well, it would be interesting to see what the ruk electorate would chose if they had a currency union on Scotland retaining the pound....particularly if the facts were laid out to them about the benefits of Scotland retaining the pound....all that oil and gas that helps to prop up the currency, and Scotland's healthy economy which will also add to the strength of the pound.....but I wouldn't be surprised if the ruk cuts it's nose off to spite it's face.
If only Salmond had had your grasp of the facts....
In reply to lynx3555:
How would it add strength?
> Well, it would be interesting to see what the ruk electorate would chose if they had a currency union on Scotland retaining the pound....particularly if the facts were laid out to them about the benefits of Scotland retaining the pound....all that oil and gas that helps to prop up the currency, and Scotland's healthy economy which will also add to the strength of the pound.....but I wouldn't be surprised if the ruk cuts it's nose off to spite it's face.
How would it add strength?
In reply to IainRUK: Like you I could do some maths, but do I really have to....come independence the whole situation will change, it will be the ruk that will be looking at talking to Salmond...but then no amount of evidence or maths will alter your staunch unionist views, will it...
In reply to lynx3555:
Yes, I just don't believe a word you say as you admit to just making up facts…
I just can't see what we gain from sharing our currency management? We just have a lot to lose.. the worlds economy took a hit, we rode it well and are one of the fastest growing currencies in the world.. why risk it now?
Make a case why we should? Salmond hasn't at all..
He, like you, has these magical ideas.. yet no substance.. so how does scottish gas and oil money come into the UK once you are independent? It won't… so why share our pound?
Yes, I just don't believe a word you say as you admit to just making up facts…
I just can't see what we gain from sharing our currency management? We just have a lot to lose.. the worlds economy took a hit, we rode it well and are one of the fastest growing currencies in the world.. why risk it now?
Make a case why we should? Salmond hasn't at all..
He, like you, has these magical ideas.. yet no substance.. so how does scottish gas and oil money come into the UK once you are independent? It won't… so why share our pound?
In reply to lynx3555:
Which is a good job, because that is just about the amount of evidence you are offering...
> .but then no amount of evidence or maths will alter your staunch unionist views, will it...
Which is a good job, because that is just about the amount of evidence you are offering...
In reply to lynx3555:
"
So do you acknowledge that yet again this was just non-sensical?
You and Soar keep going on about project fear and misinformation..
So far this thread has had you comparing cameron to Hitler.. you admitting to making up figures… Soar saying London is 'clearly subsidised by the rest of the UK' and now you making a statement like the above which quite clearly is not a 'unanimous swing'..
Unanimous means complete agreement.. not 55% of 57 people agreeing and 45% disagreeing…
"
> The Undecided voters at the the event were the most important votes to watch and they unanimously swung their vote towards Alex."
So do you acknowledge that yet again this was just non-sensical?
You and Soar keep going on about project fear and misinformation..
So far this thread has had you comparing cameron to Hitler.. you admitting to making up figures… Soar saying London is 'clearly subsidised by the rest of the UK' and now you making a statement like the above which quite clearly is not a 'unanimous swing'..
Unanimous means complete agreement.. not 55% of 57 people agreeing and 45% disagreeing…
In reply to RUK
> And you'd not have independence.. Nor could satisfy requirements to join the euro.. You'd also use the finance industry...
Aye, well we weren't offered Devo max by Cameron were we....just yes or no....> You'd be at the RUKs mercy regarding all monetary policy.. Many countries use the British Pound .. People like you and more unsavoury elements of the press think we want to stop you using the pound.. WE DO NOT...
It's interesting how Darling kept going on and on about the pound....Alex kept referencing the document that gives the options, he even gave him the page number, but no he just kept harping on and on about the pound....personally I wish some one had walked up to darling and kicked him in the nuts and told him to change the F'ing subject, but alas, can't do that.> We just don't think you should have a say in its management...
Just like I'm sure that the UK government would rather we continued to be managed by them, how they hate the fact that we even have a parliament now and I'm sure they'd love to scrap that.> Small things are volatile.. That can be good and bad... Why risk the UK economy, one of the fastest growing in the world, one of the worlds most traded currencies..
Good reason for Scotland retaining the pound then, and maybe if you unionists had the strength to resist supporting nasty reprisals against an independent Scotland, then just maybe it'll continue to be the same good news for the pound.> Scotland joined the UK and ditched their pound which was worth far less... Now you want to leave and take the pound out...
Scotland had no choice other than to join the uk....and remember the "Alien act", do you even know what that is....the Union was extremely unpopular, but then surely you know that? Surely you have added that to your information...if you read hard enough on that historical fact then you can see the letters written by the English spies one of which stated " for every one person for the union, there are 100 that is against it....he even describes the angry crowds in Edinburgh....but you UK romantics can believe what you want I suppose.
Post edited at 20:46
In reply to lynx3555:
Maybe the rUK would be cutting off its nose to spite its face, maybe not, but the decision would be outwith the control of the Scottish government.
The Scottish government should and could have a contingency plan and that plan should be in the public domain to allow the electorate to make an informed decision.
> Well, it would be interesting to see what the ruk electorate would chose if they had a currency union on Scotland retaining the pound....particularly if the facts were laid out to them about the benefits of Scotland retaining the pound....all that oil and gas that helps to prop up the currency, and Scotland's healthy economy which will also add to the strength of the pound.....but I wouldn't be surprised if the ruk cuts it's nose off to spite it's face.
Maybe the rUK would be cutting off its nose to spite its face, maybe not, but the decision would be outwith the control of the Scottish government.
The Scottish government should and could have a contingency plan and that plan should be in the public domain to allow the electorate to make an informed decision.
In reply to lynx3555:
This was about yes or no.. there has been constantly more and more devolution over the last few decades, quite clearly we were on a path to devo-max...
How do they hate the fact?
WHat nasty reprisals?
You need to take that chip off your shoulder, the RUK will look after the RUK's interest.. it will want a healthy prosperous Scotland.. I've said all along I doubt much will change. I just do not think, nor want, the £'s management to be shared…
Salmond says the £ is a millstone around your necks… why join with him when he wants away long term?
This was about yes or no.. there has been constantly more and more devolution over the last few decades, quite clearly we were on a path to devo-max...
How do they hate the fact?
WHat nasty reprisals?
You need to take that chip off your shoulder, the RUK will look after the RUK's interest.. it will want a healthy prosperous Scotland.. I've said all along I doubt much will change. I just do not think, nor want, the £'s management to be shared…
Salmond says the £ is a millstone around your necks… why join with him when he wants away long term?
In reply to IainRUK:
equally if it did would it be a good thing. Can ask several Euro zone countries their thoughts on the strong Euro when their own economy wasnt doing to well.
> How would it add strength?
equally if it did would it be a good thing. Can ask several Euro zone countries their thoughts on the strong Euro when their own economy wasnt doing to well.
In reply to lynx3555:
And RUK on my name has nothing to do with the RUK debate.. it's that R is my surname, and I use IainR on running forum so wanted to distinguish the two.. living next to a climbers pub I was often approached and it was handy to know where they knew me from…
And RUK on my name has nothing to do with the RUK debate.. it's that R is my surname, and I use IainR on running forum so wanted to distinguish the two.. living next to a climbers pub I was often approached and it was handy to know where they knew me from…
In reply to IainRUK: Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26." That's pretty good isn't it? On top of the 55% and 45%.... Looks like the undecided leaned heavily towards Alex. But I guess the unionist media out lets will spin it in your favour and no doubt you unionists will celebrate the lies.
In reply to dissonance:
Agree, prosperous scotland is far better for england, you want wealthy neighbours..
Lynx seems to think we'd all want Scotland to crash and burn if they did vote yes..
I said england because they are scotland's direct neighbour...
Agree, prosperous scotland is far better for england, you want wealthy neighbours..
Lynx seems to think we'd all want Scotland to crash and burn if they did vote yes..
I said england because they are scotland's direct neighbour...
In reply to lynx3555:
Its
Still not unanimous is it?
So you admit to more lies and exaggerations?
How is reuters 'unionist'?
Its
> Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26." That's pretty good isn't it? On top of the 55% and 45%.... Looks like the undecided leaned heavily towards Alex. But I guess the unionist media out lets will spin it in your favour and no doubt you unionists will celebrate the lies.
Still not unanimous is it?
So you admit to more lies and exaggerations?
How is reuters 'unionist'?
Post edited at 20:55
In reply to rogerwebb:
They do have a plan B...the options were being referenced on Page 4 of currency study carried out by economists....Alex kept referencing that document and Darling just kept saying "what about plan b! what about plan b" hence why I was sitting there wishing some one would kick him in the nuts.
> Maybe the rUK would be cutting off its nose to spite its face, maybe not, but the decision would be outwith the control of the Scottish government.
> The Scottish government should and could have a contingency plan and that plan should be in the public domain to allow the electorate to make an informed decision.
They do have a plan B...the options were being referenced on Page 4 of currency study carried out by economists....Alex kept referencing that document and Darling just kept saying "what about plan b! what about plan b" hence why I was sitting there wishing some one would kick him in the nuts.
In reply to lynx3555:
Good to see you going for sensible levels of debate. It the options are all on Page 4 then it should be easy enough to say which one was plan b shouldnt it?
Rather than just say look at a document. Its not really in the spirit of a debate is it if you answer half the questions with go and read this document instead.
> They do have a plan B...the options were being referenced on Page 4 of currency study carried out by economists....Alex kept referencing that document and Darling just kept saying "what about plan b! what about plan b" hence why I was sitting there wishing some one would kick him in the nuts.
Good to see you going for sensible levels of debate. It the options are all on Page 4 then it should be easy enough to say which one was plan b shouldnt it?
Rather than just say look at a document. Its not really in the spirit of a debate is it if you answer half the questions with go and read this document instead.
In reply to lynx3555:
Did you read Standard life's statement?
When a major pensions company says its drawing up plans to relocate due to the uncertainty maybe it is a n actual issue Salmond should grasp…
A plan B isn't look at the all options… it's what is the preferred course of action if the UK Government refuses to share the £…
Did you read Standard life's statement?
When a major pensions company says its drawing up plans to relocate due to the uncertainty maybe it is a n actual issue Salmond should grasp…
A plan B isn't look at the all options… it's what is the preferred course of action if the UK Government refuses to share the £…
In reply to IainRUK:
> Its
> Still not unanimous is it?
> So you admit to more lies and exaggerations?
No I don't admit it, but if you did some soul searching then maybe you would force yourself to admit that the no campaign are lying through their teeth.> How is reuters 'unionist'?
Scottish independence has rumbled cages all around the world, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chinese premier far too many to name.....no doubt Reuters and many more organisations would prefer the status Quo...well I say tough, live with it and accept what will be...but don't lie to us, that's not democracy. A lot of Yes voters don't support Salmond, they want the truth from both side but fail to get the info they need, they are voting for reasons other than just currency or EU membership.In reply to lynx3555:
Indeed they are...
> they are voting for reasons other than just currency or EU membership.
Indeed they are...
In reply to lynx3555:
This coming from the guy who openly admits to making up figures...
A lot of no voters want the truth.. but this is all a bit rich when you yourself just pedal lies and made up figures then moan that people don't get the truth…
Yet it's OK when those lies are in the interest of a yes vote...
> No I don't admit it, but if you did some soul searching then maybe you would force yourself to admit that the no campaign are lying through their teeth.
This coming from the guy who openly admits to making up figures...
> Scottish independence has rumbled cages all around the world, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chinese premier far too many to name.....no doubt Reuters and many more organisations would prefer the status Quo...well I say tough, live with it and accept what will be...but don't lie to us, that's not democracy. A lot of Yes voters don't support Salmond, they want the truth from both side but fail to get the info they need, they are voting for reasons other than just currency or EU membership.
A lot of no voters want the truth.. but this is all a bit rich when you yourself just pedal lies and made up figures then moan that people don't get the truth…
Yet it's OK when those lies are in the interest of a yes vote...
In reply to dissonance:
BECAUSE SALMOND HAS NO INTENTION OF GOING FOR PLAN B UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY, SALMOND IS STANDING HIS GROUND AND DID NOT WANT TO DEBATE ANY OPTIONS, BECAUSE AS FAR AS HES CONCERNED THERE WONT BE A NEED FOR AN OPTION....THE BLUFF WILL BE CALLED AFTER THE ELECTION...FFS, I'm putting the kettle on.
> Good to see you going for sensible levels of debate. It the options are all on Page 4 then it should be easy enough to say which one was plan b shouldnt it?
> Rather than just say look at a document. Its not really in the spirit of a debate is it if you answer half the questions with go and read this document instead.
BECAUSE SALMOND HAS NO INTENTION OF GOING FOR PLAN B UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY, SALMOND IS STANDING HIS GROUND AND DID NOT WANT TO DEBATE ANY OPTIONS, BECAUSE AS FAR AS HES CONCERNED THERE WONT BE A NEED FOR AN OPTION....THE BLUFF WILL BE CALLED AFTER THE ELECTION...FFS, I'm putting the kettle on.
In reply to IainRUK:
Ok I did make up a wee figure, used to compound a statement, but then if you had read the article....what a nasty Nat I am.....try looking into the unionist lies, try and be unbiased as you do that.
Ok I did make up a wee figure, used to compound a statement, but then if you had read the article....what a nasty Nat I am.....try looking into the unionist lies, try and be unbiased as you do that.
In reply to IainRUK:
What lies, other than a wee exaggeration?
> This coming from the guy who openly admits to making up figures...
> A lot of no voters want the truth.. but this is all a bit rich when you yourself just pedal lies and made up figures then moan that people don't get the truth…
> Yet it's OK when those lies are in the interest of a yes vote...
What lies, other than a wee exaggeration?
In reply to lynx3555: you made the figures up...
Parliament wasn't given 4 billion...
You said unanimous when statistically it wasn't sig. Different from a 50-50 split...
Parliament wasn't given 4 billion...
You said unanimous when statistically it wasn't sig. Different from a 50-50 split...
In reply to lynx3555:
How is he standing his ground?
Millstone around your necks... Now he wants the £...
You don't want it share the £ with such flakey politicians who clearly don't see the £ as a long term option...
> BECAUSE SALMOND HAS NO INTENTION OF GOING FOR PLAN B UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY, SALMOND IS STANDING HIS GROUND AND DID NOT WANT TO DEBATE ANY OPTIONS, BECAUSE AS FAR AS HES CONCERNED THERE WONT BE A NEED FOR AN OPTION....THE BLUFF WILL BE CALLED AFTER THE ELECTION...FFS, I'm putting the kettle on.
How is he standing his ground?
Millstone around your necks... Now he wants the £...
You don't want it share the £ with such flakey politicians who clearly don't see the £ as a long term option...
In reply to IainRUK:
Personally, and I emphasise Personally, I'd rather have our own currency, but I'd accept the Euro if that was a good option for Scotland, but I would need to look into this a lot more before I supported that option.
Personally, and I emphasise Personally, I'd rather have our own currency, but I'd accept the Euro if that was a good option for Scotland, but I would need to look into this a lot more before I supported that option.
In reply to lynx3555:
I think that has huge risks... I'm very pro EU..
I just can't believe no path to the euro hasn't been mapped out... That's the second safest option..
I think that has huge risks... I'm very pro EU..
I just can't believe no path to the euro hasn't been mapped out... That's the second safest option..
In reply to IainRUK:
> you made the figures up...
> Parliament wasn't given 4 billion...
They suggested that it would cost 4 billion, I didn't say it was given 4 billion> You said unanimous when statistically it wasn't sig. Different from a 50-50 split...
Do I have to show yo that again!In reply to lynx3555:
You did say government though when it wasnt. It was Parliament. The government said go take a long walk of a short pier.
Then we have your giant rats of London which turned out to be Lincoln.
Also you havent explained where those cycle lane figures come from.
> They suggested that it would cost 4 billion, I didn't say it was given 4 billion
You did say government though when it wasnt. It was Parliament. The government said go take a long walk of a short pier.
Then we have your giant rats of London which turned out to be Lincoln.
Also you havent explained where those cycle lane figures come from.
In reply to lynx3555:
Yes…
45-55..
> They suggested that it would cost 4 billion, I didn't say it was given 4 billion
> Do I have to show yo that again!
Yes…
45-55..
In reply to dissonance:
Plus giant rats are reported all over the UK.. another piece of misinformation..
Plus giant rats are reported all over the UK.. another piece of misinformation..
In reply to IainRUK:
As I said...the undecided after the debate.
Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26
> Yes…
> 45-55..
As I said...the undecided after the debate.
Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26
In reply to dissonance:
Sorry, I meant to post this pic....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/norbet/7636019630/
Sorry, I meant to post this pic....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/norbet/7636019630/
In reply to lynx3555:
You seem to have a very peculiar sense of how the world works. In order to negotiate you need to have a starting position and something to bargain with.
Assume a win for team Yes. Celebrations. Then negotiations, what leverage will the new Scottish government have to persuade the rUK to influence BoE policy in relation to GBP?
Cheers
LD
> THE BLUFF WILL BE CALLED AFTER THE ELECTION...FFS
You seem to have a very peculiar sense of how the world works. In order to negotiate you need to have a starting position and something to bargain with.
Assume a win for team Yes. Celebrations. Then negotiations, what leverage will the new Scottish government have to persuade the rUK to influence BoE policy in relation to GBP?
Cheers
LD
Post edited at 07:01
In reply to lynx3555:
And yet they remained undecided. That alone should tell you something.
> Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26
And yet they remained undecided. That alone should tell you something.
In reply to Fraser:
Is that a trick question?
It tells me, that all though they are undecided, they preferred Alex to Darling.
Maybe lies like this don't help the better together bunch...
Quote Al Darling
"Look at Iceland and Ireland, two countries that have gone bust"
Iceland 2013 - 2.5% growth
Ireland 2014 - 2.6% growth
The UK 0.8% growth - does that mean that the UK is bust as well?
> And yet they remained undecided. That alone should tell you something.
Is that a trick question?
It tells me, that all though they are undecided, they preferred Alex to Darling.
Maybe lies like this don't help the better together bunch...
Quote Al Darling
"Look at Iceland and Ireland, two countries that have gone bust"
Iceland 2013 - 2.5% growth
Ireland 2014 - 2.6% growth
The UK 0.8% growth - does that mean that the UK is bust as well?
Post edited at 11:26
In reply to lynx3555:
.? I'm lost for words.... And are these figures from lynx's back collection?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/04/uk-britain-economy-niesr-idUKKBN0G...
Says 3% here...
You are using 2013 for Iceland.. 2014 for Ireland and no year for the uk....
> Is that a trick question?
> It tells me that all though they are undecided, they thought that They preferred Alex to Darling.
> Maybe lies like this don't help the better together bunch...
> Quote Al Darling
> "Look at Iceland and Ireland, two countries that have gone bust"
> Iceland 2013 - 2.5% growth
> Ireland 2014 - 2.6% growth
> The UK 0.8% growth - does that mean that the UK is bust as well?
.? I'm lost for words.... And are these figures from lynx's back collection?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/04/uk-britain-economy-niesr-idUKKBN0G...
Says 3% here...
You are using 2013 for Iceland.. 2014 for Ireland and no year for the uk....
In reply to IainRUK:
Well, ok this year Britain May top 2.9%.....but I wouldn't call Ireland and Iceland bust???would you?
They expect the UK economy to dip down to 2.5% in 2015
Well, ok this year Britain May top 2.9%.....but I wouldn't call Ireland and Iceland bust???would you?
They expect the UK economy to dip down to 2.5% in 2015
In reply to IainRUK: did you hear old Boris claiming that London would do very well out side of the EU....how easily they change after being rattled by UKIPs success.
In reply to lynx3555:
So your figures were made up again...
Yes they did go bust...
Iceland got out by refusing to pay back money people lost.. The UK government paid out for our banks losses...
And what do the others do in 2015?
Do you have any idea about making valid comparisons?
> Well, ok this year Britain May top 2.9%.....but I wouldn't call Ireland and Iceland bust???would you?
> They expect the UK economy to dip down to 2.5% in 2015
So your figures were made up again...
Yes they did go bust...
Iceland got out by refusing to pay back money people lost.. The UK government paid out for our banks losses...
And what do the others do in 2015?
Do you have any idea about making valid comparisons?
In reply to lynx3555:
Ireland's economy was rescued by an 85bn euro bailout when it went bust in 2010. I'm not sure that's much of a recommendation.
> Well, ok this year Britain May top 2.9%.....but I wouldn't call Ireland and Iceland bust???would you?
Ireland's economy was rescued by an 85bn euro bailout when it went bust in 2010. I'm not sure that's much of a recommendation.
Post edited at 11:48
In reply to IainRUK:
More fundamentally, growth rates are only loosely related to a country's ability to pay its debts (which I assume is what Lynx means by "going bust").
More fundamentally, growth rates are only loosely related to a country's ability to pay its debts (which I assume is what Lynx means by "going bust").
In reply to IainRUK:
2013....it did a wee bit better than that but not as well as Iceland.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2332632/OECD-predicts-UK-gr...
2013....it did a wee bit better than that but not as well as Iceland.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2332632/OECD-predicts-UK-gr...
Post edited at 11:46
In reply to tony:
and we just bailed ourselves out using debt etc....and I doubt if we'll get back what we the tax payer gave to the banks. Barkley's bank was bailed out by the USA, but that was kept very quiet....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package
and we just bailed ourselves out using debt etc....and I doubt if we'll get back what we the tax payer gave to the banks. Barkley's bank was bailed out by the USA, but that was kept very quiet....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package
Post edited at 11:50
In reply to lynx3555:
What bearing does that have on the fact that you seem to be an enthusiast for the Irish economic model which needed an 85bn euro bailout? I know Mr Potato-head was similarly enthusiastic before Ireland went bust, but I'm not aware of him being quite so positive in recent years.
> and we just bailed ourselves out using debt etc....and I doubt if we'll get back what we the tax payer gave to the banks. Barkley's bank was bailed out by the USA, but that was kept very quiet....
What bearing does that have on the fact that you seem to be an enthusiast for the Irish economic model which needed an 85bn euro bailout? I know Mr Potato-head was similarly enthusiastic before Ireland went bust, but I'm not aware of him being quite so positive in recent years.
In reply to lynx3555:
When an economy crashes of course growth will be higher when it bounces back..
So we get it.. The UK economy is shit... (It's actually one of the best in the world right now) So why do you want our currency?
> 2013....it did a wee bit better than that but not as well as Iceland.
When an economy crashes of course growth will be higher when it bounces back..
So we get it.. The UK economy is shit... (It's actually one of the best in the world right now) So why do you want our currency?
In reply to IainRUK: Iceland at least made it's politicians and bankers accountable for there mistakes.....maybe Darling should have been jailed along with some of the bankers, but no, we reward them with bonuses and let Darling stay in power.
As I stated, Darling used Ireland and Iceland as examples to try and impose fear in the Scottish electorate....both countries are doing very well now.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/gdp/2012/04/we-can-learn-icelands-crash-â...
As I stated, Darling used Ireland and Iceland as examples to try and impose fear in the Scottish electorate....both countries are doing very well now.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/gdp/2012/04/we-can-learn-icelands-crash-â...
In reply to lynx3555:
Darling used Ireland and Iceland because they're countries that Mr Potato-head had wanted to emulate in the early 2000s. Unemployment in Ireland is about 11.5%. In the UK, it's about 6.6%. Where would you rather be?
> As I stated, Darling used Ireland and Iceland as examples to try and impose fear in the Scottish electorate....both countries are doing very well now.
Darling used Ireland and Iceland because they're countries that Mr Potato-head had wanted to emulate in the early 2000s. Unemployment in Ireland is about 11.5%. In the UK, it's about 6.6%. Where would you rather be?
In reply to lynx3555:
You do realise in that piece Ireland is actually being contrasted against Iceland dont you?
Also with regards to locking Darling up? That really wouldnt be a path Salmond would be sensible to follow bearing in mind prior to the crash his primary line was that the UK system had too many regulations and it needed loosening off for the Scottish banks with their outstanding reputation for probity. Not just that but he was a primary cheerleader for the ABN Amro cockup.
Darling made plenty of mistakes but the evidence would tend to imply Salmond would have made even worse ones.
> As I stated, Darling used Ireland and Iceland as examples to try and impose fear in the Scottish electorate....both countries are doing very well now.
You do realise in that piece Ireland is actually being contrasted against Iceland dont you?
Also with regards to locking Darling up? That really wouldnt be a path Salmond would be sensible to follow bearing in mind prior to the crash his primary line was that the UK system had too many regulations and it needed loosening off for the Scottish banks with their outstanding reputation for probity. Not just that but he was a primary cheerleader for the ABN Amro cockup.
Darling made plenty of mistakes but the evidence would tend to imply Salmond would have made even worse ones.
In reply to IainRUK:
We need to maintain Stirling as it will ease concerns from businesses and foreign investment, over time we will then look at transferring to another currency if the ruk insist that we do so....or should the ruk exit Europe then we will likely adopt the Euro maybe.
> When an economy crashes of course growth will be higher when it bounces back..
> So we get it.. The UK economy is shit... (It's actually one of the best in the world right now) So why do you want our currency?
We need to maintain Stirling as it will ease concerns from businesses and foreign investment, over time we will then look at transferring to another currency if the ruk insist that we do so....or should the ruk exit Europe then we will likely adopt the Euro maybe.
In reply to IainRUK:
I am starting to think Lynx is an dirty tricks campaigner for the No campaign.
> And yet you don't like insults...
I am starting to think Lynx is an dirty tricks campaigner for the No campaign.
In reply to lynx3555:
What concerns would they be?
And fyi, when it's the currency, it's spelt Sterling. Stirling is the town.
> We need to maintain Stirling as it will ease concerns from businesses and foreign investment,
What concerns would they be?
And fyi, when it's the currency, it's spelt Sterling. Stirling is the town.
In reply to tony:
Ireland still isn't bust and it will recover....incidentally, you can't compare Scotland to Ireland...Ireland does have a couple of little gas rigs in the Irish Sea....Ireland has only a couple of Irish whiskey distilleries, it lost it's whiskey when it became independent. The Irish whiskey reputation was tarnished during prohibition in the US, bootleg Irish whiskey smuggled down from Canada, kill loads of people in the states, and damaged it's reputation.
> Darling used Ireland and Iceland because they're countries that Mr Potato-head had wanted to emulate in the early 2000s. Unemployment in Ireland is about 11.5%. In the UK, it's about 6.6%. Where would you rather be?
Ireland still isn't bust and it will recover....incidentally, you can't compare Scotland to Ireland...Ireland does have a couple of little gas rigs in the Irish Sea....Ireland has only a couple of Irish whiskey distilleries, it lost it's whiskey when it became independent. The Irish whiskey reputation was tarnished during prohibition in the US, bootleg Irish whiskey smuggled down from Canada, kill loads of people in the states, and damaged it's reputation.
In reply to lynx3555:
No, it wasn't a question at all.
No, surely it tells you they simply thought he 'performed better'. Yet, despite what Salmond said in the debate, they weren't sufficiently convinced by him to make them vote Yes.
> (In reply to Fraser)
> And yet they remained undecided. That alone should tell you something.
> And yet they remained undecided. That alone should tell you something.
> Is that a trick question?
No, it wasn't a question at all.
> It tells me, that all though they are undecided, they preferred Alex to Darling.
No, surely it tells you they simply thought he 'performed better'. Yet, despite what Salmond said in the debate, they weren't sufficiently convinced by him to make them vote Yes.
In reply to tony:
The ones that caused Salmond to change his view regarding StErling...you know the quote, it's been over stated on endless forums
The ones that caused Salmond to change his view regarding StErling...you know the quote, it's been over stated on endless forums
In reply to lynx3555:
That doesn't answer the question. Would rather be somewhere where the unemployment rate is 11.5% or 6.6%? Where do you think the economy is working better?
So why was Mr Potato-head saying he wanted to follow the same economic model as Ireland. Mind you, he wasn't alone in that - George Osborne was saying much the same thing when he was in opposition.
> Ireland still isn't bust and it will recover....
That doesn't answer the question. Would rather be somewhere where the unemployment rate is 11.5% or 6.6%? Where do you think the economy is working better?
> incidentally, you can't compare Scotland to Ireland...
So why was Mr Potato-head saying he wanted to follow the same economic model as Ireland. Mind you, he wasn't alone in that - George Osborne was saying much the same thing when he was in opposition.
In reply to Fraser:
Which contradicts what the "unionist" supporting media are reporting....and that's what I said but you just use more words.
> No, it wasn't a question at all.
> No, surely it tells you they simply thought he 'performed better'. Yet, despite what Salmond said in the debate, they weren't sufficiently convinced by him to make them vote Yes.
Which contradicts what the "unionist" supporting media are reporting....and that's what I said but you just use more words.
In reply to lynx3555:
Sorry, I don't know the quote, you'll have to repeat it for me. Or is it the one where he said the pound was a millstone round Scotland's neck? My, how times change.
> The ones that caused Salmond to change his view regarding StErling...you know the quote, it's been over stated on endless forums
Sorry, I don't know the quote, you'll have to repeat it for me. Or is it the one where he said the pound was a millstone round Scotland's neck? My, how times change.
In reply to lynx3555:
have you been recently? I was over 2 weeks ago and to quote my bro-inlaw 'This country's fecked'. Appalling unemployment and no investment. if that's the way you want Scotland to go then good luck to you.
> (In reply to tony)
>
> [...]
>
> Ireland still isn't bust and it will recover
>
> [...]
>
> Ireland still isn't bust and it will recover
have you been recently? I was over 2 weeks ago and to quote my bro-inlaw 'This country's fecked'. Appalling unemployment and no investment. if that's the way you want Scotland to go then good luck to you.
In reply to Fraser:
Any way... of course, as the SNP victories in 2007 and 2011 demonstrate, opinion poll results have previously written off campaigns that went on to win landslides, particularly 2007, the polls then were very similar to what they are now.
Any way... of course, as the SNP victories in 2007 and 2011 demonstrate, opinion poll results have previously written off campaigns that went on to win landslides, particularly 2007, the polls then were very similar to what they are now.
In reply to lynx3555:
Quote from Tony above..
"So why was Mr Potato-head saying he wanted to follow the same economic model as Ireland."?
presumably you're as bemused by Salmond's statements as the rest of us
Quote from Tony above..
"So why was Mr Potato-head saying he wanted to follow the same economic model as Ireland."?
presumably you're as bemused by Salmond's statements as the rest of us
In reply to tony:
Judging from the response I get from a large proportion of yes voters I talk to, they won't be voting Salmond when Scotland has it's first election...most are labour supporters and feel Alex is too right wing.
Judging from the response I get from a large proportion of yes voters I talk to, they won't be voting Salmond when Scotland has it's first election...most are labour supporters and feel Alex is too right wing.
In reply to lynx3555:
You appear to be the one that introduced Ireland into this particular thread - using it as an example of how successful Scotland could be.
> SCOTLAND IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM FRICKIN IRELAND, check it out.
You appear to be the one that introduced Ireland into this particular thread - using it as an example of how successful Scotland could be.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Yes, I have been a bit bemused by Alex's comments some times, but no more so than I have from the UK government.
Any way, to coin a phrase, " it's not about Alex Salmond", although I quite like the man.
Yes, I have been a bit bemused by Alex's comments some times, but no more so than I have from the UK government.
Any way, to coin a phrase, " it's not about Alex Salmond", although I quite like the man.
In reply to lynx3555:
That may be so, but you still haven't offered any thoughts on why you think the Irish economic model of the early 2000s seemed so attractive to Salmond, and which you seemed to be enthusiastic about when you were quoting the growth figures.
> Judging from the response I get from a large proportion of yes voters I talk to, they won't be voting Salmond when Scotland has it's first election...most are labour supporters and feel Alex is too right wing.
That may be so, but you still haven't offered any thoughts on why you think the Irish economic model of the early 2000s seemed so attractive to Salmond, and which you seemed to be enthusiastic about when you were quoting the growth figures.
Post edited at 12:38
In reply to off-duty:
No I didn't, I just exposed a lie spewed out by "Eye brows" Darling....don't you think Darlings a slimy rotten, fibber? Or maybe you lap up his shi*e
> You appear to be the one that introduced Ireland into this particular thread - using it as an example of how successful Scotland could be.
No I didn't, I just exposed a lie spewed out by "Eye brows" Darling....don't you think Darlings a slimy rotten, fibber? Or maybe you lap up his shi*e
In reply to lynx3555:
Wow. And this is the high level of debate from someone who objected to Salmond being called "wee eck".
> No I didn't, I just exposed a lie spewed out by "Eye brows" Darling....don't you think Darlings a slimy rotten, fibber? Or maybe you lap up his shi*e
Wow. And this is the high level of debate from someone who objected to Salmond being called "wee eck".
In reply to lynx3555:
Well it was just a wee bit of an exaggeration.
I thought you approved of that sort of thing?
ps. I am not sure of what lie you are thinking of or how you managed to expose it.
> No I didn't, I just exposed a lie spewed out by "Eye brows" Darling....don't you think Darlings a slimy rotten, fibber? Or maybe you lap up his shi*e
Well it was just a wee bit of an exaggeration.
I thought you approved of that sort of thing?
ps. I am not sure of what lie you are thinking of or how you managed to expose it.
Post edited at 13:09
In reply to off-duty:
Its always a difficult one to call though. Fairly shit troll if they are since good trolling should have maximum rewards for minimum effort which they are failing on badly.
> Absolutely.
Its always a difficult one to call though. Fairly shit troll if they are since good trolling should have maximum rewards for minimum effort which they are failing on badly.
In reply to lynx3555:
Iceland devalued their currency causing a huge spike in inflation. The whole country took a big pay cut. They are recovering from that but 'recovery' is the right word.
Devaluation was probably the best of their options (or the least worst), but then they had the choice as they have their own currency.....
> As I stated, Darling used Ireland and Iceland as examples to try and impose fear in the Scottish electorate....both countries are doing very well now.
Iceland devalued their currency causing a huge spike in inflation. The whole country took a big pay cut. They are recovering from that but 'recovery' is the right word.
Devaluation was probably the best of their options (or the least worst), but then they had the choice as they have their own currency.....
In reply to dissonance:
Wash your mouth out, and less of the insults! The no campaign are low life scum bags...although I'm aware of several nice people who do intend to vote no, but they aren't peddling lies and using fear tactics to scare people with.
> I am starting to think Lynx is an dirty tricks campaigner for the No campaign.
Wash your mouth out, and less of the insults! The no campaign are low life scum bags...although I'm aware of several nice people who do intend to vote no, but they aren't peddling lies and using fear tactics to scare people with.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
When you consider that Ireland likely had little to do with the crash, they are doing what is necessary to fix there economy.....Ireland shares their currency with other European countries, unlike England who are only willing to do this, as long as they have full control of Scotland's resources.
>
> Iceland devalued their currency causing a huge spike in inflation. The whole country took a big pay cut. They are recovering from that but 'recovery' is the right word.
> Devaluation was probably the best of their options (or the least worst), but then they had the choice as they have their own currency.....
When you consider that Ireland likely had little to do with the crash, they are doing what is necessary to fix there economy.....Ireland shares their currency with other European countries, unlike England who are only willing to do this, as long as they have full control of Scotland's resources.
In reply to lynx3555: But you don't want the pound, you said you'd prefer the euro or your own currency. So what are you whining about?
In reply to lynx3555:
You have to hand it to Salmond, he's digging his heals in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11018994/Alex-Salmond-declares-its...
It can only be because he knows he's going to lose the referendum so he's trying to show he can be consistent on one point at least (having u turned on almost everything else he was wrong about)
He's having a terrible few days
You have to hand it to Salmond, he's digging his heals in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11018994/Alex-Salmond-declares-its...
It can only be because he knows he's going to lose the referendum so he's trying to show he can be consistent on one point at least (having u turned on almost everything else he was wrong about)
He's having a terrible few days
In reply to off-duty:
The mans no better than a benefits thief....
"ALISTAIR Darling watched the cheques roll in as he claimed thousands in taxpayer-funded allowances for his constituency house while renting out his London flat.
The Chancellor was living rent-free in 11 Downing Street at the time."
And that's just for starters.
> Wow. And this is the high level of debate from someone who objected to Salmond being called "wee eck".
The mans no better than a benefits thief....
"ALISTAIR Darling watched the cheques roll in as he claimed thousands in taxpayer-funded allowances for his constituency house while renting out his London flat.
The Chancellor was living rent-free in 11 Downing Street at the time."
And that's just for starters.
In reply to lynx3555:
Salmond tells us is that it's in the best interest of the RUK to remain in a currency union with iScotland, it's nice to know Salmond is so concerned about the rest of us.
A cynic might say that Salmond wants currency union so he has someone else to blame when it all goes down the tubes post a Yes vote. But I stress, only a cynic would think like that of course.
Salmond tells us is that it's in the best interest of the RUK to remain in a currency union with iScotland, it's nice to know Salmond is so concerned about the rest of us.
A cynic might say that Salmond wants currency union so he has someone else to blame when it all goes down the tubes post a Yes vote. But I stress, only a cynic would think like that of course.
In reply to yer maw:
Here's a good recent example of Tory mismanagement of Scotland's business.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10952376/W...
Here's a good recent example of Tory mismanagement of Scotland's business.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10952376/W...
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Down the tubes! That really is all you have, isn't it....fear and negativity.....Scotland is well capable of running it's self and if you really, really doubt that then you are maybe suffering from manic depression or some other disorder.
> Salmond tells us is that it's in the best interest of the RUK to remain in a currency union with iScotland, it's nice to know Salmond is so concerned about the rest of us.
> A cynic might say that Salmond wants currency union so he has someone else to blame when it all goes down the tubes post a Yes vote. But I stress, only a cynic would think like that of course.
Down the tubes! That really is all you have, isn't it....fear and negativity.....Scotland is well capable of running it's self and if you really, really doubt that then you are maybe suffering from manic depression or some other disorder.
In reply to lynx3555:
They had as lot to do with their own crash!
They were told what to do on condition of the bail out they received. This is the loss of sovereignty a smaller country has to accept in a currency union.
See above.
> When you consider that Ireland likely had little to do with the crash,
They had as lot to do with their own crash!
> they are doing what is necessary to fix there economy
They were told what to do on condition of the bail out they received. This is the loss of sovereignty a smaller country has to accept in a currency union.
> Ireland shares their currency with other European countries, unlike England who are only willing to do this, as long as they have full control of Scotland's resources.
See above.
Post edited at 16:50
In reply to lynx3555:
Looking back one sentence there seems to be a certain lack of consistency in your attitude towards insults.
I was actually being polite by assuming you may well be trolling rather than being so unselfaware.
Yeah heaven forbid if someone used lies to try and support their argument.
Lucky no one here is doing so.
> Wash your mouth out, and less of the insults! The no campaign are low life scum bags
Looking back one sentence there seems to be a certain lack of consistency in your attitude towards insults.
I was actually being polite by assuming you may well be trolling rather than being so unselfaware.
> ...although I'm aware of several nice people who do intend to vote no, but they aren't peddling lies and using fear tactics to scare people with.
Yeah heaven forbid if someone used lies to try and support their argument.
Lucky no one here is doing so.
In reply to lynx3555:
Just having a laugh with you, here's another one..
It is said a fool and his currency are soon parted...
Just having a laugh with you, here's another one..
It is said a fool and his currency are soon parted...
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: I found this article quite interesting (understatement).
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.11/gaoaudit.html
Incidentally, the UK assisted Ireland with it's bail out, why did it do this?, because it was in the UK's interest to do this, Ireland buys a lot of products from Ireland and to avoid job losses in the UK, it was best to help prop them up....The US bailed out the world because we are now all interconnected financially and a ripple in the UKs economy could have effects on the other side of the world.
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.11/gaoaudit.html
Incidentally, the UK assisted Ireland with it's bail out, why did it do this?, because it was in the UK's interest to do this, Ireland buys a lot of products from Ireland and to avoid job losses in the UK, it was best to help prop them up....The US bailed out the world because we are now all interconnected financially and a ripple in the UKs economy could have effects on the other side of the world.
In reply to lynx3555:
o, 'but they aren't peddling lies and using fear tactics to scare people with'
This from the guy who says Scotland needs borders to protect from London's giant rats... Which were Lincoln.. Which Scotland also have..
And from the guy who just makes up figures...
From the guy who said there was a unanimous swing in undecided voters.. When it was a insignificant 45-55 swing...
You aren't having a good few days,.. You've never come across as the brightest spark but of you not see the irony?
o, 'but they aren't peddling lies and using fear tactics to scare people with'
This from the guy who says Scotland needs borders to protect from London's giant rats... Which were Lincoln.. Which Scotland also have..
And from the guy who just makes up figures...
From the guy who said there was a unanimous swing in undecided voters.. When it was a insignificant 45-55 swing...
You aren't having a good few days,.. You've never come across as the brightest spark but of you not see the irony?
In reply to lynx3555:
So you are now saying you want to be dependent on us? Like a kid who moves out but wants daddy to pay his rent...
So you are now saying you want to be dependent on us? Like a kid who moves out but wants daddy to pay his rent...
In reply to IainRUK:
Mahatma Gandhi.
> o, 'but they aren't peddling lies and using fear tactics to scare people with'
Oh, but they are...> This from the guy who says Scotland needs borders to protect from London's giant rats... Which were Lincoln.. Which Scotland also have..
Humour, try it some time> And from the guy who just makes up figures...
A figure...singular.> From the guy who said there was a unanimous swing in undecided voters.. When it was a insignificant 45-55 swing...
All ready dealt with that one.....> You aren't having a good few days,.. You've never come across as the brightest spark but of you not see the irony?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win .Mahatma Gandhi.
In reply to IainRUK:
No, I have no wish to be dependent on you......more like a kid who leaves home, pays his own way, but deprives his dad of that little extra income that he needs to pay his own rent.
No, I have no wish to be dependent on you......more like a kid who leaves home, pays his own way, but deprives his dad of that little extra income that he needs to pay his own rent.
In reply to dissonance:
> Looking back one sentence there seems to be a certain lack of consistency in your attitude towards insults.
Seems to be an accepted practice on here, just following the trend.In reply to lynx3555:
So lies are humour...
No you didn't deal with it.. At best undecided thought he won the debate.. There was NO unanimous swing?
Do you agree with that?
Today you carried on with the atrocious record you have of posting bullshit incomparable or unsourced data.. If your arguments are so clear why make up data? Compare different years data or just outright lie?
If you think you have won over the past few days it's incredible.. I can't think of many on UKC over the years who try to support their arguments so poorly...
There's a valid case for the yes, I've said time and time again you will be as successful as the uk.. But you have just spouted nonsense for the last 72 hours or so...
So lies are humour...
No you didn't deal with it.. At best undecided thought he won the debate.. There was NO unanimous swing?
Do you agree with that?
Today you carried on with the atrocious record you have of posting bullshit incomparable or unsourced data.. If your arguments are so clear why make up data? Compare different years data or just outright lie?
If you think you have won over the past few days it's incredible.. I can't think of many on UKC over the years who try to support their arguments so poorly...
There's a valid case for the yes, I've said time and time again you will be as successful as the uk.. But you have just spouted nonsense for the last 72 hours or so...
In reply to lynx3555:
You mean threatening to not take on their share of the debt unless the other side bows to their demands.
Oh shit, sorry, wrong side.
Perhaps you first.
No multiple. For example you havent justified your nutty claims about cycle lane spending. In fact I dont recall a single figure you have got remotely right.
Of course you have.
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan
> Oh, but they are...
You mean threatening to not take on their share of the debt unless the other side bows to their demands.
Oh shit, sorry, wrong side.
> Humour, try it some time
Perhaps you first.
> A figure...singular.
No multiple. For example you havent justified your nutty claims about cycle lane spending. In fact I dont recall a single figure you have got remotely right.
> All ready dealt with that one.....
Of course you have.
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan
In reply to lynx3555:
He talks about boiling frogs on that site!
I recall at the time, the UK(we) lent Eire all that cash because we get a better interest rate off that loan than we would pay on that money anyway.
ie, we make a net profit. Due to UK having a higher credit rating, cheaper repayment interest rates.
What will Scotland's rate be when(hahaha) they become independent?
> I found this article quite interesting (understatement).
He talks about boiling frogs on that site!
> Incidentally, the UK assisted Ireland with it's bail out, why did it do this?, because it was in the UK's interest to do this, Ireland buys a lot of products from Ireland and to avoid job losses in the UK, it was best to help prop them up....The US bailed out the world because we are now all interconnected financially and a ripple in the UKs economy could have effects on the other side of the world.
I recall at the time, the UK(we) lent Eire all that cash because we get a better interest rate off that loan than we would pay on that money anyway.
ie, we make a net profit. Due to UK having a higher credit rating, cheaper repayment interest rates.
What will Scotland's rate be when(hahaha) they become independent?
In reply to dissonance:
It was 86 million for cycle lanes etc....etc covers a lot of other stuff, but then I doubt you read any thing, and you're not alone with that problem..
But keep on trying to distract from the discussion by hurtling personal insults, it's quite amusing...not
It was 86 million for cycle lanes etc....etc covers a lot of other stuff, but then I doubt you read any thing, and you're not alone with that problem..
But keep on trying to distract from the discussion by hurtling personal insults, it's quite amusing...not
In reply to Lusk:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21554311
Sorry to burst your ruk master race illusion
> He talks about boiling frogs on that site!
I've had boiled frog, delicious, although it's better baked.> I recall at the time, the UK(we) lent Eire all that cash because we get a better interest rate off that loan than we would pay on that money anyway.
You got a link to that....> ie, we make a net profit. Due to UK having a higher credit rating, cheaper repayment interest rates.
Shame the UK lost it's AAA rating http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21554311
> What will Scotland's rate be when(hahaha) they become independent?
Probably the same as you....but soon after, I'd say better that you.Sorry to burst your ruk master race illusion
In reply to IainRUK:
> So lies are humour...
> No you didn't deal with it.. At best undecided thought he won the debate.. There was NO unanimous swing?
At the start the undecided swayed 55-45 after the debate the remaining undecided vote was AS 74 to AD 26....do you understand that or do you need some more help?> Do you agree with that?
Nope> If you think you have won over the past few days it's incredible.. I can't think of many on UKC over the years who try to support their arguments so poorly...
Did I say I won, didn't realise it was a competition...what's the prize? Are all the unionists on here going to vote yes if I win....better try harder then.> There's a valid case for the yes, I've said time and time again you will be as successful as the uk.. But you have just spouted nonsense for the last 72 hours or so...
It's only nonsense to the ignorant, in my opinion, bet you didn't read the telegraph link, funny how the US is ticking off the Tories like bad children...although it's a valid ticking off.In reply to lynx3555:
Yeah, I know that.
Can you justify that bold claim?
I have no such illusion, I'm just your average British mug!
Yeah, I know that.
> Probably the same as you....but soon after, I'd say better that you.
Can you justify that bold claim?
> Sorry to burst your ruk master race illusion
I have no such illusion, I'm just your average British mug!
In reply to lynx3555:
Provide links for this 86 million...
You said unanimous., which means complete agreement.. Not 55%
But you think you are right... You are either deluded or use words you don't understand..
Yes I read your link...
Not a Tory fan at all.. I just don't think they can be compared to the nazis....
Provide links for this 86 million...
You said unanimous., which means complete agreement.. Not 55%
But you think you are right... You are either deluded or use words you don't understand..
Yes I read your link...
Not a Tory fan at all.. I just don't think they can be compared to the nazis....
In reply to lynx3555:
http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-set-to-regain-aaa-credit-rating-1-3443793
So the UK is set to regain AAA and..
Scotland...
'However, the announcement comes a few weeks after another credit rating agency Moody’s warned that an independent Scotland would start at least two levels lover on A.'
http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-set-to-regain-aaa-credit-rating-1-3443793
So the UK is set to regain AAA and..
Scotland...
'However, the announcement comes a few weeks after another credit rating agency Moody’s warned that an independent Scotland would start at least two levels lover on A.'
Post edited at 19:13
In reply to lynx3555:
The problem with a written discussion is you cant pretend you didnt say something. Since I can just jump back to 12:25 on Tuesday to see:
86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050
Can you spot the difference? Thats leaving aside how you use "just" and "etc". Which is it?
Perhaps you should lead by example.
> It was 86 million for cycle lanes etc....etc covers a lot of other stuff, but then I doubt you read any thing, and you're not alone with that problem..
The problem with a written discussion is you cant pretend you didnt say something. Since I can just jump back to 12:25 on Tuesday to see:
86 billion to build just cycle lanes etc in London by 2050
Can you spot the difference? Thats leaving aside how you use "just" and "etc". Which is it?
> But keep on trying to distract from the discussion by hurtling personal insults
Perhaps you should lead by example.
In reply to IainRUK:
Interesting piece in the Scotsman...by Michael Fry
"The debate about Scotland and sterling has become so acrimonious and confused that most people joining in it have not the slightest idea what they are talking about."
Quite an appropriate statement don't you think...
http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-fry-sterling-in-scotland-is-up-to-us-1...
> So the UK is set to regain AAA and..whoopee doo's
> Scotland...
Just fine thank you> 'However, the announcement comes a few weeks after another credit rating agency Moody’s warned that an independent Scotland would start at least two levels lover on A.'
Lover? Shurrly you mean lower...Interesting piece in the Scotsman...by Michael Fry
"The debate about Scotland and sterling has become so acrimonious and confused that most people joining in it have not the slightest idea what they are talking about."
Quite an appropriate statement don't you think...
http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-fry-sterling-in-scotland-is-up-to-us-1...
In reply to lynx3555:
"Standard Life, the biggest company in Scotland and doing more business south of the Border than north of it"
...who will be shipping out post independence!
"Standard Life, the biggest company in Scotland and doing more business south of the Border than north of it"
...who will be shipping out post independence!
In reply to lynx3555: If you want humour this http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/07/scotland-pound-independence... is hilarious. Salmond standing in front of the Scottish parliament and stating that if iScotland wants a currency union it can bloody well have one, whether rUK wants it or not.
In reply to Lusk:
We'll get over it....I think they employ something like 7000...they only intend moving the main office, but leaving some business behind. I don't think any nationalist is under any illusions that some things will change, but it'll work both ways.
There's been so many threats, that it's become a case of thanks but no thanks, and people are moving to yes as a reaction to those threats.
> "Standard Life, the biggest company in Scotland and doing more business south of the Border than north of it"
> ...who will be shipping out post independence!
We'll get over it....I think they employ something like 7000...they only intend moving the main office, but leaving some business behind. I don't think any nationalist is under any illusions that some things will change, but it'll work both ways.
There's been so many threats, that it's become a case of thanks but no thanks, and people are moving to yes as a reaction to those threats.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
He's Quite right to state this...what would you prefer Alex was a weak man, who bows down to your Westminster government....sorry, but I and many more of us would prefer he fights even harder.
> If you want humour this http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/07/scotland-pound-independence... is hilarious. Salmond standing in front of the Scottish parliament and stating that if iScotland wants a currency union it can bloody well have one, whether rUK wants it or not.
He's Quite right to state this...what would you prefer Alex was a weak man, who bows down to your Westminster government....sorry, but I and many more of us would prefer he fights even harder.
In reply to lynx3555:
I'm awfully sorry, but if you believe this "The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland," you're an idiot, you can't make a foreign country join a currency union.
> He's Quite right to state this...what would you prefer Alex was a weak man, who bows down to your Westminster government....sorry, but I and many more of us would prefer he fights even harder.
I'm awfully sorry, but if you believe this "The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland," you're an idiot, you can't make a foreign country join a currency union.
In reply to lynx3555:
You're wasting you're time with all this anyway, you're not going get a YES win...
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-c...
Look at the graph, virtually all the major rises in the DKs correspond to dips in the NO vote and all the dips in the DKs match a rise in the YES vote.
Yer doomed, I tell ye, DOOMED!
It's been amusing reading anyway.
Embrace your UK citizenship with joy!
You're wasting you're time with all this anyway, you're not going get a YES win...
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-c...
Look at the graph, virtually all the major rises in the DKs correspond to dips in the NO vote and all the dips in the DKs match a rise in the YES vote.
Yer doomed, I tell ye, DOOMED!
It's been amusing reading anyway.
Embrace your UK citizenship with joy!
In reply to lynx3555:
Do you check anything?? Ever??
The Scotsman made the typo... Hence quote marks..
But yeah ignore the rating and Scotland's lower rating....
Are you reading some dumbf*ck SNP forum and just copying and pasting because your posts are incredibly random , unsubstantiated and poorly referenced if at all... Normally old news...
Do you check anything?? Ever??
The Scotsman made the typo... Hence quote marks..
But yeah ignore the rating and Scotland's lower rating....
Are you reading some dumbf*ck SNP forum and just copying and pasting because your posts are incredibly random , unsubstantiated and poorly referenced if at all... Normally old news...
In reply to IainRUK:
Just in case you have forgotten this fact....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/6968208/Alistair-Darling-re...
Darling the thiefing scum bag, and you lot lap up his lies! Tut, tut...
Just in case you have forgotten this fact....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/6968208/Alistair-Darling-re...
Darling the thiefing scum bag, and you lot lap up his lies! Tut, tut...
In reply to yer maw:
And even more skulduggery from the No campaigners....
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.fr/2014/08/concerns-mount-over-role-of-no-frien...
And even more skulduggery from the No campaigners....
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.fr/2014/08/concerns-mount-over-role-of-no-frien...
In reply to lynx3555:
How do i lap up his lies?
If I see something I check it…
Which is why I've unpicked every one of your arguments…
So are you admitting to lies or are you reverting to 'they do worse, my lies are for good'….
You said there was a unanimous swing.. you use words you don't understand..
How do i lap up his lies?
If I see something I check it…
Which is why I've unpicked every one of your arguments…
So are you admitting to lies or are you reverting to 'they do worse, my lies are for good'….
You said there was a unanimous swing.. you use words you don't understand..
In reply to lynx3555:
Not sure I buy that, the audience seemed more YES than NO.. they were much more vocal..
> And even more skulduggery from the No campaigners....
Not sure I buy that, the audience seemed more YES than NO.. they were much more vocal..
In reply to IainRUK:
Not sure if I buy that in it's entirety but some of it is probably likely.
Did you see this article from James Kelly, I thought it was well written, obviously better than I can write but pretty much in line with some of my comments.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-well-done-darling-youve-done...
> Not sure I buy that, the audience seemed more YES than NO.. they were much more vocal..
Not sure if I buy that in it's entirety but some of it is probably likely.
Did you see this article from James Kelly, I thought it was well written, obviously better than I can write but pretty much in line with some of my comments.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-well-done-darling-youve-done...
In reply to lynx3555:
>www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-well-done-darling-youve-done-yes-campaign-huge-favour...
Better written perhaps, but you'll be pleased to know it has a similar weight to your comments...
> Not sure if I buy that in it's entirety but some of it is probably likely.
> Did you see this article from James Kelly, I thought it was well written, obviously better than I can write but pretty much in line with some of my comments.
>www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-well-done-darling-youve-done-yes-campaign-huge-favour...
Better written perhaps, but you'll be pleased to know it has a similar weight to your comments...
In reply to lynx3555:
I'll have a read..
Firstly though this 'the no are negative'
Their argument is about how it will be worse to leave.. That's the nature of their argument..
This 'they should offer devo max? Darling can't.. We have no real idea what that means and what can be offered after 2015 as it will possibly be a new party in power..
And darling can't say what the union can offer because he has no actual power to offer anything... Salmond can, if yes win then salmond will lead the nation.. He can therefore make promises that darling just cannot...
They are in staggeringly different positions of power so it's very much not a purely salmond v darling bebate it is being framed as... Darling can only talk about the past as he basically has no power in the future, especially in the current government... But Cameron seems to be keeping out of it, but it should be him v salmond.. Darling was basically the token Scott.. But he's also not a great parliamentarian..
They always said Hague was, but he is the stereotypical Tory boy so would have done badly north of the border, but even as someone who will probably never vote blue I always liked seeing Hague in parliament.. He'd have given salmond a much better fight.. He's sharp and witty, had he come into politics later I think he'd have been a decent leader... He was leader too young and against one of the most popular labour parties ever.. Blair was untouchable in those years..
I'll have a read..
Firstly though this 'the no are negative'
Their argument is about how it will be worse to leave.. That's the nature of their argument..
This 'they should offer devo max? Darling can't.. We have no real idea what that means and what can be offered after 2015 as it will possibly be a new party in power..
And darling can't say what the union can offer because he has no actual power to offer anything... Salmond can, if yes win then salmond will lead the nation.. He can therefore make promises that darling just cannot...
They are in staggeringly different positions of power so it's very much not a purely salmond v darling bebate it is being framed as... Darling can only talk about the past as he basically has no power in the future, especially in the current government... But Cameron seems to be keeping out of it, but it should be him v salmond.. Darling was basically the token Scott.. But he's also not a great parliamentarian..
They always said Hague was, but he is the stereotypical Tory boy so would have done badly north of the border, but even as someone who will probably never vote blue I always liked seeing Hague in parliament.. He'd have given salmond a much better fight.. He's sharp and witty, had he come into politics later I think he'd have been a decent leader... He was leader too young and against one of the most popular labour parties ever.. Blair was untouchable in those years..
In reply to off-duty:
Just read it... Standard life believe there is no plan B.. Industry want stability... They want to know the lie of the land post independence...
Just read it... Standard life believe there is no plan B.. Industry want stability... They want to know the lie of the land post independence...
In reply to lynx3555:
Interesting to see how much he tones it down from his scot goes pop shit throwing post.
Although he retains his habit of being making lots of claims without worrying about the tedious facts.
For example the claim about Darling saying a currency union would be "logical and desirable".
Note how it is in single quotes implying it is something Darling said as one sentence.
The problem is though there is no obvious source for this.
About as close I can get is this SNP article referencing a newsnight article. Note though the ... Which is always a warning sign.
"Of course – of course it would be desirable to have a currency union . . . If you have independence or separation, of course the currency union is logical".
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/jan/darling-scotland-keeping-ster...
I think I did manage to find the full quote here. I am not going to quote mine from it though since its best read as one piece.
http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/doyou-think-alistair-darling-is-in-fav...
so a quote mine special.
from the original piece this bit is great.
All the evidence suggests that well-informed voters are tending to vote Yes,
Note the evidence isnt provided but it just happens everyone clever agrees with him.
> Did you see this article from James Kelly, I thought it was well written, obviously better than I can write but pretty much in line with some of my comments.
Interesting to see how much he tones it down from his scot goes pop shit throwing post.
Although he retains his habit of being making lots of claims without worrying about the tedious facts.
For example the claim about Darling saying a currency union would be "logical and desirable".
Note how it is in single quotes implying it is something Darling said as one sentence.
The problem is though there is no obvious source for this.
About as close I can get is this SNP article referencing a newsnight article. Note though the ... Which is always a warning sign.
"Of course – of course it would be desirable to have a currency union . . . If you have independence or separation, of course the currency union is logical".
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/jan/darling-scotland-keeping-ster...
I think I did manage to find the full quote here. I am not going to quote mine from it though since its best read as one piece.
http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/doyou-think-alistair-darling-is-in-fav...
so a quote mine special.
from the original piece this bit is great.
All the evidence suggests that well-informed voters are tending to vote Yes,
Note the evidence isnt provided but it just happens everyone clever agrees with him.
In reply to IainRUK:
Maybe I should have added a winky face to my comment to lynx
As in : -
Better written perhaps, but you'll be pleased to know it has a similar weight to your comments...
> Just read it... Standard life believe there is no plan B.. Industry want stability... They want to know the lie of the land post independence...
Maybe I should have added a winky face to my comment to lynx
As in : -
Better written perhaps, but you'll be pleased to know it has a similar weight to your comments...
In reply to dissonance:
There is no doubt that the waters of the independence debate have been muddied, and supporters from both sides are guilty of doing this...and no doubt I have been a wee bit guilty of this some times.
Cameron's second visit to Shetland being an example, this has led to conspiracy theories about suppressed info regarding oil fields west of Shetland....maybe it was a meeting about Shetland choosing to remain a part of the UK, who knows but it's certainly a strange thing for him to do this, would you blame people for being suspicious.
I would never underestimate the under handed methods, that the UK government will use, to damage Scotland once it's become independent.
Incidentally, i stand by what I said in a previous thread, if Shetland wants to go alone then so be it....but if they base their choice on its history being linked to Norway then I would challenge that with the fact that prior to it being invaded by Vikings it was very much a part of Pictland and shared the same culture as the rest of Pictland (which is most of present day Scotland). The fact that it has the remains of 200+ Broachs makes this undeniable. Broachs are only found in present day Scotland and define the distinct cultural identity of the Pictish (now Scottish) people. Another interesting fact comes from recent DNA evidence that shows Shetland is only about 25% Viking, Orkney about 20%, Sutherland and the western isles 17% and over all Scotland has more Viking blood than England has.
And apart from that....I personnaly feel that the ruk will agree to us maintaining the £, it'll cost british buisinesses at least 500 million a year if they don't.
There is no doubt that the waters of the independence debate have been muddied, and supporters from both sides are guilty of doing this...and no doubt I have been a wee bit guilty of this some times.
Cameron's second visit to Shetland being an example, this has led to conspiracy theories about suppressed info regarding oil fields west of Shetland....maybe it was a meeting about Shetland choosing to remain a part of the UK, who knows but it's certainly a strange thing for him to do this, would you blame people for being suspicious.
I would never underestimate the under handed methods, that the UK government will use, to damage Scotland once it's become independent.
Incidentally, i stand by what I said in a previous thread, if Shetland wants to go alone then so be it....but if they base their choice on its history being linked to Norway then I would challenge that with the fact that prior to it being invaded by Vikings it was very much a part of Pictland and shared the same culture as the rest of Pictland (which is most of present day Scotland). The fact that it has the remains of 200+ Broachs makes this undeniable. Broachs are only found in present day Scotland and define the distinct cultural identity of the Pictish (now Scottish) people. Another interesting fact comes from recent DNA evidence that shows Shetland is only about 25% Viking, Orkney about 20%, Sutherland and the western isles 17% and over all Scotland has more Viking blood than England has.
And apart from that....I personnaly feel that the ruk will agree to us maintaining the £, it'll cost british buisinesses at least 500 million a year if they don't.
Post edited at 12:24
In reply to IainRUK: There is a plan B, also a plan C etc...Standard life are blowing smoke up everyone's arses...I'll try and get a copy of the document for you and link it.
In reply to IainRUK: Aye, your right, industry does want stability but this wasn't given to the oil industry by the Tories, yet again they hiked up taxes and presently you'll find that the industry is indifferent to who runs Scotland...some oil companies have indicated that an Independent Scotland would be a better choice for them, but Ofcourse not BRITISH petrolium and Shell, mainly because of there connections with the UK.
In reply to lynx3555:
So do you agree it is a rather appalling misquote to say Darling thinks it is "logical and desirable" and something which should be retracted?
How exactly do you think he would be able to keep it secret? There has to be quite a few people who would know about it and keeping it quiet would be somewhat tricky. If I was going to do secret negotiations I wouldnt send the PM down.
Why? It wouldnt generally be in the UK interests to damage Scotland. It would be a major trade partner.
There may be some cases where the best option for the UK does have a less desirable result for Scotland but thats life.
You seem to be taking a rather selective approach to history here.
A lot of Scotlands early history is uncertain. The likelihood though doesnt point towards a "Pictland". There may have been some confederations at differing times but there appears to be multiple kingdoms. That is leaving aside the Gael and the Northumbrians (kingdom not the later English entity) who controlled large areas at one time or another.
If you are using Broch as an example of distinct cultural identity for Scotland then you have some problems given that the distribution is extremely uneven to the point of not existing throughout most of modern day Scotland. The timing is tricky as well for the Picts.
I am not sure where you are getting those figures from. Can you elaborate?
You can use the Sterling, the UK cant prevent that, it is just the currency union which is problematic.
No it wasnt. It first comes in history as a Roman legionary base and then city (as often happened when civilians came to support the camp), with it being most famous for being where Constantine the Great first was declared Augustus when his father died.
Although my guess is there was probably something there prior to that but just not on the scale of the Colchester or St Alban Celtic settlements.
Incidently most of Ireland wasnt under Norse control. Unlike other parts of the British isles they never really managed to conquer large areas. Instead they had a few strongholds on the coast. Although this can give the impression of control since they became major cities inc Dublin.
> There is no doubt that the waters of the independence debate have been muddied, and supporters from both sides are guilty of doing this...and no doubt I have been a wee bit guilty of this some times.
So do you agree it is a rather appalling misquote to say Darling thinks it is "logical and desirable" and something which should be retracted?
> Cameron's second visit to Shetland being an example, this has led to conspiracy theories about suppressed info about oil fields west of Shetland....maybe it was a meeting about Shetland choosing to remain a part of the UK, who knows but it's certainly a strange thing for him to do so would you blame people for being suspicious.
How exactly do you think he would be able to keep it secret? There has to be quite a few people who would know about it and keeping it quiet would be somewhat tricky. If I was going to do secret negotiations I wouldnt send the PM down.
> I would never underestimate the under handed methods, that the UK government will use, to damage Scotland once it's become independent.
Why? It wouldnt generally be in the UK interests to damage Scotland. It would be a major trade partner.
There may be some cases where the best option for the UK does have a less desirable result for Scotland but thats life.
> Broachs are only found in present day Scotland and define the distinct cultural identity of the Pictish (now Scottish) people.
You seem to be taking a rather selective approach to history here.
A lot of Scotlands early history is uncertain. The likelihood though doesnt point towards a "Pictland". There may have been some confederations at differing times but there appears to be multiple kingdoms. That is leaving aside the Gael and the Northumbrians (kingdom not the later English entity) who controlled large areas at one time or another.
If you are using Broch as an example of distinct cultural identity for Scotland then you have some problems given that the distribution is extremely uneven to the point of not existing throughout most of modern day Scotland. The timing is tricky as well for the Picts.
> Another interesting fact comes from recent DNA evidence that shows Shetland is only about 25% Viking, Orkney about 20%, Sutherland and the western isles 17% and over all Scotland has more Viking blood than England has.
I am not sure where you are getting those figures from. Can you elaborate?
> And apart from that....I personnaly feel that the ruk will agree to us maintaining the £, it'll cost british buisinesses at least 500 million a year if they don't.
You can use the Sterling, the UK cant prevent that, it is just the currency union which is problematic.
> Also, most of Ireland, the Isle of Man, a large part of the North of Scotland etc were also under Viking control. Wasn't York founded by Vikings as well?
No it wasnt. It first comes in history as a Roman legionary base and then city (as often happened when civilians came to support the camp), with it being most famous for being where Constantine the Great first was declared Augustus when his father died.
Although my guess is there was probably something there prior to that but just not on the scale of the Colchester or St Alban Celtic settlements.
Incidently most of Ireland wasnt under Norse control. Unlike other parts of the British isles they never really managed to conquer large areas. Instead they had a few strongholds on the coast. Although this can give the impression of control since they became major cities inc Dublin.
In reply to lynx3555:
I'm staggered you just mentioned BP.... Do you try to make a fool of yourself with every post?
To claim BP are British is superb!!!
> Aye, your right, industry does want stability but this wasn't given to the oil industry by the Tories, yet again they hiked up taxes and presently you'll find that the industry is indifferent to who runs Scotland...some oil companies have indicated that an Independent Scotland would be a better choice for them, but Ofcourse not BRITISH petrolium and Shell, mainly because of there connections with the UK.
I'm staggered you just mentioned BP.... Do you try to make a fool of yourself with every post?
To claim BP are British is superb!!!
In reply to lynx3555:
And we're back to wild figures.. That old source thing again...
> I
> And apart from that....I personnaly feel that the ruk will agree to us maintaining the £, it'll cost british buisinesses at least 500 million a year if they don't.
And we're back to wild figures.. That old source thing again...
In reply to IainRUK:
Tbh, it was Obama who started that one with the oil spill in the Gulf, blaming it on the nasty British.
> I'm staggered you just mentioned BP.... Do you try to make a fool of yourself with every post?
> To claim BP are British is superb!!!
Tbh, it was Obama who started that one with the oil spill in the Gulf, blaming it on the nasty British.
In reply to Ridge:
Did he? Don't remember that.. I thought it was now widely known BP is not British Petroleum... Their directors and share holders won't give a toss about British interests unless it impacts on their business..
Did he? Don't remember that.. I thought it was now widely known BP is not British Petroleum... Their directors and share holders won't give a toss about British interests unless it impacts on their business..
In reply to IainRUK:
The origins of BP, of course, are largely Scottish through the Burma Oil shareholding connection!
> Did he? Don't remember that.. I thought it was now widely known BP is not British Petroleum... Their directors and share holders won't give a toss about British interests unless it impacts on their business..
The origins of BP, of course, are largely Scottish through the Burma Oil shareholding connection!
In reply to dissonance: the figures I quoted aren't exactly shown here, I read those on a news item and will source that if I can, but as you'll see from this article, even Iceland appears to have been settled using females from the British Isles, the Isle of Skye has been suggested as the source of the female settlers for Iceland and some of it's male inhabitents...likely because the volcanic soil makes Skye quite similar to Iceland.
After reading the Viking Chronicles, that specifically refer to Shetland and Orkney, it appears that all the indigenous men and boys were either sold off as slaves, or killed, the females were retained for breeding purposes.....this has been identified by reading the Y chromosome lineage.
Recent findings in the Faroe isles indicate that peoples from the western isles settled there approximately 300 years before the Vikings did, around about the time of St. Brendan, also the first settlers on Iceland were Irish monks, the remains of there Christian buildings are still visible.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274484/
After reading the Viking Chronicles, that specifically refer to Shetland and Orkney, it appears that all the indigenous men and boys were either sold off as slaves, or killed, the females were retained for breeding purposes.....this has been identified by reading the Y chromosome lineage.
Recent findings in the Faroe isles indicate that peoples from the western isles settled there approximately 300 years before the Vikings did, around about the time of St. Brendan, also the first settlers on Iceland were Irish monks, the remains of there Christian buildings are still visible.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274484/
In reply to IainRUK:
Quote: BP plc sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum, is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England.
> I'm staggered you just mentioned BP.... Do you try to make a fool of yourself with every post?
> To claim BP are British is superb!!!
Quote: BP plc sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum, is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England.
In reply to dissonance: and here's a bit on the origin of the name of the Orkney isles...
http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/orkney.htm
Having read every bit of information I can get regarding the so called Picts, I'm afraid I need to challenge your view on them. They share amungst them selves a set of inscriptions found on stones that are unique to only them.
This is a reasonable explanation of what they most likely were.
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/GaelsPictland.htm
And a good site for showing some of the stones and there locations
http://www.pictishstones.org.uk
http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/orkney.htm
Having read every bit of information I can get regarding the so called Picts, I'm afraid I need to challenge your view on them. They share amungst them selves a set of inscriptions found on stones that are unique to only them.
This is a reasonable explanation of what they most likely were.
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/GaelsPictland.htm
And a good site for showing some of the stones and there locations
http://www.pictishstones.org.uk
In reply to Postmanpat:
But sadly, big brother decided to base BP in their capital rather than Scotland.
Incidentally, it's now known as bp lower case, I had this explained to me by a Texan in Texas who said bp USA didn't mean british petroleum USA....then when the Texas City incident occurred, I heard some of them blame it on the "Limeys" but that's Texans for you.
> The origins of BP, of course, are largely Scottish through the Burma Oil shareholding connection!
But sadly, big brother decided to base BP in their capital rather than Scotland.
Incidentally, it's now known as bp lower case, I had this explained to me by a Texan in Texas who said bp USA didn't mean british petroleum USA....then when the Texas City incident occurred, I heard some of them blame it on the "Limeys" but that's Texans for you.
Post edited at 20:50
In reply to lynx3555:
>
Not sad a at all. Rational and very successful and still one of Scotland's largest employers.
> But sadly, big brother decided to base BP in their capital rather than Scotland.
>
Not sad a at all. Rational and very successful and still one of Scotland's largest employers.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Looks like they'll recover from the Gulf of Mexico disaster....personally I don't blame bp UK for that, it seems to have been a combination of bp America and it's US contractors...I've seen first hand how dodgy the Americans work, they cut corners and risk lives all because they tend to suffer dire consequences when they fall behind with their targets.
> Not sad a at all. Rational and very successful and still one of Scotland's largest employers.
Looks like they'll recover from the Gulf of Mexico disaster....personally I don't blame bp UK for that, it seems to have been a combination of bp America and it's US contractors...I've seen first hand how dodgy the Americans work, they cut corners and risk lives all because they tend to suffer dire consequences when they fall behind with their targets.
In reply to lynx3555:
So I'm told.
> Looks like they'll recover from the Gulf of Mexico disaster....personally I don't blame bp UK for that, it seems to have been a combination of bp America and it's US contractors...I've seen first hand how dodgy the Americans work, they cut corners and risk lives all because they tend to suffer dire consequences when they fall behind with their targets.
So I'm told.
In reply to lynx3555:
And ignorantly so...
Many companies have HQs in London it doesn't mean they are a lap dog of the UK government...
I've not heard anyone/many refer to BP as British in a long time... Apart from when people like you try to lay their behaviour on the British...
> Quote: BP plc sometimes referred to by its former name British Petroleum, is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England.
And ignorantly so...
Many companies have HQs in London it doesn't mean they are a lap dog of the UK government...
I've not heard anyone/many refer to BP as British in a long time... Apart from when people like you try to lay their behaviour on the British...
In reply to IainRUK:
People like me? Sounds like you need crutches Ian.
When Cameron goes out to a bp oil rig, and shortly after bp then makes a pro union statement, then of course we're going to smell a great big rat.
Incidentally, he did the same with Shell in Aberdeen, Shell then put out a similar announcement after the meeting, but only after Cameron agreed to pump an additional 5 billion into the decommissioning programs.
> And ignorantly so...
> Many companies have HQs in London it doesn't mean they are a lap dog of the UK government...
> I've not heard anyone/many refer to BP as British in a long time... Apart from when people like you try to lay their behaviour on the British...
People like me? Sounds like you need crutches Ian.
When Cameron goes out to a bp oil rig, and shortly after bp then makes a pro union statement, then of course we're going to smell a great big rat.
Incidentally, he did the same with Shell in Aberdeen, Shell then put out a similar announcement after the meeting, but only after Cameron agreed to pump an additional 5 billion into the decommissioning programs.
Post edited at 23:06
In reply to lynx3555 and Saor Alba
Lynx3555 = miles
Saor Alba = Yurasis Dragon
Tim Chappell = Jemima
?
Just trying to get my dramatis personae sorted out.
Lynx3555 = miles
Saor Alba = Yurasis Dragon
Tim Chappell = Jemima
?
Just trying to get my dramatis personae sorted out.
In reply to yer maw:
BP
BP
> We are planning on investing £10 billion over the next five years in major North Sea projects to boost oil and gas supplies. Some projects are new, such as the Clair Ridge installations in the waters West of Shetland and we are building a new production vessel to further develop our Schiehallion field. Other projects, such as Kinnoull, seek to increase oil and gas recovery from existing facilities like our Andrew platform.
> Whether investing in new projects, or maximising recovery from existing fields, it’s the application of world-leading technology, such as our LoSal™ enhanced oil recovery technique, that underpins our work and helps us extract the resource the country requires.
> We are investing in alternative energy too. In Hull, we’re building a multi-million pound biofuels plant with our partners. It’s the largest plant of its kind in the UK and we expect it to be capable of producing 420m litres of bio-ethanol a year, an emissions saving equivalent to taking 100,000 cars off the road. Our fuels are delivered through our network of 1,100+ retail sites, supplying British drivers with the fuel they need to keep them going.
In reply to lynx3555:
F*ck off.. If someone is no you smell a rat.. Yes is ok...
Great democracy...
And standard life...
You get better by the day..
Many companies get contracts.. Just n = 1 science.. Big business want stability.. Big business support open borders and fewer currency exchanges..
F*ck off.. If someone is no you smell a rat.. Yes is ok...
Great democracy...
And standard life...
You get better by the day..
Many companies get contracts.. Just n = 1 science.. Big business want stability.. Big business support open borders and fewer currency exchanges..
Post edited at 03:40
In reply to Saor Alba:
Still waiting.. Yep limping..
So now I'm limping can you explain how London is clearly subsidised....
I'll be Ben you answer a question?
> Wow, Ben is really limping tonight!
Still waiting.. Yep limping..
So now I'm limping can you explain how London is clearly subsidised....
I'll be Ben you answer a question?
In reply to lynx3555:
I do love how you and soar argue... And answer questions..
Soar.. Snidely remarks do not back up wild statements..
Lynx.. Back up statements with lies or made up figures..
It is all very convincing..
You are both quite certain you are right, yet whenever we ask 'why?' You insult, lie, exaggerate... Hardly convincing....
And yes soar I'm angry... Blah blah.. Night love..
How about I wake up to see soar explain with references how London is subsidised, not by odd sectors... Start with a basic Strengths and weaknesses analysis.. And lynx replies with figures which actually do exist and each one is referenced... That is not normally needed on web forums but when one is a proven bullshitter it is...
Oh look pig... Flying...
I do love how you and soar argue... And answer questions..
Soar.. Snidely remarks do not back up wild statements..
Lynx.. Back up statements with lies or made up figures..
It is all very convincing..
You are both quite certain you are right, yet whenever we ask 'why?' You insult, lie, exaggerate... Hardly convincing....
And yes soar I'm angry... Blah blah.. Night love..
How about I wake up to see soar explain with references how London is subsidised, not by odd sectors... Start with a basic Strengths and weaknesses analysis.. And lynx replies with figures which actually do exist and each one is referenced... That is not normally needed on web forums but when one is a proven bullshitter it is...
Oh look pig... Flying...
Post edited at 04:08
In reply to stroppygob:
Eh? Posting at 11:08 on a Saturday... Mot at all...
I'm just loving the inability of these two to answer a question...
Eh? Posting at 11:08 on a Saturday... Mot at all...
I'm just loving the inability of these two to answer a question...
In reply to IainRUK:
Out of all the people on this thread you are the one who frequently gets very angry. No need to insult people or use abusive language. Ben is limping a lot these days.
Anyway did you bother to consider my figures on rail expenditure or crossrail?
Out of all the people on this thread you are the one who frequently gets very angry. No need to insult people or use abusive language. Ben is limping a lot these days.
Anyway did you bother to consider my figures on rail expenditure or crossrail?
In reply to Saor Alba:
Brilliant.. Lynx is by far the angriest.. He reverts to making up figures.. Next comes you who snipes away and refuses to explain rash statements...
Many rail companies are subsidised... But for a whole city you need to consider money in and money out... I said not sector by sector..
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19914219
Here's a link to look at how common subsidies are..
Unsurprisingly this shows a somewhat different view
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10768076/Eng...
Yet I'm not going to use that to say England clearly subsidises Scotland and Wales...
See how I provide links... Just a tip...
Brilliant.. Lynx is by far the angriest.. He reverts to making up figures.. Next comes you who snipes away and refuses to explain rash statements...
Many rail companies are subsidised... But for a whole city you need to consider money in and money out... I said not sector by sector..
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19914219
Here's a link to look at how common subsidies are..
Unsurprisingly this shows a somewhat different view
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10768076/Eng...
Yet I'm not going to use that to say England clearly subsidises Scotland and Wales...
See how I provide links... Just a tip...
In reply to Saor Alba:
Oops and more...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/holyrood-urged-to-reduce-rail-...
Or is me destroying your argument being angry?
It's not me who compares political parties I disagree with to nazis....
I'd expect a comeback but I suspect you have none...
Oops and more...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/holyrood-urged-to-reduce-rail-...
Or is me destroying your argument being angry?
It's not me who compares political parties I disagree with to nazis....
I'd expect a comeback but I suspect you have none...
In reply to lynx3555:
How about you address the points made rather than just throwing even more stuff at the wall in the hope it sticks?
Please explain exactly why the Broch which are found in very specific areas shows any sort of distinct cultural identity for most of Scotland?
As for the name i am not sure what this has to do with your argument? Since after all if we take York that derives from Jorvik (Norse) which in turn derives from Eoforwic (anglo-saxon) which is a corruption of Eboracum (Roman) which in turn is thought to come from an native British name.
I am just disputing your attempts to use it to provide a single united culture for most of Scotland.
Have you actually read that properly? It points out the evidence is somewhat sketchy and no one knows for sure.
I am not sure if you are reading more into that kings list than you should. Its on the same level as Historia Regum Britanniae. Namely there might be some truth in there but its hard to know what. You only need to look at how long those kings reigned to see that.
Ok so now explain what that means in terms of your distinct cultural identity. Bearing in mind the places the very specific geographic region for Pictish influence.
Also considering that stone making culture disappeared can you really claim a continuing cultural claim based on it?
> (In reply to dissonance) and here's a bit on the origin of the name of the Orkney isles...
How about you address the points made rather than just throwing even more stuff at the wall in the hope it sticks?
Please explain exactly why the Broch which are found in very specific areas shows any sort of distinct cultural identity for most of Scotland?
As for the name i am not sure what this has to do with your argument? Since after all if we take York that derives from Jorvik (Norse) which in turn derives from Eoforwic (anglo-saxon) which is a corruption of Eboracum (Roman) which in turn is thought to come from an native British name.
> Having read every bit of information I can get regarding the so called Picts, I'm afraid I need to challenge your view on them. They share amungst them selves a set of inscriptions found on stones that are unique to only them.
I am just disputing your attempts to use it to provide a single united culture for most of Scotland.
> This is a reasonable explanation of what they most likely were.
Have you actually read that properly? It points out the evidence is somewhat sketchy and no one knows for sure.
I am not sure if you are reading more into that kings list than you should. Its on the same level as Historia Regum Britanniae. Namely there might be some truth in there but its hard to know what. You only need to look at how long those kings reigned to see that.
> And a good site for showing some of the stones and there locations
Ok so now explain what that means in terms of your distinct cultural identity. Bearing in mind the places the very specific geographic region for Pictish influence.
Also considering that stone making culture disappeared can you really claim a continuing cultural claim based on it?
In reply to IainRUK:
You did avoid some of my questions yesterday.
> I'm just loving the inability of these two to answer a question...
You did avoid some of my questions yesterday.
In reply to IainRUK:
In terms of tax and spending London's not subsidised. It raises more than it spends, and the additional revenue subsidises the rest of England, Wales and NI. But not Scotland if you include a geographical share of oil.
So far so good for London, but there are two ways in which London is in a sense subsidised by everyone else.
First. the City of London receives an implicit subsidy from UK tax payers that stand behind it. This makes its borrowing costs lower and costs the tax payer nothing unless the banks go bust. In which case it costs tax payers a lot. (This applies to Edinburgh too)
Second. We live in a democracy where, I think, a lot of people subscribe to the view that tax and spending should be progressive. The rich pay more and the poor pay less and, for some things, get more - eg benefits. If tax and spending was based purely how much people earn and how much people need then London is being subsidized.
Third, a lot of tax raised in London has litler to do with people living and working in London. eg property taxes paid by people that live elsewhere. (This line of reasoning applies to Scottish oil too0
> can you explain how London is clearly subsidised....
In terms of tax and spending London's not subsidised. It raises more than it spends, and the additional revenue subsidises the rest of England, Wales and NI. But not Scotland if you include a geographical share of oil.
So far so good for London, but there are two ways in which London is in a sense subsidised by everyone else.
First. the City of London receives an implicit subsidy from UK tax payers that stand behind it. This makes its borrowing costs lower and costs the tax payer nothing unless the banks go bust. In which case it costs tax payers a lot. (This applies to Edinburgh too)
Second. We live in a democracy where, I think, a lot of people subscribe to the view that tax and spending should be progressive. The rich pay more and the poor pay less and, for some things, get more - eg benefits. If tax and spending was based purely how much people earn and how much people need then London is being subsidized.
Third, a lot of tax raised in London has litler to do with people living and working in London. eg property taxes paid by people that live elsewhere. (This line of reasoning applies to Scottish oil too0
In reply to IainRUK:
You have a lot in common with mr Darling, same school of "ask the same question, over and over again even after the answer has been given! You clasp onto single (ish) mistakes and like a stuck record it becomes tedious....you have made many mistakes but I just shrug it off or reply with the facts as I know them.
What about plan B, what about Plan B....answer: we're keeping the pound, but we'll need to wait until after the referendum to find out how the negotiations go.
> Eh? Posting at 11:08 on a Saturday... Mot at all...
> I'm just loving the inability of these two to answer a question...
You have a lot in common with mr Darling, same school of "ask the same question, over and over again even after the answer has been given! You clasp onto single (ish) mistakes and like a stuck record it becomes tedious....you have made many mistakes but I just shrug it off or reply with the facts as I know them.
What about plan B, what about Plan B....answer: we're keeping the pound, but we'll need to wait until after the referendum to find out how the negotiations go.
In reply to Donnie:
I'll have a look, 500+ posts.. It happens.. Where's. Just scrolled back to Tuesday eve and couldn't see it but I'm on my iPad so may have missed it..
And thanks. We all know Soar and lynx pedal misinformation...
I'll have a look, 500+ posts.. It happens.. Where's. Just scrolled back to Tuesday eve and couldn't see it but I'm on my iPad so may have missed it..
> You did avoid some of my questions yesterday.
And thanks. We all know Soar and lynx pedal misinformation...
Post edited at 13:13
In reply to lynx3555:
A lie isn't a mistake...you have consistently lied and exaggerated figures and insulted.. Then get all uppity at 'wee eck'..,
I don't think I have made any if many mistakes.. All I've done on this thread is highlight the outlandish uninformed nonsense coming from you and soar... Soars was just plucked out do the air yours were more deviously lies and exaggerations.. Exactly the sort of misinformation you accuse the no of...
Soar never gave an answer.. You never showed sources for figures.. Turns out as there were none..
A lie isn't a mistake...you have consistently lied and exaggerated figures and insulted.. Then get all uppity at 'wee eck'..,
I don't think I have made any if many mistakes.. All I've done on this thread is highlight the outlandish uninformed nonsense coming from you and soar... Soars was just plucked out do the air yours were more deviously lies and exaggerations.. Exactly the sort of misinformation you accuse the no of...
Soar never gave an answer.. You never showed sources for figures.. Turns out as there were none..
Post edited at 13:09
In reply to IainRUK:
I did give answers but due to the personal nature of your posts which are very angry (you have a big issue with anger) and the constant accusations you make about people lying, I often pay little attention to you. Sorry.
If you are unhappy with an answer, or that someone doesn't instantly meet your demands then so be it. I don't think this bothers anyone other than you.
Ben is limping more and more everyday with his self-inflicted injury.
Whether I do or do not give you "answers" on any subject doesn't weaken or strengthen the case for independence. It's just that I spend less time on the net than you. That's it.
I did give answers but due to the personal nature of your posts which are very angry (you have a big issue with anger) and the constant accusations you make about people lying, I often pay little attention to you. Sorry.
If you are unhappy with an answer, or that someone doesn't instantly meet your demands then so be it. I don't think this bothers anyone other than you.
Ben is limping more and more everyday with his self-inflicted injury.
Whether I do or do not give you "answers" on any subject doesn't weaken or strengthen the case for independence. It's just that I spend less time on the net than you. That's it.
Post edited at 16:24
In reply to dissonance:
You may ask how it is that they all have pretty much the same complex dry stone design, the exception is Shetland, there they don't have a bottom tier but the wall design is virtually exactly the same. The reason for this is likely because the skills were shared amongst them, it's possible that a group of people traveled around constructing and passing on the skill to build them.
If I had my books with me then I'd be able to quote descriptions of the Northern tribes as written by the Romans. The Romans saw a distinct difference between them and the southern Britons. The Romans described them as wearing only a single cloth wrapped around their neck, not unlike what highlanders wore up until the Kilt was brought in.
The Romans described their weapons, one of which was a long slender axe, more like a Sword, but having two points, this was heavy and was very effective at smashing through tortoise shell shield formations...an early version of the claymore sword.
They described how the Picts chose there leaders, and the Pict were capable of raising a force of up to 40,000 and led by a single chief, he was democratically chosen by the various clan chiefs...they emphasised chosen in there description, not passed down from farther to son.....later they actually passed down through the female line and then through the male line.
The Romans struggled to protect there live stock from them, they describe how they stole each other's cattle as a way of proving there dominance over other neighbouring clans...a practice carried out in the highlands right up to the 18th century.
All of the above were considered by the Romans to be unique to Caledonia.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sueno%27s_Stone
> How about you address the points made rather than just throwing even more stuff at the wall in the hope it sticks?
Some people are like Teflon, nothing sticks it just keeps sliding off them...> Please explain exactly why the Broch which are found in very specific areas shows any sort of distinct cultural identity for most of Scotland?
You may be aware that the majority of Brochs are concentrated around the coast and particularly on the north and west coasts. Most likely because of the ease at which these areas can be accessed by marauding tribes, who use the sea as a way of getting around.You may ask how it is that they all have pretty much the same complex dry stone design, the exception is Shetland, there they don't have a bottom tier but the wall design is virtually exactly the same. The reason for this is likely because the skills were shared amongst them, it's possible that a group of people traveled around constructing and passing on the skill to build them.
> I am just disputing your attempts to use it to provide a single united culture for most of Scotland.
Dispute all you like but I challenge you to find anything like the Pictish buildings, and stone inscriptions anywhere else in the British isles, there are none and that's because they had a very different culture from the rest of the British isles. The symbols on the stones are not unique to any one location, they are replicated exactly through out the Pictish Kingdom, from Shetland right down the the firth of fourth and the Clyde.> Have you actually read that properly? It points out the evidence is somewhat sketchy and no one knows for sure.
Correct, no one knows for sure, but one things for sure, they had a shared culture unique to them collectively.> Ok so now explain what that means in terms of your distinct cultural identity. Bearing in mind the places the very specific geographic region for Pictish influence.
If I had my books with me then I'd be able to quote descriptions of the Northern tribes as written by the Romans. The Romans saw a distinct difference between them and the southern Britons. The Romans described them as wearing only a single cloth wrapped around their neck, not unlike what highlanders wore up until the Kilt was brought in.
The Romans described their weapons, one of which was a long slender axe, more like a Sword, but having two points, this was heavy and was very effective at smashing through tortoise shell shield formations...an early version of the claymore sword.
They described how the Picts chose there leaders, and the Pict were capable of raising a force of up to 40,000 and led by a single chief, he was democratically chosen by the various clan chiefs...they emphasised chosen in there description, not passed down from farther to son.....later they actually passed down through the female line and then through the male line.
The Romans struggled to protect there live stock from them, they describe how they stole each other's cattle as a way of proving there dominance over other neighbouring clans...a practice carried out in the highlands right up to the 18th century.
All of the above were considered by the Romans to be unique to Caledonia.
> Also considering that stone making culture disappeared can you really claim a continuing cultural claim based on it?
The Pictish stones, which are unique to Scotland, firstly had there own meaning through shared symbolism, once Christianised, they then began to add Christian symbolism to most of the ancient stones, usually just on the back of the stone....the sueno stone at forres is a good example of that....when they became known as the Scottish people there culture was transformed but not all together, some of it survives.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sueno%27s_Stone
In reply to Saor Alba:
Donnie also says you were wrong... I'm angry so so angry... You don't realize how easy it is calling your comments out as unsubstantiated ..
Donnie also says you were wrong... I'm angry so so angry... You don't realize how easy it is calling your comments out as unsubstantiated ..
In reply to lynx3555:
This is all just cods wallop.. The idea that countries should be culturally homogenous and distinct is just hideous... Many countries are composed of numerous distinct historical cultures... Germany being an obvious example..
This is all just cods wallop.. The idea that countries should be culturally homogenous and distinct is just hideous... Many countries are composed of numerous distinct historical cultures... Germany being an obvious example..
In reply to Saor Alba:
Lynx admits he just makes figures up.. You also push misinformation.. The independence debate should be open and honest and sadly we have people on both sides pushing ignorant incorrect views, even peddling lies, and justifying them by saying the other camp does it...
If you read this thread you and lynx have been quite personal all I asked was that you justify that London is clearly subsidized... And you couldn't.., and Donnie.. A yes voter I think,
suggests likewise...
Off for a nice 12 miler had a great honeymoon week on Martha's Vineyard, 100 mile ran, not the slightest angry bone on my body... Maybe train like this and you'd realize that you just enjoy couch or beach time... And calling people out for comments like yours and lynx is good fun .. I actually enjoy it.. It's a bit bullying I know but it's just so damn easy...
Lynx admits he just makes figures up.. You also push misinformation.. The independence debate should be open and honest and sadly we have people on both sides pushing ignorant incorrect views, even peddling lies, and justifying them by saying the other camp does it...
If you read this thread you and lynx have been quite personal all I asked was that you justify that London is clearly subsidized... And you couldn't.., and Donnie.. A yes voter I think,
suggests likewise...
Off for a nice 12 miler had a great honeymoon week on Martha's Vineyard, 100 mile ran, not the slightest angry bone on my body... Maybe train like this and you'd realize that you just enjoy couch or beach time... And calling people out for comments like yours and lynx is good fun .. I actually enjoy it.. It's a bit bullying I know but it's just so damn easy...
In reply to IainRUK:
May I suggest you lay off the doughnuts and coffee for breakfast while you're over there in the US...anger can be a consequence of high blood pressure.
> Donnie also says you were wrong... I'm angry so so angry... You don't realize how easy it is calling your comments out as unsubstantiated ..
May I suggest you lay off the doughnuts and coffee for breakfast while you're over there in the US...anger can be a consequence of high blood pressure.
In reply to IainRUK: that's a very convenient answer from Unionists, "well, Scotland has no real culture no uniqueness therefore it's indistinguishable between England and the rest of the UK." What a load of Ballocks!
The Norman Establishment tended to suggest that when they considered Britain had been improved by the Romans and then by them after 1066....they claimed the Romans built better roads, introduced plumbing, blah, blah....actually the southern Britons were in fact very civilised, they had good roads already and lots of really good chariots etc....
The Norman Establishment tended to suggest that when they considered Britain had been improved by the Romans and then by them after 1066....they claimed the Romans built better roads, introduced plumbing, blah, blah....actually the southern Britons were in fact very civilised, they had good roads already and lots of really good chariots etc....
In reply to IainRUK:
Hi Iain, what did I say he was wrong about again?
> Donnie also says you were wrong... I'm angry so so angry... You don't realize how easy it is calling your comments out as unsubstantiated ..
Hi Iain, what did I say he was wrong about again?
In reply to lynx3555:
I think Scotland does have it's own culture and history (not to mention it's own legal, education system etc).
I'm just not keen on dividing up countries based on some form of racial blood line as you appear to be.
I'm sure there was someone else that was keen on that idea (and it wasn't David Cameron and the Tories ... )
> that's a very convenient answer from Unionists, "well, Scotland has no real culture no uniqueness therefore it's indistinguishable between England and the rest of the UK." What a load of Ballocks!
> The Norman Establishment tended to suggest that when they considered Britain had been improved by the Romans and then by them after 1066....they claimed the Romans built better roads, introduced plumbing, blah, blah....actually the southern Britons were in fact very civilised, they had good roads already and lots of really good chariots etc....
I think Scotland does have it's own culture and history (not to mention it's own legal, education system etc).
I'm just not keen on dividing up countries based on some form of racial blood line as you appear to be.
I'm sure there was someone else that was keen on that idea (and it wasn't David Cameron and the Tories ... )
In reply to U KOK
You seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur as well....that's actually an incurable mental disorder you share with Hitler and Starlin....thankfully you're just a menial runner.
> Off for a nice 12 miler had a great honeymoon week on Martha's Vineyard, 100 mile ran, not the slightest angry bone on my body... Maybe train like this and you'd realize that you just enjoy couch or beach time... And calling people out for comments like yours and lynx is good fun .. I actually enjoy it.. It's a bit bullying I know but it's just so damn easy...
You seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur as well....that's actually an incurable mental disorder you share with Hitler and Starlin....thankfully you're just a menial runner.
In reply to off-duty:
Well I guess it's ok for the 100+ countries that have become independent! but not for us Scots....how dare that nasty little country called Scotland do this to the UK, ungrateful scumbags that they are, it's atrocious isn't it. And there's England thinking it had finally Anglicised the Scots with their "Final solution" and brain washed them with Corry, Emerdale, Eastenders and Dr Who.
Well I guess it's ok for the 100+ countries that have become independent! but not for us Scots....how dare that nasty little country called Scotland do this to the UK, ungrateful scumbags that they are, it's atrocious isn't it. And there's England thinking it had finally Anglicised the Scots with their "Final solution" and brain washed them with Corry, Emerdale, Eastenders and Dr Who.
Post edited at 18:52
In reply to lynx3555:
"100+ countries that have become independent" - Really?
That wouldn't be a wee "exaggeration" again would it?
> Well I guess it's ok for the 100+ countries that have become independent! but not for us Scots....how dare that nasty little country called Scotland do this to the UK, ungrateful scumbags that they are, it's atrocious isn't it. And there's England thinking it had finally Anglicised the Scots with their "Final solution" and brain washed them with Corry, Emerdale, Eastenders and Dr Who.
"100+ countries that have become independent" - Really?
That wouldn't be a wee "exaggeration" again would it?
In reply to off-duty:
Not at all, here's about 130, lost count because the fellow separatist sitting next to me insisted I see the large nipples protruding through the tee shirt of Jennifer Anderson
http://quizlet.com/12399613/list-of-countries-and-when-they-gained-independ...
Not at all, here's about 130, lost count because the fellow separatist sitting next to me insisted I see the large nipples protruding through the tee shirt of Jennifer Anderson
http://quizlet.com/12399613/list-of-countries-and-when-they-gained-independ...
In reply to lynx3555:
So you genuinely can't distinguish between Scotland and a colony?
> Not at all, here's about 130, lost count because the fellow separatist sitting next to me insisted I see the large nipples protruding through the tee shirt of Jennifer Anderson
So you genuinely can't distinguish between Scotland and a colony?
Post edited at 19:45
In reply to lynx3555:
I thought you didn't like insults?
Now I'm akin to Hitler… and Stalin… thanks… so witty and astute you are….
I take it this is an admittance that its you who has the issues and insults?
You and Soar are typical issues in the whole debate.. alls OK as long as they are on my side...
I thought you didn't like insults?
Now I'm akin to Hitler… and Stalin… thanks… so witty and astute you are….
I take it this is an admittance that its you who has the issues and insults?
You and Soar are typical issues in the whole debate.. alls OK as long as they are on my side...
In reply to lynx3555:
Correct. We dont know. As a claim for showing a common culture across Scotland it is useless.
The timing for the Picts in particular is somewhat dubious.
Some parts of Scotland did. Others didnt. Again the Pictish Stones are very tightly concentrated in only part of modern day Scotland.
Not for the majority of Scotland there isnt.
Be interested to hear which books those are.
This bit in particular since the only reference I know of refers to the fact they used swords without a point.
As for the link to a Claymore. I think you are being a tad fanciful there.
Do they? Which text is that? Since I thought that was Bede.
what?
Are you seriously saying cattle raiding was unique to Caledonia.
Thats easily answered with Táin Bó Cúailnge.
Or the Greek and Indian legends. Nicking livestock is a time honoured tradition pretty much everywhere they have cows.
They are unique to some parts of Scotland. They arent found in regions which fell under other powers control. Which is where your common culture across most of Scotland falls down. In common with the rest of the British isles there were multiple tribes with differing viewpoints until the early middle ages.
> The reason for this is likely because the skills were shared amongst them, it's possible that a group of people traveled around constructing and passing on the skill to build them.
Correct. We dont know. As a claim for showing a common culture across Scotland it is useless.
The timing for the Picts in particular is somewhat dubious.
> Dispute all you like but I challenge you to find anything like the Pictish buildings, and stone inscriptions anywhere else in the British isles, there are none and that's because they had a very different culture from the rest of the British isles.
Some parts of Scotland did. Others didnt. Again the Pictish Stones are very tightly concentrated in only part of modern day Scotland.
> Correct, no one knows for sure, but one things for sure, they had a shared culture unique to them collectively.
Not for the majority of Scotland there isnt.
> If I had my books with me then I'd be able to quote descriptions of the Northern tribes as written by the Romans.
Be interested to hear which books those are.
> The Romans described their weapons, one of which was a long slender axe, more like a Sword, but having two points
This bit in particular since the only reference I know of refers to the fact they used swords without a point.
As for the link to a Claymore. I think you are being a tad fanciful there.
> They described how the Picts chose there leaders
Do they? Which text is that? Since I thought that was Bede.
> The Romans struggled to protect there live stock from them
what?
> All of the above were considered by the Romans to be unique to Caledonia.
Are you seriously saying cattle raiding was unique to Caledonia.
Thats easily answered with Táin Bó Cúailnge.
Or the Greek and Indian legends. Nicking livestock is a time honoured tradition pretty much everywhere they have cows.
> The Pictish stones, which are unique to Scotland
They are unique to some parts of Scotland. They arent found in regions which fell under other powers control. Which is where your common culture across most of Scotland falls down. In common with the rest of the British isles there were multiple tribes with differing viewpoints until the early middle ages.
In reply to Donnie:
London clearly being subsidised by the rest of the UK.. we both know financially London is a golden egg...
I have issues with London, most in the north of england do.. to some extent..
Much of what the Scots complain about the Geordies and Mancs do.. but its also something to actually treasure, we're a small nation with one of the worlds biggest financial cities in it. A huge multi-cultural city. I always hated it immensely but as i've aged its much more a love hate..
But yes the SE does have an undue influence.. but I think Scotland stepping away will probably make things worse in that respect as it will be an even greater part of a smaller nation.
of course there are risks associated with it but I think we should still welcome it as a great part of the UK.
London clearly being subsidised by the rest of the UK.. we both know financially London is a golden egg...
I have issues with London, most in the north of england do.. to some extent..
Much of what the Scots complain about the Geordies and Mancs do.. but its also something to actually treasure, we're a small nation with one of the worlds biggest financial cities in it. A huge multi-cultural city. I always hated it immensely but as i've aged its much more a love hate..
But yes the SE does have an undue influence.. but I think Scotland stepping away will probably make things worse in that respect as it will be an even greater part of a smaller nation.
of course there are risks associated with it but I think we should still welcome it as a great part of the UK.
In reply to lynx3555:
I agree.. it is bollox.. unique place.. so is Shetland.. so is north wales.. so is cornwall.. so in northern ireland… so is the western isles.. so are the borders…so is northumberland..
The great diversity of the UK is what makes it such a great place…
> that's a very convenient answer from Unionists, "well, Scotland has no real culture no uniqueness therefore it's indistinguishable between England and the rest of the UK." What a load of Ballocks!
I agree.. it is bollox.. unique place.. so is Shetland.. so is north wales.. so is cornwall.. so in northern ireland… so is the western isles.. so are the borders…so is northumberland..
The great diversity of the UK is what makes it such a great place…
In reply to lynx3555:
From the man who just compared me to hitler…
http://www.strava.com/activities/178375717
Nice bowl of granola, cup of coffee with the parents, bus to Vineyard haven and a lovely 13 miles back across the island.. I've even got some nice pretty pics which may calm you down…
Now resting on a hammock eating a avocado and BLT wrap…
> May I suggest you lay off the doughnuts and coffee for breakfast while you're over there in the US...anger can be a consequence of high blood pressure.
From the man who just compared me to hitler…
http://www.strava.com/activities/178375717
Nice bowl of granola, cup of coffee with the parents, bus to Vineyard haven and a lovely 13 miles back across the island.. I've even got some nice pretty pics which may calm you down…
Now resting on a hammock eating a avocado and BLT wrap…
In reply to lynx3555:
For this Norman establishment which one is that? The English or Scottish ones.
Since the Norman influence on the upper tiers of Scottish society is not dissimilar to England (or in many other parts of Europe for that matter).
> The Norman Establishment tended to suggest that when they considered Britain had been improved by the Romans and then by them after 1066
For this Norman establishment which one is that? The English or Scottish ones.
Since the Norman influence on the upper tiers of Scottish society is not dissimilar to England (or in many other parts of Europe for that matter).
In reply to lynx3555:
Of course..
You fail to understand that some of us prefer less borders, more fluid immigration, and more unification.. more stable governments… the countries you list, many have had or do have pretty violent times..
If all goes well before we're old we'll be swallowed up by Europe, have a single currency and this nationalist fervour will be long gone…
You seem quite intent that countries should be culturally homogenous… and then attack the Brit Nats for having UKIP and Britain First… what you seem to be arguing lies closer to their heart than that of many of us on this thread...
Of course..
You fail to understand that some of us prefer less borders, more fluid immigration, and more unification.. more stable governments… the countries you list, many have had or do have pretty violent times..
If all goes well before we're old we'll be swallowed up by Europe, have a single currency and this nationalist fervour will be long gone…
You seem quite intent that countries should be culturally homogenous… and then attack the Brit Nats for having UKIP and Britain First… what you seem to be arguing lies closer to their heart than that of many of us on this thread...
In reply to dissonance:
The Pictish stones are only concentrated in a small area of Scotland!!
Check out the Pictish stones in Canmore Database map....the furthest southerly finds are just north of the present day boarder....
http://morrisette-gis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/final-project-pictish-symbol-s...
They are finding more stones all the time.....and plenty more likely buried under the peat....but then you can distort history to suit your selves....
The Pictish stones are only concentrated in a small area of Scotland!!
Check out the Pictish stones in Canmore Database map....the furthest southerly finds are just north of the present day boarder....
http://morrisette-gis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/final-project-pictish-symbol-s...
They are finding more stones all the time.....and plenty more likely buried under the peat....but then you can distort history to suit your selves....
In reply to lynx3555:
Hate to do this to you again..
But I think you mean the other way around.. High blood pressure is sometimes a consequence of anger and stress…
Does the vice versa hold… As far as I understood Anger isn't a consequence of high BP?
Obviously I'd appreciate a source of your medical knowledge?
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/in-depth/...
> ...anger can be a consequence of high blood pressure.
Hate to do this to you again..
But I think you mean the other way around.. High blood pressure is sometimes a consequence of anger and stress…
Does the vice versa hold… As far as I understood Anger isn't a consequence of high BP?
Obviously I'd appreciate a source of your medical knowledge?
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/in-depth/...
In reply to lynx3555:
I think its fair to say that we know little about the early history of the British Isles in terms of govt structure etc, even for quite recent times (eg England prior to 1066) we have little good information about who was where when and how the goverments worked.
You certainly need to take information from the Roman era with a massive pinch of salt - embeded 'journalists' writing for a home audience - have you read "the Gallic war" for instance?
I'd be careful not to be too confident of anything and if you base your desire for independance on the early history of the british Isles then you House may well be built on sand....
I think its fair to say that we know little about the early history of the British Isles in terms of govt structure etc, even for quite recent times (eg England prior to 1066) we have little good information about who was where when and how the goverments worked.
You certainly need to take information from the Roman era with a massive pinch of salt - embeded 'journalists' writing for a home audience - have you read "the Gallic war" for instance?
I'd be careful not to be too confident of anything and if you base your desire for independance on the early history of the british Isles then you House may well be built on sand....
In reply to lynx3555:
Coming from you that is rich.
If we just take the latest time you are talking about and the Pictish stones that is when we know for sure the Picts didnt control the whole of modern day Scotland. Since there are the Dal Riata and Hen Ogledd.
Anyway I will leave you to your fantasy world where you accuse people of being like Hitler whilst simultaneously whining about being insulted.
Well unless you come up with those sources of course. Especially the Romans talking about the Picts form of Kingship. Since something to support Bedes writing would be rather groundbreaking.
> They are finding more stones all the time.....and plenty more likely buried under the peat....but then you can distort history to suit your selves....
Coming from you that is rich.
If we just take the latest time you are talking about and the Pictish stones that is when we know for sure the Picts didnt control the whole of modern day Scotland. Since there are the Dal Riata and Hen Ogledd.
Anyway I will leave you to your fantasy world where you accuse people of being like Hitler whilst simultaneously whining about being insulted.
Well unless you come up with those sources of course. Especially the Romans talking about the Picts form of Kingship. Since something to support Bedes writing would be rather groundbreaking.
Post edited at 20:20
In reply to dissonance:
These books are recent and very interesting....
http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usreviews/books/luathpicts.html
http://bookbanter.co.uk/stuartmchardy/books/the-pagan-symbols-of-the-picts/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ulsterscots/library/stuart-mchardy-tales-of-the-picts
More to follow.....and if I find the full Roman verses then I'll link them as well....
These books are recent and very interesting....
http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usreviews/books/luathpicts.html
http://bookbanter.co.uk/stuartmchardy/books/the-pagan-symbols-of-the-picts/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ulsterscots/library/stuart-mchardy-tales-of-the-picts
More to follow.....and if I find the full Roman verses then I'll link them as well....
In reply to lynx3555:
from your first link:
"McHardy's thesis is a radical one, yet at the same time a very straightforward one. For him the Picts were the descendents of the indigenous peoples who occupied most of Scotland north of the Clyde-Forth line (apart from much of Argyll)"
and even better
"Anyone seeking to tell the early story of Scotland suffers from a series of problems. Primary references are few and very far between, and most were written centuries later and/or in England and Ireland. The source material has been trawled through time and again, and differences of interpretation tend to depend on fine difference of the reading of the primary sources, or differences in the degree to which an individual author is prepared to take folklore or common sense into account in painting his or her picture. At times Stuart McHardy appears to be working some of the well known references quite hard: but the story he tells is compelling one which gets over "the problem of the Picts" in a very satisfying way that builds the people who carved the Pictish symbol stones back into the mainstream of our ancestry."
from your first link:
"McHardy's thesis is a radical one, yet at the same time a very straightforward one. For him the Picts were the descendents of the indigenous peoples who occupied most of Scotland north of the Clyde-Forth line (apart from much of Argyll)"
and even better
"Anyone seeking to tell the early story of Scotland suffers from a series of problems. Primary references are few and very far between, and most were written centuries later and/or in England and Ireland. The source material has been trawled through time and again, and differences of interpretation tend to depend on fine difference of the reading of the primary sources, or differences in the degree to which an individual author is prepared to take folklore or common sense into account in painting his or her picture. At times Stuart McHardy appears to be working some of the well known references quite hard: but the story he tells is compelling one which gets over "the problem of the Picts" in a very satisfying way that builds the people who carved the Pictish symbol stones back into the mainstream of our ancestry."
Post edited at 20:25
In reply to yer maw: and here's a nice wee song just to lighten things up....might be a number one this one.
youtube.com/watch?v=pNCFR8SqioE&
youtube.com/watch?v=pNCFR8SqioE&
In reply to lynx3555:
all things that could happen with or without independance, and may not happen in either event.
all things that could happen with or without independance, and may not happen in either event.
In reply to dissonance:
Funny how you turn your fantasy world into "my fantasy world"
"The Picts are often said to have practised matrilineal kingship succession on the basis of Irish legends and a statement in Bede's history. In fact, Bede merely says that the Picts used matrilineal kingship succession in exceptional cases. The kings of the Picts when Bede was writing were Bridei and Nechtan, sons of Der Ilei, who indeed claimed the throne through their mother Der Ilei, daughter of an earlier Pictish king."
Any way....I'm not voting yes because of the Picts etc...I'm voting yes because I am convinced that that will be the best choice for my children and grand children.
Funny how you turn your fantasy world into "my fantasy world"
"The Picts are often said to have practised matrilineal kingship succession on the basis of Irish legends and a statement in Bede's history. In fact, Bede merely says that the Picts used matrilineal kingship succession in exceptional cases. The kings of the Picts when Bede was writing were Bridei and Nechtan, sons of Der Ilei, who indeed claimed the throne through their mother Der Ilei, daughter of an earlier Pictish king."
Any way....I'm not voting yes because of the Picts etc...I'm voting yes because I am convinced that that will be the best choice for my children and grand children.
In reply to lynx3555:
Then why on Earth did you bring up the lineage of the picts as having any relevance to self-determination in any independence debate?
> Any way....I'm not voting yes because of the Picts etc...I'm voting yes because I am convinced that that will be the best choice for my children and grand children.
Then why on Earth did you bring up the lineage of the picts as having any relevance to self-determination in any independence debate?
In reply to Dr.S at work:
You shouldn't have deleted your post on who was taking part in this thread. It was good and quite funny.
You shouldn't have deleted your post on who was taking part in this thread. It was good and quite funny.
In reply to off-duty:
Just wanted to point out that Shetland and Orkney were a part of the Pictish culture and Kingdom....therefore a part of present day Scotland as well regardless of the fact that they were for a while ruled by Vikings. Sorry if I bored you....anyway, I think it's really nice that some poles have chosen to vote in favour of Scottish independence
Just wanted to point out that Shetland and Orkney were a part of the Pictish culture and Kingdom....therefore a part of present day Scotland as well regardless of the fact that they were for a while ruled by Vikings. Sorry if I bored you....anyway, I think it's really nice that some poles have chosen to vote in favour of Scottish independence
In reply to lynx3555:
Well until you come up with facts it is your fantasy. Where is your evidence for the Romans talking about the Picts leadership system?
By the way did you not notice how your latest quote contradicts your claim earlier in this thread.
"later they actually passed down through the female line and then through the male line. "
I brought Bede up because they are the first writer on the subject not because their word is law. You are claiming earlier information though so lets see it.
> Funny how you turn your fantasy world into "my fantasy world"
Well until you come up with facts it is your fantasy. Where is your evidence for the Romans talking about the Picts leadership system?
By the way did you not notice how your latest quote contradicts your claim earlier in this thread.
"later they actually passed down through the female line and then through the male line. "
I brought Bede up because they are the first writer on the subject not because their word is law. You are claiming earlier information though so lets see it.
In reply to IainRUK:
I said London pays more tax than it gets in public spending, but mentioned other ways in which it is subsidised. So, unless the other chap was talking specifically about that then I wasn't disagreeing with him.
I think an iScotland might help set an example. The evidence is really clear that high levels of inequality are a) bad for people b) not necessary for growth c) easily avoidable. But we still don't vote to change it with Scotland as part of the UK. I think having an example of it working right next door would do more to help than a few more votes for a Labour party that's pretty much centre right.
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
I said London pays more tax than it gets in public spending, but mentioned other ways in which it is subsidised. So, unless the other chap was talking specifically about that then I wasn't disagreeing with him.
I think an iScotland might help set an example. The evidence is really clear that high levels of inequality are a) bad for people b) not necessary for growth c) easily avoidable. But we still don't vote to change it with Scotland as part of the UK. I think having an example of it working right next door would do more to help than a few more votes for a Labour party that's pretty much centre right.
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
In reply to Donnie:
I'm not convinced that a vote for Independence is a particularly good way of trying to reduce inequality.
The "bottom marker" for UK inequality is almost certain to be Glasgow unfortunately, due to it's almost inexplicable rates of early deaths, and other poverty associated problems.
Independence might well chop off a number of the "top markers" in London or the South of England but I think there are a fair few inhabitants of Scotland, from large estate owners, Edinburgh financiers and Aberdonian oil company directors who are probably vying for that top spot at the moment.
I'm not convinced that a vote for Independence is a particularly good way of trying to reduce inequality.
The "bottom marker" for UK inequality is almost certain to be Glasgow unfortunately, due to it's almost inexplicable rates of early deaths, and other poverty associated problems.
Independence might well chop off a number of the "top markers" in London or the South of England but I think there are a fair few inhabitants of Scotland, from large estate owners, Edinburgh financiers and Aberdonian oil company directors who are probably vying for that top spot at the moment.
In reply to Donnie:
Not so. Wilkinson Just cherry picks the data to support his politics views. Pretty obviously poverty is bad for those in poverty, and extreme inequality may break down societal cohesion, but in the middle ground the case is not proven at all.
Anyway, given the evidence that social attitudes in Scotland are not dissimilar to those in England it's a long shot to assume that an independent Scotland will provide an example of anything terribly different.
> I think an iScotland might help set an example. The evidence is really clear that high levels of inequality are a) bad for people b) not necessary for growth c) easily avoidable.
Not so. Wilkinson Just cherry picks the data to support his politics views. Pretty obviously poverty is bad for those in poverty, and extreme inequality may break down societal cohesion, but in the middle ground the case is not proven at all.
Anyway, given the evidence that social attitudes in Scotland are not dissimilar to those in England it's a long shot to assume that an independent Scotland will provide an example of anything terribly different.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Apart from the policies from successive Scottish Government but don't let that get in the way.
Apart from the policies from successive Scottish Government but don't let that get in the way.
In reply to Saor Alba:
I thought you had a longer term perspective. Surely your support of independence is not based on the vagaries of a few recent years?
> Apart from the policies from successive Scottish Government but don't let that get in the way.
I thought you had a longer term perspective. Surely your support of independence is not based on the vagaries of a few recent years?
In reply to Postmanpat:
It's based on the entire time the Scottish Parliament has met in my lifetime.
Trying to pretend there isn't a policy difference is fantasy.
It's based on the entire time the Scottish Parliament has met in my lifetime.
Trying to pretend there isn't a policy difference is fantasy.
In reply to Saor Alba:
LOL.You mean all 15 years!! You're not quite getting this are you? A week is a long time in politics. Independence is for ever...
> It's based on the entire time the Scottish Parliament has met in my lifetime.
> Trying to pretend there isn't a policy difference is fantasy.
LOL.You mean all 15 years!! You're not quite getting this are you? A week is a long time in politics. Independence is for ever...
In reply to Postmanpat:
Ahh...the old classic. I am not getting it. I don't think you are quite understanding this.
Ahh...the old classic. I am not getting it. I don't think you are quite understanding this.
In reply to Saor Alba:
The only guarantee of voting for Independence is Independence.
Utopian ideals about progressive socialist governments, eliminating inequality and changing the system of party politics are carrots that are mischievously dangled in front of the electorate as if they are somehow related to a Yes vote.
> Ahh...the old classic. I am not getting it. I don't think you are quite understanding this.
The only guarantee of voting for Independence is Independence.
Utopian ideals about progressive socialist governments, eliminating inequality and changing the system of party politics are carrots that are mischievously dangled in front of the electorate as if they are somehow related to a Yes vote.
In reply to Saor Alba:
It's not hard. 15 years is no time at all. Even over that period the attitudes of Scots to most major social issues have not been very different to those of the English. Suggesting that the political and ideological future of a country can be presumed from fifteen years of policies of a parliament with limited powers and next to bugger all fiscal responsibility makes no sense at all.
My own guess is that the differences in party political voting patterns owe more to the visceral attitude to Thatcher and to the option of the SNP as a additional "none of the above vote" rather than a long standing or deep seating commitment to left wing ideology.
Nevermind, if you're lucky independence followed by the gradual running down of oil revenues might be just the catalyst Scotland needs to reignite its great tradition of liberal economics and entrepreneurial creativity.
> Ahh...the old classic. I am not getting it. I don't think you are quite understanding this.
It's not hard. 15 years is no time at all. Even over that period the attitudes of Scots to most major social issues have not been very different to those of the English. Suggesting that the political and ideological future of a country can be presumed from fifteen years of policies of a parliament with limited powers and next to bugger all fiscal responsibility makes no sense at all.
My own guess is that the differences in party political voting patterns owe more to the visceral attitude to Thatcher and to the option of the SNP as a additional "none of the above vote" rather than a long standing or deep seating commitment to left wing ideology.
Nevermind, if you're lucky independence followed by the gradual running down of oil revenues might be just the catalyst Scotland needs to reignite its great tradition of liberal economics and entrepreneurial creativity.
Post edited at 10:48
In reply to Postmanpat:
You need to spend a few days reading "Road to Referendum" to gain additional insight to this. You wont need to guess then.
You need to spend a few days reading "Road to Referendum" to gain additional insight to this. You wont need to guess then.
In reply to Saor Alba:
That'll be a nice unbiased read.
> You need to spend a few days reading "Road to Referendum" to gain additional insight to this. You wont need to guess then.
That'll be a nice unbiased read.
In reply to Postmanpat:
We wouldn't want anyone to challenge your knowledge. I mean, how absurd. Who on earth would use personal experience living in a country where the policies have been enacted and taken part in the elections when we would could told by a man outside the country calling himself Postman Pat who is very much against those same people actually having more powers.
Maybe Jess can chip in too?
We wouldn't want anyone to challenge your knowledge. I mean, how absurd. Who on earth would use personal experience living in a country where the policies have been enacted and taken part in the elections when we would could told by a man outside the country calling himself Postman Pat who is very much against those same people actually having more powers.
Maybe Jess can chip in too?
In reply to Saor Alba:
It's odd how Yes campaigners consider it reasonable to promote dreams as "opportunities" whilst No campaigners are accused of scaremongering if they attempt to suggest a dream might in fact be a nightmsre.
> Correct, no guarantees, only opportunities.
> The same is true of the UK.
It's odd how Yes campaigners consider it reasonable to promote dreams as "opportunities" whilst No campaigners are accused of scaremongering if they attempt to suggest a dream might in fact be a nightmsre.
In reply to off-duty:
Yes that would be odd if they were just dreams.
A lot of the rubbish coming out from Better Together is just that, rubbish.
Take the "border posts"........... What utter drivel.
Yes that would be odd if they were just dreams.
A lot of the rubbish coming out from Better Together is just that, rubbish.
Take the "border posts"........... What utter drivel.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Give us a clue. Why should we assume that fifteen years of policies of a parliament with very limited powers and responsibilities should be regarded as a reliable template for the political and economic future of a country over the next hundred years?
Would you have based your predictions for the UK's politics and economy 1985-2005 on the policies of the governments of 1965-79?
Incidentally, why do you think I am against independence?
> We wouldn't want anyone to challenge your knowledge. I mean, how absurd. Who on earth would use personal experience living in a country where the policies have been enacted and taken part in the elections when we would could told by a man outside the country calling himself Postman Pat who is very much against those same people actually having more powers.
>
Give us a clue. Why should we assume that fifteen years of policies of a parliament with very limited powers and responsibilities should be regarded as a reliable template for the political and economic future of a country over the next hundred years?
Would you have based your predictions for the UK's politics and economy 1985-2005 on the policies of the governments of 1965-79?
Incidentally, why do you think I am against independence?
Post edited at 11:48
In reply to Saor Alba:
Except it isn't drivel, it's a perfectly legitimate concern. If Scotland joins Schegen and rUK doesn't, there will need to be border posts. If rUK leaves the EU, there will need to be border posts. In fact the only way there won't be is if Scotland is given EU membership and an exemption from Schengen, which is a normal requirement of joining. As with currency, EU membership and whole host of other things, Alex and mates asserting "there's no problem", doesn't make it so.
> Take the "border posts"........... What utter drivel.
Except it isn't drivel, it's a perfectly legitimate concern. If Scotland joins Schegen and rUK doesn't, there will need to be border posts. If rUK leaves the EU, there will need to be border posts. In fact the only way there won't be is if Scotland is given EU membership and an exemption from Schengen, which is a normal requirement of joining. As with currency, EU membership and whole host of other things, Alex and mates asserting "there's no problem", doesn't make it so.
In reply to MG:
It is drivel. Utter drivel.
You No people constantly demand "facts". Let's see the fact that says the UK will build a border post in the event of a yes vote. Not a hint, not an opinion from someone - a clear commitment from the Government that says this is what the rUK will do. Facts please.
It is drivel. Utter drivel.
You No people constantly demand "facts". Let's see the fact that says the UK will build a border post in the event of a yes vote. Not a hint, not an opinion from someone - a clear commitment from the Government that says this is what the rUK will do. Facts please.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Sure, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, had this say on the matter
"That would undermine the work we have done since 2010, and the continuing UK could not allow Scotland to become a convenient landing point for migration into the United Kingdom. So that would mean border controls between a separate Scotland and the United Kingdom. Passport checks to visit friends and relatives. A literal and figurative barrier between our nations."
Sure, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, had this say on the matter
"That would undermine the work we have done since 2010, and the continuing UK could not allow Scotland to become a convenient landing point for migration into the United Kingdom. So that would mean border controls between a separate Scotland and the United Kingdom. Passport checks to visit friends and relatives. A literal and figurative barrier between our nations."
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Surely they are drivel too?
> To be fair, looking at the polls, there is no problem.
Surely they are drivel too?
In reply to Saor Alba:
I take it we can match those facts up with the evidence "utopia" will be built as a direct result of Independence, rather than an abstract goal based on post-independence elections, followed by managing to find time to submit legislation in any subsequent Scot. Govt. which will then have to be passed, etc... etc...
> It is drivel. Utter drivel.
> You No people constantly demand "facts". Let's see the fact that says the UK will build a border post in the event of a yes vote. Not a hint, not an opinion from someone - a clear commitment from the Government that says this is what the rUK will do. Facts please.
I take it we can match those facts up with the evidence "utopia" will be built as a direct result of Independence, rather than an abstract goal based on post-independence elections, followed by managing to find time to submit legislation in any subsequent Scot. Govt. which will then have to be passed, etc... etc...
In reply to Saor Alba:
One judgement for points made by Yes, another judgement for points made by No.
QED.
> Yes that would be odd if they were just dreams.
> A lot of the rubbish coming out from Better Together is just that, rubbish.
> Take the "border posts"........... What utter drivel.
One judgement for points made by Yes, another judgement for points made by No.
QED.
In reply to MG:
I think we in Scotland should be more concerned with ruk immigrants trying to flood into Scotland after the ruk has voted to leave the EU....but think about it, border controls between two EU partners, particularly partners that have many shared interests ie like the currency, plenty of English, welsh and northern iirish workers just in the oil and gas industry.
Like I've said before, you supporters of the Union believe any old shite that comes from the mouths of Westminster polititions...or maybe you don't, maybe you just think we're all F'ing stupid up here, I beleive the latter to be true.
> Sure, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, had this say on the matter
> "That would undermine the work we have done since 2010, and the continuing UK could not allow Scotland to become a convenient landing point for migration into the United Kingdom. So that would mean border controls between a separate Scotland and the United Kingdom. Passport checks to visit friends and relatives. A literal and figurative barrier between our nations."
I think we in Scotland should be more concerned with ruk immigrants trying to flood into Scotland after the ruk has voted to leave the EU....but think about it, border controls between two EU partners, particularly partners that have many shared interests ie like the currency, plenty of English, welsh and northern iirish workers just in the oil and gas industry.
Like I've said before, you supporters of the Union believe any old shite that comes from the mouths of Westminster polititions...or maybe you don't, maybe you just think we're all F'ing stupid up here, I beleive the latter to be true.
Post edited at 12:48
In reply to lynx3555:
So given the different legislation regarding immigration, why would there not be border controls?
So given the different legislation regarding immigration, why would there not be border controls?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
And more sh*te that you lot lap up....I wonder why it is that Cameron refused to release the more in depth polls that his mates over at MORI carried out...he shared them with the "No thanks" campaigners, and I would imagine the script that Darling spewed out during the debate was written around those more in depth poll results.
Us Yes campaigners/voters are tax payers and are entitled to see those poll results, as they were paid for using tax payers money....how very un democratic from the so called impartial Prime dick, David Cameron.
> To be fair, looking at the polls, there is no problem.
And more sh*te that you lot lap up....I wonder why it is that Cameron refused to release the more in depth polls that his mates over at MORI carried out...he shared them with the "No thanks" campaigners, and I would imagine the script that Darling spewed out during the debate was written around those more in depth poll results.
Us Yes campaigners/voters are tax payers and are entitled to see those poll results, as they were paid for using tax payers money....how very un democratic from the so called impartial Prime dick, David Cameron.
Post edited at 12:41
In reply to tony:
Border sounds good to me, but sadly common sense will prevail and there will very likely be no border controls...I rarely visit England any way and if I did, I'd just take my passport and a flask of coffee.
Border sounds good to me, but sadly common sense will prevail and there will very likely be no border controls...I rarely visit England any way and if I did, I'd just take my passport and a flask of coffee.
Post edited at 12:49
In reply to lynx3555:
Well yes, it is only very rarely there is sufficient snow to need them.
> Boarder sounds good to me, but sadly common sense will prevail and there will very likely be no boarder controls...
Well yes, it is only very rarely there is sufficient snow to need them.
In reply to off-duty:
For the hard of thinking, the idea is that the political centre ground in Scotland is to the left of the UK as a whole and we'll have more egalitarian policies which in the long run should reduce inequality.
> I'm not convinced that a vote for Independence is a particularly good way of trying to reduce inequality.
> The "bottom marker" for UK inequality is almost certain to be Glasgow unfortunately, due to it's almost inexplicable rates of early deaths, and other poverty associated problems.
> Independence might well chop off a number of the "top markers" in London or the South of England but I think there are a fair few inhabitants of Scotland, from large estate owners, Edinburgh financiers and Aberdonian oil company directors who are probably vying for that top spot at the moment.
For the hard of thinking, the idea is that the political centre ground in Scotland is to the left of the UK as a whole and we'll have more egalitarian policies which in the long run should reduce inequality.
In reply to Postmanpat:
How is he cherry picking his data?
And there tends to be more poverty in the more unequal countries. UK doctors go the to the US to do charity work y'know.
Well you could look at voting patterns, the influence of the City of London and a London based media too. You could also look at the electoral systems and the house of lords. I'm pretty sure the political centre ground in Scotland is to the left of that in the UK.
> Not so. Wilkinson Just cherry picks the data to support his politics views.
How is he cherry picking his data?
> Pretty obviously poverty is bad for those in poverty, and extreme inequality may break down societal cohesion, but in the middle ground the case is not proven at all.
And there tends to be more poverty in the more unequal countries. UK doctors go the to the US to do charity work y'know.
> Anyway, given the evidence that social attitudes in Scotland are not dissimilar to those in England it's a long shot to assume that an independent Scotland will provide an example of anything terribly different.
Well you could look at voting patterns, the influence of the City of London and a London based media too. You could also look at the electoral systems and the house of lords. I'm pretty sure the political centre ground in Scotland is to the left of that in the UK.
In reply to lynx3555:
Again with the insults. Also I am not sure he has ever claimed to be impartial on the subject.
> how very un democratic from the so called impartial Prime dick, David Cameron.
Again with the insults. Also I am not sure he has ever claimed to be impartial on the subject.
In reply to Donnie:
I'm aware that politics in Scotland are generally more left leaning.
This might have a consequence of reducing inequality in the long term - but immediate consequences of independence might well be no change, more inequality or less inequality but a lower level for anyone.
Equally in the utopia promised by some Yes voters maybe we'll see a huge influx of capitalists and entrepreneurs keen to take advantage of the unleashed "caledonian tiger" and a subsequent increase in inequality.
Who knows....
> For the hard of thinking, the idea is that the political centre ground in Scotland is to the left of the UK as a whole and we'll have more egalitarian policies which in the long run should reduce inequality.
I'm aware that politics in Scotland are generally more left leaning.
This might have a consequence of reducing inequality in the long term - but immediate consequences of independence might well be no change, more inequality or less inequality but a lower level for anyone.
Equally in the utopia promised by some Yes voters maybe we'll see a huge influx of capitalists and entrepreneurs keen to take advantage of the unleashed "caledonian tiger" and a subsequent increase in inequality.
Who knows....
In reply to Donnie:
You are doing that thing where you defend someone because they vote the same way...
London is not clearly subsidised by the rest of the UK. Do you disagree with that statement?
Claiming rail subsidies is obscure because many railways, including in Scotland, receive government subsidies..
You are doing that thing where you defend someone because they vote the same way...
London is not clearly subsidised by the rest of the UK. Do you disagree with that statement?
Claiming rail subsidies is obscure because many railways, including in Scotland, receive government subsidies..
In reply to MG:
Sorry I am not looking for an opinion. I am looking for the factual evidence that the UK Government has taken a decision to erect a border.
Sorry I am not looking for an opinion. I am looking for the factual evidence that the UK Government has taken a decision to erect a border.
In reply to off-duty:
Whether inequality measured accross the Scottish population post independence is more or less than inequality measured accross the GB population pre independence is entirely irrelevant.
We could go more right wing. I don't think we will.
Nobody knows for certain but what will happen if we vote no and what will happen if we vote yes. I can make an educated guess though.
Whether inequality measured accross the Scottish population post independence is more or less than inequality measured accross the GB population pre independence is entirely irrelevant.
We could go more right wing. I don't think we will.
Nobody knows for certain but what will happen if we vote no and what will happen if we vote yes. I can make an educated guess though.
In reply to lynx3555:
Do you have any idea about immigration?
We have open borders with countries we can't work in..
Immigrants go to jobs anyway.. No jobs no immigrants..
You should like the Britainfirst Facebook page.. It's for people who want cultural homogeneity and fear immigrants...
Do you have any idea about immigration?
We have open borders with countries we can't work in..
Immigrants go to jobs anyway.. No jobs no immigrants..
You should like the Britainfirst Facebook page.. It's for people who want cultural homogeneity and fear immigrants...
In reply to Saor Alba:
Yes, that's why I didn't give you an opinion but a verbatim quote from the Home Secretary (that's the Cabinet member of the UK government with responsibility for borders) explaining what the government would do if iScotland had different immigration policies to the rUK.
Carry on with your drivel though.
> Sorry I am not looking for an opinion. I am looking for the factual evidence that the UK Government has taken a decision to erect a border.
Yes, that's why I didn't give you an opinion but a verbatim quote from the Home Secretary (that's the Cabinet member of the UK government with responsibility for borders) explaining what the government would do if iScotland had different immigration policies to the rUK.
Carry on with your drivel though.
In reply to IainRUK:
I'm not defending anyone. I don't know what the other chap said. I'm just making clear what I my view is - ie that whether London is subsidised or not is a complicated subject. So I, personally, don't disagree with that statement.
But the other chap might be able to provide evidence that it clearly is subsidised.
> You are doing that thing where you defend someone because they vote the same way...
> London is not clearly subsidised by the rest of the UK. Do you disagree with that statement?
> Claiming rail subsidies is obscure because many railways, including in Scotland, receive government subsidies..
I'm not defending anyone. I don't know what the other chap said. I'm just making clear what I my view is - ie that whether London is subsidised or not is a complicated subject. So I, personally, don't disagree with that statement.
But the other chap might be able to provide evidence that it clearly is subsidised.
In reply to Donnie:
By the universe of countries they use and the criteria and databases they use. I understand some of there regression analysis is also pretty dodgy and in the particular areas I know about there understanding us shallow if not downright wrong.
Relative policy is but are you really trying to say there is more poverty in the US than say, India?
Anyway, that is not the argument Wilkinson (and Pickett) are making. They claims that inequality itself is bad for both rich and poor.
Voting wise, yes, but curiously not so in surveys of attitudes, which begs the question of how voting patterns might change to reflect attitudes in a post independence environment. Or indeed, how attitudes might change once the english Tory bogeyman has been exorcised.
> How is he cherry picking his data?
By the universe of countries they use and the criteria and databases they use. I understand some of there regression analysis is also pretty dodgy and in the particular areas I know about there understanding us shallow if not downright wrong.
> And there tends to be more poverty in the more unequal countries. UK doctors go the to the US to do charity work y'know.
Relative policy is but are you really trying to say there is more poverty in the US than say, India?
Anyway, that is not the argument Wilkinson (and Pickett) are making. They claims that inequality itself is bad for both rich and poor.
> Well you could look at voting patterns, the influence of the City of London and a London based media too. You could also look at the electoral systems and the house of lords. I'm pretty sure the political centre ground in Scotland is to the left of that in the UK.
Voting wise, yes, but curiously not so in surveys of attitudes, which begs the question of how voting patterns might change to reflect attitudes in a post independence environment. Or indeed, how attitudes might change once the english Tory bogeyman has been exorcised.
Post edited at 14:57
In reply to MG:
Is it UK Government policy to erect a border? How will they man it? How much have they allocated to it? What will the border controls be?
Sorry but it's just rubbish a bit like their Great Ormond Street story only that one was a lot more distasteful.
Is it UK Government policy to erect a border? How will they man it? How much have they allocated to it? What will the border controls be?
Sorry but it's just rubbish a bit like their Great Ormond Street story only that one was a lot more distasteful.
In reply to Donnie:
Yeah you'd have thought so....
> But the other chap might be able to provide evidence that it clearly is subsidised.
Yeah you'd have thought so....
In reply to Saor Alba:
This is one of the things I find hard to take about much of the rhetoric of the Yes campaign. I'm undecided - I like the idea of an independent Scotland, but I'm disappointed with the timidity of the proposal - I'd be much more enthusiastic, for example, if Jim Sillars was leading the way with a vision of a genuinely independent Scotland which doesn't rely on a foreign central bank for decisions on interest rates and exchange rates.
But everyone with half a brain knows there are no certainties. You demand 'facts', knowing full well that there would be no 'facts' until a post-referendum negotiation ironed out the details. Demanding 'facts' as you do is meaningless, and I'm afraid I find it too representative of much of the rhetoric coming from the Yes campaign - if it's not a 'fact', it's drivel, or scaremongering, or some such dismissive, emotive rhetoric.
I would be much more persuaded if you calmly explained why, for example, there would be no need for border controls. Simply dismissing it as 'drivel' doesn't start to persuade me. If anything, it suggest an unwillingness to engage with the issue. That unwillingness to engage with issues seems to me to be one of the hallmarks of the Yes campaign. If there were a touch more humility and reality, I'd be more convinced.
> Sorry I am not looking for an opinion. I am looking for the factual evidence that the UK Government has taken a decision to erect a border.
This is one of the things I find hard to take about much of the rhetoric of the Yes campaign. I'm undecided - I like the idea of an independent Scotland, but I'm disappointed with the timidity of the proposal - I'd be much more enthusiastic, for example, if Jim Sillars was leading the way with a vision of a genuinely independent Scotland which doesn't rely on a foreign central bank for decisions on interest rates and exchange rates.
But everyone with half a brain knows there are no certainties. You demand 'facts', knowing full well that there would be no 'facts' until a post-referendum negotiation ironed out the details. Demanding 'facts' as you do is meaningless, and I'm afraid I find it too representative of much of the rhetoric coming from the Yes campaign - if it's not a 'fact', it's drivel, or scaremongering, or some such dismissive, emotive rhetoric.
I would be much more persuaded if you calmly explained why, for example, there would be no need for border controls. Simply dismissing it as 'drivel' doesn't start to persuade me. If anything, it suggest an unwillingness to engage with the issue. That unwillingness to engage with issues seems to me to be one of the hallmarks of the Yes campaign. If there were a touch more humility and reality, I'd be more convinced.
In reply to yer maw:
Sorry haven't read the thread right through but might be worth mentioning that the English FB friends I have (who live up here) all seem intent on voting Yes...
Sorry haven't read the thread right through but might be worth mentioning that the English FB friends I have (who live up here) all seem intent on voting Yes...
In reply to yer maw:
PS in fact it's them who are posting a large number of the Yes related articles on my FB feed.
PS in fact it's them who are posting a large number of the Yes related articles on my FB feed.
In reply to Postmanpat:
And how do you know this? (genuinely I'm interested - he said in the video they use rich countries for which data is available, is that a lie?)
No. The discussion is about inequality in rich countries.
The video I posted is just about rich countries. I don't know what he's said about poor countries but I expect high inequality is bad for them too.
Yeah, I do think a right wing party with a different name would do better than the tories do just now. I doubt it would be significantly better though. People really hate the tories here and they're not all so stupid as to be fooled by a name change.
Do you have a link to the survey(s) by the way? (Just out of interest - I'd like to see how the questions were asked. They're quite often of the obvious - would you like to pay less tax kind of a thing)
The main thing for me though is the influence that London finance and media has on the UK.
> By the universe of countries they use and the criteria and databases they use. I understand some of there regression analysis is also pretty dodgy and in the particular areas I know about there understanding us shallow if not downright wrong.
And how do you know this? (genuinely I'm interested - he said in the video they use rich countries for which data is available, is that a lie?)
> Relative policy is but are you really trying to say there is more poverty in the US than say, India?
No. The discussion is about inequality in rich countries.
> Anyway, that is not the argument Wilkinson (and Pickett) are making. He claims that inequity is bad for both rich and poor.
The video I posted is just about rich countries. I don't know what he's said about poor countries but I expect high inequality is bad for them too.
> Voting wise, yes, but curiously not so in surveys of attitudes, which begs the question of how voting patterns might change to reflect attitudes in a post independence environment. Or indeed, how attitudes might change once the english Tory bogeyman has been exorcised.
Yeah, I do think a right wing party with a different name would do better than the tories do just now. I doubt it would be significantly better though. People really hate the tories here and they're not all so stupid as to be fooled by a name change.
Do you have a link to the survey(s) by the way? (Just out of interest - I'd like to see how the questions were asked. They're quite often of the obvious - would you like to pay less tax kind of a thing)
The main thing for me though is the influence that London finance and media has on the UK.
In reply to tony:
for example, if Jim Sillars was leading the way with a vision of a genuinely independent Scotland which doesn't rely on a foreign central bank for decisions on interest rates and exchange rates.
I agree. When interviewed he has clear vision for how iScotland would work and presents it straightforwardly. I think it would be a bad thing but at least it is honestly presented and argued. Whereas Salmond and others are evasive, hectoring and simply fantasists. Nothing they say is credible or thought through. This sums up Salmond and by extension the Yes campaign well
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/02/17/comment-salmond-is-ma...
for example, if Jim Sillars was leading the way with a vision of a genuinely independent Scotland which doesn't rely on a foreign central bank for decisions on interest rates and exchange rates.
I agree. When interviewed he has clear vision for how iScotland would work and presents it straightforwardly. I think it would be a bad thing but at least it is honestly presented and argued. Whereas Salmond and others are evasive, hectoring and simply fantasists. Nothing they say is credible or thought through. This sums up Salmond and by extension the Yes campaign well
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/02/17/comment-salmond-is-ma...
In reply to IainRUK:
Haha!
Equally you probably can't provide evidence that it's not. Although I assume he made the claim in the first place so the burdon of proofs probably on him.
> Yeah you'd have thought so....
Haha!
Equally you probably can't provide evidence that it's not. Although I assume he made the claim in the first place so the burdon of proofs probably on him.
In reply to Wee Davie:
That's interesting, earlier lynx said "when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence". So perhaps your friends aren't representative. Or lynx was mistaken. Tricky.
> Sorry haven't read the thread right through but might be worth mentioning that the English FB friends I have (who live up here) all seem intent on voting Yes...
That's interesting, earlier lynx said "when you strip away the resident English in Scotland vote you find that more Scots want independence than don't want independence". So perhaps your friends aren't representative. Or lynx was mistaken. Tricky.
In reply to Saor Alba:
So let's see, Theresa May doesn't know anything at all about UK borders policy because she's the Home Secretary. Whereas you and Mr Deodorant know all about it because, er, because... what is it you do again?
So let's see, Theresa May doesn't know anything at all about UK borders policy because she's the Home Secretary. Whereas you and Mr Deodorant know all about it because, er, because... what is it you do again?
> Sorry but it's just rubbish
In reply to Tim Chappell:
No. I didn't say that. In fact I haven't even mentioned her.
Could you provide a link to a UK Government website that says in black and white a border will be built?
Just looking for some facts from Better Together. Sorry if they cause any discomfort.
What will the conditions be for crossing the border?
No. I didn't say that. In fact I haven't even mentioned her.
Could you provide a link to a UK Government website that says in black and white a border will be built?
Just looking for some facts from Better Together. Sorry if they cause any discomfort.
What will the conditions be for crossing the border?
In reply to Donnie:
I read the book and read the reviews and book about the book.
The point holds. Using some definition of absolute rather than relative poverty can you show there are a greater proportion of people in absolute poverty in rich but unequal countries than not so rich but more equal countries?
No you misunderstood. He is arguing that inequality is bad for both rich and poor PEOPLE.
Maybe it's the image of English toffs they hate rather than the policies. Both sides of the border there is plenty of evidence to show that people like certain policies until they are told which party supports them.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9181991/the-british-clan/
> And how do you know this? (genuinely I'm interested - he said in the video they use rich countries for which data is available, is that a lie?)
I read the book and read the reviews and book about the book.
> No. The discussion is about inequality in rich countries.
The point holds. Using some definition of absolute rather than relative poverty can you show there are a greater proportion of people in absolute poverty in rich but unequal countries than not so rich but more equal countries?
> The video I posted is just about rich countries. I don't know what he's said about poor countries but I expect high inequality is bad for them too.
No you misunderstood. He is arguing that inequality is bad for both rich and poor PEOPLE.
> Yeah, I do think a right wing party with a different name would do better than the tories do just now. I doubt it would be significantly better though. People really hate the tories here and they're not all so stupid as to be fooled by a name change.
Maybe it's the image of English toffs they hate rather than the policies. Both sides of the border there is plenty of evidence to show that people like certain policies until they are told which party supports them.
> Do you have a link to the survey(s) by the way? (Just out of interest - I'd like to see how the questions were asked. They're quite often of the obvious - would you like to pay less tax kind of a thing)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9181991/the-british-clan/
In reply to Saor Alba:
Just because it's not written down on a website doesn't mean it might not happen.
Can you say for a fact there will not be border controls? No, of course you can't. Grow up, ffs.
> No. I didn't say that. In fact I haven't even mentioned her.
> Could you provide a link to a UK Government website that says in black and white a border will be built?
Just because it's not written down on a website doesn't mean it might not happen.
Can you say for a fact there will not be border controls? No, of course you can't. Grow up, ffs.
In reply to tony:
Correct but in this constant demand for facts from the Yes side I think it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of the other side.
What will the conditions be to cross this mythical border?
Correct but in this constant demand for facts from the Yes side I think it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of the other side.
What will the conditions be to cross this mythical border?
In reply to tony:
It is written down, in a lot of detail.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...
> Just because it's not written down on a website doesn't mean it might not happen.
It is written down, in a lot of detail.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...
In reply to Saor Alba:
It's difficult so say at the moment, in the event of this mythical YES vote will iScotland be an EU member and will they have signed up to Schengen?
> Correct but in this constant demand for facts from the Yes side I think it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of the other side.
> What will the conditions be to cross this mythical border?
It's difficult so say at the moment, in the event of this mythical YES vote will iScotland be an EU member and will they have signed up to Schengen?
In reply to MG:
Sorry but that is not a document that says there will be a border. It is not a policy document. It analyses the situation as the anti-independence UK Government sees it.
Can you provide a link to the UL Government policy to erect a border?
What will the conditions be to cross the border?
Sorry but that is not a document that says there will be a border. It is not a policy document. It analyses the situation as the anti-independence UK Government sees it.
Can you provide a link to the UL Government policy to erect a border?
What will the conditions be to cross the border?
In reply to Saor Alba:
It's not going to be mythical. Borders are the bits between different countries. If England and Scotland are different countries, there has to be border. In fact, there is one already, so it's certainly not mythical. I have no idea what the conditions would be. Neither do you. Neither does anyone - it'll depend on all sorts of things, membership of the EU among them. You never know, a future Scottish government might decide they want border controls. Can you say for a fact that won't happen? No, of course you can't.
So stop pretending you're making some killer point (or even vaguely useful point). All you're doing is making yourself look evasive and unwilling to consider anything that doesn't fit your perfect image. Life's not like that.
> Correct but in this constant demand for facts from the Yes side I think it is reasonable to ask for an explanation of the other side.
> What will the conditions be to cross this mythical border?
It's not going to be mythical. Borders are the bits between different countries. If England and Scotland are different countries, there has to be border. In fact, there is one already, so it's certainly not mythical. I have no idea what the conditions would be. Neither do you. Neither does anyone - it'll depend on all sorts of things, membership of the EU among them. You never know, a future Scottish government might decide they want border controls. Can you say for a fact that won't happen? No, of course you can't.
So stop pretending you're making some killer point (or even vaguely useful point). All you're doing is making yourself look evasive and unwilling to consider anything that doesn't fit your perfect image. Life's not like that.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Which size font would be acceptable to you? Do you require it signed in blood by Cameron?
We've established very clearly that suggesting there will border checks is not drivel, as you claimed earlier.
Which size font would be acceptable to you? Do you require it signed in blood by Cameron?
We've established very clearly that suggesting there will border checks is not drivel, as you claimed earlier.
In reply to MG:
No, I am just looking for a clear factual statement of UK Government policy which backs up this notion of a border being erected. I am not looking for a quote from the Home Secretary as this neither forms government policy or is definitive.
What will the conditions be to cross the border?
No, I am just looking for a clear factual statement of UK Government policy which backs up this notion of a border being erected. I am not looking for a quote from the Home Secretary as this neither forms government policy or is definitive.
What will the conditions be to cross the border?
In reply to MG:
I think its the idea that the government have thought about it and come up with different options depending on the outcome.
As opposed to deciding what they want the answer to be and then stick their head in the sand to cut out any disagreement.
> We've established very clearly that suggesting there will border checks is not drivel, as you claimed earlier.
I think its the idea that the government have thought about it and come up with different options depending on the outcome.
As opposed to deciding what they want the answer to be and then stick their head in the sand to cut out any disagreement.
In reply to tony:
Yes. What will the conditions be, as set out by the rUK to cross the border.
I am not trying to make some "killer point". I am merely pointing out that much of the Better Together rhetoric is nothing other than that and has little to support it. It's worth as much as what the SG says.
Whether it's a killer point is of no importance to me.
Yes. What will the conditions be, as set out by the rUK to cross the border.
I am not trying to make some "killer point". I am merely pointing out that much of the Better Together rhetoric is nothing other than that and has little to support it. It's worth as much as what the SG says.
Whether it's a killer point is of no importance to me.
In reply to tony:
Soar Alba is Alex Salmond and I claim my 5 pounds.
> All you're doing is making yourself look evasive and unwilling to consider anything that doesn't fit your perfect image.
Soar Alba is Alex Salmond and I claim my 5 pounds.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Yes, you are asking childishly for ever more detailed information every time your previous question is answered. We get that.
Conditions on the border? Probably a few machine-gun posts, lots of barbed wire. Alsatians. That sort of thing.
Yes, you are asking childishly for ever more detailed information every time your previous question is answered. We get that.
Conditions on the border? Probably a few machine-gun posts, lots of barbed wire. Alsatians. That sort of thing.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Which bit of "I have no idea" do you find confusing?
Of course, if you or anyone else from the Yes campaign were able to explain clearly why there would be no need for border controls, regardless of EU membership, the whole issue would go away.
> Yes. What will the conditions be, as set out by the rUK to cross the border.
Which bit of "I have no idea" do you find confusing?
Of course, if you or anyone else from the Yes campaign were able to explain clearly why there would be no need for border controls, regardless of EU membership, the whole issue would go away.
In reply to MG:
The only real questions are which way will the top of the barbed wire fence lean and which way will the machine guns be pointing?
> Yes, you are asking childishly for ever more detailed information every time your previous question is answered. We get that.
> Conditions on the border? Probably a few machine-gun posts, lots of barbed wire. Alsatians. That sort of thing.
The only real questions are which way will the top of the barbed wire fence lean and which way will the machine guns be pointing?
In reply to MG:
The point I am making Martin is that there is much uncertainty and zero facts created by the the silly announcement about the border. The only definitive statement is on the currency union - there wont be one.
I could go on asking important questions to which there is no answer or facts. This is the tactic used by Better Together and many people have fallen for it.
For example how much will the UK owe in 18 months time and what will be my liability?
The point I am making Martin is that there is much uncertainty and zero facts created by the the silly announcement about the border. The only definitive statement is on the currency union - there wont be one.
I could go on asking important questions to which there is no answer or facts. This is the tactic used by Better Together and many people have fallen for it.
For example how much will the UK owe in 18 months time and what will be my liability?
In reply to tony:
I am not confused. I would have said so if I was.
The Yes campaign says that the border will be as it is currently as there will be a common travel area and both Scotland and the rUK will remain in the EU. This is a perfectly reasonable position.
The Better Together campaign says there might be border controls, but is unable to say what they will be. This is also perfectly reasonable.
The point I am making is that facts are just as much lacking on the BT side as the Yes side.
I am not confused. I would have said so if I was.
The Yes campaign says that the border will be as it is currently as there will be a common travel area and both Scotland and the rUK will remain in the EU. This is a perfectly reasonable position.
The Better Together campaign says there might be border controls, but is unable to say what they will be. This is also perfectly reasonable.
The point I am making is that facts are just as much lacking on the BT side as the Yes side.
In reply to Saor Alba:
As far as "facts" about the future are meaningful, it is certain iScotland will result in different arrangement at the border than currently exist (none). Even if iScotland joins the CTA, there will be some checks, as noted in the document I linked to. Pretending this is drivel is simply wrong.
The only definitive statement is on the currency union - there wont be one.
Really Donnie? Can you point me to a policy document (in black and white) on the UK government website stating this? Anyway, I thought your Dear Leader and decreed there would be?
This is the tactic used by Better Together and many people have fallen for it.
Aren't people stupid, wanting some idea what they are voting for! Since the Yes campaign are arguing for change, the burden is on them to make their case
> The point I am making Martin is that there is much uncertainty and zero facts created by the the silly announcement about the border.
As far as "facts" about the future are meaningful, it is certain iScotland will result in different arrangement at the border than currently exist (none). Even if iScotland joins the CTA, there will be some checks, as noted in the document I linked to. Pretending this is drivel is simply wrong.
The only definitive statement is on the currency union - there wont be one.
Really Donnie? Can you point me to a policy document (in black and white) on the UK government website stating this? Anyway, I thought your Dear Leader and decreed there would be?
This is the tactic used by Better Together and many people have fallen for it.
Aren't people stupid, wanting some idea what they are voting for! Since the Yes campaign are arguing for change, the burden is on them to make their case
Post edited at 16:03
In reply to Saor Alba:
Do make your mind up - you thought is was drivel earlier.
> The Better Together campaign says there might be border controls, but is unable to say what they will be. This is also perfectly reasonable.
Do make your mind up - you thought is was drivel earlier.
In reply to Saor Alba:
What silly announcement? That they might be border controls.
As far as I am aware the Yes campaign are saying they will join the EU?
Which then gives the problem of border controls since the UK and Ireland are special cases.
Seems somewhat sensible to raise it as a risk and look at options.
> (In reply to MG)
>
> The point I am making Martin is that there is much uncertainty and zero facts created by the the silly announcement about the border.
>
> The point I am making Martin is that there is much uncertainty and zero facts created by the the silly announcement about the border.
What silly announcement? That they might be border controls.
As far as I am aware the Yes campaign are saying they will join the EU?
Which then gives the problem of border controls since the UK and Ireland are special cases.
Seems somewhat sensible to raise it as a risk and look at options.
In reply to MG:
No that is not certain which is why no one, including me and you, can point to any facts which back up that statement. We can say it's certain but we can't prove it.
In fact I googled "UK Government no currency union" but I could only come up with one of those analysis papers so it's looks like that isn't factual either.
Yes the burden is on them to make the case and they have done so. That may or may not satisfy you but I can equally say the burden is on BT to back up statement they make. Often they don't.
What do you think would happen if it's a Yes vote and then later the rUK votes to leave the EU. What border controls might there be to EU states?
No that is not certain which is why no one, including me and you, can point to any facts which back up that statement. We can say it's certain but we can't prove it.
In fact I googled "UK Government no currency union" but I could only come up with one of those analysis papers so it's looks like that isn't factual either.
Yes the burden is on them to make the case and they have done so. That may or may not satisfy you but I can equally say the burden is on BT to back up statement they make. Often they don't.
What do you think would happen if it's a Yes vote and then later the rUK votes to leave the EU. What border controls might there be to EU states?
In reply to Saor Alba:
It's factual as far as any future course is. Cabinet members and opposition members have agreed to it. Of course they could change their minds, and if there was a policy written down that too could change. The point is some things have been thought through e.g. what are the options are for board controls carefully and in detail by the UK government. They have laid out the options - if this, then that etc. Other things haven't, such as EU membership and currency by the Yes campaign. What if other countries insist on Schengen membership, or Euro membership as a requirement for joining? Silence from Yes because they haven't thought about it but think asserting everything will be fine is sufficient.
At a guess much like Swiss/France border. Maybe a little tighter due to immigration being higher up the political agenda.
> In fact I googled "UK Government no currency union" but I could only come up with one of those analysis papers so it's looks like that isn't factual either.
It's factual as far as any future course is. Cabinet members and opposition members have agreed to it. Of course they could change their minds, and if there was a policy written down that too could change. The point is some things have been thought through e.g. what are the options are for board controls carefully and in detail by the UK government. They have laid out the options - if this, then that etc. Other things haven't, such as EU membership and currency by the Yes campaign. What if other countries insist on Schengen membership, or Euro membership as a requirement for joining? Silence from Yes because they haven't thought about it but think asserting everything will be fine is sufficient.
> What do you think would happen if it's a Yes vote and then later the rUK votes to leave the EU. What border controls might there be to EU states?
At a guess much like Swiss/France border. Maybe a little tighter due to immigration being higher up the political agenda.
In reply to MG:
Agreed. It's as factual as it can get in terms of the future.
See these board controls, is that to prevent them stopping in the middle of the piste all the time?
EU membership has been set out to the same degree by both campaign but critically the UK, as the member state, refuses to request definitive advice from the commission.
If you think there is silence then you need to listen more closely.
I would guess the push for leaving the EU in an rUK would be massively reduced as the vote to stay in would be fairly strong meaning the issue wouldn't arise. However there is a lot of uncertainty on this and it's a significant risk to Scotland that it might be taken out of the EU depsite voting to stay in.
Agreed. It's as factual as it can get in terms of the future.
See these board controls, is that to prevent them stopping in the middle of the piste all the time?
EU membership has been set out to the same degree by both campaign but critically the UK, as the member state, refuses to request definitive advice from the commission.
If you think there is silence then you need to listen more closely.
I would guess the push for leaving the EU in an rUK would be massively reduced as the vote to stay in would be fairly strong meaning the issue wouldn't arise. However there is a lot of uncertainty on this and it's a significant risk to Scotland that it might be taken out of the EU depsite voting to stay in.
In reply to MG:
It'd be similar to elsewhere in Europe.. There would just be no right to work like when we visit Switzerland.. The actual checks will depend on differences in taxes as if one has cheap alcohol or cigs people will smuggle it in like Denmark/Germany which have checks..
It'd be similar to elsewhere in Europe.. There would just be no right to work like when we visit Switzerland.. The actual checks will depend on differences in taxes as if one has cheap alcohol or cigs people will smuggle it in like Denmark/Germany which have checks..
In reply to Saor Alba:
Definitely need more boarder controls. They are a liability.
Definitely need more boarder controls. They are a liability.
Post edited at 16:53
In reply to Saor Alba:
Sheesh. You're the one who wants to turn it into a real border!
To answer your oft repeated question, consider this chain of reasoning:
Q Is the Irish Republic a former part of the UK that is now independent?
A Indeed it is
Q Is there a border between the Irish Republic and the present UK?
A Indeed there is
Q Does this border involve controls?
A Indeed it does (I know it does, I've been through them several times)
Q So, is it drivel to suggest that there might be border controls between rUK and an independent Scotland?
A Indeed it isn't.
Oh, and a PS--
Q Is it likely that Theresa May, as Home Secretary, knows more about the likely situation re the currently hypothetical rUK/ iScotland border than a few random punters on a climbing website?
A Indeed it is.
Thank you. That is all.
> What will the conditions be to cross this mythical border?
Sheesh. You're the one who wants to turn it into a real border!
To answer your oft repeated question, consider this chain of reasoning:
Q Is the Irish Republic a former part of the UK that is now independent?
A Indeed it is
Q Is there a border between the Irish Republic and the present UK?
A Indeed there is
Q Does this border involve controls?
A Indeed it does (I know it does, I've been through them several times)
Q So, is it drivel to suggest that there might be border controls between rUK and an independent Scotland?
A Indeed it isn't.
Oh, and a PS--
Q Is it likely that Theresa May, as Home Secretary, knows more about the likely situation re the currently hypothetical rUK/ iScotland border than a few random punters on a climbing website?
A Indeed it is.
Thank you. That is all.
Post edited at 16:58
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Where did you get that idea? I have never suggested there should be a "real border". You are just making this up now.
Where did you get that idea? I have never suggested there should be a "real border". You are just making this up now.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Its implicit in wanting independence isnt it?
> Where did you get that idea? I have never suggested there should be a "real border". You are just making this up now.
Its implicit in wanting independence isnt it?
Post edited at 17:23
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Been on holiday folks.
Since when has Scotland got a government it voted for??
> (In reply to yer maw)
> Do you think the all the MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster don't give a toss about Scotland?
> Do you think the all the MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster don't give a toss about Scotland?
Been on holiday folks.
Since when has Scotland got a government it voted for??
In reply to Saor Alba:
[sigh]
You want independence, right?
And that means separating Scotland from England, right?
And a separation means a border, right?
So I'm not making it up; you have suggested there should be a "real border".
Right?
> Where did you get that idea? I have never suggested there should be a "real border". You are just making this up now.
[sigh]
You want independence, right?
And that means separating Scotland from England, right?
And a separation means a border, right?
So I'm not making it up; you have suggested there should be a "real border".
Right?
In reply to yer maw:
Since when have I got the Holyrood government/ executive I voted for?? That's 4 times now I've voted differently in Holyrood elections from the colour of the party that won the election! This is intrinsically unfair. Independence for me!
> Been on holiday folks.
> Since when has Scotland got a government it voted for??
Since when have I got the Holyrood government/ executive I voted for?? That's 4 times now I've voted differently in Holyrood elections from the colour of the party that won the election! This is intrinsically unfair. Independence for me!
In reply to Tim Chappell:
No, there already is a border, in as much as a line on a map but also the border of legal processes etc. With a common travel area there is no reason border posts need to be set up.
No, there already is a border, in as much as a line on a map but also the border of legal processes etc. With a common travel area there is no reason border posts need to be set up.
In reply to Tim Chappel
Yes but the small issue is that the Act of Union is between two countries. One of which always gets the government it gets for, the other doesn't always.
If you want to set up your own country go for it.
> Since when have I got the Holyrood government/ executive I voted for?? That's 4 times now I've voted differently in Holyrood elections from the colour of the party that won the election! This is intrinsically unfair. Independence for me!
Yes but the small issue is that the Act of Union is between two countries. One of which always gets the government it gets for, the other doesn't always.
If you want to set up your own country go for it.
In reply to JohnBson:
Being pro independence doesn't make a person anti-English. I can assure you I'm not.
These forums have always been great for free discussion on all manner of topics beyond climbing.
It's about government and self determination. Anyone will still be free to climb and socialise wherever they want. I'm more worried that some people still believe this is an anti-English campaign which is quite sad really.
> (In reply to yer maw)
>
> Campaigning for Independence on UKClimbing.com, this website is a true symbol of how our sassenach friends can come up here and climb our mountains then post photos of their conquests. It even tells them where the crags are so they can assign stars to the routes, I'm sure they berate routes in Scotland as these nasty English types wouldn't want Scotland to profit from increased interest in their crags. Remember no crag is better than Stanage.
>
> Campaigning for Independence on UKClimbing.com, this website is a true symbol of how our sassenach friends can come up here and climb our mountains then post photos of their conquests. It even tells them where the crags are so they can assign stars to the routes, I'm sure they berate routes in Scotland as these nasty English types wouldn't want Scotland to profit from increased interest in their crags. Remember no crag is better than Stanage.
Being pro independence doesn't make a person anti-English. I can assure you I'm not.
> Let's keep the forums for climbing free of this Saor Alba pish. These forums should be about bringing climbers together across the UK. Throwing up a border, controlled or not, is in no way to bring people together it never has done in the past.
These forums have always been great for free discussion on all manner of topics beyond climbing.
> Personally I'm surprised anyone with true romance of the stone, who is interested in experiencing the wilderness is holding truck with this independence debate as where you are from is far deeper than a patch of soil with a line drawn.
It's about government and self determination. Anyone will still be free to climb and socialise wherever they want. I'm more worried that some people still believe this is an anti-English campaign which is quite sad really.
In reply to yer maw:
Lynx hasn't exactly helped the anti-englishness.. going on about cultural differences, comparing the tories to nazi's, cameron to hitler, me to stalin.. clearly has a huge chip on his shoulder..
There will be some anti-englishness.. small minded nationalist types, we all have them..
Lynx hasn't exactly helped the anti-englishness.. going on about cultural differences, comparing the tories to nazi's, cameron to hitler, me to stalin.. clearly has a huge chip on his shoulder..
There will be some anti-englishness.. small minded nationalist types, we all have them..
In reply to IainRUK:
Agreed. There are many unsavoury groups campaigning for a No vote.
The trick is to recognise that people who express these views are often in requirement of sympathy and education. And not get angry about it.
Agreed. There are many unsavoury groups campaigning for a No vote.
The trick is to recognise that people who express these views are often in requirement of sympathy and education. And not get angry about it.
In reply to Saor Alba:
What's this common travel area? Where did that come from?
> With a common travel area there is no reason border posts need to be set up.
What's this common travel area? Where did that come from?
In reply to tony:
Salmond brought it in.. like sharing the pound, no debt.. that man just makes things happen..
Polls don't look good, I did think the Games would have an impact but very little has changed despite all the campaigning over the last 6 months or so. The polls have been pretty consistent.
There's still a lot of don't knows but it seems to be forgotten they probably won't vote..
Salmond brought it in.. like sharing the pound, no debt.. that man just makes things happen..
Polls don't look good, I did think the Games would have an impact but very little has changed despite all the campaigning over the last 6 months or so. The polls have been pretty consistent.
There's still a lot of don't knows but it seems to be forgotten they probably won't vote..
In reply to tony:
It exists currently with Ireland and a few places like Jersey. Salmond wants i Scotland to join, which is fine, except joining the EU implies joining Schengen too which is incompatible with the CTA.
It exists currently with Ireland and a few places like Jersey. Salmond wants i Scotland to join, which is fine, except joining the EU implies joining Schengen too which is incompatible with the CTA.
In reply to alastairmac:
It's tokenism politics at its worst, and infuriates me even more. Like I've said all along, if they ever gave a toss about Scotland they would have policies on Scotland long before independence ever came rolling along, and almost at the end of the campaign.
I actually think that a poat 'No' vote would see them really putting the boot in and putting us firmly in our place, because they know even more they don't have a say in Scotland. The Lib Dems are dead and buried in Scotland as part of the UK.
> (In reply to yer maw) Great to see Clegg and Cameron promising more powers for Scotland in the event of a no vote. From the men who promised to oppose tuition fees and avoid top down reorganisations of the NHS. We were fooled by rogues and liars in 79 but let's hope we don't make the same mistake again.
It's tokenism politics at its worst, and infuriates me even more. Like I've said all along, if they ever gave a toss about Scotland they would have policies on Scotland long before independence ever came rolling along, and almost at the end of the campaign.
I actually think that a poat 'No' vote would see them really putting the boot in and putting us firmly in our place, because they know even more they don't have a say in Scotland. The Lib Dems are dead and buried in Scotland as part of the UK.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I've not read either book but I've had a quick check on line of the critiques and responses. One point of their response is that most of the their conclusions hold even when you adjust the countries included as per the suggestions of their critics (which they dispute). Albeit that the conclusions aren't so strong. Their cirtics don't seem to have a response to that.
I also can't find much in the way of critique from academics and would question the objectivity of their critics. One apparently libertarian journalist, one right wing think tank and the tax payers alliance.
Sorry - I don't understand what the point is that you say holds? You asked if I was trying to say there's more poverty in the US than India. I said that I'm not. I'm trying to say that among rich countries there tends to be more poverty in more unequal countries.
I misunderstood you - because you compared India and the US in the same paragraph. And I realise he's saying that inequality is bad for rich and poor people (in rich countries).
Maybe, but they don't like Scottish toffs either and it'll take quite some time for them to disaccoiate themselves with their past. I'm not sure you realise quite how detested the tories are up here.
> I read the book and read the reviews and book about the book.
I've not read either book but I've had a quick check on line of the critiques and responses. One point of their response is that most of the their conclusions hold even when you adjust the countries included as per the suggestions of their critics (which they dispute). Albeit that the conclusions aren't so strong. Their cirtics don't seem to have a response to that.
I also can't find much in the way of critique from academics and would question the objectivity of their critics. One apparently libertarian journalist, one right wing think tank and the tax payers alliance.
> The point holds. Using some definition of absolute rather than relative poverty can you show there are a greater proportion of people in absolute poverty in rich but unequal countries than not so rich but more equal countries?
Sorry - I don't understand what the point is that you say holds? You asked if I was trying to say there's more poverty in the US than India. I said that I'm not. I'm trying to say that among rich countries there tends to be more poverty in more unequal countries.
> No you misunderstood. He is arguing that inequality is bad for both rich and poor PEOPLE.
I misunderstood you - because you compared India and the US in the same paragraph. And I realise he's saying that inequality is bad for rich and poor people (in rich countries).
> Maybe it's the image of English toffs they hate rather than the policies. Both sides of the border there is plenty of evidence to show that people like certain policies until they are told which party supports them.
Maybe, but they don't like Scottish toffs either and it'll take quite some time for them to disaccoiate themselves with their past. I'm not sure you realise quite how detested the tories are up here.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Well Tim, if you had the opportunity to choose between forming an indpendent country of you, lets give it the working title of "The Deomcratic Republic of Tim Chappel", and remaining part of Scotland, then I would suggest that you weigh up the pros and cons and decide what's best. On the pros side you might want to include that you regularly don't get the government you vote for.
> Since when have I got the Holyrood government/ executive I voted for?? That's 4 times now I've voted differently in Holyrood elections from the colour of the party that won the election! This is intrinsically unfair. Independence for me!
Well Tim, if you had the opportunity to choose between forming an indpendent country of you, lets give it the working title of "The Deomcratic Republic of Tim Chappel", and remaining part of Scotland, then I would suggest that you weigh up the pros and cons and decide what's best. On the pros side you might want to include that you regularly don't get the government you vote for.
In reply to yer maw:
Why? There has been pretty much consistent handing over of powers over the last 20 years.. Why do you not think that path will continue?
> It's tokenism politics at its worst, and infuriates me even more. Like I've said all along, if they ever gave a toss about Scotland they would have policies on Scotland long before independence ever came rolling along, and almost at the end of the campaign.
> I actually think that a poat 'No' vote would see them really putting the boot in and putting us firmly in our place, because they know even more they don't have a say in Scotland. The Lib Dems are dead and buried in Scotland as part of the UK.
Why? There has been pretty much consistent handing over of powers over the last 20 years.. Why do you not think that path will continue?
In reply to MG:
It's absurd to think that the EU would only allow Scotland in if they join Schengen. Or that this will influence their decsion at all.
> It exists currently with Ireland and a few places like Jersey. Salmond wants i Scotland to join, which is fine, except joining the EU implies joining Schengen too which is incompatible with the CTA.
It's absurd to think that the EU would only allow Scotland in if they join Schengen. Or that this will influence their decsion at all.
In reply to Wee Davie:
Hmmm that contrasts with my experience but it is encouraging. Cheers
> (In reply to yer maw)
>
> PS in fact it's them who are posting a large number of the Yes related articles on my FB feed.
>
> PS in fact it's them who are posting a large number of the Yes related articles on my FB feed.
Hmmm that contrasts with my experience but it is encouraging. Cheers
In reply to IainRUK:
I read it as a wind up, with tongue in cheek.
> (In reply to yer maw)
>
> Lynx hasn't exactly helped the anti-englishness.. going on about cultural differences, comparing the tories to nazi's, cameron to hitler, me to stalin.. clearly has a huge chip on his shoulder..
>
> Lynx hasn't exactly helped the anti-englishness.. going on about cultural differences, comparing the tories to nazi's, cameron to hitler, me to stalin.. clearly has a huge chip on his shoulder..
I read it as a wind up, with tongue in cheek.
>
> There will be some anti-englishness.. small minded nationalist types, we all have them..
Aye but not noted on this debate fortunately.> There will be some anti-englishness.. small minded nationalist types, we all have them..
In reply to yer maw:
Actually Lynx what's his name is a deranged racist loon, and has made that perfectly obvious in the past with various nasty and deluded anti-English remarks. This is why I for one refuse to talk to him directly; I don't debate with racists.
But what the SNP always do if one of "their side" comes out with racist stuff is (a) claim it's a joke, (b) try and pretend it hasn't happened, and (c) say that the person who points out the racism is "playing the race card".
You've just ticked boxes (a) and (b); are you about to go for (c) too?
Actually Lynx what's his name is a deranged racist loon, and has made that perfectly obvious in the past with various nasty and deluded anti-English remarks. This is why I for one refuse to talk to him directly; I don't debate with racists.
But what the SNP always do if one of "their side" comes out with racist stuff is (a) claim it's a joke, (b) try and pretend it hasn't happened, and (c) say that the person who points out the racism is "playing the race card".
You've just ticked boxes (a) and (b); are you about to go for (c) too?
In reply to tony:
Google it. Ireland and UK were setting up one. It sets a precedent of two EU member states, not signed up to schengen.
Google it. Ireland and UK were setting up one. It sets a precedent of two EU member states, not signed up to schengen.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Yes but you were accusing me of that, if I remember correctly, some time ago.
Looks to me if he's taking the piss.
Yes but you were accusing me of that, if I remember correctly, some time ago.
Looks to me if he's taking the piss.
In reply to Donnie:
It's absurd to think that iScotland would get special rules. But, hypothetically, you pretend what you want.
> It's absurd to think that the EU would only allow Scotland in if they join Schengen. Or that this will influence their decsion at all.
It's absurd to think that iScotland would get special rules. But, hypothetically, you pretend what you want.
In reply to IainRUK:
Nope, hate that bunch of Bigots at Britain First...I thought you'd be a supporter of there views, they peddle unionist propooganda....incidentally, if you were following the discussion, it was a unionist poster that suggested Scotland's future lax immigration laws would require the ruk have tight border controls to keep out the immigrants trying to get into England through Scotland.
> Do you have any idea about immigration?
> We have open borders with countries we can't work in..
> Immigrants go to jobs anyway.. No jobs no immigrants..
> You should like the Britainfirst Facebook page.. It's for people who want cultural homogeneity and fear immigrants...
Nope, hate that bunch of Bigots at Britain First...I thought you'd be a supporter of there views, they peddle unionist propooganda....incidentally, if you were following the discussion, it was a unionist poster that suggested Scotland's future lax immigration laws would require the ruk have tight border controls to keep out the immigrants trying to get into England through Scotland.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Why's that absurd? The EU is lttered with special rules for people and, in this case, it'll just be the same rules as they used to have.
What is absurd is that the EU will say, "okay, you can come in, but only if you set up border controls to stop the English getting in."
I'm not sure if you're a wind up merchant or just a bit hard of thinking
Why's that absurd? The EU is lttered with special rules for people and, in this case, it'll just be the same rules as they used to have.
What is absurd is that the EU will say, "okay, you can come in, but only if you set up border controls to stop the English getting in."
I'm not sure if you're a wind up merchant or just a bit hard of thinking
In reply to yer maw:
"The Schengen Agreement, which came into force in March 1995, substantially relaxed border controls between France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and the Benelux countries. It has since been extended to apply to Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland. Persons moving directly between Schengen states will not normally be subject to border controls. Free movement between the Scandinavian countries has been in place for many years. There are normally no border controls between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and citizens of these two countries need not carry passports or identity documents."
http://egtre.info/wiki/Border_Crossings_-_General_Information
So why would England want to suggest that Scotland would need tight border controls...because they are using fear as a weapon...spiteful bunch aren't they
"The Schengen Agreement, which came into force in March 1995, substantially relaxed border controls between France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and the Benelux countries. It has since been extended to apply to Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland. Persons moving directly between Schengen states will not normally be subject to border controls. Free movement between the Scandinavian countries has been in place for many years. There are normally no border controls between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and citizens of these two countries need not carry passports or identity documents."
http://egtre.info/wiki/Border_Crossings_-_General_Information
So why would England want to suggest that Scotland would need tight border controls...because they are using fear as a weapon...spiteful bunch aren't they
In reply to Donnie:
Yes they do, the central one being that the analysis is hopelessy skewed by outliers such as the US and Japan, but they also go though each section querying the impact of eating out particular countries when analysing particular issues.
You can buy into Wilkinson's theory or not but what is not true is that it is any way an accepted consensus.
Oh, there are lots, at least two (leftie) Oxford Professors and an emeritus proff at Sussex ncluded and Proff John Kay of the LBS who wrote ""The evidence presented in the book is mostly a series of scatter diagrams with a regression line drawn through them. No data is provided on the estimated equations, or on relevant statistical tests. If you remove the bold lines from the diagram, the pattern of points mostly looks random, and the data dominated by a few outliers."
Anyway, given Wilkinson obviously isn't objective why would you insist his critics are? It's the analysis that counts.
Possibly, but you'd need to demonstrate it.
Oh, I understand that very well. But it was only thirty years ago that old Labour was the dominant force political force in England.
> I've not read either book but I've had a quick check on line of the critiques and responses. One point of their response is that most of the their conclusions hold even when you adjust the countries included as per the suggestions of their critics (which they dispute). Albeit that the conclusions aren't so strong. Their cirtics don't seem to have a response to that.
Yes they do, the central one being that the analysis is hopelessy skewed by outliers such as the US and Japan, but they also go though each section querying the impact of eating out particular countries when analysing particular issues.
You can buy into Wilkinson's theory or not but what is not true is that it is any way an accepted consensus.
> I also can't find much in the way of critique from academics and would question the objectivity of their critics. One apparently libertarian journalist, one right wing think tank and the tax payers alliance.
Oh, there are lots, at least two (leftie) Oxford Professors and an emeritus proff at Sussex ncluded and Proff John Kay of the LBS who wrote ""The evidence presented in the book is mostly a series of scatter diagrams with a regression line drawn through them. No data is provided on the estimated equations, or on relevant statistical tests. If you remove the bold lines from the diagram, the pattern of points mostly looks random, and the data dominated by a few outliers."
Anyway, given Wilkinson obviously isn't objective why would you insist his critics are? It's the analysis that counts.
> Sorry - I don't understand what the point is that you say holds? You asked if I was trying to say there's more poverty in the US than India. I said that I'm not. I'm trying to say that among rich countries there tends to be more poverty in more unequal countries.
Possibly, but you'd need to demonstrate it.
> Maybe, but they don't like Scottish toffs either and it'll take quite some time for them to disaccoiate themselves with their past. I'm not sure you realise quite how detested the tories are up here.
Oh, I understand that very well. But it was only thirty years ago that old Labour was the dominant force political force in England.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I don't like Lynx's Scottish cultural stuff. To me it's irrelevant to the debate and lets peopke on the no side hang on to their unfounded view that independence is about anti englishness.
I've not seen him say anything racist on here though. That's a serious accusation. If you're going to say things like that you should provide a quote and reference. If you do, hopefully the admins will kick him off. If not, you should retract the statement.
> Actually Lynx what's his name is a deranged racist loon, and has made that perfectly obvious in the past with various nasty and deluded anti-English remarks. This is why I for one refuse to talk to him directly; I don't debate with racists.
I don't like Lynx's Scottish cultural stuff. To me it's irrelevant to the debate and lets peopke on the no side hang on to their unfounded view that independence is about anti englishness.
I've not seen him say anything racist on here though. That's a serious accusation. If you're going to say things like that you should provide a quote and reference. If you do, hopefully the admins will kick him off. If not, you should retract the statement.
In reply to Donnie:
Well, just on a quick perusal wiki says "Schengen is now a core part of EU law and all EU member states without an opt-out who have not already joined the Schengen Area are legally obliged to do so when technical requirements have been met. Several non-EU countries are also included in the area". So do you think an iScotland would get an opt out? Or perhaps they would sign up but keep their fingers crossed and plan not to meet the criteria? Feel free to find something that says new members of the EU don't have to sign up to Schengen.
> Why's that absurd? The EU is lttered with special rules for people and, in this case, it'll just be the same rules as they used to have.
> What is absurd is that the EU will say, "okay, you can come in, but only if you set up border controls to stop the English getting in."
> I'm not sure if you're a wind up merchant or just a bit hard of thinking
Well, just on a quick perusal wiki says "Schengen is now a core part of EU law and all EU member states without an opt-out who have not already joined the Schengen Area are legally obliged to do so when technical requirements have been met. Several non-EU countries are also included in the area". So do you think an iScotland would get an opt out? Or perhaps they would sign up but keep their fingers crossed and plan not to meet the criteria? Feel free to find something that says new members of the EU don't have to sign up to Schengen.
In reply to Saor Alba:
"At two elections - 1964 and 1974 - Labour would not have won without Scottish votes. And at the last election, David Cameron would have gained an overall majority if Scotland's votes had been excluded,"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427
And whilst the Act of Union may be between England and Scotland, Wales and NI might consider themselves affected also.
> In reply to Tim Chappel
> Yes but the small issue is that the Act of Union is between two countries. One of which always gets the government it gets for, the other doesn't always.
"At two elections - 1964 and 1974 - Labour would not have won without Scottish votes. And at the last election, David Cameron would have gained an overall majority if Scotland's votes had been excluded,"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427
And whilst the Act of Union may be between England and Scotland, Wales and NI might consider themselves affected also.
In reply to lynx3555:
Has England suggested this, and do you find the English to be spiteful?
> So why would England want to suggest that Scotland would need tight border controls...because they are using fear as a weapon...spiteful bunch aren't they
Has England suggested this, and do you find the English to be spiteful?
In reply to Saor Alba:
no, but you did say
"One of which always gets the government it gets for, the other doesn't always"
which does not appear to be true.
> Yes they might do. I didn't say it worked for anyone.
no, but you did say
"One of which always gets the government it gets for, the other doesn't always"
which does not appear to be true.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes, and their response is that if you include/take out the countries that their critics suggest should be included/taken out most of their conclusions still hold. This was their response to the book among other critques.
If it wasn't true I'm fairly sure it would have been widely publised. And maybe it has been but I can't find it?
Agree'd it's not an accepted consensus but as far as I can see only clearly unobjective people are disputing it.
A guy from LBS complains that they don't include the data in the book!?! Jesus buddy... that's a good one. It really shows the extent to which the right are willing to say anything.
Could you point me in the direction of the others please?
He's not been demonstrated to be unobjective at all. Even if he is, I'd expect he's far more objective than the tax payers alliance, a libertarian journalist and policy exchange.
To some extent it's true by defintion. Think about it. If you have two equally rich countries and one's more unequal it will have more poverty. If you have a slightly richer country that's a lot more uneual... and so on. And I assume Wilkinson has some stats?
What was your point though? I still don't understand. Something about Relative policy?
> Yes they do, the central one being that the analysis is hopelessy skewed by outliers such as the US and Japan, but they also go though each section querying the impact of eating out particular countries when analysing particular issues.
Yes, and their response is that if you include/take out the countries that their critics suggest should be included/taken out most of their conclusions still hold. This was their response to the book among other critques.
If it wasn't true I'm fairly sure it would have been widely publised. And maybe it has been but I can't find it?
> You can buy into Wilkinson's theory or not but what is not true is that it is any way an accepted consensus.
Agree'd it's not an accepted consensus but as far as I can see only clearly unobjective people are disputing it.
> Oh, there are lots, at least two (leftie) Oxford Professors and an emeritus proff at Sussex ncluded and Proff John Kay of the LBS who wrote ""The evidence presented in the book is mostly a series of scatter diagrams with a regression line drawn through them. No data is provided on the estimated equations, or on relevant statistical tests. If you remove the bold lines from the diagram, the pattern of points mostly looks random, and the data dominated by a few outliers."
A guy from LBS complains that they don't include the data in the book!?! Jesus buddy... that's a good one. It really shows the extent to which the right are willing to say anything.
Could you point me in the direction of the others please?
> Anyway, given Wilkinson obviously isn't objective why would you insist his critics are? It's the analysis that counts.
He's not been demonstrated to be unobjective at all. Even if he is, I'd expect he's far more objective than the tax payers alliance, a libertarian journalist and policy exchange.
> Possibly, but you'd need to demonstrate it.
To some extent it's true by defintion. Think about it. If you have two equally rich countries and one's more unequal it will have more poverty. If you have a slightly richer country that's a lot more uneual... and so on. And I assume Wilkinson has some stats?
What was your point though? I still don't understand. Something about Relative policy?
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I'm far from being racist, presently I have a Chinese girlfriend and family that have married English people....when I quote Scottish history, I'm just trying to point out that Scotland has it's own culture and identity, that is distinguishable from the history of the people south of the border...I also just love history. I like history from all over the world, and history, no mater what people think, is very relevant to the present, hence why Osbourne, Boris and lots of other politicians seem to have degrees in some form of history.
It's very convenient for a nation to distort the history of a country it controls, in order to maintain a union for its own ends.
Any way, grow a pair and drop the use of the racist card to try and silence me....but then, you don't have to, as mine are big enough to stand up to any accusations you or any one else throws at me
> Actually Lynx what's his name is a deranged racist loon, and has made that perfectly obvious in the past with various nasty and deluded anti-English remarks. This is why I for one refuse to talk to him directly; I don't debate with racists.
> But what the SNP always do if one of "their side" comes out with racist stuff is (a) claim it's a joke, (b) try and pretend it hasn't happened, and (c) say that the person who points out the racism is "playing the race card".
> You've just ticked boxes (a) and (b); are you about to go for (c) too?
I'm far from being racist, presently I have a Chinese girlfriend and family that have married English people....when I quote Scottish history, I'm just trying to point out that Scotland has it's own culture and identity, that is distinguishable from the history of the people south of the border...I also just love history. I like history from all over the world, and history, no mater what people think, is very relevant to the present, hence why Osbourne, Boris and lots of other politicians seem to have degrees in some form of history.
It's very convenient for a nation to distort the history of a country it controls, in order to maintain a union for its own ends.
Any way, grow a pair and drop the use of the racist card to try and silence me....but then, you don't have to, as mine are big enough to stand up to any accusations you or any one else throws at me
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Possibly not but I would need to look at the figures on the BBC website and right now I am preparing for an interview.
If it doesn't work for whoever they can try and change it.
Possibly not but I would need to look at the figures on the BBC website and right now I am preparing for an interview.
If it doesn't work for whoever they can try and change it.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Seeing as I'm not disputing that new members arereuired to join, clearly I think Scotland would get some kind of an opt-out.
Seeing as I'm not disputing that new members arereuired to join, clearly I think Scotland would get some kind of an opt-out.
Post edited at 21:15
In reply to Donnie:
Use your eyes.
>If you do, hopefully the admins will kick him off. If not, you should retract the statement.
I don't want him, or anyone else, kicked off. For one thing, I don't believe in PC censorship. For another thing, if he represents even a bit of what the Yes campaign is actually about, then I'm very happy to have that out in the open.
> I've not seen him say anything racist on here though. That's a serious accusation. If you're going to say things like that you should provide a quote and reference.
Use your eyes.
>If you do, hopefully the admins will kick him off. If not, you should retract the statement.
I don't want him, or anyone else, kicked off. For one thing, I don't believe in PC censorship. For another thing, if he represents even a bit of what the Yes campaign is actually about, then I'm very happy to have that out in the open.
In reply to Donnie:
Why would iScotland get an opt out? Why do you think an iScotland would be so important to the EU?
> Seeing as I'm not disputing that new members arereuired to join, clearly I think Scotland would get some kind of an opt-out.
> Really? That wasn't clear?
Why would iScotland get an opt out? Why do you think an iScotland would be so important to the EU?
In reply to Saor Alba:
This website seems to have a detailed breakdown:
http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/debunk/vote1
This website seems to have a detailed breakdown:
http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/debunk/vote1
In reply to lynx3555:
Interested in history eh?
Wasn't it James VI King of Scotland, who created the union of Scotland, England and Ireland?
Interested in history eh?
Wasn't it James VI King of Scotland, who created the union of Scotland, England and Ireland?
In reply to Saor Alba:
I did not say it did not work, just that Scotland is, not surprisingly, just like the rest of the UK in that sometimes the local vote matches the national vote, and sometimes it does not. Thats democracy.
> Possibly not but I would need to look at the figures on the BBC website and right now I am preparing for an interview.
> If it doesn't work for whoever they can try and change it.
I did not say it did not work, just that Scotland is, not surprisingly, just like the rest of the UK in that sometimes the local vote matches the national vote, and sometimes it does not. Thats democracy.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
A I explained, if the EU was going to let Scotland in it would be absurd to not to so because they refused to put up border controls between it and a country that already is in the EU with an opt out. These two countries share an island.
More generally....
1) the rules were designed with countries that weren't already part of the EU in mind 2) these countries area a lot poorer and not on island with a country that already has an opt out 3) peolpe tend to what's practical 4) it's more trouble to take Scotland out than to keep it in. 5) the EU is generally an expansionist institution, it doesn't want to shrink.
A I explained, if the EU was going to let Scotland in it would be absurd to not to so because they refused to put up border controls between it and a country that already is in the EU with an opt out. These two countries share an island.
More generally....
1) the rules were designed with countries that weren't already part of the EU in mind 2) these countries area a lot poorer and not on island with a country that already has an opt out 3) peolpe tend to what's practical 4) it's more trouble to take Scotland out than to keep it in. 5) the EU is generally an expansionist institution, it doesn't want to shrink.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I have used my eyes. Honestly what does he say that's racist?
Worst I can find is a conflation of the NO campaign and the English.
I have used my eyes. Honestly what does he say that's racist?
Worst I can find is a conflation of the NO campaign and the English.
In reply to Donnie:
But iScotland would want to join, and the EU doesn't care very much. It would be down to iScotland to adapt to the EU, not the EU to adapt to iScotland. Really, you do have delusions of grandeur, first you're going to make a foreign country join a CU, then you're going to make 350 million people bend to your will.
You're not part of the EU. IScotland is not an EU member. I can give you a list of members if you can't use google.
> A I explained, if the EU was going to let Scotland in it would be absurd to not to so because they refused to put up border controls between it and a country that already is in the EU with an opt out. These two countries share an island.
But iScotland would want to join, and the EU doesn't care very much. It would be down to iScotland to adapt to the EU, not the EU to adapt to iScotland. Really, you do have delusions of grandeur, first you're going to make a foreign country join a CU, then you're going to make 350 million people bend to your will.
> More generally....
> 1) the rules were designed with countries that weren't already part of the EU in mind 2) these countries area a lot poorer and not on island with a country that already has an opt out 3) peolpe tend to what's practical 4) it's more trouble to take Scotland out than to keep it in. 5) the EU is generally an expansionist institution, it doesn't want to shrink.
You're not part of the EU. IScotland is not an EU member. I can give you a list of members if you can't use google.
In reply to Lusk: The union of the crown and the act of union, are two entirely different events separated by 100 years....you could say that independence will return us to the Union of the crown arrangement.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Disagree. If you think a system which has returned a government that Scotland voted for 47% of the time since WW2 then great. I think things could be a lot better than that.
Disagree. If you think a system which has returned a government that Scotland voted for 47% of the time since WW2 then great. I think things could be a lot better than that.
In reply to Donnie:
He makes the casual assumption that Independence is what the Scottish want - with the implication that those who want to stay within the union are thus not Scottish.
To ne honest it's that kind of casual racism that I have heard in discussions about Scottish independence since Salmond was a nipper (or should that be bairn)...
(And that's ignoring the rather one sided view of the Sectarianism problem)
> I have used my eyes. Honestly what does he say that's racist?
> Worst I can find is a conflation of the NO campaign and the English.
He makes the casual assumption that Independence is what the Scottish want - with the implication that those who want to stay within the union are thus not Scottish.
To ne honest it's that kind of casual racism that I have heard in discussions about Scottish independence since Salmond was a nipper (or should that be bairn)...
(And that's ignoring the rather one sided view of the Sectarianism problem)
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Scotland, the geographical area is currently part of the EU. Scotland the independent nation which doesn't yet and may never exist is, of course, not. My view is that the geographical area currently being part of the EU and also sharing an island with another part of the EU with an opt-out may have some bearing on the EU's views.
Lets just agree to disagree shall we? I've explained why I think Scotland would get in. You think the EU would be a stickler for the rules. Fine.
(Nb Bit reluctant to bring this up as it's not really verfiable, but my job involves representing the UK government at EU meetings and regular dealings with the EC. Everyone I've spoken to thinks it depends on whether Spain would veto and that they're unlikely too. Obviously I don't expect you to take my word for this....)
Scotland, the geographical area is currently part of the EU. Scotland the independent nation which doesn't yet and may never exist is, of course, not. My view is that the geographical area currently being part of the EU and also sharing an island with another part of the EU with an opt-out may have some bearing on the EU's views.
Lets just agree to disagree shall we? I've explained why I think Scotland would get in. You think the EU would be a stickler for the rules. Fine.
(Nb Bit reluctant to bring this up as it's not really verfiable, but my job involves representing the UK government at EU meetings and regular dealings with the EC. Everyone I've spoken to thinks it depends on whether Spain would veto and that they're unlikely too. Obviously I don't expect you to take my word for this....)
In reply to Saor Alba:
thats odd, this site says Scotland got the government it voted for 66% of the time since WW2
http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/debunk/vote1
"Out of the 18 General Elections since 1945, Scotland has got the party at Westminster which won the Scottish popular vote 12 times. That is, exactly two thirds of the time Scotland gets what it wants."
> Disagree. If you think a system which has returned a government that Scotland voted for 47% of the time since WW2 then great. I think things could be a lot better than that.
thats odd, this site says Scotland got the government it voted for 66% of the time since WW2
http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/debunk/vote1
"Out of the 18 General Elections since 1945, Scotland has got the party at Westminster which won the Scottish popular vote 12 times. That is, exactly two thirds of the time Scotland gets what it wants."
In reply to Donnie: Oh, and this "2) these countries area a lot poorer and not on island with a country that already has an opt out" is hilarious, you think you get an opt out because you're geographically attached to a foreign country? I like it.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...