# Yes or No ?



## John-H

Are we sleepwalking into trouble or opportunity?

What tangible benefits are there?

Do they outweigh the risks?

Shouldn't we have all had a say in what affects us all?

What is British after separation? Will we have a BBC? A "national grid?"

No Union Jack any more. The present flag is composed of Christian crosses and it would be arguable that any new flag should be secular or multi faith if faith should reflect the people it represents.

Does union not stand as an advantage any more? How can separation result in a stronger whole? Would we not be weaker and diminished? Or does identity and being master of less result in advantage?

It's neck and neck. Does the yes campaign have momentum or do the polls not tell the true story?

Discuss


----------



## Spandex

In Scotland the electrical grid is owned by separate companies already, although I think National Grid has some form of overall control. I don't really see how that would be an issue after they separated. I'm not sure why the BBC should be a problem either.

I also don't see why we should have a say in it. The fact that it affects us is hardly relevant. We're affected by lots of things that we can't influence - I'm sure the Americans would be a bit put out if we insisted that we get to vote in their presidential elections just because we're affected by the outcome too...


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> In Scotland the electrical grid is owned by separate companies already, although I think National Grid has some form of overall control. I don't really see how that would be an issue after they separated. I'm not sure why the BBC should be a problem either.
> 
> I also don't see why we should have a say in it. The fact that it affects us is hardly relevant. We're affected by lots of things that we can't influence - I'm sure the Americans would be a bit put out if we insisted that we get to vote in their presidential elections just because we're affected by the outcome too...


Holy crap spandy.... I agree.


----------



## brian1978

Does the yes campaign have Momentum? ... now I'm no expert on graph and trends but.....


----------



## brian1978

The reason I haven't been on in weeks is because I'm campaigning for this.. A know a lot of yes campaigners who have taken holidays to focus on this. 
The grassroots support for yes is astonishing.


----------



## brian1978

To answer some of your questions John.

What advantages... to us scots. Democracy is a key point, we are a separate country but only get the government we want less than 50% of the time where England gets the government it wants over 95% of the time. We have about 50 mps in Westminster compared to over 500 from England. Decisions are made in the best interests of England almost every time. 
In an independent Scotland we will get the government we choose 100% of the time.

Imagine England was ruled from Glasgow by 10x more Scottish mps than English mps... you be okay with that?


----------



## YoungOldUn

If the YES campaign wins at the polls will there be border post set up on all major routes into and out of Scotland? Will passports (or Visa'a) be needed to enter / exit Scotland. Will Scottish MP's be allowed to sit in Westminster? There are lots of questions that I have not got a clue about the answer to.


----------



## brian1978

YoungOldUn said:


> If the YES campaign wins at the polls will there be border post set up on all major routes into and out of Scotland? Will passports (or Visa'a) be needed to enter / exit Scotland. Will Scottish MP's be allowed to sit in Westminster? There are lots of questions that I have not got a clue about the answer to.


Hi m8. A lot of people have tons of questions.

Borders.... let's be clear on one thing... no such borders exist ANYWHERE in Europe. It's Westminster that's making these silly scare story's to frighten naive scots into voting no. The Scottish government wants a freedom of movement border like the one between Ireland and the UK.
If such a border was to be put up it would cost English tax payers BILLIONS a year to put up a banana Republic style fence across 100 miles of land and patrol it 24/7. The rest of the world would be rolling about laughing at this extraordinary gesture of spite against the UKs 2nd largest trading partner.

Will Scottish MPs will be allowed to sit in Westminster? Of course they will...... Just the same as french ones are, and English MPs can sit in hollyrood, can they vote in other governments. Well of course not.... becoming an MP has nothing to do with nationality it never has been. 
Any other questions m8?


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Scotland the electrical grid is owned by separate companies already, although I think National Grid has some form of overall control. I don't really see how that would be an issue after they separated. I'm not sure why the BBC should be a problem either.
> 
> I also don't see why we should have a say in it. The fact that it affects us is hardly relevant. We're affected by lots of things that we can't influence - I'm sure the Americans would be a bit put out if we insisted that we get to vote in their presidential elections just because we're affected by the outcome too...
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap spandy.... I agree.
Click to expand...

We don't agree on the subject of independence. I just don't think there's any point pretending it will be a logistical nightmare if Scotland leave. Everything will get worked out and you'll be independant to the degree you want to be. You'll be no better off overall, you'll have no more money (despite the dubious calculations) and you'll discover that the problems you have with politicians have nothing to do with geography.

One thing that does amuse me is the blinkered approach on both sides. Listen to a 'no' campaigner and they'll explain how an independent Scotland will get nothing it's own way - no currency, no EU membership, no this, no that... Sounds ridiculous, yes? Then listen to a 'yes' campaigner and they'll feed you an equally ridiculous rose-tinted view where everything goes Scotland's way. The truth will be somewhere in between and neither side will feel like they've really won.


----------



## John-H

There seem to be more questions and uncertainty about the prospect of a split. I'm not convinced the people pushing for a split know the answers. How can they when they are pushing into unchartered territory? Even simple things like what's then "British" and what flag do people wave around seem to be unanswered let alone the bigger things like who controls the currency, banks, the NHS, power generation policy, defence, the BBC, or even different governments deciding different foreign policy etc. I still don't see how fragmenting and becoming master of less results in advantage when you are weaker from being smaller. Just a general point really.

As for not getting the government you want you have my sympathy - but does that not happen for most of us anyway and is it not called democracy? The declaring a separate kingdom because of it argument, could be applied to any area of the island if we decide everyone else votes for someone we don't like so let's build a wall and call everyone outside foreign. We used to have lots of kings in castles a long time ago but it didn't mean they looked after the people they ruled any better than having the central rule that replaced it and which eventually led to parliament. You might simply get different people you don't like. It's all relative - but less efficient when you duplicate beaurocracy and pull in different directions - another general point really.

Well I hope that if it is a "yes" the gamble pays off for everyone's sake. If a "no" then improvements are made to the same ends.


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> There seem to be more questions and uncertainty about the prospect of a split. I'm not convinced the people pushing for a split know the answers. How can they when they are pushing into unchartered territory? Even simple things like what's then "British" and what flag do people wave around seem to be unanswered let alone the bigger things like who controls the currency, banks, the NHS, power generation policy, defence, the BBC, or even different governments deciding different foreign policy etc. I still don't see how fragmenting and becoming master of less results in advantage when you are weaker from being smaller. Just a general point really.
> 
> As for not getting the government you want you have my sympathy - but does that not happen for most of us anyway and is it not called democracy? The declaring a separate kingdom because of it argument, could be applied to any area of the island if we decide everyone else votes for someone we don't like so let's build a wall and call everyone outside foreign. We used to have lots of kings in castles a long time ago but it didn't mean they looked after the people they ruled any better than having the central rule that replaced it and which eventually led to parliament. You might simply get different people you don't like. It's all relative - but less efficient when you duplicate beaurocracy and pull in different directions - another general point really.
> 
> Well I hope that if it is a "yes" the gamble pays off for everyone's sake. If a "no" then improvements are made to the same ends.


British..... I'm not honestly bothered about being called British, I see myself as Scottish. But as for one being British after independence why would one not be. You were still born in Britain. Your passport if you wish will still say British citizen or if you want Scottish citizen, your unborn child's passport will still say British if you want it to. Only grandchildren will be Scottish only. 
Scotland won't float off into the sea. The landmass of Britain will still be here, it's the political union to Westminster that is broken.

What flag you wave will be up to you, keep the union jack if you wish. We will fly the saltire if we choose it, I have a feeling we will.
Who controls currency? the bank of England if we agree a common sense currency union. It benefits everyone. If George Osborne really does cut of his nose to spite his face we will use the pound pegged to sterling, we will be fine with this arrangement, will the BOE? can they absorb a 10% fall in the UK Pound? I doubt it will come to this the "you will not share the £" is political blackmail and won't last after independence.
Who controls banks the same people that do now... The clydsdale "Scottish" bank is owned by national Australia group, sandandair is Spanish... can't see much changing with them.
The NHS? well this is fully devolved and all Westminster control is the budget, you will still have the English NHS we will be keeping and protecting the Scottish NHS. No change for us.
Forign policy will of course be decided by Scottish governments separately, no more dragging our troops into illegal wars over oil and resources. 
Power generation will be shared Scotland will sell it's surplus to the national grid, we generate far more than we use here already and plan to expand on this through investing in renewable energy, we have 25% of Europe's tide and wind potential here. 
Defence. We will be obliged by NATO to payroll our waters, something that's not currently done. Last time Putin put a boat in the moray firth the navy was told by test message and took a week to respond 

We are not fragmenting and becoming a master of less, it's only less fir Westminster right now we are a master of bugger all.

If it's a NO I can see no improvements, extra powers they say. It will be alright they say....

Last time we got a no in a referendum we got thatherisim the poll tax a year early de-industrialization, 18 years of unwanted tory rule where they privatised everything that wasn't nailed down, we still feel the effects of the here.


----------



## brian1978

About not getting the government we want and democracy... you are ABSOLUTELY correct John with one vital point missed.

Scotland is not a region of northern Britain, it's a country. A country should have a democratically elected government ruling it, the will of the people so to speak. We get the government that England decides 95% of the time. The democratic will of the UK as a whole is unbalanced because one of its member country's dwarfs the others. Devolution was supposed to stop this feeling of getting cheated every time, but remember devolution is currently 7% of powers. Westminster are still the puppet masters. Devo is a small carrot on a long stick.

More powers they chant again... If more powers is on the cards why did David Cameron insist on removing a 3rd option of "devo max" from the ballot Paper?
They now hint it's tax raising powers. Could this be down to the fact that we are getting Barnet altered and more austerity cuts. Then the Scottish government has 2 choices. Do we cut services here.... free education, free personal health care for the elderly, free prescriptions.... or do they raise Tax? Then Westminster can sit back and fingerprint.


----------



## Shug750S

The more I read on this the more I hope they get the yes vote. 
Before Brian or others jump in to start the anti English thing, my main reason is that then the current Scottish MPs who vote for things for the UK, to have the current Scottish parliament change it just for Scotland will be gone.

At least then the MPs voting on things in Westminster will all have their constituencies affected by the winning vote / decision, unlike now.

Also I guess any sitting Scottish MPs will at some point have to leave / resign, and this effectively means Labour will not be in government for a very long time.
What happens if say Labour win the next UK election, and a year later Scotland devolves, they lose their majority as a result and are consistently outvoted in Westminster by the Conservative majority? 
Presume not soon after Scotland goes that England (& Wales / NI) have another general election...

Unless I have missed the point, always possible.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex.

I fail to see how Scotland will have less money, currently despite what a lot of English think we don't get any money from Westminster. We pay our tax and get some back... We here do get about £1200 per head more on public spending than the RUK due too our geographical charities, but we raise in tax £1700 per head more than the rUK. that's £500 per head more.

Do you know Westminster doesn't count whisky exports as a Scottish revenue because they ship from English Shores? Oil is also not counted on a geographical share. With oil included we do not run a deficit.

Then you have trident, cross link, HS2 , London sewer upgrade amongst many other England only projects. We don't have to pay a 10% share in these. Trident alone costs us £163 million a year... Every year. £250 million if you include the cost of replacement.

We make up 1% of the European union by population. 1%! 
We own 20% of the fishing rights 25% of wave and wind potential and 60% of the oil and gas. 
1% owns 20% 25% and 60% of 3 of the biggest natural resources in Europe.


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> The more I read on this the more I hope they get the yes vote.
> Before Brian or others jump in to start the anti English thing, my main reason is that then the current Scottish MPs who vote for things for the UK, to have the current Scottish parliament change it just for Scotland will be gone.
> 
> At least then the MPs voting on things in Westminster will all have their constituencies affected by the winning vote / decision, unlike now.
> 
> Also I guess any sitting Scottish MPs will at some point have to leave / resign, and this effectively means Labour will not be in government for a very long time.
> What happens if say Labour win the next UK election, and a year later Scotland devolves, they lose their majority as a result and are consistently outvoted in Westminster by the Conservative majority?
> Presume not soon after Scotland goes that England (& Wales / NI) have another general election...
> 
> Unless I have missed the point, always possible.


Misinformed shug. 
Firstly VERY few Scots are anti English, this has nothing to do with England or the English. It's about the political union to Westminster. England is just another "country" controlled by Westminster. 
Can you name me one single thing that Scottish MPs have influenced in Westminster, we have 50 mps compared to over 500 English mps. It's the other way round. We get things imposed on us we cannot vote out in parliament. Bedroom tax, war on Iraq, welfare reforms, ATOS, to name just a few.
Yes all Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster will be out of a job. Makes you wonder why the torys are so desperate for a no vote considering 50 opponents in Westminster will be eliminated at the cost of 1 tory MP. its almost like they have another agenda. :roll: 
If it's a Scottish MP who has an English seat of course they won't be resigning, they got voted in democratically to represent an English region. It has nothing to do with race.
If labour win the next election they win it, Scotland is not independent until March 2016 and will by right have a say in the next government. But let's be clear. The Scottish vote hasn't mattered in the vast majority of all elections. 
Why will it suddenly matter now, removing the Scottish contribution the government of England would have been the same in all but 6 elections since ww2.


----------



## red3.2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Scotland vote Yes for independence this will not happen overnight. This will be long drawn out process and it could take sometime, maybe years? before all the legal technicalities i.e. acts of parliament are sorted out


----------



## brian1978

red3.2 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Scotland vote Yes for independence this will not happen overnight. This will be long drawn out process and it could take sometime, maybe years? before all the legal technicalities i.e. acts of parliament are sorted out


Sept 19th 2014 till March 26th 2016. Then we have a general election days after indepence day to decide the first government of Scotland.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex.
> 
> I fail to see how Scotland will have less money, currently despite what a lot of English think we don't get any money from Westminster. We pay our tax and get some back... We here do get about £1200 per head more on public spending than the RUK due too our geographical charities, but we raise in tax £1700 per head more than the rUK. that's £500 per head more.
> 
> Do you know Westminster doesn't count whisky exports as a Scottish revenue because they ship from English Shores? Oil is also not counted on a geographical share. With oil included we do not run a deficit.
> 
> Then you have trident, cross link, HS2 , London sewer upgrade amongst many other England only projects. We don't have to pay a 10% share in these. Trident alone costs us £163 million a year... Every year. £250 million if you include the cost of replacement.
> 
> We make up 1% of the European union by population. 1%!
> We own 20% of the fishing rights 25% of wave and wind potential and 60% of the oil and gas.
> 1% owns 20% 25% and 60% of 3 of the biggest natural resources in Europe.


Yes, it's possible to make the figures sound amazing (like that wonderful but flawed GDP per capita figure that's bandied around showing how Scotland is richer than England). Spectacular even. The problem is, you don't know what will happen when you split. All you can do is extrapolate from current figures. Because these figures aren't strictly relevant to the future situation, you must make assumptions and this is where the error is introduced. What is that error? We can't know. But it's important to understand it exists - you never mention it in any of your 'campaigning' on here so either you're unaware it exists, or you're being disingenuous.

As for johns point about voting, I think you misunderstood. It's a question of granularity and arbitrary grouping. The UK as a whole gets the government it wants 100% of the time. That's how our democracy works. The people in Essex, for example may have voted overall for a different government. Following your logic, the whole notion of a 'safe seat' should be a cause for outrage, seeing as it means certain groups in that constituency *never* get the MP they vote for.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that no one actually votes for a government anyway...


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex.
> 
> I fail to see how Scotland will have less money, currently despite what a lot of English think we don't get any money from Westminster. We pay our tax and get some back... We here do get about £1200 per head more on public spending than the RUK due too our geographical charities, but we raise in tax £1700 per head more than the rUK. that's £500 per head more.
> 
> Do you know Westminster doesn't count whisky exports as a Scottish revenue because they ship from English Shores? Oil is also not counted on a geographical share. With oil included we do not run a deficit.
> 
> Then you have trident, cross link, HS2 , London sewer upgrade amongst many other England only projects. We don't have to pay a 10% share in these. Trident alone costs us £163 million a year... Every year. £250 million if you include the cost of replacement.
> 
> We make up 1% of the European union by population. 1%!
> We own 20% of the fishing rights 25% of wave and wind potential and 60% of the oil and gas.
> 1% owns 20% 25% and 60% of 3 of the biggest natural resources in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's possible to make the figures sound amazing (like that wonderful but flawed GDP per capita figure that's bandied around showing how Scotland is richer than England). Spectacular even. The problem is, you don't know what will happen when you split. All you can do is extrapolate from current figures. Because these figures aren't strictly relevant to the future situation, you must make assumptions and this is where the error is introduced. What is that error? We can't know. But it's important to understand it exists - you never mention it in any of your 'campaigning' on here so either you're unaware it exists, or you're being disingenuous.
> 
> As for johns point about voting, I think you misunderstood. It's a question of granularity and arbitrary grouping. The UK as a whole gets the government it wants 100% of the time. That's how our democracy works. The people in Essex, for example may have voted overall for a different government. Following your logic, the whole notion of a 'safe seat' should be a cause for outrage, seeing as it means certain groups in that constituency *never* get the MP they vote for.
> 
> I'm not even going to get into the fact that no one actually votes for a government anyway...
Click to expand...

Let's not split hairs then.

I just don't get how you cannot grasp that we don't have democracy in Scotland. Your point that the UK gets its government 100% of the time is correct. This would be fine if the UK was one country not the union we have now. Scotland is a country that doesn't self govern, this is almost unique in the world. It's a not a good situation for us as what suits the SE of England doesn't suit Scotland as a country.

As for your earlier point about us finding out its politicians that are the problem. The SNP have been in power here since 2007. First voted in by the narrowest of margins then by a historical landslide in 2011, with devolved powers they have done far better than the r UK. Education, health, policing have all improved under them. 
I have faith in my current government. They seem to have done fine until now, don't see why that will change and they will all convert into the troughers we see in Westminster.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Let's not split hairs then.
> 
> I just don't get how you cannot grasp that we don't have democracy in Scotland. Your point that the UK gets its government 100% of the time is correct. This would be fine if the UK was one country not the union we have now. Scotland is a country that doesn't self govern, this is almost unique in the world. It's a not a good situation for us as what suits the SE of England doesn't suit Scotland as a country.
> 
> As for your earlier point about us finding out its politicians that are the problem. The SNP have been in power here since 2007. First voted in by the narrowest of margins then by a historical landslide in 2011, with devolved powers they have done far better than the r UK. Education, health, policing have all improved under them.
> I have faith in my current government. They seem to have done fine until now, don't see why that will change and they will all convert into the troughers we see in Westminster.


I understand completely. It's human nature, not statistics. Because you're in a particular group (i.e. A Scottish person who wants independence) you attach a degree of importance to that group. This causes you to attach misplaced statistical significance to it too. In the same way, a Cornish independence supporter would look at the voting in Cornwall every 4 years and feel hard done by when it didn't align with the overall result.

Not to mention the fact that if I voted Labour at the last election and Labour won in my constituency, but I still ended up with a Conservative/LibDem government, this isn't a sign that anything has gone wrong.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not split hairs then.
> 
> I just don't get how you cannot grasp that we don't have democracy in Scotland. Your point that the UK gets its government 100% of the time is correct. This would be fine if the UK was one country not the union we have now. Scotland is a country that doesn't self govern, this is almost unique in the world. It's a not a good situation for us as what suits the SE of England doesn't suit Scotland as a country.
> 
> As for your earlier point about us finding out its politicians that are the problem. The SNP have been in power here since 2007. First voted in by the narrowest of margins then by a historical landslide in 2011, with devolved powers they have done far better than the r UK. Education, health, policing have all improved under them.
> I have faith in my current government. They seem to have done fine until now, don't see why that will change and they will all convert into the troughers we see in Westminster.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand completely. It's human nature, not statistics. Because you're in a particular group (i.e. A Scottish person who wants independence) you attach a degree of importance to that group. This causes you to attach misplaced statistical significance to it too. In the same way, a Cornish independence supporter would look at the voting in Cornwall every 4 years and feel hard done by when it didn't align with the overall result.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that if I voted Labour at the last election and Labour won in my constituency, but I still ended up with a Conservative/LibDem government, this isn't a sign that anything has gone wrong.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that's English people voting in England. It's different when the majority vote in another country decides how you are governed.

For this system to work we really should just scrap Scotland, England, NI and Wales and just call it the UK.


----------



## John-H

Brian if you don't mind me saying so, you are making a "Little Englander" argument.

At present we have a democratic UK government elected by England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland together as a whole and we all take our part in that and most of us don't get what we want half the time! That's democracy.

I could say I didn't vote for the present government and build a wall around my house and say from now on I'm voting for myself but I don't think it will actually help.

If as a result of a "yes" then the rest of the country ends up with a permanent right wing bias then we can all say through gritted teeth "Thanks Brian ....grrr"

Brian, we need you and want you to stay :-* Better together it would seem for a more balanced democracy as far as that argument goes.


----------



## mighTy Tee

As I understand it:

The Scots want out of the United Kingdom - a 400 year old union between states/countries who generally share the same language and culture.

The Scots want in to the EU (whose ultimate goal seems to be a United States of Europe) - a new modern state of many states/countries who do not share any common language or culture and one might even argue would be run fiscally by Germany.

If the Scots dont like the well tried and tested 400 year old union what make them think EUSSR is going to be better? I dont get their logic.

Finally from the point of view of Westminster, without Scottish MPs, the Labour Party is a dead party (as the majority of Scottish MPs are Labour, only 1 being Conservative), so the rest of the UK will be Conservative for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Lollypop86

I heard that all the final "deals" wouldnt actually be worked out till after a YES vote.....which means you dont actually know what your getting and could be kicking yourselves 

Someone said to me "Build the wall up and let them crack on" ha ha I wet myself lol

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

Also, if the figures are all doctored and Scotland isn't wealthy why did the conservatives commission the Mcrone report to find out if Scotland was viable. Then immediately classify it and Bury it for 30 years. We only found due to a tip off and had to get its contents through the newly commissioned freedom of information bill.

It sort of leaves a bitter taste in the mouth when you find out successive labour tory governments have been lying to you for 30 years about the viability of your country to function as an independent nation.

It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the documents are freely available to download as pdf now.


----------



## brian1978

mighTy Tee said:


> As I understand it:
> 
> The Scots want out of the United Kingdom - a 400 year old union between states/countries who generally share the same language and culture.
> 
> The Scots want in to the EU (whose ultimate goal seems to be a United States of Europe) - a new modern state of many states/countries who do not share any common language or culture and one might even argue would be run fiscally by Germany.
> 
> If the Scots dont like the well tried and tested 400 year old union what make them think EUSSR is going to be better? I dont get their logic.
> 
> Finally from the point of view of Westminster, without Scottish MPs, the Labour Party is a dead party (as the majority of Scottish MPs are Labour, only 1 being Conservative), so the rest of the UK will be Conservative for the foreseeable future.


It's rubbish mate, if you remove the Scottish contribution the results of nearly every general election are the same. We caused a hung parliament once and only swung 5 elections in almost 100 years.


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> I heard that all the final "deals" wouldnt actually be worked out till after a YES vote.....which means you dont actually know what your getting and could be kicking yourselves
> 
> Someone said to me "Build the wall up and let them crack on" ha ha I wet myself lol
> 
> J
> xx


You heard wrong. your friends attitude stinks and only fuels the fire of wanting to be independent.


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> Brian if you don't mind me saying so, you are making a "Little Englander" argument.
> 
> At present we have a democratic UK government elected by England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland together as a whole and we all take our part in that and most of us don't get what we want half the time! That's democracy.
> 
> I could say I didn't vote for the present government and build a wall around my house and say from now on I'm voting for myself but I don't think it will actually help.
> 
> If as a result of a "yes" then the rest of the country ends up with a permanent right wing bias then we can all say through gritted teeth "Thanks Brian ....grrr"
> 
> Brian, we need you and want you to stay :-* Better together it would seem for a more balanced democracy as far as that argument goes.


So you want us to stay to "save you from the torys" do you realise how hypocritical that sounds to us? :wink:


----------



## roddy

THANK YOU BRIAN    
personally I am well aware of the economic situation , and of the lies and untruths fed to an embedded media over the years regarding oil reserves , public expenditure etc etc, but for me it is a cultural issue and I would never ( maybe I should ) expect an English person to understand the nationalistic feelings of a Scot.. if they are now concerned about the ramifications of life without us then hey ho,, too bloody late !!
if England want to build a wall with border patrolls and whatever then on you go.. :roll: 
tbh... it is some of the ignorant and arrogant attitudes that have turned so many of us against so many of you, not all tho :wink:


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> "we need you and want you to stay :-* Better together it would seem for a more balanced democracy as far as that argument goes.


This I agree with. Unfortunately, any desire on England's part to maintain the union is seen by the yes campaign as a demonstration that Scotland must be 'valuable' and therefore better off on their own keeping all that 'value' to themselves. It's the union I value though, not the individual parts.


----------



## John-H

brian1978 said:


> Also, if the figures are all doctored and Scotland isn't wealthy why did the conservatives commission the Mcrone report to find out if Scotland was viable. Then immediately classify it and Bury it for 30 years. We only found due to a tip off and had to get its contents through the newly commissioned freedom of information bill.
> 
> It sort of leaves a bitter taste in the mouth when you find out successive labour tory governments have been lying to you for 30 years about the viability of your country to function as an independent nation.
> 
> It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the documents are freely available to download as pdf now.


Shouldn't the UK be sharing it's resources? Take from the wealthy and give to the poor and all that? I could decide not to pay my taxes but quite rightly am prevented from doing so.

And helping to balance a democracy is not hypocritical from a standpoint of all being in it together. It only becomes hypocritical if I believed in them and us which I don't. I could say wanting to keep all the oil revenue yourself appears greedy :wink:


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> So you want us to stay to "save you from the torys" do you realise how hypocritical that sounds to us? :wink:


I'm no fan of the Tories, but I think John has made the same mistake I accused you of. We don't need saving from anyone. No one ever does. Our government is the result of our voting as a whole and if I don't like them, then that's tough because clearly I'm in the minority otherwise they wouldn't be in power.

It doesn't matter how much we increase or reduce the size of the voting population, the vote is still fair. That's the point.


----------



## brian1978

Lies still pour through my door from better together mob..

Last one was claiming "Salmonds threat to default on debt means a bad credit rating for us all" it's a massive lie. Scotland has never had borrowing powers we have no debt as a country we cannot default on that money. It's the UKs debt this has been confirmed by the treasury.

Alex Salmond is offering to pay a share of the UKs debt in exchange for a fair share of the UKs assets. No assets no paying a share of the debt.

But let's be clear, we FULLY intend to pay this. It was George Osborne that forced this hand with his ridiculous threats to damage every single business in the UK by refusing a simple and mutually beneficial currency union. He is playing a dangerous game with this and I have a feeling it's going to come round and bite him.


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> Lollypop86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that all the final "deals" wouldnt actually be worked out till after a YES vote.....which means you dont actually know what your getting and could be kicking yourselves
> 
> Someone said to me "Build the wall up and let them crack on" ha ha I wet myself lol
> 
> J
> xx
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong. your friends attitude stinks and only fuels the fire of wanting to be independent.
Click to expand...

Oh right I'll let all the news channels know that Bri Bri from the TTF said they are all wrong and should quote him immediately!

My friend was funny lol said it would be the "Great Wall of England" lol 

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if the figures are all doctored and Scotland isn't wealthy why did the conservatives commission the Mcrone report to find out if Scotland was viable. Then immediately classify it and Bury it for 30 years. We only found due to a tip off and had to get its contents through the newly commissioned freedom of information bill.
> 
> It sort of leaves a bitter taste in the mouth when you find out successive labour tory governments have been lying to you for 30 years about the viability of your country to function as an independent nation.
> 
> It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the documents are freely available to download as pdf now.
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the UK be sharing it's resources? Take from the wealthy and give to the poor and all that? I could decide not to pay my taxes but quite rightly am prevented from doing so.
> 
> And helping to balance a democracy is not hypocritical from a standpoint of all being in it together. It only becomes hypocritical if I believed in them and us which I don't. I could say wanting to keep all the oil revenue yourself appears greedy :wink:
Click to expand...

Oil and gas is a natural resource, saying we should share it is like us saying we want 10% of the water in the lake district.

It's going to run out anyway.. its the cherry on our cake. Maybe if Westminster hadn't squandered the last 40 years of revenue we wouldn't be having thus referendum.

It's under 15% of our total economy, yes it's nice to have and an oil fund will help in the long run. our economy is based on much more than oil.


----------



## John-H

I don't have a problem with sharing. Give and take and all help each other out is always the best policy. Saying this is mine now and you can't share it any more always upsets.


----------



## Lollypop86

John-H said:


> Saying this is mine now and you can't share it any more always upsets.


Similar stuff happens on here tho.......just saying 

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> I don't have a problem with sharing. Give and take and all help each other out is always the best policy. Saying this is mine now and you can't share it any more always upsets.


Like Westminster have done with us for 40 years :?

Westminster also love sharing other things... like the debt for a railway link costing £40-60 BILLION that comes nowhere near Scotland.


----------



## mighTy Tee

I note you skipped over the EU issue that I raised......

As for the election results Scotland is what keeps the UK elections so tight between Tories and Labour and without Scottish Labour MPs the Labour Party is a minority party in Westminster and we wouldnt have the current Tory/Liberal "democracy".


----------



## brian1978

mighTy Tee said:


> I note you skipped over the EU issue that I raised......
> 
> As for the election results Scotland is what keeps the UK elections so tight between Tories and Labour and without Scottish Labour MPs the Labour Party is a minority party in Westminster and we wouldnt have the current Tory/Liberal "democracy".


Sorry I missed that. Being in the EU is beneficial it provides freedom of movement for our people and eu nationals. As well as the obvious perks.
England wants out of the EU personally I think this is insane and seriously counterproductive to international business.


----------



## ag

There can be no doubt that an independant Scotland would be viable. It's political make-up would enevitably mean a divergence in direction from the rest of the UK, which is why they want independance in the first place. This divergence would probably move them closer in philosophy to the non-UK core economies of the EU. This could result in them joining the Euro eventually. The only real fly in the ointment is their lack of political diversity. If the SNP is succesfully elected to govern Scotland and their reign is popular then to unseat them will require a certain largesse on the part of any incoming parties that would go beyond sensible budgetary constraints. In the current UK the system does allow a certain rebalancing every-so-often it is messy and inefficient, but it is necessary. If Scotland were to join the Euro and observe the conditions that go with it then they could probably succeed. My gut feeling is that as a whole the efforts made to encourage business in Scotland will cost more than they create and Scotland will be obliged to be more fiscally conservative than they would like to be and that being masters of their own destiny doesn't change the world in which they operate.

France and the UK are run along very different lines. That they end up with very similar economies is amazing if it weren't for the fact that governments have very little effect on industrial output. They think they do, but trends of decades have shown that no government, left or right, has had an effect on the economy that wasn't already on the cards. Even the much debated Thatcher government made little or no impact on the declining viability of manufacturing in the UK, a decline that was exactly the same under Labour.

If Scotland votes Yes then I wish them luck. They won't need it because unless their government is totally incompetent the real people will keep it rolling.


----------



## brian1978

ag said:


> There can be no doubt that an independant Scotland would be viable. It's political make-up would enevitably mean a divergence in direction from the rest of the UK, which is why they want independance in the first place. This divergence would probably move them closer in philosophy to the non-UK core economies of the EU. This could result in them joining the Euro eventually. The only real fly in the ointment is their lack of political diversity. If the SNP is succesfully elected to govern Scotland and their reign is popular then to unseat them will require a certain largesse on the part of any incoming parties that would go beyond sensible budgetary constraints. In the current UK the system does allow a certain rebalancing every-so-often it is messy and inefficient, but it is necessary. If Scotland were to join the Euro and observe the conditions that go with it then they could probably succeed. My gut feeling is that as a whole the efforts made to encourage business in Scotland will cost more than they create and Scotland will be obliged to be more fiscally conservative than they would like to be and that being masters of their own destiny doesn't change the world in which they operate.
> 
> France and the UK are run along very different lines. That they end up with very similar economies is amazing if it weren't for the fact that governments have very little effect on industrial output. They think they do, but trends of decades have shown that no government, left or right, has had an effect on the economy that wasn't already on the cards. Even the much debated Thatcher government made little or no impact on the declining viability of manufacturing in the UK, a decline that was exactly the same under Labour.
> 
> If Scotland votes Yes then I wish them luck. They won't need it because unless their government is totally incompetent the real people will keep it rolling.


Thank you.

I am an SNP supporter and would like them to be reelected after indi. But would also love to see other parties making an Impact and making their voice heard. 
I think one of the reasons for a surge in support for yes is down to new labour, Thatcher one said new labour was her greatest achievement. I think labour supporters here are realising that this is a golden opportunity for them to reinvent themselves. Ed milliband looks to me like just another tory rich boy. And I think labour are heading right down a path that would have Kier Hardy spinning in his grave.


----------



## roddy

Interesting observation ,,,,, 3 pages of comments , not one saying. " ok its your country , go for it if that is what you all want and good luck ",,,, instead it is all what is england going to loose. , really is it any wonder we want away from you all ? :lol:


----------



## brian1978

roddy said:


> Interesting observation ,,,,, 3 pages of comments , not one saying. " ok its your country , go for it if that is what you all want and good luck ",,,, instead it is all what is england going to loose. , really is it any wonder we want away from you all ? :lol:


To be fair ag did. 

And yes, not refering to anyone in particular on here or anything but the amount of "don't let the door hit you on the way out" attitude I get is quite sad....


----------



## John-H

Yes and I said I hope the gamble pays off or something better comes out of it if we stay together.

There's no ill will from me to Scotland as I love the place and have been going there every year for my holidays since I was six months old. If there was ever a place I'd want to live if I could work there and didn't have ties in England that would be it.

If you had a partner you loved very much who suddenly said they wanted to leave wouldn't you want them to stay and wouldn't you want to explore the reasons why and do what you could to stay together?


----------



## mullum

You know I don't normally post about anything other than the TT, (well, except for when it's my turn to be bullied by Jamman - then, naturally, I defend myself - for all the good it does me !)
But I'm just going to say that I want the Scottish to get what they want for them. Regardless of how it affects the UK, I just hope they get what they want. If there's a cost to that for the UK, then I'm sure it's a cost we owe them. I really think it's none of my business to get involved in their decision and I hope the transition isn't made painful by the British government.
Heck, I think a lot of English people will move there eventually - myself included !


----------



## Spandex

roddy said:


> Interesting observation ,,,,, 3 pages of comments , not one saying. " ok its your country , go for it if that is what you all want and good luck ",,,, instead it is all what is england going to loose. , really is it any wonder we want away from you all ? :lol:


Roddy, read the OP. This thread was started to debate the issues of the possible split. People are just addressing the original question.


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> Yes and I said I hope the gamble pays off or something better comes out of it if we stay together.
> 
> There's no ill will from me to Scotland as I love the place and have been going there every year for my holidays since I was six months old. If there was ever a place I'd want to live if I could work there and didn't have ties in England that would be it.
> 
> If you had a partner you loved very much who suddenly said they wanted to leave wouldn't you want them to stay and wouldn't you want to explore the reasons why and do what you could to stay together?


It's only political ties... your still welcome to come here 

I promise you won't need a passport lol


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> I promise you won't need a passport lol


Playing devils advocate for a moment, as an active yes campaigner, how are you able to make that promise?


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I promise you won't need a passport lol
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate for a moment, as an active yes campaigner, how are you able to make that promise?
Click to expand...

Common sense.

There exists no such border ANYWHERE in Europe. Even between countries not in Europe. Sweden Norway border for eg

The cost to put up a 100mile fence and patrol it 24/7 would be astronomical and fall 100% on English tax payers as it would be them putting up a ridiculous banana Republic style barrier in some monumental gesture of spite that will hobble business both sides of the border and cost everyone involved money..

It's simply not going to happen.


----------



## Lollypop86

so your running on common sense? So like the video you posted......what if it all goes tits up and your kids have to live with your decision....what then?

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

The Norway Sweden border.


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> so your running on common sense? So like the video you posted......what if it all goes tits up and your kids have to live with your decision....what then?
> 
> J
> xx


Jessica, 1 in 5 kids in Scotland are born into poverty every year..... its already went tits up. :?


----------



## Lollypop86

right well your children didnt/wont so what about if it goes tits up for them? what then....

Woulda, Shoulda, coulda?

J
xx


----------



## Skeee

Somebody say tits?


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> right well your children didnt/wont so what about if it goes tits up for them? what then....
> 
> Woulda, Shoulda, coulda?
> 
> J
> xx


The UK could go bust, it's in 1.5 trillion of debt. WW3 could break out and we all die....

Point is the future is always uncertain.

I think Scotland stands a better chance alone than it does tied to Westminster.


----------



## John-H

Brian, reassuring as though that sounds it is not clear cut at all. You mentioned previously that the border would be like Ireland/UK and a passport would not be required. Here's the UK government advice when traveling to Ireland:



> Ireland, along with the UK, is a member of the Common Travel Area. British nationals travelling from the UK don't need a passport to visit Ireland. However, Irish immigration officers will check the ID of all passengers arriving by air from the UK and may ask for proof of nationality, particularly if you were born outside the UK. You are therefore *advised to take your British passport with you*.


As a new member to the EU would you not be required to sign up to Schengen and implement border controls?

Is your immigration policy going to align with that of the rest of the UK? If it does not then there is going to be pressure from both sides of the border to impose controls.

Like so many of the issues in question you have one side saying "it's safer to stick with the devil you know" and those saying "change will be fine don't worry - it's only scare mongering" but whenever I look into the issues I see potential trouble ahead.

Perhaps I'm a worrier but what I think I am is careful and I wouldn't like to support change unless I knew the consequences. Sorry to put your enthusiasm, good intentions and obvious common sense to the test but can you answer the questions posed here:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/se ... t-scotland


----------



## Shug750S

As this will undoubtably affect everyone in the UK, and already is as the £ is dropping on the international markets following the recent polls, surely everyone in the UK should have a vote? Not just the Scots living in Scotland. Or maybe this is just hedge funds / futures and market traders doing what they do, profiting at the expense of others?

I can understand why some Scots may want independence, but what next, lower level devolution, say with Edinburgh going it alone?

Could end up like the Swiss model, where a degree of income taxation is determined by the local canton, and some cantons offer tax advantages to certain people to increase wealth in that area.

Just a thought... We are all in it together at present, so why only ask a small percentage of the total population the question?


----------



## Shug750S

And another thought...

If they go please don't change the road signs like they have in Wales, makes it a pig to read when you're lost on a dark road, and only a minority actually speak Welsh.


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> Brian, reassuring as though that sounds it is not clear cut at all. You mentioned previously that the border would be like Ireland/UK and a passport would not be required. Here's the UK government advice when traveling to Ireland:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ireland, along with the UK, is a member of the Common Travel Area. British nationals travelling from the UK don't need a passport to visit Ireland. However, Irish immigration officers will check the ID of all passengers arriving by air from the UK and may ask for proof of nationality, particularly if you were born outside the UK. You are therefore *advised to take your British passport with you*.
> 
> 
> 
> As a new member to the EU would you not be required to sign up to Schengen and implement border controls?
> 
> Is your immigration policy going to align with that of the rest of the UK? If it does not then there is going to be pressure from both sides of the border to impose controls.
> 
> Like so many of the issues in question you have one side saying "it's safer to stick with the devil you know" and those saying "change will be fine don't worry - it's only scare mongering" but whenever I look into the issues I see potential trouble ahead.
> 
> Perhaps I'm a worrier but what I think I am is careful and I wouldn't like to support change unless I knew the consequences. Sorry to put your enthusiasm, good intentions and obvious common sense to the test but can you answer the questions posed here:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/se ... t-scotland
Click to expand...

Yes that's when flying, when I fly to London just now I also take a passport, you need it as proof of ID when boarding... yea you can use other ID but 90% of people use the passport

The Shengen agreement does away with the need for border control. Not the other way round. There is absolutely no rhyme nor reason for border controls between Scotland and England. Same as there are none going to the Isle of Man or Gersey. Or Ireland.

Linking a media story is pointless, the media is EXTREMELY biased in this debate. 37 national newspapers in Scotland only 1 Sunday paper has come out in support. The misinformation printed especially by the likes of the daily mail is astonishing .


----------



## ag

The difficulty the Scots will have whatever the outcome of the vote is that the result is going to be too tight. For a majority of a little over 50% to impose their will on a minority of a little under 50% will actually lead to a sort of vanilla status quo where people will identify themselves only with their level of dissatisfaction with the situation rated from fairly to very. If the vote is on a knife edge but the YES vote carries it then the first Scottish general election will probably lead to a hung parliament with all their wonderful new ideas put on hold. The in-fighting will start and Scotland will be run by a bunch of croud-pleasing muppets like the rest of the world. If Scotland goes it alone I want them to have a chance of success, with less than 66% of the vote for independance I don't belive that any subsequent government can honestly say that they have a mandate for change. Democracy is only even handed because it makes everybody feel like a loser. For change you need a dictator. I though Salmond was the man, he still may be, but he hasn't convinced enough Scots to follow him because his arguments aren't sufficiently compelling. Note, his arguments, not the arguments. He's still brown-nosing Westminster because if he wins he will need a lot of financial and technical support to set up shop and if he loses, he still needs a job!

My worry is that people are focussing on details that can always be worked out. The bigger problem of a Scotland not being able to forge a future for itself, not because of underlying economic issues, but by the fact that the Scots are no more homogenous than any other nation and that uncertainty and in-fighting will prevent the progress so badly wanted by some Scots.

We could, perhaps, turn to a game of football to settle things. However that could turn nasty.


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> As this will undoubtably affect everyone in the UK, and already is as the £ is dropping on the international markets following the recent polls, surely everyone in the UK should have a vote? Not just the Scots living in Scotland. Or maybe this is just hedge funds / futures and market traders doing what they do, profiting at the expense of others?
> 
> I can understand why some Scots may want independence, but what next, lower level devolution, say with Edinburgh going it alone?
> 
> Could end up like the Swiss model, where a degree of income taxation is determined by the local canton, and some cantons offer tax advantages to certain people to increase wealth in that area.
> 
> Just a thought... We are all in it together at present, so why only ask a small percentage of the total population the question?


firstly the £ dropping is because that Halfwit towl folder Osborne is trying to politically blackmail us into a no vote by irresponsibility ruling out a common sense currency union.... imagine if he ACTUALLY went through with it after a yes vote. The value of the £ would plummet.

Secondly you saying the English should vote in this is unbelievably arrogant and it boils my blood every time I hear it mentioned. With all due respect it has NOTHING to do with the English. It's our referendum, our choice.

We already have gaelic road signs, everything north of oban is written in gaelic first English second....


----------



## brian1978

ag said:


> The difficulty the Scots will have whatever the outcome of the vote is that the result is going to be too tight. For a majority of a little over 50% to impose their will on a minority of a little under 50% will actually lead to a sort of vanilla status quo where people will identify themselves only with their level of dissatisfaction with the situation rated from fairly to very. If the vote is on a knife edge but the YES vote carries it then the first Scottish general election will probably lead to a hung parliament with all their wonderful new ideas put on hold. The in-fighting will start and Scotland will be run by a bunch of croud-pleasing muppets like the rest of the world. If Scotland goes it alone I want them to have a chance of success, with less than 66% of the vote for independance I don't belive that any subsequent government can honestly say that they have a mandate for change. Democracy is only even handed because it makes everybody feel like a loser. For change you need a dictator. I though Salmond was the man, he still may be, but he hasn't convinced enough Scots to follow him because his arguments aren't sufficiently compelling. Note, his arguments, not the arguments. He's still brown-nosing Westminster because if he wins he will need a lot of financial and technical support to set up shop and if he loses, he still needs a job!
> 
> My worry is that people are focussing on details that can always be worked out. The bigger problem of a Scotland not being able to forge a future for itself, not because of underlying economic issues, but by the fact that the Scots are no more homogenous than any other nation and that uncertainty and in-fighting will prevent the progress so badly wanted by some Scots.
> 
> We could, perhaps, turn to a game of football to settle things. However that could turn nasty.


I really don't think it will be as close as you think, maybe it's just my optimism but if you actually talk to people here not many admit to voting no. And a large % of the no vote are stubborn pensioners who are voting no because they think they are voting for the SNP and they don't like Alex Salmon, that or they think their pension will not be paid after a yes vote. :roll:

Most working class want a yes vote. A good 60-70% of the people I speak to want independence.


----------



## John-H

Shug750S said:


> As this will undoubtably affect everyone in the UK, and already is as the £ is dropping on the international markets following the recent polls, surely everyone in the UK should have a vote? Not just the Scots living in Scotland. Or maybe this is just hedge funds / futures and market traders doing what they do, profiting at the expense of others?
> 
> I can understand why some Scots may want independence, but what next, lower level devolution, say with Edinburgh going it alone?
> 
> Could end up like the Swiss model, where a degree of income taxation is determined by the local canton, and some cantons offer tax advantages to certain people to increase wealth in that area.
> 
> Just a thought... We are all in it together at present, so why only ask a small percentage of the total population the question?


It was said before that lots of things affect us but we can't expect always to have a say in the matter e.g. US foreign policy - but surely matters affecting the UK are within our preview?

Devolving and giving autonomy down to the lowest common denominator would logically mean we should individually decide whether to pay taxes and decide our own laws. Obviously that would be ridiculous and goes against the spirit of community and the greater good. Where, however, do you draw the line and on what criteria do you base that judgement? It's a valid question.

Brian, Schengen agreement, other way round, but the point is the same - are you be able to declare Common Ttravel Area?

Newspapers may be biased but do you not have an answer to the uncertainty other than a general dismissal of their motives for bringing it up? I was after an answer to the question about immigration policy which clearly leads to border controls if different, no matter who is behind it or the rights and wrongs of its imposition. Can you guarantee alignment with the rest of the UK?


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> As this will undoubtably affect everyone in the UK, and already is as the £ is dropping on the international markets following the recent polls, surely everyone in the UK should have a vote? Not just the Scots living in Scotland. Or maybe this is just hedge funds / futures and market traders doing what they do, profiting at the expense of others?
> 
> I can understand why some Scots may want independence, but what next, lower level devolution, say with Edinburgh going it alone?
> 
> Could end up like the Swiss model, where a degree of income taxation is determined by the local canton, and some cantons offer tax advantages to certain people to increase wealth in that area.
> 
> Just a thought... We are all in it together at present, so why only ask a small percentage of the total population the question?
> 
> 
> 
> firstly the £ dropping is because that Halfwit towl folder Osborne is trying to politically blackmail us into a no vote by irresponsibility ruling out a common sense currency union.... imagine if he ACTUALLY went through with it after a yes vote. The value of the £ would plummet.
> 
> Secondly you saying the English should vote in this is unbelievably arrogant and it boils my blood every time I hear it mentioned. With all due respect it has NOTHING to do with the English. It's our referendum, our choice.
> 
> We already have gaelic road signs, everything north of oban is written in gaelic first English second....
Click to expand...

Brian, sorry, but I only asked why the whole population of UK wasn't voting, as the outcome will most likely affect everyone...

No need to rant against the English again, and actually I'm half welsh so only 50% on target.

Why the massive chip mate?


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> As this will undoubtably affect everyone in the UK, and already is as the £ is dropping on the international markets following the recent polls, surely everyone in the UK should have a vote? Not just the Scots living in Scotland. Or maybe this is just hedge funds / futures and market traders doing what they do, profiting at the expense of others?
> 
> I can understand why some Scots may want independence, but what next, lower level devolution, say with Edinburgh going it alone?
> 
> Could end up like the Swiss model, where a degree of income taxation is determined by the local canton, and some cantons offer tax advantages to certain people to increase wealth in that area.
> 
> Just a thought... We are all in it together at present, so why only ask a small percentage of the total population the question?
> 
> 
> 
> firstly the £ dropping is because that Halfwit towl folder Osborne is trying to politically blackmail us into a no vote by irresponsibility ruling out a common sense currency union.... imagine if he ACTUALLY went through with it after a yes vote. The value of the £ would plummet.
> 
> Secondly you saying the English should vote in this is unbelievably arrogant and it boils my blood every time I hear it mentioned. With all due respect it has NOTHING to do with the English. It's our referendum, our choice.
> 
> We already have gaelic road signs, everything north of oban is written in gaelic first English second....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brian, sorry, but I only asked why the whole population of UK wasn't voting, as the outcome will most likely affect everyone...
> 
> No need to rant against the English again, and actually I'm half welsh so only 50% on target.
> 
> Why the massive chip mate?
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean it to come across that way. I hear it a lot and it affects us infinatly more. Imagine if we did involve the rest of the UK ... The English vote would decide the outcome of the referendum as you have 10x the electorate.

But it affects Europe too. Should we all vote?


----------



## Callum-TT

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> As this will undoubtably affect everyone in the UK, and already is as the £ is dropping on the international markets following the recent polls, surely everyone in the UK should have a vote? Not just the Scots living in Scotland. Or maybe this is just hedge funds / futures and market traders doing what they do, profiting at the expense of others?
> 
> I can understand why some Scots may want independence, but what next, lower level devolution, say with Edinburgh going it alone?
> 
> Could end up like the Swiss model, where a degree of income taxation is determined by the local canton, and some cantons offer tax advantages to certain people to increase wealth in that area.
> 
> Just a thought... We are all in it together at present, so why only ask a small percentage of the total population the question?
> 
> 
> 
> firstly the £ dropping is because that Halfwit towl folder Osborne is trying to politically blackmail us into a no vote by irresponsibility ruling out a common sense currency union.... imagine if he ACTUALLY went through with it after a yes vote. The value of the £ would plummet.
> 
> Secondly you saying the English should vote in this is unbelievably arrogant and it boils my blood every time I hear it mentioned. With all due respect it has NOTHING to do with the English. It's our referendum, our choice.
> 
> We already have gaelic road signs, everything north of oban is written in gaelic first English second....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brian, sorry, but I only asked why the whole population of UK wasn't voting, as the outcome will most likely affect everyone...
> 
> No need to rant against the English again, and actually I'm half welsh so only 50% on target.
> 
> Why the massive chip mate?
Click to expand...

Because he watched braveheart last night and fell asleep beating his chest shouting freedom.

One thing that baffles me is that most Yes voters talk about Norway as a model yet completely ignore the fact that once they went their own way they suffered a massive depression that lasted nearly two decades.

Now I agree they are very wealthy but vat is currently 25% compared to our 20% and generally prices are really high.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## John-H

brian1978 said:


> ...
> But it affects Europe too. Should we all vote?


Another good point. Maybe everyone in the world should have a vote on whether war should be allowed and maybe it would put an end to local squabbles! :wink:

The more we split and adopt a selfish viewpoint the more likely we are at come into conflict. We should make a stand to share resources and look after each other. Community, harmony, is that not what we should be striving for?


----------



## Shug750S

To be totally honest I really couldn't care less how the whole thing unravels, it will just end up with some politicians lining their own pockets, setting themselves up for the future like normal.

Just hope that if the Yes vote wins that it does work out for the better for all parties, and no one starts crying in a few years that it was a mistake, because very likely no one else will want to know.

Also seems to me that most policies are unclear, will taxes rise or fall, will things be better or worse, etc. etc.
An independent Scotland may sound great to a lot of people, but if (as an example) taxes rise by 10% will everyone be so keen then?

How can anyone vote if they are not 100% clear on the ramifications? As opposed to the claims being made by the 'converted' on both the yes & no sides...


----------



## Skeee

Callum-TT said:


> .........One thing that baffles me is that most Yes voters talk about Norway as a model yet completely ignore the fact that once they went their own way they suffered a massive depression that lasted nearly two decades.
> Now I agree they are very wealthy but vat is currently 25% compared to our 20% and generally
> *prices are really high*.


 As is their income tax! Do the Scots know this. Anyway enough of that. Where are the tits?


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I promise you won't need a passport lol
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate for a moment, as an active yes campaigner, how are you able to make that promise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense.
> 
> There exists no such border ANYWHERE in Europe. Even between countries not in Europe. Sweden Norway border for eg
> 
> The cost to put up a 100mile fence and patrol it 24/7 would be astronomical and fall 100% on English tax payers as it would be them putting up a ridiculous banana Republic style barrier in some monumental gesture of spite that will hobble business both sides of the border and cost everyone involved money..
> 
> It's simply not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Right. So, how many of the other things you state as fact are actually based on 'common sense' assumptions?

This is what concerns me about the campaigners on both sides. When they don't know something for a fact, they don't admit that. They just tell you what will happen based on some unknown degree of assumption. You say the no campaigners are lying, but you're doing the same - you're just assuming your lies will come true, making them retrospectively acceptable.


----------



## Skeee

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I promise you won't need a passport lol
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate for a moment, as an active yes campaigner, how are you able to make that promise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense.
> *
> There exists no such border ANYWHERE in Europe*. Even between countries not in Europe. Sweden Norway border for eg
> 
> The cost to put up a 100mile fence and patrol it 24/7 would be astronomical and fall 100% on English tax payers as it would be them putting up a ridiculous banana Republic style barrier in some monumental gesture of spite that will hobble business both sides of the border and cost everyone involved money..
> 
> It's simply not going to happen.
Click to expand...

 Cyprus?

Anyways! Where's the tits?


----------



## YoungOldUn

After reading through all of this thread, I have come to the opinion that Scotland is going to become utopia and I am seriously considering moving there before all of the folk at Calais currently trying to get into England wise up and change their target destination to Scotland.


----------



## bigdodge

YoungOldUn said:


> After reading through all of this thread, I have come to the opinion that Scotland is going to become utopia and I am seriously considering moving there before all of the folk at Calais currently trying to get into England wise up and change their target destination to Scotland.


Think you are right there could be an influx of people from the rest of Europe and refugees as well


----------



## roddy

OMG if all the English people who suddenly want to come here ever do then whats the point in having independence,,, we will all have to leave [smiley=bigcry.gif],, do you not get it,, we are trying to get away from you [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## brian1978

Skeee said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........One thing that baffles me is that most Yes voters talk about Norway as a model yet completely ignore the fact that once they went their own way they suffered a massive depression that lasted nearly two decades.
> Now I agree they are very wealthy but vat is currently 25% compared to our 20% and generally
> *prices are really high*.
> 
> 
> 
> As is their income tax! Do the Scots know this. Anyway enough of that. Where are the tits?
Click to expand...

They also make a lot more money. And most yes voters just use Norway as an example of how a small country can be successful.

If a low cost of living and low tax prices etc... was a measure of how good a country was to live in wouldn't we all be planning a move to Ethiopia or Chad?

And callum, I find your braveheart comment deeply offensive mate. I've been thinking about this decision for 2 years braveheart has f**k all to do with my decision.

I'm making my decision based on what I believe to be the best choice for my future and the next generations, having a constitution enshrining Scottish values such as free health care, free education, and Scottish Law. Is a big factor in that. The absolute end of tory governments as we know them is also a factor.

Freedom has little to do with it, self governess most definitely is.


----------



## brian1978

bigdodge said:


> YoungOldUn said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading through all of this thread, I have come to the opinion that Scotland is going to become utopia and I am seriously considering moving there before all of the folk at Calais currently trying to get into England wise up and change their target destination to Scotland.
> 
> 
> 
> Think you are right there could be an influx of people from the rest of Europe and refugees as well
Click to expand...

Thanks for the sarcasm but immigrants are welcome here, Scotland doesn't have an immigration problem. We have can emigration problem and a problem with job snobbery. Plenty of work here nobody wants to do it. Either lazy or "too good" to do it. 
We lose on average 30,000 people a year to emigration and have a lower population now than we a did 70 years ago. We also have have an ageing population. We actually need workers.

Nobody on the yes side has ever claimed it to be a utopia, and yes it will probably be difficult at the start... but everyone voting yes knows this. Scotland invented the modern world, we are the most educated nation in Europe, per head of population we have more universities in the top 200 than anywhere the world, the notion we can't run our own affairs is ludicrous.


----------



## John-H

You might have missed it Brian and I must say I admire your bravery and conviction in fielding all of this (you'll need a well deserved dram after) but coming back to passports - I was after an answer to the question about immigration policy. Can you guarantee alignment with the rest of the UK on immigration policy? If not then it's more of a hope you have really isn't it that we won't have border controls? What's going to stop your needed influx heading down the M6?


----------



## Shug750S

Let's face it, the English (or British) got it wrong before, we should have left the convicts here and moved the decent folk to Australia


----------



## roddy

Skeee said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........One thing that baffles me is that most Yes voters talk about Norway as a model yet completely ignore the fact that once they went their own way they suffered a massive depression that lasted nearly two decades.
> Now I agree they are very wealthy but vat is currently 25% compared to our 20% and generally
> *prices are really high*.
> 
> 
> 
> As is their income tax! Do the Scots know this. Anyway enough of that. Where are the tits?
Click to expand...

no no,, the Scots don't know these things,, only the English have this sort of inside knowledge... [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> You might have missed it Brian and I must say I admire your bravery and conviction in fielding all of this (you'll need a well deserved dram after) but coming back to passports - I was after an answer to the question about immigration policy. Can you guarantee alignment with the rest of the UK on immigration policy? If not then it's more of a hope you have really isn't it that we won't have border controls? What's going to stop your needed influx heading down the M6?


The same thing that stops them now, jobs. 
We will be looking to have a similar or slightly relaxed immigration policy. The Isle of Man also has a lower immigration requirement, what's to stop people coming to the IOM and hopping on a Ferry? They don't do It now.

I think the amount of immigrants down south are down to asylum seekers and people clinging to lorry's on the channel. Most of the immigrants here are working eastern Europeans.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might have missed it Brian and I must say I admire your bravery and conviction in fielding all of this (you'll need a well deserved dram after) but coming back to passports - I was after an answer to the question about immigration policy. Can you guarantee alignment with the rest of the UK on immigration policy? If not then it's more of a hope you have really isn't it that we won't have border controls? What's going to stop your needed influx heading down the M6?
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that stops them now, jobs.
> We will be looking to have a similar or slightly relaxed immigration policy. The Isle of Man also has a lower immigration requirement, what's to stop people coming to the IOM and hopping on a Ferry? They don't do It now.
> 
> I think the amount of immigrants down south are down to asylum seekers and people clinging to lorry's on the channel. Most of the immigrants here are working eastern Europeans.
Click to expand...

The IoM might have minor differences in policy, but immigration is still controlled by the UK border agency:

http://www.gov.im/categories/home-and-n ... le-of-man/

Will an independent Scotland allow the UK border agency to control their immigration? I assume not, so I think you still need to answer Johns question.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might have missed it Brian and I must say I admire your bravery and conviction in fielding all of this (you'll need a well deserved dram after) but coming back to passports - I was after an answer to the question about immigration policy. Can you guarantee alignment with the rest of the UK on immigration policy? If not then it's more of a hope you have really isn't it that we won't have border controls? What's going to stop your needed influx heading down the M6?
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that stops them now, jobs.
> We will be looking to have a similar or slightly relaxed immigration policy. The Isle of Man also has a lower immigration requirement, what's to stop people coming to the IOM and hopping on a Ferry? They don't do It now.
> 
> I think the amount of immigrants down south are down to asylum seekers and people clinging to lorry's on the channel. Most of the immigrants here are working eastern Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IoM might have minor differences in policy, but immigration is still controlled by the UK border agency:
> 
> http://www.gov.im/categories/home-and-n ... le-of-man/
> 
> Will an independent Scotland allow the UK border agency to control their immigration? I assume not, so I think you still need to answer Johns question.
Click to expand...

Not my words, but is this better explained?

At the outset, the immigration system would be similar to what exists now, and it would then of course depend on who was elected as the Scottish Government as to what changes would be introduced. There will not be any border controls between Scotland and the rest of the UK or Ireland - these countries (and also the Isle of Man and Channel Islands) already operate a common travel area which Scotland will remain part of.
With Scotland retaining membership of the EU, citizens from other EU countries living in Scotland will be able to remain here as before. In its white paper "Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland," the Scottish Government also explains that "all those legally in Scotland at independence will be able to remain in Scotland under the terms of their exisiting visa or entry". Future applications for leave to remain would be considered under Scotland's immigration rules. 
After independence we can expect future Scottish Governments to develop an immigration system that best suits Scotland's particular circumstances and needs.
Yes Scotland believes that UK immigration policy is not appropriate for Scotland. For example, our Universities are critical of restrictions on student visas which are harming their ability to recruit and retain the brightest students and academics from around the world.
And because of high financial maintenance thesholds, too many families are seeing husbands and wives and mothers and fathers refused entry into this country. 
Similarly, the Scottish Parliament has regularly been critical of UK policies on asylum such as detention and 'dawn raids' but without powers over immigration and asylum, cannot put an alternative system in place.
In "Scotland's Future", the current Scottish Government has laid out proposals for a points-based immigration system for applicants from outside the EU. Such a system would be designed to match Scotland's needs. For example, an immigration system designed for Scotland would see the reintroduction of post-study work visas to attract more talented students and researchers to come to Scotalnd. And financial thresholds for certain visas would be lowered to reflect Scotland's level of living costs instead of London's. 
As a member of the EU, Scotland would continue to welcome EU nationals excercising their treaty rights as workers, or in other categories, just as people from Scotland are free to move elsewhere. 
On asylum, the Scottish Government suggests a new Scottish Asylum Agency would oversee a robust and humane application process for those seeking refuge from persecution, with the practise of dawn raids ended and Dungavel detention centre closed.


----------



## Spandex

That explains Scotland's policy. It doesn't explain how you would manage the border between the uk and Scotland, should our policies differ (and it sounds like they would). What would happen if the UK left the EU and Scotland remained in it? How could an open border exist?


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> That explains Scotland's policy. It doesn't explain how you would manage the border between the uk and Scotland, should our policies differ (and it sounds like they would). What would happen if the UK left the EU and Scotland remained in it? How could an open border exist?


Same as the ones between Norway and Sweden. Perhaps.

If the UK left the EU it would be up to them I'd imagine... jump that hurdle when we come to it I suppose. But I'd imagine the ball would be in the UKs court then.

We have no plans to put up physical barriers and want freedom of movement agreement like the Ireland UK border. If the UK want to self harm putting up borders then we can't stop them.... but common sense says it won't happen.

Let's be VERY clear here... All these barriers currency , borders etc.... are ALL being put forward by politicians attempting to hold us to political ransom in order to scare people into voting no. After a yes vote I think attitudes will change and we can all sit down and work out agreements that benefit everyone.


----------



## John-H

Brian, you are doing a good job of scaring me and I don't even live in Scotland :wink:


----------



## Spandex

The Ireland/UK border is a special case, and only exists because of the expanse of water between NI and the mainland. You still need to present ID when entering mainland UK from NI.

But really the point I'm making is that you don't know. That's fine, and I don't expect you to know, but earlier you _promised_ there would be an open border and that was a lie. A lie you strongly believe as the most likely outcome, but a lie nonetheless. This is what I dislike about the campaign from both sides - saying "we don't know" won't get you votes, so you lie because getting the result you want is the most important thing, regardless of how you get it. I'm not just getting at you here. The no campaign is just as bad.


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> Thanks for the sarcasm but immigrants are welcome here, Scotland doesn't have an immigration problem *YET*. We have can emigration problem and a problem with job snobbery. Plenty of work here nobody wants to do it. Either lazy or "too good" to do it.
> We lose on average 30,000 people a year to emigration and have a lower population now than we a did 70 years ago. We also have have an ageing population. We actually need workers.
> 
> Nobody on the yes side has ever claimed it to be a utopia, and yes it will probably be difficult at the start... but everyone voting yes knows this. Scotland invented the modern world, we are the most educated nation in Europe, per head of population we have more universities in the top 200 than anywhere the world, the notion we can't run our own affairs is ludicrous.


Corrected for you Bri Bri

J
xx


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> After a yes vote I think attitudes will change and we can all sit down and work out agreements that benefit everyone.


But why in your right mind would you say yes when you dont know whats going to happen after, what policies, currency, NHS, free perscriptions, 20% VAT......thats like telling someone to go and stick 200k down on a ford fiesta they have never test driven or seen......let alone the fact its a ford and no1 in their right mind would pay that

LOL @ Callum tho loved that made me chuckle oh and norway isnt that small you make it sounds like its the same size as the isle of wight lol

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After a yes vote I think attitudes will change and we can all sit down and work out agreements that benefit everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> But why in your right mind would you say yes when you dont know whats going to happen after, what policies, currency, NHS, free perscriptions, 20% VAT......thats like telling someone to go and stick 200k down on a ford fiesta they have never test driven or seen......let alone the fact its a ford and no1 in their right mind would pay that
> 
> LOL @ Callum tho loved that made me chuckle oh and norway isnt that small you make it sounds like its the same size as the isle of wight lol
> 
> J
> xx
Click to expand...

With regards to free prescription etc....

We have no idea what will happen to them after a no vote. The Barnet formula is being changed and we are getting our block grant cut. This we know 100% as both tory and labour are saying they will press on with more austerity cuts.

So we will have less money to provide the same services. I think I'd rather keep our revenue here and take our chances.

We can afford to keep them with current tax paid, no reason we can't keep them without altering tax.

Plus we don't have trident hs2 cross link to pay for.


----------



## brian1978

With regards to the UK leaving the EU will we be putting up a wall between Ireland and the UK?

Highly doubtfull.


----------



## ag

It is arguable if any of the parliamentary systems in Europe are actually fit for purpose. The lack of genuine proportional representation and the need to attract voters have left big decisions being postponed for fear of alienating these same voters. The world has become a very complex, inter-dependant and not to mention costly entity. And guess what, that Cancer medicine that gives you 6 months extra for £90k, you're not worth it.

Starting from scratch with a new constitution could be an immense step forward for any nation, it could genuinely herald a new age of enlightenment and give untold benefits to any country prepared to do it. Unfortunately to arrive at such a Utopia we would have to pass through a democratic process. At which point the dream falls on its @r5e and we're back to same old, same old.

I hope the Scots get independance, despite the enevitable cost to both Scotland & the UK. I don't belive that they can change the laws of economics or human nature, but I do believe that with sufficient support and a government that that they can all "buy into" then they are more likely to be satisfied with their lot than they are now. Just being masters of their own destiny will change how they think and feel about themselves. Greater confidence will lead to a growth in the middle classes, the engines for economic expansion in any society and, just maybe, their dreams realised.

The downside is, of course, that the moment they reach this position, their political parties will look exactly like the UK now!


----------



## John-H

Brian, it's a bit hard and pointless (like a broken pencil) attempting to build a wall in the sea :wink:

It seems a debate between hope, and belief about what you don't know the answers to (a bit like a religious belief where faith denies proof) and the present situation, which does not have the same uncertainty clearly because it's already proven itself stable for the last 300 years.

Why take a gamble? Especially with the inevitable move to a more federalist structure with greater powers being proposed once this referendum of the unknown plunge is over. Would that not be the best of both worlds?


----------



## mullum

brian1978 said:


> Not my words,
> 
> .......
> 
> And because of high financial maintenance thesholds, too many families are seeing husbands and wives and mothers and fathers refused entry into this country (the UK).
> 
> .......
> 
> In "Scotland's Future", the current Scottish Government has laid out proposals for a points-based immigration system for applicants from outside the EU. Such a system would be designed to match Scotland's needs.
> 
> .......
> 
> And financial thresholds for certain visas would be lowered to reflect Scotland's level of living costs instead of London's.


Teresa May (pure evil) and the Tories have introduced these diabolical rules AGAINST UK CITIZENS FAMILIES, and most people have no idea whatsoever that this is going on ! 
Thousands of partners and families have been torn apart because the Tories say only the rich have "the right to family life" with non-EU spouses.

This is not the thread to debate this particular issue, but I applaud Scotland for seeing the injustice and promising to do something about it !


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> With regards to the UK leaving the EU will we be putting up a wall between Ireland and the UK?
> 
> Highly doubtfull.


As I said, Ireland is a special case, as there is an expanse of water between them and mainland UK, so its more convenient to move the border back to the mainland rather than try to maintain a secure land border. If Scotland stayed in the EU but the UK left, I'm not sure what choice we'd have but to enforce the land border.

Also, twice now you've ignored my posts about the lies told regarding what 'will' happen after independence. How far are you willing to go to get what you want? Will you be personally apologising to people who changed their vote based on your assurances, only to find that they were actually just 'best guesses' dressed up as facts?


----------



## roddy

interesting point Mullum,,, and thank you for your words of support,, some English men , like your good self, will always be welcome in our country  ,,,,,, some others not so :? ..


----------



## A3DFU

ag said:


> It is arguable if any of the parliamentary systems in Europe are actually fit for purpose. The lack of genuine proportional representation and the need to attract voters have left big decisions being postponed for fear of alienating these same voters. The world has become a very complex, inter-dependant and not to mention costly entity.
> Starting from scratch with a new constitution could be an immense step forward for any nation, it could genuinely herald a new age of enlightenment and give untold benefits to any country prepared to do it.


Well put.


----------



## John-H

Well it's interesting that a more federalist future for Scotland would also be a possibility for England, Wales and Northern Ireland too. It would be hard to justify a more regional autonomy for one part of the UK whilst denying the rest of the country. The USA have had this for years but they have a United country nonetheless.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to the UK leaving the EU will we be putting up a wall between Ireland and the UK?
> 
> Highly doubtfull.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, Ireland is a special case, as there is an expanse of water between them and mainland UK, so its more convenient to move the border back to the mainland rather than try to maintain a secure land border. If Scotland stayed in the EU but the UK left, I'm not sure what choice we'd have but to enforce the land border.
> 
> Also, twice now you've ignored my posts about the lies told regarding what 'will' happen after independence. How far are you willing to go to get what you want? Will you be personally apologising to people who changed their vote based on your assurances, only to find that they were actually just 'best guesses' dressed up as facts?
Click to expand...

Lol. Lies,,.. The better together side tell them every day, not just little ones but huge whoppers, like your shopping will be 16% more expensive, even though each and every one of the big supermarkets have rubbished it. George Osborne telling us we cannot use the pound when we clearly can use the pound, telling pensioners that pensions are not guaranteed, only to be followed up by a statement from the DWP saying the opposite. We have been told we can't watch Dr Who, that we will have to drive on the right hand side. That the pandas in the zoo will be confiscated, that we won't get in Europe, followed 2 days later by we will have to adopt the euro, then we will take 8 years to get back in the euro... We have had Lord Robertson saying "the forces of darkness will prosper" or words to them effect.

So don't preach to me if I have made a slight error, or made assumptions based on my best knowledge because the tsunami of s**** we have been washed over with here would make your head spin.


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> Brian, it's a bit hard and pointless (like a broken pencil) attempting to build a wall in the sea :wink:
> 
> It seems a debate between hope, and belief about what you don't know the answers to (a bit like a religious belief where faith denies proof) and the present situation, which does not have the same uncertainty clearly because it's already proven itself stable for the last 300 years.
> 
> Why take a gamble? Especially with the inevitable move to a more federalist structure with greater powers being proposed once this referendum of the unknown plunge is over. Would that not be the best of both worlds?


I think we both know I meant the land border between Northern Ireland (UK territory) and the Republic of Ireland (EU) :roll:

If the UK left the euro, surely they would,do have to put up restrictions here as well as in Scotland,.. or maybe just agree a common travel agreement. The cost of such a border would be astronomical as it would have to stretch from coast to coast with patrol vessels in the sea... else illegal immigrants could simply walk over the fields.


----------



## roddy

Brian,, I think you have done enough for the cause on here, endlessly explaining to those who persist wjth the semantics of some issues and how england may implode thereafter , and blatantly do not want to see the bigger picture !!!!... as we know is the case here ( in Scotland ) there are a fair amount of entrenched voters who will not be swayed or changed irrespective of how much of the " tsunami of s**t " is discredited and exposed for what it is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, take a break mate and go fry some fish


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Lol. Lies,,.. The better together side tell them every day, not just little ones but huge whoppers, like your shopping will be 16% more expensive, even though each and every one of the big supermarkets have rubbished it. George Osborne telling us we cannot use the pound when we clearly can use the pound, telling pensioners that pensions are not guaranteed, only to be followed up by a statement from the DWP saying the opposite. We have been told we can't watch Dr Who, that we will have to drive on the right hand side. That the pandas in the zoo will be confiscated, that we won't get in Europe, followed 2 days later by we will have to adopt the euro, then we will take 8 years to get back in the euro... We have had Lord Robertson saying "the forces of darkness will prosper" or words to them effect.
> 
> So don't preach to me if I have made a slight error, or made assumptions based on my best knowledge because the tsunami of s**** we have been washed over with here would make your head spin.


Are you saying their lies justify your lies? And it's not the assumptions that are the issue. Assumptions are all we have. It's the dressing up of assumptions as facts when you know full well that they're not that I have a problem with.

I'm not particularly against Scotlands independence. I would prefer they stayed in the union, but I can understand some of the reasons for wanting to leave. What I can't abide is the lies and politicking that seems to have pervaded every level of the discussion. How are people supposed to make an informed decision if all the information (from both sides) is an inscrutable mix of facts, misunderstanding and outright lies?


----------



## roddy

quite easy spandy,, up here ( in Scotland ) we can smell bull from half a mile away, and fortunately we have some very good and well respected leaders !!!


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Lies,,.. The better together side tell them every day, not just little ones but huge whoppers, like your shopping will be 16% more expensive, even though each and every one of the big supermarkets have rubbished it. George Osborne telling us we cannot use the pound when we clearly can use the pound, telling pensioners that pensions are not guaranteed, only to be followed up by a statement from the DWP saying the opposite. We have been told we can't watch Dr Who, that we will have to drive on the right hand side. That the pandas in the zoo will be confiscated, that we won't get in Europe, followed 2 days later by we will have to adopt the euro, then we will take 8 years to get back in the euro... We have had Lord Robertson saying "the forces of darkness will prosper" or words to them effect.
> 
> So don't preach to me if I have made a slight error, or made assumptions based on my best knowledge because the tsunami of s**** we have been washed over with here would make your head spin.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying their lies justify your lies? And it's not the assumptions that are the issue. Assumptions are all we have. It's the dressing up of assumptions as facts when you know full well that they're not that I have a problem with.
> 
> I'm not particularly against Scotlands independence. I would prefer they stayed in the union, but I can understand some of the reasons for wanting to leave. What I can't abide is the lies and politicking that seems to have pervaded every level of the discussion. How are people supposed to make an informed decision if all the information (from both sides) is an inscrutable mix of facts, misunderstanding and outright lies?
Click to expand...

 I don't think I've actually lied about anything knowing full well the opposite is true. What I have said is to the best of my knowledge what will happen. 
In the Edinburgh agreement which both Alex Salmond and David Cameron signed it is clearly best out that both sides will sit down and do what's best for both sides after the referendum. No side will set out to deliberately damage the other. Things like currency union, freedom of movement are common sense options that benefit all involved.

You say you are in favour on the union, can you give me one reason for staying in the union that cannot be equaled or bettered by independce?


----------



## Shug750S

Spandex said:


> The Ireland/UK border is a special case, and only exists because of the expanse of water between NI and the mainland. You still need to present ID when entering mainland UK from NI.
> 
> But really the point I'm making is that you don't know. That's fine, and I don't expect you to know, but earlier you _promised_ there would be an open border and that was a lie. A lie you strongly believe as the most likely outcome, but a lie nonetheless. This is what I dislike about the campaign from both sides - saying "we don't know" won't get you votes, so you lie because getting the result you want is the most important thing, regardless of how you get it. I'm not just getting at you here. The no campaign is just as bad.


Hey Spandy, don't want to start another long drawn out discussion, enough of that going on with our friends in the north, but I have never shown ID on entering LHR or LGW from NI, as they bring you in through the domestic flight arrivals and you just walk though.

Same with Incoming flights from Dublin, Cork & Shannon, you just show your boarding pass to the security bod in arrivals to show you got off the Ireland flight and then you skip the border control people...

You do need government issued photo ID to get on the plane, most use passports, but I use driving license as well for NI, and never had an issue...


----------



## brian1978

The papers today are trying to blame Scottish independence for the drop in the £, citing the recent poll that put the yes ahead as the reason. This Is the lies we have to out up with. If anyone was to blame it's George Osborne for refusing to cooperate on currency and attempting to politically blackmail people into voting no.... This behaviour isn't generally well received in Scotland and will likely backfire on him........ AGAIN.

But if you actually look into it, the reason for the £ dropping is little to do with the recent you gov poll. Here's what the BoE predicted well before this poll was released.

http://www.poundsterlingforecast.com/20 ... #more-7065

Like I said tsunami of s**te


----------



## brian1978

Thanks for the support Roddy, most of the people down south don't have a clue about this, and have no idea of how bad it has been here in the last 40 years. Thankfully in the last 7 things have gotten a bit better.

Most see Alex Salmond as some sort of pseudo dictator despite the fact he is the ONLY democratically elected leader in the UK. 
The fact that the main stream media are all London controlled and have a personal vendetta against the man doesn't help. The media witch hunt against him and the yes campaign has been nothing short of atrocious.
If we win this, it's been against all odds.

No idea why he is hated so much by some people. Maybe it's because he doesn't fit the cookie cutter mould for a politician. He hasn't had had a major expenses scandal he never flipped his home, he had never been caught with his fingers in the till. Add to that the fact that the SNP had delivered on 85+ % of election manifesto promises such as free prescriptions, scrapping of all tuition fees, free personal care for the elderly, council tax freeze...

Then when bedroom tax was introduced the single most ridiculous and cruel tax imposed since the windows tax we opposed it with 91% of Scottish MPs voting against it. When it was imposed on us anyway the SNP offset it by fighting to get the limit on discretionary payments scrapped then setting aside money to pay it. Effectively banishing it from Scotland.

This sort of attitude to a fare society which is at the heart of their politics and alway has been is why they won so much support here.


----------



## John-H

brian1978 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, it's a bit hard and pointless (like a broken pencil) attempting to build a wall in the sea :wink:
> 
> It seems a debate between hope, and belief about what you don't know the answers to (a bit like a religious belief where faith denies proof) and the present situation, which does not have the same uncertainty clearly because it's already proven itself stable for the last 300 years.
> 
> Why take a gamble? Especially with the inevitable move to a more federalist structure with greater powers being proposed once this referendum of the unknown plunge is over. Would that not be the best of both worlds?
> 
> 
> 
> I think we both know I meant the land border between Northern Ireland (UK territory) and the Republic of Ireland (EU) :roll:
> 
> If the UK left the euro, surely they would,do have to put up restrictions here as well as in Scotland,.. or maybe just agree a common travel agreement. The cost of such a border would be astronomical as it would have to stretch from coast to coast with patrol vessels in the sea... else illegal immigrants could simply walk over the fields.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the crossing before. I did wonder what you meant :lol:

No, but it's a valid point isn't it - if there are differing policies on immigration then you'll need border controls otherwise, as you say, people will simply walk over the fields. You can't have it both ways. Either the policies are aligned or you have border controls.

As we can't predict with certainty what the policies will be we can't give valid assurances about not needing passports when visiting on our holidays.

Much of the reassurances about other aspects of doubt like currency are also similarly."hopeful" rather than guaranteed. The reassurances are based on faith rather than hard evidence. It's a gamble.

P.S. No Dr Who would swing it for me :wink:


----------



## brian1978

Time will tell. I think most people have made up their minds now anyway.

What will, swing a fair % of the vote and probably contributes to the skewing of polls is passion.

If someone Is voting yes they want change, for change to happen they need to get out and vote. The fact that the vote seems so close means Yes voters likely to see that every vote counts and they MUST vote if they want change.

The No camp seems to be split In two groups. People who are desperate to "save the union" this people are like yes voters passionate in the belief we must stay together for the betterment of all. (Even if history shows different) jam Tomorrow?

Then the other no comes from people who really can't be arsed with it all. But think I'm all right jack. I'll vote no for more of the same. I have a feeling these people won't have the same passion and won't vote in the same numbers. Everyone approached in the street for a survey will have an opinion, whether they will follow through and queue for the ballot box is different.

Expected turnout for this vote is 80% of the electorate. 20% will be too busy watching Jeremy Kyle to care... I've I've a feeling this group will have more "soft" No voters than "soft" yes voters.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> I don't think I've actually lied about anything knowing full well the opposite is true. What I have said is to the best of my knowledge what will happen.
> In the Edinburgh agreement which both Alex Salmond and David Cameron signed it is clearly best out that both sides will sit down and do what's best for both sides after the referendum. No side will set out to deliberately damage the other. Things like currency union, freedom of movement are common sense options that benefit all involved.
> 
> You say you are in favour on the union, can you give me one reason for staying in the union that cannot be equaled or bettered by independce?


 Firstly, it's not 'to the best of your knowledge' because you have no knowledge of the future, you only have beliefs based on what you feel would be sensible. Secondly, you've not given caveats with your responses. You've actually even promised things will happen, then later admitted you don't have anything to back up that promise other than a belief that it would be the most sensible outcome. As I've said, both campaigns are guilty of the same overstatements.

The best reason I can categorically give for staying in the union is that leaving the union will cost a fortune and the end result is an unknown. Anything beyond that is speculation.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> The papers today are trying to blame Scottish independence for the drop in the £, citing the recent poll that put the yes ahead as the reason. This Is the lies we have to out up with. If anyone was to blame it's George Osborne for refusing to cooperate on currency and attempting to politically blackmail people into voting no.... This behaviour isn't generally well received in Scotland and will likely backfire on him........ AGAIN.
> 
> But if you actually look into it, the reason for the £ dropping is little to do with the recent you gov poll. Here's what the BoE predicted well before this poll was released.
> 
> http://www.poundsterlingforecast.com/20 ... #more-7065
> 
> Like I said tsunami of s**te


Maybe I missed the point of that article. It seemed to me that the BoE predicted that the Sterling weakness could continue. The massive drop we've just seen hardly fits that description. As the saying goes, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've actually lied about anything knowing full well the opposite is true. What I have said is to the best of my knowledge what will happen.
> In the Edinburgh agreement which both Alex Salmond and David Cameron signed it is clearly best out that both sides will sit down and do what's best for both sides after the referendum. No side will set out to deliberately damage the other. Things like currency union, freedom of movement are common sense options that benefit all involved.
> 
> You say you are in favour on the union, can you give me one reason for staying in the union that cannot be equaled or bettered by independce?
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, it's not 'to the best of your knowledge' because you have no knowledge of the future, you only have beliefs based on what you feel would be sensible. Secondly, you've not given caveats with your responses. You've actually even promised things will happen, then later admitted you don't have anything to back up that promise other than a belief that it would be the most sensible outcome. As I've said, both campaigns are guilty of the same overstatements.
> 
> The best reason I can categorically give for staying in the union is that leaving the union will cost a fortune and the end result is an unknown. Anything beyond that is speculation.
Click to expand...

Same as all reasons we hear from "better together" all negative reasons, no positives for remaining.

Yes It will cost a lot to leave, we have embassies to set up, government departments to set up defence to build, realistic estimates have been from 250 million to 750 million, the government's Danny Alexander claiming 7+ billion was discredited and shown as plain doctoring of the figures.

When you consider removing trident ALONE will save is £125 million a year rising to what would have been £250 million a year for replacement it doesn't seem that bad.


----------



## brian1978

Whilst we are on the subject of Trident, when the MOD release a statement saying davenport is not suitable for the base as it's "to dangerous" and too close to Plymouth. That an accident could kill 11,000 civilians...

So its ok to have It 22miles from our largest city but wayyyy to dodgy to have it near Plymouth. 
Is it any wonder people want to vote yes to have it removed/Scrapped?


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Same as all reasons we hear from "better together" all negative reasons, no positives for remaining.
> 
> Yes It will cost a lot to leave, we have embassies to set up, government departments to set up defence to build, realistic estimates have been from 250 million to 750 million, the government's Danny Alexander claiming 7+ billion was discredited and shown as plain doctoring of the figures.
> 
> When you consider removing trident ALONE will save is £125 million a year rising to what would have been £250 million a year for replacement it doesn't seem that bad.


There's no point getting into the debate you clearly want to have. I will have to make best guesses and you will counter them one by one with your (or your campaign literatures) best guesses. I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me because we'll both know the other person is making most of it up.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Whilst we are on the subject of Trident, when the MOD release a statement saying davenport is not suitable for the base as it's "to dangerous" and too close to Plymouth. That an accident could kill 11,000 civilians...
> 
> So its ok to have It 22miles from our largest city but wayyyy to dodgy to have it near Plymouth.
> Is it any wonder people want to vote yes to have it removed/Scrapped?


To be fair, Devonport is *in* Plymouth (maybe a mile or two from the centre).


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are on the subject of Trident, when the MOD release a statement saying davenport is not suitable for the base as it's "to dangerous" and too close to Plymouth. That an accident could kill 11,000 civilians...
> 
> So its ok to have It 22miles from our largest city but wayyyy to dodgy to have it near Plymouth.
> Is it any wonder people want to vote yes to have it removed/Scrapped?
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, Devonport is *in* Plymouth (maybe a mile or two from the centre).
Click to expand...

So we agree that it's too dangerous for the South of England Plymouth but not to dangerous for West of Scotland Helensburgh. :-|


----------



## brian1978




----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are on the subject of Trident, when the MOD release a statement saying davenport is not suitable for the base as it's "to dangerous" and too close to Plymouth. That an accident could kill 11,000 civilians...
> 
> So its ok to have It 22miles from our largest city but wayyyy to dodgy to have it near Plymouth.
> Is it any wonder people want to vote yes to have it removed/Scrapped?
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, Devonport is *in* Plymouth (maybe a mile or two from the centre).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we agree that it's too dangerous for the South of England Plymouth but not to dangerous for West of Scotland Helensburgh. :-|
Click to expand...

Come on Brian. I know you're smart enough to get this, so drop the attempted politics.

This is the military. There will be a manual somewhere that explains the allowed positioning of nuclear weapons, factoring in distance, population density and various other metrics. Are you actually suggesting their policy also takes into account whether or not those people are Scottish when determining what's safe? Or are you just jumping on a bit of potential outrage to fuel the fire for your own gain?

You're sounding more and more like a politician every day Brian.


----------



## brian1978

Well I'll be voting yes to get it removed just In case. We don't want WMD here.

On a lighter note..

https://skynews.grabyo.com/g/v/P25wqfTO9M3

Even the saltire says no thanks to Westminster :lol: :lol:


----------



## jamman

Whilst my ol' sparring partner Brian most def does have his rose tinted specs on I for one admire his passion for his cause.


----------



## Shug750S

jamman said:


> Whilst my ol' sparring partner Brian most def does have his rose tinted specs on I for one admire his passion for his cause.


Agree, hope the vote goes right for him, or we could see one very angry or upset person 

On the upside he will still have some Nucs in case he ever needs them


----------



## Shug750S

Should I buy shares in map companies and atlas publishers now?

Just think of all those Scottish school kids that will need new geography textbooks soon... :roll:


----------



## roddy

actually Brian, in his very polite way, has not mentioned that very significant and important aspect of the whole independence movment,, PASSION ....and this I fear , although I do understand why, is an aspect which the English, mostly, will never understand. There are many scots people who are thoroughly sick and tired of being associated with England all the time,,, eg., when we are abroad we are well accustomed to the " oh you are Scottish and not English,, that's all right then ",, and this happens all over the world,, i even got it when i worked in Texas some years ago ..I actually know a couple who have a bar in Amsterdam who close the bar when an English football team is in town where as they welcome the Scots, and the Irish incidentally, not to mention Magaloof , Benidorm etc.. Some say we have similar culture,, that is mostly an English misconception,, we are two very different peoples.,,sure we are sick of , tho mostly just laugh at, the ignorant and arrogant " chip on the shoulder ", " the wall etc ", the "braveheart " comments tho this says more for the ignorance of those who come out with them than anything else..... so despite a large section of " Vichey scots " I hope and expect that we will cast you off next week...the future of Scotland belongs to us , the Scots   ...


----------



## phope

I'm a No voter for many reasons and there are plenty of us as well that see it that way.

Problem as I see it for the Yes campaign is that what the White Paper states is purely a shopping list of wants/wishes

In the event of a Yes vote, negotiations start on the basis of this wish list. What happens when the real horse trading starts and none/little/radically changed versions of these wishes are achieved?

Will those that voted Yes on the basis of the wish list feel betrayed? Eg "I voted Yes to get rid nuclear weapons from Faslane but you've negotiated that away" or "you said we could operate the Pound without permission but to join the EU as a new member, we are being forced to join the Euro"

There's no further vote as I understand it, so people really don't know what they are actually voting Yes or No to
What happens if the result of the negotiations is so clearly different from the White Paper? I doubt the Yes campaign would have the bottle to go back to the electorate to get a fresh vote/mandate for independence

Until there was a clear and unambiguous list of what independence would actually result in, then it's a big NO

In addition, the Yes campaign have changed their tune so many times over the years and like a sweet talking estate agent, tell you what you want to hear in order to sell you a house, glossing over questions about the foundations

We used to hear regularly about how Scotland would be part of an "arc of prosperity" with Ireland, Iceland & Norway... Funny how that's now been changed to just Norway

The Pound used to be described as "a millstone around Scotland's neck" by Salmond, citing how the Euro was the only sensible choice for an independent Scotland. Now the Yes campaign are determined to hang on to the Pound in any shape or form

All politicians are shifty but this lot take the biscuit


----------



## roddy

I will leave Brian to tear your points apart , but I can say that perhaps you did not see the chancellor of the excheck admit on TV that no one can stop us from using the pound which, perhaps you have not heard , is not englands anyway, it belongs to all of us,, Brian will no doubt give you all the figures re national debt and consequences ,,,,,and if you think that we are going to negotiate away casting out the neuks then you need to think again.


----------



## phope

I'm not denying that an independent Scotland could use the Pound, any more than it could choose to use the US dollar or the Russian Rouble... You wouldn't expect the Federal Reserve to back up Scotland so why expect the central bank of the rest of the UK to do so?

A US dollar might actually make some sense as it will be the currency in which oil is traded internationally - match the income stream from tax to the asset 

The fact remains that a wish list of what you want is not the same as what you will get in reality and lots of people who vote Yes may be greatly disappointed with the results of said negotiations

Finally, I'm a great believer in the principle of unintended consequences and the initially simple concept of independence could open up a whole shitstorm of events that neither the Yes or No campaign can articulate

For example, if Scotland operated a pegged Scottish Pound, what happens if currency speculators such as George Soros set out to test a young and inexperienced Scottish treasury?

Salmond would call him a big bully no doubt as a starter


----------



## roddy

I could say that there are so many risks and uncertainties in daily life I am sure there are those who can put together an argument for not venturing out of the front door... however even staying indoors would have its own risks [smiley=gossip.gif]


----------



## John-H

jamman said:


> Whilst my ol' sparring partner Brian most def does have his rose tinted specs on I for one admire his passion for his cause.


Agreed. Brian's passion for wanting to make things better shines through and he's kept going on here with what he believes and not given up despite some hard questioning.

I do think many in Scotland have had a hard time of it throughout history. If anyone has read John Grimond's book about the clearances they will know. I've been brought to tears seeing the names of the folk trapped at Croick church, scratched with beautiful script into the glass window panes with their wedding rings as testimony to their pligt; driven from their land with nowhere to go apart from the church land. Children tied with ropes to stakes driven into a cliff edge strip of land that nobody wanted, for fear of being blown off, that parents precariously tried to eke out a living from, after being driven from their homes.

A cottage I discovered called "Whale cottage" in Sutherland, abandoned in 1930 by a newly wedded couple who went on their honeymoon to New York but never returned, which the family kept tidy for years hoping to see them again. Up until a few years ago I saw the brass bed stead poking through the part collapsed floor. Not many years before, the table was still there laid out with silver awaiting their return. An individual story but an example of people leaving to escape to a better life. Not that long ago.

Ok we are years on now and times have changed but the memory of past injustices is clear and still holds sway even in more recent times. The poll tax was a prime example but I was glad of the support from people in Scotland to help defeat that scourge of uncaring social injustice. I did my bit going to meetings and seeing old age pensioners, students, businessmen, the rich and the poor united against the doctrinaire policy and taking civil action to make it unworkable. I paid my bill under protest, on the final demand, writing out two whole cheque books worth of random amount cheques amounting to the total, just to make it hard for them to collect. I received a polite letter back with one of my cheques, which I'd inadvertently reversed two of the figures, for correction. They could have taken me to court but clearly there were also people in the council that didn't agree with the Poll tax either and played along.

We defeated the policy in the end because of the weight of numbers in opposition. And this is the point; we are more likely to achieve justice together rather than giving up and splitting apart.

I made the point earlier that if everyone in the world voted on whether war was acceptable behavior then I think we know what the answer would be from people simply wanting to get on with their lives and raise their children. Factualisation is more likely to lead to disharmony and conflict.

Brian, we need people with a sense of justice to be a part of all our futures I think - to make things better. I don't want to lose you and people with which I feel a bond. I fear we will be the worse off as a whole.


----------



## Spandex

roddy said:


> I will leave Brian to tear your points apart , but I can say that perhaps you did not see the chancellor of the excheck admit on TV that no one can stop us from using the pound which, perhaps you have not heard , is not englands anyway, it belongs to all of us,, Brian will no doubt give you all the figures re national debt and consequences ,,,,,and if you think that we are going to negotiate away casting out the neuks then you need to think again.


What's being discussed is whether or not Scotland will be allowed to have a currency union with the UK, which is very different from 'just using the pound'. It's true that we can't stop you just using the pound, but that's not what you want to do, so it's academic anyway.


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> I'm a No voter for many reasons and there are plenty of us as well that see it that way.
> 
> Problem as I see it for the Yes campaign is that what the White Paper states is purely a shopping list of wants/wishes
> 
> In the event of a Yes vote, negotiations start on the basis of this wish list. What happens when the real horse trading starts and none/little/radically changed versions of these wishes are achieved?
> 
> Will those that voted Yes on the basis of the wish list feel betrayed? Eg "I voted Yes to get rid nuclear weapons from Faslane but you've negotiated that away" or "you said we could operate the Pound without permission but to join the EU as a new member, we are being forced to join the Euro"
> 
> There's no further vote as I understand it, so people really don't know what they are actually voting Yes or No to
> What happens if the result of the negotiations is so clearly different from the White Paper? I doubt the Yes campaign would have the bottle to go back to the electorate to get a fresh vote/mandate for independence
> 
> Until there was a clear and unambiguous list of what independence would actually result in, then it's a big NO
> 
> In addition, the Yes campaign have changed their tune so many times over the years and like a sweet talking estate agent, tell you what you want to hear in order to sell you a house, glossing over questions about the foundations
> 
> We used to hear regularly about how Scotland would be part of an "arc of prosperity" with Ireland, Iceland & Norway... Funny how that's now been changed to just Norway
> 
> The Pound used to be described as "a millstone around Scotland's neck" by Salmond, citing how the Euro was the only sensible choice for an independent Scotland. Now the Yes campaign are determined to hang on to the Pound in any shape or form
> 
> All politicians are shifty but this lot take the biscuit


Hi...

The white paper is indeed a glorified manifesto. I would agree, but it is also a vision of how the SNP would strive to run an independent Scotland. The snp have a habit of delivering on promises. It's probably why against all odds they secured a majority government in a system of voting designed specifically to stop it happening. Scotland has become a better society since the snp came to power. And Alex Salmond is despite what the media portray still one of the most popular leaders in politics.

Yes the negotiations will happen after the vote we know this. But I like other yes voters have faith in our government to get a good deal for Scotland. 
I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt about trident being removed, the abolition of nuclear weapons in Scotland has been a cornerstone of the snp since they were put here. As is free education which Scotland has had since before the union. Robert Burns himself was a champion of free education and benefited from it himself.
As for no more votes, the Scottish national party wishes to seek a mandate on currency, the sovereign will of the Scottish people to take before Westminster. And if they do refuse it we will use plan b or c or d. Every country on planet earth uses can monetary currency the idea that Scotland would fail here is absurd... 
The big question is IF Osborne to refuses this union.... can the bank of England cope with losing 10% of its reserves. We would also not be paying the debt, which we are legally allowd to do with no financial default. 
Starting a new currency with an extra £4.5bn a year to spend is not exactly a booby prize. A new country with solid diverse natural resources AND zero debt will be looked on favourably by international markets. But let's be sensible what chancellor wants to be the man that destroyed the £ and wiped billions of the ballance of payments.

Scotland will not be forced to join the euro. In fact we couldn't join it if we wanted.










It's union or £ pegged to sterling..End! 
Again, one of these options sees the pound lose at least 10% ... One does not.

I finish by asking you. You say unless there is a clear an unambiguous list of what will happen after independence it's a no from you.....

Can you provide a clear an unambiguous list of what will happen after a no Vote? Problem is NO doesn't mean no change, Scotland is changing drastically... The question is, who do you want at the wheel.

Scots living in Scotland who will want to decide what's best for Scotland.... 
or 
Eton boys who care in this order... London ..... South East of England........ rest of England...... Scotland.


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> Hi...
> 
> The white paper is indeed a glorified manifesto. I would agree, but it is also a vision of how the SNP would strive to run an independent Scotland. The snp have a habit of delivering on promises. It's probably why against all odds they secured a majority government in a system of voting designed specifically to stop it happening. Scotland has become a better society since the snp came to power. And Alex Salmond is despite what the media portray still one of the most popular leaders in politics.


It's nothing more than a list of wants/wishes and assertions to be bartered and you know that as well as I do. Many of them have dubious credibility

The point is that if the negotiations bring out a materially different end result then why shouldn't there be a chance to vote on the final arrangements?

Quite simply, the Yes campaign would not have the balls to go back and say we didn't get what we asked for

I've met Salmond face to face, chatted with him, and he's a genial man, but he's also a divisive character and in negotiations, I along with many others don't believe that he will act in the best interests of Scotland overall



> Yes the negotiations will happen after the vote we know this. But I like other yes voters have faith in our government to get a good deal for Scotland.


I admire your optimism but if I had voted Yes and one/several key reasons for that had been diluted down or removed completely, I'd be pretty angry about that (but bullying UK politicians will get the blame for that, no doubt)



> As for no more votes, the Scottish national party wishes to seek a mandate on currency, the sovereign will of the Scottish people to take before Westminster. And if they do refuse it we will use plan b or c or d. Every country on planet earth uses can monetary currency the idea that Scotland would fail here is absurd...


As I said above, Scotland can use any medium of exchange it chooses to, whether backed by a Scottish Central bank or not, and quite frankly, power over money markets is something that a small independent new country will have very little of.

If as it seems extremely likely that an independent Scotland would NOT get a full blown currency union with rUK, then frankly the worldwide speculators and markets could tear a Scottish currency arrangement to bits in a very short space of time



> Starting a new currency with an extra £4.5bn a year to spend is not exactly a booby prize. A new country with solid diverse natural resources AND zero debt will be looked on favourably by international markets. But let's be sensible what chancellor wants to be the man that destroyed the £ and wiped billions of the ballance of payments.


If you think for one second that foreign investors would trust a new nation with debt when it has just walked away from sovereign debt then you and the Yes campaign are very deluded.

Scotland would be tied up for decades in drawn out legal battles and you only have to look at Argentina and court battles with holders of their debt to see how it can freeze up a whole economy



> I finish by asking you. You say unless there is a clear an unambiguous list of what will happen after independence it's a no from you.....
> 
> Can you provide a clear an unambiguous list of what will happen after a no Vote? Problem is NO doesn't mean no change, Scotland is changing drastically... The question is, who do you want at the wheel.


A No vote is not a vote for no change. It's a vote that seeks to stop others carrying out a course of action that has the potential to permanently and irreparably harm Scotland and those that live here.

It's a vote to say that somethings are better as part of a large wealthy nation and that some things are better left at a local level - getting the balance right is key and by veering of on an irrevocable course of independence is a strategy that has immense potential to go very badly wrong



> Scots living in Scotland who will want to decide what's best for Scotland....


Along with all the other nationalities living in Scotland who are registered to vote as well. You may find their vote decides the outcome - there are a lot of people living and working in the NE of Scotland who come here from all corners of the UK who will be voting No



> or
> Eton boys who care in this order... London ..... South East of England........ rest of England...... Scotland.


Talk of Eton is just lazy generalisation and stereotyping... You could just as well state that the Scottish political establishment is the Fettes and Glenalmond mafia who care only about the Central Belt, centralising functions such as Police Scotland, Fire and Ambulance and taking away local decision making by emasculating local council spending and making them more and more reliant on central government handouts


----------



## jamman

Some very good points there well made.


----------



## mwad

Half of England's MPs are Scottish...
Best they leave our politics if Scotland do part lol :twisted:


----------



## phope

Argentina is perhaps not a bad parallel for what Scotland could become - a country ruled by a populist leader shouting loudly about other countries bullying it, and running an economy ( which less than 100 years ago was one of the worlds strongest) which is crippled by the results of bad economic decisions taken in the name of nationalism


----------



## brian1978

Spot Cameron and Johnstone


----------



## phope

So?

If you were to look at the Scottish political establishment and check them against the alumni of Fettes, Glenalmond and Strathallan then it would have many parallels

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> So?
> 
> If you were to look at the Scottish political establishment and check them against the alumni of Fettes, Glenalmond and Strathallan then it would have many parallels
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Salmond

Salmond was born in his parents' home at 101 Preston Road, Linlithgow, West Lothian, Scotland on 31 December 1954.[3][4] He is the second of four children born to Robert Fyfe Findlay Salmond, born 1921, and Mary Stewart Salmond (née Milne) (1922-2003), both of whom were civil servants.[5] Robert Salmond, who served in the Royal Navy during the Second World War,[6] had originally worked as an electrician, and his family had been resident in Linlithgow since the mid-18th century.[7] Alex Salmond's middle names come from his family's tradition of naming their children after the local Church of Scotland minister, in this case the Reverend Gilbert Elliot Anderson of St Ninian's Craigmailen Parish Church in Linlinthgow.[8][9]

Salmond attended the local Linlithgow Academy from 1966-1972. He studied at Edinburgh College of Commerce from 1972-73, gaining an HNC in Business Studies,[10] and was then accepted by the University of St Andrews, where he studied Economics and Medieval History. During his time at St Andrews, Salmond lived in St Salvator's Hall. He was elected as Vice-President (Education) of the Students' Representative Council in 1977 and was also nominated to join St Andrews Community Council that year.[11] Salmond graduated with a 2:2 Joint Honours MA in Economics and Medieval History in May 1978.[11][12]


----------



## pas_55

Bang goes 41 labour seats if there's a Yes vote

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shug750S

If yes will the Scots eventually get their own DVLA and new number plates or will they continue to use the rUK centre?

Might be an opportunity to have plates just on the rear of the cars like in the US.

There you go, a positive for a car forum perspective...


----------



## brian1978

pas_55 said:


> Bang goes 41 labour seats if there's a Yes vote
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Makes you wonder why the tory party are so desperate to save the union......

They lose 1 [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## phope

I really couldn't care less where someone was educated, whether at a posh school or the local comprehensive

The fact remains that a Yes vote is a vote for huge uncertainty and massive disruption with huge scope for things to go badly wrong

To put blind faith in one man ( who has a pretty average degree in economics and medieval history according to your source ) to lead a nation in the modern world in a interdependent economic environment is a pretty momentous thing to do

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mwad

phope said:


> The fact remains that a Yes vote is a vote for huge uncertainty and massive disruption with huge scope for things to go badly wrong


Just look at Ireland....


----------



## phope

Salmond has a credibility issue to answer - as I mentioned earlier, he has changed the SNP position on the Euro and Sterling several times over the years

And let's not forget the SNP part in the RBS/ABN Amro disaster

http://www.cityam.com/article/alex-salm ... n-disaster

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> I really couldn't care less where someone was educated, whether at a posh school or the local comprehensive
> 
> The fact remains that a Yes vote is a vote for huge uncertainty and massive disruption with huge scope for things to go badly wrong
> 
> To put blind faith in one man ( who has a pretty average degree in economics and medieval history according to your source ) to lead a nation in the modern world in a interdependent economic environment is a pretty momentous thing to do
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I do. It shows he is grounded and not educated on daddy's money....

On what proof is......

"a Yes vote is a vote for huge uncertainty and massive disruption with huge scope for things to go badly wrong"

Just guesses and assumptions...... how do you know we won't do well in This?

As for uncertainty outside of this union..... If you told a man in 2006 that the UK would nearly go bankrupt in 2008 and barkleys bank will be bailed out by the federal reserve to the tune of $1/2 TRILLION. He would remind you to keep taking the pills.


----------



## brian1978

mwad said:


> phope said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that a Yes vote is a vote for huge uncertainty and massive disruption with huge scope for things to go badly wrong
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at Ireland....
Click to expand...

Ireland economy was based on low cooperation tax which attracted business like Microsoft... All your eggs in one basket.


----------



## J•RED

That's quite interesting about Barclays, I thought they were the one bank who didn't have a bail out. Oh how wrong was I? :lol: Even the other half believes they didn't, and she works for them!!!


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> On what proof is......
> 
> "a Yes vote is a vote for huge uncertainty and massive disruption with huge scope for things to go badly wrong"
> 
> Just guesses and assumptions...... how do you know we won't do well in This?


You're seeing the huge uncertainty right now - money markets going up and down and values of companies linked to Scotland falling on the stock market - that's it in action right before your eyes

Massive disruption? In the event of independence, whole new swathes of bureaucracy such as a Scottish Tax Service, financial regulators, Scottish passport agency, a replacement for DVLA and every other quango that will be needed for modern life

Or are these things not needed in an independent Scotland?

When you look back at the past expensive failures to set up large projects like the Child Support Agency, NHS data systems, huge backlogs at the passport offices, etc I for one have little faith in a small country to set these type of agencies up on time, in budget and seamlessly

The disruption to people and businesses dealing with everyday matters will be extremely frustrating, expensive and a distraction to the real problems

Imagine if the money that was to be earmarked for these new quangos could go into education or helping poverty - that would be a better use of the money which will run into *billions[\b]




As for uncertainty outside of this union..... If you told a man in 2006 that the UK would nearly go bankrupt in 2008 and barkleys bank will be bailed out by the federal reserve to the tune of $1/2 TRILLION. He would remind you to keep taking the pills.

Click to expand...

And if that situation happened again, would you rather be part of a larger nation that can and did take steps to get through it all, or part of a smaller country like Ireland and Iceland that suffered hugely, and relied on bailouts ?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD*


----------



## brian1978

J•RED said:


> That's quite interesting about Barclays, I thought they were the one bank who didn't have a bail out. Oh how wrong was I? :lol: Even the other half believes they didn't, and she works for them!!!


http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/bi ... -out-lies/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon- ... 95234.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/fin ... -money-fed

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/le ... -1-3169707

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/busin ... 83000.html

Google is not Hard!


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Just guesses and assumptions...... how do you know we won't do well in This?


I thought you liked guesses and assumptions... :wink:


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> J•RED said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite interesting about Barclays, I thought they were the one bank who didn't have a bail out. Oh how wrong was I? :lol: Even the other half believes they didn't, and she works for them!!!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/bi ... -out-lies/
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon- ... 95234.html
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/fin ... -money-fed
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/le ... -1-3169707
> 
> http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/busin ... 83000.html
> 
> Google is not Hard!
Click to expand...

It's also not hard to reword your search phrase to find results to support your argument, For or against. :wink:


----------



## YoungOldUn

I feel I must repost my earlier remarks



> After reading through all of this thread, I have come to the opinion that Scotland is going to become utopia and I am seriously considering moving there before all of the folk at Calais currently trying to get into England wise up and change their target destination to Scotland.


Although made partly 'tongue in cheek', my remarks are possibly more truthful than a lot of the stuff being paraded out by all involved in the forthcoming election. The people canvassing for both 'Yes' and 'No' votes are all guilty of the typical political lies. Every politician seems to arrive at a point where if they don't know the answer will make one up and the independence vote seems to be generating more and more make believe.


----------



## msnttf10

So to recap 10 page of chest beating

The richest country in Europe (you might want to lookup how that claim has been derived!) has 1 in 5 children born into poverty - this is a country with devolved powers and can decide how and where to spend its pot cash.

This is a country who under the "Barnert Formula" takes much more than it contributes - 117% per capita. VS England's 97%

The SNP are happy to take the positives, but don't want the baggage, We'll have the assets but you have the depts. unless you give us the £, that's a friend you want to stay close to.

EU commission and UK government are completely wrong, a currency union is upto Scotland, no one else has an opinion regardless of the fact both bodies say it can't happen. The bank of England can't unpin another country. Look at what happened in the EU without formal agreement on tax, spending and banking. What would happen if one didn't pay its depts. - that would hugely impact the other. The currency would simple collapse, its like getting a divorce and sharing a credit card with your ex. Why would an rich, vibrant, independent country want to share with a union that it doesn't want to be part of - that's the question you should be asking the YES people.

Scotland will not get the UKs rebate deal as a member country of the EU, this would require ALL member states to agree to the deal, That 100% is never going to happen. Spain will make sure of that, Germany and France have also said they would not allow it - but the SNP know better.

SNP based all its formulas and economic prediction on the high point of the Irish approach - the one that was minutes away from going the way of Greece and Iceland. Ie EU cash/subsidies.

SNP are not telling votes what will happen with the oil revenue after a split, or where the money is going to come from when oil is gone.

EU fishing laws define who and what can be fished from where, its not scotlands

All the capital projects in England like crosslink etc, are unfair because a per capita proportion of a unions income is being spent south of the border? What about the £414 million spent on Holyrood, are the scotts going to pay back the remaining members of the union the cost of that white elephant - English, Welsh and Irish money was used too during its construction! What about the £700milion M74 project? What about the £400 million Glasgow airport project? What about the £350 million spent on rail infrastructure - none of that is benefiting the people of England.

1000s of Jobs would have to come south, Tax office - lives is Glasgow, it would be illegal to have a separate county doing this. Ship building, the south lost or mothballed its ship yards and sent the work north - this would all have to come south. Banks and large insurance companies have all said they would have to move operations.

Why do SMP get to vote on English matter in Westminster?
Less levels of government is required not smaller more expensive ones.

The passport comment is so naive. 
Do you need a passport to travel now from Dundee to Paris? Yes!!
The comparison to Sweden/Finland/Norway is totally misguided and shows lack of understanding. Unless scotland joined FULLY the EU you will need a passport to travel within Europe still. The UK government could if it wished insist the people of Scotland have to use boarder control in the same way as EU member currently do now and Scotland can not do anything about it. They would also have to do border checks in the same way too.

What happens when the west of Scotland gets fed up with the east of Scotland because one wants red, the other wants green - another split? As the east is now not getting the government they believe they should via 1 person 1 vote. Hell lets all draw our own borders to ensure we get what we want all the time. UK politics is all about how money is spent at a local level, the high level government has little impact on local directions. Its just a good story to blame someone else for others mistakes.

I didn't really care about this at all either way until I saw some of the anti English rhetoric flying around, frankly, I'm now totally for a YES vote, not for scotland but because I believe England would be much better off out of that.


----------



## John-H




----------



## roddy

does it not amaze you brian how so many of these English people reckon that they know so much more about our affairs than we do,,,, still nothing new there eh ?,, I don't know why you bother :? .....


----------



## phope

Except that at least half of Scotland would appear to feel the same way about what is being offered by the Yes campaign

Regardless of the result on the morning after, the other half is going to feel pretty hard done by and that's not a recipe for political unity in Scotland


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> So to recap 10 page of chest beating
> 
> The richest country in Europe (you might want to lookup how that claim has been derived!) has 1 in 5 children born into poverty - this is a country with devolved powers and can decide how and where to spend its pot cash.
> 
> This is a country who under the "Barnert Formula" takes much more than it contributes - 117% per capita. VS England's 97%
> 
> The SNP are happy to take the positives, but don't want the baggage, We'll have the assets but you have the depts. unless you give us the £, that's a friend you want to stay close to.
> 
> EU commission and UK government are completely wrong, a currency union is upto Scotland, no one else has an opinion regardless of the fact both bodies say it can't happen. The bank of England can't unpin another country. Look at what happened in the EU without formal agreement on tax, spending and banking. What would happen if one didn't pay its depts. - that would hugely impact the other. The currency would simple collapse, its like getting a divorce and sharing a credit card with your ex. Why would an rich, vibrant, independent country want to share with a union that it doesn't want to be part of - that's the question you should be asking the YES people.
> 
> Scotland will not get the UKs rebate deal as a member country of the EU, this would require ALL member states to agree to the deal, That 100% is never going to happen. Spain will make sure of that, Germany and France have also said they would not allow it - but the SNP know better.
> 
> SNP based all its formulas and economic prediction on the high point of the Irish approach - the one that was minutes away from going the way of Greece and Iceland. Ie EU cash/subsidies.
> 
> SNP are not telling votes what will happen with the oil revenue after a split, or where the money is going to come from when oil is gone.
> 
> EU fishing laws define who and what can be fished from where, its not scotlands
> 
> All the capital projects in England like crosslink etc, are unfair because a per capita proportion of a unions income is being spent south of the border? What about the £414 million spent on Holyrood, are the scotts going to pay back the remaining members of the union the cost of that white elephant - English, Welsh and Irish money was used too during its construction! What about the £700milion M74 project? What about the £400 million Glasgow airport project? What about the £350 million spent on rail infrastructure - none of that is benefiting the people of England.
> 
> 1000s of Jobs would have to come south, Tax office - lives is Glasgow, it would be illegal to have a separate county doing this. Ship building, the south lost or mothballed its ship yards and sent the work north - this would all have to come south. Banks and large insurance companies have all said they would have to move operations.
> 
> Why do SMP get to vote on English matter in Westminster?
> Less levels of government is required not smaller more expensive ones.
> 
> The passport comment is so naive.
> Do you need a passport to travel now from Dundee to Paris? Yes!!
> The comparison to Sweden/Finland/Norway is totally misguided and shows lack of understanding. Unless scotland joined FULLY the EU you will need a passport to travel within Europe still. The UK government could if it wished insist the people of Scotland have to use boarder control in the same way as EU member currently do now and Scotland can not do anything about it. They would also have to do border checks in the same way too.
> 
> What happens when the west of Scotland gets fed up with the east of Scotland because one wants red, the other wants green - another split? As the east is now not getting the government they believe they should via 1 person 1 vote. Hell lets all draw our own borders to ensure we get what we want all the time. UK politics is all about how money is spent at a local level, the high level government has little impact on local directions. Its just a good story to blame someone else for others mistakes.
> 
> I didn't really care about this at all either way until I saw some of the anti English rhetoric flying around, frankly, I'm now totally for a YES vote, not for scotland but because I believe England would be much better off out of that.


This is my last post on it, I wasn't going to bother but so many misleading pish in this I feel obliged..

1. Richest country..... 1 in 5 born into poverty because we DO NOT HAVE DEVOLVED WELFARE, Ian Duncan smiths recent welfare reforms and the disgusting bedroom tax are mainly the reason for this, we have the highest number of food banks per head of population in the UK. We have recently got rid of bedroom tax using tax payers money.

2. We take out more than we pay in.... Scotland gets £1200 more per head in tax. We contribute £1700 in tax. Have paid more in tax than anyone in the UK in every one of the last 33 years. We are net contributers to the exchequer.

3 we want assets but no baggage, in exchange for these assets, which we have bloody well paid for ourselves through 307 years of contributing to this economy we want to pay a share (not OUR share) of the UKs debt, we didn't run this up as we have NEVER had borrowing power. It's a but like offering to keep paying part of your parents mortgage when you move if you get to keep the stuff in your room.

4 currency, a union benefits EVERYONE. It's not the same as what happened in the EU. If it's refused we have other viable options. But these will damage the £ sterling.

5 ill come back to this.
6 they have said in detail what will happen with oil revenue. When revenue is low it is used as normal to run the economy... when it is high the surplus will be put into an oil fund which can be used to stabilise volatile oil profits.... The same as EVERY other oil rich country

7 fishing, it is Scotlands fishing grounds, but you are correct about rules, all revenue raised in Scotland will come yo Scotland... not go to Westminster

8 this one's hilarious... Firstly holyrood and trams are ALL out of the Scottish purse, road maintaining is nationwide and inevitable send needed, I have never mentioned the 100s of millions spent of the M6 or M1 or m25.

What I'm talking about is 60-80 BILLION on a fancy train to get Londoners to Birmingham 15 minuets faster. 35 billion on cross link... none come anywhere near Scotland.

400 million on Glasgow airport... Eh? It's owned by BAA and the last money spent was a £17 million upgrade..

1000s of jobs going south because the tax office needs to move.. Scotland won't need a tax Office? 
res may have to move a HQ. That's 1 department not like every branch is moving. And we will still need administration staff here... non story. Ships. The mod has already signed and sealed contracts they will be building English war ships here till 2022 whether you like it or not.

Borders, not going to go back over it, Scotland will be a full EU member, who is going to veto out application. Are you seriously suggesting a country will use its veto on Scotland when we have such actually vibrant and stable economy... not to mention have already been in It 40 Years?

This argument of Scotland further fragmenting into smaller country's after independence is simply nonsense, I'm not going to grace it with an answer.... its that silly.

You see 1 or 2 people with "anti English rhetoric" now it's don't let the door hit you on the way out to 5.5 million people.... I for one have NEVER been anti English I'm anti Westminster.


----------



## phope

I know you're passionate for independence but that last post is full of incoherent rambling statements, that you try to close down by stating as 'fact'

God help all Scots if the Yes campaign win and that's the standard of the negotiation team to be led by Nicola Sturgeon

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## msnttf10

Such 2 faced bish form the yes...

Cross rail and HS2 comes no where near scotland but yet its fine the other projects come nowhere near england.
btw the number you dispute are listed in the scottish capital projects!!!! you are 100% incorrect an misinformed. the point made but you totally missed as you are blinkered is the project are paid for by the local pots, so its just unfair to say x paid for this and y paid for that - they are part of the same thing.

In terns of the amount paid, the numbers are wrong, GDP is 20873 vs 20571 - even if scotland went alone it would not get 100% of the oil revenues. The notion scotland pays more is smoke being blown up your backside by the SNP. look it up ONS!!!!

Bedroom tax is meant to move around the housing stock so a single person is not sat on a 3 bedroom house when you have a family stuck in a 1 bed flat who can't find anywhere to move to.

Benefit to all from a currency union - no, to scotland, why would the UK underwrite a separate nation.
you want the ups, but don't want the down.

scotland further fragmentation - its a funny as saying the UK will split.

I don't have time to reply, i have to go and collect and aircraft, but you have being sniffing too much glue.
it so one side its untrue...


----------



## YoungOldUn

http://newsthump.com/2014/09/08/alex-sa ... oyal-baby/

Any Royal Child conceived whilst Scotland is part of the UK will be part owned by an independent Scotland, Alex Salmond has confirmed today

YoungOldUn


----------



## brian1978

YoungOldUn said:


> http://newsthump.com/2014/09/08/alex-salmond-claims-independent-scotland-would-part-own-royal-baby/
> 
> Any Royal Child conceived whilst Scotland is part of the UK will be part owned by an independent Scotland, Alex Salmond has confirmed today
> 
> YoungOldUn


This is the sort of crap that hurts our cause.

Newsthump... A spoof and satire site.

Next story down was how jack the ripper was a polish immigrant. [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## phope

http://newsthump.com/2014/09/03/the-fis ... edth-time/



> ..."The restaurant said, multiple times, that the fish isn't available and that he should tell them what he is going to eat instead - but he keeps saying there are plenty of things he could eat instead, but that he believes he can still have the fish."
> 
> "He's flatly refusing to say which of the other dishes he'll actually eat, just that there are plenty of options he could eat. It's getting tedious now."


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> Such 2 faced bish form the yes...
> 
> Cross rail and HS2 comes no where near scotland but yet its fine the other projects come nowhere near england.
> btw the number you dispute are listed in the scottish capital projects!!!! you are 100% incorrect an misinformed. the point made but you totally missed as you are blinkered is the project are paid for by the local pots, so its just unfair to say x paid for this and y paid for that - they are part of the same thing.
> 
> In terns of the amount paid, the numbers are wrong, GDP is 20873 vs 20571 - even if scotland went alone it would not get 100% of the oil revenues. The notion scotland pays more is smoke being blown up your backside by the SNP. look it up ONS!!!!
> 
> Bedroom tax is meant to move around the housing stock so a single person is not sat on a 3 bedroom house when you have a family stuck in a 1 bed flat who can't find anywhere to move to.
> 
> Benefit to all from a currency union - no, to scotland, why would the UK underwrite a separate nation.
> you want the ups, but don't want the down.
> 
> scotland further fragmentation - its a funny as saying the UK will split.
> 
> I don't have time to reply, i have to go and collect and aircraft, but you have being sniffing too much glue.
> it so one side its untrue...


A country becoming independent from a union is not the same as it separating Into further sections.

Bedroom tax did not work 95% of people didn't move, most don't have anywhere to move to as we have next to no 1 bed houses in Scotland. Only drove already poverty stricken people to food banks.,,.. and some to suicide.

Scotland will get 100% of oil revenues from oil within its borders.

I'm not going to post further as you clearly don't have a clue.


----------



## phope

I know it's satire but anything that sends up the over pompous Yes campaign is worth a look

Anyway, back to reality 

You've not even touched on the strong resistance to the Yes campaign from the Shetland & Orkney Islands

Where do you stand personally if the Islands were to seek a vote on self determination at some point in the future, if they didn't want to be ruled from afar?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> I know it's satire but anything that sends up the over pompous Yes campaign is worth a look
> 
> Anyway, back to reality
> 
> You've not even touched on the strong resistance to the Yes campaign from the Shetland & Orkney Islands
> 
> Where do you stand personally if the Islands were to seek a vote on self determination at some point in the future, if they didn't want to be ruled from afar?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


 I'd say good luck to them with Norways tax system we were talking a about earlier. I would also wonder why they haven't voted for this earlier.

Would also be curious as to how they would survive with so little resources if they decides to go completely independent.


----------



## Spandex

roddy said:


> does it not amaze you brian how so many of these English people reckon that they know so much more about our affairs than we do,,,, still nothing new there eh ?,, I don't know why you bother :? .....


Next time you have an opinion on something outside Scotland I'll remind you of this...


----------



## phope

The truth is that if the Islands were to receive a much bigger share of oil revenues for themselves (as a lot of the reserves are in their waters) then it would have a large impact on an independent Scotland's spending plans

The islands have traditionally been strongly opposed to independence from the UK. You may find this independence push from the SNP has some unwanted consequences

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> I'd say good luck to them with Norways tax system we were talking a about earlier. I would also wonder why they haven't voted for this earlier.
> 
> Would also be curious as to how they would survive with so little resources if they decides to go completely independent.


Oh come come... The islands would be swarmed over by others keen to be involved with a small rich community with no debt, huge fishing grounds, untapped oil reserves all around their waters...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> The truth is that if the Islands were to receive a much bigger share of oil revenues for themselves (as a lot of the reserves are in their waters) then it would have a large impact on an independent Scotland's spending plans
> 
> The islands have traditionally been strongly opposed to independence from the UK. You may find this independence push from the SNP has some unwanted consequences
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


No the truth Is island nations in a country's international waters get 12 miles from the coast. Shetland and Orkney have no oil in this area.

Sorry mate, but you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Just making stuff up. Or believing the tripe in the tabloids.

If those tiny islands would get a huge share (65% I think the daily mail claimed) why haven't they took it and run. Every resident would be a millionaire and the streets of Shetland would be paved in gold..... :lol:


----------



## phope

You do know that the Shetland Islands council has an investment fund held in trust for the islands of several hundred million pounds and growing every year?

http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.u ... nvestments

So much so that when I worked up there many years ago' the council sent a cheque at Christmas to every pensioner there as a rebate on their taxes, and money from the fund is used to fund all manner of infrastructure

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## John-H




----------



## fut1a

If Scotland get the government they want but want to stay in the EU, how do the Scots feel about having things imposed on them from the EU. Isn't this just like having things imposed on them that they don't agree with from Westminster.

Personally I think we need a revolution so we can get the country out of the hands of the banks and oil companies.


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> You do know that the Shetland Islands council has an investment fund held in trust for the islands of several hundred million pounds and growing every year?
> 
> http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.u ... nvestments
> 
> So much so that when I worked up there many years ago' the council sent a cheque at Christmas to every pensioner there as a rebate on their taxes, and money from the fund is used to fund all manner of infrastructure
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I think they charge oil company's a fee every time they use the airfields. Great idea and good on them.

The UK should have taken a leaf out that book and made an oil fund instead of squandering billions of oil money.

Do you know the UK and Iraq are the only 2 countries on earth with oil that didn't do This?


----------



## brian1978

fut1a said:


> If Scotland get the government they want but want to stay in the EU, how do the Scots feel about having things imposed on them from the EU. Isn't this just like having things imposed on them that they don't agree with from Westminster.
> 
> Personally I think we need a revolution so we can get the country out of the hands of the banks and oil companies.


Having to abide by EU rules is not that same as being governed by Westminster. Scotland has only 7% of powers devolved, and they can be taken back on a whim, with no consultation, (see green certificate powers clawed back by the house of Lords without even consulting Westminster let alone hollyrood.)

Being in the EU has its advantages, but if you want to be In the club you need to abide by the rules, something Westminster doesn't seem to agree with when it comes to EU membership.

Difference Is an independent Scotland has the power to stay and leave. Self governance is a big part of wanting independence.


----------



## roddy

three great leaders from England ( ok brian , Westminster :wink: ) coming up to Scotland to further antagonise us today,, hopefully by end of day their cause will be lost !!


----------



## igotone

roddy said:


> three great leaders from England ( ok brian , Westminster :wink: ) coming up to Scotland to further antagonise us today,, hopefully by end of day their cause will be lost !!


Or just maybe people will realise they really want to stop you shooting yourselves in the foot.


----------



## roddy

igotone said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> three great leaders from England ( ok brian , Westminster :wink: ) coming up to Scotland to further antagonise us today,, hopefully by end of day their cause will be lost !!
> 
> 
> 
> Or just maybe people will realise they really want to stop you shooting yourselves in the foot.
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol: really ??? just how stooopid do you think we are,, ( ok , you don't have to answere that one !  ,) no no they are more interested in their own short term political careers !!!!!!! [smiley=bomb.gif] , not to mention our oil revenue, whiskey exports etc etc


----------



## igotone

Well good luck to you. I'd be very surprised if common sense doesn't prevail on the day - what people say in a poll is a lot different to what they'll actually vote. Should you be fortunate enough to shade it with people carried along on this wave of uninformed euphoria, I'll be feeling very sorry for the huge numbers of Scots who are firmly in the 'No' camp.

Should you get your way and it isn't the Valhalla that you anticipate it will be interesting to see to whom you apportion blame.I suspect it will be everyone's fault except yourselves.


----------



## mullum

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... f-all-hope


----------



## brian1978

http://wingsoverscotland.com/kicking-th ... -it-bites/

Also the notion that Scotland cannot do what every other country on planet earth takes for granted is a tad insulting.

Too wee, too poor, too stupid.....

Aye right. :roll:


----------



## brian1978

I have a feeling these three coming up to Scotland to tell us how to vote is going to be akin to putting out a chip pan fire with a bottle of vodka...

As one columnist said, David Cameron is less popular in Scotland than Windows 8. :lol:


----------



## roddy

Brian,, that has to be one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time,,, I thot it was just me :lol: ,, maybe my feelings are more akin with my fellow Scots than I realised !!!!!! .


----------



## phope

It never fails to surprise me when the Yes campaign keep saying this shouldn't be a vote against Alex Salmond but for the principle of independence...when much of their ire is directed personally at Cameron


----------



## brian1978

So let me get this right... 
Gordon Brown, the man that sold all our gold and raided the pension pot, voted 3rd worst prime minister in history is coming to Scotland to tell us to vote for less powers in order to receive more powers. Even though he isn't actually in power.. hmmm

The big question is, if we are suddenly getting these extra powers why was devo max removed from the ballot paper. And isn't this extra last hour information in breech of election purdah?


----------



## Trig

I'm not bothered by the yes/no vote, even if it does end up affecting me I cant do anything about it.
If Scotland wants independance let them have it.
As I understand it if they want to be part of the EU, they cant use the GBP and have to use the Euro.
National debt, they are taking their share of it with them or are they wanting to leave the debt and take the pound?


----------



## roddy

Trig said:


> I'm not bothered by the yes/no vote, even if it does end up affecting me I cant do anything about it.
> If Scotland wants independance let them have it.
> As I understand it if they want to be part of the EU, they cant use the GBP and have to use the Euro.
> National debt, they are taking their share of it with them or are they wanting to leave the debt and take the pound?


ok, obv you are not too bothered about the vote or you would have checked out that very basic point,, ok I will tell you mate,,if we keep the pound we accept part of the debt,, if not then no,,


----------



## roddy

phope said:


> It never fails to surprise me when the Yes campaign keep saying this shouldn't be a vote against Alex Salmond but for the principle of independence...when much of their ire is directed personally at Cameron


it is not just the Yes voters who do not like Cameron or what he / they stand for, from what I gather most of Scotland does not, maybe that is why there is only one con mp here


----------



## brian1978

Trig said:


> I'm not bothered by the yes/no vote, even if it does end up affecting me I cant do anything about it.
> If Scotland wants independance let them have it.
> As I understand it if they want to be part of the EU, they cant use the GBP and have to use the Euro.
> National debt, they are taking their share of it with them or are they wanting to leave the debt and take the pound?


We couldn't use the euro... even If we wanted.

It's the pound in a currency union or our own currency..

We are not offering to pay OUR share of national debt, we don't have national debt Scotland h's never had borrowing power, as an independent country as we will be a brand new country.

What we are offering to pay is a FAIR SHARE of the UKs national debt in exchange for as fare share of the assets. 
We don't get a share of the assets we have paid into for 307 years we don't pay a penny of the debt the UK ran up, it's a simple legal and fair prospect.


----------



## Trig

roddy said:


> ok, obv you are not too bothered about the vote or you would have checked out that very basic point,, ok I will tell you mate,,if we keep the pound we accept part of the debt,, if not then no,,


I thought to be part of the EU as a new member you had to use the Euro though?
And yes, I did say that I wasnt bothered and havent checked out any points, basic or otherwise, thought I had covered that with my opening line..


----------



## Trig

brian1978 said:


> We couldn't use the euro... even If we wanted.
> 
> It's the pound in a currency union or our own currency..
> 
> We are not offering to pay OUR share of national debt, we don't have national debt Scotland h's never had borrowing power, as an independent country as we will be a brand new country.
> 
> What we are offering to pay is as FAIR SHARE of the UKs national debt in exchange for as fare share of the assets.
> We don't get a share of the assets we have paid into for 307 years we don't pay a penny of the debt the UK ran up, it's a simple legal and fair prospect.


I thought all new members of the EU had to use the Euro..
Scotland as part of the UK has a share of that debt though does it not, if a FAIR SHARE as you put it is being paid then fair enough, asset share, by the same token do we not get a share in the oil etc exports that Scotland have?


----------



## brian1978

Trig said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We couldn't use the euro... even If we wanted.
> 
> It's the pound in a currency union or our own currency..
> 
> We are not offering to pay OUR share of national debt, we don't have national debt Scotland h's never had borrowing power, as an independent country as we will be a brand new country.
> 
> What we are offering to pay is as FAIR SHARE of the UKs national debt in exchange for as fare share of the assets.
> We don't get a share of the assets we have paid into for 307 years we don't pay a penny of the debt the UK ran up, it's a simple legal and fair prospect.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought all new members of the EU had to use the Euro..
> Scotland as part of the UK has a share of that debt though does it not, if a FAIR SHARE as you put it is being paid then fair enough, asset share, by the same token do we not get a share in the oil etc exports that Scotland have?
Click to expand...

No, the UK treasury is responsible for all national debt. 
To join the euro you must meet certain criteria your own stable currency for a set time is one of them, as we will have a brand new currency we cannot adopt the euro.

There are rules but junker has said he sees Scotland as a unique case and has never said we will have to adopt it.


----------



## brian1978

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -questions


----------



## brian1978

To answer your question about oil being divided up as a share of the assets..

Oil Is not an asset It's It's a natural resource. It's like saying we want 10% of the mountains in the lake district.

Believe me if Westminster thought for for a microsecond it could get 90% of the oil it would be shouting this from the rooftops of no.10 every second of every day.

The best they managed was claims that Shetland would run away with it all.... These were we quickly rubbished and everyone came back to the real world.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> No, the UK treasury is responsible for all national debt.
> To join the euro you must meet certain criteria your own stable currency for a set time is one of them, as we will have a brand new currency we cannot adopt the euro.
> 
> There are rules but junker has said he sees Scotland as a unique case and has never said we will have to adopt it.


Ok, so Scotland is a unique case and Juncker has said that a number of rules don't apply because you've already met various criteria as part of the UK... Given that, why can't you adopt the Euro?

Is it coincidentally just the rules that would stop you joining the EU (which you want) that have been waived, and all the rules stopping you get the Euro (which you don't want) are still in place?


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the UK treasury is responsible for all national debt.
> To join the euro you must meet certain criteria your own stable currency for a set time is one of them, as we will have a brand new currency we cannot adopt the euro.
> 
> There are rules but junker has said he sees Scotland as a unique case and has never said we will have to adopt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so Scotland is a unique case and Juncker has said that a number of rules don't apply because you've already met various criteria as part of the UK... Given that, why can't you adopt the Euro?
> 
> Is it coincidentally just the rules that would stop you joining the EU (which you want) that have been waived, and all the rules stopping you get the Euro (which you don't want) are still in place?
Click to expand...

No. The rule stopping us getting the euro € is the requirements to join that currency zone. nothing more. The thing with Scotland joining the euro is we have already been a part of it for 40 years, you cannot apply the same rules to us as a say an eastern European country applying to join for the first time.

What Scotland (hopefully) is doing Is unique and unprecedented.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> No. The rule stopping us getting the euro € is the requirements to join that currency zone. nothing more. The thing with Scotland joining the euro is we have already been a part of it for 40 years, you cannot apply the same rules to us as a say an eastern European country applying to join for the first time.
> 
> What Scotland (hopefully) is doing Is unique and unprecedented.


I get that... What I'm saying is why does your unique and unprecedented position allow you to join the EU yet deny you the use of the Euro? It seems to me that there should be very little stopping you getting the Euro if you wanted.

<edit> To be clear, I understand that there are different sets of rules for the two things... But the logic should either apply to both or neither sets of rules. You can't be a brand new country in the eyes of Europe when working out if you can have the Euro, but an old, established country in the eyes of Europe when working out if you can join the EU.


----------



## roddy

Perhaps we can quote you on that should we ever chose to use it :wink:


----------



## Spandex

roddy said:


> Perhaps we can quote you on that should we ever chose to use it :wink:


Which bit?


----------



## msnttf10

Try starting with facts, scotlands part of the dept is 92B - thats based on per capita ratio.
oil will not be 100% scotlands, take a pen, a rule and a map and draw the border - at best it will be about 85%, so lets not claim "oil is ours" its not.

Lets also dispense with the claim the UK (sorry westminster) has wasted the money generated from the oil, its been spent by the elected government of the people after a democratic vote on what was deemed to be appropriate by those governments of both parties.

play out the currency union, no pound, ok we won't pay the dept, ok no issues (UK government has already budgeted for such an event) scotland doesn't have any money - where does it get that money to operate as a country, well you've just skipped on paying your part of a dept none of the international money funds will even entertain the notion of giving you more money. The newest richest country without any money and no method to borrow. EU will require membership, so that costs money too. its a lose lose, no one side wins this silly game - but all the EU leaders, the bank of england, the US have all said the UK can not under pin a foreign country. The best hope would be the "pund" pinned to the sterling and supported by a back of scotland. this gives the country tax raising and economic powers. Without it, nothing changes.

3 UK leaders goto scotland - seen as desperation
3 UK leaders stay away - seen as apathy

Frankly its pathetic, UK would be much better off without the grief, the moaning and bitching.
In all truth, id wager if the people of england have a vote we'd vote yes for independence - were simply sick of the crap now.

I vote yes for an independent England.


----------



## pas_55

Whatever they vote good luck to them

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> Try starting with facts, scotlands part of the dept is 92B - thats based on per capita ratio.
> oil will not be 100% scotlands, take a pen, a rule and a map and draw the border - at best it will be about 85%, so lets not claim "oil is ours" its not.
> 
> Lets also dispense with the claim the UK (sorry westminster) has wasted the money generated from the oil, its been spent by the elected government of the people after a democratic vote on what was deemed to be appropriate by those governments of both parties.
> 
> play out the currency union, no pound, ok we won't pay the dept, ok no issues (UK government has already budgeted for such an event) scotland doesn't have any money - where does it get that money to operate as a country, well you've just skipped on paying your part of a dept none of the international money funds will even entertain the notion of giving you more money. The newest richest country without any money and no method to borrow. EU will require membership, so that costs money too. its a lose lose, no one side wins this silly game - but all the EU leaders, the bank of england, the US have all said the UK can not under pin a foreign country. The best hope would be the "pund" pinned to the sterling and supported by a back of scotland. this gives the country tax raising and economic powers. Without it, nothing changes.
> 
> 3 UK leaders goto scotland - seen as desperation
> 3 UK leaders stay away - seen as apathy
> 
> Frankly its pathetic, UK would be much better off without the grief, the moaning and bitching.
> In all truth, id wager if the people of england have a vote we'd vote yes for independence - were simply sick of the crap now.
> 
> I vote yes for an independent England.


Let's start with the facts......

Then proceeds to make everything up :lol:

Debt is 115bn, oil share is 91%,

IT'S NOT OUR PART OF THE DEBT. We don't have debt. UK has debt.

We have 10% of the bank of England's reserves deposited as £ sterling. We need this yo print Scottish notes (400bn approx.)

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknote ... ssets.aspx

This needs to be paid back to our banks in the event of us not getting a currency union... We won't have no money.

Dearie me. If you are going to talk FACTS don't make it up :roll:


----------



## brian1978

And if you think you are tired of it, we had It here for 2 years... but it's important to us so we don't generally mind debating it.

And your "you want independence to get away from us" is not uncommon. Glad you love us so much.






:roll:


----------



## V6RUL

I wish all Scotlands eligible voters vote and good luck for the outcome.

For the YES voters ie Brian and Roddy..
Are there any issues/policies/changes/rules that have not been answered clearly by the potential Scotish representatives ?
Could you please identify your concerns if there are any, or do you feel that this new era has been fully and clearly laid out.

For the YES & NO voters, whatever the outcome, you must embrace the decision of the majority and work together for the best country you can.
If the majority is NO, then an application for a future reforendum can be put forward and the vote may be different.
If the majority is YES, then i hope all come together and work towards a better and unified country.

I currently live in England and work in Aberdeen and can feel/see the passion from both sides.
Steve


----------



## brian1978

V6RUL said:


> I wish all Scotlands eligible voters vote and good luck for the outcome.
> 
> For the YES voters ie Brian and Roddy..
> Are there any issues/policies/changes/rules that have not been answered clearly by the potential Scotish representatives ?
> Could you please identify your concerns if there are any, or do you feel that this new era has been fully and clearly laid out.
> 
> For the YES & NO voters, whatever the outcome, you must embrace the decision of the majority and work together for the best country you can.
> If the majority is NO, then an application for a future reforendum can be put forward and the vote may be different.
> If the majority is YES, then i hope all come together and work towards a better and unified country.
> 
> I currently live in England and work in Aberdeen and can feel/see the passion from both sides.
> Steve


Thanks Steve, and no I'm happy with everything, and look forward to the future with my eyes wide open.


----------



## V6RUL

brian1978 said:


> V6RUL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish all Scotlands eligible voters vote and good luck for the outcome.
> 
> For the YES voters ie Brian and Roddy..
> Are there any issues/policies/changes/rules that have not been answered clearly by the potential Scotish representatives ?
> Could you please identify your concerns if there are any, or do you feel that this new era has been fully and clearly laid out.
> 
> For the YES & NO voters, whatever the outcome, you must embrace the decision of the majority and work together for the best country you can.
> If the majority is NO, then an application for a future reforendum can be put forward and the vote may be different.
> If the majority is YES, then i hope all come together and work towards a better and unified country.
> 
> I currently live in England and work in Aberdeen and can feel/see the passion from both sides.
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Steve, and no I'm happy with everything, and look forward to the future with my eyes wide open.
Click to expand...

Good.
At the expense of sounding negative if the vote goes YES, then i and some of my workmates will be laid off, but there seems to be a need for skilled offshore workers at the moment and i should be ok.

Casualties of war, but from the ashes rises the phoenix..
Steve


----------



## mighTy Tee

In a debate about this on another forum a *Norwegian national* made the comment that due to the far reaching consequences of this referendum that there should be a requirement for 65% yes vote.

Personally I don't see how independence can be outright if it ends up as 50.1/49.9% Yes vote (which could be the final result) as it is hardly a convincing majority and *IF* there is a slim majority Yes vote and you Scots then dont like the consequences (i.e. Salmond totally screws your economy) what are your options?

Likewise if the No Vote gets it by a whisker are you going to push for a new referendum every few years until you get the Yes vote?

I don't doubt there are Nationalist areas with a large yes majority, but across the whole of Scotland the vote appears very tight and there does not appear to be a convincing (meaning 60/40%) Yes or No Vote majority.


----------



## mighTy Tee

Also as a follow on, I would like to know what other nationalities think (rather than the "English" v Scots argument) and what they think of Scotland in the EU (especially from one of the economies that did not fare well in the 2008 onwards recession - i.e Eire, Portugal, Greece etc).


----------



## John-H

Apparently it's hot news in China with most people bewildered why we are doing this to ourselves. The comment; you are already a small spec on the edge of Europe so why would you want to make yourselves any smaller? Also the comment that we should have been sure of the outcome before embarking on such a far reaching exercise and a warning about dangerous factionalism.


----------



## John-H

Another point: I absolutely agree with you Richard that the threshold should have been set higher. Having it set at 50% will inevitably encourage argument and disharmony no matter what the outcome.

With a decision based on a knife edge in the centre there is bound to be upset and recrimination. With a higher threshold a decision would have clearly been the will of most of the people and acceptance of the outcome would be likely.

This way we are going to be arguing about the smallest of things, accusations of deception and misleading that could have swung it, long into the future.

Is that in itself not an argument to vote NO now and properly think this through, take stock, learn a few lessons, answer the questions properly and come back to this at a later date when we are all properly prepared and educated as to the consequences - before taking a one way trip into the unknown with no way back?


----------



## pas_55

What will a independent Scotland do for an army and more importantly a Stock Exchange?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pas_55

Then there's the EU,G8 & NATO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

They will have to recreate these things. Duplication and expense is less efficient - there is economy in scale.


----------



## pas_55

Is it that simple? Don't you have to be invited/accepted?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> This is my last post on it....
> 
> _Er, I counted low 20s after this comment...._
> 
> Have paid more in tax than anyone in the UK in every one of the last 33 years.
> 
> _Er, I paid between £80k & £120k tax each of the past 15 years. So not exactly true is it....._


----------



## msnttf10

brian1978 said:


> Let's start with the facts......
> 
> Then proceeds to make everything up :lol:
> 
> Debt is 115bn, oil share is 91%,
> 
> IT'S NOT OUR PART OF THE DEBT. We don't have debt. UK has debt.
> 
> We have 10% of the bank of England's reserves deposited as £ sterling. We need this yo print Scottish notes (400bn approx.)
> 
> http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknote ... ssets.aspx
> 
> This needs to be paid back to our banks in the event of us not getting a currency union... We won't have no money.
> 
> Dearie me. If you are going to talk FACTS don't make shit up :roll:


No, you are making numbers up!

All the numbers i quoted are from the yes website and scottish government documents, go take a peek. :lol: 
If you want £115B as your share or part of the dept rather than 92B I'm sure the rUK would be more than happy with that agreement.

So you've have climbed down from "its our oil" to 91% - bit of a u-turn if you don't mind me say? but keep coming...
scotland has access to 15BN in £ reserves, that was confirmed "today" by the governor of the bank of england. The head of the bank of Canada and OZ have both said an independent country would need around 100% of the GDP in reserves. The number you talk about are the numbers held by the floated "public" "Authorised" banks i.e. RBS, it not scottish money it just money in the system. I have an account with them - does that mean all my monies are to become scottish too? These are the banks by the way that have all said they WILL move south if YES. This money doesn't "go back" into anything, the notes in circulation are backed by the deposits of sterling. Read a bank note - its says "i promise to pay.." The holding banks would simply start buying/producing new notes based on deposits backed by a new "bank of scotland" which the bank of England will need/have to transfer backing assets to the value of £15bn.

You are back on the everything "mine is mine", "everything yours is ours" drum again - it doesn't work like that..
everything is OURs, the scottish share of anything will be based on the ratio to population i.e. 8.3%


----------



## bluush

Has anyone heard of a country who after gaining independance wanted to revert back to the old way?


----------



## brian1978

bluush said:


> Has anyone heard of a country who after gaining independance wanted to revert back to the old way?


No not in history. 
All have benefited all celebrate independence day with pride.
Most have had to resort to violence, all we have to do is lift a pencil.


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> bluush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone heard of a country who after gaining independance wanted to revert back to the old way?
> 
> 
> 
> No not in history.
> All have benefited all celebrate independence day with pride.
> Most have had to resort to violence, all we have to do is lift a pencil.
Click to expand...

You might want to use a pen....


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with the facts......
> 
> Then proceeds to make everything up :lol:
> 
> Debt is 115bn, oil share is 91%,
> 
> IT'S NOT OUR PART OF THE DEBT. We don't have debt. UK has debt.
> 
> We have 10% of the bank of England's reserves deposited as £ sterling. We need this yo print Scottish notes (400bn approx.)
> 
> http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknote ... ssets.aspx
> 
> This needs to be paid back to our banks in the event of us not getting a currency union... We won't have no money.
> 
> Dearie me. If you are going to talk FACTS don't make shit up :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are making numbers up!
> 
> All the numbers i quoted are from the yes website and scottish government documents, go take a peek. :lol:
> If you want £115B as your share or part of the dept rather than 92B I'm sure the rUK would be more than happy with that agreement.
> 
> So you've have climbed down from "its our oil" to 91% - bit of a u-turn if you don't mind me say? but keep coming...
> scotland has access to 15BN in £ reserves, that was confirmed "today" by the governor of the bank of england. The head of the bank of Canada and OZ have both said an independent country would need around 100% of the GDP in reserves. The number you talk about are the numbers held by the floated "public" "Authorised" banks i.e. RBS, it not scottish money it just money in the system. I have an account with them - does that mean all my monies are to become scottish too? These are the banks by the way that have all said they WILL move south if YES. This money doesn't "go back" into anything, the notes in circulation are backed by the deposits of sterling. Read a bank note - its says "i promise to pay.." The holding banks would simply start buying/producing new notes based on deposits backed by a new "bank of scotland" which the bank of England will need/have to transfer backing assets to the value of £15bn.
> 
> You are back on the everything "mine is mine", "everything yours is ours" drum again - it doesn't work like that..
> everything is OURs, the scottish share of anything will be based on the ratio to population i.e. 8.3%
Click to expand...

I have never said it's all our oil. I said a geographical share.

"Of course Scotland could be a successful independent country"
David Cameron. 2014.


----------



## brian1978

TomBorehamUK said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone heard of a country who after gaining independance wanted to revert back to the old way?
> 
> 
> 
> No not in history.
> All have benefited all celebrate independence day with pride.
> Most have had to resort to violence, all we have to do is lift a pencil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might want to use a pen....
Click to expand...

No you use a pencil attached to a bit of string.....
Have you ever Voted? :roll:


----------



## brian1978

Today's Daily Fail.

No wonder friction exists between is


----------



## roddy

brian,, stay out of it,, let them rant and rave,,,it is q interesting to see just how little some folk actually know,,, eg.. " all our oil ",, "stock exchange ",, not sure of exact figure but Edinburgh is one of the major finance centres in Europe,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, rave on :roll: :roll:


----------



## brian1978

roddy said:


> brian,, stay out of it,, let them rant and rave,,,it is q interesting to see just how little some folk actually know,,, eg.. " all our oil ",, "stock exchange ",, not sure of exact figure but Edinburgh is one of the major finance centres in Europe,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, rave on :roll: :roll:


Yep roddy I'm officially finished till the 19th sept on this subject...

We shall see how it goes..

Soar alba :wink:


----------



## jamman

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sc ... 24017.html


----------



## pas_55

Well you don't get a mention in the top 50 in Europe

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trig

brian1978 said:


> IT'S NOT OUR PART OF THE DEBT. We don't have debt. UK has debt.


I dont get this bit, you are part of the UK, the UK has debt, there for you have a debts because you are part of the UK, if you leave, you are suddenly debt free?]
How about England leaves the UK and becomes a seperate country and leaves it debt free because we didnt borrow it, the UK did...


----------



## msnttf10

Yep, they are 100% clueless!
The key is everything is "ours", scotland is 8.3% of the UK

And in terms of scotland being "able" to make a go of it - i don't recall a single person saying otherwise. What people are saying is "better together" not that it's impossible to run as a separate entity. I'm saying England would be better without scotland, its no more anti anything than saying scotland would be better without the rUK....

In terms of the mail - well, its just the other side of the coin. This is what peoples gut reaction is to the negative things the YES campaign are saying. You can't have everything both ways, which is the context of pretty much all Mr1978 is saying! Totally and utterly clueless. 400Bn NIC of publicly owned companies being assets of a nation :lol:

btw two of those banks mr1978 mentioned have publicly said today they would move their headoffice south in the event of a yes! oh and an insurance company too.


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> TomBorehamUK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone heard of a country who after gaining independance wanted to revert back to the old way?
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to use a pen....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you use a pencil attached to a bit of string.....
> Have you ever Voted? :roll:
Click to expand...

Well no, you can use a pencil or a pen :roll:

I meant when agreements are signed anyhoo...


----------



## roddy

V6RUL said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> V6RUL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish all Scotlands eligible voters vote and good luck for the outcome.
> 
> For the YES voters ie Brian and Roddy..
> Are there any issues/policies/changes/rules that have not been answered clearly by the potential Scotish representatives ?
> Could you please identify your concerns if there are any, or do you feel that this new era has been fully and clearly laid out.
> 
> For the YES & NO voters, whatever the outcome, you must embrace the decision of the majority and work together for the best country you can.
> If the majority is NO, then an application for a future reforendum can be put forward and the vote may be different.
> If the majority is YES, then i hope all come together and work towards a better and unified country.
> 
> I currently live in England and work in Aberdeen and can feel/see the passion from both sides.
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Steve, and no I'm happy with everything, and look forward to the future with my eyes wide open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.
> At the expense of sounding negative if the vote goes YES, then i and some of my workmates will be laid off, but there seems to be a need for skilled offshore workers at the moment and i should be ok.
> 
> Casualties of war, but from the ashes rises the phoenix..
> Steve
Click to expand...

Steve,, I really hope that it is not the case, but what makes you think there will be redundancies for you in the event of a yes vote,,, I personally I cant see that any of the multi national oil companies give a damn who gets the tax revenue so long as they can still take the oil...


----------



## msnttf10

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nings.html


----------



## roddy

for many of us here in Scotland who have actually been involved in the oil industry for over 40 years this type of story means nothing,, we can well recall being told back in the mid 70s that the oil boom would only last 25 years , then it was another 25 years etc etc, many independent analysists even back then were advising not to believe the official figures and estimates because they were being manipulated for political and commercial benefit.. the Wood group ( I don't have to explain why I chose to highlight yhem ) this year alone have invested in excess of £100m in further " short term " ventures,,, yea sure :lol: :roll:


----------



## V6RUL

Oil on the East Coast is tailing off but investment into new technology is currently making it a viable option to continue for now. Smaller pockets of reserve are being targeted through new drilling methods. The East Coast has had is day and whilst small operators can eek out a profit they will continue to pump.
The next exciting opportunity may be what lies beneath the West Coast.
Steve


----------



## roddy

well it may be disputed how much is left but I don't see how us loosing the English albatross is going to make it disapear any quicker !!!!!!!


----------



## V6RUL

roddy said:


> well it may be disputed how much is left but I don't see how us loosing the English albatross is going to make it disapear any quicker !!!!!!!


The majority of the offshore assets have been sold off to the the smaller operators as the smaller operators have less overheads.
The major operators have stripped the fields to the point where it is not feasible to continue production themselves and they have moved on to pastures new.

Lots of oil used to come out of the North Sea..not so much these days.

I am the sole Commissioning Engineer representing an owner of 12 assets, so i have some fore-sight into what the owner has planned for the short-term. Investment in new drilling campaigns has fallen behind the costs of maintaining the existing assests as these platforms have all exceeded there life expectancy and are in need of more and more investment to keep one step ahead of the HSE as the HSE issue operating licenses for tems of 1,2, 5 or 15 years and as the assets deteriorate the license term reduces as repair orders increase.

Once the small operators walk away, the asset is not viable and it will have to be decommissioned, but this is at the cost of the origonal asset owner..i believe. 
Steve


----------



## jamman

Interesting to read that Steve good post.


----------



## V6RUL

Should we now try renewable (wind and wave) as i have a little insight into this as well, but only from the back-room and not from a sales mans point of view..
Steve


----------



## John-H

Sounds a good idea Steve


----------



## roddy

of course steve, and while this may be of some interest to some, and even enlightening to others :roll: , it is well kent verse to those of us involved,, but you still have not explained how you think that by us riding ourselves of the albatross which is England ( sorry Brian , westminster :wink: ) the depletion is going to speed up .. :?


----------



## V6RUL

roddy said:


> of course steve, and while this may be of some interest to some, and even enlightening to others :roll: , it is well kent verse to those of us involved,, but you still have not explained how you think that by us riding ourselves of the albatross which is England ( sorry Brian , westminster :wink: ) the depletion is going to speed up .. :?


I never mentioned anything speeding up.
Steve


----------



## roddy

steve,, you stated " if the vote goes yes then I and some of my collegues will be laid off ".. I asked you why you think this and you answere with an explanation of gradual depletion,, :? ... for lack of alternative I took that as your answere, if not then why ?


----------



## Ikon66

No more personal attacks please


----------



## mwad

And yet another topic turns to rat5h1t


----------



## TomBorehamUK

roddy said:


> * post deleted *


*Irony*


----------



## jamman

I do believe it's not my posts that have been edited :wink:

Spot on Tom


----------



## igotone

Come on - he gets a warning about personal attacks which he completely ignores. You'll have to stamp your foot again Hoggy. :roll:


----------



## roddy

16 pages of debate,, no involvement needed from mods,, * expletive deleted *


----------



## TomBorehamUK

roddy said:


> 16 pages of debate,, no involvement needed from mods,, * expletive deleted *


Lets be clear Roddy, 
-you've made personal insults. 
-your post has been edited to remove said personal insults.


----------



## roddy

I can see whose bed you share


----------



## Ikon66

Debate is fine, bad language and personal attacks are not


----------



## roddy

well you should keep it that way


----------



## Ikon66

jamman said:


> I do believe it's not my posts that have been edited :wink:
> 
> Spot on Tom


After a look back, 1 has been deleted


----------



## mullum

The first insult thrown, and therefor the instigator, as usual, was Jamman.
It's not exactly anything new though is it ? I mean that's pretty much what he has been doing consistently for years, right ?


----------



## jamman

Ikon66 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe it's not my posts that have been edited :wink:
> 
> Spot on Tom
> 
> 
> 
> After a look back, 1 has been deleted
Click to expand...

I would class my post as a statement of fact rather than an insult but I bow to your judgement. 

Edited!!!


----------



## Ikon66

This is only going one way unless you can get along :roll:


----------



## John-H

Yes, will you two stop having a go, veiled or otherwise at each other please and stop spoiling my thread?

If not we will have to build a famous wall between you.

Did you see how I brought it back on topic there? :wink:


----------



## jamman

[smiley=iloveyou.gif] Ikon


----------



## roddy

John-H said:


> Yes, will you two stop having a go, veiled or otherwise at each other please and stop spoiling my thread?
> 
> If not we will have to build a famous wall between you.
> 
> Did you see how I brought it back on topic there? :wink:


I am not normally in favour of walls,, but maybe sometimes they might be advantageous............... there , keeping it on topic


----------



## Wallsendmag

Please don't rebuild the wall ,I'm on the wrong side


----------



## jamman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29169114


----------



## msnttf10

roddy said:


> English albatross


And you wondered why the English football fans reacted and the mail said what it said when North of the border words of that type are used? England and the other member of the UK have contributed massively towards scotland.

The list of companies who have public said they are leaving is growing, the others are going to charge more for the same goods. Unfortunately it's not sounding as good - I need you to help pull it out of the bag, most people I speak to in England want you to get independence too, not because it would be better for scotland, but because we are getting very fed up!!!


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> English albatross
> 
> 
> 
> And you wondered why the English football fans reacted and the mail said what it said when North of the border words of that type are used? England and the other member of the UK have contributed massively towards scotland.
> 
> The list of companies who have public said they are leaving is growing, the others are going to charge more for the same goods. Unfortunately it's not sounding as good - I need you to help pull it out of the bag, most people I speak to in England want you to get independence too, not because it would be better for scotland, but because we are getting very fed up!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry I just can't bite my lip anymore..

The list of company's who said they will leave is growing, that's utter nonsense. Some have said they will move the HQ, it's a legal matter and involves moving the brass plaque.

The only one who said they will is standard life....

They also said this at every one of the referendums since 1977.


----------



## Trouble4

The yes / no has gone world wide.........

just thinking if a wall comes it will cut fun driving by 65% as you are going to have to stop at the border show ID and then may

be asked to turn around especially with a last name of Whan ........... :lol:

that is what anyone needs more division :?


----------



## brian1978

Trouble4 said:


> The yes / no has gone world wide.........
> 
> just thinking if a wall comes it will cut fun driving by 65% as you are going to have to stop at the border show ID and then may
> 
> be asked to turn around especially with a last name of Whan ........... :lol:
> 
> that is what anyone needs more division :?


More division.. No! what Scotland needs are neighbours not masters.

Here's a picture of the strict border controls between Ireland (Europe) and the UK.


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> msnttf10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> English albatross
> 
> 
> 
> And you wondered why the English football fans reacted and the mail said what it said when North of the border words of that type are used? England and the other member of the UK have contributed massively towards scotland.
> 
> The list of companies who have public said they are leaving is growing, the others are going to charge more for the same goods. Unfortunately it's not sounding as good - I need you to help pull it out of the bag, most people I speak to in England want you to get independence too, not because it would be better for scotland, but because we are getting very fed up!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I just can't bite my lip anymore..
> 
> The list of company's who said they will leave is growing, that's utter nonsense. Some have said they will move the HQ, it's a legal matter and involves moving the brass plaque.
> 
> The only one who said they will is standard life....
> 
> They also said this at every one of the referendums since 1977.
Click to expand...

Standard life and others know that they will lose the English (& Welsh / NI) customers as people can't take the risk of having their pensions at the whims of a foreign government. Yeah you could get screwed by your own government, but they still need your vote.

Ditto with the banks, rUK savers would want UK government savings protection, not another government who may even have currency issues (or not if rUK let them keep the pound and the protection that brings)

Even relocation brings the problem of reduced corporation tax to the new Scottish admin, as this would now be paid in England, but as the whole currency / tax regime is unclear at present, no one actually knows what will happen, including the yes leaders...

Luckily I'm off on holiday to small Greek island tomorrow so will miss the copious amounts of news dedicated to this debate, and when I get back either they will be independent and trying to work out wht the hell to do next, or possibly moaning that everyone sabotaged the utopia they were going to have, but were stopped by the other 80-90 percent of the uk..

Reminds me a bit of the first 'free' elections in South Africa, I was there just before and all of the locals I spoke to thought they were going to get mansions, swimming pools, big cars etc after the elections, but apart from getting rid of the Africarn rulers and setting up a new domain, nothing changed financially or otherwise for the majority. The ruling or political class did well though as normal...

Also very interesting that points raised by the yes group are seen as valid by a few on here, yet any from the no group re scaremongering. Bit like the freedom fighter / terrorist debate really, depends where you see the fence


----------



## mighTy Tee

Here is a question for the Scots on here who are pushing for a Yes vote:

In the event the No vote wins, then will you drop your call for independence for the foreseeable future (50 plus years)?

_If the Yes vote wins there is no going back EVER so there can NEVER be another vote!

I assume you will drop all claims for any further vote for independence and graciously accept the majority vote? _


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> msnttf10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote
> And you wondered why the English football fans reacted and the mail said what it said when North of the border words of that type are used? England and the other member of the UK have contributed massively towards scotland.
> 
> The list of companies who have public said they are leaving is growing, the others are going to charge more for the same goods. Unfortunately it's not sounding as good - I need you to help pull it out of the bag, most people I speak to in England want you to get independence too, not because it would be better for scotland, but because we are getting very fed up!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I just can't bite my lip anymore..
> 
> The list of company's who said they will leave is growing, that's utter nonsense. Some have said they will move the HQ, it's a legal matter and involves moving the brass plaque.
> 
> The only one who said they will is standard life....
> 
> They also said this at every one of the referendums since 1977.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Standard life and others know that they will lose the English (& Welsh / NI) customers as people can't take the risk of having their pensions at the whims of a foreign government. Yeah you could get screwed by your own government, but they still need your vote.
> 
> Ditto with the banks, rUK savers would want UK government savings protection, not another government who may even have currency issues (or not if rUK let them keep the pound and the protection that brings)
> 
> Even relocation brings the problem of reduced corporation tax to the new Scottish admin, as this would now be paid in England, but as the whole currency / tax regime is unclear at present, no one actually knows what will happen, including the yes leaders...
> 
> Luckily I'm off on holiday to small Greek island tomorrow so will miss the copious amounts of news dedicated to this debate, and when I get back either they will be independent and trying to work out wht the hell to do next, or possibly moaning that everyone sabotaged the utopia they were going to have, but were stopped by the other 80-90 percent of the uk..
> 
> Reminds me a bit of the first 'free' elections in South Africa, I was there just before and all of the locals I spoke to thought they were going to get mansions, swimming pools, big cars etc after the elections, but apart from getting rid of the Africarn rulers and setting up a new domain, nothing changed financially or otherwise for the majority. The ruling or political class did well though as normal...
> 
> Also very interesting that points raised by the yes group are seen as valid by a few on here, yet any from the no group re scaremongering. Bit like the freedom fighter / terrorist debate really, depends where you see the fence
Click to expand...

"Standard Life plc is a long term savings and investment business, with headquarters in Edinburgh and operations around the globe. It has *1.5 million shareholders in more than 50 countries *and over 6 million customers."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard life

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29160255


----------



## Spandex

Shug750S said:


> Also very interesting that points raised by the yes group are seen as valid by a few on here, yet any from the no group re scaremongering. Bit like the freedom fighter / terrorist debate really, depends where you see the fence


This seems to be a narrative that's propagated by the Yes campaign at every opportunity. Any attempts to put forward arguments against independence are universally described as 'negative' and scaremongering, whilst any arguments for independence are painted as positive and forward looking.

It's just politicking and unfortunately it stifles real debate (as it's designed to) by deflecting the discussion away from the hard facts and back onto the PR message.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where people were just presented with the facts and allowed to make their own minds up, instead of having to wade through the unified fronts of bull presented by both sides, who are more concerned with winning than with the truth.


----------



## roddy

unfortunately you seem to be having some difficulty in distinguishing between the bull and the reality,,perhaps if you had listened to Lesley Riddoch on ( I think ) Newsnight last night it might have helped you.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also very interesting that points raised by the yes group are seen as valid by a few on here, yet any from the no group re scaremongering. Bit like the freedom fighter / terrorist debate really, depends where you see the fence
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be a narrative that's propagated by the Yes campaign at every opportunity. Any attempts to put forward arguments against independence are universally described as 'negative' and scaremongering, whilst any arguments for independence are painted as positive and forward looking.
> 
> It's just politicking and unfortunately it stifles real debate (as it's designed to) by deflecting the discussion away from the hard facts and back onto the PR message.
> 
> It would be nice if we lived in a world where people were just presented with the facts and allowed to make their own minds up, instead of having to wade through the unified fronts of bullshit presented by both sides, who are more concerned with winning than with the truth.
Click to expand...

But spandex it IS nothing but fear and scaremongering from the no camp SINCE DAY ONE. This has been the unchanging tactic...

Only now when they realise this is a real possibility are they "love bombing" Scotland.

I set you a challenge. Find me one single non fear or scare story promoting staying in this union. Just one.


----------



## Spandex

roddy said:


> unfortunately you seem to be having some difficulty in distinguishing between the bull and the reality,,perhaps if you had listened to Lesley Riddoch on ( I think ) Newsnight last night it might have helped you.


If you have a point, please make it so everyone can respond. If you just want to make vague references in the hope that you will appear knowledgeable without actually having to say anything intelligent then I think you're wasting both your time and the time of whoever it is who's helping you use the computer.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> But spandex it IS nothing but fear and scaremongering from the no camp SINCE DAY ONE. This has been the unchanging tactic...
> 
> Only now when they realise this is a real possibility are they "love bombing" Scotland.
> 
> I set you a challenge. Find me one single non fear or scare story promoting staying in this union. Just one.


But Brian, isn't your response just confirmation that the Yes campaign are focused on an emotional response to the other sides argument, rather than responding to the argument itself.

I'm not sure I want to get into a game of "can I find a positive statement" with you. It seems to me that would just be pandering to the very thing I was complaining about - an unhealthy obsession with things that had nothing to do with actual the facts. A negative point is no less valid than a positive one, so why should we care which it is?


----------



## roddy

:roll:


----------



## jamman

Spandex said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately you seem to be having some difficulty in distinguishing between the bullshit and the reality,,perhaps if you had listened to Lesley Riddoch on ( I think ) Newsnight last night it might have helped you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point, please make it so everyone can respond. If you just want to make vague references in the hope that you will appear knowledgeable without actually having to say anything intelligent then I think you're wasting both your time and the time of whoever it is who's helping you use the computer.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth,,..,,,,,

I will repeat myself though I love Brian's passion for the subject, don't agree with him but he has my admiration.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But spandex it IS nothing but fear and scaremongering from the no camp SINCE DAY ONE. This has been the unchanging tactic...
> 
> Only now when they realise this is a real possibility are they "love bombing" Scotland.
> 
> I set you a challenge. Find me one single non fear or scare story promoting staying in this union. Just one.
> 
> 
> 
> But Brian, isn't your response just confirmation that the Yes campaign are focused on an emotional response to the other sides argument, rather than responding to the argument itself.
> 
> I'm not sure I want to get into a game of "can I find a positive statement" with you. It seems to me that would just be pandering to the very thing I was complaining about - an unhealthy obsession with things that had nothing to do with actual the facts. A negative point is no less valid than a positive one, so why should we care which it is?
Click to expand...

Do what you like. But trust me you will struggle to find a story that's not fearmongering. Only yesterday we had "Scotland won't be able to compete in the olympics" the media the BBC in particular has shown incredible bias towards the yes campaign.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Do what you like. But trust me you will struggle to find a story that's not fearmongering. Only yesterday we had "Scotland won't be able to compete in the olympics" the media the BBC in particular has shown incredible bias towards the yes campaign.


And what's more important about that story? The facts, or its negativity?


----------



## mwad

jamman said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately you seem to be having some difficulty in distinguishing between the bullshit and the reality,,perhaps if you had listened to Lesley Riddoch on ( I think ) Newsnight last night it might have helped you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point, please make it so everyone can respond. If you just want to make vague references in the hope that you will appear knowledgeable without actually having to say anything intelligent then I think you're wasting both your time and the time of whoever it is who's helping you use the computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will repeat myself though I love Brian's passion for the subject, don't agree with him but he has my admiration.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more !


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do what you like. But trust me you will struggle to find a story that's not fearmongering. Only yesterday we had "Scotland won't be able to compete in the olympics" the media the BBC in particular has shown incredible bias towards the yes campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> And what's more important about that story? The facts, or its negativity?
Click to expand...

What Facts?

Scotland meets EVERY criteria to field an Olympic team, it's lies being fed to the public. The BBC who force people to pay them money should be unbiased and neutral.

Spandex, do you believe them to be unbiased and neutral with regards to the Scottish independence Debate?


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> What Facts?
> 
> Scotland meets EVERY criteria to field an Olympic team, it's lies being fed to the public. The BBC who force people to pay them money should be unbiased and neutral.
> 
> Spandex, do you believe them to be unbiased and neutral with regards to the Scottish independence Debate?


You misunderstood. I meant the facts of whether or not you would be able to compete in the Olympics. I wasn't saying everything in that article was a fact...

The point is, the facts are the important thing, not whether or not the story is positive or not.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Facts?
> 
> Scotland meets EVERY criteria to field an Olympic team, it's lies being fed to the public. The BBC who force people to pay them money should be unbiased and neutral.
> 
> Spandex, do you believe them to be unbiased and neutral with regards to the Scottish independence Debate?
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstood. I meant the facts of whether or not you would be able to compete in the Olympics. I wasn't saying everything in that article was a fact...
> 
> The point is, the facts are the important thing, not whether or not the story is positive or not.
Click to expand...

Yes we can compete in the Olympics, that's the fact here. But the BBC was doing a report on whether we could or not and was very clearly leaning towards the LIE that we can't, it was later rubbished.


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> "Standard Life plc is a long term savings and investment business, with headquarters in Edinburgh and operations around the globe. It has *1.5 million shareholders in more than 50 countries *and over 6 million customers."
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard life
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29160255


And if the yes vote wins it will become an English domiciled company, if I read the article correctly.

So if the yes vote is such a positive, why would a major player be moving it's domicile away?
Probably because it wants to retain it's customers and keep those 1.5million shareholders happy...

Noticed no comment from you about shortfall in corporate tax when all these companies pay in England rather than Scotland... Will this affect the tax rate? I don't know but clearly neither do any of the yes campaigners


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Yes we can compete in the Olympics, that's the fact here. But the BBC was doing a report on whether we could or not and was very clearly leaning towards the LIE that we can't, it was later rubbished.


Whatever. The point is, the facts are the important thing.


----------



## Spandex

Let's just address the negativity though.

This isn't a symmetrical issue. The Yes campaign want's to change the status quo, while the No campaign wants things to remain the same (broadly speaking, regarding the simple choice of staying in the union or leaving). This isn't a choice between two new scenarios. It's a choice between the current scenario and a new one.

So, it's perfectly logical that the No campaign is making a lot of negative points - they have to give reasons why changing the status quo would be worse than keeping it. It's also perfectly logical that the Yes campaign is making a lot of positive points - they have to give reasons why changing the status quo would be better than keeping it.

It's unavoidable. It would make no sense if it was any other way.

<edit> If you want proof of the above, look at the currency discussion - in this instance, the situation is reversed, and it's the Yes campaign who want to maintain the status quo - so they give negative reasons why it's not in the UKs interest to change (how much the pound will drop, etc).


----------



## ag

Like in any democratic election very few people's votes can be won through argument. The vast majority of people on both sides of any political devide have made up their minds before the announcement of a vote. The last, maybe, 20% may find themselves guided by facts. Unfortunately in the current debate there are very few facts. There are industrial quantities of opinions, but actual facts are conspicuous by their absence. This isn't necessarily a problem because the vote is purely emotional anyway.

Instead of "Should Scotland be an independany country?" the question on the ballot paper should perhaps be, "Are all of Scotland's problems due to the decisions of the Westminster parliament and are all of these decisions different from the likely decisions that would be be taken by a wholly elected Parliament for Scotland?".

I would suggest that few of the Westminster Parliaments decisions are actually as political as is assumed. The opposition, of whatever hue, makes noises of disent, but know that the decision made was the correct one and are happy to be seen as opposing it whilst secretly being glad that it was a decision that they didn't have to make. It happens all the time. Unless something really strange happens and after a YES vote the ruling party takes an extreme line, I believe that the decisions of Scotland's Parliament, when put under the same financial, electoral and EU pressures would actual make decisions indestinguishable from the current Westminster Government. Overall, the only real differnce will that both sides of the borders will be a little poorer as some economies of scale of lost.

At the end of the day, even after a YES vote Scotland will be very much the same as now. Probably indistinguishable, except for a certain air of optimism that could make all the difference to them.

The vote is up to the Scots, but the rest of us will be the poorer for losing them, not only the slight economic penalty but also their rich diversity, attitude and mountains. It would be nice to think that they think the same about us, mountains apart, but there does appear to be a great deal of mis-placed resentment against Westminster as I don't believe that Scotland has been any worse treated than, for example, the West Midlands.


----------



## Shug750S

ag said:


> Like in any democratic election very few people's votes can be won through argument. The vast majority of people on both sides of any political devide have made up their minds before the announcement of a vote. The last, maybe, 20% may find themselves guided by facts. Unfortunately in the current debate there are very few facts. There are industrial quantities of opinions, but actual facts are conspicuous by their absence. This isn't necessarily a problem because the vote is purely emotional anyway.
> 
> Instead of "Should Scotland be an independany country?" the question on the ballot paper should perhaps be, "Are all of Scotland's problems due to the decisions of the Westminster parliament and are all of these decisions different from the likely decisions that would be be taken by a wholly elected Parliament for Scotland?".
> 
> I would suggest that few of the Westminster Parliaments decisions are actually as political as is assumed. The opposition, of whatever hue, makes noises of disent, but know that the decision made was the correct one and are happy to be seen as opposing it whilst secretly being glad that it was a decision that they didn't have to make. It happens all the time. Unless something really strange happens and after a YES vote the ruling party takes an extreme line, I believe that the decisions of Scotland's Parliament, when put under the same financial, electoral and EU pressures would actual make decisions indestinguishable from the current Westminster Government. Overall, the only real differnce will that both sides of the borders will be a little poorer as some economies of scale of lost.
> 
> At the end of the day, even after a YES vote Scotland will be very much the same as now. Probably indistinguishable, except for a certain air of optimism that could make all the difference to them.
> 
> The vote is up to the Scots, but the rest of us will be the poorer for losing them, not only the slight economic penalty but also their rich diversity, attitude and mountains. It would be nice to think that they think the same about us, mountains apart, but there does appear to be a great deal of mis-placed resentment against Westminster as I don't believe that Scotland has been any worse treated than, for example, the West Midlands.


Excellent points all very well made.


----------



## roddy

With one or two exceptions ,,, one being that the west midlands are not a country ,, scotland is ,,,,, for those too blind or igorant to distinguish facts from bull**** , that is one fact , a nice simple one !!!


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Standard Life plc is a long term savings and investment business, with headquarters in Edinburgh and operations around the globe. It has *1.5 million shareholders in more than 50 countries *and over 6 million customers."
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard life
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29160255
> 
> 
> 
> And if the yes vote wins it will become an English domiciled company, if I read the article correctly.
> 
> So if the yes vote is such a positive, why would a major player be moving it's domicile away?
> Probably because it wants to retain it's customers and keep those 1.5million shareholders happy...
> 
> Noticed no comment from you about shortfall in corporate tax when all these companies pay in England rather than Scotland... Will this affect the tax rate? I don't know but clearly neither do any of the yes campaigners
Click to expand...

I am fairly certain you are wrong with the shortfall in corporate tax. Tax is based on economic activity not where the company's HQ is based.


----------



## TomBorehamUK

roddy said:


> With one or two exceptions ,,, one being that the west midlands are not a country ,, scotland is ,,,,, for those too blind or igorant to distinguish facts from bullshit , that is one fact , a nice simple one !!!


Please stop :lol:

No one said the west Midlands is a country.


----------



## Trouble4

> If the English people really knew If the English peoples really knew about what goes on in Scotland they would not be so quick to condemn Scottish Independence. There are of course many reasons that they want Scots to stay in the Union, however, there is a lack of what is actually good for Scots.
> In 1979 Scotland held a referendum on Independence, and by democratic standards they won it.
> However, a late change in the voting system by a labour Westminster MP. All who did not vote were taken as a NO vote, and yes this included the recent dead!
> Scots were Royally cheated, what would the English have said if it had been them?
> Scots have been constantly been considered as benefit junkies and the like, and are heavily subsidised by Westminster.
> Figure now prove, it is certainly NOT the case, Scots pay more than their share of tax revenues and actually get less back.
> We should be a rich country, we are not, we have ever more poor roads, and generally poor infrastructure.
> In an Independent country this will be a priority to be addressed, it is not going to happen within the Union, who are content in keeping Scots down.
> Taxes from our shoreline go to Westminster unlike other parts of the UK.
> We also have many area's that would shine more with Independence, more exports, more agriculture, more renewable energy, more fishing industry. It goes on.
> We would no longer have our soldiers die in illegal wars.
> We no longer would have Trident within 30 miles of our major population and city of Glasgow. Note Westminster does not want Trident down there, but as usual it is ok if Scots are at risk.
> So, no, Scots are not too wee, not too weak, nor too stupid. Independence will lead to a Scotland the rUK can learn from.
> There is no doubt that we also seek to be close friends with our neighbours, any bad feeling in Scotland is directed at Westminster politicians not the peoples of England, Wales or N. Ireland.
> However, the right to form our own future is undeniable, and it is something the doubters should think of. It is called democracy, something that is becoming more desirable to everyone in the Uk, if not Westminster.
> Posted by: Leswil


How true is this quote taken from the above: ""In 1979 Scotland held a referendum on Independence, and by democratic standards they won it. 
However, a late change in the voting system by a labour Westminster MP. All who did not vote were taken as a NO vote, and yes this included the recent dead! ""

does Wales or Northern Ireland have these types of thoughts as well ?

or does it come down to every body has an opinion ?

what are the facts? would they not be recorded and open to public review through Government ?


----------



## Spandex

Trouble4 said:


> does Wales or Northern Ireland have these types of thoughts as well ?
> 
> or does it come down to every body has an opinion ?
> 
> what are the facts? would they not be recorded and open to public review through Government ?


There will be a percentage of people in Wales and Northern Ireland who would like independence. I guess it has to reach a 'critical mass' before it's worth considering a referendum though, otherwise you end up spending a load of money on a national vote to massage the ego of a tiny minority of the population. In Scotlands case, there is obviously a significant percentage who want independence, hence the referendum.

As for the facts - the problem is in a lot of areas the facts simply can't be known yet, in spite of claims from both sides. Should the Yes vote win, there will be a huge amount of negotiation across every aspect of the separation and no one can honestly claim to know the outcome of those negotiations. It seems harsh to expect a country to vote on a moving target like that, but I don't think there's any other way to do it.


----------



## brian1978

Trouble4 said:


> If the English people really knew If the English peoples really knew about what goes on in Scotland they would not be so quick to condemn Scottish Independence. There are of course many reasons that they want Scots to stay in the Union, however, there is a lack of what is actually good for Scots.
> In 1979 Scotland held a referendum on Independence, and by democratic standards they won it.
> However, a late change in the voting system by a labour Westminster MP. All who did not vote were taken as a NO vote, and yes this included the recent dead!
> Scots were Royally cheated, what would the English have said if it had been them?
> Scots have been constantly been considered as benefit junkies and the like, and are heavily subsidised by Westminster.
> Figure now prove, it is certainly NOT the case, Scots pay more than their share of tax revenues and actually get less back.
> We should be a rich country, we are not, we have ever more poor roads, and generally poor infrastructure.
> In an Independent country this will be a priority to be addressed, it is not going to happen within the Union, who are content in keeping Scots down.
> Taxes from our shoreline go to Westminster unlike other parts of the UK.
> We also have many area's that would shine more with Independence, more exports, more agriculture, more renewable energy, more fishing industry. It goes on.
> We would no longer have our soldiers die in illegal wars.
> We no longer would have Trident within 30 miles of our major population and city of Glasgow. Note Westminster does not want Trident down there, but as usual it is ok if Scots are at risk.
> So, no, Scots are not too wee, not too weak, nor too stupid. Independence will lead to a Scotland the rUK can learn from.
> There is no doubt that we also seek to be close friends with our neighbours, any bad feeling in Scotland is directed at Westminster politicians not the peoples of England, Wales or N. Ireland.
> However, the right to form our own future is undeniable, and it is something the doubters should think of. It is called democracy, something that is becoming more desirable to everyone in the Uk, if not Westminster.
> Posted by: Leswil
> 
> 
> 
> How true is this quote taken from the above: ""In 1979 Scotland held a referendum on Independence, and by democratic standards they won it.
> However, a late change in the voting system by a labour Westminster MP. All who did not vote were taken as a NO vote, and yes this included the recent dead! ""
> 
> does Wales or Northern Ireland have these types of thoughts as well ?
> 
> or does it come down to every body has an opinion ?
> 
> what are the facts? would they not be recorded and open to public review through Government ?
Click to expand...

Yes it is absolutely true, the 40% rule. If you didn't vote it was essentially counted as no. YES 51.62 NO 48.38 Yes won the Scottish assembly referendum by a whisker. But we got 18 years of tory rule as a consolation prize. [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## Trouble4

Spandex said:


> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> does Wales or Northern Ireland have these types of thoughts as well ?
> 
> or does it come down to every body has an opinion ?
> 
> what are the facts? would they not be recorded and open to public review through Government ?
> 
> 
> 
> There will be a percentage of people in Wales and Northern Ireland who would like independence. I guess it has to reach a 'critical mass' before it's worth considering a referendum though, otherwise you end up spending a load of money on a national vote to massage the ego of a tiny minority of the population. In Scotlands case, there is obviously a significant percentage who want independence, hence the referendum.
> 
> As for the facts - the problem is in a lot of areas the facts simply can't be known yet, in spite of claims from both sides. Should the Yes vote win, there will be a huge amount of negotiation across every aspect of the separation and no one can honestly claim to know the outcome of those negotiations. It seems harsh to expect a country to vote on a moving target like that, but I don't think there's any other way to do it.
Click to expand...

that seems to be more then a moving target........ to vote on something that no one can get a clear grasp of what the facts are.. other then seeing it feeling it ... so there is no set of people that represent Scotland to England and if so no records to show what they have done (voted) or not to be seen...........

So the obvious is to point to England as that is where the mandates come from.......

if I lived in Scotland and was on the fence as far as not being ""really hurt"" by England nor really helped it would seem that they would vote NO ....... and been reading where Scotland does receive some aid and those that receive it would logically vote NO ...as voting Yes nothing is guaranteed and future questionable. The rich keep getting richer so that be a NO....

:? :? :? must be the economic class between poor and middle-class that is voting Yes and maybe the small business owners and employees :? :?

is this close or am I way off ?

Thanks Spandex


----------



## Trig

Oh lets just face it, Scotland isn't going anywhere.


----------



## brian1978

As for our corrupt and biased BBC watch this right the way through, remember the BBC charter requires it to be impartial.

Like I said watch the whole thing..


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> Let's just address the negativity though.
> 
> This isn't a symmetrical issue. The Yes campaign want's to change the status quo, while the No campaign wants things to remain the same (broadly speaking, regarding the simple choice of staying in the union or leaving). This isn't a choice between two new scenarios. It's a choice between the current scenario and a new one.
> 
> So, it's perfectly logical that the No campaign is making a lot of negative points - they have to give reasons why changing the status quo would be worse than keeping it. It's also perfectly logical that the Yes campaign is making a lot of positive points - they have to give reasons why changing the status quo would be better than keeping it.
> 
> It's unavoidable. It would make no sense if it was any other way.
> 
> <edit> If you want proof of the above, look at the currency discussion - in this instance, the situation is reversed, and it's the Yes campaign who want to maintain the status quo - so they give negative reasons why it's not in the UKs interest to change (how much the pound will drop, etc).


A very good point 

Brian, you've still not shown how you can justify your earlier guarantee that passports won't be needed to cross the border when you have no means of aligning England's and Scotland's immigration and border control policy. Given that Scotland want more immigration and will have to follow EU law if they join and England (partly due to the loss of Scotland and the resulting political shift) may decide to leave the EU and impose tighter immigration barriers, then it seems a logical and reasonable outcome that strict border controls may be needed. Hence your "guarantee" is merely wishful thinking and merely an example of a positive spin without the benefit of a crystal ball - but you are insisting you are giving us facts when in fact you are merely trying to "enlighten" us with the faith you have and also want us to adopt. Forgive me but as you want the change you aspire to, it is up to you too prove it, not preach faith.

Or am I being too negative?

Like so many of these issues the yes campaign are attempting to lead people into the promised land when the rest of us see it as dangerous and uncharted territory.


----------



## pas_55

I can watch but,I can't hear it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John-H

brian1978 said:


> As for our corrupt and biased BBC watch this right the way through, remember the BBC charter requires it to be impartial.
> 
> Like I said watch the whole thing..


So often the mantra of an incumbent government. Thatcher's lot used to have it in for the BBC too - whenever they didn't say it like they wanted to hear it.


----------



## brian1978

Trouble4 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> does Wales or Northern Ireland have these types of thoughts as well ?
> 
> or does it come down to every body has an opinion ?
> 
> what are the facts? would they not be recorded and open to public review through Government ?
> 
> 
> 
> There will be a percentage of people in Wales and Northern Ireland who would like independence. I guess it has to reach a 'critical mass' before it's worth considering a referendum though, otherwise you end up spending a load of money on a national vote to massage the ego of a tiny minority of the population. In Scotlands case, there is obviously a significant percentage who want independence, hence the referendum.
> 
> As for the facts - the problem is in a lot of areas the facts simply can't be known yet, in spite of claims from both sides. Should the Yes vote win, there will be a huge amount of negotiation across every aspect of the separation and no one can honestly claim to know the outcome of those negotiations. It seems harsh to expect a country to vote on a moving target like that, but I don't think there's any other way to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that seems to be more then a moving target........ to vote on something that no one can get a clear grasp of what the facts are.. other then seeing it feeling it ... so there is no set of people that represent Scotland to England and if so no records to show what they have done (voted) or not to be seen...........
> 
> So the obvious is to point to England as that is where the mandates come from.......
> 
> if I lived in Scotland and was on the fence as far as not being ""really hurt"" by England nor really helped it would seem that they would vote NO ....... and been reading where Scotland does receive some aid and those that receive it would logically vote NO ...as voting Yes nothing is guaranteed and future questionable. The rich keep getting richer so that be a NO....
> 
> :? :? :? must be the economic class between poor and middle-class that is voting Yes and maybe the small business owners and employees :? :?
> 
> is this close or am I way off ?
> 
> Thanks Spandex
Click to expand...

A recent study into who is voting a has shown people who have actually researched the subject are far more likely to be voting yes. 
A good portion of the NO vote is coming from uninformed elderly who think they are voting for the SNP or are voting no simply because they don't like Alex Salmond. 
Also a good portion of scared pensioners are voting no because they think they won't have pension.

Remove that group and yes wins easily.


----------



## Spandex

Trouble4 said:


> :? :? :? must be the economic class between poor and middle-class that is voting Yes and maybe the small business owners and employees :? :?
> 
> is this close or am I way off ?


The Scottish people on here are better placed to answer that.

If you look at the opinion polls on a map, the more heavily populated areas seem to have the highest percentages of Yes voters, but I don't know how much you can infer from that.


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just address the negativity though.
> 
> This isn't a symmetrical issue. The Yes campaign want's to change the status quo, while the No campaign wants things to remain the same (broadly speaking, regarding the simple choice of staying in the union or leaving). This isn't a choice between two new scenarios. It's a choice between the current scenario and a new one.
> 
> So, it's perfectly logical that the No campaign is making a lot of negative points - they have to give reasons why changing the status quo would be worse than keeping it. It's also perfectly logical that the Yes campaign is making a lot of positive points - they have to give reasons why changing the status quo would be better than keeping it.
> 
> It's unavoidable. It would make no sense if it was any other way.
> 
> <edit> If you want proof of the above, look at the currency discussion - in this instance, the situation is reversed, and it's the Yes campaign who want to maintain the status quo - so they give negative reasons why it's not in the UKs interest to change (how much the pound will drop, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> A very good point
> 
> Brian, you've still not shown how you can justify your earlier guarantee that passports won't be needed to cross the border when you have no means of aligning England's and Scotland's immigration and border control policy. Given that Scotland want more immigration and will have to follow EU law if they join and England (partly due to the loss of Scotland and the resulting political shift) may decide to leave the EU and impose tighter immigration barriers, then it seems a logical and reasonable outcome that strict border controls may be needed. Hence your "guarantee" is merely wishful thinking and merely an example of a positive spin without the benefit of a crystal ball - but you are insisting you are giving us facts when in fact you are merely trying to "enlighten" us with the faith you have and also want us to adopt. Forgive me but as you want the change you aspire to, it is up to you too prove it, not preach faith.
> 
> Or am I being too negative?
> 
> Like so many of these issues the yes campaign are attempting to lead people into the promised land when the rest of us see it as dangerous and uncharted territory.
Click to expand...

I have already said that I can't guarantee that, and it just seems the common sense option, like I said before it would be the only such border anywhere in the EU and hugely damaging to business in England and Scotland, it would also cost the tax payers billions of pounds to maintain as it would have to be a fully patrolled north/south Korea style border else people could simply walk over the fields at night, we may also have to have a war on who owns the spey as a good portion of it has one bank in Scotland and one in England :lol:

Sorry I can't guarantee any of this but it is the likely solution and no issue of it is even being made anymore past a silly scare story from thresa may.


----------



## brian1978

Trig said:


> Oh lets just face it, Scotland isn't going anywhere.


I bet David Cameron wished wished he had your confidence. :lol:


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> As for our corrupt and biased BBC watch this right the way through, remember the BBC charter requires it to be impartial.
> 
> Like I said watch the whole thing..


I'm a bit baffled by that video. It seems to be an almost child-like analysis.

Firstly, they seem to think the BBC are being accused of some wrongdoing and are attempting to deflect this by making out it's a battle between Salmond and the Treasury. Sorry, but even Salmond didn't accuse the BBC of doing anything wrong, he simply said he expected them to cooperate in any investigation into *inappropriate behaviour by the Treasury*. The BBC correctly reported on information given to it by the Treasury, as you'd expect any media outlet to do.

Secondly, they claim the editing is biased. Let's ignore the fact that *all* the video in that clip was taken from BBC broadcasts (so they've not attempted to hide anything) - and none of the edits changed the factual content of the exchange as far as I could see. The last point they made about Salmond not answering the question is completely true - he ignored it as he wanted to focus on the leaked information - which is exactly what the BBC reported.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> like I said before it would be the only such border anywhere in the EU


Brian, I have a hypothetical question for you... If there was a land connection right now between the UK and France, do you think there would be an open border there?


----------



## Trig

brian1978 said:


> A recent study into who is voting a has shown people who have actually researched the subject are far more likely to be voting yes.
> A good portion of the NO vote is coming from uninformed elderly who think they are voting for the SNP or are voting no simply because they don't like Alex Salmond.
> Also a good portion of scared pensioners are voting no because they think they won't have pension.
> 
> Remove that group and yes wins easily.


:lol: so by removing a load of people that are voting no, you win, erm yeahhh ok.... :roll:


----------



## Trig

brian1978 said:


> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lets just face it, Scotland isn't going anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet David Cameron wished wished he had your confidence. :lol:
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but is this entire thing not already done and dusted before, Scotish independance, makes Westminster take notice, give you a bit more power, they get a no vote and the rest just carries on as it is?


----------



## brian1978

Trig said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A recent study into who is voting a has shown people who have actually researched the subject are far more likely to be voting yes.
> A good portion of the NO vote is coming from uninformed elderly who think they are voting for the SNP or are voting no simply because they don't like Alex Salmond.
> Also a good portion of scared pensioners are voting no because they think they won't have pension.
> 
> Remove that group and yes wins easily.
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: so by removing a load of people that are voting no, you win, erm yeahhh ok.... :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm just saying the misinformed are making up a large portion of the no group. Senile old codgers who think it's a general election and not a referendum.


----------



## brian1978

Trig said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lets just face it, Scotland isn't going anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet David Cameron wished wished he had your confidence. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but is this entire thing not already done and dusted before, Scotish independance, makes Westminster take notice, give you a bit more power, they get a no vote and the rest just carries on as it is?
Click to expand...

In the past people have been dumb enough to fall for that, I'm hoping they won't fall for it again. This is however the ONLY independence referendum we have ever had.

Vote for less power to get more power..... :lol:

If this is a no vote I give up on my fellow scots. [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A recent study into who is voting a has shown people who have actually researched the subject are far more likely to be voting yes.
> A good portion of the NO vote is coming from uninformed elderly who think they are voting for the SNP or are voting no simply because they don't like Alex Salmond.
> Also a good portion of scared pensioners are voting no because they think they won't have pension.
> 
> Remove that group and yes wins easily.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying the misinformed are making up a large portion of the no group. Senile old codgers who think it's a general election and not a referendum.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So only the elderly voting against independence are misinformed? No one voting yes?


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> I'm just saying the misinformed are making up a large portion of the no group. Senile old codgers who think it's a general election and not a referendum.


Comments like this don't really do the Yes campaign any favours, and make a bit of a mockery of your feigned outrage at Callums Braveheart-watching stereotype.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying the misinformed are making up a large portion of the no group. Senile old codgers who think it's a general election and not a referendum.
> 
> 
> 
> Comments like this don't really do the Yes campaign any favours, and make a bit of a mockery of your feigned outrage at Callums Braveheart-watching stereotype.
Click to expand...

Stop playing devils advocate.
Callum didn't stereotype anything, it was an insult directed at me.
I assure you nothing about how offended I was, was feigned.


----------



## brian1978

For whanab. An Americans perspective.


----------



## Spandex

This is a good article explaining all the issues surrounding the borders and the potential solutions:

https://fullfact.org/scotland/would...rt_visit_scotland_scottish_independence-34204

Clearly the fact that there are no closed borders in the rest of the EU is purely down to the Schengen agreement, and the fact that there is an open border between NI and Ireland is because neither of them are Schengen countries and both are part of the Common Travel Area. For the Scottish border with England to be treated in the same way, it's obvious that either Scotland will have to opt out of the Schengen agreement, or the UK will have to opt in.

Both of these scenarios would seriously affect the respective countries ability to enforce their desired immigration policies, so it's hard to say who will eventually give in. If we both stick to our guns then I don't see how an open border is possible.


----------



## John-H

brian1978 said:


> .....
> Sorry I can't guarantee any of this but it is the likely solution and no issue of it is even being made anymore past a silly scare story from thresa may.


There you go again. You can't guarantee it, have no way of predicting what will happen and yet you assert that the possible outcome you don't want us to believe is a "silly scare sorry". This is just your rosey opinion, which you are entitled to, fine, but it is not fact nor a convincing argument.

Most of the yes rhetoric seems to break down like this as Spandex has pointed out. Hope and faith - and anyone who asks for proof that it will be better or points out the dangers is just being negative. As I said it's up to the side for change to prove it will be better, not just preach faith and hope forthe best. But they can't, so we end up with this ridiculous charade of emotion filled rhetoric and guesswork that's going to have an effect on us all.

What's wrong with improving things carefully with the extra powers being given without tearing up the foundations and running risks?


----------



## msnttf10

So anything not supporting yes is scaremongering and anything supporting yes is factually correct and truthful.
The bbc is biased to England [smiley=bomb.gif]

Someone needs to read what they are writing and think about what some of those words mean!
A see a hole getting bigger, 2 feet are already in mouth..

I have no issue with passion, but the yes argument is flawed on basically every level but you can't account for emotion.
Moving the brass as you call it have massive impacts - tax revenues being 1! Also remember that 400BN you seem to think is Scotlands!!!


----------



## brian1978

TomBorehamUK said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only the elderly voting against independence are misinformed? No one voting yes?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. I guess you would have to hear the 100th old person tell you "I'm voting no I've never voted SNP" to understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> And better together canvassers REALLY play on it and specifically target areas with a lot of elderly. It's frustrating to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> So anything not supporting yes is scaremongering and anything supporting yes is factually correct and truthful.
> The bbc is biased to England [smiley=bomb.gif]
> 
> Someone needs to read what they are writing and think about what some of those words mean!
> A see a hole getting bigger, 2 feed are already in mouth..


Did I say the BBC are biased to towards ENGLAND.? No I didn't EVER say this.

I said they were biased in favour of the no campaign and the union.. Are you seriously telling me they are not?

Did you actually watch the video I posted?

Go to Google and type "BBC bias Scottish referendum" then read a few dozen story's. Tell me they are not biased towards no!


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Standard Life plc is a long term savings and investment business, with headquarters in Edinburgh and operations around the globe. It has *1.5 million shareholders in more than 50 countries *and over 6 million customers."
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard life
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29160255
> 
> 
> 
> And if the yes vote wins it will become an English domiciled company, if I read the article correctly.
> 
> So if the yes vote is such a positive, why would a major player be moving it's domicile away?
> Probably because it wants to retain it's customers and keep those 1.5million shareholders happy...
> 
> Noticed no comment from you about shortfall in corporate tax when all these companies pay in England rather than Scotland... Will this affect the tax rate? I don't know but clearly neither do any of the yes campaigners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am fairly certain you are wrong with the shortfall in corporate tax. Tax is based on economic activity not where the company's HQ is based.
Click to expand...

Nope, have a look at various multi nationals, such as Amazon etc, they pay some tax locally, but most at corporate HO, like Luxembourg or wherever. Why do you think so many international insurance companies are Bermuda or Cayman based HO, or how Ireland attracted so many head offices, if only for a plaque in the lawyers office, it was to pay the majority of corporate tax there.

I worked at the main London office for a Bermuda domiciled company, and corporate tax was paid there at a much lower rate.

Maybe you can let Alex know as it may affect his first budget if yes win... Good luck with the higher taxes on their way when all this corporate stuff flows down to us?
Hope you get the yes vote, as HMRC coffers will benefit, and maybe my tax will reduce now...


----------



## msnttf10

brian1978 said:


> msnttf10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So anything not supporting yes is scaremongering and anything supporting yes is factually correct and truthful.
> The bbc is biased to England [smiley=bomb.gif]
> 
> Someone needs to read what they are writing and think about what some of those words mean!
> A see a hole getting bigger, 2 feed are already in mouth..
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say the BBC are biased to towards ENGLAND.? No I didn't EVER say this.
> 
> I said they were biased in favour of the no campaign and the union.. Are you seriously telling me they are not?
> 
> Did you actually watch the video I posted?
> 
> Go to Google and type "BBC bias Scottish referendum" then read a few dozen story's. Tell me they are not biased towards no!
Click to expand...

It doesn't make them factually correct!
Same as the figures presented by the yes side!

I've not watched the video I've flown to Vegas to watch the fight tomorrow night and the US charges crap loads for data consumption. I'll watch it in Starbucks later.

Amazon is starting to pay a fair level of tax from this year.
Banks are local, so tax would come to wherever they are based (uk/scotland)


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Did I say the BBC are biased to towards ENGLAND.? No I didn't EVER say this.
> 
> I said they were biased in favour of the no campaign and the union.. Are you seriously telling me they are not?
> 
> Did you actually watch the video I posted?
> 
> Go to Google and type "BBC bias Scottish referendum" then read a few dozen story's. Tell me they are not biased towards no!


The video you posted was poorly thought out and seemed to miss the most basic points of what was actually happening - They seem convinced that Salmond was criticising the BBC, not the Treasury.

And obviously if you do a search for "BBC bias Scottish referendum" you'll find a load of people claiming the BBC has a bias in the Scottish referendum. I'm sure you don't actually think that counts as evidence...


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> That's not what I said. I guess you would have to hear the 100th old person tell you "I'm voting no I've never voted SNP" to understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> And better together canvassers REALLY play on it and specifically target areas with a lot of elderly. It's frustrating to say the least.


But it is what you said, that a large majority of the no vote is made up of the misinformed and removing them (so the elderly and the young) would secure the yes vote. :roll: 
Whereas we could also use that same logic with the yes vote, if individuals were voting off the back of assumptions put to them as facts, would that not make them misinformed? Would removing these people secure the no vote?

As far as hearing someone say I'm voting no because "i've never voted SNP", how far removed is that from someone saying "I'm voting yes because I'd never vote for the Tories" 
It may not be that they're 'senile old codgers' or 'they think it's a general election' and just purely that they don't agree with the ideology of the most likely government post independence?


----------



## ag

I think that both the Yes and No campaigns, and to a large extent this thread, are completely missing the point. Economically there are no absolutes. No one knows the economic impact on the UK or Scotland after a YES vote. After 300 years we cannot accurately predict GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2014 when we are three weeks away from it, even less after independance in 18 months and separation. We can guess, but global forces have greater impact than local politics. Scotland will be fine as an independant nation, so arguments about economics are actually just distractions from the real issues.

Democracy is a terrible system for running a country. by definition there are winners and losers. In an ideal world the balance between the major parties is tight and the wishes of the "floating voters" carry the day, so concessions are made and the parties remain globally similar in outlook so no voter is punished too badly. If you never get the government that you voted for, then you are voting for a minor party that is unlikely to achieve power or the system isn't working for you. For 20 of the past 69 years following the second world war the government in Westminster has reflected the wishes of what would be an independant Scotland. This is less than 30% of the time and would suggest that there is, perhaps, an issue to be addressed. Is independance the best way, or indeed, the only way to address this? Further devolution? Cultural changes? More aspirational employment? Independance? Could Scotland's failure to aspire to the same values as the rest of the UK be the reason that they vote differently and could that very lack of aspiration denote a culture of pessimism and state reliance that could either kill the new State or be killed by it?

Change can have a very positive affect on motivation and productivity, but this is short lived and once the reality of the new system has bedded in motivation and productivity drops. The result of any independant Scotland cannot be measured for at least a generation. I hope that those eligigable to vote do so for the right reasons and remember whatever the short term gains (or losses) it is our great grandchildren that will be cursing or congratulating.


----------



## roddy

most Scottish people that I know would never wish to descend to the same values which are shown by the rest of the uk, thank you,,. I mentioned many pages ago a major aspect of this whole independence issue , to many people here we are not concerned nor worried about the economic scare mongering which so compels some of the more easily fooled ,,,but in reality just want rid of our attachment to England and will be very happy and very capable to deal with our own affairs... nothing personal :lol: but we are a different people, a different country, a different culture... cast off the albatross on the 18th....


----------



## Trig

Brian, just for arguments sake, would you rather not leave the Independance thing where it is for now, inform and educate everyone correctly on the subject and then vote in say 5 years?
At least that way the people that vote No are doing so under the correct set of "facts" and the same for the Yes voters?

After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..


----------



## phope

The 'voice of reason' from the SNP

If a company dares to criticise them or suggest they'll be relocating head offices...get threatened with being nationalised

Sounding more like Venuzuela & Argentina than a business friendly country, looking to attract investments

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29181989



> A former deputy leader of the SNP has warned "scaremongering" business leaders they face a "day of reckoning" if Scotland votes for independence.
> 
> Jim Sillars accused some of "subverting Scotland's democratic process" and called for oil firm BP to be nationalised after independence.





> "This referendum is about power, and when we get a 'Yes' majority we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
> 
> "The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland's poor poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a 'Yes'.
> 
> "BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have been forced to be.


----------



## phope

The press release from Jim Sillars...

Standard Life, the BBC and John Lewis in the firing line


----------



## John-H

Trig said:


> Brian, just for arguments sake, would you rather not leave the Independance thing where it is for now, inform and educate everyone correctly on the subject and then vote in say 5 years?
> At least that way the people that vote No are doing so under the correct set of "facts" and the same for the Yes voters?
> 
> After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..


A very good question. Brian, would you rather the decisionwas based on emotion or properly educated informed logic? Which does delay favor :wink:


----------



## brian1978

Trig said:


> Brian, just for arguments sake, would you rather not leave the Independance thing where it is for now, inform and educate everyone correctly on the subject and then vote in say 5 years?
> At least that way the people that vote No are doing so under the correct set of "facts" and the same for the Yes voters?
> 
> After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..


No mate, we have had 2 years. This is It.

If it's a no I can't see another chance for independence from Westminster for a generation or more.

And people keep reminding me we can't go back...... yep that's the point :wink:


----------



## phope

Mind you, Jim Sillars can't be 100% stupid



> ...The two men are said to have fallen out 20 years ago, with Mr Sillars recently describing Mr Salmond's plans for a currency union after independence as "stupidity on stilts"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29181989


----------



## roddy

"After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..[/quote] "

I am sure that , despite how insulting it appears, that is meant as a friendly word of advice,,, but actually we do know that.. :?


----------



## phope

John Reid, one of the most down to earth men in politics (my opinion) has it pretty much bang on

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... np-4210946



> To say all these risks can be overcome is one thing, however optimistic. To deny they exist is quite another; it is a cruel deceit. The people who will carry the can and face the consequences are not Alex and Nicola, they are every parent, every family, every worker, every pensioner, every patient and every child in Scotland in the next and every succeeding generation.
> 
> Our welfare state is not perfect. There will be challenges in the future as there have been in the past. The best way to face them is to work with those who founded them and protected them over the decades. Vote No thanks next Thursday. And vote in a Labour Government next year.


----------



## pas_55

The voice of sense

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roddy

are you kidding, John Reid ( baron reid of cardowan, says it all :? ) was a Blairite creep !!


----------



## Trouble4

""I'm just saying the misinformed are making up a large portion of the no group. Senile old codgers who think it's a general election and not a referendum.""...........""old codgers"" this I will give you if their over 90...........

and I read ""Child-Like"" and this is true but again ""old codgers"" 80 to 90 need it ""Child-Like "" explained...........

Honestly a YES Vote can not due any more harm then what is going on and will continue to go on...... and if the Scot's screw it up at least they did it their way.....

privatizing health care that alone will bring a lot of people from England, Northern Ireland, Ireland Wales from all over the World as Specialist in the field of Medicine will be getting a lot more pay there would be a BIG Boom in that field ......

unlike USA the President seems to want to undermine the whole Country and he is doing a pretty good job......

Would think it would take at least 13 years and Hopefully, Pray fully, all will turn out........


----------



## Trig

brian1978 said:


> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, just for arguments sake, would you rather not leave the Independance thing where it is for now, inform and educate everyone correctly on the subject and then vote in say 5 years?
> At least that way the people that vote No are doing so under the correct set of "facts" and the same for the Yes voters?
> 
> After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..
> 
> 
> 
> No mate, we have had 2 years. This is It.
> 
> If it's a no I can't see another chance for independence from Westminster for a generation or more.
> 
> And people keep reminding me we can't go back...... yep that's the point :wink:
Click to expand...

But you yourself have said that a lot of people that are voting no are doing so from an uninformed point of view, surely waiting 5 years and then voting those that are going to vote no would maybe vote yes... or is it a case of the yes vote is so close to falling on its arse and more are likely to vote no if they are better educated?


----------



## Trig

roddy said:


> "After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..


 "

I am sure that , despite how insulting it appears, that is meant as a friendly word of advice,,, but actually we do know that.. :?[/quote]

Not even remotely meant to be insulting, nor a word of advice, friendly or otherwise, seems a lot of people in this thread taking a lot of offence where none is intended nor implied.....


----------



## Shug750S

Trig said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> I am sure that , despite how insulting it appears, that is meant as a friendly word of advice,,, but actually we do know that.. :?
Click to expand...

Not even remotely meant to be insulting, nor a word of advice, friendly or otherwise, seems a lot of people in this thread taking a lot of offence where none is intended nor implied.....[/quote]

Be fair, they are pretty balanced, chip on each shoulder, and anyone asking decent questions gets accused of scaremongering.


----------



## V6RUL

Pity that the young Scots will blame the old Scots if the vote doesn't go their way..pity
Steve


----------



## John-H

Maybe there will be a lot of blame flying around. On the Today programme this morning:



> Deutsche Bank's global strategic Bilal Hafeez also said independence would bring a depression to Scotland and possibly the rest of the UK.
> 
> He told Radio 4's Today it was "very, very difficult" to make a case for Scotland flourishing as an independent country.
> 
> "Essentially the issue is that if Scotland was to break away from the Union, but retain the pound... Scotland would lose control of the pound, it would have to accept whatever monetary policy was set for the rest of the UK. It would not have control of the money supply in the country.
> 
> "More importantly, it wouldn't have a central bank that can issue pounds - that power would reside with the bank of England."


In other words there would be no lender off last resort underpinning the Scottish banks. Raising credit would be difficult and investors may want to put their money somewhere with safeguards causing a run on the banks.


----------



## brian1978

Trig said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, just for arguments sake, would you rather not leave the Independance thing where it is for now, inform and educate everyone correctly on the subject and then vote in say 5 years?
> At least that way the people that vote No are doing so under the correct set of "facts" and the same for the Yes voters?
> 
> After all, if Scotland does get its Independance there is no turning back..
> 
> 
> 
> No mate, we have had 2 years. This is It.
> 
> If it's a no I can't see another chance for independence from Westminster for a generation or more.
> 
> And people keep reminding me we can't go back...... yep that's the point :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you yourself have said that a lot of people that are voting no are doing so from an uninformed point of view, surely waiting 5 years and then voting those that are going to vote no would maybe vote yes... or is it a case of the yes vote is so close to falling on its arse and more are likely to vote no if they are better educated?
Click to expand...

Did you not read my post about the study into voting habits and the link between educating ones self on the subject and the likely hood of voting yes.

We can't wait 5 years.... do you think the red/blue torys that rule the UK will let this happen Again?


----------



## John-H

For a bit of fun I've added a poll.

Twenty years ago John Major said, to allow the whole of the UK to vote on Scottish independence would be wrong because it could hold a country against its will in a state off union.

Whilst I can see that principal the consequences for the rest of the UK could be far reaching and therefore conversely would imply that everyone should have a say.

There is a 300 year old agreement - is one party allowed to walk away from it Scott free (excuse the pun) without the other parties having a vote on the issue? Well now is your chance.

We'll pass on the result to be included on Thursday (only joking :wink: )


----------



## Gazzer

Never seen so many chips on shoulders, anyone got any buttered bread so i can have a couple of chip butties


----------



## Spandex

But if you can't stop a country leaving the union (and I don't believe the rUK can), then what would we be voting for exactly?


----------



## jamman

Gazzer said:


> Never seen so many chips on shoulders, anyone got any buttered bread so i can have a couple of chip butties


Roddy has more chips than Mcdonalds Gazzer :wink:


----------



## brian1978

Djjdjdjdmdjdmsnsm


----------



## brian1978

jamman said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen so many chips on shoulders, anyone got any buttered bread so i can have a couple of chip butties
> 
> 
> 
> Roddy has more chips than Mcdonalds Gazzer :wink:
Click to expand...

Frys James it's frys :roll:

Chips are what you want get in the chip shop.


----------



## brian1978

A serious question, do you re think the UK will ever recover from its debt, under current austerity and cuts it's still running up debt. And losing its AAA credit rating will only make further borrowing more expensive. 
With current debts of 1.5 trillion can it ever recover or are we simply delaying the inevitable. A bust UK?


----------



## igotone

brian1978 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen so many chips on shoulders, anyone got any buttered bread so i can have a couple of chip butties
> 
> 
> 
> Roddy has more chips than Mcdonalds Gazzer :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frys James it's frys :roll:
> 
> Chips are what you want get in the chip shop.
Click to expand...

LOL. FRIES!


----------



## Callum-TT

brian1978 said:


> A serious question, do you re think the UK will ever recover from its debt, under current austerity and cuts it's still running up debt. And losing its AAA credit rating will only make further borrowing more expensive.
> With current debts of 1.5 trillion can it ever recover or are we simply delaying the inevitable. A bust UK?


If Labour get in then No.

The Central European bank and other top financial advisors constantly say that the current plan is the most viable which is a massive change from their initial stand point when they slated the Tory plans.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jamman

igotone said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frys James it's frys :roll:
> 
> Chips are what you want get in the chip shop.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. FRIES!
Click to expand...

I think we have to call that a double fail Brian, you and me :lol: :lol:


----------



## brian1978

jamman said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frys James it's frys :roll:
> 
> Chips are what you want get in the chip shop.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. FRIES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we have to call that a double fail Brian, you and me :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...


----------



## brian1978

Callum-TT said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A serious question, do you re think the UK will ever recover from its debt, under current austerity and cuts it's still running up debt. And losing its AAA credit rating will only make further borrowing more expensive.
> With current debts of 1.5 trillion can it ever recover or are we simply delaying the inevitable. A bust UK?
> 
> 
> 
> If Labour get in then No.
> 
> The Central European bank and other top financial advisors constantly say that the current plan is the most viable which is a massive change from their initial stand point when they slated the Tory plans.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
Click to expand...

What are labour going to do that will fix this situation, the government can barely meet Interest payments, and borrow billions more every year. Labour have a proven track record of making the economy worse.

What makes you think they will be different this time.

Do you have faith in Ed Milliband to make things Better?


----------



## igotone

brian1978 said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A serious question, do you re think the UK will ever recover from its debt, under current austerity and cuts it's still running up debt. And losing its AAA credit rating will only make further borrowing more expensive.
> With current debts of 1.5 trillion can it ever recover or are we simply delaying the inevitable. A bust UK?
> 
> 
> 
> If Labour get in then No.
> 
> The Central European bank and other top financial advisors constantly say that the current plan is the most viable which is a massive change from their initial stand point when they slated the Tory plans.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are labour going to do that will fix this situation, the government can barely meet Interest payments, and borrow billions more every year. Labour have a proven track record of making the economy worse.
> 
> What makes you think they will be different this time.
> 
> Do you have faith in Ed Milliband to make things Better?
Click to expand...

I agree with every word of that Brian, but I think you misunderstood Callum's post - he's basically saying we won't recover under a Labour Government.


----------



## Wallsendmag

If our friends in the north go their own way Labour will never be in power again


----------



## Callum-TT

brian1978 said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A serious question, do you re think the UK will ever recover from its debt, under current austerity and cuts it's still running up debt. And losing its AAA credit rating will only make further borrowing more expensive.
> With current debts of 1.5 trillion can it ever recover or are we simply delaying the inevitable. A bust UK?
> 
> 
> 
> If Labour get in then No.
> 
> The Central European bank and other top financial advisors constantly say that the current plan is the most viable which is a massive change from their initial stand point when they slated the Tory plans.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are labour going to do that will fix this situation, the government can barely meet Interest payments, and borrow billions more every year. Labour have a proven track record of making the economy worse.
> 
> What makes you think they will be different this time.
> 
> Do you have faith in Ed Milliband to make things Better?
Click to expand...

I think you mis-understood me.

I am against the Labour "spend our way out of trouble" policy that got us into this terrible state.

Sadly the media love to create a negative view of people in power meaning Milliband and his bunch of toss pot mates will slowly start ruining this country further

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Trouble4

brian1978 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen so many chips on shoulders, anyone got any buttered bread so i can have a couple of chip butties
> 
> 
> 
> Roddy has more chips than Mcdonalds Gazzer :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frys James it's frys :roll:
> 
> Chips are what you want get in the chip shop.
Click to expand...

Thought it was ""fries"" I know that was wrong.... as I am just trying to understand the difficulties and thought processes 
your Country is going through .......

it seems from this post and reading publications ect. that Scotland is feeling oppressed and treated as a step child and always seem to end up with the 2 day all bread..........

believe if your not part of the solution then you are part of the problem (no matter whether it maybe right wrong or in between )

and what is sad is Countries are run by the Banks

I know I would not want to be going through what is going on there....... but there has to be some truth to it or it would never have gotten this far.......


----------



## Shug750S

Callum-TT said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A serious question, do you re think the UK will ever recover from its debt, under current austerity and cuts it's still running up debt. And losing its AAA credit rating will only make further borrowing more expensive.
> With current debts of 1.5 trillion can it ever recover or are we simply delaying the inevitable. A bust UK?
> 
> 
> 
> If Labour get in then No.
> 
> The Central European bank and other top financial advisors constantly say that the current plan is the most viable which is a massive change from their initial stand point when they slated the Tory plans.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
Click to expand...

That's why Labour are campaigning so hard for a no, if yes they will never get in again. On the bright side the economy they broke so badly may eventually start to improve.


----------



## Callum-TT

Shug750S said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A serious question, do you re think the UK will ever recover from its debt, under current austerity and cuts it's still running up debt. And losing its AAA credit rating will only make further borrowing more expensive.
> With current debts of 1.5 trillion can it ever recover or are we simply delaying the inevitable. A bust UK?
> 
> 
> 
> If Labour get in then No.
> 
> The Central European bank and other top financial advisors constantly say that the current plan is the most viable which is a massive change from their initial stand point when they slated the Tory plans.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why Labour are campaigning so hard for a no, if yes they will never get in again. On the bright side the economy they broke so badly may eventually start to improve.
Click to expand...

We can only hope. It's the one reason I'm hoping for Scotland to go solo

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## roddy

...... but there has to be some truth to it or it would never have gotten this far.......[/quote]

it seems you have a basic grasp of the situation at least,,, more than can be said for most of the posters on here who just cant see that they are part of the problem !!!


----------



## A3DFU

brian1978 said:


> A good portion of the NO vote is coming from uninformed elderly who think they are voting for the SNP or are voting no simply because they don't like Alex Salmond.
> Also a good portion of scared pensioners are voting no because they think they won't have pension.
> 
> Remove that group and yes wins easily.


Excellent Brian the way you talk about people who have more life experience than the young ones! Perhaps the elderly are just more careful *because* of their life experience and won't listen to glorified adverts so much as the younger generation. Not all people past their 60s or 70s are uninformed 'Sun' readers.


----------



## Callum-TT

Just as I've found the majority of the yes voters are low pay workers who somehow think that with independence their monthly salary will suddenly jump up.

I honestly think too many people are watching Braveheart on repeat.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## roddy

Callum-TT said:


> Just as I've found the majority of the yes voters are low pay workers who somehow think that with independence their monthly salary will suddenly jump up.
> 
> I honestly think too many people are watching Braveheart on repeat.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


OMG,, do you honestly believe that,,,, actually I think you might :?
it makes about as much sense as most of the other guff..


----------



## Callum-TT

roddy said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I've found the majority of the yes voters are low pay workers who somehow think that with independence their monthly salary will suddenly jump up.
> 
> I honestly think too many people are watching Braveheart on repeat.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> 
> 
> OMG,, do you honestly believe that,,,, actually I think you might :?
Click to expand...

I believe I have spoken to a lot of scots and the only ones that are saying yes are those in low paid jobs.

But of course you are a grand master Jedi and know all about everything.

Just hurry up and vote yes and * expletive deleted *


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## roddy

BTW are you still working up here because that pig s*** of a place you come from has nothing


----------



## roddy

Callum-TT said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I've found the majority of the yes voters are low pay workers who somehow think that with independence their monthly salary will suddenly jump up.
> 
> I honestly think too many people are watching Braveheart on repeat.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> 
> 
> OMG,, do you honestly believe that,,,, actually I think you might :?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe I have spoken to a lot of scots and the only ones that are saying yes are those in low paid jobs.
> 
> But of course you are a grand master Jedi and know all about everything.
> 
> Just hurry up and vote yes and * expletive deleted *
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
Click to expand...

and you are * expletive deleted *


----------



## jamman

I'm guessing Roddy has started a foul mouth tirade (Again)

Google the word Roddy because I'm guessing from your posts it will be a new word for you :wink:


----------



## Callum-TT

roddy said:


> BTW are you still working up here because that pig shit of a place you come from has nothing


No because the retards that were building it there made such a poor job of it they took it away from there and moved it to the North East of England where it can be built properly

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Callum-TT

roddy said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I've found the majority of the yes voters are low pay workers who somehow think that with independence their monthly salary will suddenly jump up.
> 
> I honestly think too many people are watching Braveheart on repeat.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> 
> 
> OMG,, do you honestly believe that,,,, actually I think you might :?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe I have spoken to a lot of scots and the only ones that are saying yes are those in low paid jobs.
> 
> But of course you are a grand master Jedi and know all about everything.
> 
> Just hurry up and vote yes and * expletive deleted *
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you are * expletive deleted *
Click to expand...

Haha editing your posts so you seem less of a retard.

Well it didn't work everyone still know you're a cock

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## jamman

Callum-TT said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW are you still working up here because that pig s*** of a place you come from has nothing
> 
> 
> 
> No because the retards that were building it there made such a poor job of it they took it away from there and moved it to the North East of England where it can be built properly
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
Click to expand...

Callum 1 Roddy 0 :lol:

Let me guess Callum poor welding :wink:


----------



## Callum-TT

jamman said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW are you still working up here because that pig shit of a place you come from has nothing
> 
> 
> 
> No because the retards that were building it there made such a poor job of it they took it away from there and moved it to the North East of England where it can be built properly
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Callum 1 Roddy 0 :lol:
> 
> Let me guess Callum poor welding :wink:
Click to expand...

No basically same as Alex Salmond.

Lies. Construction company telling client the job is further along than it is then blaming the English contractors (most commissioning techs are from England) for holding the job up.

Then it came to a head when the client visited site and saw for themselves how badly built it actually is.

The jacket eventually left 8 months late with bits missing and not even painted yet the Scottish company running the job said it was finished months ago.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## John-H

No more expletives or personal attacks please. This is not acceptable behavior on the board and won't be allowed to continue.

Can we please get back to discussing the issues without insulting each other?


----------



## Callum-TT

John-H said:


> No more expletives our personal attacks please. This is not acceptable behavior on the board and won't be allowed to continue.
> 
> Can we please get back to discussing the issues without insulting each other?


If only you followed your own rules.

Can anyone say hypocrite?

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## igotone

roddy said:


> BTW are you still working up here because that pig s*** of a place you come from has nothing


Wow! :roll:


----------



## jamman

Back OT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29161335


----------



## Shug750S

I'm still waiting for Brian to come back on the claim that Scots have paid more in tax than anyone in the UK in every one of the last 33 years.

Would guess there are quite a few taxpayers not in Scotland that would disagree with this point.


----------



## Hoggy

Hi, Please keep all future replys polite & not abusive, it's pointless, achieves nothing & will get Topic locked.
Hoggy.


----------



## mwad

igotone said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW are you still working up here because that pig s*** of a place you come from has nothing
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! :roll:
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. 
Sorry Roddy, but that was a low punch....


----------



## Trig

Scots make up 8% of the population of the UK yes?
But have 9% of the MP's in parliament?

So what are they moaning about?

If Scotland leaves, according to this thread, they dont have to pay part of the UK debt, as it wasnt ran up by them, if they do "choose" to pay it then they are entitled to UK assets, by the same token is the UK entitled to Scotish assets?
By the same token, if England votes Yes for its own independance before the Scotish have their vote, do we walk away debt free and leave the debt to Ireland, Wales and Scotland?
What happens if Shetland and Orkney vite for independance from Scotland, its been brought up before..

Salmon appears to be pushing this Yes vote pretty hard, who wants to bet if Scotland fails as a country on its own he still walks away a rich man.


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> I'm still waiting for Brian to come back on the claim that Scots have paid more in tax than anyone in the UK in every one of the last 33 years.
> 
> Would guess there are quite a few taxpayers not in Scotland that would disagree with this point.


Not my words , but basically what I would have typed...

that has long been a myth and has been officialy debunked for a while, even Westminster acknowledges Scotland puts more in than it gets out of the union.

Scotland puts more into the UK economy than it gets out.

In every single one of the last 30 years, the amount of tax revenues generated per person in Scotland was greater than for the UK as a whole."

- in 2011/12 Scotland contributed £56.9 billion in tax revenue, which is equivalent to £10,700 per person, compared to £9,000 per person for the UK as a whole;

- since 1980/81 Scotland has contributed £222 billion more in tax revenues than if it had just matched the per capita contributions of the UK.

Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person.

Scotland pays its way.... and even without oil revenues an independant Scotland is sustainable.

Trade with the UK will continue after independence, why wouldn't it. We have years of history together, we've fought and died together.

Independence isn't about building barriers between two countries, it's about giving Scotland the chance to stand on its own two feet and make something of itself.

While Westminster seems intent on investing billions of £ on trident submarines, nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers and billions on aid to countries like India who are happy to accept our taxpayers money for their poor, yet have the money to fund their own space agency.

Westminster doesn't have its priorities in order, Scotland and the rest of the UK is being neglected with an inbalance of investment and development leaning more towards London than ever.

In the small amount of autonomy the Scottish government has had, we've done a great deal with it. I don't have the time to write a list here, but the few at the top of my head being state funded higher education, giving ALL kids in Scotland the chance to be who they want to be regardless of their background and finances.

A continued push on keeping the NHS a NATIONAL healthcare service and not a private one. Not to mention free prescriptions! People these days who can't afford medication will happily skip taking what they need because they can't afford it.

Continued investment into public services making Scotland a better more fairer place as well as helping small businesses.

Free bus travel for the elderly! Free eye tests.... the list goes on and on.

An independent Scotland and it's government will be able to make the right decisions for people in Scotland, for generations to come.

Our tax money will go to investing in Scotland and making Scotland a better place to live in, creating more jobs and such.

Scotland already has world class education, health, expertise in fields like science and manufacturing. Scotland is making massive strides in renewable energy and we're a world leader in certain renewable technologies. Scottish Government Policy is to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's gross annual electricity consumption , the equivalent of 11% of Scotland's heat demand met from renewable sources and 500 MW of community and locally-owned renewable energy, all by 2020.

No need for those crappy dangerous nuclear power plants.

I have nothing against England, I have English/Welsh friends and I love visiting England!

I want Indepndence for political reasons, not because I hate the English or anything. I don't think anyone in Scotland does, we just want to see Scotland become more successful and see us have more power to implement and improve upon what the current Scottish government has done for Scotland. Yes, free prescriptions, state funded higher education, protected pensions being just a few of the things.


----------



## brian1978

Callum-TT said:


> Just as I've found the majority of the yes voters are low pay workers who somehow think that with independence their monthly salary will suddenly jump up.
> 
> I honestly think too many people are watching Braveheart on repeat.
> 
> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


The magnitude of your arrogance and stupidity astound me.


----------



## Trouble4

Have to say talking about Religion, Politics, Money and most of all Your Mother has always been taboo at least almost we have not talked about the worse one of all The "Mother"
.......Growing up we were not allowed to talk about these things.. maybe there is something to that...... :?

all these things touch a nerve ......... but it comes down to how we deal with what we are given.. Myself not one to be Politically correct such as I am and Not that I grind my true thoughts hard ... Just try to say what I believe even if the situation deems me to shut the heck up......

as always anything said and or heard it is a fifty fifty chance it is going to be misunderstood........

would have liked to see an additional POLL one that has Scot's vote only here... as this is who actually is voting on this......


----------



## roddy

are you kiddin mate,, you don't live next door to the Englanders,, that's the problem !


----------



## mwad

Hi Roddy.

I can appreciate that your feelings are strong but honestly buddy, that is really staying and you have made it personal. 
I don't personally know yourself, Jamman, Boreham of Callum but I have considerable respect for all - especially Jamman who always cracks me up with his replies to posts 

I wouldn't say something like you just did personally.

All I'm trying to say is; if might be worth taking a breath before typing in anger... I wouldn't like to see you get banned or rep remanded buddy that's all. Also, there has been enough warnings that of this topic being locked and that would be a shame.

I'm not trying to stir anything up-I have respect for you in the same way as the others, I'm just trying to help all see sense..

We won't all agree all of the time .....


----------



## Trig

brian1978 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for Brian to come back on the claim that Scots have paid more in tax than anyone in the UK in every one of the last 33 years.
> 
> Would guess there are quite a few taxpayers not in Scotland that would disagree with this point.
> 
> 
> 
> Not my words , but basically what I would have typed...
> 
> that has long been a myth and has been officialy debunked for a while, even Westminster acknowledges Scotland puts more in than it gets out of the union.
> 
> Scotland puts more into the UK economy than it gets out.
> 
> In every single one of the last 30 years, the amount of tax revenues generated per person in Scotland was greater than for the UK as a whole."
> 
> - in 2011/12 Scotland contributed £56.9 billion in tax revenue, which is equivalent to £10,700 per person, compared to £9,000 per person for the UK as a whole;
> 
> - since 1980/81 Scotland has contributed £222 billion more in tax revenues than if it had just matched the per capita contributions of the UK.
> 
> Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person.
> 
> Scotland pays its way.... and even without oil revenues an independant Scotland is sustainable.
> 
> Trade with the UK will continue after independence, why wouldn't it. We have years of history together, we've fought and died together.
> 
> Independence isn't about building barriers between two countries, it's about giving Scotland the chance to stand on its own two feet and make something of itself.
> 
> While Westminster seems intent on investing billions of £ on trident submarines, nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers and billions on aid to countries like India who are happy to accept our taxpayers money for their poor, yet have the money to fund their own space agency.
> 
> Westminster doesn't have its priorities in order, Scotland and the rest of the UK is being neglected with an inbalance of investment and development leaning more towards London than ever.
> 
> In the small amount of autonomy the Scottish government has had, we've done a great deal with it. I don't have the time to write a list here, but the few at the top of my head being state funded higher education, giving ALL kids in Scotland the chance to be who they want to be regardless of their background and finances.
> 
> A continued push on keeping the NHS a NATIONAL healthcare service and not a private one. Not to mention free prescriptions! People these days who can't afford medication will happily skip taking what they need because they can't afford it.
> 
> Continued investment into public services making Scotland a better more fairer place as well as helping small businesses.
> 
> Free bus travel for the elderly! Free eye tests.... the list goes on and on.
> 
> An independent Scotland and it's government will be able to make the right decisions for people in Scotland, for generations to come.
> 
> Our tax money will go to investing in Scotland and making Scotland a better place to live in, creating more jobs and such.
> 
> Scotland already has world class education, health, expertise in fields like science and manufacturing. Scotland is making massive strides in renewable energy and we're a world leader in certain renewable technologies. Scottish Government Policy is to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's gross annual electricity consumption , the equivalent of 11% of Scotland's heat demand met from renewable sources and 500 MW of community and locally-owned renewable energy, all by 2020.
> 
> No need for those crappy dangerous nuclear power plants.
> 
> I have nothing against England, I have English/Welsh friends and I love visiting England!
> 
> I want Indepndence for political reasons, not because I hate the English or anything. I don't think anyone in Scotland does, we just want to see Scotland become more successful and see us have more power to implement and improve upon what the current Scottish government has done for Scotland. Yes, free prescriptions, state funded higher education, protected pensions being just a few of the things.
Click to expand...

Finally what appears to be a legitimate post, can't say I disagree with any of that, not just the Yes/No vote but relevant to the UK as a whole tbh...


----------



## Trig

roddy said:


> * post deleted for abuse *


I'm guessing with that sort of attitude, there are probably a fair few people is Scotland that would be pleased if you "copulate" off as well..
An ass is an ass, regardless of which side of the border you live on...


----------



## brian1978

Trouble4 said:


> Have to say talking about Religion, Politics, Money and most of all Your Mother has always been taboo at least almost we have not talked about the worse one of all The "Mother"
> .......Growing up we were not allowed to talk about these things.. maybe there is something to that...... :?
> 
> all these things touch a nerve ......... but it comes down to how we deal with what we are given.. Myself not one to be Politically correct such as I am and Not that I grind my true thoughts hard ... Just try to say what I believe even if the situation deems me to shut the heck up......
> 
> as always anything said and or heard it is a fifty fifty chance it is going to be misunderstood........
> 
> would have liked to see an additional POLL one that has Scot's vote only here... as this is who actually is voting on this......


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archi ... y/Scotland

Most put no at a tiny lead... but considering yes have closed a 22 point lead in 4 weeks the momentum seems to be with us. Yes is more visually evident with people showing support on the streets, in house windows and on cars. Finding a single no badge on a person or in a window is near impossible.

I feel the yes are far far more passionate and determined and this drive is what will win it on the day. I don't put much faith in polls and they can get things very wrong. 
In the last Scottish election the polls showed a landslide victory for the labour party, SNP won by the largest margin in Scottish history giving them a majority government in a system of voting designed specifically to make it "impossable" and is the reason we are having this referendum.


----------



## roddy

mwad said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> * post deleted for abuse *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Roddy.
> 
> I can appreciate that your feelings are strong but honestly buddy, that is really staying and you have made it personal.
> I don't personally know yourself, Jamman, Boreham of Callum but I have considerable respect for all - especially Jamman who always cracks me up with his replies to posts
> 
> I wouldn't say something like you just did personally.
> 
> All I'm trying to say is; if might be worth taking a breath before typing in anger... I wouldn't like to see you get banned or rep remanded buddy that's all. Also, there has been enough warnings that of this topic being locked and that would be a shame.
> 
> I'm not trying to stir anything up-I have respect for you in the same way as the others, I'm just trying to help all see sense..
> 
> We won't all agree all of the time .....
Click to expand...

well thank you for your consideration mate,, but perhaps you might like to take a breath your self and look back at who actually started personalising the debate and have a word with them......., BTW I do not dislike all English people ( and have a few friends down there ),, just a certain type..


----------



## Trouble4

roddy said:


> are you kiddin mate,, you don't live next door to the Englanders,, that's the problem !


Give you an idea who I live next door.......

on my left :: this guy came over to tell me my dog had bee in his yard 9I agree my dog should not be on his land) he knocked on the door... and started verbally attacking me.. I said whoa what is going on ? and my dog is trained never goes over there and never goes outside unless I am with him and that is the way it always has been.. Then he starts filling all the blanks in (good) I asked for a second to talk to my son as that is the only way this is possible... but NO he keeps yelling then comes up the stairs (porch very small) and says he will shoot and pulls a gun.. now he never was specific if he meant the dog or me... So the pound came out and then the police.. OH! Yes I threw him off my land been here 19 1/2 years have seen / talked to him maybe 10 times and 7 out of the 10 have been in the las 10 months....... 1st time is when we moved in (within a month)
when he told my 1st grader that he was going to kill his dog... Let him know NOT COOL.

Now the other neighbor on my right moved in about 3 years after I did as they inherited the land 27 acres He put in a row of trees on are property lines (illegal) for privacy his house sits a 1/2 of mile back.... it devalues my house.. we added a 25K garden room on for the mountain view and he blocked it....... and their the nice ones....... :lol:

You know I think it would be a nice change to move there......  .... 8)


----------



## Trouble4

brian1978 said:


> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to say talking about Religion, Politics, Money and most of all Your Mother has always been taboo at least almost we have not talked about the worse one of all The "Mother"
> .......Growing up we were not allowed to talk about these things.. maybe there is something to that...... :?
> 
> all these things touch a nerve ......... but it comes down to how we deal with what we are given.. Myself not one to be Politically correct such as I am and Not that I grind my true thoughts hard ... Just try to say what I believe even if the situation deems me to shut the heck up......
> 
> as always anything said and or heard it is a fifty fifty chance it is going to be misunderstood........
> 
> would have liked to see an additional POLL one that has Scot's vote only here... as this is who actually is voting on this......
> 
> 
> 
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archi ... y/Scotland
> 
> Most put no at a tiny lead... but considering yes have closed a 22 point lead in 4 weeks the momentum seems to be with us. Yes is more visually evident with people showing support on the streets, in house windows and on cars. Finding a single no badge on a person or in a window is near impossible.
> 
> I feel the yes are far far more passionate and determined and this drive is what will win it on the day. I don't put much faith in polls and they can get things very wrong.
> In the last Scottish election the polls showed a landslide victory for the labour party, SNP won by the largest margin in Scottish history giving them a majority government in a system of voting designed specifically to make it "impossable" and is the reason we are having this referendum.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link....... it really is anybodies Yes or No this election is in a up in the air situation ........

if Yes wins Hope they have a grasp of how much they must work with UK :? and not get their panties in a wad.....

Thanks again.....


----------



## brian1978

Trouble4 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have to say talking about Religion, Politics, Money and most of all Your Mother has always been taboo at least almost we have not talked about the worse one of all The "Mother"
> .......Growing up we were not allowed to talk about these things.. maybe there is something to that...... :?
> 
> all these things touch a nerve ......... but it comes down to how we deal with what we are given.. Myself not one to be Politically correct such as I am and Not that I grind my true thoughts hard ... Just try to say what I believe even if the situation deems me to shut the heck up......
> 
> as always anything said and or heard it is a fifty fifty chance it is going to be misunderstood........
> 
> would have liked to see an additional POLL one that has Scot's vote only here... as this is who actually is voting on this......
> 
> 
> 
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archi ... y/Scotland
> 
> Most put no at a tiny lead... but considering yes have closed a 22 point lead in 4 weeks the momentum seems to be with us. Yes is more visually evident with people showing support on the streets, in house windows and on cars. Finding a single no badge on a person or in a window is near impossible.
> 
> I feel the yes are far far more passionate and determined and this drive is what will win it on the day. I don't put much faith in polls and they can get things very wrong.
> In the last Scottish election the polls showed a landslide victory for the labour party, SNP won by the largest margin in Scottish history giving them a majority government in a system of voting designed specifically to make it "impossable" and is the reason we are having this referendum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the link....... it really is anybodies Yes or No this election is in a up in the air situation ........
> 
> if Yes wins Hope they have a grasp of how much they must work with UK :? and not get their panties in a wad.....
> 
> Thanks again.....
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head mate, work WITH the UK not FOR the UK.

As I've said before Scotland wants partners NOT masters.


----------



## bigdodge

See the No vote is an overwhelming winner on here. Don't think it will be that one-sided in the real thing on Thursday but still think it will be a win for No nevertheless.


----------



## mwad

bigdodge said:


> See the No vote is an overwhelming winner on here. Don't think it will be that one-sided in the real thing on Thursday but still think it will be a win for No nevertheless.


Totally agree


----------



## Wallsendmag

The thing I can't get over is the attitude that we want independence from the rest of the UK but we want to keep everything that is yours, surely it's a package deal ,all or nothing .

Sent from Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Trophy

I work in Financial Services, so will absolutely be voting NO.

Cost will double as we will need to be registered in England & Scotland for the FCA who monitor and regulate IFA's.

The whole thing is a complete joke.


----------



## YoungOldUn

If the voting is as close as all the polls predict then there is going to be almost half of the Scottish people thoroughly peed off after the election no matter who wins. I agree with a previous comment about the percentage needed for a win it should never have been placed at 51%.


----------



## CraigW

Thanks but no thanks. Too many uncertainties IMO to risk breaking up the Union. I know most of my colleagues feel the same.


----------



## brian1978

CraigW said:


> Thanks but no thanks. Too many uncertainties IMO to risk breaking up the Union. I know most of my colleagues feel the same.


Just as many risks staying, more cuts, a union in so much debt it can never be paid, a corrupt lying government.

No thanks to that. ;-)


----------



## YoungOldUn

When has a government not lied the lies are accepted as being 'political answers'. As Lord Acton put it many years ago "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."


----------



## brian1978

YoungOldUn said:


> When has a government not lied the lies are accepted as being 'political answers'. As Lord Acton put it many years ago "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."


But what when one of that governments "lies" are them busily sweeping a pedophile scandal under the rug?


----------



## YoungOldUn

A quick trawl of the web via google shows that paedophile scandals are not limited to the government in Westminster. Do not take this in any way to suggest that I do not abhor the thought of Paedophilia. Ref http://paulmalpas.com/paedophilia/

Scandals are connected with all governments regardless of where they are located because as I quoted earlier 'Power Corrupts' but I don't see what this has to do with the Yes/No other than if the SNP has not been associated with any scandals yet it is only a matter of time before they are.


----------



## brian1978

YoungOldUn said:


> A quick trawl of the web via google shows that paedophile scandals are not limited to the government in Westminster. Do not take this in any way to suggest that I do not abhor the thought of Paedophilia. Ref http://paulmalpas.com/paedophilia/
> 
> Scandals are connected with all governments regardless of where they are located because as I quoted earlier 'Power Corrupts' but I don't see what this has to do with the Yes/No other than if the SNP has not been associated with any scandals yet it is only a matter of time before they are.


Pedophile scandals are rife..... BBC is full of them...

It's the way Westminster is covering it up that's disturbing. :?

Why do you think the SNP will be involved in a major scandal? 
Everyone seems to have it out for the "dirty nationalists". But they don't have any real scandals. I'm not saying they are whiter than white. Who Is? But compared to other politicians they are a breath of fresh air...

Most of what they pledge they fulfill, they are mostly from "normal" backgrounds and "talk the talk" like normal people.

I'm finding it hard to find things not to like.... when you look at the alternatives, labour with Jim Murphy with extensive expenses scandals, a key player in Blairs illegal war... Johann lamont and her " Scottish people are not genetically programmed to make political decisions " Ruth the "total liar" Davidson of the toys..... also involved in a £20k expenses scandal...

Sorry but the SNP ain't all that bad.......


----------



## igotone

Just how does anyone become so f****d up that they can consider a small child in any way sexually attractive? Sadly, I've dealt with many cases and it's rife everywhere - what we see is the tip of the iceberg. I'll never understand what makes these people tick.


----------



## brian1978

igotone said:


> Just how does anyone become so f****d up that they can consider a small child in any way sexually attractive? Sadly, I've dealt with many cases and it's rife everywhere - what we see is the tip of the iceberg. I'll never understand what makes these people tick.


Says it all....


----------



## igotone

LOL. Savillle fooled everyone Brian and far too many people who did know or suspect the truth kept their gobs shut.

Anyway, just wandering aimlessly back on topic...

I sincerely hope there's a good turn out for the poll and that the majority of Scots get what they want. For me 'Better together' says it all.I'm rightly proud of a union that's worked for 300 years, it's just a shame that so many Scots don't appear to have that same pride or that they've been persuaded otherwise.


----------



## brian1978

igotone said:


> LOL. Savillle fooled everyone Brian and far too many people who did know or suspect the truth kept their gobs shut.
> 
> Anyway, just wandering aimlessly back on topic...
> 
> I sincerely hope there's a good turn out for the poll and that the majority of Scots get what they want. For me 'Better together' says it all.I'm rightly proud of a union that's worked for 300 years, it's just a shame that so many Scots don't appear to have that same pride or that they've been persuaded otherwise.


Oh, I have pride... It was Westminster failings over the last 30 years that have persuaded me otherwise.. nothing more or less.

I love my English neighbours south of the border....

I simply want my country's decisions in my country's hands.... that is all

P's Saville NEVER fooled me, I've always said he was a weirdo.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> P's Saville NEVER fooled me, I've always said he was a weirdo.


EVERYONE knew he was a weirdo...


----------



## Trig

brian1978 said:


> Oh, I have pride... It was Westminster failings over the last 30 years that have persuaded me otherwise.. nothing more or less.
> 
> I love my English neighbours south of the border....
> 
> I simply want my country's decisions in my country's hands.... that is all
> 
> P's Saville NEVER fooled me, I've always said he was a weirdo.


To be fair, regardless which way the vote goes Westminster needs a really big shakeup, Scotland voting for independance, people in the UK voting for UKIP etc, its about protest, westminster are a bunch of asshats and something pretty serious needs to happen to get them to take notice...


----------



## John-H

Not such a good idea to use this as a protest vote though, given it's a once only decision and could have huge, and given the disagreements and lack of proof, unknown and far reaching consequences.


----------



## Trig

Indeed, which is why I think that there will be a jump for the No vote when it actually hits the poles, and it wont be as close as it is currently being reported..


----------



## A3DFU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29208194


----------



## neilc

Trig said:


> Indeed, which is why I think that there will be a jump for the No vote when it actually hits the poles, ..


Why are the Poles getting involved ?? Thought it was a Scottish vote only :wink:

Poll


----------



## YoungOldUn

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jamman

neilc said:


> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, which is why I think that there will be a jump for the No vote when it actually hits the poles, ..
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the Poles getting involved ?? Thought it was a Scottish vote only :wink:
> 
> Poll
Click to expand...

Trig you in big trouble now I've told Ola and she IS NOT HAPPY :twisted:


----------



## W7 PMC

What tickled me is the YES or NO vote really doesn't count for anything as this is purely a glorified Opinion Poll.

If 'Yes' wins (which i highly doubt) then Scotland still has no legal or constitutional right or ability to force change. At best Alex S will end up on the next CBB & be known in countries outside of Scotland (UK).

I'm firmly in the 'don't give a toss' camp, but what amuses me is the potential backlash for the 'Yes' voters when it goes wrong & they're refused entry into England & given a resounding F Off.

Good luck on Thursday though. [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## W7 PMC

brian1978 said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Savillle fooled everyone Brian and far too many people who did know or suspect the truth kept their gobs shut.
> 
> Anyway, just wandering aimlessly back on topic...
> 
> I sincerely hope there's a good turn out for the poll and that the majority of Scots get what they want. For me 'Better together' says it all.I'm rightly proud of a union that's worked for 300 years, it's just a shame that so many Scots don't appear to have that same pride or that they've been persuaded otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have pride... It was Westminster failings over the last 30 years that have persuaded me otherwise.. nothing more or less.
> 
> I love my English neighbours south of the border....
> 
> I simply want my country's decisions in my country's hands.... that is all
> 
> P's Saville NEVER fooled me, I've always said he was a weirdo.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid pride wont pay the bills for our North of the border cousins. My angry side says fcuk them & watch you fail, but my compassionate side says stay so you don't fail but hey ho it's not my decision & TBH most of the yes campaigners i see come across as only a touch short of radicals.

I can see the 2015 comic relief sending aide to Syria, Central Africa & Ayr :lol:


----------



## mwad

W7 PMC said:


> I'm firmly in the 'don't give a toss' camp, but what amuses me is the potential backlash for the 'Yes' voters when it goes wrong & they're refused entry into England & given a resounding F Off.
> 
> Good luck on Thursday though. [smiley=argue.gif]


 :twisted: lol

Must admit, I agree


----------



## mwad

W7 PMC said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> igotone said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Savillle fooled everyone Brian and far too many people who did know or suspect the truth kept their gobs shut.
> 
> Anyway, just wandering aimlessly back on topic...
> 
> I sincerely hope there's a good turn out for the poll and that the majority of Scots get what they want. For me 'Better together' says it all.I'm rightly proud of a union that's worked for 300 years, it's just a shame that so many Scots don't appear to have that same pride or that they've been persuaded otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have pride... It was Westminster failings over the last 30 years that have persuaded me otherwise.. nothing more or less.
> 
> I love my English neighbours south of the border....
> 
> I simply want my country's decisions in my country's hands.... that is all
> 
> P's Saville NEVER fooled me, I've always said he was a weirdo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see the 2015 comic relief sending aide to Syria, Central Africa & Ayr :lol:
Click to expand...

Lmao


----------



## brian1978

W7 PMC said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> igotone said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Savillle fooled everyone Brian and far too many people who did know or suspect the truth kept their gobs shut.
> 
> Anyway, just wandering aimlessly back on topic...
> 
> I sincerely hope there's a good turn out for the poll and that the majority of Scots get what they want. For me 'Better together' says it all.I'm rightly proud of a union that's worked for 300 years, it's just a shame that so many Scots don't appear to have that same pride or that they've been persuaded otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have pride... It was Westminster failings over the last 30 years that have persuaded me otherwise.. nothing more or less.
> 
> I love my English neighbours south of the border....
> 
> I simply want my country's decisions in my country's hands.... that is all
> 
> P's Saville NEVER fooled me, I've always said he was a weirdo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid pride wont pay the bills for our North of the border cousins. My angry side says fcuk them & watch you fail, but my compassionate side says stay so you don't fail but hey ho it's not my decision & TBH most of the yes campaigners i see come across as only a touch short of radicals.
> 
> I can see the 2015 comic relief sending aide to Syria, Central Africa & Ayr :lol:
Click to expand...

I was going to get angry and call you all sorts...

But I actually pity you, I pity your small racist mind. I pity your ignorance and I pity anyone who is unfortunate to know you.


----------



## brian1978

neilc said:


> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, which is why I think that there will be a jump for the No vote when it actually hits the poles, ..
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the Poles getting involved ?? Thought it was a Scottish vote only :wink:
> 
> Poll
Click to expand...

Poles, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, Spanish, Romanians. Etc.......... All welcome here most voting yes.


----------



## brian1978

A3DFU said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29208194


Isn't it weird how most of these "gurus" speaking out again independence are a "sir" .......

British Knight of the Realm speaking out against independence.... well I never :roll:


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> neilc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the Poles getting involved ?? Thought it was a Scottish vote only :wink:
> 
> Poll
> 
> 
> 
> Poles, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, Spanish, Romanians. Etc.......... All welcome here most voting yes.
Click to expand...

HA you wont be saying that in a year  If I shut my eyes in slough I could be in any number of countries without having to pay to go there lol

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

mwad said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> igoOL. Savillle fooled everyone Brian and far too many people who did know or suspect the truth kept their gobs shut.
> Anyway said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the 2015 comic relief sending aide to Syria, Central Africa & Ayr :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Lmao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are as bad as your racist ignorant friend..... you should he ashamed.
> 
> No way I'd be as offensive to anyone from England. I'm quite sad you feel this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neilc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the Poles getting involved ?? Thought it was a Scottish vote only :wink:
> 
> Poll
> 
> 
> 
> Poles, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, Spanish, Romanians. Etc.......... All welcome here most voting yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HA you wont be saying that in a year  If I shut my eyes in slough I could be in any number of countries without having to pay to go there lol
> 
> J
> xx
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for our local immigrant population I'd be out of a job... They buy my fish, which pays my bills.

Difference between Scotland and England is we don't have an immigration problem. We have an emigration problem. We have a net migration issue.

But I don't expect you to "get" this issue


----------



## Lollypop86

You cant say that wasn't funny Brian lol

I bet your smiled atleast lol

J
xx


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> neilc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, which is why I think that there will be a jump for the No vote when it actually hits the poles, ..
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the Poles getting involved ?? Thought it was a Scottish vote only :wink:
> 
> Poll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poles, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, Spanish, Romanians. Etc.......... All welcome here most voting yes.
Click to expand...

No they aren't....many immigrants have come here on the basis of it being part of the UK welfare system, and mark my words, if an independent Scotland fails to get EU membership sorted quickly _(but then the Yes campaign calls anyone saying otherwise a scaremonger)_, then many will leave very quickly to other parts of the UK or other countries, returning home with their savings (as many do already)

One of my clients has one of the biggest fish processing plants in the whole of the UK, and has been planning contingencies for months if three quarters of his workforce decide to move away

Meanwhile, he complains of few 'Scottish' workers wanting to take the other available jobs, despite being long term stable employment...


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> You cant say that wasn't funny Brian lol
> 
> I bet your smiled atleast lol
> 
> J
> xx


After the disgusting abuse I got earlier...... no.


----------



## fixitagaintomoz

stick together-

Too many uncertainties for Scotland- also makes me chuckle that the YES campaign are so anti Westminster, but are happy to let the Bank of England bail them out in future if the Scottish Sterling doesn't go as planned.....

All or Nothing is what I say. if you want to "go it alone" then do that, but don't treat us like mummy and daddy and run back to us when you can't pay the bills and need a place to stay while you get back on your feet.

Also Defence- how are you going to build an Army, at the same time as cutting defense budgets to keep education free..... do the maths!

Anyway, it's nothing to do with me ultimately, as we don't get a say, but honestly- giving the vote to 16 year olds and then using social media to bombard them with propaganda........ what's the world coming to?

I won't get drawn into a debate on my views on this forum, but here they are for you to do with as you see fit- agree or disagree [smiley=gossip.gif]


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> Lollypop86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poles, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, Spanish, Romanians. Etc.......... All welcome here most voting yes.
> 
> 
> 
> HA you wont be saying that in a year  If I shut my eyes in slough I could be in any number of countries without having to pay to go there lol
> 
> J
> xx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't for our local immigrant population I'd be out of a job... They buy my fish, which pays my bills.
> 
> Difference between Scotland and England is we don't have an immigration problem. We have an emigration problem. We have a net migration issue.
> 
> But I don't expect you to "get" this issue
Click to expand...

You'll "get" the issue yourself when you've got no work like many in England who are put out of work because they are being under cut and those under cutting do a crappy job......Seen it with friends in the building trade who have gone into factory work at minimum wage to compete after having lost their business due to immigrants under cutting them...

....others I'm all for don't get me wrong, guy on slough trading estate owns (now) 3 car washes around Berkshire, started off in slough now has one in maidenhead and windsor, and he will only employ polish people (he's polish) because he doesn't want people getting the wrong impression and trust me they do a bloody good job (used to take my Ibiza there). He even said its very easy for someone to come over to England and under cut everyone else

* abuse removed *

J
xx


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> Lollypop86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cant say that wasn't funny Brian lol
> 
> I bet your smiled atleast lol
> 
> J
> xx
> 
> 
> 
> After the disgusting abuse I got earlier...... no.
Click to expand...

You should ask that should it be a YES vote that they purchase a sense of humour for you then

You seem to be one of the only people really taking this seriously on here while everyone is trying to make light of it, your opinion seems to cloud your judgement and you don't appear open to discussing any other opinions.....so when you get your YES vote, and you get a crappy deal, I'll fly the flags because with an attitude like yours you'll deserve it

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neilc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="Trigdeed, which is why I think that there will be a jump for the No vote when it actually hits the poles, ..[/quot
> 
> Why are the Poles getting involved ?? Thought it was a Scottish vote only :wink:
> 
> Poll
> 
> 
> 
> Poles, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, Spanish, Romanians. Etc.......... All welcome here most voting yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't....many immigrants have come here on the basis of it being part of the UK welfare system, and mark my words, if an independent Scotland fails to get EU membership sorted quickly _(but then the Yes campaign calls anyone saying otherwise a scaremonger)_, then many will leave very quickly to other parts of the UK or other countries, returning home with their savings (as many do already)
> 
> One of my clients has one of the biggest fish processing plants in the whole of the UK, and has been planning contingencies for months if three quarters of his workforce decide to move away
> 
> Meanwhile, he complains of few 'Scottish' workers wanting to take the other available jobs, despite being long term stable employment...
Click to expand...

You really don't have a clue.... Scotland will get EU membership and Junker has said Scotland EU privileges will be extended if it needs to be.

Trust me, I have canvassed areas personally. Speaking to immigrants it's a good 90% yes from them....

How many doors have you knocked?


----------



## YoungOldUn

brian1978 said:


> Difference between Scotland and England is we don't have an immigration problem. We have an emigration problem. We have a net migration issue.
> 
> But I don't expect you to "get" this issue


Brian you are definitely correct with this 'But I don't expect you to "get" this issue' comment

If Scotland is or is to become the promised land, why is everyone leaving ? (or a lot, else there wouldn't be a emigration problem)


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lollypop86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian197
> Poles said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for our local immigrant population I'd be out of a job... They buy my fish, which pays my bills.
> 
> Difference between Scotland and England is we don't have an immigration problem. We have an emigration problem. We have a net migration issue.
> 
> But I don't expect you to "get" this issue
> 
> 
> 
> You'll "get" the issue yourself when you've got no work like many in England who are put out of work because they are being under cut and those under cutting do a crappy job......Seen it with friends in the building trade who have gone into factory work at minimum wage to compete after having lost their business due to immigrants under cutting them...
> 
> ....others I'm all for don't get me wrong, guy on slough trading estate owns (now) 3 car washes around Berkshire, started off in slough now has one in maidenhead and windsor, and he will only employ polish people (he's polish) because he doesn't want people getting the wrong impression and trust me they do a bloody good job (used to take my Ibiza there). He even said its very easy for someone to come over to England and under cut everyone else
> * abuse removed *
> 
> J
> xx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of we don't have enough workers to fill places can you not get through your Head?
> 
> The ignorance to Scottish issues and problems from English people on here astounds me..
> 
> You don't have a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> You really don't have a clue.... Scotland will get EU membership and Junker has said Scotland EU privileges will be extended if it needs to be.
> 
> Trust me, I have canvassed areas personally. Speaking to immigrants it's a good 90% yes from them....
> 
> How many doors have you knocked?


I've spoken to quite a few Yes and No campaigners for the last few months whilst I walk through Aberdeen, and there's more 'foreign' No canvassers than in the Yes camp - very unscientific sample of course

Whilst Scotland might be welcome to apply to be part of the EU...

You do understand that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU, yes?

You understand that several EU commissioners have said that Scotland will have to go through the normal application process taking years?

You do understand that other EU members have a veto on that membership application, regardless of what a commissioner says?

You do understand that several countries, such as Spain (for Catalonia reasons), are very unlikely to support membership on the terms that the Yes campaign state as 'fact'?


----------



## brian1978

YoungOldUn said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between Scotland and England is we don't have an immigration problem. We have an emigration problem. We have a net migration issue.
> 
> But I don't expect you to "get" this issue
> 
> 
> 
> Brian you are definitely correct with this 'But I don't expect you to "get" this issue' comment
> 
> If Scotland is or is to become the promised land, why is everyone leaving ? (or a lot, else there wouldn't be a emigration problem)
Click to expand...

Who ever said it was to "be the promised land" NOBODY HAS EVER SAID THAT on the yes campaign.

Our migration problem is because we cannot offer jobs here, we are the most educated nation on earth... We need to keep jobs here. Lower corporation tax will bring company's here.. We cannot offer that at present.

But your arrogant and ignorant comments are becoming par for the course on these threads. It saddens me that English feel so bitter at people wanting the simple right to govern themselves.


----------



## Lollypop86

[quote="brian1978"} we are the most educated nation on earth....[/quote]

LOL

You've just contradicted yourself in 1 sentence

you crack on brian, people will fast become bored of your opinion on the matter

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't have a clue.... Scotland will get EU membership and Junker has said Scotland EU privileges will be extended if it needs to be.
> 
> Trust me, I have canvassed areas personally. Speaking to immigrants it's a good 90% yes from them....
> 
> How many doors have you knocked?
> 
> 
> 
> I've spoken to quite a few Yes and No campaigners for the last few months whilst I walk through Aberdeen, and there's more 'foreign' No canvassers than in the Yes camp - very unscientific sample of course
> 
> Whilst Scotland might be welcome to apply to be part of the EU...
> 
> You do understand that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU, yes?
> 
> You understand that several EU commissioners have said that Scotland will have to go through the normal application process taking years?
> 
> You do understand that other EU members have a veto on that membership application, regardless of what a commissioner says?
> 
> You do understand that several countries, such as Spain (for Catalonia reasons), are very unlikely to support membership on the terms that the Yes campaign state as 'fact'?
Click to expand...

Do you understand everything you have written above is bollocks?

Scotland doesn't have to join the euro.... to be part of the euro you need to be in ERM II joining ERM II is voluntary. We won't join ERM II. We won't join the euro.

Several en commissioners can say what they like, the president of the EU Jean Claude junker has said he sees the 18month time zone "realistic" normally the application will take years... but Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years.. issues like equality, democracy etc... can be fast tracked.
All 80k pages of the application won't have to be approved far from it.

Other members won't use their only veto on one of the most prosperous nations in Europe.... Please... reality please.


----------



## A3DFU

brian1978 said:


> we are the most educated nation on earth.


That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> phope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't have a clue.... Scotland will get EU membership and Junker has said Scotland EU privileges will be extended if it needs to be.
> 
> Trust me, I have canvassed areas personally. Speaking to immigrants it's a good 90% yes from them....
> 
> How many doors have you knocked?
> 
> 
> 
> I've spoken to quite a few Yes and No campaigners for the last few months whilst I walk through Aberdeen, and there's more 'foreign' No canvassers than in the Yes camp - very unscientific sample of course
> 
> Whilst Scotland might be welcome to apply to be part of the EU...
> 
> You do understand that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU, yes?
> 
> You understand that several EU commissioners have said that Scotland will have to go through the normal application process taking years?
> 
> You do understand that other EU members have a veto on that membership application, regardless of what a commissioner says?
> 
> You do understand that several countries, such as Spain (for Catalonia reasons), are very unlikely to support membership on the terms that the Yes campaign state as 'fact'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand everything you have written above is bollocks?
> 
> Scotland doesn't have to join the euro.... to be part of the euro you need to be in ERM II joining ERM II is voluntary. We won't join ERM II. We won't join the euro.
> 
> Several en commissioners can say what they like, the president of the EU Jean Claude junker has said he sees the 18month time zone "realistic" normally the application will take years... but Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years.. issues like equality, democracy etc... can be fast tracked.
> All 80k pages of the application won't have to be approved far from it.
> 
> Other members won't use their only veto on one of the most prosperous nations in Europe.... Please... reality please.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned the Euro...

Scotland has not been in the EU for 40 years....the UK has, and if Scotland leaves the UK, it leaves the EU - it then has to reapply, and then be subject to all the risks of not getting back in

And they are clear risks...not just scaremongering


----------



## brian1978

Lollypop86 said:


> [quote="brian1978"} we are the most educated nation on earth....


LOL

You've just contradicted yourself in 1 sentence

you crack on brian, people will fast become bored of your opinion on the matter

J
xx[/quote]

Scotland has more universities per head in the top 200 than any other nation on earth..

I'm getting sick of your ignorance Jessica.

I've never blocked anyone on these forums before.... even * abuse removed *....

First time for anything... ta ta.


----------



## Lollypop86

phope said:


> I never mentioned the Euro...
> 
> Scotland has not been in the EU for 40 years....the UK has, and if Scotland leaves the UK, it leaves the EU - it then has to reapply, and then be subject to all the risks of not getting back in
> 
> And they are clear risks...not just scaremongering


All that intelligence and all that........

J
xx


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> Lollypop86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="brian1978"} we are the most educated nation on earth....
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> You've just contradicted yourself in 1 sentence
> 
> you crack on brian, people will fast become bored of your opinion on the matter
> 
> J
> xx
Click to expand...

Scotland has more universities per head in the top 200 than any other nation on earth..

I'm getting sick of your ignorance Jessica.

I've never blocked anyone on these forums before.... even * abuse removed *....

First time for anything... ta ta.[/quote]

Oh good now I can just annoy you and you will have to spend more your intelligence showing my posts  lol

Oh and I've read some his posts lol pretty funny tbh  nothing like a sense of humour not clouded by intelligence 

You do realise how many non-Scottish folk attend universities in Scotland right? lol

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

A3DFU said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are the most educated nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
Click to expand...

More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are the most educated nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
Click to expand...

Source?


----------



## Lollypop86

phope said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

Including nationality breakdown please

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

A3DFU said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are the most educated nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
Click to expand...

Regardless of how you look at it, our policy for free education for everyone clearly pays off. It's an ideal that predates this union. And the shear amount of contributions from Scotland to the world is a testament to that.


----------



## Lollypop86

so you cant back up your statement.......la la la laaaaaa la la al ala

J
xx


----------



## A3DFU

brian1978 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are the most educated nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
Click to expand...

And does this mean that all students are Scottish or are there any other nationalities amongst those students??


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are the most educated nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of how you look at it, our policy for free education for everyone clearly pays off. It's an ideal that predates this union. And the shear amount of contributions from Scotland to the world is a testament to that.
Click to expand...

free for everyone, unless you're English and want to study in Scotland....then it's different


----------



## Lollypop86

A3DFU said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And does this mean that all students are Scottish or are there any other nationalities amongst those students??
Click to expand...

he cant answer that Dani  what about all the Scottish students who go to English universities.......does that mean that actually they are thick because of where their university stands in a ranking? 

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

:


phope said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian197e are the most educated nation on eart
> That is a [b:xux8jrq7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BIG[/b] statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.studyinscotland.org/scotlands-universities/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24370331
> 
> Your just DESPERATE for me to be wrong.. aren't you?
Click to expand...


----------



## phope

Brian...I know you're a passionate Yes supporter - you will have balanced all the risks with the potential rewards.

However, in less than 30 words, please spell out the 3 biggest risks you see with full independence


----------



## Lollypop86

brian1978 said:


> :
> 
> 
> phope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.studyinscotland.org/scotlands-universities/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24370331
> 
> Your just DESPERATE for me to be wrong.. aren't you?
Click to expand...

I don't care if you cant see this, but where is the evidence that all the students at those universities are Scottish????

FOOL

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

A3DFU said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bria97we are the most educated nation on earth.[/q
> That is a [b:296gy7ev said:
> 
> 
> 
> BIG[/b] statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And does this mean that all students are Scottish or are there any other nationalities amongst those students??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All nationalities Danny, it's the institution not the nationality. Also one of the reasons we want to change the laws to stop us having to deport these great minds after educating them
Click to expand...


----------



## YoungOldUn

brian1978 said:


> YoungOldUn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between Scotland and England is we don't have an immigration problem. We have an emigration problem. We have a net migration issue.
> 
> But I don't expect you to "get" this issue
> 
> 
> 
> Brian you are definitely correct with this 'But I don't expect you to "get" this issue' comment
> 
> If Scotland is or is to become the promised land, why is everyone leaving ? (or a lot, else there wouldn't be a emigration problem)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who ever said it was to "be the promised land" NOBODY HAS EVER SAID THAT on the yes campaign.
> 
> Our migration problem is because we cannot offer jobs here, we are the most educated nation on earth... We need to keep jobs here. Lower corporation tax will bring company's here.. We cannot offer that at present.
> 
> But your arrogant and ignorant comments are becoming par for the course on these threads. It saddens me that English feel so bitter at people wanting the simple right to govern themselves.
Click to expand...

You are the one on this forum who keeps painting a rosy picture of the future for Scotland IF a yes vote wins at the polls. I just took your flagrant optimism to mean it is to become the promised land.

I also take exception to your statement about my arrogant and ignorant comments , I have only questioned your dubious and contentious statements which you always seem to avoid answering - he who live in a glass house should not throw stones. You really need to lighten up, go to bed and have a good nights sleep.


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.


Source?[/quote]

http://www.studyinscotland.org/scotlands-universities/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24370331

Your just DESPERATE for me to be wrong.. aren't you?[/quote]

Not desperate at all - was just interested to see where the info was coming from


----------



## Wallsendmag

phope said:


> Not desperate at all - was just interested to see where the info was coming from


Listen to Peter he is the official voice of reason


----------



## fixitagaintomoz

wowser trouser!

Scotland has good free universities- Brilliant 

Scotland also has some extreme poverty and massive gang/knive/territory issues- but it's ok because they'll go to the best universities..... but....wait..... er...... no they wont!

don't get me wrong, free education is brilliant, but at what cost? you cant survive as a country on education levels alone.....


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> Brian...I know you're a passionate Yes supporter - you will have balanced all the risks with the potential rewards.
> 
> However, in less than 30 words, please spell out the 3 biggest risks you see with full independence


Risks. 30 words for 3 risks is pretty tight but ill try..... probably will be more than 30.....

Higher initial taxation as we might have to borrow heavily to set it up.
An initial lower national credit rating causing higher initial borrowing costs
Not having a lender of last resort if Westminster follows through with not agreeing a currency union.

Plus more...

But I truly believe it will be worth the initial difficulty and wobbles.


----------



## brian1978

fixitagaintomoz said:


> wowser trouser!
> 
> Scotland has good free universities- Brilliant
> 
> Scotland also has some extreme poverty and massive gang/knive/territory issues- but it's ok because they'll go to the best universities..... but....wait..... er...... no they wont!
> 
> don't get me wrong, free education is brilliant, but at what cost? you cant survive as a country on education levels alone.....


What an absolutely ignorant comment....


----------



## brian1978

YoungOldUn said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungOldUn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="brian19
> Difference between Scotland and England is we don't have an immigration problem. We have an emigration problem. We have a net migration issue.
> 
> But I don't expect you to "get" this issue[/qu
> 
> Brian you are definitely correct with this 'But I don't expect you to "get" this issue' comment
> 
> If Scotland is or is to become the promised land, why is everyone leaving ? (or a lot, else there wouldn't be a emigration problem)
> 
> 
> 
> Who ever said it was to "be the promised land" NOBODY HAS EVER SAID THAT on the yes campaign.
> 
> Our migration problem is because we cannot offer jobs here, we are the most educated nation on earth... We need to keep jobs here. Lower corporation tax will bring company's here.. We cannot offer that at present.
> 
> But your arrogant and ignorant comments are becoming par for the course on these threads. It saddens me that English feel so bitter at people wanting the simple right to govern themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one on this forum who keeps painting a rosy picture of the future for Scotland IF a yes vote wins at the polls. I just took your flagrant optimism to mean it is to become the promised land.
> 
> I also take exception to your statement about my arrogant and ignorant comments , I have only questioned your dubious and contentious statements which you always seem to avoid answering - he who live in a glass house should not throw stones. You really need to lighten up, go to bed and have a good nights sleep.
Click to expand...

I have NEVER promoted a rosy picture for Scotland.

You REALLY need to get over this idea we think Scotland will be the land of milk and honey.

We simply want to self govern our OWN country... is that so bad?


----------



## A3DFU

brian1978 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And does this mean that all students are Scottish or are there any other nationalities amongst those students??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All nationalities Danny, it's the institution not the nationality.
Click to expand...

But would it then not be correct to say that Scottish universities are amongst the best in Europe rather than saying that


> "we are the most educated nation on earth"


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> phope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian...I know you're a passionate Yes supporter - you will have balanced all the risks with the potential rewards.
> 
> However, in less than 30 words, please spell out the 3 biggest risks you see with full independence
> 
> 
> 
> Risks. 30 words for 3 risks is pretty tight but ill try..... probably will be more than 30.....
> 
> Higher initial taxation as we might have to borrow heavily to set it up.
> An initial lower national credit rating causing higher initial borrowing costs
> Not having a lender of last resort if Westminster follows through with not agreeing a currency union.
> 
> Plus more...
> 
> But I truly believe it will be worth the initial difficulty and wobbles.
Click to expand...

OK - thanks. Therefore, in an independent Scotland, then as I see it,

Taxes will be higher for everyone initially, for an undetermined time, whilst undetermined setup costs are paid...simply to duplicate mechanisms and bodies which exist already
Scotland will face higher borrowing costs, as lenders will view us as more risky - that feeds through to costs for individuals and businesses
Scotland will have no control over a currency, interest rates, and will have to establish huge currency reserves very quickly to stabilise and replace the function of a central bank - leaving less money available to spend in the first place

It's only fair then that I say that I could see three advantages of full independence potentially being

Full control over national budgets to suit local needs
Ability to lower taxes for all in society as well as raise
An ability to cut through red tape, bureaucracy and make Scotland a truly competitive place for businesses to flourish

Sadly, I just don't see the SNP doing anything to lower taxes overall, and reducing the overall tax burden, and independence will massively complicate matters for ordinary individuals and small businesses doing ordinary things.


----------



## YoungOldUn

> Risks. 30 words for 3 risks is pretty tight but ill try..... probably will be more than 30.....
> 
> Higher initial taxation as we might have to borrow heavily to set it up.
> An initial lower national credit rating causing higher initial borrowing costs
> Not having a lender of last resort if Westminster follows through with not agreeing a currency union.
> 
> Plus more...
> 
> But I truly believe it will be worth the initial difficulty and wobbles.





> We simply want to self govern our OWN country... is that so bad?
> 
> You REALLY need to get over this idea we think Scotland will be the land of milk and honey.


I have to applaud your honesty in the reply to Phope, at last you are giving a balance to the subject with some honest thoughts.

I agree it is not a bad idea to have some control over your own destiny by governing your own country but a lot of what you have written on this forum appears to give a very positive future for Scotland and as I have just stated the reply to Phope is the first instance that I recall where you have said something which is a negative to a Yes vote.


----------



## brian1978

phope said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian...I know you're a passionate Yes supporter - you will have balanced all the risks with the potential rewards.
> 
> However, in less than 30 words, please spell out the 3 biggest risks you see with full independence
> 
> 
> 
> Risks. 30 words for 3 risks is pretty tight but ill try..... probably will be more than 30.....
> 
> Higher initial taxation as we might have to borrow heavily to set it up.
> An initial lower national credit rating causing higher initial borrowing costs
> Not having a lender of last resort if Westminster follows through with not agreeing a currency union.
> 
> Plus more...
> 
> But I truly believe it will be worth the initial difficulty and wobbles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK - thanks. Therefore, in an independent Scotland, then as I see it,
> 
> Taxes will be higher for everyone initially, for an undetermined time, whilst undetermined setup costs are paid...simply to duplicate mechanisms and bodies which exist already
> Scotland will face higher borrowing costs, as lenders will view us as more risky - that feeds through to costs for individuals and businesses
> Scotland will have no control over a currency, interest rates, and will have to establish huge currency reserves very quickly to stabilise and replace the function of a central bank - leaving less money available to spend in the first place
> 
> It's only fair then that I say that I could see three advantages of full independence potentially being
> 
> Full control over national budgets to suit local needs
> Ability to lower taxes for all in society as well as raise
> An ability to cut through red tape, bureaucracy and make Scotland a truly competitive place for businesses to flourish
> 
> Sadly, I just don't see the SNP doing anything to lower taxes overall, and reducing the overall tax burden, and independence will massively complicate matters for ordinary individuals and small businesses doing ordinary things.
Click to expand...

SNP have frozen council tax 7 years running and offset "bedroom tax" and have abolished prescription charges... They don't currently have the power to drastically lower or raise tax but these 3 examples show in real terms that they can and do help the "man on the street".

What reason do you have for them abandoning these principles after independence?


----------



## fixitagaintomoz

brian1978 said:


> fixitagaintomoz said:
> 
> 
> 
> wowser trouser!
> 
> Scotland has good free universities- Brilliant
> 
> Scotland also has some extreme poverty and massive gang/knive/territory issues- but it's ok because they'll go to the best universities..... but....wait..... er...... no they wont!
> 
> don't get me wrong, free education is brilliant, but at what cost? you cant survive as a country on education levels alone.....
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolutely ignorant comment....
Click to expand...

its ignorant to ignore the issues that you as a country face....

I'm not being ignorant by stating facts, just because I don't have the numbers or sources to back them up, you can't deny that the issues you face cant be solved by education alone? to tackle the gangs/territories/unemployment (which England faces too) takes investment, not just free education

I'm not trying to cause offence, but not one of the debates ive watched mentions a plan to tackle the above issues. Surely the financial squeeze you mention that may be felt will impact even harder on the above issues?


----------



## phope

brian1978 said:


> SNP have frozen council tax 7 years running and offset "bedroom tax" and have abolished prescription charges... They don't currently have the power to drastically lower or raise tax but these 3 examples show in real terms that they can and do help the "man on the street".
> 
> What reason do you have for them abandoning these principles after independence?


Local councils are already strapped for cash for projects, recruitment and pay rises, and the freeze just means extra funding comes from central government pots, rather than local taxes. Instead, it's been used as a political football to ensure that local councils spending plans are held by the balls by central government...so where's the local democracy in action?

Inflation is a fact of life, and the gap between the local freeze and spending requirements has to be paid from somewhere...and if an independent Scotland has to make difficult decisions about funding priorities, then the freeze on council tax would be an easy target

Prescription charges and eyetests - I'll admit that this seems to have worked well in practice, but it has been at the cost of Scotland's NHS not offering some of the same treatments as NHS England, as money can only be spent once.


----------



## brian1978

YoungOldUn said:


> Risks. 30 words for 3 risks is pretty tight but ill try..... probably will be more than 30.....
> 
> Higher initial taxation as we might have to borrow heavily to set it up.
> An initial lower national credit rating causing higher initial borrowing costs
> Not having a lender of last resort if Westminster follows through with not agreeing a currency union.
> 
> Plus more...
> 
> But I truly believe it will be worth the initial difficulty and wobbles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We simply want to self govern our OWN country... is that so bad?
> 
> You REALLY need to get over this idea we think Scotland will be the land of milk and honey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to applaud your honesty in the reply to Phope, at last you are giving a balance to the subject with some honest thoughts.
> 
> I agree it is not a bad idea to have some control over your own destiny by governing your own country but a lot of what you have written on this forum appears to give a very positive future for Scotland and as I have just stated the reply to Phope is the first instance that I recall where you have said something which is a negative to a Yes vote.
Click to expand...

I campaign for the yes vote... I stay positive when in can...... do I Worry?

Of course I do! 
it's a HUGE leap for us a country. With EVERY unknown in life comes risks. When you bought your first house were you apprehensive about the burden of debt? 
When you decide to change jobs are you worried about the unknowns in a new company?

Change is good. With risks come rewards.
I believe Scotland can prosper alongside the UK... not just as part of the UK.

If we get a yes vote on Thursday it's a new era.... an open book with blank pages. We get to fill it in.

It's exciting and terrifying at the same time and the reason I'm not sleeping much right now :lol:


----------



## Trouble4

Here in the US there was a big news that aired/ran on TV tonight in which they had Voters on both sides state their reasoning

of why to vote yes or no....... also comments from the biggy/top brass as well.........

really the major thing I would be concerned about if it ends up a Yes vote is not that Scotland could not turn it into the way

they hope but how they do it. ?? as they will need some big investors / loans with in a reasonable acceptable limit and

who has this big money ? who is behind this big money ?

and at what cost to Scotland?

England would want to know as that is a good size border 

does any Country have that good of structure in place one did but went greatly crazy.........


----------



## John-H

YoungOldUn said:


> Risks. 30 words for 3 risks is pretty tight but ill try..... probably will be more than 30.....
> 
> Higher initial taxation as we might have to borrow heavily to set it up.
> An initial lower national credit rating causing higher initial borrowing costs
> Not having a lender of last resort if Westminster follows through with not agreeing a currency union.
> 
> Plus more...
> 
> But I truly believe it will be worth the initial difficulty and wobbles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We simply want to self govern our OWN country... is that so bad?
> 
> You REALLY need to get over this idea we think Scotland will be the land of milk and honey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to applaud your honesty in the reply to Phope, at last you are giving a balance to the subject with some honest thoughts.
> 
> I agree it is not a bad idea to have some control over your own destiny by governing your own country but a lot of what you have written on this forum appears to give a very positive future for Scotland and as I have just stated the reply to Phope is the first instance that I recall where you have said something which is a negative to a Yes vote.
Click to expand...

I thought a No supporter must have guessed Brian's password :lol: - but then there was the "I truly believe ..." faith bit at the end :wink:

Only joking Brian but it doesn't look too rosy does it really? Sounds like conditions for a depression - needing to raise money but having no backing and no control of currency - that's a prone position to be in.


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

I guess a couple of good things for the UK will be when the Royal Navy pull out of Scotland and Iceland extend their territorial waters again (beyond 200 miles or whatever it currently is (as they surely will)), the RN won't have to send ships to patrol and protect the Scottish fishing fleet when Icelandic ships block them from entering their waters. 
And also if RAF airbases and radar stations close down they won't have to scramble so quickly when Russian planes approach the Scotish coast (they can do it when they start flying over Scotland itself...)


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are the most educated nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
Click to expand...

I still don't get how it's free for Scots and EU students, yet English students have to pay. Isn't that discrimination?

Especially as UK is in EU, and Scotland if gets a yes, would have to apply...


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are the most educated nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a *BIG* statement Brian. What's your evidence please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of how you look at it, our policy for free education for everyone clearly pays off. It's an ideal that predates this union. And the shear amount of contributions from Scotland to the world is a testament to that.
Click to expand...

Not quite free education for everybody when English (& Welsh / NI) students are charged though is it?

Quote below from a Scottish Uni website:
"If you come from the Rest of the UK (RUK), universities in Scotland will charge you variable fees up to a maximum of £9,000 just like England and Wales."

Or maybe Brian is quoting his own facts again and everyone else is scaremongering....


----------



## W7 PMC

I've only 3 points in response Brian.

1. I'm shocked although not greatly surprised at how deluded you appear to be. As i said earlier, only a very small step away from being radicalised in that you believe all the B/S being spouted by your 'yes' buddies & the Scottish media/politicians. No-one for a moment is suggesting it's all rosy in the Scotland garden, but if we all follow this farce then every county North of Hertfordshire will be crying out for independence.

2. Get angry my friend as that's exactly what an extremist does when faced with a view or opinion they don't agree with, no matter whether it's correct or not.

3. Purely for your ridiculous & somewhat extreme name calling, you'd better hope we never meet face to face Brian, although reality says that's unlikely as if this ridiculous process does end in Scotland becoming an independent state (which it won't) i'd not be wasting my time or money heading further North than Carlisle.

This isn't really a point more a statement, but i used to spend a significant amount of time in Scotland, having worked for 2 Scottish HQ'd companies & a whilst working for BoS i dated a girl from Paisley for a couple of years so spent every weekend North of the border & loved it, however my current opinion & that's drawn from this ridiculous process is that if the majority of Scots really do want independence then so be it as it's no skin of my nose but it won't be a place i'll be visiting again. I can also confirm that this opinion is widely shared so like i said before, good luck on Thursday & i hope you get what you want or deserve :lol:

What frustrates me the most Brian is that your inflammatory attack was in response to a post that anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen as totally tongue in cheek & if you'd read my post a little earlier you'd have seen i'm firmly in the 'i don't give a toss camp'. It's often those with the more extreme beliefs & blinkered opinions that cause the most damage & i'm afraid Brain that's exactly what you're displaying.


----------



## John-H

I just think it's all very sad it's come to this.

Foolish that such a dangerous button to press has been put in front of people without its far reaching consequences being known.

Very sad that disharmony, factionalism and the spoiling of friendly relationships have resulted from arguing about whether to press it or not.

The police are preparing for trouble and huge amounts of cash are being shipped north of the border to stop the cash machines running dry on Friday.

I only hope relationships can be repaired and we can all unite in friendship and cooperation again as only that will secure our future together on our island.


----------



## W7 PMC

John-H said:


> I just think it's all very sad it's come to this.
> 
> Foolish that such a dangerous button to press has been put in front of people without its far reaching consequences being known.
> 
> Very sad that disharmony, factionalism and the spoiling of friendly relationships have resulted from arguing about whether to press it or not.
> 
> The police are preparing for trouble and huge amounts of cash are being shipped north of the border to stop the cash machines running dry on Friday.
> 
> I only hope relationships can be repaired and we can all unite in friendship and cooperation again as only that will secure our future together on our island.


Well said John, however my better judgement suggests it won't. My biggest worry is this has the makings (perhaps only my opinion) of being a repeat of Northern Ireland a couple of decades ago. As we all know, strong or even worse extreme Religious &/or Political beliefs are usually the fuse for such conflict & this 'yes/no' campaign has certainly ignited anger in many quarters.

My optimistic side hopes this can't/won't happen but i do find it disturbing that such radical opinions are being displayed about purely an opinion poll


----------



## John-H

Here's a puzzle.

You are trapped in a room with a Yes campaigner and a No campaigner but they look the same. Both have been struck dumb and can only point.

Each is the guardian of a button. One button leads to safety and one button leads to disaster. There are no distinguishing marks.

You may only ask one question of one campaigner.

What question do you ask to ensure pressing the safety button?


----------



## Trouble4

John-H said:


> Here's a puzzle.
> 
> You are trapped in a room with a Yes campaigner and a No campaigner but they look the same. Both have been struck dumb and can only point.
> 
> Each is the guardian of a button. One button leads to safety and one button leads to disaster. There are no distinguishing marks.
> 
> You may only ask one question of one campaigner.
> 
> What question do you ask to ensure pressing the safety button?


even with hype-- question/puzzle depends on how you view which one is safety .......

would ask " are you prepared to die "

if No then that is the NO voter if Yes that is the Yes voter .. which leads right back to ""depends on how you view which one is safety""


----------



## igotone

Sad that the thread has descended into personal abuse at this late stage, but it's hardly surprising given that the result of this referendum has far reaching consequences for all of us - some that we haven't even begun to quite comprehend yet and it could be a decade or more before things start to settle down if the vote goes 'Yes?.

The footsie currently has the jitters pending the result and I'm sure we'll see a massive dive if the 'Yes' vote wins with losses to all of us who've worked all our lives. What really gets up my nose is that far too many of the 'Yes' supporters I've seen interviewed really don't give a damn about the UK having been convinced they'll be alright Jack!

I'm fed up of the whole circus now but I'm quite sure that whichever way this ill conceived divisive referendum goes, the acrimony will last for years afterwards. Let's hope the good common sense of the vast majority of Scots wins the day, we keep the union and Scotland gets many of the increased powers it wants anyway.


----------



## John-H

Trouble4 said:


> even with hype-- question/puzzle depends on how you view which one is safety .......
> 
> would ask " are you prepared to die "
> 
> if No then that is the NO voter if Yes that is the Yes voter .. which leads right back to ""depends on how you view which one is safety""


But each campaigner would have a different view about disaster so how can you tell? :wink:


----------



## John-H

igotone said:


> Sad that the thread has descended into personal abuse at this late stage, but it's hardly surprising given that the result of this referendum has far reaching consequences for all of us - some that we haven't even begun to quite comprehend yet and it could be a decade or more before things start to settle down if the vote goes 'Yes?.
> 
> The footsie currently has the jitters pending the result and I'm sure we'll see a massive dive if the 'Yes' vote wins with losses to all of us who've worked all our lives. What really gets up my nose is that far too many of the 'Yes' supporters I've seen interviewed really don't give a damn about the UK having been convinced they'll be alright Jack!
> 
> I'm fed up of the whole circus now but I'm quite sure that whichever way this ill conceived divisive referendum goes, the acrimony will last for years afterwards. Let's hope the good common sense of the vast majority of Scots wins the day, we keep the union and Scotland gets many of the increased powers it wants anyway.


Well said.


----------



## W7 PMC

igotone said:


> Sad that the thread has descended into personal abuse at this late stage, but it's hardly surprising given that the result of this referendum has far reaching consequences for all of us - some that we haven't even begun to quite comprehend yet and it could be a decade or more before things start to settle down if the vote goes 'Yes?.
> 
> The footsie currently has the jitters pending the result and I'm sure we'll see a massive dive if the 'Yes' vote wins with losses to all of us who've worked all our lives. What really gets up my nose is that far too many of the 'Yes' supporters I've seen interviewed really don't give a damn about the UK having been convinced they'll be alright Jack!
> 
> I'm fed up of the whole circus now but I'm quite sure that whichever way this ill conceived divisive referendum goes, the acrimony will last for years afterwards. Let's hope the good common sense of the vast majority of Scots wins the day, we keep the union and Scotland gets many of the increased powers it wants anyway.


Very well said. I do however have one question that perhaps i've missed the answer to as i was debating this with a Scot yesterday & he was of the same opinion that even if 'yes' wins tomorrow, this is purely a glorified opinion poll so nothing of any relevance will change in the near future & no guarantee it ever will.

Analogy, i walk into a bank today & ask them to give me, £1M. The bank staff naturally say no as i've only got 20p in my account. I then sit in a chair moaning & grumbling for a few weeks whilst asking all entering customers whether they think the back should 'yes' give me the £1M or 'no' they shouldn't. As i've been persistent & word's got round the village of my plight, i get a slight majority 'yes' vote so all's looking good for Paul. This is then scuppered as when i go back to the till & ask for my £1M as the voting public think i should get it, the Bank Clerk tells me to do one (best insert a smiley here as don't want to insight any racial unrest  )


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.


That's a very contrived metric. What exactly is it a measure of? Is there some link between the level of education of a country and the number of (top 200) universities per person in that country? This is becoming like Top Trumps.

This is what I mean about being so close to the issue that you stop applying critical thought. Someone quotes a statistic that resonates with your beliefs and rather than saying "hang on... what does that actually mean?", you just repeat it religiously.


----------



## ag

Unfortunately there can be no winners from the Yes supporters on Thursday. If the Nos win then the Yes voters will be disappointed. If the Yes vote wins then the universal suffrage that will follow will be based on the views of everyone eligible to vote in Scotland. The left wing vote may well be split between traditional Socialists like Scottish Labour and National Socialists like the SNP. This would probably lead to a coalition based on consensus politics and any radical reforms will be blocked. I don't believe that without the watchful eye of either the UK or EU limiting their policymaking power that anyone really wants the SNP to govern. Independance rarely runs smoothly as different factions squabble and the people are left picking up the pieces. How stable have the countries involved in the Arab Spring been subsequently? Scotland will not be immune to such problems, it has exactly the same internal issues in abundance and the people are crying out for change for exactly the same reasons.

Scotland could prosper as an independant country. But it won't. The real world will get in the way. People always talk about their rights and seem to forget about their obligations. Once you've dealt with the things that you have to do, there is no cash left for the things you want to do.

If Yes wins, I'm retraining as a lawyer because they are the only ones that are going to come out of this better off.


----------



## msnttf10

Ironic don't you think given the yes are throwing stones, blaming everyone else - but the simple truth is its mainly from that camp that all the negativity and hostile stems from..


----------



## neilc

I have watched this debate with keen interest as someone who is proud to be a citizen of the UK and not just England.

The thing that has caused me much annoyance is that a proportion of the "YES " campaign seem to have this real anti English attitude that is bordering on radicalism. England and Scotland have worked together since 1746 creating what is now the UK.

It isn't just the English that created the UK , it was the Scots too. Remember that. We are stronger together as we have shown over the last 268 years and in these uncertain times both financially and more importantly that our very way of life is threatened by dangerous world events.

It's as if many of the more vocal "YES" campaigners have a real chip on there shoulder about the past and how England has somehow subjugated the Scots and that just isn't a fact at all. It was 268 years go !

I remember a few years ago watching a news clip about Scottish people watching England play Germany in a Euro semi cup final and them cheering Germany to win , I thought at the time how very sad that was. If the boot was on the other foot and Scotland had been playing Germany all of England would be supporting the Scots without question.

I am proud to have Scotland as part of the UK , I just wish some of the more vocal "YES" campaigners could see that pretty much all English people think that too.


----------



## V6RUL

Salmond to announce new currency if the YES vote win..

Steve


----------



## Trouble4

John-H said:


> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> even with hype-- question/puzzle depends on how you view which one is safety .......
> 
> would ask " are you prepared to die "
> 
> if No then that is the NO voter if Yes that is the Yes voter .. which leads right back to ""depends on how you view which one is safety""
> 
> 
> 
> But each campaigner would have a different view about disaster so how can you tell? :wink:
Click to expand...

now are you saying you asked an unanswerable question shame shame :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

all is about view point as everybody has one......... My point was focused at the Yes seem to put caution to the wind and No would like to keep their head above water.... something like that.......

there is nothing worse then Family having a big riff and this is what it is....... it hurts so much more when Family


----------



## mwad

neilc said:


> I have watched this debate with keen interest as someone who is proud to be a citizen of the UK and not just England.
> 
> The thing that has caused me much annoyance is that a proportion of the "YES " campaign seem to have this real anti English attitude that is bordering on radicalism.
> 
> I remember a few years ago watching a news clip about Scottish people watching England play Germany in a Euro semi cup final and them cheering Germany to win , I thought at the time how very sad that was. If the boot was on the other foot and Scotland had been playing Germany all of England would be supporting the Scots without question.


Very well said Neil, I couldn't agree more


----------



## mwad

One thing for sure, regardless with what way the vote will swing (IMO it will be a no vote), Scotland is clearly split and that in itself is a potential massive problem for Scotland


----------



## Shug750S

mwad said:


> neilc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have watched this debate with keen interest as someone who is proud to be a citizen of the UK and not just England.
> 
> The thing that has caused me much annoyance is that a proportion of the "YES " campaign seem to have this real anti English attitude that is bordering on radicalism.
> 
> I remember a few years ago watching a news clip about Scottish people watching England play Germany in a Euro semi cup final and them cheering Germany to win , I thought at the time how very sad that was. If the boot was on the other foot and Scotland had been playing Germany all of England would be supporting the Scots without question.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said Neil, I couldn't agree more
Click to expand...

+2 on above. Lots of things from the Yes camp seem to be anti English rather than pro Scottish.

I'm at the point now where as an Englishman and being British I can't see what they gain from going their own way, but if the Yes vote wins then so be it. I then await the separation and I mean full separation very quickly. No pound, apply to join EU / euro, increased taxes and in 20 years it'll be a mini Argentina, massive inflation and everyone wondering why it all went wrong.

Roll on Thursday, then they can go their own way or start whining about how it was all rigged against them.

If Scotland is such a great place, with such great free education (unless you're English) why do so many leave as soon as they can, especially with all those jobs people keep talking about on here that they can't fill...


----------



## ag

Shug750S said:


> No pound, apply to join EU / euro, increased taxes and in 20 years it'll be a mini Argentina, massive inflation and everyone wondering why it all went wrong.


Argentina is a poor example. Try Zimbabwe, self sustaining until they decided that they weren't quite happy enough. They had 30 years to make the changes and tried to make them in 30 days. Crisis.


----------



## Shug750S

Interesting question for the yes camp...

If yes wins and you become independent of rUK, do all Scots have to hand back their British passports ( or would we just cancel them) and would all Scots have to apply or be given a new Scortish passport?

Just thinking about the ash cloud a few years ago when the Royal Navy sent ships to Spain to bring UK citizens back home. Presume if similar incident in future either Alex would send the Scottish navy vessel (if there was one) or we would charge Scots for the service if we could fit them on the boat after all the UK passport holders had got on.


----------



## Spandex

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very contrived metric. What exactly is it a measure of? Is there some link between the level of education of a country and the number of (top 200) universities per person in that country? This is becoming like Top Trumps.
> 
> This is what I mean about being so close to the issue that you stop applying critical thought. Someone quotes a statistic that resonates with your beliefs and rather than saying "hang on... what does that actually mean?", you just repeat it religiously.
Click to expand...

I just looked it up. England has 4 universities in the world top 10, just behind the US which has 6. Scotland has 0.

This means that England has the most universities per capita in the top 10 than any other nation on earth, making them *the most educated nation on earth*. America comes second, and unfortunately Scotland is the (joint) worst educated nation on earth, with a staggering ZERO top ten universities per capita.

It's amazing what you can 'prove' if you want to... :wink:


----------



## TomBorehamUK

Spandex said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very contrived metric. What exactly is it a measure of? Is there some link between the level of education of a country and the number of (top 200) universities per person in that country? This is becoming like Top Trumps.
> 
> This is what I mean about being so close to the issue that you stop applying critical thought. Someone quotes a statistic that resonates with your beliefs and rather than saying "hang on... what does that actually mean?", you just repeat it religiously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just looked it up. England has 4 universities in the world top 10, just behind the US which has 6. Scotland has 0.
> 
> This means that England has the most universities per capita in the top 10 than any other nation on earth, making them *the most educated nation on earth*. America comes second, and unfortunately Scotland is the (joint) worst educated nation on earth, with a staggering ZERO top ten universities per capita.
> 
> It's amazing what you can 'prove' if you want to... :wink:
Click to expand...

 :lol:


----------



## John-H

Trouble4 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> even with hype-- question/puzzle depends on how you view which one is safety .......
> 
> would ask " are you prepared to die "
> 
> if No then that is the NO voter if Yes that is the Yes voter .. which leads right back to ""depends on how you view which one is safety""
> 
> 
> 
> But each campaigner would have a different view about disaster so how can you tell? :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now are you saying you asked an unanswerable question shame shame :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> all is about view point as everybody has one......... My point was focused at the Yes seem to put caution to the wind and No would like to keep their head above water.... something like that.......
> 
> there is nothing worse then Family having a big riff and this is what it is....... it hurts so much more when Family
Click to expand...

Yes, nothing worse than a family bust up.

The puzzle does have a solution. It's based on an identical puzzle but where one guardian of the buttons always tells the truth and the other one always lies. Can you work it out now?


----------



## TomBorehamUK

Spandex said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More universities per capita in the top 200 than any other nation on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very contrived metric. What exactly is it a measure of? Is there some link between the level of education of a country and the number of (top 200) universities per person in that country? This is becoming like Top Trumps.
> 
> This is what I mean about being so close to the issue that you stop applying critical thought. Someone quotes a statistic that resonates with your beliefs and rather than saying "hang on... what does that actually mean?", you just repeat it religiously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just looked it up. England has 4 universities in the world top 10, just behind the US which has 6. Scotland has 0.
> 
> This means that England has the most universities per capita in the top 10 than any other nation on earth, making them *the most educated nation on earth*. America comes second, and unfortunately Scotland is the (joint) worst educated nation on earth, with a staggering ZERO top ten universities per capita.
> 
> It's amazing what you can 'prove' if you want to... :wink:
Click to expand...

And according to times higher education, only ONE university in the top hundred. :roll:


----------



## Trig

Poll's, Pole's, all the same thing to me 

I've got 2 Scottish friends, one is a Yes the other is a No.
I have had conversations with both, and both make valid points for their argument, both did so without getting so wound up that it resulted in name calling and some pretty wide ranging abuse..

The No voter did say that if it was a Yes he was going to move to the Shetlands and start a campaign for independence from Scotland though lol...


----------



## msnttf10

V6RUL said:


> Salmond to announce new currency if the YES vote win..
> 
> Steve


It won't be issued by RBS - they have already said they are leaving if its a yes. :lol:


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

msnttf10 said:


> V6RUL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Salmond to announce new currency if the YES vote win..
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be issued by RBS - they have already said they are leaving if its a yes. :lol:
Click to expand...

And it won't be Sterling - they'd have to have the Euro. Or go back to using Groats. Yes, groats - with a picture of that well known Scot Mel Gibson on the back.


----------



## V6RUL

Made in Sterling..as stated by a young Scottish YES person interviewed on tellie last week..made me giggle
Steve


----------



## A3DFU

igotone said:


> The footsie currently has the jitters pending the result and I'm sure we'll see a massive dive if the 'Yes' vote wins with losses to all of us who've worked all our lives.


That is my personal worry - a worry not small. I've worked a long time in Germany and earned a German pension. With the £ falling against the € my German pension is worth less and less. At 65 I would like to retire but if the exchange rate carries on heading the way it does at the moment I don't see much chance for that to happen. So I might have to carry on teaching fitness at that sort of age


----------



## pas_55

Didn't think the pound changed
in the last few months £1.23.5

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## A3DFU

1.2545 today; 1.2498 middle of August; 1.1900 in May

http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/


----------



## phope

I really don't know what the answer to the passport question is. Here in the North East of Scotland you have huge numbers of people from all corners of the UK who will vote in the referendum but who would not take a Scottish passport

Without knowing for sure, I would hope and imagine people would choose their nationality and take the appropriate passport - I'll keep my British one thanks very much


----------



## msnttf10

English parliament for the english - mps from scotland should not have any say in our affairs.
It's time to scrap the barnett formula

A day of reckoning is coming - bye bye scotland, you're going to find it very cold and lonely out there all alone


----------



## John-H

Dani, who on earth is that in the picture with the ski sticks? Someone you met in Aviemore? You may need a passport to go there again if we press the big red button :wink:

Personally I hope we don't and a spirit of togetherness, common purpose, care and responsibility will prevail on Thursday. I love Scotland and don't want it to become a foreign country and potentially out of bounds by border controls or hostile opinion of previously friendly and welcoming fellows, running the risk of world economic and political opinion and us all potentially suffering and being the worse for it.

I want us to stay together on our small green island and work to a common purpose to make things better. We've stood together through slavery and World wars to the common benefit of our citizens and even those from beyond our shores. A common-wealth of morality and betterment by it's best achievements even though not perfect and learning from mistakes of the past, at least things moved in the right direction overall: Civilised government, democracy, science, learning, welfare - look what we've all brought to the world together.

I don't see the sense in driving ourselves apart. There are improvements to be made but to achieve them there is more strength in being together. For the sake of "Auld Lang Syne" and our common history and civilisation - the land of the free and of hope for the future.

Or something like that....


----------



## A3DFU

John-H said:


> Dani, who on earth is that in the picture with the ski sticks?


It's me. I received this picture after an inversion of time: me teaching my clients in 30 years from now. :roll:


----------



## msnttf10

http://news.uk.msn.com/in-pictures/spoo ... er#image=9


----------



## brian1978

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> msnttf10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> V6RUL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Salmond to announce new currency if the YES vote win..
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be issued by RBS - they have already said they are leaving if its a yes. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it won't be Sterling - they'd have to have the Euro. Or go back to using Groats. Yes, groats - with a picture of that well known Scot Mel Gibson on the back.
Click to expand...

If you don't know what your talking about, it's normally better just to keep quiet... you look less of a fool that way.

I'll educate you.....

To join the Euro you need to join the ERM II for about 2 years.... joining the ERM II is voluntary. We won't be joining ERM II thus won't be joining the Euro. 
Even if we wanted to it would take 2 years from the 24th March 2016. Scotland won't be joining the euro.

We have 2 realistic options. A currency union OR a currency, the pound. Pegged to sterling.


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

I thought this good, especially the Scottish currency conundrum...



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541


(its public, so anyone can watch...)


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> English parliament for the english - mps from scotland should not have any say in our affairs.
> It's time to scrap the barnett formula
> 
> A day of reckoning is coming - bye bye scotland, you're going to find it very cold and lonely out there all alone


we love you too :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

brian1978 said:


> I'll educate you......


Is that a _"best in the world, top-ten University"_ education? Or a _"1 in roughly 100"_ Universities education..?

I'll pass, ta. Though might come back to you if I want to know how many groats a pound of Poodlie costs... [smiley=idea2.gif]


----------



## YoungOldUn

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> I thought this good, especially the Scottish currency conundrum...
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541
> 
> 
> (its public, so anyone can watch...)


It appears to answer the monetary questions


----------



## bigdodge

If Scotland becomes independent will there be a new tt forum for Scotland? Maybe ttforum.co.sc


----------



## msnttf10

The economist is clearly wrong - ask mr1978! :lol: 
Its what everyone has been saying for the last 34 pages and he's simply dismissed every point with rhetoric and nationalism.

Even the most biased, crazy person can see "yes" is a complete joke - but, I'm total for a "yes" for all the reason he states. More jobs and Money for england, do us proud scotland :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 
it will be the only thing you've done in the last 300years to help out England.


----------



## jamman

Brian can I ask what your opinion is of the intimidation that seems to be getting heavily reported at the moment from all media sources ?

My uncle in Dundee put a no poster in his window and received a stone through it last night, NOT GOOD.


----------



## John-H

There have been many reports of no posters being torn down or defaced. The police are preparing for trouble. The intimidation appears to be one sided. I hope this divisive and sad episode ends soon.


----------



## A3DFU

I hope it makes the NO voters stand up and be counted for all the right reasons


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> If you don't know what your talking about, it's normally better just to keep quiet... you look less of a fool that way.
> 
> I'll educate you.....
> 
> To join the Euro you need to join the ERM II for about 2 years.... joining the ERM II is voluntary. We won't be joining ERM II thus won't be joining the Euro.
> Even if we wanted to it would take 2 years from the 24th March 2016. Scotland won't be joining the euro.
> 
> We have 2 realistic options. A currency union OR a currency, the pound. Pegged to sterling.


Brian, 2 questions
1. what currency do you want if the yes group win? And assuming either the British pound or something linked to it

2. What happens if rUK doesn't feel inclined to share as you wanted out?


----------



## Spandex

Shug750S said:


> Brian, 2 questions
> 1. what currency do you want if the yes group win? And assuming either the British pound or something linked to it
> 
> 2. What happens if rUK doesn't feel inclined to share as you wanted out?


I think he's already answered that... They want a currency union if possible, and if the rUK say no to that, they will use the pound without a union.

Brian, I'm interested in your opinion of the video that was posted earlier where the guy (an economist) points out that in a currency union you'll have less powers than you have now because the UK will control the financial policy, but you'll have no MPs in Westminster to influence that policy - a currency union in name, but an unequal union at best.


----------



## Shug750S

Do they gave the right to the pound without Union? If they are a separate country why would the rUK guarantee their currency?

Surely they need their own reserves?


----------



## John-H

In that case the remaining UK would look after its own pound and Scotland could only use it in trade just as many countries use the US dollar - but they don't have control of it nor can print it to increase supply.

The interesting question then comes with no central bank as lender of last resort; Scotland would have to underwrite its own banks (any that remain and have not transferred to the remaining UK) and this will impact on its ability to borrow money to recreate the infrastructure they would be abandoning as a result of a split. Lending to the smaller Scotland would be at a higher interest rate because of the risk of default. Who will pay for all of this?- The people of Scotland of course.


----------



## phope

An independent Scotland _could_ choose any medium of exchange that it wanted to without permission, including the Pound - it's a freely tradeable currency after all.

Hypothetically, it could just as easily choose to use the US dollar - handy for all those petrodollars flowing in from the oil that the Yes campaign talk about, and what about all those US tourists coming over with all their money? - hang on, I might have come up with a Plan C  

However, were it to use the US dollar, no one in their sane mind would expect the Federal Reserve to stand behind Scotland, and so it will be with the Bank of England if Scotland were to use the Pound without currency union...Scotland would be on it's own, and as John and others point out, that would mean higher costs for Scotland's borrowers compared to rUK, and the need for Scotland to establish huge currency reserves to make up for the lack of a central bank...leading to less money available for all the public services and promises that the Yes campaign are making, which would lead to a lot of disgruntled and misled voters


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

jamman said:


> Brian can I ask what your opinion is of the intimidation that seems to be getting heavily reported at the moment from all media sources ?
> 
> My uncle in Dundee put a no poster in his window and received a stone through it last night, NOT GOOD.


James, its not 'intimidation' - its "education". Very big in the Scotish Univertity system at the moment (especially around Glasgow :-* )



brian1978 said:


> If you don't know what your talking about, it's normally better just to keep quiet... you look less of a fool that way.
> 
> I'll educate you.....


I'm apparently very stupid, but even I got that it's "educate" from the post above...


----------



## jamman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-29232469


----------



## Trig

As stated previously, the Scottish aren't going anywhere, it'll be a No vote when it gets to the polls (see what I did there)..
All of the people that you see out and about are Yes voters, they are the ones that are kicking off, the No voters are saying they haven't decided or just aren't saying anything for fear of backlash from the Yes Extremists.
This is what leads me to my suggestion that by the time the numbers come in it wont be as close as its being reported at the minute...

The core of the problem isn't Scotland wanting independence, its Westminster being broken, the country is being ran by a bunch of tardsicles that are out of touch with what people want that the people have started to revolt, its easier for Scotland as they can pull the Independence card, and, it wouldn't surprise me if that's exactly what Salmon is doing, I don't think he actually cares what happens to Scotland as long as his pockets get lined, as is the normal politician way, here in the UK we vote for people like UKIP instead..


----------



## mwad

msnttf10 said:


> English parliament for the english - mps from scotland should not have any say in our affairs.
> 
> A day of reckoning is coming - bye bye scotland, you're going to find it very cold and lonely out there all alone


 :lol: I do have to agree


----------



## igotone

What do the bookies think? That's probably key to this. 

_Q. Let's face it, the people who always seem to know what's what in the world aren't the political analysts, but rather the bookies. Who are they backing as the winner of the referendum vote?

A. Normally, you pays your money and you takes your chance. But on this occasion, no matter what the opinion polls say - and they've said a lot about the Yes vote strengthening - the bookies think the outcome of the referendum will be a resounding No. One bookie was recently offering 2-5 on voters backing the Union and 12/5 for independence. One man has gambled £800,000 on a No vote. He stands to make a £100,000 profit if the electorate reject independence (the punter is English)._

_The Telegraph._


----------



## pas_55

Looks like they are going for a No

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brian1978

igotone said:


> What do the bookies think? That's probably key to this.
> 
> _Q. Let's face it, the people who always seem to know what's what in the world aren't the political analysts, but rather the bookies. Who are they backing as the winner of the referendum vote?
> 
> A. Normally, you pays your money and you takes your chance. But on this occasion, no matter what the opinion polls say - and they've said a lot about the Yes vote strengthening - the bookies think the outcome of the referendum will be a resounding No. One bookie was recently offering 2-5 on voters backing the Union and 12/5 for independence. One man has gambled £800,000 on a No vote. He stands to make a £100,000 profit if the electorate reject independence (the punter is English)._
> 
> _The Telegraph._


From the telegraph, you do realise the telegraph is probably the most "tory" biased paper in print. You might as well as David Cameron for an unbiased opinion than consult the Torygraph :lol:

You also have little understanding on how bookies work. You are confusing "bookies are never wrongc with the common saying, "bookies never lose".
Right sone the start of this campaign several large bets were placed on NO, all south of the border, this skewed the results, in favour of NO.
One online bookmakers recently paid out on NO, and Is advertising this but keeping the books open right till the end. [smiley=book2.gif] It payed out on a small portion of bets placed on an online section where it sets different odds, it paid out £100k, This is a common PR stunt that books do. The idea is they want more people piling cash on a no as punters think It's a foregone conclusion when they hear bets have been paid out on a particular result. It also discourages large bets on the longer odds YES side.

Now why do bookies want people piling cash on No?

I also noticed the SUN newspaper has come out in favour of yes, with a full spread urging a yes vote, Rupert Murdoch doesn't like egg on his face. He did the EXACT same thing on the last Scottish elections plugging SNP at the last kick in a very similar scenario where labour were ahead in the polls right up till election day..... then SNP won a historic landslide, now I'm not saying for one second that the SUN or Rupert Murdoch had anything to do with the actual result. But he was shouting the next day "it woz the sun wot won it" he likes to back the right horse and I believe he is doing the same again.

Whatever happens we will just have to get on with it, and if it's a NO I will have to accept it and move on, and wait in anticipation of the "new powers" than David Cameron is producing, although I would think hold my breath as I think his backbenchers or future prime ministers may have a differing opinion.


----------



## jamman

jamman said:


> Brian can I ask what your opinion is of the intimidation that seems to be getting heavily reported at the moment from all media sources ?
> 
> My uncle in Dundee put a no poster in his window and received a stone through it last night, NOT GOOD.


Can I ask you to comment Brian on my question my uncle isn't happy at all because he feels intimidated and reckons if it goes against the Yes voters they or rather sections of them will kick off big time.


----------



## mwad

bigdodge said:


> If Scotland becomes independent will there be a new tt forum for Scotland? Maybe ttforum.co.sc


Or ttforum.ohnoitsallgonetitsupcanwehaveabailout.sc. :lol: :twisted:


----------



## msnttf10

Wow, what a buzz - this is going to be some week.
The people are England are finally going to get a parliament and government WE vote for. No more compromises and second bests to please someone else. I feel genuine optimism at the thought that we won't be held back by scotland anymore.

On top of that today we have the news that we have at last recovered/surpassed the peek level of output before the 2008 recession, number of unemployed is now below 2008 numbers too - all this presided over by a scot.

I have the champagne ready, I'm desperate for a yes vote.
24hours to go, I'm preparing the new flag.


----------



## pas_55

Like the flag

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shug750S

+1 on the flag.

Looking forward to £ strengthening once the Scots go, assuming they are brave enough to introduce their own currency without our backing...


----------



## ag

There seems to be quite a lot of dislike on both sides which is a real pity because, whatever the result, the Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Irish are bound by similar values that will remain the same regardless of the result tomorrow. To maintain the lifestyle of everyone in the current UK will require collaboration and I think that the last few days appear, not just on this forum, to be tainted with an unnecessary level of bitterness. No clearcut answer exists to the vote because of a lack of facts and that if one did exist we wouldn't have opinion poles suggesting such a tight contest. My worry is that if the NO vote wins, all the brown shirts in the street are going to be pretty vengeful, if the result is YES then the Scots have 18 months of intimidation from the National Socialists. If what we have already seen is going to be symptomatic of every future decision in Scotland, and there is no reason to think that it won't be, I fear for your future. The "them and us" mentality typified by some of the remarks from both sides in this thread will continue, with the exception being that you are with the SNP or you are against them. I am genuinely scared that this vote will prove the undoing of Scotland, whatever the outcome.


----------



## John-H

That's my fear too. This could all end in tears and it's such a shame it's been allowed to come to this. I only hope people can put it behind them and start getting on with each other again. Factionism is a dangerous thing. United we stand and divided we fall.


----------



## msnttf10

scots only have themselves to blame - the way they have blamed and vilified England was bound to have an impact.
The problem is now most of the english people have a very bitter taste towards scotland and nothing will change that.

I truly feel we (England) will be better off without them, it's that simple.


----------



## jamman

John-H said:


> That's my fear too. This could all end in tears and it's such a shame it's been allowed to come to this. I only hope people can put it behind them and start getting on with each other again. Factionism is a dangerous thing. United we stand and divided we fall.


Couldn't agree more John I'm sure peeps like Brian will accept the result and get on with it whichever way it goes.

Others not mentioning any names won't simple as that.


----------



## igotone

msnttf10 said:


> scots only have themselves to blame - the way they have blamed and vilified England was bound to have an impact.
> The problem is now most of the english people have a very bitter taste towards scotland and nothing will change that.
> 
> I truly feel we (England) will be better off without them, it's that simple.


That's unfair and not really at all helpful. A huge proportion of Scots are in the No camp and not making the song and dance about it all that the separatists are. You have to feel very sorry for those people if the vote goes against them. When all the rhetoric and bullcack is done with it's the final count which will reveal the true feelings of the Scots so let's wait and see the result.


----------



## msnttf10

unfair, not sure about that. The loud yes extremists are the ones in the news no end poking fun.
The no's should stand up for themselves if this is what they believe in.

We are throwing away powers and money to pls these people when what we (the english) should be doing is sorting out our parliament and what our people want


----------



## jamman

igotone said:


> msnttf10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> scots only have themselves to blame - the way they have blamed and vilified England was bound to have an impact.
> The problem is now most of the english people have a very bitter taste towards scotland and nothing will change that.
> 
> I truly feel we (England) will be better off without them, it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> That's unfair and not really at all helpful. A huge proportion of Scots are in the No camp and not making the song and dance about it all that the separatists are. You have to feel very sorry for those people if the vote goes against them. When all the rhetoric and bullcack is done with it's the final count which will reveal the true feelings of the Scots so let's wait and see the result.
Click to expand...

+1


----------



## igotone

msnttf10 said:


> unfair, not sure about that. The loud yes extremists are the ones in the news no end poking fun.
> The no's should stand up for themselves if this is what they believe in.
> 
> We are throwing away powers and money to pls these people when what we (the english) should be doing is sorting out our parliament and what our people want


'"We the English?" Where do the Welsh and Irish fit into this.


----------



## msnttf10

I'm talking only about the english and that we should have our own parliament to decide our own issues and future.


----------



## Trouble4

msnttf10 said:


> I'm talking only about the english and that we should have our own parliament to decide our own issues and future.


thought you did and that was part of the problem ?


----------



## msnttf10

nope,

westminster is made up of MPs from England, Wales, NI and scotland. (UK)
England is the only one that doesn't have its own regional assembly to represent its people - so MPs from scotland for example get to vote on our issues, we can't vote on theirs..


----------



## John-H

I was trying to find an Any Questions transcript (I can't) where Tony Benn said something like -

_*Who are we anyway? - We are a mongrel race made up from the Druids, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Celts, Romans, Normans, ... Even the Royal family are German and Prince Philip is a Greek! *_

But I did find this which I think has a good message:



TONY BENN said:


> Don't ever under estimate people's intelligence, I think it is a great mistake and I mentioned rationing during the war and the most remarkable example of rationing I ever came across was this - during the war we didn't ration bread but after the war when the Germans were starving we rationed bread so the people we fought wouldn't starve. Now talk about a moral commitment at a critical moment and I think put properly and fairly to people they will respond. This idea that people will only respond to their own short term interests is a mistake, I don't - my own experience is that people are much more interested in the long term.


He also said:



TONY BENN said:


> I have always been very strongly in favour of the Scottish Parliament and devolution, and I think it's been a big success,"
> 
> "If Scotland wants to be independent they have the absolute right to do so. But I think nationalism is a mistake. And I am half Scots and feel it would divide me in half with a knife.
> 
> "The thought that my mother would suddenly be a foreigner would upset me very much.


----------



## John-H

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> I thought this good, especially the Scottish currency conundrum...
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541
> 
> 
> (its public, so anyone can watch...)


Only had time to listen to this tonight. Very well explained and should be made into a public information film


----------



## igotone

msnttf10 said:


> nope,
> 
> westminster is made up of MPs from England, Wales, NI and scotland. (UK)
> England is the only one that doesn't have its own regional assembly to represent its people - so MPs from scotland for example get to vote on our issues, we can't vote on theirs..


Fair point actually.


----------



## Shug750S

igotone said:


> msnttf10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope,
> 
> westminster is made up of MPs from England, Wales, NI and scotland. (UK)
> England is the only one that doesn't have its own regional assembly to represent its people - so MPs from scotland for example get to vote on our issues, we can't vote on theirs..
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point actually.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. Hypothetical - A vote(say) to increase prescription charges or Uni fees takes place in Westminster. The motion is passed, as the non English constituency MPs went for it, and their numbers got it passed.
As a result the fees increase in England, but the Scots, Welsh & NI assemblies have another vote and it goes against, so only one part of the Union gets hit.
Incidentally the one with the largest stake, population etc.

Surely some things (that could be overturned by local assemblies) should only be voted by English constituency MPs?


----------



## John-H

It's a good point and highlights a problem. There has been no English parliament since the act of union. The Westminster parliament is a British parliament and breaks down like this:

Scottish MPs = 59
Welsh MPs = 40
N. Ireland MPs = 18
English MPs = 533

It begs the question; would an "English" parliament vote any different to the present parliament at Westminster, which of course has been the argument to set up devolved parliaments in the first place. Would an English parliament largely be duplication of representation?

What it would perhaps require is several English regional parliaments, perhaps around 10 to balance up the numbers and reflect regional needs. That sounds like a an overburdened bureaucracy. Some compromise would need to be worked out.


----------



## Wallsendmag

Free the Geordies !!!! We've lived under southern oppression for too long .


----------



## Trouble4

However it comes out may peace and cooperation reign .............

for the Love of the people and the future of all's children ...........


----------



## neilc

Thank the lord it will be finishing today , I have had enough Alex Salmond recently for a whole lifetime , hearing him on Channel 4 last night made me cringe. He genuinely comes across as a power crazed , paranoid racist.

His continued beratement of the English , Westminster and the rest of the UK has left me fuming. Constantly blaming everyone else for putting pressure on the EU and the banks and businesses etc.

The truth is he and the " YES " campaign are taking risks with Scotland and all of the UK so no wonder banks and governments are deeply worried.

As this affects all of us here in the UK why didn't we have a vote ??


----------



## dzTT

Went and voted at opening time this morning. 7am and there was a queue, first time that has ever happened for any vote I've been to :lol:


----------



## Shug750S

neilc said:


> As this affects all of us here in the UK why didn't we have a vote ??


This was asked much earlier in the thread, and the yes side started going on about only being 8% of population, being governed by the English, being riled by such a proposal, their blood boiling, annoyed by the arrogance of the English wanting a say, yada, yada, yada

I thought it was a valid point though


----------



## Trig

Shug750S said:


> I thought it was a valid point though


There have been a good few good points raised on this thread, however the resident Yes voters seem to have ignored them....


----------



## igotone

neilc said:


> Thank the lord it will be finishing today , I have had enough Alex Salmond recently for a whole lifetime , hearing him on Channel 4 last night made me cringe. He genuinely comes across as a power crazed , paranoid racist.
> 
> His continued beratement of the English , Westminster and the rest of the UK has left me fuming. Constantly blaming everyone else for putting pressure on the EU and the banks and businesses etc.
> 
> The truth is he and the " YES " campaign are taking risks with Scotland and all of the UK so no wonder banks and governments are deeply worried.


Take comfort in the fact that if he does get his way he stands to become the most hated man in history when he can't actually deliver on his promises. He'll claim it was everyone's fault but his of course.


----------



## A3DFU

Good luck to whoever thinks they need luck. We'll know the results between 6:30am and 7:30am tomorrow morning.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> It begs the question; would an "English" parliament vote any different to the present parliament at Westminster, which of course has been the argument to set up devolved parliaments in the first place. Would an English parliament largely be duplication of representation?


Well, it's not exactly the answer to your question, but it's interesting all the same:

https://www.mysociety.org/2014/09/10/pa ... ince-1997/

Since 1997, out of more than 3000 votes, only 21 of them would have had a different outcome if you remove the Scottish MPs from the equation.


----------



## Spandex

And another interesting article debunking the myth that the UK will be condemned to a permanent Conservative government if Scotland become independent:

https://fullfact.org/scotland/permanent ... ence-35134


----------



## SBL

igotone said:


> neilc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank the lord it will be finishing today , I have had enough Alex Salmond recently for a whole lifetime , hearing him on Channel 4 last night made me cringe. He genuinely comes across as a power crazed , paranoid racist.
> 
> His continued beratement of the English , Westminster and the rest of the UK has left me fuming. Constantly blaming everyone else for putting pressure on the EU and the banks and businesses etc.
> 
> The truth is he and the " YES " campaign are taking risks with Scotland and all of the UK so no wonder banks and governments are deeply worried.
> 
> 
> 
> Take comfort in the fact that if he does get his way he stands to become the most hated man in history when he can't actually deliver on his promises. He'll claim it was everyone's fault but his of course.
Click to expand...

I reckon for the sake of Alex Salmond, best result would be a narrow loss as he'll come out as the man who almost liberated Scotland. Nearly 50% of the Scottish voters will think he's a hero.
For me a YES win will probably result in months of glory followed by years of despair.


----------



## Trig

SBL said:


> For me a YES win will probably result in months of glory followed by years of despair.


Followed by him leaving, pockets full and book deals on the horizon, pretty sure he wins eitherway...


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

My family hail from fairly close to where Salmond lives in Strichen (they're from The Broch), and my relatives back there say the most annoying thing about him is that he travels everywhere by helicopter!
Not a cheap form of travel when you're a public servant who should be saving the tax-payers money... :x


----------



## msnttf10

Interesting given his socialistic views and opinion that English ministers should use the bus.


----------



## A3DFU

msnttf10 said:


> We are throwing away money


Today's exchange rate:
1€ = £0.79. Just lost £300 today for no good reason


----------



## phope

Just been and voted No - polling station seemed pretty busy overall

I do think it will be very close either way

Early start for me tomorrow morning as well for work reasons, so should be up in time to hear the result as it is announced


----------



## jamman

I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch

IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

You are declaring too early you might influence the result! :lol:


----------



## mwad

jamman said:


> I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch
> 
> IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:


I reckon on a 60/40 no vote


----------



## jamman

mwad said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch
> 
> IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon on a 60/40 no vote
Click to expand...

That's what I bet with Brian but I think it may be slightly closer, hope not.


----------



## Wallsendmag

jamman said:


> mwad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch
> 
> IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon on a 60/40 no vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I bet with Brian but I think it may be slightly closer, hope not.
Click to expand...

60/40 for me too


----------



## brian1978

£50 on yes... better win now :lol:










Well it's done now. The vote that is..... I'm feeling good but bloody nervous. I think I felt less nerves when I got married :lol:

Whatever the result we will have to move on tomorrow, I just hope it's the right decision for all of us.


----------



## igotone

What odds did you get?


----------



## brian1978

igotone said:


> What odds did you get?


10/3


----------



## V6RUL

brian1978 said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> 
> What odds did you get?
> 
> 
> 
> 10/3
Click to expand...

You do realise that they are NOT good odds in a 2 horse race..
Steve


----------



## jamman

That's massive odds


----------



## V6RUL

brian1978 said:


> £50 on yes... better win now :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's done now. The vote that is..... I'm feeling good but bloody nervous. I think I felt less nerves when I got married :lol:
> 
> Whatever the result we will have to move on tomorrow, I just hope it's the right decision for all of us.


Just wondering how much tax you've just put back in the coffers..
We need more investors like you..
Steve


----------



## A3DFU

22:30
A YouGov survey of voters previously polled puts "No" at 54% and "Yes" at 46%. Not an exit poll, it was based on speaking to people again after they had cast their vote on Thursday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29263237


----------



## John-H

70:30 and I'm off to bed :lol:


----------



## pas_55

£1.25 to the € what do they know?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phope

Close result so far just before 5am - 55% No 45% Yes


----------



## jamman

jamman said:


> I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch
> 
> IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:


God I hate being right all the time.

Big congrats to Brian for his passion during the run up to the voting.

Hopefully with a "certain" member not bring present we can keep things civil and polite.


----------



## Trouble4

jamman said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch
> 
> IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hate being right all the time.
> 
> Big congrats to Brian for his passion during the run up to the voting.
> 
> Hopefully with a "certain" member not bring present we can keep things civil and polite.
Click to expand...

up late here as this does affect/effect and everything in between......... watching BBC......

my gut tells me it will be a yes vote........


----------



## NoMark

jamman said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch
> 
> IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hate being right all the time.
Click to expand...

I thought that as soon as I switched the TV on this morning and saw the percentage on the bottom of the screen. Have you got insider knowledge James? :lol:


----------



## J•RED

Trouble4 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going for 55/45 in favour of no and as anybody that knows me will vouch
> 
> IM NEVER WRONG :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hate being right all the time.
> 
> Big congrats to Brian for his passion during the run up to the voting.
> 
> Hopefully with a "certain" member not bring present we can keep things civil and polite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> up late here as this does affect/effect and everything in between......... watching BBC......
> 
> my gut tells me it will be a yes vote........
Click to expand...

Better than watching CNN! I see their predictions are 52% no and 58% yes :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H

Well that's's it. The BBC's analysts have declared Scotland have voted No.


----------



## phope

Best result for Scotland and the rest of the UK


----------



## John-H

55.4% No on an 86% average turnout and the Pound has hit a two year high sagainst the Euro in trading this morning.


----------



## mighTy Tee

phope said:


> Best result for Scotland and the rest of the UK


Agreed - I only hope the Salmond & co accept the substantial majority vote and STFU about independence and work harmoniously with the rest of the UK.


----------



## Shug750S

Best result for everyone (except Brian?)

Hopefully the vote was paid for by Alex, and none of my tax revenue contribtions were wasted.

Now time to start pushing for an English parliament


----------



## Shug750S

Correct outcome especially as only 1.9 million out of 64 million people voted for the UK to separate

That's just under 3% of the UK population, so hardly a significant number

Of course you can play with stats all you like, as I once heard 68.36% of statistics are made up


----------



## MrQaud

Majority of the Scots either too spineless or hoodwinked by the Westminster scaremongering!
Worst day ever for Scotland, went to bed last night full of optimism, now gutted! [smiley=bigcry.gif]
Ahh well, maybe third time lucky...


----------



## phope

Or... The majority of Scots do not want to be an independent country and take the risks that course of action would result in


----------



## pas_55

For a salmon he's been "done up like a kipper"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

I think for the majority of the 'No' voters there were too many unanswered big questions which Salmond and others skirted around for them to be able to vote 'Yes' with any degree of certainty:- 
What would the currency be?
How good are our Universities?
Was it right Jamman's relative had his window broken?

But well done Scotland - land of my fore-fathers - the quines an' loons done good fa' ar people.


----------



## ag

There was very little uncertainty about the direction an independant Scotland would take. It would survive, but be less prosperous than it is now. The rest of the UK would also suffer from reduced economies of scale so either taxes would go up or services would reduce. Either way both entities would suffer.

With the No vote, only England suffers. Scotland will have enhanced powers, which will make no difference to their overall standard of living, their policies will not create employment. England will continue to plug the gap in the finances created by fluctuating and decreasing oil revenues, a plug that will get bigger with time, both due to the dwindling Oil revene and their domestic policies.

That a little over 1.6 million people can hold a country of over 60 million people to ransom does not seem very democratic to me. Devolution doesn't mean localised democracy. It means an addition level of duplicated burocracy and reduced productivity for everyone.

The time has come to regard the UK as one country, not 4. I don't bang on about the ancient lands of the Iceni, so it is time for the the Jocks, the Paddys and the Taffs to shut the **** up, stop winging and accept the fact that they are part of a small country called the UK that is already on the verge of becoming irrelevant and that actually does quite well for everybody. Not perfect, no, but a damn sight better than most countries and most internal problems are not due purely to decisions from Westminster, but to too many people regarding welfare payments as an income and not a last resort.


----------



## MrQaud

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> I think for the majority of the 'No' voters there were too many unanswered big questions which Salmond and others skirted around for them to be able to vote 'Yes' with any degree of certainty:-
> What would the currency be?
> How good are our Universities?
> Was it right Jamman's relative had his window broken?
> 
> But well done Scotland - land of my fore-fathers - the quines an' loons done good fa' ar people.


Your bang-on about the unanswered questions. The reason for this was the UK government refused to sit down and thrash this out with the SNP before the referendum campaign got underway. Good ploy really as there would have been no uncertainties and there would have been a landslide Yes vote. Shame too many Scots didn't have the savvy to figure this out for themselves... Ah well, I suppose I'll just have to accept that more of my hard earned money will be wasted on Trident and its replacement and other totally irrelevant items and I'll have WMDs on the doorstep...


----------



## MrQaud

ag said:


> There was very little uncertainty about the direction an independant Scotland would take. It would survive, but be less prosperous than it is now. The rest of the UK would also suffer from reduced economies of scale so either taxes would go up or services would reduce. Either way both entities would suffer.
> 
> With the No vote, only England suffers. Scotland will have enhanced powers, which will make no difference to their overall standard of living, their policies will not create employment. England will continue to plug the gap in the finances created by fluctuating and decreasing oil revenues, a plug that will get bigger with time, both due to the dwindling Oil revene and their domestic policies.
> 
> That a little over 1.6 million people can hold a country of over 60 million people to ransom does not seem very democratic to me. Devolution doesn't mean localised democracy. It means an addition level of duplicated burocracy and reduced productivity for everyone.
> 
> The time has come to regard the UK as one country, not 4. I don't bang on about the ancient lands of the Iceni, so it is time for the the Jocks, the Paddys and the Taffs to shut the **** up, stop winging and accept the fact that they are part of a small country called the UK that is already on the verge of becoming irrelevant and that actually does quite well for everybody. Not perfect, no, but a damn sight better than most countries and most internal problems are not due purely to decisions from Westminster, but to too many people regarding welfare payments as an income and not a last resort.


LOL. If Scotland was doing so well out of the current arrangement, England would have cut it free - it would have been a great opportunity... You have to ask yourself, why was Cameron down on his knees with his trousers round his ankles?


----------



## neilc

Because Cameron is a passionate British citizen like many of us , some things are nothing to do with wealth or natural resources. Some times it's just about being proud to be British.


----------



## igotone

The common sense of the Scots has prevailed and they've stepped back from the brink of what could have been a disaster for all of us.


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

MrQaud said:


> Bartsimpsonhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think for the majority of the 'No' voters there were too many unanswered big questions which Salmond and others skirted around for them to be able to vote 'Yes' with any degree of certainty:-
> What would the currency be?
> How good are our Universities?
> Was it right Jamman's relative had his window broken?
> 
> But well done Scotland - land of my fore-fathers - the quines an' loons done good fa' ar people.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bang-on about the unanswered questions. The reason for this was the UK government refused to sit down and thrash this out with the SNP before the referendum campaign got underway. Good ploy really as there would have been no uncertainties and there would have been a landslide Yes vote. Shame too many Scots didn't have the savvy to figure this out for themselves... Ah well, I suppose I'll just have to accept that more of my hard earned money will be wasted on Trident and its replacement and other totally irrelevant items and I'll have WMDs on the doorstep...
Click to expand...

Why should the UK Government take the time, effort and expense to work out how exactly Scotland would devolve from the UK when the vote could have gone either way? I'm happy they saved my tax £££s by not doing it and wasting the money.

I think it was upto the separatists to work out for themselves what they would do in the event of devolution and present that plan to the voters themselves.

If Salmond goes before the public and just goes "_er, um, I've no idea what will happen with the currency if we split, but I hope the British banks will underwrite our currency and we can stick with the pound..."_ then he deserves not to have voters confidence. He should have had a plan-B (or C, or D...).
Stereotypically, the Scots have a reputation with being careful with their money, and if a politician can't guarantee their money is safe then his policies aren't getting voted for.


----------



## msnttf10

MrQaud said:


> LOL. If Scotland was doing so well out of the current arrangement, England would have cut it free - it would have been a great opportunity... You have to ask yourself, why was Cameron down on his knees with his trousers round his ankles?


I think you will find the reality is the UK would have cut scotland free as you call it if we had the vote too.
The yes, which lets be clear is only 1.6M people have vilified and poured scorn on the UK and basically decided they are better than the rest of us and that has caused a lot of bad feeling.

Lets be clear, this now mean scots will no longer have a say on UK issues - this is in direct response to the bad feeling in England about scotland right now. This process is going to leave a large and lasting scar for many people all over the UK and its not going to be easy to move on.

Lets hope this doesn't turn nasty... or should that be nastier?
As for the questions - it was always clear, fishman just wouldn't accept the answers...
no £, no bank of england, you would have had to rejoin EU... the list goes on..


----------



## ag

MrQaud said:


> LOL. If Scotland was doing so well out of the current arrangement, England would have cut it free - it would have been a great opportunity... You have to ask yourself, why was Cameron down on his knees with his trousers round his ankles?


Because:

A; Everybody would have been worse off, the English, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the Scots.

B; David Cameron's position at the head of the UK would have come in to question causing untold repercussions to Westminster. If there had been a YES vote, you wouldn't have known who you were negotiating with and there may have been some substantial changes to any terms had Labour been in power.

C; When it was decided to give Scotland a referendum, no-one in the political elite thought that the vote would be this close. There was no consideration given to the rise of nationalism that the SNP would be able to whip up as the maths was so against independance. The level of twisting of information by the SNP had not been anticipated. The political elite included the SNP as I truly believe that their best hope at the time was to screw some more power out of Westminster. In some ways Salmond and Co couldn't lose so it could be argued still that Westminster screwed up and the SNP cleaned up and for that Cameron should go.


----------



## Spandex

MrQaud said:


> Your bang-on about the unanswered questions. The reason for this was the UK government refused to sit down and thrash this out with the SNP before the referendum campaign got underway. Good ploy really as there would have been no uncertainties and there would have been a landslide Yes vote. Shame too many Scots didn't have the savvy to figure this out for themselves... Ah well, I suppose I'll just have to accept that more of my hard earned money will be wasted on Trident and its replacement and other totally irrelevant items and I'll have WMDs on the doorstep...


Sorry, but this is just more of the same speculation that has littered the debate since day one. You're just assuming that the result of the negotiations (had they taken place in advance) would have been favourable to an independent Scotland.

Uncertainty worked in Salmonds favour as much as it worked against him. It gave him room to make 'promises' that he possibly couldn't keep and it gave the No campaign the room to put the worst case scenarios out there too.


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

MrQaud said:


> I think you will find the reality is the UK would have cut scotland free as you call it if we had the vote too.
> The yes, which lets be clear is only 1.6M people have vilified and poured scorn on the UK and basically decided they are better than the rest of us and that has caused a lot of bad feeling.
> 
> Lets be clear, this now mean scots will no longer have a say on UK issues - this is in direct response to the bad feeling in England about scotland right now. This process is going to leave a large and lasting scar for many people all over the UK and its not going to be easy to move on.
> 
> Lets hope this doesn't turn nasty... or should that be nastier?
> As for the questions - it was always clear, fishman just wouldn't accept the answers...
> no £, no bank of england, you would have had to rejoin EU... the list goes on..


I think you're wrong - if we had the vote I think most rUK voters would have voted to keep Scotland part of the Union.
The same arguments stand for us keeping them as they had - we're better/stronger together.

Fare enough, given our historical divisions I can understand some Scots wanting devolution, but times have change and I think a fair few think themselves just as much 'British' as 'Scottish' now.
And given that more power will be given to Scotland to govern itself (without rUK MPs voting in the polls, and vice-versa) they've got more of what they wanted - so everyone's happy.


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> MrQaud said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. If Scotland was doing so well out of the current arrangement, England would have cut it free - it would have been a great opportunity... You have to ask yourself, why was Cameron down on his knees with his trousers round his ankles?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find the reality is the UK would have cut scotland free as you call it if we had the vote too.
> The yes, which lets be clear is only 1.6M people have vilified and poured scorn on the UK and basically decided they are better than the rest of us and that has caused a lot of bad feeling.
> 
> Lets be clear, this now mean scots will no longer have a say on UK issues - this is in direct response to the bad feeling in England about scotland right now. This process is going to leave a large and lasting scar for many people all over the UK and its not going to be easy to move on.
> 
> Lets hope this doesn't turn nasty... or should that be nastier?
> As for the questions - it was always clear, fishman just wouldn't accept the answers...
> no £, no bank of england, you would have had to rejoin EU... the list goes on..
Click to expand...

Oh get a grip, it was NEVER nasty. It's probably the most peaceful referendum in human history. If English had bad feeling towards the Scottish it is entirely their problem, the feeling isn't and was never mutual.

I was in a gathering of 6000 people in George Square one Wednesday night, about 40 members of the EDL turned up shouting obscenities and doing nazi salutes. Not one single person rose to it and 6000 people turned their backs on them, I have NEVER been prouder to be a Scot.

Thought this entire thread you you have come across as hateful and bitter, I have shown you nothing but respect.

This for me has never been anything to do with the English, as I've said before my wife is from Lambeth and my cousins and aunt from Stevenage. Some of my best friends are from south of the border,

This was about democracy for me, it was about breaking the apron strings of what I've see as as a corrupt and backwards government of oxbridge yahoos and unelected Lords.

When it comes to nationality I have no ill feelings towards any of you, but you sir are a disgrace.

Thanks to each and ever one of you for of you who kept this civil. It's been a journey for me, and I'm certain it's not over, if this process gives more powers to Scotland then it's been worth it.


----------



## jamman

I agree with you Brian but the same can't be said about Roddy can it.


----------



## brian1978

jamman said:


> I agree with you Brian but the same can't be said about Roddy can it.


We all have opinions, some of roddys I agree with some I don't, I certainly don't share his feelings towards the English. 
I'm not getting in the middle of any gripe people have with him.

I respect all people of of the UK, it's a shame our parliament is full of nuts


----------



## msnttf10

You do have a say, its called elected MPs - the 52 that sit in the "UK" (not english) parliament.
I'm pretty sure most of scotland voted for the 13years of complete rack and ruin cause by the last government and which will go on for much longer than that due to the PFI schemes they put in place and the debt they ran up.
EDL doesn't represent my view, why would you make such assumptions.

My point is a simple one and i don't thing you are getting it, this event has caused "huge" feelings all over the UK, not just scotland. You can't keep saying this was just about you, it wasn't even though only one region got to vote. The things that have been said by the SNP in the most are at best grossly over hyped.. this constant painting of the UK as an oppressor is just not true. scotland gets a fair deal now, England gets a less than fair deal, but that is now in hand which means I'm happy - thats what i wanted an english only house. scotland is not being robbed by England for the last 50years.

I don't care if scotland wants to increase taxes to pay for the NHS or Schools or whatever, thats unto you LOCALLY and you have that power from the local assembly. But i want the same say for England without others being able to vote on it.

As for nasty - look back, you said "freedom" you said all the figures all of which where shown to you as incorrect.
You clammed you will take this or that and showed no sympathy to what those words actually meant to others. I only present the other side of the feeling. lots of reports about yes intimidating the no's. Like most say, hopeful common sense will out and people will just carry on without anything getting out of hand.

As i said, this has left a scar thats going to take time to heal and that scar runs further south than just scotland. People need time. How about the scots cheering for england at a sporting event to show unity?  
Politics is simple, its all about the majority - but you can't pls everyone..


----------



## jamman

brian1978 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you Brian but the same can't be said about Roddy can it.
> 
> 
> 
> We all have opinions, some of roddys I agree with some I don't, I certainly don't share his feelings towards the English.
> I'm not getting in the middle of any gripe people have with him.
> 
> I respect all people of of the UK, it's a shame our parliament is full of nuts
Click to expand...

Quite agree.

Power corrupts ALWAYS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

brian1978 said:


> Thought this entire thread you you have come across as hateful and bitter, I have shown you nothing but respect...


Er, no I don't think you have - when someone's obviously having a bit of a laugh (below) and you tell them they don't know what they're talking about, that they should keep quiet, they look a fool, and you're going to "educate" them that is both condesending and rude.

And I think that's been echoed throughout a lot of your posts to other people throughout this topic.



brian1978 said:


> Bartsimpsonhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it won't be Sterling - they'd have to have the Euro. Or go back to using Groats. Yes, groats - with a picture of that well known Scot Mel Gibson on the back.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know what your talking about, it's normally better just to keep quiet... you look less of a fool that way.
> 
> I'll educate you.....
Click to expand...

I had to delete the pic of the bank not as the forum doesn't allow three quotes one-after-the-other (or something - it wouldn't let me post it anyway)


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> You do have a say, its called elected MPs - the 52 that sit in the "UK" (not english) parliament.
> I'm pretty sure most of scotland voted for the 13years of complete rack and ruin cause by the last government and which will go on for much longer than that due to the PFI schemes they put in place and the debt they ran up.
> EDL doesn't represent my view, why would you make such assumptions.
> 
> My point is a simple one and i don't thing you are getting it, this event has caused "huge" feelings all over the UK, not just scotland. You can't keep saying this was just about you, it wasn't even though only one region got to vote. The things that have been said by the SNP in the most are at best grossly over hyped.. this constant painting of the UK as an oppressor is just not true. scotland gets a fair deal now, England gets a less than fair deal, but that is now in hand which means I'm happy - thats what i wanted an english only house. scotland is not being robbed by England for the last 50years.
> 
> I don't care if scotland wants to increase taxes to pay for the NHS or Schools or whatever, thats unto you LOCALLY and you have that power from the local assembly. But i want the same say for England without others being able to vote on it.
> 
> As for nasty - look back, you said "freedom" you said all the figures all of which where shown to you as incorrect.
> You clammed you will take this or that and showed no sympathy to what those words actually meant to others. I only present the other side of the feeling. lots of reports about yes intimidating the no's. Like most say, hopeful common sense will out and people will just carry on without anything getting out of hand.
> 
> As i said, this has left a scar thats going to take time to heal and that scar runs further south than just scotland. People need time. How about the scots cheering for england at a sporting event to show unity?
> Politics is simple, its all about the majority - but you can't pls everyone..


I never said the EDL was representative of your views, I just used it as an example of Scotlands ability to ignore confrontation and rubbish your idea that this was nasty or that it will become nastier. Scotland and the Scottish people are world renowned for keeping calm and staying out of trouble, here in Scotland I saw absolutely no real resentment of the English throughout this entire campaign, ANY ill feeling is entirely one sided.

The ONLY sporting event we don't cheer at is football. It's light hearted and just banter. I will continue to support anyone but England when it comes to international football.

I think the roaring cheers team England got from Scotland in the ccommonwealth is a testament to that.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> This was about democracy for me


Democracy is about the majority vote of the population - it's not about reducing that population down until you get the outcome you want. Like I said before, this is no different to people living in a 'safe seat' constituency complaining that democracy doesn't work because they never get the MP they want.



msnttf10 said:


> My point is a simple one and i don't thing you are getting it, this event has caused "huge" feelings all over the UK, not just scotland. You can't keep saying this was just about you, it wasn't even though only one region got to vote. The things that have been said by the SNP in the most are at best grossly over hyped.. this constant painting of the UK as an oppressor is just not true. scotland gets a fair deal now, England gets a less than fair deal, but that is now in hand which means I'm happy - thats what i wanted an english only house. scotland is not being robbed by England for the last 50years.


This just comes across as a defensive, 'me too' sulk. Scotland are complaining about us having an unfair influence on them, so we'll complain about everyone having an unfair influence on us - even though you've got no evidence to show it actually has a detrimental effect on England.


----------



## brian1978

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought this entire thread you you have come across as hateful and bitter, I have shown you nothing but respect...
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no I don't think you have - when someone's obviously having a bit of a laugh (below) and you tell them they don't know what they're talking about, that they should keep quiet, they look a fool, and you're going to "educate" them that is both condesending and rude.
> 
> And I think that's been echoed throughout a lot of your posts to other people throughout this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bartsimpsonhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it won't be Sterling - they'd have to have the Euro. Or go back to using Groats. Yes, groats - with a picture of that well known Scot Mel Gibson on the back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't know what your talking about, it's normally better just to keep quiet... you look less of a fool that way.
> 
> I'll educate you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had to delete the pic of the bank not as the forum doesn't allow three quotes one-after-the-other (or something - it wouldn't let me post it anyway)
Click to expand...

Not the same, is someone goads me I will bite back. I started in this thread being civil to everyone, I never changed that tone unless someone deserved it. Which you did.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was about democracy for me
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is about the majority vote of the population - it's not about reducing that population down until you get the outcome you want. Like I said before, this is no different to people living in a 'safe seat' constituency complaining that democracy doesn't work because they never get the MP they want..
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree on that spandex. I see Scotland as a separate country, I will always do. When majority of decisions are made by the government elected by people in another country it's not democracy.

Scotland will have to go back to its old model of democracy now. Vote labour and cross our fingers England does the same :-|


----------



## brian1978

Would you be happy if scotland had a larger population and every time Scotland voted in a general election you got SNP or the Greens running England?


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Scotland will have to go back to its old model of democracy now. Vote labour and cross our fingers England does the same :-|


Surely this is what everyone living in a democratic country does with their party of choice?

It seems to me that you're focusing on borders that don't need to exist. If the UK had only ever been a single country, you'd still have areas that were predominantly Labour or predominantly Tory. But without the historical baggage, this would just be seen as part and parcel of a democratic system.



brian1978 said:


> Would you be happy if scotland had a larger population and every time Scotland voted in a general election you got SNP or the Greens running England?


'Happiness' doesn't come into it. I'm not happy when any party I didn't vote for get into power, but I don't run around bitching about how undemocratic it all is.


----------



## msnttf10

brian1978 said:


> Would you be happy if scotland had a larger population and every time Scotland voted in a general election you got SNP or the Greens running England?


Thats what happens now with the EU.
Personally i'd like to see us push ahead an go for a full federal EU, but with a local assembly - I'm sure the EDL/UKIP would argue we are there now.



Spandex said:


> This just comes across as a defensive, 'me too' sulk. Scotland are complaining about us having an unfair influence on them, so we'll complain about everyone having an unfair influence on us - even though you've got no evidence to show it actually has a detrimental effect on England.


This has a name, its called the West Lothian Question, its not a sulk, its just about devolved powers, or people having a regional say..

Time to close this down and move on, [smiley=gossip.gif]


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland will have to go back to its old model of democracy now. Vote labour and cross our fingers England does the same :-|
> 
> 
> 
> Surely this is what everyone living in a democratic country does with their party of choice?
> 
> It seems to me that you're focusing on borders that don't need to exist. If the UK had only ever been a single country, you'd still have areas that were predominantly Labour or predominantly Tory. But without the historical baggage, this would just be seen as part and parcel of a democratic system.
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if scotland had a larger population and every time Scotland voted in a general election you got SNP or the Greens running England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Happiness' doesn't come into it. I'm not happy when any party I didn't vote for get into power, but I don't run around bitching about how undemocratic it all is.
Click to expand...

We are going round in circles. You might see Scotland as a region of the UK, but I see it as a separate country ruled over by a parliament in another country. I don't see myself as British and never will, I am Scottish.

Let's just leave it at that


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> We are going round in circles. You might see Scotland as a region of the UK, but I see it as a separate country ruled over by a parliament in another country. I don't see myself as British and never will, I am Scottish.
> 
> Let's just leave it at that


And that is the whole point.

I regard myself as a UK citizen first and an Englishman (despite being 50% welsh, on my mothers side) a fair proportion of Scots do seem to not so much hate, but have a serious dislike of the English. Why?

Maybe it's because they are a minority so have this opinion.

Anyway, the vote is over, and the Scots who were allowed to vote (I have Scots mates living in London who were not) have decided. So let's all get back to being a United Kingdom, which even with it's numerous faults, is still a great place to live!

And be fair, quite a few of your posts could easily be seen as anti English


----------



## Spandex

msnttf10 said:


> in terms of "This just comes across as a defensive, 'me too' sulk. Scotland are complaining about us having an unfair influence on them, so we'll complain about everyone having an unfair influence on us - even though you've got no evidence to show it actually has a detrimental effect on England." this has a name, its called the West Lothian Question, its not a sulk, its just about devolved powers.
> 
> Time to close this down and move on, [smiley=gossip.gif]


I know about the West Lothian Question... But it's the name of a debate, not a solution. It's not even a universally agreed problem.

But, let's go with your suggestion of an 'English only house' for a while. This would, I assume, only vote on issues that didn't affect the rest of the UK (due to the devolution of powers)? So we have a parliament for the whole of the UK, and a separate one for England (the UK one with other countries removed) which has a completely different party split to the main UK one. So, you have a ridiculous situation where the government has a majority when voting on (for example) defense, whilst having a minority when voting on health.

Really, there isn't an issue to fix. There are very few 'English-only' things that would need to be voted on in the current system - so few that I'm pretty sure you can't find lots of examples - but by trying to 'fix' this non-issue we would just end up creating loads more.


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought this entire thread you you have come across as hateful and bitter, I have shown you nothing but respect...
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no I don't think you have - when someone's obviously having a bit of a laugh (below) and you tell them they don't know what they're talking about, that they should keep quiet, they look a fool, and you're going to "educate" them that is both condesending and rude.
> 
> And I think that's been echoed throughout a lot of your posts to other people throughout this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same, is someone goads me I will bite back. I started in this thread being civil to everyone, I never changed that tone unless someone deserved it. Which you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong - my comment was in response to a comment msnttf10 made to a V6RULL post - prior to that I'd had no exchanges with you at all, and certainly didn't seek to "goad" you into anything.

And yet you thought to take it upon yourself to "educate" me in a condesending, rude, and what could be interpretated as aggressive manner.

When you wrote you'd shown everyone the upmost respect this was obviously just a lie to try to save face.


----------



## Shug750S

Looking at posts since the majority of Scots who voted went for a No, I think the reaction has been fairly muted.

Was expecting a lot of noise and loser comments if the result was the other way round.

Does anyone know how much money was spent on the whole process? And was it centrally funded or paid for by the SNP?


----------



## Trouble4

Us is a melting pot at least some of you know who you are........

by all who have traced our Family: I am English (Forsyth/e) Scottish (McWhan) Welch (Whan) Irish (Whan) Aussie (Whan)

American Indian (Creed) Canadian ..........

Have come to realize I am who I want to be sometimes good sometimes not :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

still have not found where I want to live........ need to decide running out of time........... 8)


----------



## brian1978

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> Bartsimpsonhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought this entire thread you you have come across as hateful and bitter, I have shown you nothing but respect...
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no I don't think you have - when someone's obviously having a bit of a laugh (below) and you tell them they don't know what they're talking about, that they should keep quiet, they look a fool, and you're going to "educate" them that is both condesending and rude.
> 
> And I think that's been echoed throughout a lot of your posts to other people throughout this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same, is someone goads me I will bite back. I started in this thread being civil to everyone, I never changed that tone unless someone deserved it. Which you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're wrong - my comment was in response to a comment msnttf10 made to a V6RULL post - prior to that I'd had no exchanges with you at all, and certainly didn't seek to "goad" you into anything.
> 
> And yet you thought to take it upon yourself to "educate" me in a condesending, rude, and what could be interpretated as aggressive manner.
> 
> When you wrote you'd shown everyone the upmost respect this was obviously just a lie to try to save face.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't a lie to save anything, if I was mistaken about what you wrote I apologise.


----------



## Spandex

Trouble4 said:


> Us is a melting pot at least some of you know who you are........
> 
> by all who have traced our Family: I am English (Forsyth/e) Scottish (McWhan) Welch (Whan) Irish (Whan) Aussie (Whan)
> 
> American Indian (Creed) Canadian ..........
> 
> Have come to realize I am who I want to be sometimes good sometimes not :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> still have not found where I want to live........ need to decide running out of time........... 8)


The UK is a melting pot too... I don't think I know anyone who has only one nationality in their blood, even only going back a few generations. It tends not to affect their view of their own nationality though.

I do think though that Americans are very preoccupied with their personal heritage, and what they believe it says about them. I'm not sure why this is, but I find it odd when I hear an American say (for example) that they're 'Irish' when in fact their closest Irish relative is a great grandparent.

My dad was Irish... That doesn't make me Irish though.


----------



## igotone

I see Salmond has now announced he will stand down after losing the referendum. I can't say I'm sorry, I couldn't stand the man or his politics. Nationalism is never a good thing, historically it always attracts the wrong types and for the wrong reasons. It should never be confused with patriotism.


----------



## OeTT

I'm glad to see the back of him and I'm a Scot. 1 trick pony. Good riddance.


----------



## igotone

OeTT said:


> I'm glad to see the back of him and I'm a Scot. 1 trick pony. Good riddance.


Well it shows beyond a doubt he's no interest in working to make the alliance work so I'd have to agree.


----------



## pas_55

You think he may have a book out at Xmas?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SBL

Hmmmm, it's nice to see that we've all kissed and made up now that it's all over. Onwards together in harmony  
Trying to remember back to school days history, wasn't it a Scottish king who held both crowns (Scotland and England) that brought about the union and the joining of the parliaments,,,, by agreement???????
Seemed like a good idea at the time moment I guess.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Us is a melting pot at least some of you know who you are........
> 
> by all who have traced our Family: I am English (Forsyth/e) Scottish (McWhan) Welch (Whan) Irish (Whan) Aussie (Whan)
> 
> American Indian (Creed) Canadian ..........
> 
> Have come to realize I am who I want to be sometimes good sometimes not :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> still have not found where I want to live........ need to decide running out of time........... 8)
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is a melting pot too... I don't think I know anyone who has only one nationality in their blood, even only going back a few generations. It tends not to affect their view of their own nationality though.
> 
> I do think though that Americans are very preoccupied with their personal heritage, and what they believe it says about them. I'm not sure why this is, but I find it odd when I hear an American say (for example) that they're 'Irish' when in fact their closest Irish relative is a great grandparent.
> 
> My dad was Irish... That doesn't make me Irish though.
Click to expand...

I'm Scottish through and through. Have done my family tree on both sides and Scottish both sides back 6 generations 

Probably why both sides of my family are blonde/ginger with freckles :lol: :lol:


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Us is a melting pot at least some of you know who you are........
> 
> by all who have traced our Family: I am English (Forsyth/e) Scottish (McWhan) Welch (Whan) Irish (Whan) Aussie (Whan)
> 
> American Indian (Creed) Canadian ..........
> 
> Have come to realize I am who I want to be sometimes good sometimes not :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> still have not found where I want to live........ need to decide running out of time........... 8)
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is a melting pot too... I don't think I know anyone who has only one nationality in their blood, even only going back a few generations. It tends not to affect their view of their own nationality though.
> 
> I do think though that Americans are very preoccupied with their personal heritage, and what they believe it says about them. I'm not sure why this is, but I find it odd when I hear an American say (for example) that they're 'Irish' when in fact their closest Irish relative is a great grandparent.
> 
> My dad was Irish... That doesn't make me Irish though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Scottish through and through. Have done my family tree on both sides and Scottish both sides back 6 generations
> 
> Probably why both sides of my family are blonde/ginger with freckles :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

6 generations, so not quite through and through :wink:


----------



## brian1978

SBL said:


> Hmmmm, it's nice to see that we've all kissed and made up now that it's all over. Onwards together in harmony
> Trying to remember back to school days history, wasn't it a Scottish king who held both crowns (Scotland and England) that brought about the union and the joining of the parliaments,,,, by agreement???????
> Seemed like a good idea at the time moment I guess.


Tonight I'm ashamed to be Scottish. I see some of the no support turned up in George Square.

I could actually cry... in fact I think I might. I hope it's not true but been hearing this from multiple sources. 

I'm not for a second saying all no voters are this way, but 3 nights on the trot with 6000+ yes supporters and zero bother speaks volumes.


----------



## brian1978

[smiley=bigcry.gif]


TomBorehamUK said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troubs a melting pot at least some of you know who you are........
> by all who have traced our Family: I am English (Forsyth/e) Scottish (McWhan) Welch (Whan) Irish (Whan) Aussie (Whan)
> American Indian (Creed) Canadian ..........
> Have come to realize I am who I want to be sometimes good sometimes not :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> still have not found where I want to live........ need to decide running out of time........... 8)[/
> The UK is a melting pot too... I don't think I know anyone who has only one nationality in their blood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Scottish through and through. Have done my family tree on both sides and Scottish both sides back 6 generations
> 
> Probably why both sides of my family are blonde/ginger with freckles :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> 6 generations, so not quite through and through :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only looked back 6 generations and everyone lived in Aberdeen Shetland and Highlands.... I think my it's safe to say I'm a jock :lol:
> 
> My wife is English so I think if I do have kids I'm the c c c c c combo breaker :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## brian1978

[smiley=bigcry.gif]

https://vine.co/v/OWPZRHNI0AJ

I am absolutely horrified by this...

In George Sq on wed a group of 15 or so better together campaigners walked directly through 6000 yes campaigners. Not one ill word was spoken.

And more horrified that the BBC has not reported a bit of ANY of this.


----------



## brian1978

George Sq wed night.










George Sq Fri night.










I feel sick, I'm actually in tears.


----------



## YoungOldUn

Brian, people who behave like that are pure scum they have no real interest in 'Yes' or 'No' just on the lookout for trouble and if they cannot find it they will make it. It doesn't matter if they were born in Scotland, Ireland, Wales or England they are pure scum.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> And more horrified that the BBC has not reported a bit of ANY of this.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29288249


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more horrified that the BBC has not reported a bit of ANY of this.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29288249
Click to expand...

This is f#@king bull spandex, the BBC are [email protected]$king SCUM. I was THERE, ME I was There!

A few 100 peaceful yes voters got chased off as these barstewards descended on George Sq. For days 10s of THOUSANDS of yes supporters occupied George Square with singing and drums and good will. NOT ONE SINGLE INCIDENT. NOT ONE!!!

I'm literally sitting here in my sitting room with tears running down my face.......


----------



## brian1978

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29288249


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more horrified that the BBC has not reported a bit of ANY of this.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29288249
Click to expand...

You might think your smart, linking biast s**** without one single clue about what you are dealing with.

But spandex I WAS STANDING IN THE ******** MIDDLE OF IT.

I am disgusted and ashamed.... These are not scots....


----------



## brian1978

I'm going to bed, hoping ill feel better in the morning.


----------



## mwad

YoungOldUn said:


> Brian, people who behave like that are pure scum they have no real interest in 'Yes' or 'No' just on the lookout for trouble and if they cannot find it they will make it. It doesn't matter if they were born in Scotland, Ireland, Wales or England they are pure scum.


Well said. Very true


----------



## Shug750S

Hmm, not seeing much of the 'be gracious in victory, humble in defeat' are we.

Get the impression the yes group will always bear a grudge that they lost the vote, and Alex saying that's it shows a pretty sore loser to me.

Was chatting with some Scots in the hotel bar last night, they were close to retirement and reckoned they knew no one who was going yes, as didn't want their retirement ruined by weak currency and increased taxation. Their opinion (and be clear it was their opinion before I get called small minded again) was it was the ones with not much to lose that were looking for change, as per normal, and the silent no majority was always going to win.


----------



## A3DFU

brian1978 said:


> I'm going to bed, hoping ill feel better in the morning.


I hope you feel better today Brian 

Start counting your blessings in life and wave "good bye" to externals so you can feel your internal joy resurfacing. True inner joy is not dependant on outer factors


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more horrified that the BBC has not reported a bit of ANY of this.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29288249
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might think your smart, linking biast s**** without one single clue about what you are dealing with.
Click to expand...

Not really. You said the BBC hadn't reported a single bit of it so I posted a link to show they were reporting it, that's all. So now you change your story to say that actually, it's the bias that's the problem, not the lack of reporting. To be honest, if someone proved there was no bias I have no doubt you'd change your story once again to find something else to complain about.


brian1978 said:


> But spandex I WAS STANDING IN THE ******** MIDDLE OF IT.


Can I ask why? I'm not trying to say that what's happening is right, but I also don't understand why people are gathering in public like this now that the vote is over.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian19d more horrified that the BBC has not reported a bit of ANY of this.[/quo
> [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29288249 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29288249[/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> You might think your smart, linking biast s**** without one single clue about what you are dealing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. You said the BBC hadn't reported a single bit of it so I posted a link to show they were reporting it, that's all. So now you change your story to say that actually, it's the bias that's the problem, not the lack of reporting. To be honest, if someone proved there was no bias I have no doubt you'd change your story once again to find something else to complain about.
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But spandex I WAS STANDING IN THE ******** MIDDLE OF IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I ask why? I'm not trying to say that what's happening is right, but I also don't understand why people are gathering in public like this now that the vote is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was in George Sq, my wife works adjacent to it I was picking her up and there was a few yes campaigners gathered listening to to a speaker. Perhaps 75 people, then about 200 unionists and loyalists started causing bother, ripping satires out of people's hands, riot police showed up. They were standing round the war memorial singing rule britania doing nazi salutes. We left at that point. Apparently it really kicked off later, the situation the media reported was not what I saw.
> 
> Reminded me of thugs at a rangers/celtic match....
> 
> 2 years of yes campaigns, protests and rallys, zero arrests! then within 3 hours of the no campaigns "party" in George Square 6 people are arrested. And riot police have to break it up.
Click to expand...


----------



## neilc

Looking at the voting statistics it showed 71% of the 16-18 year olds voted for independance and that highlights something very important in that people in that age group are unlikely to have a real grasp of the importance of the union and the strength that brings with it's currency , national security , etc etc etc.

Sometimes the excitement of change for the younger generation isn't backed up with reality which is something most older voters can associate with.


----------



## brian1978

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandete="brian19d more horrified that the BBC has not reported a bit of ANY of this.[/quo
> [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29288249]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29288249[/URL][/qu
> You might think your smart said:
> 
> 
> 
> But spandex I WAS STANDING IN THE ******** MIDDLE OF IT.
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask why? I'm not trying to say that what's happening is right, but I also don't understand why people are gathering in public like this now that the vote is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was in George Sq, my wife works adjacent to it I was picking her up and there was a few yes campaigners gathered listening to to a speaker. Perhaps 75 people, then about 200 unionists and loyalists started causing bother, ripping satires out of people's hands, riot police showed up. They were standing round the war memorial singing rule britania doing nazi salutes. We left at that point. Apparently it really kicked off later, the situation the media reported was not what I saw.
> 
> Reminded me of thugs at a rangers/celtic match....
> 
> 2 years of yes campaigns, protests and rallys, zero arrests! then within 3 hours of the no campaigns "party" in George Square 6 people are arrested. And riot police have to break it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was the media were making this out like it was a rivalry between yes and no, it simply wasn't the case yes supporters in this campaign have been absolutely peaceful throughout. When these halfwits showed up the small numbers of yes supporters left. Then they no campaign caused bother with whoever passed.
> 
> One paper, reported unionists being surrounded by police for their own safety from angry yes supporters, it's utter lies. It just didn't happen. When I got home I was watching it live on a Web cam they have in George Sq. I could see nothing but unionists and loyalists going on like hooligans.
Click to expand...


----------



## brian1978

neilc said:


> Looking at the voting statistics it showed 71% of the 16-18 year olds voted for independance and that highlights something very important in that people in that age group are unlikely to have a real grasp of the importance of the union and the strength that brings with it's currency , national security , etc etc etc.
> 
> Sometimes the excitement of change for the younger generation isn't backed up with reality which is something most older voters can associate with.


They have no way of coming to that statistic mate. The ballot papers are not marked with the age of people putting putting a cross in the box, I'm guessing you got that info from a poll done, if it's the one I think it is they asked 14 people from each age group. Hardly accurate


----------



## Shug750S

Thank god it's all over. Or not as some still seem upset they lost the democratic vote...

Brian, did you ever uncover who paid for this? I hope it was the Scots, but fear it was all UK taxpayers..if so then the non voters paid majority (ie those not in Scotland) so can we have our wasted money back?


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> Thank god it's all over. Or not as some still seem upset they lost the democratic vote...
> 
> Brian, did you ever uncover who paid for this? I hope it was the Scots, but fear it was all UK taxpayers..if so then the non voters paid majority (ie those not in Scotland) so can we have our wasted money back?


It was paid for by donations from the public, most of the yes campaigns came from Colin weir and his wife, the euromillions lottery winners from Largs, big donations from JK Rowling paid for much of the no campaign.

Don't worry none of your precious money was spent on us.


----------



## igotone

Brian.

Put the missus in the TT and get away for the weekend. Reeeelax! :wink:


----------



## brian1978

igotone said:


> Brian.
> 
> Put the missus in the TT and get away for the weekend. Reeeelax! :wink:


I am relaxed, but it seems some people on here are still on the wind up.


----------



## neilc

brian1978 said:


> Don't worry none of your precious money was spent on us.


It's our precious money as in England , Scotland , Wales and NI. That's what it means to be in a union


----------



## John-H

I don't usually take any notice of celebrity opinion but apparently Terry Jones posted his view on Alex Salmond which went viral and may have influenced the result:


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> I was in George Sq, my wife works adjacent to it I was picking her up and there was a few yes campaigners gathered listening to to a speaker. Perhaps 75 people, then about 200 unionists and loyalists started causing bother, ripping satires out of people's hands, riot police showed up. They were standing round the war memorial singing rule britania doing nazi salutes. We left at that point. Apparently it really kicked off later, the situation the media reported was not what I saw.
> 
> Reminded me of thugs at a rangers/celtic match....
> 
> 2 years of yes campaigns, protests and rallys, zero arrests! then within 3 hours of the no campaigns "party" in George Square 6 people are arrested. And riot police have to break it up.


The BBC article did seem to make it clear that the unionists had started the trouble and were instigating the 'charges' against Yes supporters. It doesn't seem particularly biased against the Yes campaign to me.

I'm sure though, that you're not suggesting that a few hundred thugs are representative of the No campaign, or that Yes campaigners are less likely to be thugs than No campaigners...


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank god it's all over. Or not as some still seem upset they lost the democratic vote...
> 
> Brian, did you ever uncover who paid for this? I hope it was the Scots, but fear it was all UK taxpayers..if so then the non voters paid majority (ie those not in Scotland) so can we have our wasted money back?
> 
> 
> 
> It was paid for by donations from the public, most of the yes campaigns came from Colin weir and his wife, the euromillions lottery winners from Largs, big donations from JK Rowling paid for much of the no campaign.
> 
> Don't worry none of your precious money was spent on us.
Click to expand...

Sorry didn't mean the yes campaign, was thinking of the voting costs, the wages of all the voting centre staff, counters , costs for voting centres, admin, etc.

Interesting though as I found this which indicates it was actually the Scottish taxpayer who footed the major part of the bill. So glad none of my money was used.

_According to an impact assessment report signed-off by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in March 2013, the estimated cost of holding the referendum was predicted to be £13.3 million.

This includes the cost of actually running the referendum, ultimately paid by the Scottish Ministers, which was estimated at £8.6 million. The Chief Counting Officer, local counting officers and electoral registration officers incur these costs during their role in running the referendum, which are then reimbursed by the Scottish Government.

The further £4.7 million includes the costs of a free mailshot to everyone in Scotland for each of the main campaign organisations, which the mail service provider can recover from the Scottish Government.

It also includes costs associated with the Electoral Commission's role. This is funded by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, with some of the initial costs reimbursed by the Scottish Government.

In reality, as these costs are estimates they may be different from the amount ultimately spent on the referendum. The Scottish Government's initial consultation in January 2012 said the total cost was 'likely to be around £10 million'.

In terms of campaign costs, the official Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns each have a £1.5 million spending limit. Anyone else campaigning may incur costs which are also regulated by the Electoral Commission._

Does seem a lot of money to spend really although in context it's only about £3-£4 per voter.


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank god it's all over. Or not as some still seem upset they lost the democratic vote...
> 
> Brian, did you ever uncover who paid for this? I hope it was the Scots, but fear it was all UK taxpayers..if so then the non voters paid majority (ie those not in Scotland) so can we have our wasted money back?
> 
> 
> 
> It was paid for by donations from the public, most of the yes campaigns came from Colin weir and his wife, the euromillions lottery winners from Largs, big donations from JK Rowling paid for much of the no campaign.
> 
> Don't worry none of your precious money was spent on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry didn't mean the yes campaign, was thinking of the voting costs, the wages of all the voting centre staff, counters , costs for voting centres, admin, etc.
> 
> Interesting though as I found this which indicates it was actually the Scottish taxpayer who footed the major part of the bill. So glad none of my money was used.
> 
> _According to an impact assessment report signed-off by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in March 2013, the estimated cost of holding the referendum was predicted to be £13.3 million.
> 
> This includes the cost of actually running the referendum, ultimately paid by the Scottish Ministers, which was estimated at £8.6 million. The Chief Counting Officer, local counting officers and electoral registration officers incur these costs during their role in running the referendum, which are then reimbursed by the Scottish Government.
> 
> The further £4.7 million includes the costs of a free mailshot to everyone in Scotland for each of the main campaign organisations, which the mail service provider can recover from the Scottish Government.
> 
> It also includes costs associated with the Electoral Commission's role. This is funded by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, with some of the initial costs reimbursed by the Scottish Government.
> 
> In reality, as these costs are estimates they may be different from the amount ultimately spent on the referendum. The Scottish Government's initial consultation in January 2012 said the total cost was 'likely to be around £10 million'.
> 
> In terms of campaign costs, the official Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns each have a £1.5 million spending limit. Anyone else campaigning may incur costs which are also regulated by the Electoral Commission._
> 
> Does seem a lot of money to spend really although in context it's only about £3-£4 per voter.
Click to expand...

Certainly a lot cheaper than HS2 .I will never use it.... can I have MY money back ;-)


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in George Sq, my wife works adjacent to it I was picking her up and there was a few yes campaigners gathered listening to to a speaker. Perhaps 75 people, then about 200 unionists and loyalists started causing bother, ripping satires out of people's hands, riot police showed up. They were standing round the war memorial singing rule britania doing nazi salutes. We left at that point. Apparently it really kicked off later, the situation the media reported was not what I saw.
> 
> Reminded me of thugs at a rangers/celtic match....
> 
> 2 years of yes campaigns, protests and rallys, zero arrests! then within 3 hours of the no campaigns "party" in George Square 6 people are arrested. And riot police have to break it up.
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC article did seem to make it clear that the unionists had started the trouble and were instigating the 'charges' against Yes supporters. It doesn't seem particularly biased against the Yes campaign to me.
> 
> I'm sure though, that you're not suggesting that a few hundred thugs are representative of the No campaign, or that Yes campaigners are less likely to be thugs than No campaigners...
Click to expand...

I am ABSOLUTELY saying yes supporters are less likely to be thugs... my simple reason for this is the huge numbers of unionists and loyalists associated with the no vote.... Orange order, unionist football thugs etc....

Like I said 2 years of yes gatherings, rallys, demonstrations with absolutely ZERO trouble... 1 night in George Square with the "better together" organised gathering 6 arrests and 1 stabbing.


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in George Sq, my wife works adjacent to it I was picking her up and there was a few yes campaigners gathered listening to to a speaker. Perhaps 75 people, then about 200 unionists and loyalists started causing bother, ripping satires out of people's hands, riot police showed up. They were standing round the war memorial singing rule britania doing nazi salutes. We left at that point. Apparently it really kicked off later, the situation the media reported was not what I saw.
> 
> Reminded me of thugs at a rangers/celtic match....
> 
> 2 years of yes campaigns, protests and rallys, zero arrests! then within 3 hours of the no campaigns "party" in George Square 6 people are arrested. And riot police have to break it up.
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC article did seem to make it clear that the unionists had started the trouble and were instigating the 'charges' against Yes supporters. It doesn't seem particularly biased against the Yes campaign to me.
> 
> I'm sure though, that you're not suggesting that a few hundred thugs are representative of the No campaign, or that Yes campaigners are less likely to be thugs than No campaigners...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am ABSOLUTELY saying yes supporters are less likely to be thugs... my simple reason for this is the huge numbers of unionists and loyalists associated with the no vote.... Orange order, unionist football thugs etc....
> 
> Like I said 2 years of yes gatherings, rallys, demonstrations with absolutely ZERO trouble... 1 night in George Square with the "better together" organised gathering 6 arrests and 1 stabbing.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you're impartial enough to be coming to such a conclusion so I will disregard it as biased nonsense. [smiley=book2.gif]

Seriously though, "2 years of gatherings with 0 trouble"
Is this not also the case for the no supporters then seeing as this just happened?

How can you say there's been zero trouble when there's been pictures of threats written on walls saying "vote yes or else" or a rock being thrown through jammans relatives window, and I'm sure countless other 'small scale incidents'. Throughout any group there always will be a minority that has to ruin things one way or another but you see them with a union Jack and immediately use them to bolster your own beliefs, they are just thugs and choose to hide behind a "cause" to act like thugs, they represent no one.


----------



## brian1978

TomBorehamUK said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="brian19s in George Sq, my wife works adjacent to it I was picking her up and there was a few yes campaigners gathered listening to to a speaker. Perhaps 75 people, then about 200 unionists and loyalists started causing bother, ripping satires out of people's hands, riot police showed up. They were standing round the war memorial singing rule britania doing nazi salutes. We left at that point. Apparently it really kicked off later, the situation the media reported was not what I saw.
> 
> Reminded me of thugs at a rangers/celtic match....
> 
> 2 years of yes campaigns, protests and rallys, zero arrests! then within 3 hours of the no campaigns "party" in George Square 6 people are arrested. And riot police have to break it up.[/qu
> The BBC article did seem to make it clear that the unionists had started the trouble and were instigating the 'charges' against Yes supporters. It doesn't seem particularly biased against the Yes campaign to me.
> 
> I'm sure though, that you're not suggesting that a few hundred thugs are representative of the No campaign, or that Yes campaigners are less likely to be thugs than No campaigners...
> 
> 
> 
> I am ABSOLUTELY saying yes supporters are less likely to be thugs... my simple reason for this is the huge numbers of unionists and loyalists associated with the no vote.... Orange order, unionist football thugs etc....
> 
> Like I said 2 years of yes gatherings, rallys, demonstrations with absolutely ZERO trouble... 1 night in George Square with the "better together" organised gathering 6 arrests and 1 stabbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe you're impartial enough to be coming to such a conclusion so I will disregard it as biased nonsense. [smiley=book2.gif]
> 
> Seriously though, "2 years of gatherings with 0 trouble"
> Is this not also the case for the no supporters then seeing as this just happened?
> 
> How can you say there's been zero trouble when there's been pictures of threats written on walls saying "vote yes or else" or a rock being thrown through jammans relatives window, and I'm sure countless other 'small scale incidents'. Throughout any group there always will be a minority that has to ruin things one way or another but you see them with a union Jack and immediately use them to bolster your own beliefs, they are just thugs and choose to hide behind a "cause" to act like thugs, they represent no one.
Click to expand...

12,000 people over 2 nights gather in support of yes..... no trouble....
200 in support on no 6 arrests are a stabbing.

I will hand this over to sherlock Holmes for analysis and get right back :lol: :lol: :lol:

Like I said... several large groups of people who are linked to trouble were in support of the no camp..... Orange order, EDL, SDL, unionist football thugs.

I will leave it at that.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> 12,000 people over 2 nights gather in support of yes..... no trouble....
> 200 in support on no 6 arrests are a stabbing.
> 
> I will hand this over to sherlock Holmes for analysis and get right back :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Like I said... several large groups of people who are linked to trouble were in support of the no camp..... Orange order, EDL, SDL, unionist football thugs.
> 
> I will leave it at that.


Its probably best you do leave it at that, because that's a poor display of logic up there. I think Sherlock Holmes would just shake his head and hand that little gem right back to you...


----------



## mighTy Tee

Well I hear we are to get an new public holiday from next year - 18th September from now on is to be known as "dependence day" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TomBorehamUK

brian1978 said:


> TomBorehamUK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am ABSOLUTELY saying yes supporters are less likely to be thugs... my simple reason for this is the huge numbers of unionists and loyalists associated with the no vote.... Orange order, unionist football thugs etc....
> 
> Like I said 2 years of yes gatherings, rallys, demonstrations with absolutely ZERO trouble... 1 night in George Square with the "better together" organised gathering 6 arrests and 1 stabbing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you're impartial enough to be coming to such a conclusion so I will disregard it as biased nonsense. [smiley=book2.gif]
> 
> Seriously though, "2 years of gatherings with 0 trouble"
> Is this not also the case for the no supporters then seeing as this just happened?
> 
> How can you say there's been zero trouble when there's been pictures of threats written on walls saying "vote yes or else" or a rock being thrown through jammans relatives window, and I'm sure countless other 'small scale incidents'. Throughout any group there always will be a minority that has to ruin things one way or another but you see them with a union Jack and immediately use them to bolster your own beliefs, they are just thugs and choose to hide behind a "cause" to act like thugs, they represent no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 12,000 people over 2 nights gather in support of yes..... no trouble....
> 200 in support on no 6 arrests are a stabbing.
> 
> I will hand this over to sherlock Holmes for analysis and get right back :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Like I said... several large groups of people who are linked to trouble were in support of the no camp..... Orange order, EDL, SDL, unionist football thugs.
> 
> I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...

You quoted me yet didn't actually reply to anything I said, just regurgitated the same drivel.


----------



## les

So the Scottish people blew it, no surprise there as I never thought given the opportunity awarded to them would be taken. Oh they will moan about the English as they have done for centuries harping back to William Wallace etc. However when given the choice of freedom from the Westminster government they chickened out. What would Mr Wallace make of his countrymen now. Maybe it was a simple case of the devil you know and the sweeteners offered by Cameron and his cronies or was it the fact each Scotsman gets £10,152 per head compared to each Englishman's £8.529from their masters? Whatever it was that made them turn their back on independence it shows the majority now where their breads best buttered. :roll:


----------



## igotone

Sadly, there's a great deal of bitterness and resentment left behind on both sides of the referendum and both sides of the border from which we may never recover. That's Salmond.s legacy as he bows out and crawls away to write his memoirs.


----------



## msnttf10

Fishpie has already start blaming everyone and anyone as to why the scots have been cheated.
I don't know how he's got the cheek to be honest, he promised the world and everyone know he couldn't deliver any of it... :roll:

Vile man. To the yes voters - you've had a real lucky escape he would have made the banking issues caused by the last government look like a lottery win in comparison...


----------



## pas_55

Book deal book deal

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brian1978

les said:


> So the Scottish people blew it, no surprise there as I never thought given the opportunity awarded to them would be taken. Oh they will moan about the English as they have done for centuries harping back to William Wallace etc. However when given the choice of freedom from the Westminster government they chickened out. What would Mr Wallace make of his countrymen now. Maybe it was a simple case of the devil you know and the sweeteners offered by Cameron and his cronies or was it the fact each Scotsman gets £10,152 per head compared to each Englishman's £8.529from their masters? Whatever it was that made them turn their back on independence it shows the majority now where their breads best buttered. :roll:


You hit the nail on the head.....

55% of scots are spineless cowards.. I wholeheartedly agree.

But I disagree with your reasons regarding funding,,, as before I have agreed scots get £1200 more... but remember we raise £1700 a head more.

Here's to another 307 years of subsidising England....

Scotland the Slave [smiley=bigcry.gif]

I'm glad I was one of the 45%


----------



## les

brian1978 said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Scottish people blew it, no surprise there as I never thought given the opportunity awarded to them would be taken. Oh they will moan about the English as they have done for centuries harping back to William Wallace etc. However when given the choice of freedom from the Westminster government they chickened out. What would Mr Wallace make of his countrymen now. Maybe it was a simple case of the devil you know and the sweeteners offered by Cameron and his cronies or was it the fact each Scotsman gets £10,152 per head compared to each Englishman's £8.529from their masters? Whatever it was that made them turn their back on independence it shows the majority now where their breads best buttered. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.....
> 
> 55% of scots are spineless cowards.. I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> But I disagree with your reasons regarding funding,,, as before I have agreed scots get £1200 more... but remember we raise £1700 a head more.
> 
> Here's to another 307 years of subsidising England....
> 
> Scotland the Slave [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> 
> I'm glad I was one of the 45%
Click to expand...

Spineless cowards is a bit strong and I never suggested such but that better the devil they know and know what they have and decided not to gamble it. I thought Scotland should have voted yes and go it alone but in the end it proved to be too big a gamble to many. Yes they blew it and turned their backs with it seems many SNP voters voting no. You will never know what might have been.


----------



## brian1978

les said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Scottish people blew it, no surprise there as I never thought given the opportunity awarded to them would be taken. Oh they will moan about the English as they have done for centuries harping back to William Wallace etc. However when given the choice of freedom from the Westminster government they chickened out. What would Mr Wallace make of his countrymen now. Maybe it was a simple case of the devil you know and the sweeteners offered by Cameron and his cronies or was it the fact each Scotsman gets £10,152 per head compared to each Englishman's £8.529from their masters? Whatever it was that made them turn their back on independence it shows the majority now where their breads best buttered. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.....
> 
> 55% of scots are spineless cowards.. I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> But I disagree with your reasons regarding funding,,, as before I have agreed scots get £1200 more... but remember we raise £1700 a head more.
> 
> Here's to another 307 years of subsidising England....
> 
> Scotland the Slave [smiley=bigcry.gif]
> 
> I'm glad I was one of the 45%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spineless cowards is a bit strong and I never suggested such but that better the devil they know and know what they have and decided not to gamble it. I thought Scotland should have voted yes and go it alone but in the end it proved to be too big a gamble to many. Yes they blew it and turned their backs with it seems many SNP voters voting no. You will never know what might have been.
Click to expand...

No cowards... that is how I see them.

I doubt many snp voters voted no, given the simple fact that the snp has always fought for Scottish independence.

Mostly selfish lazy baby boomers. Thinking more about themselves and a non existent risk to pensions. 

The dream will never die.


----------



## les

You hit the nail on the head.....

55% of scots are spineless cowards.. I wholeheartedly agree.

But I disagree with your reasons regarding funding,,, as before I have agreed scots get £1200 more... but remember we raise £1700 a head more.

Here's to another 307 years of subsidising England....

Scotland the Slave [smiley=bigcry.gif]

I'm glad I was one of the 45%[/quote]

Spineless cowards is a bit strong and I never suggested such but that better the devil they know and know what they have and decided not to gamble it. I thought Scotland should have voted yes and go it alone but in the end it proved to be too big a gamble to many. Yes they blew it and turned their backs with it seems many SNP voters voting no. You will never know what might have been.[/quote]

No cowards... that is how I see them.

I doubt many snp voters voted no, given the simple fact that the snp has always fought for Scottish independence.

Mostly selfish lazy baby boomers. Thinking more about themselves and a non existent risk to pensions. 

The dream will never die.[/quote]
Some sources suggested SNP voters did indeed vote no as per the article in the Telegraph (Google it) iMO it was the im alright jacks who voted no. Mainly the better off ones given how the voting went with only 3 councils returning a yes vote. I expected Glasgow and maybe Dundee to vote yes as they are have the highest number of working classes. The Westminster government and their cronies did a good job of putting the frighteners on your nation. Whatever happened to Scotland the brave.


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> Certainly a lot cheaper than HS2 .I will never use it.... can I have MY money back ;-)


I doubt I'll use it either, but I don't use the benefits system, but pay into it. It's part of being a democratic society.
Ah, and here's the rub, you could use it if you chose to, when (if) it's ever finished.

I couldn't vote in the yes / no vote

Just accept you lost and we're all part of the UK and let's all work to make our great country even greater!


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly a lot cheaper than HS2 .I will never use it.... can I have MY money back ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt I'll use it either, but I don't use the benefits system, but pay into it. It's part of being a democratic society.
> Ah, and here's the rub, you could use it if you chose to, when (if) it's ever finished.
> 
> I couldn't vote in the yes / no vote
> 
> Just accept you lost and we're all part of the UK and let's all work to make our great country even greater!
Click to expand...

I do accept the result I never said I didn't. I don't think anyone wins but Westminster though...

David Cameron has already failed to deliver step 1 of his "pledge" to Scotland. A lot of people here starting to feel a bit of buyers remorse.

The more powers for Scotland promised at the 11th hour were always a non starter, I am honestly gobsmacked people fell for it. It must annoy the English also given that he is "promising" more devolution to us and you don't even have a parliament. Westminster still controls 100% of English affairs.
I'd like to see an English parliament set up. With powers granted on par with powers devolved to Scotland and Wales. I think this would shift power from London and help areas in England like Cornwall and the north east get a fairer deal.

I think this would be the best way forward for the UK now.


----------



## Spandex

Given that I've spent a lot of my adult life living in London (and still work there) I'm probably a bit blind to the issue, so can someone give some examples of decisions/policies that they think would (or should) have been different had there been a separate English Parliament.


----------



## les

Correction guys its Brussels and EU laws that pull the real strings not Westminster or the UK government.


----------



## fixitagaintomoz

brian1978 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly a lot cheaper than HS2 .I will never use it.... can I have MY money back ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt I'll use it either, but I don't use the benefits system, but pay into it. It's part of being a democratic society.
> Ah, and here's the rub, you could use it if you chose to, when (if) it's ever finished.
> 
> I couldn't vote in the yes / no vote
> 
> Just accept you lost and we're all part of the UK and let's all work to make our great country even greater!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do accept the result I never said I didn't. I don't think anyone wins but Westminster though...
> 
> David Cameron has already failed to deliver step 1 of his "pledge" to Scotland. A lot of people here starting to feel a bit of buyers remorse.
> 
> The more powers for Scotland promised at the 11th hour were always a non starter, I am honestly gobsmacked people fell for it. It must annoy the English also given that he is "promising" more devolution to us and you don't even have a parliament. Westminster still controls 100% of English affairs.
> I'd like to see an English parliament set up. With powers granted on par with powers devolved to Scotland and Wales. I think this would shift power from London and help areas in England like Cornwall and the north east get a fairer deal.
> 
> I think this would be the best way forward for the UK now.
Click to expand...

Brian, i agree that an english parliament is a good idea. Yes we should stay united but there are benefits to each party within the union having a say locally.

with regards to the delay in decisions regarding devolution, you cant expect it to be overnight? I hope for all of our sakes that is simply taking time to get it right, and that it wasnt a false promise.


----------



## W7 PMC

Always good fun reading apparently deluded peoples opinions on forums, more so now the farce is well & truly over.

I feel an individuals passion to pretty much any cause is admirable, but as someone who wasn't that bothered about this process until the final approach, i'm firmly of the opinion that the 'YES' camp in many quarters held somewhat extremist views & the 'No" camp wanted to retain normality. The 'NO' camp won which was hardly a shock & the 'YES' camp kicked off & to be honest it's still the 'YES' camp making all the noise while the 'NO' camp get on with getting on.

I'm certainly able to see both sides of the debate & in certain areas the 'YES' campaign had valid foundation, but the 'YES' seemed based on Patriotism & the 'NO' based on reality which again is why the result was kind of a forgone conclusion.

That said, this is purely how I see it & given it's my opinion i've not a single care if i'm right or wrong as that's technically impossible :-*


----------



## Shug750S

Just a thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong...

We have a UK elected government, comprising MPs voted for by and representing various constituencies in England, Scotland, Wales & N.Ireland, yet there is a duplicate voting structure and as a result duplication of MPs / individual regions assemblies.

Would it not make sense (economic at least) just to have one election, and from the results from the UK parliament, with the same elected members splitting into regional assemblies to vote on devolved issues for each of the 4 regions?

In essence why do the existing regions, with exception of England, need duplicate MPs? 
To back this up, as an example, Scotland (just picked from internet, not related to recent yes/no vote) has 59 elected MPs sitting at Westminster, who surely were elected by their Scottish constituencies, and another 129 member Scottish parliament.

Surely reform would allow the MPs to act as a central government, but at certain times meet as separate elected bodies with agreed local authority. Why do we need a second body in each region? Or is it the old 'jobs for the boys' at play as usual?


----------



## neilc

Am I the only one that thinks more devolved powers for all the different countries in the UK just means we become more and more divided as a Union ??

I think everyone is barking up the wrong tree here. All you need is one central government controlling the bigger international aspects of government i.e the economy , defence etc etc and local government to have more control of there own affairs.

That way you still retain a single minded purpose of being in the UK.

I for one am sick to death of Scottish people acting like victims and saying No voters are cowards and the dream will never die yawn yawn , get over yourself it's not a bloody war. :roll:


----------



## Spandex

I think the trouble is that there's a vocal minority in England now who are just trying to prove a point. If Scotland get something, they want us to get the same thing, regardless of whether or not it's appropriate for England, or whether or not it solves an actual pre-existing problem.

We may end up cutting off our nose to spite our face, just because we're on the defensive after so many Scots voted to leave the union.


----------



## brian1978

fixitagaintomoz said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian19ertainly a lot cheaper than HS2 .I will never use it.... can I have MY money back ;-)[/q
> I doubt I'll use it either said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do accept the result I never said I didn't. I don't think anyone wins but Westminster though...
> 
> David Cameron has already failed to deliver step 1 of his "pledge" to Scotland. A lot of people here starting to feel a bit of buyers remorse.
> 
> The more powers for Scotland promised at the 11th hour were always a non starter, I am honestly gobsmacked people fell for it. It must annoy the English also given that he is "promising" more devolution to us and you don't even have a parliament. Westminster still controls 100% of English affairs.
> I'd like to see an English parliament set up. With powers granted on par with powers devolved to Scotland and Wales. I think this would shift power from London and help areas in England like Cornwall and the north east get a fairer deal.
> 
> I think this would be the best way forward for the UK now.
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, i agree that an english parliament is a good idea. Yes we should stay united but there are benefits to each party within the union having a say locally.
> 
> with regards to the delay in decisions regarding devolution, you cant expect it to be overnight? I hope for all of our sakes that is simply taking time to get it right, and that it wasnt a false promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it won't happen overnight. But the VERY first part of this "pledge" was a timetable from the Westminster govt "the day after a NO vote" personally I've never believed a single word of it. Cameron just lied to save his own arse. Again :roll:
> 
> Like I said many no voters are already starting to feel a bit duped, the real test will be in January when a draft white paper on further devolution is expected. I'll be watching with interest, but I seriously doubt any real proposals will make it past the first parliament reading on them. Again why will English mps vote on more powers for Scotland when England has none.
> 
> To spandex, ask someone from Cornwall or Newcastle how they feel Westminster treats them. They get a raw deal too. So much more is spent on the south east than anywhere else. Political reform is needed. The ballance of power needs to shift from the SE.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> To spandex, ask someone from Cornwall or Newcastle how they feel Westminster treats them. They get a raw deal too. So much more is spent on the south east than anywhere else. Political reform is needed. The ballance of power needs to shift from the SE.


Well, I did ask. I'm hoping some English people will answer.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Like I said many no voters are already starting to feel a bit duped, the real test will be in January when a draft white paper on further devolution is expected. I'll be watching with interest, but I seriously doubt any real proposals will make it past the first parliament reading on them. Again why will English mps vote on more powers for Scotland when England has none.


I think your ability to judge the mood of the nation has been shown to be slightly biased and not especially accurate.

As for English MPs voting on more powers for Scotland, didn't that already happen once in 1998?


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said many no voters are already starting to feel a bit duped, the real test will be in January when a draft white paper on further devolution is expected. I'll be watching with interest, but I seriously doubt any real proposals will make it past the first parliament reading on them. Again why will English mps vote on more powers for Scotland when England has none.
> 
> 
> 
> I think your ability to judge the mood of the nation has been shown to be slightly biased and not especially accurate.
> 
> As for English MPs voting on more powers for Scotland, didn't that already happen once in 1998?
Click to expand...

I don't believe mps voted on more powers.


----------



## mighTy Tee

Living only 80 miles from Westminster, I would say we are not represented by governments based in London. Most recently highlighted by the ongoing closure of shipyards (BAe) in Portsmouth in favour of regeneration of Scottish shipbuilding.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said many no voters are already starting to feel a bit duped, the real test will be in January when a draft white paper on further devolution is expected. I'll be watching with interest, but I seriously doubt any real proposals will make it past the first parliament reading on them. Again why will English mps vote on more powers for Scotland when England has none.
> 
> 
> 
> I think your ability to judge the mood of the nation has been shown to be slightly biased and not especially accurate.
> 
> As for English MPs voting on more powers for Scotland, didn't that already happen once in 1998?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe mps voted on more powers.
Click to expand...

How else were the devolution acts passed by UK parliament?


----------



## Spandex

mighTy Tee said:


> Living only 80 miles from Westminster, I would say we are not represented by governments based in London. Most recently highlighted by the ongoing closure of shipyards (BAe) in Portsmouth in favour of regeneration of Scottish shipbuilding.


I don't think this will have been the result of a parliamentary vote though. In which case, I'm not sure an English House would have made any difference whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that Defence policy and spending will never be devolved between the different countries in the union, so even if it had come to a vote the outcome would always be decided by the UK parliament, not an English one.

This is what I mean by cutting off our nose to spite our face... We might end up demanding something that doesn't actually fix the issues we have, purely because we see Scotland are being given something we don't have. Devolved powers doesn't mean the government would suddenly start putting England ahead of other UK countries, and it certainly doesn't mean that 'ignored' regions in England will suddenly get more power or influence.


----------



## mighTy Tee

Spandex said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Living only 80 miles from Westminster, I would say we are not represented by governments based in London. Most recently highlighted by the ongoing closure of shipyards (BAe) in Portsmouth in favour of regeneration of Scottish shipbuilding.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this will have been the result of a parliamentary vote though. In which case, I'm not sure an English House would have made any difference whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that Defence policy and spending will never be devolved between the different countries in the union, so even if it had come to a vote the outcome would always be decided by the UK parliament, not an English one.
> 
> This is what I mean by cutting off our nose to spite our face... We might end up demanding something that doesn't actually fix the issues we have, purely because we see Scotland are being given something we don't have. Devolved powers doesn't mean the government would suddenly start putting England ahead of other UK countries, and it certainly doesn't mean that 'ignored' regions in England will suddenly get more power or influence.
Click to expand...

Had there been a yes vote on Thursday, then it would have been interesting to watch the change in plans as BAe moved back into (Westminster supported) shipbuilding at Portsmouth, closed Fastlane Navy base moving that to the now nearly empty navy base in either Portsmouth or Plymouth. The Scots think they are hard done by from Westminster, however they have had their share of Westminster budgets at the expense of other English regions.


----------



## ag

neilc said:


> Am I the only one that thinks more devolved powers for all the different countries in the UK just means we become more and more divided as a Union ??


There seems to be a school of thought that locally taken decisions are always better. I would counter that the fragmentation of the UK would cost more to run, would prevent any large projects and create greater differences between regions causing competition between them. Add to this the dearth of qualified and capable people and we are going back to the dark ages. Stand behind the elected representatives and act and vote in a manner that means that you are adding to the wealth of the nation and not just taking and the UK will remain one of the best countries to live in. If everyone kicks and fight amongst themselves then we all follow Argentina into the abyss.

No to devolved powers from Westminster.

On the subject, more particularly, of the Scottish independance referendum. The subject is now dead. If the income generated purely by the taxes on the natural resource of crude oil is removed from the Scottish economy they have an unsurmountable problem as welfare costs are far greater than the taxes on activity. Remove the Oil and Scotland collapses. This is what they should be working on, why is Scotland so far behind on productivity that the Oil revenue is only just suring up the public finances, not adding a cushion. In a generation, when the oil income has diminished and Scotland's demographics have shifted to an older, dependant, population they will have no-where to turn.

The large numbers of left wing voters in Scotland suggests a lower level of entrepreneurs than the rest of the UK (People on benefits and low wages tend to vote left) and without an aspirational middle class driving the economy where is the growth going to come from? Striking over the government not pumping additional cash into a doomed shipyard may seem the right thing to do, but it does give Scotland a reputation for being Unionised and inflexible. This does not help your cause.

I was actually a YES supporter at the end, not because I thought it was good for Scotland, it clearly isn't, but because even losing the Oil revenue would be good for the rest of the UK.


----------



## Spandex

mighTy Tee said:


> Had there been a yes vote on Thursday, then it would have been interesting to watch the change in plans as BAe moved back into (Westminster supported) shipbuilding at Portsmouth, closed Fastlane Navy base moving that to the now nearly empty navy base in either Portsmouth or Plymouth. The Scots think they are hard done by from Westminster, however they have had their share of Westminster budgets at the expense of other English regions.


That's the point of being in a union though. Decisions should be made that benefit the union as a whole. If there are two shipyards and its financially sensible to only keep one open, the decision needs to be made and one will have to lose out.

Or would we want an English House saying "we're going to keep ours open" and a Scottish House saying "we're going to keep ours open", with all the waste and inefficiency that might bring?


----------



## Spandex

ag said:


> The large numbers of left wing voters in Scotland suggests a lower level of entrepreneurs than the rest of the UK (People on benefits and low wages tend to vote left)


Ignoring the fact this is mildly offensive to huge swathes of the population, it's also unsubstantiated nonsense.


----------



## Lollypop86

OMG is this still going on? I go away for a few days and theres another 10 more pages  lol

J
xx


----------



## mwad

Lollypop86 said:


> OMG is this still going on? I go away for a few days and theres another 10 more pages  lol
> 
> J
> xx


Unfortunately probably another 10 pages to go  :lol:


----------



## msnttf10

brian1978 said:


> To spandex, ask someone from Cornwall or Newcastle how they feel Westminster treats them. They get a raw deal too. So much more is spent on the south east than anywhere else. Political reform is needed. The ballance of power needs to shift from the SE.


That's simply not true, just more yes mis-information and diatribe.

So let me first start by defending myself and stating I DO NOT LIVE in the SE.

SE actually spends the LEAST/HEAD for the WHOLE of the UK, the measure you are really looking at is LONDON!
London gets approx 9400/head vs scotland who gets approx 10200/head.
SE is about 7600/Head by comparison, West Mids/East about 8000/head, 
NE/NW and Yorkshire all get around 9200/Head.

Now clearly the amount ACTUALLY spent in the region will be more IF the population is larger... but, by the same measure it should mean that region is also putting in more to the pot. Clearly again, thats not strictly true as the SE/London do have higher salaries. So the reality is, and again i DO NOT LIVE in SE/London, they are subsidising the rest of us.


----------



## bluush

What would get my vote if we chose inside the m25 to be one country and everything else a single other country. I only voted yes for the Indy vote as have seen for some time a two speed country operating here in the uk. I am getting thoroughly fed up hearing how great everything is in London when everyone else in these isles is having a tough time. Just my 2p


----------



## Lollypop86

mwad said:


> Lollypop86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG is this still going on? I go away for a few days and theres another 10 more pages  lol
> 
> J
> xx
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately probably another 10 pages to go  :lol:
Click to expand...

oh dear (facepalm) lol

J
xx


----------



## Trouble4

Lollypop86 said:


> mwad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lollypop86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG is this still going on? I go away for a few days and theres another 10 more pages  lol
> 
> J
> xx
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately probably another 10 pages to go  :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh dear (facepalm) lol
> 
> J
> xx
Click to expand...











http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb.../c1/Mega_Facepalm.png/640px-Mega_Facepalm.png


----------



## Lollypop86

yep its definitely as bad as that 

J
xx


----------



## Lollypop86

I saw this and it reminded me of something.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html



J
xx

*runs and hides*


----------



## A3DFU

The first sentence says it all:


> When poverty meant more than just not having the latest PlayStation or trendy trainers


I remember a time in the the early 50s when I'd grown out of my shoes. My parents didn't have the money to buy new ones so they just cut the from cap off and voilà: I had "brand new" shoes that fitted again. Until the age of 12 I never had new cloths; they were all handed down from my older sister. Meals were often a buttered slice of bread with a little sugar on it.
No problem; we still had a good time as a family


----------



## Trouble4

A3DFU said:


> The first sentence says it all:
> 
> 
> 
> When poverty meant more than just not having the latest PlayStation or trendy trainers
> 
> 
> 
> I remember a time in the the early 50s when I'd grown out of my shoes. My parents didn't have the money to buy new ones so they just cut the from cap off and voilà: I had "brand new" shoes that fitted again. Until the age of 12 I never had new cloths; they were all handed down from my older sister. Meals were often a buttered slice of bread with a little sugar on it.
> No problem; we still had a good time as a family
Click to expand...

you or your parents may have been here..........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524937/Children-60s-70s-retire-POORER-parents.html

still way to much still going on in USA


----------



## A3DFU

Trouble4 said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first sentence says it all:
> 
> 
> 
> When poverty meant more than just not having the latest PlayStation or trendy trainers
> 
> 
> 
> I remember a time in the the early 50s when I'd grown out of my shoes. My parents didn't have the money to buy new ones so they just cut the from cap off and voilà: I had "brand new" shoes that fitted again. Until the age of 12 I never had new cloths; they were all handed down from my older sister. Meals were often a buttered slice of bread with a little sugar on it.
> No problem; we still had a good time as a family
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you or your parents may have been here..........
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524937/Children-60s-70s-retire-POORER-parents.html
> 
> still way to much still going on in USA
Click to expand...

No that's not possible.
I'm German and I lived in Berlin (West) until I moved to England in 1985.

But you're right, there's still a lot of poverty every where and if one things annoys me it is the wastefulness of some people and their constant demand for more/better/bigger .... what ever it is people want.


----------



## brian1978

The "vow" already broken.
Gordon Brown asking people to sign a petition to "beg" the torys to honour the promises he gave on their behalf.
Labour asking for people to sign up to "save the nhs" days after swearing it was "safe" after a no vote.
Sir Ian wood, who told us oil only had "15-20 years left" turns out to have significant investment in Scottish fracking, days after the no vote, "new technology" is announced that will "extend the life of existing wells by decades" 
Pensions announced to be £18 per week lower than what they would be under independence. 
Ian Duncan Smith talking about cutting winter fuel allowance and travel passes.
Fracking in central Scotland with no consultation to home owners approved, despite 99% of home owners objecting.
A new £3bn war on "terror" 
Tax credits a lifeline to the working poor to be frozen for 2 years.
Pie in the sky tax cuts offered by the torys...

Voted no?
Still feeling "better together" ?


----------



## Shug750S

On the bright side, lifting the initial tax threshold to £12.5k will benefit most people, and the higher rate band going to £50k will help a lot of people in 'normal' jobs, like nurses, policeman etc not pay higher rate tax.

Anyhow the dice is cast, the Scottish people had a vote and the majority who voted went with the idea off staying in the UK, and of course there's always the chance that Salmond really didn't have a plan, except to retire and pen a best seller (in Scotland) for the Christmas bookfest.


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> On the bright side, lifting the initial tax threshold to £12.5k will benefit most people, and the higher rate band going to £50k will help a lot of people in 'normal' jobs, like nurses, policeman etc not pay higher rate tax.
> 
> Anyhow the dice is cast, the Scottish people had a vote and the majority who voted went with the idea off staying in the UK, and of course there's always the chance that Salmond really didn't have a plan, except to retire and pen a best seller (in Scotland) for the Christmas bookfest.


Lmfao those tax promises are utter pie in sky mate, they will cost £7.5bn a year for the lower "vote winning" rate, they are on the condition that the deficit is wiped clean by 2020, :lol: Cameron fought tooth and nail to block the lib dems proposal for a 10k tax limit.

Everyone's fixated on Alex Salmond being in this for entirely selfish reasons. Most Scottish people are very patriotic and love Scotland, maybe just maybe he has fought for and made beneficial changes for Scotland his entire political career because he actually gives a s***, just because Westminster is full of selfish thieving scamming self serving nuts doesn't mean it's the same here. 
OR Maybe he Is just a selfish greedy politician... He certainly hides it well if he is. 
He HAS however announced retirement, In November. Guess we will see if he ends up in the house of Lords and writes Christmas books like most high level Westminster politicians. Although his words were when asked "the rocks will melt with the sun before I set foot in the house of lords"
Guess time will tell.

I also like how you claim low earners don't do "normal" jobs... do you vote conservative by any chance? :roll:

Yes you are correct the "die" cast.. but a lot of people I talk to are feeling a bit disgruntled at the lies told to win the no vote.
I can't see this going away soon.


----------



## Shug750S

Jeez you really like to judge don't you mate?

I only used the 'normal' job phrase as the higher rate tax was originally meant to pick up higher earners, not those like teachers, nurses, cops etc and many others who have drifted into the higher rate tax band. If I was looking at my peers then a normal job is a professional earning a good salary, but often when analysing the salary the actual hourly rate is not as high as it looks. I know a lot of people who regularly do 6 or 7 days a week and 14-15 hour days... 
I'm happy to do it as I've always worked hard, had 4 jobs when first married, a day job in engineering, worked evenings in an off licence, early morning weekends on newspaper distribution and weekends in a bike shop, just to pay the mortgage and support family...

On a similar vein I don't understand why tax rates increase as you work harder /earn more as surely if you earn more you pay more tax anyway. But that's life and I accept it.

BTW - Where did I state that low earners don't do normal jobs? You're twisting facts again 

I have no idea who you vote for but guess it was SNP? And you're free to vote for whoever you like as is everyone.

Yes I do vote conservative, I pay all my tax, including top end at 45% (was 50%) and am supporting lots of people on benefits who deserve support and I guess a few who don't. I claim nothing in benefits and never have, but what's that got to do with anything.


----------



## Lollypop86

I think Brian needs a Hug and a Hand Hold 

J
xx


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> Jeez you really like to judge don't you mate?
> 
> I only used the 'normal' job phrase as the higher rate tax was originally meant to pick up higher earners, not those like teachers, nurses, cops etc and many others who have drifted into the higher rate tax band. If I was looking at my peers then a normal job is a professional earning a good salary, but often when analysing the salary the actual hourly rate is not as high as it looks. I know a lot of people who regularly do 6 or 7 days a week and 14-15 hour days...
> I'm happy to do it as I've always worked hard, had 4 jobs when first married, a day job in engineering, worked evenings in an off licence, early morning weekends on newspaper distribution and weekends in a bike shop, just to pay the mortgage and support family...
> 
> On a similar vein I don't understand why tax rates increase as you work harder /earn more as surely if you earn more you pay more tax anyway. But that's life and I accept it.
> 
> BTW - Where did I state that low earners don't do normal jobs? You're twisting facts again
> 
> I have no idea who you vote for but guess it was SNP? And you're free to vote for whoever you like as is everyone.
> 
> Yes I do vote conservative, I pay all my tax, including top end at 45% (was 50%) and am supporting lots of people on benefits who deserve support and I guess a few who don't. I claim nothing in benefits and never have, but what's that got to do with anything.


Not judging, your comment about "normal" jobs certainly came across that way.

Let's be very clear on one thing, if you believe for one second these tax breaks will happen you need your head examined, no chance in a million years is it possible. We are in 1.5 trillion of debt. 1/3rd of that added since 2010. The country cannot meet interest payments on this debt, even with current austerity... We desperately need to pay of massive debts and Cameron is a telling people he is cutting income tax..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Shug750S

We can only hope.

But at least we're all in it together


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> We can only hope.
> 
> But at least we're all in it together


Yes, but some certainly seem to be in it a lot less. 
Plenty of cheer round the MPs Christmas trees no doubt, especially in light of ANOTHER pay rise on the card's, wonder if Hollyrood MPs will reject this one too?


----------



## jamman

I can understand why Brian is pissed off as it's something that he strongly believed in.

I smile to myself that Mr Salmon stepped aside as soon as he lost instead of making sure the promises were kept by the "Better Together" campaign.

Power corrupts always has and ALWAYS will.

What Brian and others do have to accept is their fellow countrymen and ladies have voted to stay with us so they have to move on.


----------



## brian1978

jamman said:


> I can understand why Brian is pissed off as it's something that he strongly believed in.
> 
> I smile to myself that Mr Salmon stepped aside as soon as he lost instead of making sure the promises were kept by the "Better Together" campaign.
> 
> Power corrupts always has and ALWAYS will.
> 
> What Brian and others do have to accept is their fellow countrymen and ladies have voted to stay with us so they have to move on.


Firstly I'm disappointed, not "pissed off"...

Alex Salmond was always stepping down after the referendum. No matter the result. He cannot "make sure" these promises are kept, they have to be given to us by Westminster. It's down to Lord Smith. I think as a normal MP he will be let of the leash so to speak, as first minister he is expected to conduct in a certain manner. 
Nicola sturgeon is a good choice to fill his boots. She is respected here. Actually I think recently polled the most trustworthy politician in the UK. With a "score" of +21. I'm looking forward to see how she can take Scotland forward.

As to accepting the result. I've already said I accept it. Will it stop me wanting independence for Scotland or stop me fighting that cause?, of course it won't, and why should it,0. Just because others have a different opinion than me doesn't mean I have to adopt that opinion.
Scotland will get its independence, 5, 10, 20 years? it will happen.

Famous Churchill quote, "this isn't the end, it's not even the beginning of the end. It might however be the end of the beginning"


----------



## Shug750S

mmm, are you sure Brian?

"Alex Salmond was always stepping down after the referendum. No matter the result."

A quick search on line from the morning after:

Mr Salmond said that at the age of 59, after 20 years as SNP leader and seven years as First Minister, it was time to hand over the reins. He said it was 'time to give someone else a chance to move that forward'.
The SNP leader revealed that he made the decision this morning. He added. 'I believed there was great possibilities in the campaign and obviously I wouldn't have made the decision if there had been a Yes vote.

Either you are right or Alex......


----------



## rw5340

brian1978 said:


> The "vow" already broken.
> Gordon Brown asking people to sign a petition to "beg" the torys to honour the promises he gave on their behalf.
> Labour asking for people to sign up to "save the nhs" days after swearing it was "safe" after a no vote.
> Sir Ian wood, who told us oil only had "15-20 years left" turns out to have significant investment in Scottish fracking, days after the no vote, "new technology" is announced that will "extend the life of existing wells by decades"
> Pensions announced to be £18 per week lower than what they would be under independence.
> Ian Duncan Smith talking about cutting winter fuel allowance and travel passes.
> Fracking in central Scotland with no consultation to home owners approved, despite 99% of home owners objecting.
> A new £3bn war on "terror"
> Tax credits a lifeline to the working poor to be frozen for 2 years.
> Pie in the sky tax cuts offered by the torys...
> 
> Voted no?
> Still feeling "better together" ?


Totally agree with Brian,
It will happen, Sooner rather than later too!

Disappointed, not pissed off. Just hoodwinked!


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> mmm, are you sure Brian?
> 
> "Alex Salmond was always stepping down after the referendum. No matter the result."
> 
> A quick search on line from the morning after:
> 
> Mr Salmond said that at the age of 59, after 20 years as SNP leader and seven years as First Minister, it was time to hand over the reins. He said it was 'time to give someone else a chance to move that forward'.
> The SNP leader revealed that he made the decision this morning. He added. 'I believed there was great possibilities in the campaign and obviously I wouldn't have made the decision if there had been a Yes vote.
> 
> Either you are right or Alex......


Well maybe not as soon. If it had been yes obviously extremely important negotiations would need to be taken care of, at a speech I was attending he was asked in a q&a what he will do when it's all over. His answer was something like "well I think nicola deserves a shot at the helm" something like that.

What do you make of Ruth Davidson being investigated by police for breaking election rules by counting postal votes before the official count?


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> mmm, are you sure Brian?
> 
> "Alex Salmond was always stepping down after the referendum. No matter the result."
> 
> A quick search on line from the morning after:
> 
> Mr Salmond said that at the age of 59, after 20 years as SNP leader and seven years as First Minister, it was time to hand over the reins. He said it was 'time to give someone else a chance to move that forward'.
> The SNP leader revealed that he made the decision this morning. He added. 'I believed there was great possibilities in the campaign and obviously I wouldn't have made the decision if there had been a Yes vote.
> 
> Either you are right or Alex......
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe not as soon. If it had been yes obviously extremely important negotiations would need to be taken care of, at a speech I was attending he was asked in a q&a what he will do when it's all over. His answer was something like "well I think nicola deserves a shot at the helm" something like that.
> 
> What do you make of Ruth Davidson being investigated by police for breaking election rules by counting postal votes before the official count?
Click to expand...

WhoTF is Ruth Davidson?

Is she related to Jim?


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="Shug7m, are you sure Brian?
> 
> "Alex Salmond was always stepping down after the referendum. No matter the result."
> 
> A quick search on line from the morning after:
> 
> Mr Salmond said that at the age of 59, after 20 years as SNP leader and seven years as First Minister, it was time to hand over the reins. He said it was 'time to give someone else a chance to move that forward'.
> The SNP leader revealed that he made the decision this morning. He added. 'I believed there was great possibilities in the campaign and obviously I wouldn't have made the decision if there had been a Yes vote.
> 
> Either you are right or Alex......[/qu
> 
> Well maybe not as soon. If it had been yes obviously extremely important negotiations would need to be taken care of, at a speech I was attending he was asked in a q&a what he will do when it's all over. His answer was something like "well I think nicola deserves a shot at the helm" something like that.
> 
> What do you make of Ruth Davidson being investigated by police for breaking election rules by counting postal votes before the official count?
> 
> 
> 
> WhoTF is Ruth Davidson?
> 
> Is she related to Jim?
Click to expand...

I thought you voted tory


----------



## brian1978

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29489288


----------



## msnttf10

What a load of sour grapes...

Funding for all these crazy social projects are whats running up the dept!
Scale back the NHS by 50%, scale back welfare spending by 50% - both would still be providing services well beyond the original concept and at a considerable saving.

Who will the 40% tax increase help - middle income people, it makes no difference to the rich thats for sure.


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> What a load of sour grapes...
> 
> Funding for all these crazy social projects are whats running up the dept!
> Scale back the NHS by 50%, scale back welfare spending by 50% - both would still be providing services well beyond the original concept and at a considerable saving.


Scale back our already pressed to the limit health service by 50%  

Welfare is 80% pensions which are already one of the lowest in the developed world...

Dearie me :roll:


----------



## msnttf10

The NHS only need to offer A&E services to save peoples lives, its not a pick and mix menu option where you select the treatment you fancy any particular week.

Think I'm kinding? I'm an accountant for the NHS. The amount of money wasted every week in UNREAL, if you only knew!!
How about the drunks that fill the A&E departments on a weekend? Do you think the fuel and services are free to run them around? Do you believe the consumables and x-rays are free? Mole removal going to save your life? any idea what the cost is for this type of cosmetic surgery? breast implant oks? How about the 100s of millions spent on translation services for non english speakers?

Most of the costs are for staff and building. Labour all but killed the NHS with the silly PFI things they created - 20 year lock-ins what the LA can not get out of and we have to pay. NHS is the LARGEST employer (in terms of numbers) in the EU - even though by population we are only the 6th or 7th largest country. Hows that work then? 1000s of pointless jobs consuming 100s of millions every year.

Things have to change.. regardless of the next government, the future is not bright, ironically its possible going to be safer and better funded under the tories. :?


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> The NHS only need to offer A&E services to save peoples lives, its not a pick and mix menu option where you select the treatment you fancy any particular week.
> 
> Think I'm kinding? I'm an accountant for the NHS. The amount of money wasted every week in UNREAL, if you only knew!!
> How about the drunks that fill the A&E departments on a weekend? Do you think the fuel and services are free to run them around? Do you believe the consumables and x-rays are free? Mole removal going to save your life? any idea what the cost is for this type of cosmetic surgery? breast implant oks? How about the 100s of millions spent on translation services for non english speakers?
> 
> Most of the costs are for staff and building. Labour all but killed the NHS with the silly PFI things they created - 20 year lock-ins what the LA can not get out of and we have to pay. NHS is the LARGEST employer (in terms of numbers) in the EU - even though by population we are only the 6th or 7th largest country. Hows that work then? 1000s of pointless jobs consuming 100s of millions every year.
> 
> Things have to change.. regardless of the next government, the future is not bright, ironically its possible going to be safer and better funded under the tories. :?


Are you suggesting we don't treat alcohol related illness, just let them die?
I have a friend who Is a recovering alcoholic, should he have been turned away the many times he landed in hospital when he was drinking ?

If we do should we remove all tax duty on alcohol, what about obese people...smokers... Drug takers... people who play dangerous Sports??? Leave them on the hospital steps too ?

Here's a better idea.. get rid of trident and cut our obscene "defence" budget, stop pretending we are "great" Britain. And realise we are just bog standard Britain now.


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="Shug7m, are you sure Brian?
> 
> "Alex Salmond was always stepping down after the referendum. No matter the result."
> 
> A quick search on line from the morning after:
> 
> Mr Salmond said that at the age of 59, after 20 years as SNP leader and seven years as First Minister, it was time to hand over the reins. He said it was 'time to give someone else a chance to move that forward'.
> The SNP leader revealed that he made the decision this morning. He added. 'I believed there was great possibilities in the campaign and obviously I wouldn't have made the decision if there had been a Yes vote.
> 
> Either you are right or Alex......[/qu
> 
> Well maybe not as soon. If it had been yes obviously extremely important negotiations would need to be taken care of, at a speech I was attending he was asked in a q&a what he will do when it's all over. His answer was something like "well I think nicola deserves a shot at the helm" something like that.
> 
> What do you make of Ruth Davidson being investigated by police for breaking election rules by counting postal votes before the official count?
> 
> 
> 
> WhoTF is Ruth Davidson?
> 
> Is she related to Jim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you voted tory
Click to expand...

Ha ha. Provincial, local stuff, of no interest to me.


----------



## Spandex

msnttf10 said:


> The NHS only need to offer A&E services to save peoples lives, its not a pick and mix menu option where you select the treatment you fancy any particular week.
> 
> Think I'm kinding? I'm an accountant for the NHS. The amount of money wasted every week in UNREAL, if you only knew!!
> How about the drunks that fill the A&E departments on a weekend? Do you think the fuel and services are free to run them around? Do you believe the consumables and x-rays are free? Mole removal going to save your life? any idea what the cost is for this type of cosmetic surgery? breast implant oks? How about the 100s of millions spent on translation services for non english speakers?
> 
> Most of the costs are for staff and building. Labour all but killed the NHS with the silly PFI things they created - 20 year lock-ins what the LA can not get out of and we have to pay. NHS is the LARGEST employer (in terms of numbers) in the EU - even though by population we are only the 6th or 7th largest country. Hows that work then? 1000s of pointless jobs consuming 100s of millions every year.
> 
> Things have to change.. regardless of the next government, the future is not bright, ironically its possible going to be safer and better funded under the tories. :?


The NHS is indeed a wasteful organisation, but let's be clear, the primary waste comes from non-clinical areas (like you :wink: ).

Cutting back clinical funding would be an insane, knee jerk reaction. Your idea of waste seems to be based on your personal opinions on which procedures are 'worth it'. The real waste is less obvious than that. It's in the thousands of non-clinical staff who milk the system, getting paid to do jobs so badly that they would be basically unemployable in the private sector (which is why none of them ever leave the NHS). The trouble is, this waste is at every level, so very few people are in a position to do anything about it and those that are are part of the problem, so have no incentive to fix it.


----------



## msnttf10

brian1978 said:


> msnttf10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NHS only need to offer A&E services to save peoples lives, its not a pick and mix menu option where you select the treatment you fancy any particular week.
> 
> Think I'm kinding? I'm an accountant for the NHS. The amount of money wasted every week in UNREAL, if you only knew!!
> How about the drunks that fill the A&E departments on a weekend? Do you think the fuel and services are free to run them around? Do you believe the consumables and x-rays are free? Mole removal going to save your life? any idea what the cost is for this type of cosmetic surgery? breast implant oks? How about the 100s of millions spent on translation services for non english speakers?
> 
> Most of the costs are for staff and building. Labour all but killed the NHS with the silly PFI things they created - 20 year lock-ins what the LA can not get out of and we have to pay. NHS is the LARGEST employer (in terms of numbers) in the EU - even though by population we are only the 6th or 7th largest country. Hows that work then? 1000s of pointless jobs consuming 100s of millions every year.
> 
> Things have to change.. regardless of the next government, the future is not bright, ironically its possible going to be safer and better funded under the tories. :?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we don't treat alcohol related illness, just let them die?
> I have a friend who Is a recovering alcoholic, should he have been turned away the many times he landed in hospital when he was drinking ?
> 
> If we do should we remove all tax duty on alcohol, what about obese people...smokers... Drug takers... people who play dangerous Sports??? Leave them on the hospital steps too ?
> 
> Here's a better idea.. get rid of trident and cut our obscene "defence" budget, stop pretending we are "great" Britain. And realise we are just bog standard Britain now.
Click to expand...

You appear to have difficulties reading.

I never said STOP treating anything, how about they pay for the treatment? Its a choice they make, same with drug users!
Clearly, just like a lot of the yes claims you've not looked at the numbers - defence makes up a small number compared to social funding, i recommend you take a look before spouting more mis-info. More is spent on INTEREST payments than is spent on defence!! (go and take a look)

So tax on alcohol goes to pay for treatment of alcoholics, what a silly thing to link to who's paying for what.
Tax is tax, its doesn't have to be raised by and used solely on certain things. You have a real issue with trident, i'd be more than happy for the UK government to move all defence spending south to England, lets have the pens in the UK and all the related spending, lets have all the ship building too.


----------



## msnttf10

Spandex said:


> Cutting back clinical funding would be an insane, knee jerk reaction. Your idea of waste seems to be based on your personal opinions on which procedures are 'worth it'. The real waste is less obvious than that. It's in the thousands of non-clinical staff who milk the system, getting paid to do jobs so badly that they would be basically unemployable in the private sector (which is why none of them ever leave the NHS). The trouble is, this waste is at every level, so very few people are in a position to do anything about it and those that are are part of the problem, so have no incentive to fix it.


If you read i said the most wasteful part was people, i didn't categorise where those people are... :-*


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> You appear to have difficulties reading.
> 
> I never said STOP treating anything, how about they pay for the treatment? Its a choice they make, same with drug users!
> Clearly, just like a lot of the yes claims you've not looked at the numbers - defence makes up a small number compared to social funding, i recommend you take a look before spouting more mis-info. More is spent on INTEREST payments than is spent on defence!! (go and take a look)
> 
> So tax on alcohol goes to pay for treatment of alcoholics, what a silly thing to link to who's paying for what.
> Tax is tax, its doesn't have to be raised by and used solely on certain things. You have a real issue with trident, i'd be more than happy for the UK government to move all defence spending south to England, lets have the pens in the UK and all the related spending, lets have all the ship building too.


Hmm. Insults.

No, I can read fine, your idea that alcoholics, drug addicts etc... should pay for their own treatment is slightly flawed. What will they pay with? I'm guessing being an alcoholic is going to hamper your career. :roll: 
I'm also guessing you have not had any experience with addiction. It's not as simple as "it's their choice, let them lie In ther own bed" people fall into the spiral of despair, they can hit rock bottom. I've lost family to addictions, trust me it's not as black and white as you think.

Anyway alcoholism is an illness, you clearly haven't a CLUE about it and how it can take over people's lives. We need to look after people like this, remember it's not just them suffering, they have families caught in the middle. They can be cured and go on to a prosperous life, but they need help, have some compassion.

And yes I do have an issue with trident, it's obscene. ALL nuclear bombs are. I'd happily see it gone. Or moved ANYWHERE but 40 miles from my house.
Shipbuilding? it's a tiny fraction of its former glory. Not that England has anywhere to actually build these ships. If they did I have ZERO doubt it would already be in England.


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> Shipbuilding? it's a tiny fraction of its former glory. Not that England has anywhere to actually build these ships. If they did I have ZERO doubt it would already be in England.


Agree it's a fraction of previous, but due to lack of demand, not lack of yards or skills in England.

Shipbuilding is still live for now in Portsmouth, at least until the yard there shuts and it all moves to Scotstoun & Govan yards, so sort of kills off you ZERO doubt?

Subs are built at Barrow and the yard there has capability to build ships as well as the boats they are currently expanding production for.

Refits take place at Devonport, and again could switch to shipbuilding if there was demand.

If you had got the yes I'd reckon all 3 above would have been used for Royal Navy new builds when the rUK government moved the capacity South.

That's just 3 yards I've worked in so probably more...


----------



## Spandex

msnttf10 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting back clinical funding would be an insane, knee jerk reaction. Your idea of waste seems to be based on your personal opinions on which procedures are 'worth it'. The real waste is less obvious than that. It's in the thousands of non-clinical staff who milk the system, getting paid to do jobs so badly that they would be basically unemployable in the private sector (which is why none of them ever leave the NHS). The trouble is, this waste is at every level, so very few people are in a position to do anything about it and those that are are part of the problem, so have no incentive to fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> If you read i said the most wasteful part was people, i didn't categorise where those people are... :-*
Click to expand...

You gave examples of clinical areas. So yes, you did categorise.


----------



## brian1978

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shipbuilding? it's a tiny fraction of its former glory. Not that England has anywhere to actually build these ships. If they did I have ZERO doubt it would already be in England.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree it's a fraction of previous, but due to lack of demand, not lack of yards or skills in England.
> 
> Shipbuilding is still live for now in Portsmouth, at least until the yard there shuts and it all moves to Scotstoun & Govan yards, so sort of kills off you ZERO doubt?
> 
> Subs are built at Barrow and the yard there has capability to build ships as well as the boats they are currently expanding production for.
> 
> Refits take place at Devonport, and again could switch to shipbuilding if there was demand.
> 
> If you had got the yes I'd reckon all 3 above would have been used for Royal Navy new builds when the rUK government moved the capacity South.
> 
> That's just 3 yards I've worked in so probably more...
Click to expand...

None of the yards in England are tooled to build the ships they build here.

If they shut all the yards in Scotland nobody would give a second thought in a years time. It's not a big industry. 
During the referendum the media overplayed the economic importance of them. 3000 jobs. That's 27,000 less than in 1980, we didn't implode economically when we lost 27000 we wouldn't implode economically at the loss of the last 3000.

Since the 80s the town where I live has lost far more than that. People found other employment. 
In Kilmarnock ALONE we used to have...
Armitage shanks
Johnnie walkers
Saxone shoes
Blackwood Bros. 
BMK carpets and textiles
Massey ferguson train builders
Rowallen Creamery 
Kilmarnock power station 
Douglas Reybourn 
Glazier metal works
Flemings industrial textiles
And more....

All closed with the loss of thousands of jobs... We are still here, people get over job losses .


----------



## Shug750S

Wrong on the tooling, modules for the carriers were built at Portsmouth as well as Govan.

Dry docks and shipbuilding sheds are what's needed, and Portsmouth (the old vosper yard) was working on destroyers exactly the same as Scotstoun when I visited them.

But I stand corrected. When were you last in these yards?

You'd make a good politician, as you seem to be able to change the point of the question. I was just responding to your point that there were no English yards! What has the new list of companies that have left Kilmarnock ALONE got to do with it?


----------



## msnttf10

21Bn wasted 
ws/uknews/nhs-alcohol-related-admissions-near-10-million/ar-AA6PDIH


----------



## Spandex

msnttf10 said:


> 21Bn wasted
> ws/uknews/nhs-alcohol-related-admissions-near-10-million/ar-AA6PDIH


Not sure why this is in a thread about Scottish independence, but it all seems a bit unlikely to me (and suspiciously, the data has come from an anti-alcohol charity). Anyway, the NHS data doesn't seem to back up these figures - taken from the latest NHS statistics on Alcohol:



> In 2012-13, there were an estimated 1,008,850 admissions related to alcohol consumption where an alcohol-related disease, injury or condition was the primary reason for hospital admission or a secondary diagnosis.


I suspect the "10 million admissions" figure is actually based on admissions where there is _any _link to alcohol (i.e. patient turns up with an unrelated condition/injury, but happens to have had a few drinks that day), rather than where alcohol is the primary cause.

And lets not forget that the government will be making about 3/4 of that £21b back in duty on alcohol sales, so it's not quite as melodramatic as that article would like to make out.


----------



## msnttf10

What a crazy thing to say - tax is tax, so lets just waste it?
How about we simply accept 3/4s of the money raised by road tax (6bn) is spent on road related injuries based on your theory?

You're the one that wants better funding for the NHS - why not simply stop the waste and reduce the burden to free up that money to be used for other things?


----------



## brian1978

msnttf10 said:


> What a crazy thing to say - tax is tax, so lets just waste it?
> How about we simply accept 3/4s of the money raised by road tax (6bn) is spent on road related injuries based on your theory?
> 
> You're the one that wants better funding for the NHS - why not simply stop the waste and reduce the burden to free up that money to be used for other things?


I'd say claiming that £21bn is "wasted" treating ill or injured human beings is a "crazy thing to say" :roll:

Again, should these people be left on the hospital step?

And the figure of 10 MILLION hospital admissions due to alcohol is ludicrous. Someone is twisting the figures here


----------



## Spandex

msnttf10 said:


> What a crazy thing to say - tax is tax, so lets just waste it?
> How about we simply accept 3/4s of the money raised by road tax (6bn) is spent on road related injuries based on your theory?
> 
> You're the one that wants better funding for the NHS - why not simply stop the waste and reduce the burden to free up that money to be used for other things?


Yes, that would be a crazy thing to say. Did someone say that? I must have missed that post.

Really though, this all hinges on your (and it is a personal thing) definition of 'waste'. For you, helping someone who has an illness caused in some measure by alcohol is a waste. Perhaps for someone else, alcoholism is a disease, but smoking related illnesses are a waste. Maybe we should find out who caused a car accident before we decide which party to treat and which to prop up outside A&E to die...

The logical conclusion of this theory of waste is to simply stop treating anyone who has an injury or illness which was ultimately avoidable in some way - because surely that's the only way to avoid 'waste'?

<edit>Oooh and if we did the above, 'Accident & Emergency' could be changed to just 'Emergency' - because if you have an accident, you should have been more careful you idiot. Think of the cost saving on the signs!!


----------



## msnttf10

Problem with socialist is they struggle to think. 
They simply believe everyone else owes them money to do whatever they want.

'changing the signs' wouldn't save anything - it would cost money :roll: 
The money spent on alcohol is not my definition of waste, its societies - but 'you' linked spending on alcohol to a right to treatment.. :roll:
_"And lets not forget that the government will be making about 3/4 of that £21b back in duty" _

NHS is not sustainable. Something has to change. That means one of only a few things - save money where possible by reducing waste, reducing the number of people or procedures undertaken or cut staff. Which route would you rather take?
Remember which government cripple the NHS as we knew it with their PFI scheme..


----------



## Spandex

msnttf10 said:


> Problem with socialist is they struggle to think.
> They simply believe everyone else owes them money to do whatever they want.
> 
> 'changing the signs' wouldn't save anything - it would cost money :roll:
> The money spent on alcohol is not my definition of waste, its societies - but 'you' linked spending on alcohol to a right to treatment.. :roll:
> _"And lets not forget that the government will be making about 3/4 of that £21b back in duty" _
> 
> NHS is not sustainable. Something has to change. That means one of only a few things - save money where possible by reducing waste, reducing the number of people or procedures undertaken or cut staff. Which route would you rather take?
> Remember which government cripple the NHS as we knew it with their PFI scheme..


Holy crap, you actually thought I was serious about the signs... :lol:

I didn't link anything to a 'right to treatment'. I simply pointed out that there is a direct proportional link between the money generated and the money spent. The more people drink, the more it both generates *and* costs money.

It doesn't matter how many people you can find to agree with your definition of waste, the fact remains that it's a subjective judgement which is not universally shared. If I thought treating you was a waste of money were you to become seriously ill (and I do :wink: ), does that mean it's a waste? If not, how many people have to agree with me before it becomes a waste?

Is it more acceptable to treat a broken arm caused by a skateboarding accident than a drinking accident? They're both completely unnecessary and relatively dangerous pastimes.. And if you fell and broke your wrist after a couple of drinks, can i assume you'd not go to A&E on principle?

To answer your question, I would like the NHS to increase efficiency by reducing the pointless target-driven culture which has created thousand of unnecessary roles - roles whose primary concern is the generation of flattering data rather than the welfare of the patients themselves. The culture of lying, cheating and manipulation that has been created in the management of the NHS is truly terrifying. I think people see articles in the press and assume it's limited to isolated cases - if only they realised it is the default behaviour in every hospital and is actively encouraged from the top down.


----------



## msnttf10

I bet you're an apple fan boy by the way you (mis)formulate conclusions.. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you worked in the NHS to formulate these constructive opinions?
You do know all these pointless roles you talk about were created by the last government and their obsession with finding more and more ways to move money away from the patients?

I dont recall saying you should not treat a broken arm for people who have been drinking. The top line comments being made by "society" is that "drunks" should be made to pay for the burden they are creating (be that police or A&E). Maybe we should offer drink driving courses to teach people how to drive when drunk - this would reduce accidents while not penalising drinkers, remember they could then spend more and in term raise more tax :roll:

Targets are normally set at local level by department heads in line with central policies.
This is not different to how global companies work and how regions and depts get funding - its all based on reporting and results.


----------



## Spandex

msnttf10 said:


> I bet you're an apple fan boy by the way you (mis)formulate conclusions.. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Do these sentences make sense in your head when you type them out?


msnttf10 said:


> Have you worked in the NHS to formulate these constructive opinions?
> You do know all these pointless roles you talk about were created by the last government and their obsession with finding more and more ways to move money away from the patients?


How I know about the NHS is neither here nor there. And what makes you think I care which government is responsible for the NHS's problems? Unlike you, I'm not trying to make a political point. At least you agree that these pointless roles exist though - so shouldn't these roles be removed if the NHS needs to save money?


msnttf10 said:


> I dont recall saying you should not treat a broken arm for people who have been drinking. The top line comments being made by "society" is that "drunks" should be made to pay for the burden they are creating (be that police or A&E).


Perhaps you should spend more time considering the implications of your opinions.. If you charge for certain treatments, then what happens with people who are unable to pay? Do you treat first, then try to get payment after (good luck with that -your average alcoholic isn't going to be rolling in cash) or do you refuse treatment till they pay (or in other words, permanently refuse treatment, as they'll never have the money).


msnttf10 said:


> Maybe we should offer drink driving courses to teach people how to drive when drunk - this would reduce accidents while not penalising drinkers, remember they could then spend more and in term raise more tax :roll:


What should bother you most about this nonsense is that it's *not* the stupidest suggestion you've made here...


msnttf10 said:


> Targets are normally set at local level by department heads in line with central policies.
> This is not different to how global companies work and how regions and depts get funding - its all based on reporting and results.


The targets that are constantly fudged are national targets (those pesky ones that cost the hospital money every time there's a breach). This encourages management to do outrageous things like redefining what counts as the start of treatment in order to stop clocks, or even discharging patients on spurious grounds before they breach.

You're right though, it's no different to how the private sector works... and it causes no end of problems there too. There will always be people who will game the system to meet a target (to get a bonus, or avoid a penalty) rather than just do what's best for the company. But the NHS is so monolithic.. so opaque.. that it has created a culture where the default behaviour is to cheat the system. People expend more energy making up figures than they would have used just doing the job right in the first place.


----------



## brian1978

Oh crap MORE pesky oil.... Thank god Westminster is looking after it for us.. :roll:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29739085


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Oh crap MORE pesky oil.... Thank god Westminster is looking after it for us.. :roll:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29739085


That field is pretty low down. I think it falls between the two proposed boundaries, so could have gone either way in the negotiations if Scotland had voted Yes.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap MORE pesky oil.... Thank god Westminster is looking after it for us.. :roll:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29739085
> 
> 
> 
> That field is pretty low down. I think it falls between the two proposed boundaries, so could have gone either way in the negotiations if Scotland had voted Yes.
Click to expand...

Maybe but the point is we were told by Sir Ian wood (the oil guru / tycoon ) that it was undoubtedly running out soon.. but yet here we are being told ANOTHER well is discovered. They also knew about the field discovered off Shetland a few months before the referendum but the bbc did not report on it..


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Maybe but the point is we were told by Sir Ian wood (the oil guru / tycoon ) that it was undoubtedly running out soon.. but yet here we are being told ANOTHER well is discovered. They also knew about the field discovered off Shetland a few months before the referendum but the bbc did not report on it..


Finding new wells was inevitable, and it doesn't contradict the statement that the oil is running out. I'm sure new wells will continue to be found for many years, but they will be in less accessible areas and will be less and less cost effective. The new find is a very long way out (right by the Norwegian maritime border).

As for the field off The Shetlands, I assume you mean Clair Ridge... Not exactly a new find, but estimates of the size of the reserve seemed to have increased recently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-23681061

If that's not the one, can you post which one you're referring to.


----------



## brian1978

Can't remember the exact one but that article says 3 have been discovered. The discovery in clair was more extractable oil.

Here's another story about oil not so scarce as they will have us believe.

http://www.scotsman.com/business/energy ... -1-3497431

We have been fed story's about the impending end of North Sea oil since the 80s it's ALWAYS "runnin' oot" :lol:


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Can't remember the exact one but that article says 3 have been discovered. The discovery in clair was more extractable oil.
> 
> Here's another story about oil not so scarce as they will have us believe.
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/business/energy ... -1-3497431
> 
> We have been fed story's about the impending end of North Sea oil since the 80s it's ALWAYS "runnin' oot" :lol:


If you can't even remember the exact one, how do you know the BBC didn't report it? What have you searched for on their site?

As for being fed stories - they're all just stories. But you believe the ones that support your views and you see the ones that don't as lies, despite having no internal knowledge to confirm either. What you should ask yourself is why you believe one over the other.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't remember the exact one but that article says 3 have been discovered. The discovery in clair was more extractable oil.
> 
> Here's another story about oil not so scarce as they will have us believe.
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/business/energy ... -1-3497431
> 
> We have been fed story's about the impending end of North Sea oil since the 80s it's ALWAYS "runnin' oot" :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't even remember the exact one, how do you know the BBC didn't report it? What have you searched for on their site?
> 
> As for being fed stories - they're all just stories. But you believe the ones that support your views and you see the ones that don't as lies, despite having no internal knowledge to confirm either. What you should ask yourself is why you believe one over the other.
Click to expand...

No I see people like Ian wood clearly stating they we have ONLY 12-15bn barrels of oil left, this is on the 18th of sept... The same man then tells us of "new technologies" that will extend the lifespan of existing wells "by decades" just a few weeks later. Just after a no vote is cast.

Coincidence?

Is it also coincidence this greedy bstard is involved heavily in fracking the central belt of Scotland?


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> No I see people like Ian wood clearly stating they we have ONLY 12-15bn barrels of oil left, this is on the 18th of sept... The same man then tells us of "new technologies" that will extend the lifespan of existing wells "by decades" just a few weeks later. Just after a no vote is cast.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> Is it also coincidence this greedy bstard is involved heavily in fracking the central belt of Scotland?


I don't know if any of these are a coincidence, just the same as you don't.

The difference between you and me is that when I make assumptions and judgments, I don't kid myself about the amount of direct knowledge I'm basing those on. I'm not saying you shouldn't make assumptions - it's impossible to get through life without doing it - but at least be aware you're doing it and don't try to pretend to the world that you didn't.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I see people like Ian wood clearly stating they we have ONLY 12-15bn barrels of oil left, this is on the 18th of sept... The same man then tells us of "new technologies" that will extend the lifespan of existing wells "by decades" just a few weeks later. Just after a no vote is cast.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> Is it also coincidence this greedy bstard is involved heavily in fracking the central belt of Scotland?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if any of these are a coincidence, just the same as you don't.
> 
> The difference between you and me is that when I make assumptions and judgments, I don't kid myself about the amount of direct knowledge I'm basing those on. I'm not saying you shouldn't make assumptions - it's impossible to get through life without doing it - but at least be aware you're doing it and don't try to pretend to the world that you didn't.
Click to expand...

No mate you make assumptions every single day on here. You assume you are correct and the world is wrong :lol:


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> No mate you make assumptions every single day on here. You assume you are correct and the world is wrong :lol:


Do you not assume you're correct? Are you telling me you're posting all this stuff whilst actually believing you're wrong about it?? Are you mad? :wink:

I spend a reasonable amount of time researching things before I make judgements or form opinions and I try to post links to the information I've used (and if I don't post them, I can if asked). If your posts on here are anything to go by, you generally do neither of these things and the end result is that I give less weight to the things you say.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mate you make assumptions every single day on here. You assume you are correct and the world is wrong :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not assume you're correct? Are you telling me you're posting all this stuff whilst actually believing you're wrong about it?? Are you mad? :wink:
> 
> I spend a reasonable amount of time researching things before I make judgements or form opinions and I try to post links to the information I've used (and if I don't post them, I can if asked). If your posts on here are anything to go by, you generally do neither of these things and the end result is that I give less weight to the things you say.
Click to expand...

Your still doing it. :lol:

Quite frankly I don't care, I believe what I believe and I'm sticking to It [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Your still doing it. :lol:
> 
> Quite frankly I don't care, I believe what I believe and I'm sticking to It [smiley=bomb.gif]


Yes Brian, we're both doing it. The only difference is, you don't realise it.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your still doing it. :lol:
> 
> Quite frankly I don't care, I believe what I believe and I'm sticking to It [smiley=bomb.gif]
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brian, we're both doing it. The only difference is, you don't realise it.
Click to expand...

No spandex, the difference is I realise this is just a forum on the Internet where we chat about cars moan about life and talk bollocks. everything doesn't have to be super accurate and analysed. :-*


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> No spandex, the difference is I realise this is just a forum on the Internet where we chat about cars moan about life and talk bollocks. everything doesn't have to be super accurate and analysed. :-*


It's very hard to know what to say to someone who thinks being 'too accurate' is a bad thing. :lol:


----------



## YoungOldUn

brian1978 said:


> No spandex, the difference is I realise this is just a forum on the Internet where we chat about cars moan about life and talk bollocks. everything doesn't have to be super accurate and analysed. :-*


Brian before reading the next bit, remember what you have just said . . . . . .

*WHEN ONE DOOR CLOSES, ANOTHER OPENS...*

*.... And now from Scotland singing "I dreamed a dream"... *


----------



## igotone

:lol: I see Alex is saying he may yet return to Westminster so we're not rid of him yet!


----------



## brian1978

igotone said:


> :lol: I see Alex is saying he may yet return to Westminster so we're not rid of him yet!


Be odd of have a politician in Westminster who isn't a greedy self serving thieving scumbag then.... :wink:


----------



## ag

I am genuinely interested to know what the current price of oil would have done to an independant Scotland's economy. Although it is a more balanced economy than the OPEC producers, it will still require a certain income from the Oil, as does the UK, I just wondered what the break-even point was and if it is greater than the current oil price? Anybody KNOW?


----------



## brian1978

ag said:


> I am genuinely interested to know what the current price of oil would have done to an independant Scotland's economy. Although it is a more balanced economy than the OPEC producers, it will still require a certain income from the Oil, as does the UK, I just wondered what the break-even point was and if it is greater than the current oil price? Anybody KNOW?


Absolutely nothing, we wouldn't have been independent until March 2016, oil is a very volatile resource. It may well be worth more in march 2016 or less.

The economy was not based around oil, and It was only about 12% of gdp and even If it was $1 a barrel it's more then we get from it now, which is nothing.


----------



## ag

brian1978 said:


> The economy was not based around oil, and It was only about 12% of gdp and even If it was $1 a barrel it's more then we get from it now, which is nothing.


I don't want to start an argument, but surely the revenue from North Sea Oil goes to the UK Exchecker that then distrbutes it around the UK using a formula which, I believe, is actually favourable to the smaller administrations within the UK. A lowering of the Oil price to the current levels is a blow to UK finances, as it is to any oil producing country, as will the resultant reduction in investment in world-wide oil production which is estimated to need to be around 30% to maintain the profit mrgins of the large oil companies. Some of the smaller companies operating the less profitable, but still viable, fields may really struggle with a $60 Barrel. The North Sea is predominantly smaller operators, I believe. This is bad news for all of us to a certain extent and shows that an economy with any reliance on oil would be very difficult to manage successfully as in the boom years insufficient would be saved to cover the lean years. The UK government in the early 2000s was guilty of this in abundance, I don't believe that alternative administrations would have been more conservative (small c).


----------



## brian1978

ag said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was not based around oil, and It was only about 12% of gdp and even If it was $1 a barrel it's more then we get from it now, which is nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to start an argument, but surely the revenue from North Sea Oil goes to the UK Exchecker that then distrbutes it around the UK using a formula which, I believe, is actually favourable to the smaller administrations within the UK. A lowering of the Oil price to the current levels is a blow to UK finances, as it is to any oil producing country, as will the resultant reduction in investment in world-wide oil production which is estimated to need to be around 30% to maintain the profit mrgins of the large oil companies. Some of the smaller companies operating the less profitable, but still viable, fields may really struggle with a $60 Barrel. The North Sea is predominantly smaller operators, I believe. This is bad news for all of us to a certain extent and shows that an economy with any reliance on oil would be very difficult to manage successfully as in the boom years insufficient would be saved to cover the lean years. The UK government in the early 2000s was guilty of this in abundance, I don't believe that alternative administrations would have been more conservative (small c).
Click to expand...

We may get get a small amount of revenue towards out block grant, but we have no control over the revenue raised, that was one of the conditions of "devo max" option on the original referendum ballot. The revenue raised from oil is not counted towards Scotlands GDP.

Basing an economy on oil would have been foolhardy, Scotland has a very rich diverse economy, we don't have all our eggs in one basket like many of the country's that fail to weather financial storms.

Oil was always a bonus, but hey ho most people wanted to remain in the union with Westminster for "security" which is is a bit ironic given the 1.4trillion of debt we are in :roll: bit like marrying a millionaire for security full knowing he is actually up to his neck in debt and the bailiffs are at the door.


----------



## John-H

Surely more like being married for donkey's years and building up a debt together?


----------



## brian1978

John-H said:


> Surely more like being married for donkey's years and building up a debt together?


Surely the worst analogy ever...

Scotland has never had borrowing powers, so building it up together isn't really the best description, add to that we pay more per head in tax than the rest of the UK and have provided billions in oil revenue since its discovery. Most of the money generated has went to developing the SE coast of the UK.

Married to an abusive money swindling monster (the Westminster government) who is spending all your wages on himself might be closer to the mark. :wink:


----------



## brian1978

I read that the Westminster government backbenchers are threatening to "wreck the devolution deal" if English votes for English laws are not put through. ( Scottish politicians have never voted on English matters and always chose to abstain from voting in matters that do not affect scotland)

Happy families indeed John... what about George Osborne pledging £50m to make the English football team "one of the best in the world" yep that's gonna go down a storm with Scottish tax payers. Especially the football fans... so how much are our national side getting??? Not that I would agree with lavishing millions on a ffkin football team in these times of austerity.


----------



## brian1978

There is actually quite a bit of discontent in Scotland at the moment, 2 recent polls asking if the referendum was held again tomorrow how would you vote put the yes vote at 55% or more. 
I think it's down to the shortfall of the promises that were made to the Scottish voters in the 11th hour, promises of "as close to federalism within the UK as can be possible" and "a modern equivalent of home rule for Scotland" were promised by Gordon Brown who was wheeled out and put on prime time Scottish TV.... "Substantial new powers coming to scotland" and "devo max" touted by Alistair Darling....

Well we got 15% control of the welfare budget and less than 30% control of tax spending (no tax raising) powers. Over 80% of power still lies with the Westminster government... oh and we got devolution on road signs and speed limits (why would we change either) it certainly is is a far cry from what was touted.. and remember these are only recommendations, none are set in stone.

A lot of it was just a rehash of the Scotland act 2012

In reality we got sold out...... A lot of buyers remorse


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Scotland has never had borrowing powers, so building it up together isn't really the best description


So who borrowed the money?


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has never had borrowing powers, so building it up together isn't really the best description
> 
> 
> 
> So who borrowed the money?
Click to expand...

The Westminster government, the Scottish government has never been able to borrow money, or ever have any say in how much is borrowed. That power has never been devolved.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland has never had borrowing powers, so building it up together isn't really the best description
> 
> 
> 
> So who borrowed the money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Westminster government, the Scottish government has never been able to borrow money, or ever have any say in how much is borrowed. That power has never been devolved.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the UK government?

It's interesting that you see a clear distinction between the UK and Scotland here, because back before the vote you were insisting in this thread that Scotland wouldn't need to apply for EU membership because it was already a member. Out of interest, did the Scottish Government sign up to the EU separately from the UK government?


----------



## ag

I'm sorry to have started this off again. To all intents and purposes the discussion is over. The matter has been resolved, presumably to the satisfaction of the majority of voters and we should let the democratic process continue unhindered. Speculation as to what might have occured is irrelevant. My only reason for posting my comment regarding falling oil price was to enquire as to if the "break-even" figure had been discussed in Scotland prior to the referendum as it may have had an influence on the outcome of the vote, either way. Clearly it was not, so any further speculation on the subject is pointless.


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> we don't have all our eggs in one basket.


Only because you're worried about the egg police checking up on you


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian19otland has never had borrowing powers said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Westminster government, the Scottish government has never been able to borrow money, or ever have any say in how much is borrowed. That power has never been devolved.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the UK government?
> 
> It's interesting that you see a clear distinction between the UK and Scotland here, because back before the vote you were insisting in this thread that Scotland wouldn't need to apply for EU membership because it was already a member. Out of interest, did the Scottish Government sign up to the EU separately from the UK government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Westminster government, last I checked that's what was in the houses of parliament, no ?
> 
> I NEVER said we wouldn't need to reapply to join Europe, not once!
> What I said was the European president said he saw no reason we couldn't reapply within the timescale set out in the white paper... and this is precisely why I'm not going to debate anything further with you, because you twist words make up scenarios and put words in people's mouths..... basically anything to make you seem right and them seem wrong... you are a master of bollocks and I'm having none of it :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## drjam

ag said:


> A lowering of the Oil price to the current levels is a blow to UK finances, as it is to any oil producing country


We are a net importer of oil these days though, so lower oil price = less of our money being exported to pay for it (to those nice Saudis and others).
In the short-term, the downside of low oil prices may be oil industry job losses and reduced tax receipts.
In the long-term though, especially if imports increase (because North Sea production keeps decreasing faster than we can continue reducing demand), lower oil prices mean lower costs for everyone else in the economy that uses it.
I expect it's quite a complicated calculation to work out at what price and on what timeframe those two cross over!
I also have little doubt that this is a short-term downward blip on a long-term upward trend anyway...


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Westminster government, last I checked that's what was in the houses of parliament, no ?
> 
> I NEVER said we wouldn't need to reapply to join Europe, not once!
> What I said was the European president said he saw no reason we couldn't reapply within the timescale set out in the white paper... and this is precisely why I'm not going to debate anything further with you, because you twist words make up scenarios and put words in people's mouths..... basically anything to make you seem right and them seem wrong... you are a master of bollocks and I'm having none of it :lol:


Westminster happens to be location of the building that the government meet in. It's still the UK government.

Ignoring your amateur dramatics for a second, The post I was referring to was this one:


brian1978 said:


> No. The rule stopping us getting the euro € is the requirements to join that currency zone. nothing more. The thing with Scotland joining the euro is we have already been a part of it for 40 years, you cannot apply the same rules to us as a say an eastern European country applying to join for the first time.


http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=759417&p=4841321#p4841321

Or is that me putting words in your mouth again?

<edit> And before you have a rant about whether you were talking about 'reapplying' or not, the point is that you're happy to include Scotland in the UK governments decisions when it's convenient to you, but then want to distance yourself from the negative stuff like debt.


----------



## John-H

Till death us do part :wink:


----------



## brian1978

brian1978 said:


> No. The rule stopping us getting the euro € is the requirements to join that currency zone. nothing more. The thing with Scotland joining the euro is we have already been a part of it for 40 years, you cannot apply the same rules to us as a say an eastern European country applying to join for the first time.


So exactly what part of that lead you to believe I said Scotland would not have to reapply?


----------



## brian1978

brian1978 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The rule stopping us getting the euro € is the requirements to join that currency zone. nothing more. The thing with Scotland joining the euro is we have already been a part of it for 40 years, you cannot apply the same rules to us as a say an eastern European country applying to join for the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> So exactly what part of that lead you to believe I said Scotland would not have to reapply?
Click to expand...

actually don't answer that, you are fishing for an argument and will disagree with anything I say anyway....


----------



## brian1978

An article in the herald which relates to ags original question.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/co ... .114828069


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The rule stopping us getting the euro € is the requirements to join that currency zone. nothing more. The thing with Scotland joining the euro is we have already been a part of it for 40 years, you cannot apply the same rules to us as a say an eastern European country applying to join for the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> So exactly what part of that lead you to believe I said Scotland would not have to reapply?
Click to expand...

The 'reapply' bit wasn't the point. I don't actually care if you said it or not, because it's not relevant to the point I was making.

What I was referring to was the fact that you pick and chose when to see scotland as part of the UK and when to see it as a separate entity. When the UK runs up debt, it's nothing to do with Scotland. When the UK joins the EU, Scotland joins the EU too.


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The rule stopping us getting the euro € is the requirements to join that currency zone. nothing more. The thing with Scotland joining the euro is we have already been a part of it for 40 years, you cannot apply the same rules to us as a say an eastern European country applying to join for the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> So exactly what part of that lead you to believe I said Scotland would not have to reapply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 'reapply' bit wasn't the point. I don't actually care if you said it or not, because it's not relevant to the point I was making.
> 
> What I was referring to was the fact that you pick and chose when to see scotland as part of the UK and when to see it as a separate entity. When the UK runs up debt, it's nothing to do with Scotland. When the UK joins the EU, Scotland joins the EU too.
Click to expand...

no I don't, as far am im concerned id love nothing more than Scotland to have nothing to do with the UK, surely that was the point of independence. but unfortunately Scotland IS part of the UK. 
Im not entirely sure where you are leading this, but if you are referring to my suggestion that the same rules would not have applied to Scotland's application as say a new member for the eastern block that still stands, its got nothing to do with me picking and choosing what bits I like I was merely echoing Jean Claude Junker. he said it.... not me.

with regards to Scotland having no part in running up the massive UK debt, exactly how could we have, we do not have any powers to borrow, or even to discuss borrowing, or veto any borrowing decisions. that's down to the current Westminster government, the coalition of conservative and liberal democrats, they are the ones that have added well over a trillion pounds to it. as a country we did not vote for this, here in Scotland we have 1 conservative MP and 1 libdem MP (but please lets not go down that road again, we have already agreed to disagree on that)


----------



## brian1978

Spandex said:


> It's interesting that you see a clear distinction between the UK and Scotland here, *because back before the vote you were insisting in this thread that Scotland wouldn't need to apply for EU membership because it was already a member.* Out of interest, did the Scottish Government sign up to the EU separately from the UK government?


actually you did seem to care,.

then adding the silly question at the end. which is of course imposable as the signing of the UKs membership to the EU pre-dates the Scottish parliament by decades

you are contradicting yourself already and twisting the argument to suit yourself.... :lol:


----------



## John-H

I think the point was that the debt was built up by the democratically elected UK government which Scottish MPs are also part of. If you don't accept that you don't accept democracy amongst the qualifying electorate. You could of course form a group and declare unilateral independence from the UK but that may be difficult and wouldn't apply retrospectively, so no, I'm afraid as a current UK citizen you bear your share of the debt as do we all. I'm afraid there is no way to avoid that conclusion.

I see you are trying to imply that just because there is a Scottish parliament but without debt raising powers then it has no responsibility for debt. Well of course it doesn't. But that doesn't mean Scottish UK citizens didn't have a vote in the UK government elections - they did.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> I think the point was that the debt was built up by the democratically elected UK government which Scottish MPs are also part of. If you don't accept that you don't accept democracy amongst the qualifying electorate. You could of course form a group and declare unilateral independence from the UK but that may be difficult and wouldn't apply retrospectively, so no, I'm afraid as a current UK citizen you bear your share of the debt as do we all. I'm afraid there is no way to avoid that conclusion.
> 
> I see you are trying to imply that just because there is a Scottish parliament but without debt raising powers then it has no responsibility for debt. Well of course it doesn't. But that doesn't mean Scottish UK citizens didn't have a vote in the UK government elections - they did.


This was indeed the point.


----------



## Spandex

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you see a clear distinction between the UK and Scotland here, *because back before the vote you were insisting in this thread that Scotland wouldn't need to apply for EU membership because it was already a member.* Out of interest, did the Scottish Government sign up to the EU separately from the UK government?
> 
> 
> 
> actually you did seem to care,.
> 
> then adding the silly question at the end. which is of course imposable as the signing of the UKs membership to the EU pre-dates the Scottish parliament by decades
> 
> you are contradicting yourself already and twisting the argument to suit yourself.... :lol:
Click to expand...

I was using it to make a point. The fact that I got part of what you said wrong is irrelevant to that point, because the pertinent bit was not the bit about reapplying. But I think you know that.

As for the 'silly' question at the end, yes it was supposed to be impossible. It was rhetorical.


----------



## Shug750S

brian1978 said:


> with regards to Scotland having no part in running up the massive UK debt, exactly how could we have, we do not have any powers to borrow, or even to discuss borrowing, or veto any borrowing decisions. that's down to the current Westminster government, the coalition of conservative and liberal democrats, they are the ones that have added well over a trillion pounds to it. as a country we did not vote for this, here in Scotland we have 1 conservative MP and 1 libdem MP (but please lets not go down that road again, we have already agreed to disagree on that)


Brain, I realsie you are very passionate on this whole subject, and we had some lively debate during the run up to the eventual No vote. However I can't agree with your comment above, as the Scottish MPS were part of the UK Parliament that ran up this debt.

I would even suggest that as a lot of the debt was run up when Labour were in power, the Scottish Labour MPs may have helped to get the votes through for Mr Blair (English) and then Mr Brown (Scottish) at the time.

Unless of course the Scottish MPs abstained from relevant votes at the time, in which case I stand corrected.

Like it or not mate, Scotland is part of the UK, and until things change surely they have a share of the national debt.

I know you will disagree, but that's life.

Maybe you need to get some special independence trousers made?


----------



## brian1978

If no Scottish voted in the general election Blair would still have been elected... If everyone in Scotland had voted tory... Blair would still have been elected, as usual, our vote makes no difference.



Shug750S said:


> Maybe you need to get some special independence trousers made?


I think it's called a kilt


----------

