norfolk dumpling Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 Having had the misfortune to hear hours of debate but little substance (particularly from the SNP) on balance I'm in the 'yes' camp. It looks as if the remaining parts will be better off w/o Scotland, the Tories (who I support in the absence of a credible alternative) will have a greater majority and fieldsports, particularly shooting, will prosper. The only big fly in the ointment is the number of Scots who have said they will go south! Having said as much on R2 lunchtime there were quite a few, currently in England, who wanted to return to an independent Scotland so lets hope its the skilled/wealthy who go south and the reverse who return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 yep right from the miniute they wasted the money building that bloody parliment and pay msps to come away with trivial things like stopping docking working dogs tails ,now how good will the same numptys be at self independance ,but slightly leaning to the 'no', but what about the rhyme just like Burns he never minced his views ! Ask yourself.... Do you not think that they fact they haven't published the figures to create a new country _2 days_ before the vote a bit suspect. Do you not think that the fact that the haven't accounted for any negative effects of leaving the UK (financial flight, losing defence and ship building jobs) in their projections a bit suspect? The more I look at it the more I reaise there are Massive holes in the projected figures. Darling should have been ripping Salmond a new one on those debates. There's a much safer option on offer that looks like it'll offer change without the blind gamble of faith needed to split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 I agree, the better together campaign has been badly led. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think Darling was biting his tongue trying not to appear too negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieh Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/ Sums up all the YES voters I have heard Edited September 16, 2014 by geordieh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AULD YIN Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 You are not my 'mate'. 2nd form politics student? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 The Buckfast sign's very good: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758629/Away-rancour-little-gentle-joshing-Scottish-friends-new-book-reveals-unintentionally-hilarious-signs-spotted-north-border.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Ok its the Daily Mail but some evidence perhaps of the tactics of Mr Mugabe about the 'Yes' campaign in this mornings edition. Stones through windows showing 'No' symbols etc. Its down to the Government to be 'just fair' when the Scots decide to go, or, since theres no viable alternative to the Conservative Party, I will vote UKIP. I have been stunned by the whole thing - just no way to run a country or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Kes - fair comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 There's a whiff of National Socialism from 1930's Germany about the Yes campaign. Look at the evidence: Sense of injustice about old treaties: Versailles vs. Act of Union & Barnett formula Stoking up aggressive nationalism: Brownshirts vs. shouting down Yes speakers, such as Millband yesterday, the latest of many examples Attacking the free press: Julius Streicher vs. SNP protests about the BBC Demands for raw materials: Lebenraum vs. North Sea oil Belief in mythical superstitions : Norse gods vs. Mel Gibson Tin pot leader with delusions of grandeur Be careful what you wish for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 There's a whiff of National Socialism from 1930's Germany about the Yes campaign. Look at the evidence: Sense of injustice about old treaties: Versailles vs. Act of Union & Barnett formula Stoking up aggressive nationalism: Brownshirts vs. shouting down Yes speakers, such as Millband yesterday, the latest of many examples Attacking the free press: Julius Streicher vs. SNP protests about the BBC Demands for raw materials: Lebenraum vs. North Sea oil Belief in mythical superstitions : Norse gods vs. Mel Gibson Tin pot leader with delusions of grandeur Be careful what you wish for... Yep and staring David Cameron as Neville Chamberlain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 No Im not kidding. 300 years of Westminster rule/atrocities/illegal wars/poll tax/bedroom tax etc etc. We have a chance to shape our own future and hopefully can do so given a chance. Its not a slur on English-its a stance against the out of touch government that rules these isles with nothing short of contempt. I truly hope that on the back of this, your parliament sorts itself out starts maybe trying to improve things in your country as for 300 years it certainly hasn't managed to do it with the united kingdom. Just read through all the posts and i am confused by this. You have had your own Parliment for a while, get more per head than anywhere apart from Northern Ireland according to the Barnett formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munzy Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 There's a whiff of National Socialism from 1930's Germany about the Yes campaign. Look at the evidence: Sense of injustice about old treaties: Versailles vs. Act of Union & Barnett formula Stoking up aggressive nationalism: Brownshirts vs. shouting down Yes speakers, such as Millband yesterday, the latest of many examples Attacking the free press: Julius Streicher vs. SNP protests about the BBC Demands for raw materials: Lebenraum vs. North Sea oil Belief in mythical superstitions : Norse gods vs. Mel Gibson Tin pot leader with delusions of grandeur Be careful what you wish for... So true! Just read through all the posts and i am confused by this. You have had your own Parliment for a while, get more per head than anywhere apart from Northern Ireland according to the Barnett formula. You're as confused as he was writing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Thanks god for that thought it was me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowdie2013 Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Just to enlighten you: Yes, your correct regarding the Barnett formula, But Scotland pays for every penny of that spending and more besides. As the Financial Times article from February points out: “Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters.” On average, UK spending is around £1,200 higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. But on average Scotland sends £1,700 more per person to the UK in taxes. We only get back around 70% of the extra money we send to London. The other 30% is kept by Westminster and spent in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 According to the radio yesterday and one paper this morning the 'yes' lobby have resorted to bullying and intimidation with stones through windows showing 'no' stickers and cars displaying such being vandalised. It's a shame really as I was pleased to see people actually getting up off their backsides and lobbying in the street for something they believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 What do you do when the stuff you happened to have in the ground in your general vicinity runs out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 crowdie2013, on 17 Sept 2014 - 12:01 PM, said: Just to enlighten you: Yes, your correct regarding the Barnett formula, But Scotland pays for every penny of that spending and more besides. As the Financial Times article from February points out: “Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters.” On average, UK spending is around £1,200 higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. But on average Scotland sends £1,700 more per person to the UK in taxes. We only get back around 70% of the extra money we send to London. The other 30% is kept by Westminster and spent in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. "Your oil" A hose pipe extension to Sunderland/Newcastle/Hartlepool will soon fix that. It's "your" oil because of the protection of the UK and the Royal Navy, which won't being leaving you a canoe should you vote "Yes." Suddenly the territorial waters will include England again. You can all go back to cross-dressing and smack and the rest of us can get on with our lives without being accosted by ginger drunks with dogs on string staggering around London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowdie2013 Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Just read through all the posts and i am confused by this. You have had your own Parliment for a while, get more per head than anywhere apart from Northern Ireland according to the Barnett formula. "Your oil" A hose pipe extension to Sunderland/Newcastle/Hartlepool will soon fix that. It's "your" oil because of the protection of the UK and the Royal Navy, which won't being leaving you a canoe should you vote "Yes." Suddenly the territorial waters will include England again. You can all go back to cross-dressing and smack and the rest of us can get on with our lives without being accosted by ginger drunks with dogs on string staggering around London. Yes Our Oil. This is ensured by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yes Our Oil. This is ensured by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). You didn't earn it - you found it. What will you do when it runs out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowdie2013 Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 What do you do when the stuff you happened to have in the ground in your general vicinity runs out? The untapped oil and gas reserves in the west coast of Scotland, Scottish atlantic margin and the firth of clyde are estimated to be at least twice what we have left in the areas known to us already in Scottish waters, HOWEVER, the UK government will not allow this to be drilled because of the trident base at Faslane. Hence the reason, the Scottish government will send it south, and start exploiting the west. Obviously wont last forever but will at least allow an oil fund to be created for many years, something Westminster never had the savvy to do........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graiglearn Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 The untapped oil and gas reserves in the west coast of Scotland, Scottish atlantic margin and the firth of clyde are estimated to be at least twice what we have left in the areas known to us already in Scottish waters, HOWEVER, the UK government will not allow this to be drilled because of the trident base at Faslane. Hence the reason, the Scottish government will send it south, and start exploiting the west. Obviously wont last forever but will at least allow an oil fund to be created for many years, something Westminster never had the savvy to do........... oil fund ? the way the present scottish government msps waste money ? thier own building =overspend,the trams =overspend 400m short on nhs , etc etc and you expect them to be responsable ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yes Our Oil. This is ensured by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Not true. Just because the UK was happy to follow a formula in 1999 for devolution, it doesn't mean England will follow suit following independence. Still, you'll squander whatever money you have on magic beans just like the last time you were independent. I favour a 50% excise duty on Buckfast for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowdie2013 Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 You didn't earn it - you found it. What will you do when it runs out? the question really should be what will Westminster do, in the event of a yes vote and their oil feed suddenly stops in 18 months time?? Hence the mass panic by all 3 main leaders in the last 2 weeks. They havnt agreed to what extra powers Scotland would get. All that has been agreed is a timeframe which frankly shows the contempt for the Scottish people. The Scottish Governments hand was forced when Westminster would not allow the Devo Max question and would only allow a yes/no vote. I truly believe that had devo max been an option the majority of scots would have gone for that and the UK would have remained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowdie2013 Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Not true. Just because the UK was happy to follow a formula in 1999 for devolution, it doesn't mean England will follow suit following independence. Still, you'll squander whatever money you have on magic beans just like the last time you were independent. I favour a 50% excise duty on Buckfast for starters. cant you reply without throwing in an insult or 2? Your Westminster government has forced the hand and the sovereign will of the Scottish people will prevail one way or another. Pay heid to the Edinburgh Agreement; come Friday we all should accept the majority decision whether we like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts