# General > General >  The Org Poll on Independence

## RagnarRocks

So lets see how we orgers decide a quick poll to see how it goes

----------


## RagnarRocks

Well its not so close at the moment 3 to 1

----------


## Southern-Gal

Dont know (yet).

----------


## mi16

Oh great another poll

----------


## richardj

No I will not be voting for independence

----------


## ducati

The org polls are always closer than the National polls. I think we had a yes one recently. ::

----------


## Rheghead

I'd be interested in seeing local debates with invited guest speakers from interested groups or nationally recognisible MSPs to debate how Scottish Independence will affect us on a local level.

How will the budgets change for local councils?

How will local taxation be calculated?

How will the Scottish government implement any action plans to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?

How will transport and communication change under an independent Scotland?

What value does an independent Scotland place on areas of outstanding beauty and Heritage?

How will Caithness benefit from job creation as a result of different policy making?

----------


## changilass

You don't have an option for 'none of your biddy business'!

----------


## Big Gaz

> How will Caithness benefit from job creation as a result of different policy making?


This is a serious discussion thread and you go and ruin it by cracking jokes like this....tch tch...Oh Rheghead...... ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

> You don't have an option for 'none of your biddy business'!


Yup there is its called ignore it:0)

----------


## richardj

Looking at the poll results so far it does raise a problem in my mind. If 51% vote yes, it means that a very small minority of people will have decided for 49% of the population who wish to remain in the United Kingdom. Even if it was 56-65% for a yes vote the same remains true in my opinion. Surely something as important as Independence the bar should be far higher - something like a 80% or more required for a yes vote to get independence.

Just my opinion so please do not shoot the messenger!

----------


## Westward

> I'd be interested in seeing local debates with invited guest speakers from interested groups or nationally recognisible MSPs to debate how Scottish Independence will affect us on a local level.
> 
> How will the budgets change for local councils?
> 
> How will local taxation be calculated?
> 
> How will the Scottish government implement any action plans to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
> 
> How will transport and communication change under an independent Scotland?
> ...


There is a meeting arranged for the 7th March..in the Weigh inn, in Thurso..starts at 7pm..

----------


## squidge

There you go folks I might even make that day the day I have to come north to work - Anyone for dinner?

----------


## PantsMAN

> Looking at the poll results so far it does raise a problem in my mind. If 51% vote yes, it means that a very small minority of people will have decided for 49% of the population who wish to remain in the United Kingdom. Even if it was 56-65% for a yes vote the same remains true in my opinion. Surely something as important as Independence the bar should be far higher - something like a 80% or more required for a yes vote to get independence.
> 
> Just my opinion so please do not shoot the messenger!


We had a similar stitch-up like the one you are suggesting back in 1979 - the 40% rule.

Shameful!

----------


## richardj

> We had a similar stitch-up like the one you are suggesting back in 1979 - the 40% rule.
> 
> Shameful!


I am meaning 80% of the people that vote, not of the electorate, if people do not bother to vote then that is their choice.

----------


## Big Gaz

Personally i think everyone in Scotland who is entitled to vote, should have to vote. That way it is a true and fair vote of either yes, no or undecided which should all be on the ballot paper too. Proxy & postal votes included so there is no excuse not to vote either.

----------


## jax

> Personally i think everyone in Scotland who is entitled to vote, should have to vote. That way it is a true and fair vote of either yes, no or undecided which should all be on the ballot paper too. Proxy & postal votes included so there is no excuse not to vote either.


Postal votes a great idea for people wanting to sell their votes on eBay....lol

----------


## ducati

Interesting that the undecideds are quite statistically small. Every effort should be made by both sides to persuade these but in the end it won't really matter.

----------


## Big Gaz

> Postal votes a great idea for people wanting to sell their votes on eBay....lol


I.D. is a wonderful thing  :: ......i'll give you 3p and a toffee for yours

----------


## Mrs Bradey

> Looking at the poll results so far it does raise a problem in my mind. If 51% vote yes, it means that a very small minority of people will have decided for 49% of the population who wish to remain in the United Kingdom. Even if it was 56-65% for a yes vote the same remains true in my opinion. Surely something as important as Independence the bar should be far higher - something like a 80% or more required for a yes vote to get independence.Just my opinion so please do not shoot the messenger!


well Mr messenger I agree!

----------


## RagnarRocks

And all of a sudden the poll stats take a massive jump overnight methinks someone is doing the multiple accounts thing again

----------


## ducati

A bit desperate if that is the case RR. Do you think they can't even bare to look at a poll that doesn't agree with them. This reflects the sort of behaviour you see in the worst dictatorships.

----------


## Big Gaz

Desperate? behaviour seen in a dictatorships? err...... Ducati, did you mean to comment on the org post or were you tabbed over to a page on the "Dictatorship Weekly Journal" and reading an article on Mugabe and his pet budgie and meant to comment on there?  ::

----------


## Big Gaz

> And all of a sudden the poll stats take a massive jump overnight methinks someone is doing the multiple accounts thing again


sock puppets on multiple accounts??? Jings! Crivvens! help ma boab! sock puppets!!! how dare they tarnish the poll!. 

Lets hope they ALL vote YES when the time comes!  ::

----------


## ducati

> Desperate? behaviour seen in a dictatorships? err...... Ducati, did you mean to comment on the org post or were you tabbed over to a page on the "Dictatorship Weekly Journal" and reading an article on Mugabe and his pet budgie and meant to comment on there?


Ooopsee!  ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

I did hear that down at the Politburo the Comrades  have decided that to benefit the democratic system and make sure that fairness is seen to be done each one of their members is entitled to Three Votes thus ensuring that each sock puppet is fairly represented.

----------


## Big Gaz

Shh comrade! not so loud!  ::

----------


## ducati

Aaagh it's a dead heat!  ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

I rest my case. Shows the lengths they are prepared to go all in the name of fairness. Hence I vote a resounding NO as you can't trust them to be honest

----------


## Big Gaz

> I rest my case. Shows the lengths they are prepared to go all in the name of fairness. Hence I vote a resounding NO as you can't trust them to be honest


Hmm, so all YES voters are dishonest, unimaginative, unfair, own multiple sock-puppets and are right-wing communists eh? 

can i have some of your breakfast cereal today please RR, there must be something in it that isn't in mine  ::

----------


## squidge

You rest your case lol lol lol. Cant bear to see a poll which doesnt agree with a yes vote? Ragnar, honey, thats ALL we evet see. I am sure that if you email Niall he will be able to let us know if there has been unusual activity which might indicate sock puppets. If you have evidence of this then i would be interested to know. I was here at 6 amish this morning and didnt notice the poll results being this way at that point. Maybe people have woken up this morning read the posts and seen that Charlie Kennedy called last night for BT to start to show a positive case for remaining in the union and yet failed to come up with one. Coming on top of the speech by David Cameron - in london, alistair Darling speaking on London radio today and the cringeworthy performance of John Barrymore for BTs Burns night promotion, i wouldnt be surprised if people cant vote YES quick enough!

----------


## Big Gaz

EEK!!!! THE YES VOTE ARE WINNING!!!!!! pull your socks up Ragnar mah boy, you got some campaigning to do!  ::

----------


## jax

> I.D. is a wonderful thing ......i'll give you 3p and a toffee for yours


A toffee.......very tempted

----------


## ducati

> EEK!!!! THE YES VOTE ARE WINNING!!!!!! pull your socks up Ragnar mah boy, you got some campaigning to do!


Well thats it then!  ::

----------


## Big Gaz

> A toffee.......very tempted


only the best 2p Highland Daintee of course. Has to be a Scottish one, none of that Werther's unoriginal in my pocket!

----------


## RagnarRocks

I can't say anything in case commissar Squidge goes into apoplexy as of course its totally unknown on the org for members to have multiple accounts :0))

----------


## Big Gaz

Level peggin again.....just how many mates have you phoned to vote today RR?   ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

Well this could be amusing I wonder what will happen if it is a 50/50 split on the day. Will they divide Scotland in half and have an independent half and a union half. Then we could argue whether its a north/ south or and east/west split.I have no desire to go down the route of Gerrymandering does seem a bit of a convenient coincidence that its now become neck a neck. There's probably some deluded little troll having fun

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Hmm, so all YES voters are dishonest, unimaginative, unfair, own multiple sock-puppets and are right-wing communists eh? can i have some of your breakfast cereal today please RR, there must be something in it that isn't in mine


Nice big bowl of commie flakes :0))

----------


## Big Gaz

> Nice big bowl of commie flakes :0))


There was me thinking it was porridge with salt from the slave mines too..... ::

----------


## Big Gaz

> There's probably some deluded little troll having fun


Which one RR? there's loads of em on here

Trollolololol

----------


## Big Gaz

trollolol neck and green neck again  ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

Och well it keeps them amused and just to think years ago they used to lock them up in institutions now just give em a lap top and they amuse themselves all day long.

----------


## RagnarRocks

> There was me thinking it was porridge with salt from the slave mines too.....


Porridge! my my you have expensive tastes what's wrong with a good old bowl of tree bark gruel straight from the gulags :0))

----------


## jax

> only the best 2p Highland Daintee of course. Has to be a Scottish one, none of that Werther's unoriginal in my pocket!


Defo a done deal for the Highland Daintee :-P

----------


## ducati

Well well. The org has everything. Socialists vote rigging now (allegedly). You'd think we were in Falkirk.  ::

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

The .org appears to have been taken over by sad trolls who only joined in the last few months and argue amongst themselves because they seem to be disinclined to allow any new members to post. What is the point of this poll anyway? The "poll" will be taken on September 18, when Scots will be allowed to decide what happens to *our* country.

----------


## peedie man

what about the english in our country there seems to more of them than scots

----------


## ducati

> what about the english in our country there seems to more of them than scots


Yeah fling em oot! :: 

(although I don't think there is room for all the Scots everywhere else to come back.)

----------


## jax

> Yeah fling em oot!(although I don't think there is room for all the Scots everywhere else to come back.)


That's just plain nasty......

----------


## Big Gaz

> That's just plain nasty......


More so when it's said by a Teuchter!!  ::  (Duc, not Jax)

----------


## richardj

> The .org appears to have been taken over by sad trolls who only joined in the last few months and argue amongst themselves because they seem to be disinclined to allow any new members to post. What is the point of this poll anyway? The "poll" will be taken on September 18, when Scots will be allowed to decide what happens to *our* country.


The thing is it will not just be the Scots who are allowed to decide on Scotland's independence  - it is everyone on the voting register - for Caithness that must be a fair number of English born people. In Glasgow we get to a United Nations situation with the width and breadth of the nationalities involved (well country of Origin not being Scotland that is).

Most Scots are living in England, Wales, France, New Zealand and Austria, to mention a few of the many countries "true" Scots are in - and none of them will get to vote on independence.

Ducati - "send them back" I doubt you will need to as English / Welsh / Irish born folk will leave in the hundreds - and this would be a disaster for Scotland in my opinion.

----------


## RagnarRocks

I thought duc was a Welshman judging by his dodgy accent and the way he eyes up those wee sheepies :0))

----------


## RagnarRocks

> The .org appears to have been taken over by sad trolls who only joined in the last few months and argue amongst themselves because they seem to be disinclined to allow any new members to post. What is the point of this poll anyway? The "poll" will be taken on September 18, when Scots will be allowed to decide what happens to *our* country.


Freedom of a speech and expression are a wonderful things perchance you'd try to embrace them more fully sometime:0))

----------


## ducati

> I thought duc was a Welshman judging by his dodgy accent and the way he eyes up those wee sheepies :0))


Ewes! There is nothing wrong with me!

----------


## Rheghead

I'm convinced that Green politics is the intelligent and longterm way to go.  

But is it better to change the big beast from within knowing that it won't change

or?

Let green politics shine through a new Scotland and make her a shining example for the rest of the UK to emulate?

decisions decisions....

----------


## Kenn

On ye're bike Rheghead they 're no building another wind farm up here without a fight, solar panels has to be the way to go until such time as there are efficient wave power machines.

----------


## Rheghead

> On ye're bike Rheghead they 're no building another wind farm up here without a fight, solar panels has to be the way to go until such time as there are efficient wave power machines.


You might change your view.  Greens are not about just renewables, they have a broad based spectrum of policies aimed at bringing wealth to people who deserve it without leaving anyone behind.  Ywindy complains that private companies profit with wind.  Yes they do but that is a tory/labour policy.  But the Greens will have all wind farms returned to public ownership thus negating profiteering.

----------


## ducati

People who deserve wealth bring it to themselves. They don't need green help....thanks.  ::

----------


## squidge

Dear me..... Victorian values?  The deserving rich and the undeserving poor..... I despair sometimes.

----------


## RagnarRocks

Glad to see you're back Commisar Squidge I trust all is well in the gulags and you'll be restoring order to the proletariat. I prefer not to consider myself  Victorian. More Cavalier less Roundhead :0))

----------


## Kodiak

If the flooding continues down South we won't have to worry about the vote on Independence!!

----------


## susie

Oh, I love it! Thanks Kodiak.

----------


## ducati

As there is a suspicion that the results of this poll have been manipulated, we can't trust the results of any other which is a shame because it would have been useful to moniter the effectiveness of the campaigns in the run up to the ref.

----------


## Big Gaz

> As there is a suspicion that the results of this poll have been manipulated, we can't trust the results of any other which is a shame because it would have been useful to moniter the effectiveness of the campaigns in the run up to the ref.


Screenshot of voters names or other 100% non-manipulatablubulle proof that it is being manipulated or it isn't happening and it's all a figment of the NO voters imaginations!  ::

----------


## bekisman

With a Org 'membership' of 9,718 methinks this 'Poll' is just a bit of fun and just an amusing interlude and in actual fact means now't

----------


## ducati

> Screenshot of voters names or other 100% non-manipulatablubulle proof that it is being manipulated or it isn't happening and it's all a figment of the NO voters imaginations!


Suspicion I said. Based on a bit of anomalous activity and the very obvious fact it does not in any way reflect all the other polls that are delivering consistent results.

You will find a summary of recent polls here: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottis...nce-referendum

----------


## richardj

ducati, interesting link. What does D/K stand for a again - not Dinna Ken (surely)  :Smile:

----------


## Big Gaz

Ach, i see no bleating noo that the poll is in favour of the NO squad! manipulation indeed!!!

----------


## Big Gaz

> Suspicion I said. Based on a bit of anomalous activity and the very obvious fact it does not in any way reflect all the other polls that are delivering consistent results.
> 
> You will find a summary of recent polls here: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottis...nce-referendum


I find that link hilarious in that the *only* poll done by the SNP shows YES as winners whilst every other poll has NO as winners lol

----------


## ducati

> I find that link hilarious in that the *only* poll done by the SNP shows YES as winners whilst every other poll has NO as winners lol


I guess it depends who you ask.  ::

----------


## bekisman

> I find that link hilarious in that the *only* poll done by the SNP shows YES as winners whilst every other poll has NO as winners lol


Noticed that too: 44 vs 43, hmmm

----------


## Rheghead

> If the flooding continues down South we won't have to worry about the vote on Independence!!


Dunno about you but this just sums up everything what is wrong with the zeitgeist of the independence debate and why the yes campaign is allienting potential support.

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Dunno about you but this just sums up everything what is wrong with the zeitgeist of the independence debate and why the yes campaign is allienting potential support.


Just wait till they ask for non native scots to wear coloured patches on their coats then you'll see where its really headed. nationalism has a very unhealthy past in every country its reared its head.

----------


## squidge

This is just utter nonsense! RAgnar, i have asked and asked for you and others who like to pretend that this referendum is about nationality or is anti english, polish, asian, *insert any nationality* here. You sit on the outskirts of the pro and anti independence campaign making ridiculous insulting pronouncements about people and groups you know nothing about. You bandy around suggestions that those with an opposing view are extremists with no justification at all and misrepresent stuff left right and centre. 


No one has to fear independence because of their nationality. No one. They perhaps should fear remaining in a UK where You would like no one to be entitled to anything unless they have "worked hard all their life" to pay for it. You are fond of saying there is no poverty here when you compare it to other places in the world that you have visited....  Like that is something we should be ashamed of but never mind rags, your vision of no right to housing, education, healthcare, benefits, no right to a living wage, no right to security of tenure that you seem to support may very well become a reality if we stay in the UK. You will then be able to smile and say "see i told you, THESE people are REALLY poor". 

You cant measure people's value to society by the size of their bank balance. When we die, the only things that people really remember are how they cared for others..  Their compassion. This UK cares only when the effluent meets the affluent. Those of us who will never be wealthy no matter how hard we work should see that and look for alternatives. You play around in the shallows Rags, scared to step into deeper water cos you might need someone else to pull you out.... We will step out independently making sure there is a helping hand for those who are struggling. That will even include you honey... Come on .... Its exciting.

----------


## golach

> You play around in the shallows Rags, scared to step into deeper water cos you might need someone else to pull you out.... We will step out independently making sure there is a helping hand for those who are struggling. That will even include you honey... Come on .... Its exciting.


Oh Squidge, I would love to know what your on? is it strong drink? Or is it those rose tinted specs you have? I do not see the Scotland I love, being the land of milk and honey whilst under the heel of Eck's boot, even if he does have a plan B.

----------


## Mrs Bradey

> You cant measure people's value to society by the size of their bank balance. When we die, the only things that people really remember are how they cared for others...


or their legacy / inheritance (size of bank balance)  Burrel, Carnegie, Tate etc!!

----------


## ducati

> This is just utter nonsense! RAgnar, i have asked and asked for you and others who like to pretend that this referendum is about nationality or is anti english, polish, asian, *insert any nationality* here. You sit on the outskirts of the pro and anti independence campaign making ridiculous insulting pronouncements about people and groups you know nothing about. You bandy around suggestions that those with an opposing view are extremists with no justification at all and misrepresent stuff left right and centre. 
> 
> 
> No one has to fear independence because of their nationality. No one. They perhaps should fear remaining in a UK where You would like no one to be entitled to anything unless they have "worked hard all their life" to pay for it. You are fond of saying there is no poverty here when you compare it to other places in the world that you have visited....  Like that is something we should be ashamed of but never mind rags, your vision of no right to housing, education, healthcare, benefits, no right to a living wage, no right to security of tenure that you seem to support may very well become a reality if we stay in the UK. You will then be able to smile and say "see i told you, THESE people are REALLY poor". 
> 
> You cant measure people's value to society by the size of their bank balance. When we die, the only things that people really remember are how they cared for others..  Their compassion. This UK cares only when the effluent meets the affluent. Those of us who will never be wealthy no matter how hard we work should see that and look for alternatives. You play around in the shallows Rags, scared to step into deeper water cos you might need someone else to pull you out.... We will step out independently making sure there is a helping hand for those who are struggling. That will even include you honey... Come on .... Its exciting.


Sorry, there is an awful lot of Unionism being portrayed as fear. We are not as a rule against independence because we are scared (although I am) we are against it because it is a stupid idea that will cost us everything and gain us nothing.

----------


## squidge

> Oh Squidge, I would love to know what your on? is it strong drink? Or is it those rose tinted specs you have? I do not see the Scotland I love, being the land of milk and honey whilst under the heel of Eck's boot, even if he does have a plan B.


Did I say it would be the land of milk and honey. What my post says is that an Independent Scotland will remain committed to a publicly funded NHS, a welfare state, free education as it becomes independent. I know you dont like Salmond Golach but if you took your head from out of you ar...mpit even you would see that Scottish Governments have maintained the NHS despite pressures from the reductions in money coming from westminster and have stepped in to mitigate the effects of some of the welfare cuts. Thats FACT. You want a privatised NHS, £10 an item for prescriptions and people being evicted due to the Bedroom tax, on ya go with your NO vote. After all, YOU're alright Jack. This thing is bigger than Alex Salmknd, the SNP, the Labour party or you or me. But if you dont care then thats up to you.

----------


## squidge

> or their legacy / inheritance (size of bank balance)  Burrel, Carnegie, Tate etc!!


Burrel, Carnegie and Tate are remembered because of what they DID with their money, their philanthropy and their legacy is that.

----------


## squidge

> Sorry, there is an awful lot of Unionism being portrayed as fear. We are not as a rule against independence because we are scared (although I am) we are against it because it is a stupid idea that will cost us everything and gain us nothing.


 I know you are scared Ducati, exciting things often scare us. I would be interested to know what your nothings and everythings are.

----------


## ducati

> I know you are scared Ducati, exciting things often scare us. I would be interested to know what your nothings and everythings are.


Exciting like jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute?

You will have to persude me what is to gain, you've failed so far.

What I think I will lose, highlights only as there is no time or room.

My life savings, sunk into investments in Scotland.

My protection of the UK.

That is enough without all the other miriad concernes like suddenly living in a foreign country against my will. And being without the resources to get out (see above).

----------


## golach

> Did I say it would be the land of milk and honey. What my post says is that an Independent Scotland will remain committed to a publicly funded NHS, a welfare state, free education as it becomes independent. I know you dont like Salmond Golach but if you took your head from out of you ar...mpit even you would see that Scottish Governments have maintained the NHS despite pressures from the reductions in money coming from westminster and have stepped in to mitigate the effects of some of the welfare cuts. Thats FACT. You want a privatised NHS, £10 an item for prescriptions and people being evicted due to the Bedroom tax, on ya go with your NO vote. After all, YOU're alright Jack. This thing is bigger than Alex Salmknd, the SNP, the Labour party or you or me. But if you dont care then thats up to you.


Sorry if i beg to differ Squidge
Its ironic that Eck's claim a currency union is "in the best interests of the UK".

 In 1999, he claimed sterling was a "millstone around Scotland's neck"

 In 2009, he then claimed sterling was "sinking like a stone".

 Oor Eck  didn't give a damn about the UK's "best interests" when they were arguing for the Euro, but now they have the cheek to tell 55 million people what's best for them.

 Eck and his deputy are deceitful liars, who will say anything to fool people into voting YES!

----------


## RagnarRocks

> This is just utter nonsense! RAgnar, i have asked and asked for you and others who like to pretend that this referendum is about nationality or is anti english, polish, asian, *insert any nationality* here. You sit on the outskirts of the pro and anti independence campaign making ridiculous insulting pronouncements about people and groups you know nothing about. You bandy around suggestions that those with an opposing view are extremists with no justification at all and misrepresent stuff left right and centre. No one has to fear independence because of their nationality. No one. They perhaps should fear remaining in a UK where You would like no one to be entitled to anything unless they have "worked hard all their life" to pay for it. You are fond of saying there is no poverty here when you compare it to other places in the world that you have visited....  Like that is something we should be ashamed of but never mind rags, your vision of no right to housing, education, healthcare, benefits, no right to a living wage, no right to security of tenure that you seem to support may very well become a reality if we stay in the UK. You will then be able to smile and say "see i told you, THESE people are REALLY poor". You cant measure people's value to society by the size of their bank balance. When we die, the only things that people really remember are how they cared for others..  Their compassion. This UK cares only when the effluent meets the affluent. Those of us who will never be wealthy no matter how hard we work should see that and look for alternatives. You play around in the shallows Rags, scared to step into deeper water cos you might need someone else to pull you out.... We will step out independently making sure there is a helping hand for those who are struggling. That will even include you honey... Come on .... Its exciting.


Now how can you honestly sit there and say No One has a fear just because you say so. Isn't the Scottish Football suffering with sectarian problems. How many times of these threads have we seen the English Toffs comments or similar. I'm all for a fair society but I believe hard work should be rewarded and the genuinely ill in society should be protected but I also believe that if you work hard and strive to make something of yourself there should be a reward rather than spoon feeding those who have neither the inclination to improve themselves or think that everything should be handed to them because its fair to share. Maybe just maybe I've seen poverty on a level that would break your heart but have never seen it in this country. There will always be those in society who are at the bottom and those at the top and despite all the social engineering in the world you'll never change that. I could give two people £1000 one may well work hard and make more of it the other may well waste it their opportunities in this country are the same and you'll never socially engineer human nature out of real life.Ive lived in big cities where you do get a myriad of personalities some people want to live in nice homes others want to live in the equivalent of squalor.  I've had appointments in people's houses and the amount of money they earn doesn't tell you a thing about how they live. In the UK everyone has access to Education and Health Care. You live in a world where every hard luck story is believed and felt sorry for but I've met enough feckless wasters who laugh when the Social workers pay a visit or when they cry to the judge and get a light sentence. There should always be a safety net in society I've no problem with that I just don't accept your very socialist agenda as being one that is fit for a society with so many different types of people.

----------


## Mrs Bradey

> Now how can you honestly sit there and say No One has a fear just because you say so. Isn't the Scottish Football suffering with sectarian problems. How many times of these threads have we seen the English Toffs comments or similar. I'm all for a fair society but I believe hard work should be rewarded and the genuinely ill in society should be protected but I also believe that if you work hard and strive to make something of yourself there should be a reward rather than spoon feeding those who have neither the inclination to improve themselves or think that everything should be handed to them because its fair to share. Maybe just maybe I've seen poverty on a level that would break your heart but have never seen it in this country. There will always be those in society who are at the bottom and those at the top and despite all the social engineering in the world you'll never change that. I could give two people £1000 one may well work hard and make more of it the other may well waste it their opportunities in this country are the same and you'll never socially engineer human nature out of real life.Ive lived in big cities where you do get a myriad of personalities some people want to live in nice homes others want to live in the equivalent of squalor.  I've had appointments in people's houses and the amount of money they earn doesn't tell you a thing about how they live. In the UK everyone has access to Education and Health Care. You live in a world where every hard luck story is believed and felt sorry for but I've met enough feckless wasters who laugh when the Social workers pay a visit or when they cry to the judge and get a light sentence. There should always be a safety net in society I've no problem with that I just don't accept your very socialist agenda as being one that is fit for a society with so many different types of people.


don't call them wasters, squidge will be after you! they are nice people who have fallen on hard times!

----------


## RagnarRocks

You mean there's always an excuse for everything brigade

----------


## squidge

> Sorry if i beg to differ Squidge
> Its ironic that Eck's claim a currency union is "in the best interests of the UK".
> 
>  In 1999, he claimed sterling was a "millstone around Scotland's neck"
> 
>  In 2009, he then claimed sterling was "sinking like a stone".
> 
>  Oor Eck  didn't give a damn about the UK's "best interests" when they were arguing for the Euro, but now they have the cheek to tell 55 million people what's best for them.
> 
>  Eck and his deputy are deceitful liars, who will say anything to fool people into voting YES!


why would anyone want a party whos opinion in 2014 is the same as it was 15 years before regardless of the changes in the economy.  Who wants a party whos opinion is 2014 is what it was before the econmic crisis we lived through over the last five years.  ALL the parties have changed their position on the economy. The SNP is no different than any other.  And what is worse about The SNP and Alex Salmond saying what he believes is best for the UK as a whole when Westminster politicians say what they think is best for Scotland all the time!!!

----------


## RagnarRocks

Changing your mind over certain issues is perfectly acceptable but in this particular circumstance its pure opportunism as he hasn't the deceny to be honest about the situation. He lies bully's and has no respect for the electorate of Scotland he suppress's freedom of speech and centralises power in a way that is akin to some of the worst practises of the Cold War soviet era but we are supposed to believe this man wants a free and fair Scotland.

----------


## ducati

> Changing your mind over certain issues is perfectly acceptable but in this particular circumstance its pure opportunism as he hasn't the deceny to be honest about the situation. He lies bully's and has no respect for the electorate of Scotland he suppress's freedom of speech and centralises power in a way that is akin to some of the worst practises of the Cold War soviet era but we are supposed to believe this man wants a free and fair Scotland.


I can't get my head around this. If these accusations had been leveled at the Torys the entire .org would be screaming outrage and slavering for blood. He must have them in his thrall. In any event even if we don't have to put up with him for long, he will be the person er...negotiating all your futures for you so I would think very very hard before you trust him with this.

----------


## RagnarRocks

His idea of negotiation is give me what I want or I will call you a bully ! Works for some I guess....
 What worries me is the people who believe that Independent Scotland would be debt free and able to sustain all the Social Engineering proposed. 
A reality is from day one even without taking a share of National Debt it would have to borrow money and then you have all these wonderful social programmes as mentioned on the org. 
Problem being they all cost vast amounts of money. So what we have is a newly independent country that's ploughing itself into debt to fulfil the promises of a free and fair society. 

Has anyone considered that those proposing all these scheme have a vested interest in more public spending.  

Public Sector workers and Charities always scream for more money it keeps them in jobs.

----------


## Big Gaz

> Changing your mind over certain issues is perfectly acceptable but in this particular circumstance its pure opportunism as he hasn't the deceny to be honest about the situation. He lies bully's and has no respect for the electorate of Scotland he suppress's freedom of speech and centralises power in a way that is akin to some of the worst practises of the Cold War soviet era but we are supposed to believe this man wants a free and fair Scotland.


No different whatsoever to Cameron and his cronies but he is nowhere near as bad! The present govt are the biggest liars, cheats, bullies and thieves around at the moment an who are so perfectly adept at making the lives of the population miserable that one would be forgiven if they thought they had majored in the subject!! The Italian Mafia crimes look like nursery school name-calling compared to what the Condemnedliblabs can do!

----------


## Southern-Gal

The timing is all wrong.
IF independence is a good idea it should be done or tried at a much more stable time for the economy. 
Having more change, red tape, expenses and so on on the back of the worst recession ever is too much for most businesses, both countries and all their people.
Personally I think it would break everyones' bank  :Frown:

----------


## RagnarRocks

> No different whatsoever to Cameron and his cronies but he is nowhere near as bad! The present govt are the biggest liars, cheats, bullies and thieves around at the moment an who are so perfectly adept at making the lives of the population miserable that one would be forgiven if they thought they had majored in the subject!! The Italian Mafia crimes look like nursery school name-calling compared to what the Condemnedliblabs can do!


Can't say I've seem the con/ libdems tamper with freedom of speech like Mr Salmond and his cohorts have up here. You can still safely say what you like south of the border up here best be careful .

----------


## gerry4

> Can't say I've seem the con/ libdems tamper with freedom of speech like Mr Salmond and his cohorts have up here. You can still safely say what you like south of the border up here best be careful .


Not seen the Scottish Government restricting what you say here? The Scottish papers are anti Independent and they have not been silenced. Read the Scottish daily Mail lately?

What about the secret courts that the Con/LibDem voted for a few months ago. Almost all papers are against the new standards laws for newspapers as they say it is anti democratic.

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Not seen the Scottish Government restricting what you say here? The Scottish papers are anti Independent and they have not been silenced. Read the Scottish daily Mail lately?What about the secret courts that the Con/LibDem voted for a few months ago. Almost all papers are against the new standards laws for newspapers as they say it is anti democratic.


Here you go Gerry read this http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...5#.UwDAf8sgGSM

----------


## ducati

> No different whatsoever to Cameron and his cronies but he is nowhere near as bad! The present govt are the biggest liars, cheats, bullies and thieves around at the moment an who are so perfectly adept at making the lives of the population miserable that one would be forgiven if they thought they had majored in the subject!! The Italian Mafia crimes look like nursery school name-calling compared to what the Condemnedliblabs can do!


Have you got any examples because I vote for them and I'm a bit concerned.  ::

----------


## ducati

> Have you got any examples because I vote for them and I'm a bit concerned.


Is that a no then?

----------


## Big Gaz

> Is that a no then?


Why bother, you'll only pick holes like you do in everyone elses statements. I ain't playing cat and mouse so if you don't believe it then tell me why

----------


## ducati

> Why bother, you'll only pick holes like you do in everyone elses statements. I ain't playing cat and mouse so if you don't believe it then tell me why


I don't believe it. I've seen lots of posts like it, but no examples. Just political dogma.

----------


## ducati

Having been speaking about Independence with friends and family in Englandshire and Walesshire over recent weeks, I've distilled the attitute to a newly independent Scotland and how the rUK government should approach the negotiations.

The feeling of the rUK citizen in the street is essentially this; The UK should say we will keep the debt and as much oil and gas as we can legitimately grab, there is the border, ask permission if you want to cross it, on yer go!

And don't forget, they will have an opportunity to vote on it in 2015. I suspect, in the event of a yes vote, the UK political partys will, suddenly, have an awful lot about the relationship with Scotland in their manifestos.

----------


## Green_not_greed

Just wondering who is intending to vote and who has read the book "Scotch on the Rocks" ?

It was a TV series in the 1970s and would be timely if the BBC decided to rebroadcast it.  Though no doubt controversial.

When Alex Salmond says that it's one of his favourite novels and a "cracking read" you've just got to wonder what lengths he will go to gain independence.

IMO should be compulsory reading for everyone intending to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_on_the_Rocks

----------


## ducati

Noticed no one mentioned the new defecit figures for Scotland. I thought someone would be along to tell us borrowing £12 billion a year just to make ends meet was a good thing?

----------


## 2little2late

I would like to know where Scotland gets all the money from to pay for free prescriptions, free eye tests, free bus travel for the over 60's etc. etc. And reading in the newspaper today. From 2017 the Forth Road bridge is to be repainted with a timescale of 15 years and with a budget of £80,000,000. Big Eck must have a secret stash somewhere.

----------


## Oddquine

> I would like to know where Scotland gets all the money from to pay for free prescriptions, free eye tests, free bus travel for the over 60's etc. etc. And reading in the newspaper today. From 2017 the Forth Road bridge is to be repainted with a timescale of 15 years and with a budget of £80,000,000. Big Eck must have a secret stash somewhere.


Is that over the 15 years in an Independent Scotland.......as in about £5,300,000 annually? If so, that's about what we _wouldn't_ have to be paying as our annual share of maintaining  the House of Lords.

----------


## samanthaflax02

Yes, I am voting for independence.

----------


## wicker8

Oh yes thats for sure

----------


## ducati

I heard or I thought I did, this morning that a late poll reveals a 50/50 split yes/no. I can't find it but if this is the case then Alex the fish can congratulate himself on completely polarising Scottish society.


Lets see, how do civil wars start? Oh yes, half the population want one thing politicaly and the other half want something else. 

Not good times ahead.

----------


## squidge

It's front page of the Sunday times and I think they have shared the article on their Facebook page so you can read it despite the pay wall thingie

You had maybe better build a bunker Ducati. Stock up on tinned food and stockpile water supplies. Seriously though. If you are really worried about war then perhaps you should go to a few meetings of both sides and put your mind at rest by asking some questions. It might reassure you .

----------


## Rheghead

There's a definite trend now for voters to go from saying _No_ to _Maybe_ then from _Maybe_ to saying *Yes*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion...ferendum,_2014

----------


## ducati

> It's front page of the Sunday times and I think they have shared the article on their Facebook page so you can read it despite the pay wall thingie
> 
> You had maybe better build a bunker Ducati. Stock up on tinned food and stockpile water supplies. Seriously though. If you are really worried about war then perhaps you should go to a few meetings of both sides and put your mind at rest by asking some questions. It might reassure you .


Actually, you need to take it seriously. I ask again, what happens if there is no clear majority either way?

----------


## Big Gaz

> Actually, you need to take it seriously. I ask again, what happens if there is no clear majority either way?


I read on a BBC news site a while ago that there probably won't be a majority ruling. If the YES vote is just 1 more than the NO vote then the YES vote will win. I'll see if i can find that article, i've probably gotten the context wrong after so long but you never know, It may be right.

----------


## Rheghead

Actually if there is one vote in it then there won't be enough accuracy in the counting to see it.

----------


## squidge

The answer Ducati is where there is a majority there will be a winner. So if the count shows a yes majority there will be a yes win and if there is a no majority there will be a no win.  There  is a yes or no vote. There may be counts and recounts but the majority will win.

----------


## Rheghead

The momentum is with the Yes campaign so here is hoping.  What made me switch was what we will gain rather than lose.  The UK is a comfy pair of slippers, we can blame others rather than take responsibility for our own decisions.  But I find that fundamentally wrong, there is something wrong about when decisions are being made by a body that is very remote from the people.  I want Democracy at the local level and a greener and fairer society.

----------


## ducati

> The momentum is with the Yes campaign so here is hoping.  What made me switch was what we will gain rather than lose.  The UK is a comfy pair of slippers, we can blame others rather than take responsibility for our own decisions.  But I find that fundamentally wrong, there is something wrong about when decisions are being made by a body that is very remote from the people.  I want Democracy at the local level and a greener and fairer society.


I'd rather stay in a UK that isn't likely ever to go bankrupt. I don't see a difference, in this day and age, where the administrative centre is. I still consider nationalists to be a lunatic fringe and don't want them ruling my country. So here is hoping.

Now excuse me if I don't post for a while but I'll be busy making sure all assets and protection are transfered to UK institutions. Just in case..you know.

----------


## squidge

What do you expect will happen after the referendum Ducati? I mean in the immediate aftermath in either a yes win or a no win?

----------


## orkneycadian

On Radio Scotland this morning that the petition for the referendum on independance for the Islands has now passed the 1,000 mark.  Is that not the point where the government is obliged to take action on it?

----------


## orkneycadian

> But I find that fundamentally wrong, there is something wrong about when decisions are being made by a body that is very remote from the people.  I want Democracy at the local level and a greener and fairer society.


Edinburgh is still geographically further away from the closest part of Shetland (Fair Isle) than Fair Isle is to Norway.  Orkney is more evenly sited in the middle.  Calling Edinburgh local to the islands is farcical.  There are folk living on Shetland who are further away from Edinburgh, than Edinburgh is from London.

----------


## Rheghead

> Edinburgh is still geographically further away from the closest part of Shetland (Fair Isle) than Fair Isle is to Norway.  Orkney is more evenly sited in the middle.  Calling Edinburgh local to the islands is farcical.  There are folk living on Shetland who are further away from Edinburgh, than Edinburgh is from London.


So? Scotland is a big country.

----------


## orkneycadian

In that case, the UK is also a big country, and the folkies in the central belt have nothing to worry about, being "ruled" by those just down the road from them.

----------


## Rheghead

The Scottish Green Party says independence could bring banking benefits for businesses

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/loc...ce=twitterfeed

----------


## ducati

> What do you expect will happen after the referendum Ducati? I mean in the immediate aftermath in either a yes win or a no win?


If it is no, a feeling of being saved. If it is yes, I've no idea, I've not had my country ripped apart before. 
I know that I'm having nothing to do with it.

----------


## golach

> If it is no, a feeling of being saved. If it is yes, I've no idea, I've not had my country ripped apart before. 
> I know that I'm having nothing to do with it.


Feel the same way

----------


## ducati

> Feel the same way


Just a thought, it's not going to be much of a country if about half the population won't or can't engage.

----------


## mi16

this referendum is incredibly divisive and whatever way the vote goes there will be a large proportion of the residents feeling rather disgruntled.

----------


## Rheghead

> this referendum is incredibly divisive and whatever way the vote goes there will be a large proportion of the residents feeling rather disgruntled.


You can make your strongest protest by boycotting the referendum.  Nobody is forcing you.

----------


## golach

well done the Canucks, they see sense, there is no place for separatists

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-election.html

----------


## mi16

> You can make your strongest protest by boycotting the referendum.  Nobody is forcing you.


Why would you suggest a boycott, goes against democracy?
I don't mind a spot of controversy.
I will be voting NO bright and early.

----------


## ducati

He said that to me too. I think he thinks they have a chance if all the no voters abstain.  ::

----------


## ducati

> Now excuse me if I don't post for a while but I'll be busy making sure all assets and protection are transfered to UK institutions. Just in case..you know.


Good news! No investments or insurances with Scottish institutions, hardly surprising, there aren't any. Bad news, heavily invested in property.  :Frown:

----------


## Big Gaz

> Good news! No investments or insurances with Scottish institutions, hardly surprising, there aren't any. Bad news, heavily invested in property.


I'll start the bidding! 10 thistles!  :Grin:

----------


## bekisman

Yep, been away again - doone south. 
God there are some thicko's around. I refer to a conversation  I had with a couple of Glaswegians on a train from Aintree to Preston. _"we  want freedom from England, don't want these English B**s telling us what to  do"._ eh? I sort of mentioned that in actual fact England did NOT run  Scotland, and in fact England was NOT an Independent country.. Stunned silence  (for a couple of seconds) before their befuddled drunken minds reverted to  type.; _"FREEDOM!".._ duh, so left em to it. 
If this is the basis for voting to break up the UK, what hope  for intelligent debate..
Sigh

----------


## squidge

Absolutely Beks cos 2 drunk mannies on a train in Glasgow are ABSOLUTELY indicative of the debates going on in halls, hotels, schools, workplaces and cafés all over Scotland. Pop along to any one of the events being advertised wherever you are and you will see plenty of intelligent debate from both sides. Confine you experiences to drunk blokes on trains or ranting foul mouthed hooded blokes swearing at YES campaigners as seen in Glasgow this last weekend and you won't!

----------


## ducati

> I'll start the bidding! 10 thistles!


Er..what was the exchange rate again?  ::

----------


## Alrock

> Er..what was the exchange rate again?


Bit of a prickly subject that...  ::

----------


## ducati

I keep thinking I won't comment again but I'm really enjoying the Alex and Nicola show telling everyone else what is good for them.  :: 

I'll share the reaction from doon sooth. They wouldn'y buy Scottish lecky if it was the last lecky on earth. In fact, the exchange rate won't be a problem because the Made in Scotland brand will be so toxic.

----------


## Big Gaz

> In fact, the exchange rate won't be a problem because the Made in Scotland brand will be so toxic.


Roll on enormous toxic exports doon sooth.....then Scotland won't have to worry about independence as everyone doon sooth will be playing their harps..... ::

----------


## ducati

> Roll on enormous toxic exports doon sooth.....then Scotland won't have to worry about independence as everyone doon sooth will be playing their harps.....


Na, the Sheltys tried it. Only managed to poison about 70 Londoners

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

I have noticed that a lot of English people who live up here will be voting "yes". I'm sure if the people in England could vote, the majority would also be voting yes to an independent Scotland (and YES to an independent Wales and Northern Ireland). I will, personally, be voting NO as I believe the United Kingdom is the biggest success story in the history of planet Earth and to break up that union for no other reason than Scottish politicians getting fatter, and greedier, on their new found "power" is absolutely futile.

There is a good argument for independence but the SNP don't have any answers... they are drumming up nationalism and promising all sorts of things but none of what they are promising is actually factual or, for that matter, necessarily "doable".

Old sayings have been carried down through the centuries and they are generally still in use today because they are proven and nine times out of ten correct.

Better sticking with the devil you know.

United we stand together we fall.

There are many many thousands of people who will risk DEATH in their attempt to be smuggled into the United Kingdom in search of a better life yet there are a couple of million Scots (if the polls are anything to go by) who actually want to leave the United Kingdom..... have a look around you folks, is it really that bad? No, it isn't! It's actually VERY good compared to some other countries and that is because we have (as a nation) stood united over the centuries and worked together to get to where we are.


To break away from the National health service, the pension system, the defence system, the UK pound, the police service, the fire service, the Royal Mail (universal pricing), the post office, the benefits system / social security etc. etc. etc. on the say so of "Alex Salmond" is just pure madness IMO.

You will lose the pound 

"no we won't"

You will find it hard to become a member of the European Union

"no we won't, we've been members for over 40 years"

erm...... as far as I am aware the "United Kingdom" has been a member of the EU for over 40 years  :Wink: 

No point in my wasting time writing screeds of reasons why the UK should not be broken up, I would prefer to READ factual documentation (including plans) of why it _should_ be broken up and, sadly, the document that the SNP cobbled together is (at best) not even fit for duty in a public toilet.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

It is also my belief that the Prime Minister actually WANTS to see the UK broken up. Without Scotland, labour will never get into government ever again and that "is" a _fact._ The last thing David Cameron wants to hear in September is that Scotland has voted NO.... He is banking on a yes vote. That would ensure his party of clowns / cheats / expenses swindlers / whore mongers / corrupt bunch of woofters were kept in postions of power (positions where they can line their pockets off the back of the poor man) for many decades to come.

Nobody has considered this aspect and are wondering why the conservatives are "deliberately" putting their foot direct into the SNP's press machine  :Wink:   They would like nothing better than to see the back of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but don't have the balls to say it publicly.

What we ALL need is a true Oliver Cromwell type politician to wipe out this bunch of "power hungry" self centred mouthpieces..... they are all in it for themselves, always have been, always will.

It's not a referendum we need, it's a revolution.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

A "united" revolution.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1S4DJtLOk

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

Oliver Cromwell rocks  :Wink:  !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TIEURRuGmo

----------


## richardj

Today's Scotsman newspaper is reporting that Salmond is going to offer Orkney, Hebrides and Shetland a referendum if they vote for Yes - http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...ders-1-3375286 - Just another reason to vote NO in my opinion. Salmond and his party are going to destroy Scotland if they succeed in their independence referendum and we will be left with a poorer and broken apart country if they win.

----------


## Big Gaz

I can see this ending badly if the NO vote win and the isles still want independence from rUK. Fishing, Whisky, Gas and Oil, everything the rUK needs to balance the books, gone at the drop of a hat.

----------


## tonkatojo

> I can see this ending badly if the NO vote win and the isles still want independence from rUK. Fishing, Whisky, Gas and Oil, everything the rUK needs to balance the books, gone at the drop of a hat.


I cannae see the isles doing a Crimea type get out also I cannae see the gov agreeing to it nor a Salmond led  gov for that matter.

----------


## Rheghead

It looks like the Yes campaign is in the driving seat for independence as the No campaign is losing the argument.  The No campaign has only smears and misrepresentation left in the tank.

----------


## ducati

> It looks like the Yes campaign is in the driving seat for independence as the No campaign is losing the argument.  The No campaign has only smears and misrepresentation left in the tank.


Can't read that it's too small. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the no campaign has. It only matters what you and I think when we go into the polling booth. Nothing has changed my mind.

----------


## Big Gaz

> Can't read that it's too small. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the no campaign has. It only matters what you and I think when we go into the polling booth. Nothing has changed my mind.


Personally i think all that matters whatever the outcome is that we all still remain civil and friendly with one another. There is enough tragedy and strife in the country today without making anything worse by bleating and fighting with each other about who voted yes or no after the 18th September.

----------


## mi16

> It looks like the Yes campaign is in the driving seat for independence as the No campaign is losing the argument. The No campaign has only smears and misrepresentation left in the tank.


The scotsman article I read still has fatboy lagging

----------


## golach

> It looks like the Yes campaign is in the driving seat for independence as the No campaign is losing the argument.  The No campaign has only smears and misrepresentation left in the tank.


I am happy with the result of the Org's own poll, Eck and his cronies trailing, keep it up.

----------


## ducati

> Personally i think all that matters whatever the outcome is that we all still remain civil and friendly with one another. There is enough tragedy and strife in the country today without making anything worse by bleating and fighting with each other about who voted yes or no after the 18th September.


And this is what you think will happen is it? The losing side will say "ho hum", it was a good debate. I for one will be very displeased indeed if the vote is yes. The consequences to my family and I will be catastrophic. Not something I will ever forgive. The first time I'm asked to declare my ethnicity, I will be straight down the British Embassy to demand military intervention.

----------


## Rheghead

The front page of the Daily Express UK version warns of a pensions disaster but their Scottish version assures us that pensions are safe in the UK.  This just shows how much rubbish the right wing media are spouting just now and up to the Indyref.  Keep alert people that your minds are being manipulated by those who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

----------


## Big Gaz

> And this is what you think will happen is it? The losing side will say "ho hum", it was a good debate. I for one will be very displeased indeed if the vote is yes. The consequences to my family and I will be catastrophic. Not something I will ever forgive. The first time I'm asked to declare my ethnicity, I will be straight down the British Embassy to demand military intervention.


I am pretty sure there will be plenty of bitching and fighting (i didn't mean physically) whatever way the vote goes going by what i have heard up until now. I do understand your plight if a yes vote happens by what you have been saying over the last few months but i cannot understand how eck and co basically don't seem to be bothered about the repercussions and consequences for people such as you and your family and to date i can't say i have heard anything about this possible situation from any of the parties and how they would address it. 

The possibility of someone suffering a serious financial loss and being compensated in the event of a yes vote is a mighty can of worms indeed.

----------


## Rheghead

> I for one will be very displeased indeed if the vote is yes.


I will be displeased if the vote is a No.  Tory westminster will take us for a bunch of yellow bellied cowards who were too afraid to say Yes when it mattered.  They will then throw the worst aspects of their neocon politics at us and all we can do is just roll over and lick their grubby hands.

----------


## squidge

I will be disappointed and surprised if I am honest. Hosted a meeting for Women for Independence here in sneck tonight. Honestly thought it would be me and one or two others 37 people including myself and my friend arrived. The conversation was great, not intimidating at all, positive, humerous, warm and friendly. Several don't knows and a couple of No voters came along and the feedback was unanimously positive. No guest speakers - just a welcome from me - no need for hands up to ask questions, just women sitting around tables talking to each other about the issues that are important to them. Half an hour after the meeting finished there was still a group standing outside chatting about politics. Can you remember the last time that people were enthusiastic enough to stand around talking about politics? Some of those who came along are already planning similar events in their own areas. Really really enjoyed it.

----------


## squidge

> I am pretty sure there will be plenty of bitching and fighting (i didn't mean physically) whatever way the vote goes going by what i have heard up until now. I do understand your plight if a yes vote happens by what you have been saying over the last few months but i cannot understand how eck and co basically don't seem to be bothered about the repercussions and consequences for people such as you and your family and to date i can't say i have heard anything about this possible situation from any of the parties and how they would address it. The possibility of someone suffering a serious financial loss and being compensated in the event of a yes vote is a mighty can of worms indeed.


Who are they going to sue? The voters who voted YES? The voters who voted for the SNP in 2011? The Better Together campaign for being useless? I don't really understand why Ducati thinks he will face catastrophic financial losses and it's not my place to pry. I think that the evidence shows that if you are doing ok now then you will do ok in an independent Scotland too. Also people are frequently asked their  ethnic origin now I don't get why it's worth military intervention.

----------


## Big Gaz

I can see it would be the same if some businesses lost out financially too. I suppose their only options would be to either charge more for their services or products or call it quits and possibly dump people on the dole. Maybe the big businesses that are preparing to pull out of Scotland should the YES vote happen, have foreseen this situation and are on damage limitation mode? who knows?

----------


## ducati

> Who are they going to sue? The voters who voted YES? The voters who voted for the SNP in 2011? The Better Together campaign for being useless? I don't really understand why Ducati thinks he will face catastrophic financial losses and it's not my place to pry. I think that the evidence shows that if you are doing ok now then you will do ok in an independent Scotland too. Also people are frequently asked their  ethnic origin now I don't get why it's worth military intervention.


If a nationalist came to my door to enquire if I was English they may well get a face full of  er..something they wouldn't want in their face.

----------


## squidge

Ducati, Why would "they" come to your door asking if you are English?

----------


## ducati

> Ducati, Why would "they" come to your door asking if you are English?


You really are very, very nice aren't you?

Look around the world today.

----------


## squidge

I'm really very very ordinary - no nicer and no nastier than your average person. . I know what's going on around the world Ducati and I am still asking you why you think that in an Independent Scotland  a "nationalist" would knock on your door and ask you whether you are English.

----------


## ducati

> I'm really very very ordinary - no nicer and no nastier than your average person. . I know what's going on around the world Ducati and I am still asking you why you think that in an Independent Scotland  a "nationalist" would knock on your door and ask you whether you are English.


Because that is the sort of thing that always happens in this sort of circumstance. Do you need it spelled out? I know you pretend to disagree, but most nationalists hate English people. it is a fact.

If I was in charge of a successionist state that had close to a quarter of the population from that state they had succeeded from, I would want to know where they were and what they were up to. I don't expect anything else.

----------


## squidge

> Because that is the sort of thing that always happens in this sort of circumstance.


 What sort of circumstance? 




> Do you need it spelled out? I know you disagree, but most nationalists hate English people. it is a fact.


 No it is not.  It is your opinion based on whatever - you dont share that with us.  If it is fact then you can show me the evidence that says that most nationalists hate English people.  On ya go! 




> If I was in charge of a successionist state that had close to a quarter of the population from that state they had succeeded from, I would want to know where they were and what they were up to. I don't expect anything else.


Well then thank goodness you are NOT in charge and thank goodness we have a democratic system of firstly making the decision for or against an independent Scotland and secondly making the laws and the policies which will govern an Independent Scotland. A system in which Regardless of nationality you and I will have a vote....and we are both English.

----------


## ducati

> What sort of circumstance? 
> 
>   No it is not.  It is your opinion based on whatever - you dont share that with us.  If it is fact then you can show me the evidence that says that most nationalists hate English people.  On ya go! 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then thank goodness you are NOT in charge and thank goodness we have a democratic system of firstly making the decision for or against an independent Scotland and secondly making the laws and the policies which will govern an Independent Scotland. A system in which Regardless of nationality you and I will have a vote....and we are both English.


Well..whatever. Let's hope we don't have to find out.

----------


## squidge

> Well..whatever. Let's hope we don't have to find out.


Jeepers -  You spout something so ignorant  as "most nationalists hate english people" and say it is FACT  but simply have nothing to back it up.  You know what ducati - maybe its YOUR prejudice and YOUR hate that is the issue here.

----------


## ducati

> Jeepers -  You spout something so ignorant  as "most nationalists hate english people" and say it is FACT  but simply have nothing to back it up.  You know what ducati - maybe its YOUR prejudice and YOUR hate that is the issue here.


Seem to have struck a nerve here. Perhaps there is something you are not telling us? Actually, forget it..safer. :Wink:

----------


## squidge

Like what?  No nerve touched Ducati just exasperation that someone who is obviously smart, intelligent and articulate can make such a stupid ignorant and prejudiced statement as "most nationalists hate english people - Its a fact" when it CLEARLY isnt a fact at all. 

I just dont get it - I get that you dont support independence. I get that you think the world will end if the YES campaign is successful but I dont get why you would say such a patent lie and try to pass it off as fact.

----------


## ducati

> Like what?  No nerve touched Ducati just exasperation that someone who is obviously smart, intelligent and articulate can make such a stupid ignorant and prejudiced statement as "most nationalists hate english people - Its a fact" when it CLEARLY isnt a fact at all. 
> 
> I just dont get it - I get that you dont support independence. I get that you think the world will end if the YES campaign is successful but I dont get why you would say such a patent lie and try to pass it off as fact.


Sorry, you protest too much. And it always makes you sooo angry. I come across it all the time, and I just don't believe you don't.

----------


## mi16

Perhaps it is an opinion formed by Ducati based on his own personal experience, therefore he would not have demonstratable proof but would sill know it as a fact in his head.

----------


## squidge

Come across what Ducati? I'm not angry Ducati said "most nationalists hate English people it's a fact" but it isn't. If he had said "in my opinion most nationalists I have met hate English people" then he could have been fair enough.  But he didn't. Have I come across anti English sentiment in the 20 years I have lived here - yes I have. It has been minimal though and I tend to think that if you are nice then people will be nice back.  I have encountered nothing in  the way of anti English sentiment within the campaign for independence. I also find many other English people supporting independence. I wonder to what extent People who think that nationalists hate English people are actually engaging with the debate on a real level. In the same way as I said recently if the only place you engage with the debate is when talking to drunk incoherent football fans then you will only hear drunk incoherent opinions. The bottom line is that the argument that most nationalists are anti English is a lazy, ignorant and stupid argument which is not true.

----------


## ducati

> Come across what Ducati? I'm not angry Ducati said "most nationalists hate English people it's a fact" but it isn't. If he had said "in my opinion most nationalists I have met hate English people" then he could have been fair enough.  But he didn't. Have I come across anti English sentiment in the 20 years I have lived here - yes I have. It has been minimal though and I tend to think that if you are nice then people will be nice back.  I have encountered nothing in  the way of anti English sentiment within the campaign for independence. I also find many other English people supporting independence. I wonder to what extent People who think that nationalists hate English people are actually engaging with the debate on a real level. In the same way as I said recently if the only place you engage with the debate is when talking to drunk incoherent football fans then you will only hear drunk incoherent opinions. The bottom line is that the argument that most nationalists are anti English is a lazy, ignorant and stupid argument which is not true.


Yes, keep typing, you are not convincing anyone. Interesting that the No vote on the poll has risen appreciably while we are having this discourse.

----------


## mi16

> Yes, keep typing, you are not convincing anyone. Interesting that the No vote on the poll has risen appreciably while we are having this discourse.


Perhaps you should take it to a national level

----------


## ducati

I don't think I could cope with that many people hating me.  ::

----------


## ducati

> I have encountered nothing in  the way of anti English sentiment within the campaign for independence.


I don't believe youoo.  :Grin:

----------


## golach

> I don't believe youoo.


Me neither, disagree on any pro independence chat sites, and watch what your accused of being, to vile to post on here.

----------


## squidge

Lol lol you two are hilarious. You think I don't know about online abuse? You should try being an English woman blogging about the benefits of Independence - it's sit back and wait for the threats of sexual violence from assorted Orange Order/ SDL and other unsavoury groups who lurk in the murky waters of the Say No, British Unity, and Alex Salmond is a nazi pages. Yuk yuk yuk. 

The difference between you two and me is that I KNOW that you two are in no way kin to those foul mouthed racist misogynists because I make it my business to discuss this stuff with real people.  You Ducati are perfectly happy to insult the entire YES supporting population because what? People don't like you Ducati? And Golach because you read rubbish on Facebook?


 Let's spell it out for your good selves again. I have never come across anti English sentiment within the YES campaign. That's at events here in the highlands, in Glasgow , East Kilbride, Edinburgh or Aberdeenshire or on the west coast. I would invite you along to some events where yes no and undecided people are discussing independence but neither of you would come because you might be proved wrong. 

So, Like I said before, Ducati you had better build yourself a bunker honey, I like the one in that film RED where they lifted up that bonnet and went down some steps. It was awesome and you are dead smart - you would make a great job of it. Golach sweetie, you are beyond help lol but I'm in Edinburgh mid may so maybe we can meet in that pub and get a right good blether then say goodnight with a hug. Because although I don't agree with either of you I think you're just lovely.  :Smile:

----------


## ducati

> Let's spell it out for your good selves again. I have never come across anti English sentiment within the YES campaign. That's at events here in the highlands, in Glasgow , East Kilbride, Edinburgh or Aberdeenshire or on the west coast. I would invite you along to some events where yes no and undecided people are discussing independence but neither of you would come because you might be proved wrong.


Mmm.. wonder where all the ones I have come across go then?

----------


## squidge

You showed them the error of their ways with your sparkling personality Ducati  :Smile:

----------


## ducati

Another SNP broadcast tonight. Oh god when will it end? Well, September.  ::

----------


## sam09

ducati are you English or British ?  

What have you against Scotland standing on its own, making Scottish decisions for Scotland`s  best interests ?  All political parties agree on one issue: Scotland could stand on its (Scotland`s) own.  What is a sure thing is, that all the politicians now campaigning for the NO Campaign in the event of a YES vote will no doubt stand for election to a New Scottish Government and state how well their party will be the best to run an Independent Scotland.

----------


## ducati

> ducati are you English or British ?  
> 
> What have you against Scotland standing on its own, making Scottish decisions for Scotland`s  best interests ?  All political parties agree on one issue: Scotland could stand on its (Scotland`s) own.  What is a sure thing is, that all the politicians now campaigning for the NO Campaign in the event of a YES vote will no doubt stand for election to a New Scottish Government and state how well their party will be the best to run an Independent Scotland.


I think it will be very bad for me. Do you think it will be very good for you? If so, why? Another Nat asking about my ethnicity, I imagine that will get worse if it does happen. Why does it matter? Many many people elligable to vote in the referendum are not Scots.

And of course, if it does happen, and the immigration targets are set by the SNP or the Greens (for instance) the Scots will soon be outnumbered in their own country, I don't care about that but I know a lot of Scots that do.

----------


## Rheghead

> And of course, if it does happen, and the immigration targets are set by the SNP or the Greens (for instance) the Scots will soon be outnumbered in their own country, I don't care about that but I know a lot of Scots that do.


I think I read somewhere that the UK's population will be 30% from ethnic minorities by the middle of this century.  That certainly cocks a snook at your suggestion that staying within the UK will keep Scotland ethnically Scottish.

----------


## ducati

> I think I read somewhere that the UK's population will be 30% from ethnic minorities by the middle of this century.  That certainly cocks a snook at your suggestion that staying within the UK will keep Scotland ethnically Scottish.


That is not what I said at all, (you can tell by reading it  :: ).

----------


## mi16

> I think I read somewhere that the UK's population will be 30% from ethnic minorities by the middle of this century.  That certainly cocks a snook at your suggestion that staying within the UK will keep Scotland ethnically Scottish.


 I read somewhere that wind turbines will lower our electricity bills.That was horse excrement also

----------


## Rheghead

> I read somewhere that wind turbines will lower our electricity bills.That was horse excrement also


Well this thread isn't about wind turbines but I'll say that my own energy provider, Ecotricity builds only wind turbines and they are 2p cheaper than any of the big six.

----------


## mi16

Perhaps, but still over 2p dearer than their competitors.

----------


## Rheghead

Should every country have the right to be fully in charge of their own affairs?

That is the question we should be asking ourselves in September.

----------


## mi16

> Should every country have the right to be fully in charge of their own affairs?That is the question we should be asking ourselves in September.


 Being in charge of a train wreck is not a position to be envied

----------


## ducati

> Should every country have the right to be fully in charge of their own affairs?
> 
> That is the question we should be asking ourselves in September.


What we should be doing in September is a cost/benefit analysis.

Do I have anything to lose? No...Vote yes

Do I have anything to lose?  Yes...Vote No

----------


## squidge

What we should be doing is looking at the future for our children and asking ourselves 

Do I want the chance to have  a better fairer society for them to live in - vote Yes

Do I want the sort of society where inequality is higher than almost anywhere in Europe and where if life deals them a hard blow they will be left on the scrap heap to struggle. - vote No

See the thing is it matters not one iota what Ducati says or what I say - you need to decide on what is important to YOU.

Whether that is Ducati's cost benefit analysis or the chance for change that is the driving force for my decision or a greener more ecologically responsible government,the chance to rid ourselves of trident. 

There has been some utter utter claptrap posted on this board in the last few days, god knows what's been put in the water but you know - with any risk assessment - and make no mistake folks both YES and NO votes are a risk - but with any risk assessment one of the questions you should ask yourself is "Is it likely". So look at the more bizarre and extreme statements and ask yourselves that question and even the most basic of all the questions. 

Many posters would have us believe that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland - is it likely that Westminster would subsidise Scotland when they won't even subsidise a spare bedroom for a disabled person to keep their wheelchair in? Is it likely that Westminster would allow Scotland to have free education, prescriptions and free personal care if they were paying for it? Is it likely that a country which is rich in resources, people, has some of the best universities, which has had governments who know how to balance budgets would crash and burn like Tangerine Dream suggested? Is it likely that the EU is going to deny Scotland membership given that on Independence Day Scotland's population is almost completely made up of EU citizens and Scotland already meets the Copenhagan Criteria necessary for membership? 

Make your decision on what is important to YOU and for YOUR family.

----------


## ducati

> What we should be doing is looking at the future for our children and asking ourselves 
> 
> Do I want the chance to have  a better fairer society for them to live in - vote Yes
> 
> Do I want the sort of society where inequality is higher than almost anywhere in Europe and where if life deals them a hard blow they will be left on the scrap heap to struggle. - vote No
> 
> See the thing is it matters not one iota what Ducati says or what I say - you need to decide on what is important to YOU.
> 
> Whether that is Ducati's cost benefit analysis or the chance for change that is the driving force for my decision or a greener more ecologically responsible government,the chance to rid ourselves of trident. 
> ...


You see, I think a yes vote would deny my children the opportunity to grow and develop in the United Kingdom so it is just a difference of view.

Say they wanted to be a Nuclear Physicist (or learn to spell).

----------


## squidge

If they wanted to be a nuclear physicist then they could just as easily BE a nuclear physicist if they are born, grow up and are educated in an Independent Scotland as in the UK. Once again if the opportunity to be part of a United Kingdom is what is important to you then that is what you vote on.

----------


## ducati

> If they wanted to be a nuclear physicist then they could just as easily BE a nuclear physicist if they are born, grow up and are educated in an Independent Scotland as in the UK. Once again if the opportunity to be part of a United Kingdom is what is important to you then that is what you vote on.


Oh? With no nuclear energy or anything else nuclear it would be a pretty pointless career choice don't you think?

Unless we want to pay for the education of someone who would have no choice but to take their skills to another country.

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh? With no nuclear energy or anything else nuclear it would be a pretty pointless career choice don't you think?


We don't know for sure about that.  It will be up to the people of an independent Scotland to vote in a pro-nuclear energy government.

----------


## Rheghead

> What we should be doing in September is a cost/benefit analysis.
> 
> Do I have anything to lose? No...Vote yes
> 
> Do I have anything to lose?  Yes...Vote No


No Campaigners always want to reduce the debate to money. Its all they care about.

----------


## Alrock

> Say they wanted to be a Nuclear Physicist....


Say they wanted to be a Professional Assassin?

----------


## ducati

> No Campaigners always want to reduce the debate to money. Its all they care about.


Nevertheless, no one is going to vote for the risk of losing everything they have have worked hard all there lives for. Is that selfish? Or do you think I'm wrong?

----------


## ducati

> We don't know for sure about that.  It will be up to the people of an independent Scotland to vote in a pro-nuclear energy government.


We don't know for sure about anything, that is a bit of an issue don't you think?

----------


## Rheghead

> We don't know for sure about anything, that is a bit of an issue don't you think?


Tell me for sure what the future of the UK is going to be.  I bet you can't.  The UK has changed out of all recognition to me since I was a boy.

----------


## Rheghead

> Nevertheless, no one is going to vote for the risk of losing everything they have have worked hard all there lives for. Is that selfish? Or do you think I'm wrong?


What have you got to lose?  Your business is mobile valeting.  Can you explain how after independence cars are not going to get dirty?

----------


## ducati

> Tell me for sure what the future of the UK is going to be.  I bet you can't.  The UK has changed out of all recognition to me since I was a boy.


Pretty much the same. I was a boy once, growing up in England, not long after the war (WWII) nothing much has changed, except unemployment seems a lot lower than the traditional 3 million, and I have had a pretty steady improvement in living standards over the years and now semi retired, look forward to different challenges and interests. How about you?

----------


## ducati

> What have you got to lose?  Your business is mobile valeting.  Can you explain how after independence cars are not going to get dirty?


See other post about semi-retirement. I wasn't always a Valeter and it isn't all I do. :Wink:  Funnily enough, I seem to work harder now than I ever did, but I enjoy it more, a lot less pressure.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> See other post about semi-retirement. I wasn't always a Valeter and it isn't all I do.


So you are one of the _privileged_ that David Hayman was talking about then?  ::

----------


## ducati

> So you are one of the _privileged_ that David Hayman was talking about then?


I'm not going to apologise for working hard all my life! You are starting to sound a bit Trotsky. I have always held a suspicion that an independent Scotland would swing that way.

----------


## Rheghead

> Funnily enough, I seem to work harder now than I ever did, but I enjoy it more, a lot less pressure.


Yes but working hard when you do not have another income brings its own pressures.  Good luck to you, not everyone is in your position.

----------


## ducati

> Yes but working hard when you do not have the financial backing of a previous income brings its own pressures.  Good luck to you, not everyone is in your position.


I know, I've done it! And now as some orgers and at least one Mod have lost their sense of humour I shall be bowing out.

----------


## Rheghead

> I know, I've done it!


So can you explain how working hard in an independent Scotland will not bring the same rewards that you have enjoyed?

----------


## orkneycadian

I take it Rheghead, that you have not heard of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms?

----------


## susie

I haven't decided yet but I'm off, out.

----------


## sam09

> I think it will be very bad for me. Do you think it will be very good for you? If so, why? Another Nat asking about my ethnicity, I imagine that will get worse if it does happen. Why does it matter? Many many people elligable to vote in the referendum are not Scots.
> 
> And of course, if it does happen, and the immigration targets are set by the SNP or the Greens (for instance) the Scots will soon be outnumbered in their own country, I don't care about that but I know a lot of Scots that do.


ducati  I want a fairer society.  Decisions about Scotland`s  best interest made in Scotland.  A written constitution.

An end to England`s Ruling classes divide and rule.  

I agree that there are lots of questions about Scotland`s future as an Independent Nation but I want the decisions about Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland.  The decisions will be made by whatever Political Party elected in 2016  that we the population of Scotland think best serve our interests.

Of course it will mean a setting up of New Scottish  Political Parties not run by the present U.K. setup.  Hopefully new rules can be made to stop the fiddlers of expenses and corrupt M.P`s that are  endemic in Westminster.

On immigration:  I welcome immigration to Scotland, but new rules should be put in place.  Namely, that all immigrants have a job to go to, (verifiable)  a place to live, (not with relatives so they can claim overcrowding and jump the housing list)
Speak the English language. Proper verifiable  qualifications not bought from some dodgy college.

The vote, in case it escapes your notice is for all the population of Scotland.  I do not give a damn what you describe yourself as, You at present are a British Citizen residing in Scotland and therefore entitled to vote in the referendum.  I do care about and value your opinion about your hopes and fears about an Independent Scotland or indeed staying part of the U.K.  I am not a Nat as you describe me.  I only, in my opinion see the best way forward for Scotland is as an independent nation.

----------


## Rheghead

If at any stage that you feel angry about a yes voter saying as-it-is, consider this.  Are you feeling that way because you cannot think of anything better to say?

Well I thought the same until I thought about it.  I like to think that I think about things analytically, I don't take kindly to some person saying stuff that doesn't have a good factual foundation.  In the end, I had to convert from a No voter to a Yes voter BECAUSE what the No campaign said didn't stand up to scrutiny, it was all scaremongering and I thought the best people to decide Scotland's Future was the people of Scotland.  I couldn't prop up the Better Together Campaign's propaganda anymore without having myself proved wrong again after again.  It isn't about flags or borders, the referendum is about democracy and I believe the people of Scotland are best positioned to decide what is best for Scotland.

----------


## Rheghead

Forget SNP, forget party politics.  Look at at this photo.

----------


## Oddquine

> I take it Rheghead, that you have not heard of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms?


Would that be the effect on Scotland as part of the UK or the effect on Scotland as an independent country, though?   Scotland loses CAP receipts as part of the UK and would get more as an independent country in the EU.  Come 2016, instead of receiving the third lowest CAP payments in the EU,  Scotland will, the way the UK distributes the receipts, get pretty much the lowest, not just in the EU, but within the UK itself, despite agriculture being comparatively more important to the Scottish economy than it is elsewhere in the UK.  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/fa...-facts31102012

----------


## rob murray

> ducati  I want a fairer society.  Decisions about Scotland`s  best interest made in Scotland.  A written constitution.
> 
> An end to England`s Ruling classes divide and rule.  
> 
> I agree that there are lots of questions about Scotland`s future as an Independent Nation but I want the decisions about Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland.  The decisions will be made by whatever Political Party elected in 2016  that we the population of Scotland think best serve our interests.
> 
> Of course it will mean a setting up of New Scottish  Political Parties not run by the present U.K. setup.  Hopefully new rules can be made to stop the fiddlers of expenses and corrupt M.P`s that are  endemic in Westminster.
> 
> On immigration:  I welcome immigration to Scotland, but new rules should be put in place.  Namely, that all immigrants have a job to go to, (verifiable)  a place to live, (not with relatives so they can claim overcrowding and jump the housing list)
> ...


 
An end to England`s Ruling classes divide and rule...oh yeah ? read on 

 A striking statistic  is that men in the Shettleston area of Glasgow have a life expectancy of 68, while their counterparts in Lenzie, eight miles away, can expect to be on this earth for 82 years. 
So everyone knows about life expectancy as a symptom of massive inequalities within Scotland which cry out to be addressed. We do not need to look beyond our borders. Poverty lives cheek by jowl with plenty, all within our own small nation, our own cities, our own towns. Eight miles and 14 years of life apart.

That should be a central challenge for any Scottish Government worthy of the name, using the many levers at their disposal. It goes to the root of questions about whether finite resources are being used to attack such inequalities  which, patently, they are not  or to sustain and indeed widen them.
But then fast-forward to last weeks ludicrous proposal from Shona Robison, on behalf of the SNP administration, that Scottish pensioners should be paid earlier than English ones because we die younger. 

The geographic comparison which Ms Robison selected was not between Shettleston and Lenzie. Instead, it was between some areas of Glasgow and Harrow, which is a posh-sounding place in the south of  England; a place for which, unlike Shettleston and Lenzie, Ms Robison and the Scottish Government have absolutely no responsibility.

And therein lies the kernel of why Nationalism is such an unpleasant and deceptive creed. To recognise the inequalities within Scotland involves both challenge and responsibility.* In contrast, pretending that the difference which matters is between the poorest places in Scotland and the richest places in England is a grotesque caricature, intended to encourage prejudice and gross misunderstanding. And also, of course, to evade responsibility.*

The weird demand for pension-age differentials comes out of the same political dung-heap. Are rich Scots to benefit from this distinction along with poor ones?* Is a factory worker in Liverpool to qualify for her pension later than Ann Gloag or the Weirs? Or is it all just ill-considered rubbish designed, like so much else, to drive wedges and resentments on the basis of identity?

*

----------


## sam09

> An end to England`s Ruling classes divide and rule...oh yeah ? read on 
> 
>  A striking statistic  is that men in the Shettleston area of Glasgow have a life expectancy of 68, while their counterparts in Lenzie, eight miles away, can expect to be on this earth for 82 years. 
> So everyone knows about life expectancy as a symptom of massive inequalities within Scotland which cry out to be addressed. We do not need to look beyond our borders. Poverty lives cheek by jowl with plenty, all within our own small nation, our own cities, our own towns. Eight miles and 14 years of life apart.
> 
> That should be a central challenge for any Scottish Government worthy of the name, using the many levers at their disposal. It goes to the root of questions about whether finite resources are being used to attack such inequalities  which, patently, they are not  or to sustain and indeed widen them.
> But then fast-forward to last weeks ludicrous proposal from Shona Robison, on behalf of the SNP administration, that Scottish pensioners should be paid earlier than English ones because we die younger. 
> 
> The geographic comparison which Ms Robison selected was not between Shettleston and Lenzie. Instead, it was between some areas of Glasgow and Harrow, which is a posh-sounding place in the south of  England; a place for which, unlike Shettleston and Lenzie, Ms Robison and the Scottish Government have absolutely no responsibility.
> ...


And what is your point?  What have respective Westminster Governments  done to address these problems which exist in the whole of the U.K.?

----------


## squidge

Health inequalities are shocking. 

It's not just  central belt stuff though - check out life expectancy in South Kessock compared to Milton of Leys or Pulteneytown compared to Areas of Thurso. It's important to note that health inequalities are not only an NHS issue. That social issues like poverty, poor education, poor housing, unemployment, are the drivers that lead to huge health inequalities. 

Rob suggests that the Scottish Gov has not done anything or enough to tackle these. Well off the top of my head they have introduced measures to reduce the effect of some of the welfare reforms, the reduction in council tax benefit, the bedroom tax - a significant amount of the limited money the Scottish Government is allocated has gone to reduce the effect of these "reforms". They have introduced free prescriptions, they have increased support for carers, the Scottish Welfare Fund, the Community Jobs Fund, the initiatives to improve breast feeding, the early years workers and so on and so on. They are doing more than many of us would think to tackle the underlying issues which lead to health inequalities. 

Why are we not seeing massive improvements then. Well that is because the most important powers required to reduce health inequality in any society is control over welfare, taxation and spending priorities. Scotland can only do what it can with the money it is GIVEN. Not the money it raises, not the money WE earn, the money that we are given to spend on the bits that we can. Scotland, whilst it can do what it can is not able to change things FUNDAMENTALLY because we do not have the power to do so. The power to change welfare policy, to raise and spend our own taxes. To slag off the Scottish Government for failing to address health inequalities ignores this and makes no sense. Only a YES vote will give Scotland the power to tackle this issue.

 The pension age thing is a different issue - this policy is not about health inequalities.  Nor is the comparison Rob has taken such exception to, about ethnic agitation. 

Firstly for anyone to get up tight because the Scottish Government discusses life expectancy when developing pension policy is a bit naive. Your life insurers and your own pension providers make a judgement about how long people live when developing their policies. That's normal actuarial practice.

 The issue with pension age is that Scotland does not have the power to design or develop it's own pension policy just now. And so we have the Westminster policy being implemented which is to raise the pension age because people are living longer. And so they are - in Harrow! People in the rest of the UK ARE living longer but here in Scotland we are not. Scotland has no need for this policy because the issues which affect harrow, or jarrow for that matter are not affecting Scotland and Yet we cannot say, actually we don't need this policy because we don't have this issue. Just like the bedroom tax was designed to address issues around housing in London and South East or the immigration policy is designed to address issues in the rest of the UK, the pension age rise ignores what Scotland needs or doesn't need. 

The comparison was not some narrow nationalist racist claptrap but a comparison which clearly indicates the need for Scotland to be able to design policies which meet our own needs and address our own problems. Only a YES vote gives Scotland that power. 

Rob clearly is angry about health inequalities and the lack of improvements in this area and yet he doesn't want to vote for the powers to change things. I don't get that. If we want changes in Scotland, in the UK, in the world then we have to take the opportunities offered to us. 

Be the change you want to see in the world  someone said - independence gives us the chance to do exactly that.

----------


## rob murray

> And what is your point?  What have respective Westminster Governments  done to address these problems which exist in the whole of the U.K.?


The point is obvious, Yessers :  stop pretending that the difference which matters is between the poorest places in Scotland and the richest places in England as this  is a grotesque caricature, obviously  intended to encourage prejudice and gross misunderstanding.  Obvious isnt it !

----------


## rob murray

> Health inequalities are shocking. 
> 
> It's not just  central belt stuff though - check out life expectancy in South Kessock compared to Milton of Leys or Pulteneytown compared to Areas of Thurso. It's important to note that health inequalities are not only an NHS issue. That social issues like poverty, poor education, poor housing, unemployment, are the drivers that lead to huge health inequalities. 
> 
> Rob suggests that the Scottish Gov has not done anything or enough to tackle these. Well off the top of my head they have introduced measures to reduce the effect of some of the welfare reforms, the reduction in council tax benefit, the bedroom tax - a significant amount of the limited money the Scottish Government is allocated has gone to reduce the effect of these "reforms". They have introduced free prescriptions, they have increased support for carers, the Scottish Welfare Fund, the Community Jobs Fund, the initiatives to improve breast feeding, the early years workers and so on and so on. They are doing more than many of us would think to tackle the underlying issues which lead to health inequalities. 
> 
> Why are we not seeing massive improvements then. Well that is because the most important powers required to reduce health inequality in any society is control over welfare, taxation and spending priorities. Scotland can only do what it can with the money it is GIVEN. Not the money it raises, not the money WE earn, the money that we are given to spend on the bits that we can. Scotland, whilst it can do what it can is not able to change things FUNDAMENTALLY because we do not have the power to do so. The power to change welfare policy, to raise and spend our own taxes. To slag off the Scottish Government for failing to address health inequalities ignores this and makes no sense. Only a YES vote will give Scotland the power to tackle this issue.
> 
>  The pension age thing is a different issue - this policy is not about health inequalities.  Nor is the comparison Rob has taken such exception to, about ethnic agitation. 
> ...


I agree with your points 100% absolutely, but can you not see that straying from the fundamentals of the issue, can lead people to assume or noers to portray the fundamantals  as pretending that the difference which matters is between the poorest places in Scotland and the richest places in England  and can be seen to be  intended to encourage prejudice and gross misunderstanding.  In other words, your points are undermined by the approach adopted by Shona Robison and the like.

----------


## Rheghead

> I agree with your points 100% absolutely, but can you not see that straying from the fundamentals of the issue, can lead people to assume or noers to portray the fundamantals  as pretending that the difference which matters is between the poorest places in Scotland and the richest places in England  and can be seen to be  intended to encourage prejudice and gross misunderstanding.  In other words, your points are undermined by the approach adopted by Shona Robison and the like.


As long as we're joined at the hip then such a comparison is reasonable.

----------


## squidge

I don't think THEY strayed from the fundamentals of the message Rob. I think YOU did. The fundamental issue re pensions is that Scotland's life expectancy IS different from England's and therefore the policy determining retirement age needs to be different too. The comparison is absolutely valid and the only people suggesting this is a Scotland / England issue are those who have a vested interest in doing so.

----------


## rob murray

> I don't think THEY strayed from the fundamentals of the message Rob. I think YOU did. The fundamental issue re pensions is that Scotland's life expectancy IS different from England's and therefore the policy determining retirement age needs to be different too. The comparison is absolutely valid and the only people suggesting this is a Scotland / England issue are those who have a vested interest in doing so.


No, I didnt,  nonsense like this is what is seriously turning people away from a yes vote : and your wrong, life expectancy differs markedly in England alone forget about a SCotland / Engand comparison, there is no need whatsoever to compare Govan to Harrow etc apart from playing at politics : why not Jarrow / Harrow, or some Englsih northern depressed town / city with Harrow /  affluent se England ?  As for your point" the only people suggesting this is a Scotland / England issue are those who have a vested interest in doing so"...come on, it was an SNP yesser who made the point !!!! so logically you are saying that they / she had a vested interest in making the point, your right there arent you.  Ach...whats the point, you believe what you want to, nothing I say or anyone else says, is going to change your mind or even get you to question obvious issues, game over you win !!

----------


## squidge

You are right Rob. I'm sorry. I should have said  The only people making this an anti England issue are those with a vested interest in doing so. The gap between the worst areas in Scotland ant the best areas in the rest of the UK is a valid comparison if you are making a point that the policy being implemented through the UK Does not make sense for all areas. Rob honey, I question EVERYTHING and look at EVERYTHING which is how I know about health inequalities and pension policy in the first place.

----------


## Rheghead

I think the political surge to UKIP in England will demonstrate to the people of Scotland that rUK and Scotland are tugging in different directions.  Only Scottish independence will do what is best for both.

Are you 'Yes' yet?

----------


## mi16

> I think the political surge to UKIP in England will demonstrate to the people of Scotland that rUK and Scotland are tugging in different directions.  Only Scottish independence will do what is best for both.
> 
> Are you 'Yes' yet?


absolutely not

----------


## Murdo

Well after much deliberation I'm going to vote yes. Mostly because of the state of Westminster politics . Having spent time in Scandanavia these last few years through work Iv'e come to appreciate how much better things are there in so many ways compared to the 'we are a world power'  stuff and all the bol---cks that entails. It won't be easy to go our own way but in the long run freedom from Westminster will be the best thing for Scotland in my opinion.

----------


## sam09

> The point is obvious, Yessers :  stop pretending that the difference which matters is between the poorest places in Scotland and the richest places in England as this  is a grotesque caricature, obviously  intended to encourage prejudice and gross misunderstanding.  Obvious isnt it !


Not at all rob.  These inequalities exist today under successive Westminster Governments governing the Whole of the U.K.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Not at all rob.  These inequalities exist today under successive Westminster Governments governing the Whole of the U.K.


There are inequalities taking place 100 yards away from Westminster.... all this nonsense that "England" gets the wheat and Scotland gets the chaff is just pure fiction. The quality of life in Caithness compared to the quality of life in Hackney (London) is far superior and Hackney is only 6 miles away from "Westminster". You are more likely to be shot, or die from a drugs overdose, in Hackney than you are from natural causes..... 

There are some right deprived areas in Scotland and there are also some very well off / affluent areas.... same in England, some nice parts, some right dumps.

I have, generally, found that the "dumps" are not a result of "Westminster", they are generally down to the residents not wanting to get off their backsides and do a day's work..... No sensible person should point the finger of blame at "Westminster" for everything bad they see around them.... it's a FACT that, in life, some people decide to go for it and make their own way whilst others prefer to sit on their backsides blaming the rest of society for their lot.

Home rule is not a panacea which will see "wealth and prosperity" for everyone, there will still be the givers and the takers..... that will not change. Question is this...... will the 5 million population of Scotland still be able to fund the takers (not sure what percentage are not working) in the lifestyle they are accustomed to? Will the workers still be able to fund a health service with free prescriptions? Will the workers manage to fund "the list is endless"?

"England" may seem a foreign country to some folk who have never been out of their country, let alone their county, but as part of the union the 60 MILLION English folk who are paying into the pot seems a little bit more reassuring than relying on 5 million...... factor in Northern Ireland and Wales (everybody seems to be forgetting them) and we have 65 million people.......

Look at it on a "Caithness" level.... let's just say that Caithness went independent from the rest of Scotland..... here are the stats:  http://www.hie.co.uk/common/handlers...8-f5881c083e6c

Caithness wouldn't stand a chance!!!! it would collapse within a month of independence from the rest of Scotland. Sheep rustling would be rife, fuel supplies would be cut off as it would not be viable to transport fuel up here, the sun would stop shining and it would be doom and gloom over the county...... oh, hold on, it's like that already!

It's all Westminsters fault  :Wink:

----------


## squidge

There are inequalities everywhere Tangerine Dream. The thing about independence is not that it is a magic wand which will remove inequalities at one fell swoop but that it gives us the chance to change things so that we end up with something fairer. That chance does not exist as part of the Union. This is because within the union there is no choice between the three main parties and UKIP. None of them offer even the chance of addressing the staggering inequalities within the UK. In Scotland we have the best opportunity in years to choose something different - we do not have that choice within the UK. 

Interesting that you pander to the view that the "takers" are simply those not working, I would suggest that the worst takers are those who avoid their taxes, big businesses who fail to meet their obligations, banks which ignore laws and banking regulations and drive economies into meltdown because of their own greed and sense of importance. Puts Mrs mackays DLA or Mr Bremners JSA into perspective doesn't it... And I have t even mentioned Westmi ster MPs who continue to inflate expenses and laugh in the face of the austerity the rest of us are supposed to get on with without complaining. So your"takers" tighten their belts, use food banks and are forced into bedroom tax induced arrears whilst the takers that I listed shirk responsibility, laugh in the face of George Osbornes austerity measures and carry on in their own self gratifying, selfish, way. 

You are right too, having 65 million people paying into a pot is important to meet the needs of those 65 million. Scotland has "only" 5.5 million which might be a problem if we were trying to meet the needs of 65 million but we aren't. We are meeting the needs of 5.5 million. Makes much more sense and is perfectly affordable in an outward looking, growth focused, resource rich, wealthy country like Scotland.  

Your suggestion at the end of an Independent Scotland as a massive failure is just pure nonsense. I wod have thought you would do better than the too wee, too poor stuff that has been discredited for months and months.

 No one, not Cameron, not Darling, not any of the main No supporters are still saying Scotland cannot afford to go it alone. Scotland is a country rich in resources, with a healthy growing economy and is well positioned to be a successful independent country.

----------


## badger

Personally I would not be nearly so scared of a Yes vote if we actually knew what the results would be, which we don't.  Every time Salmond and Sturgeon are asked awkward questions they laugh and say reassuringly - it will all be fine.  That's really not good enough. 

_An SNP MSP dies and is told by St Peter that he must spend one day in hell and one in heaven before choosing where to spend eternity. St Peter takes him down to hell in a lift. The doors open on a green golf course, with an elegant clubhouse and all his friends in evening dress, who rush to welcome him. They dance and make merry with caviar and champagne.

St Peter then takes the MSP up to heaven, where contented souls flit among the clouds singing and playing harps. So where will he spend eternity? He chooses hell. The lift descends. The doors open on a barren land where his friends, dressed in rags, are stuffing bin bags with piles of stinking rubbish that falls from the sky. “I don’t understand,” stammers the MSP. “Yesterday there was a golf course and champagne… and everyone was happy.” The Devil appears and smilingly explains: “Yesterday, we were campaigning… but now, you’ve voted.”_

----------


## mi16

At least the poll has determined that over 99% of people will take part in the vote.

----------


## squidge

Well Badger what is it that you are so scared of, maybe we can have a proper chat about it and see where it leaves us all after that  :Smile:

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

This made me laugh!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/po...p-must-3611799

And the Scottish National Party are not divisive? Hell, they want to break up the most successful union _ever!

_BNP (British National Party) are deemed as racists yet the SNP (Scottish National Party) are seen as acceptable? UKIP are now classed as "moderate racists"?

This is getting even funnier as the months pass  :Wink:

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

I'd probably class myself as a "mild racist"........... I believe that the people in Thurso should get all the jobs and that "Halkirk" mob should not be allowed within a 5 mile radius of the town  :Wink:  They are totally ruining Thurso by undercutting locals with their shoddy "imported" workmanship..... it's time the people of Thurso said NO! to Halkirk......

Unfortunately, this is the way it's going.... we are all RACISTS and BIGOTS and we hide behind net curtains..... a YES vote (for Scotland) will at "least" prove that we have the guts to show our real hatred of our neighbours outright and will confirm that we are an insular bunch of bigots.

It's all good  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

I get the impression that the Scottish Labour party can't put a good enough reason together as to why they are against independence.  They have most to gain from it as they can go back to being a real Labour party rather than this Blairite cast off.

----------


## squidge

Keep trying Tangerine Dream. Hatred of our neighbours? Racists and Bigots? 

 You would have an argument if this referendum was about  ethnicity, if only ethnic Scots (whoever they might be) were  allowed to vote, if only ethnic Scots were being classed as citizens of an independent Scotland, if UKIP had polled 30% of the vote here in Scotland, if an Independent Scotland was planning to leave the EU, if they were planning closing Scotland's borders to any future immigration or imposing rules which mean that immigration was stopped. But guess what... None of that is happening.

 This referendum is about the sort of democracy those of us who live here in Scotland want, the sort of society we want and where we want decisions made about Scotland's future .... For ALL of us, for everyone who is living here, wherever they come from. 

That, Tangerine Dream is INclusive not Isolationist, it's tolerant, not bigoted and as for hate? It drips and oozes off every word in your posts lately.

----------


## Rheghead

> Keep trying Tangerine Dream. Hatred of our neighbours? Racists and Bigots? 
> 
>  You would have an argument if this referendum was about  ethnicity, if only ethnic Scots (whoever they might be) were  allowed to vote, if only ethnic Scots were being classed as citizens of an independent Scotland, if UKIP had polled 30% of the vote here in Scotland, if an Independent Scotland was planning to leave the EU, if they were planning closing Scotland's borders to any future immigration or imposing rules which mean that immigration was stopped. But guess what... None of that is happening.
> 
>  This referendum is about the sort of democracy those of us who live here in Scotland want, the sort of society we want and where we want decisions made about Scotland's future .... For ALL of us, for everyone who is living here, wherever they come from. 
> 
> That, Tangerine Dream is INclusive not Isolationist, it's tolerant, not bigoted and as for hate? It drips and oozes off every word in your posts lately.


Well said.

----------


## rob murray

> Keep trying Tangerine Dream. Hatred of our neighbours? Racists and Bigots? 
> 
>  You would have an argument if this referendum was about  ethnicity, if only ethnic Scots (whoever they might be) were  allowed to vote, if only ethnic Scots were being classed as citizens of an independent Scotland, if UKIP had polled 30% of the vote here in Scotland, if an Independent Scotland was planning to leave the EU, if they were planning closing Scotland's borders to any future immigration or imposing rules which mean that immigration was stopped. But guess what... None of that is happening.
> 
>  This referendum is about the sort of democracy those of us who live here in Scotland want, the sort of society we want and where we want decisions made about Scotland's future .... For ALL of us, for everyone who is living here, wherever they come from. 
> 
> That, Tangerine Dream is INclusive not Isolationist, it's tolerant, not bigoted and as for hate? It drips and oozes off every word in your posts lately.


"This referendum is about the sort of democracy those of us who live here in Scotland want, the sort of society we want and where we want decisions made about Scotland's future .... For ALL of us, for everyone who is living here, wherever they come from ". 
I couldnt agree more, and well put, your dead right and if some people, me included, dont agree with what is delivered in an independant scotland....well thats called democracy I will have to just get along with things. UK politics will see a definitie swing to the harder right ( immigration,anti  EU etc ) as main stream parties react to UKIP. I am British and European, and its absolute nonsense to think that the EU can be destroyed /  pulled down, tinkered with at the margins, maybe some financial restructuring, but the EU is here to stay and ol Nigel and his acolytes are tilting at windmills if they think differently ! Their vision is of a pre 1970.s Britain, main stream mid 50's, mid england, old maidens cycling to church on sunday, village cricket, good ol boys and their real ale....

----------


## squidge

I hope it is as benign a vision as that Rob. It sends shivers down my spine to think it maybe something worse - something darker.

----------


## rob murray

> I hope it is as benign a vision as that Rob. It sends shivers down my spine to think it maybe something worse - something darker.


Nah, no extremist right party ever made serious inroads into the UK, Mosley was rejected totally, BNP has withered away : UKIP is a one man party, a one trick pony, I heard their scottish MEP being interviewed spewing on about EU and how he would fight tooth and nail to dampen red tape, when pressed for examples he stuttered and blurted out the ol chestnut  em....Health and safety impact on small businesses, when pressed to give examples of this, he couldnt, he was flumoxed, no detail whatsoever, the interviewer tore the guy to bits..what a laugh !!  : if a protest party gets elements of power, people will still expect delivery, UKIP sound very wooly and loose, a one trick pony, one issue party, they cannot turn the clock back, they can push politics to the far right ( who never wanted EU ) but thats only if they can deliver / administer, if they ( and they most certainly will not ) dont deliver in localities where they have been voted in ( councillors etc ) then they will nose dive. In basic terms they will have to deal with the mundane issues, refuge collections etc etc....basic services that come first, how many people would put up with wooly councils etc in the hope that the UK, or parts of it, will leave EU, especially if Cameron gets back in and gives a referendum on EU, that will pull the rug from under UKIP.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Much, much darker. We have already seen the Better Togethers cheering and jumping around to welcome this sad MEP into their ranks, (albeit that report has since  disappeared from the "impartial" BBC website), but the likelihood of  Scotland being governed by a Tory/UKIP coalition after a NO vote is looking increasingly likely, now the LibDems have destroyed themselves by linking up with the I'll-Say-Anything-For-A-Government-Limo Tory party.   
I am deeply ashamed that Ukip has won a seat in Scotland. Some of you should be looking at what we'll get if there's a No vote in September.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Keep trying Tangerine Dream.


No point in arguing with bigots, they've got their blinkers on and full steam ahead into a brick wall  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

The Independent gives a depressing account of how remaining with the UK will affect our children.  This is impartial evidence and not framed within the indyref debate.




> Five million children in Britain could be “sentenced to a lifetime of poverty” by 2020 because of welfare reforms, according to research from Save the Children.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-9442061.html

----------


## squidge

Lol....Tangerine Dream -  Like I say on ya go..... You, the self confessed mild racist - or was that you being satirical? I'm never sure with you ;  the "better together" isolationist - that's ironic surely? 

Me? I'll take my "bigoted" English self and head off with all the other people of Scotland, Scots, Polish, Pakistani, French, Romanian, South American, Indian, Chinese, and the many many other nationalities - many of whom support independence - who live here, who make Scotland their home and who are looking forward to an inclusive, outward looking, modern democracy where they are welcomed and where inequality is challenged not accepted, where fairness and equality are cornerstones of our society and it's tax, health and welfare systems not inconveniences, or things to be sold off to the highest bidder to grow nice fat cheques for shareholders.

 It won't happen overnight, it might not happen in my lifetime but you know what.... We have that chance and that is a better place to be than we have as part of the UK.

----------


## Phill

> modern democracy


Define that, within the EU.

----------


## Rheghead

Which type of 'No' voter are you?

----------


## squidge

I know I know Phil - you don't like the EU. I believe though that Scotland needs to be outwards looking and engaged with the rest of Europe and the EU is a mechanism to do that.

----------


## Chook a demus

I thought the org was supposed to be a place for the people of Caithness to discuss issues, I've been watching for a while and just joined but it very much seems to me that it's been hijacked by a couple of pro-independence trolls who hijack every thread and attack anyone who doesn't hold their views. I didn't attend a recent meeting because of the threat of photography and videoing by a member on here. It's not the sort of Scotland that makes me proud to live in when people cannot respect others views and principles so much for free, fair and democratic society ....... When I'm scared to attend meetings because of political hot heads on a discussion forum I feel that free and fair no longer exist.I won't be posting again because I know that my views will just be ridiculed by those same people who seek to demean anyone with a view that isn't their own :0(((((

----------


## squidge

How are those of us here supporting independence Trolls? Neither does there seem to be much demeaning or attacking going on.  I have lived in Caithness, worked in Caithness and still work in the county. My children grew up in Caithness and I support Independence. Should I not be allowed to post here? If not, why not? Interestingly there are two relatively current threads on independence and the rest are about other things.  It doesn't appear that any of the other threads have been hijacked - the independence posts are largely confined to the independence related threads. Independence is as much of an issue affecting the "people of Caithness" as any other, why would it not be discussed here? 

I am sorry that you were scared to attend a better together meeting - that's a real shame although the suggestion that photos might be taken is not quite the same as being threatened with a "doing" which is what seems to have happened to the poster who made the suggestion.  There are political hot heads on both sides and I can understand a reluctance to stick your head above the parapet. I'm maybe used to the nonsense but I can understand it might be unsettling.  It's a good job then that there are people posting on these threads that DONT support independence so that you can see both sides of the debate represented.

I guess if you aren't posting again then I don't suppose you will answer any of the points that I make but It's not particularly useful to appear, slag people off and disappear. Still each to their own.

----------


## Chook a demus

I will answer as what you has just happened is commonly known on t internet as " monstering " you've now started on me and specifically targeted me why do you want to Bully me I haven't even stated a position on which way I will vote.

Thank you for making me feel so welcome as a new member  I won't post again as you seem to want to have the last say and I don't engage with bullies .

----------


## squidge

I am so absolutely not monstering you (the definition of which is " a severe reprimand or scolding,a highly critical verbal attack") You made several points and a couple of accusations which I have challenged gently and questioned. I don't care which way you vote, I simply care that people hear both sides of the argument.  You made a post in a public forum and I would like to discuss the issues you raised. That is all. I'm not calling you names, not accusing you of anything, I am simply responding to your post.

Edit : as for the edited addition that suggests that I am bullying you ... Well, I don't really know what to say to that but as you aren't going to reply anyway (on this thread anyway) then I'll just shake my head and get on with my day, Have a good one :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

Something to think about, it is your turn to make a difference...

----------


## orkneycadian

> This referendum is about the sort of democracy those of us who live here in Scotland want, the sort of society we want and where we want decisions made about Scotland's future .... For ALL of us, for everyone who is living here, wherever they come from.


If only it were....

The Yes Camp (SNP) make a big thing about saying that a Yes vote on the 18th of September is not a policatical vote, for the SNP or any others, but solely on the matter of independence.

Then, they go on to say that an independent Scotland will be a member of Europe, will banish all nuclear arms, will do this, that and the next.  Hang on a mo, what happened to this just being a referendum on independence?

What if you want independence, but not to be a member of Europe?  Tough it appears.

What if you want independence, but want Scotland to keep Trident?  Tough again by the looks of it.

On the one hand, the SNP try to play the "its only a referendum of independence" card.  On the other, you had better believe that a Yes vote in September is a Green light to Adolf Salmond to usher in whatever he feels like.

Be wary.  A Yes vote is for a lot more than so called independence.

(By the way, how can a country be independent if it rejoins, or attempts to rejoin the EU?  :: )

----------


## mi16

> Which type of 'No' voter are you?


 Surely this is not a genuine yes Scotland piece of propaganda is it?
If you are not for independence you are a scared, union flag adorned, part time scot, bigot
Jebus Cripes whatever next?

----------


## squidge

Maybe pictures of Alex Salmond as Hitler? Or yes voters as Mel Gibson? Surely not eh?

And of course it's not official - it's a made up thing like the one that said that the budget was helping. "Working people do more of the things they enjoy - like beer and bingo" .... Oh. Hang on... That one WAS  official ... Oops.  :Smile:

----------


## squidge

> If only it were....The Yes Camp (SNP) make a big thing about saying that a Yes vote on the 18th of September is not a policatical vote, for the SNP or any others, but solely on the matter of independence.Then, they go on to say that an independent Scotland will be a member of Europe, will banish all nuclear arms, will do this, that and the next.  Hang on a mo, what happened to this just being a referendum on independence?What if you want independence, but not to be a member of Europe?  Tough it appears.What if you want independence, but want Scotland to keep Trident?  Tough again by the looks of it.On the one hand, the SNP try to play the "its only a referendum of independence" card.  On the other, you had better believe that a Yes vote in September is a Green light to Adolf Salmond to usher in whatever he feels like.Be wary.  A Yes vote is for a lot more than so called independence.(By the way, how can a country be independent if it rejoins, or attempts to rejoin the EU? )


If you want independence but want to keep trident then you vote YES, then in 2016 you vote for the Labour Party, the Tories or one of the other parties which support retaining trident. If you want independence but out of the EU, then you vote YES and In 2016 vote Tory or for one of the parties which support leaving the EU. Because we have the voting system we do in Scotland your vote is likely to count. Especially as most of you think the SNP is the most hated party in Scotland so they aren't likely to win a majority government again.

----------


## orkneycadian

If September is a vote for independence only, then why do the SNP insist on bringing other matters into it?

----------


## squidge

I think that they have made it clear that there will be a general election in 2016 and that we will vote for the party in government. The Scottish Government have set out their plans for an Independent Scotland and Westminster have set out their plans for the UK. Both sides would say they have tried to answer people's questions so that we can make a decision based on what is important to each of us. That's why it's about trident or the economy or rule Britannia or whatever is important to us.

----------


## mi16

> Maybe pictures of Alex Salmond as Hitler? Or yes voters as Mel Gibson? Surely not eh?And of course it's not official - it's a made up thing like the one that said that the budget was helping. "Working people do more of the things they enjoy - like beer and bingo" .... Oh. Hang on... That one WAS  official ... Oops.


 I can't say I have seen those.You say "of course it's not official" like it's some sort of given, is the logo on the foot of the poster not the official one?If not official then who made it up? It looks to me that it originated from the west of Scotland

----------


## orkneycadian

....Just like the whole of this independence wish....

Something like 4/5's of Scotlands population live in the central belt.  For that reason, the rest of Scotland would fare badly in independence, as the policies of an independent Scotland would always favour the Central Belt.  We are seeing this already, with policies that penalise rural areas, but favour urban areas.  The Weegie's right to own a "divil dug" and have a good swally courtesy of the taxpayer seems to have escaped restriction in recent licencing reforms, despite the fact that both these contribute to huge levels of hospital admissions each year.  But of course, bringing in any restrictions like those would affect 80% of the population, so would be extremely unpopular in the run up to a referendum....

Rural Scotland, and the Islands on the other hand don't matter.  As is plainly the case with the SNP's refusal to introduce RET in the Northern Isles.  Oh, and their refusal to enable an independence referendum on the 25th of September.

Remember folks, this is what it will be like, and much more (worse) with a Yes vote on the 18th of September.

----------


## squidge

> I can't say I have seen those.You say "of course it's not official" like it's some sort of given, is the logo on the foot of the poster not the official one?If not official then who made it up? It looks to me that it originated from the west of Scotland


Sorry mi16 I forget that not everyone is rummaging around in the debate. There are a variety of pics of AS as hitler, Stalin, Kim il Jung and even Saddam Hussein. If you want to see them send me a pm and I'll send you links. These things are there all the time and originate from many different sources. This is not an official leaflet - I know that chiefly because I know where it originated from. Again send me a pm if you want a link.  :Smile:

----------


## mi16

> Sorry mi16 I forget that not everyone is rummaging around in the debate. There are a variety of pics of AS as hitler, Stalin, Kim il Jung and even Saddam Hussein. If you want to see them send me a pm and I'll send you links. These things are there all the time and originate from many different sources. This is not an official leaflet - I know that chiefly because I know where it originated from. Again send me a pm if you want a link.


Do these offensive pics of AS cary the official better together branding?
Whaere di this "Yes" leacflet in question originate from.
Personaly I dont think it does yur cause any good having such things in circulation

----------


## squidge

I understood that rolling out the RET in the Northern Isles would mean the fares being MORE expensive not less and that is why it is not being done. Aren't the Scottish Government looking at how to change this on the future? 

You are absolutely right not to vote for independence in dogs and guns are what is important to you and I can understand that. However rural areas are receiving investment and support from the  Scottish Government in capital expenditure like schools and roads. Shetland recently announced exciting advances in tidal energy and I understood that investment in Orkney for energy is ongoing. It's nor perfect and it's not enough but the Scottish Government does not control all the purse strings and yet students from rural areas get free tuition just like those in the central belt, people in Orkney get free prescriptions just like those elsewhere and no one on Orkney or Shetland has to worry any more about the Bedroom tax just like those of us on the mainland. 

Enabling a referendum is a separate issue. The SNP were enabled to organise a referendum on independence for Scotland by winning a majority in an election where the people of Scotland understood that would happen if they voted for the SNP. In Orkney there has been an online petition. Did a candidate stand on a manifesto of organising a referendum for Orkney or Shetland on staying with the UK or securing independence? If so, did they win? I don't think they did. I don't think the Uk government would have countenanced a Scottish referendum on the basis of an internet petition. I would hope though that the same rules would apply. If Orkney or Shetland return a majority for a candidate offering to secure a referendum in the Northern Isles then I would expect it to take place. 

Maybe you should stand Orkneycadian....

----------


## squidge

> Do these offensive pics of AS cary the official better together branding?Whaere di this "Yes" leacflet in question originate from.Personaly I dont think it does yur cause any good having such things in circulation


The best thing to do is to email YES Scotland and ask them. I understand it originated from a Facebook page run by a student who enjoys creating "memes". I may however be wrong so best for you to ask direct.

----------


## mi16

> The best thing to do is to email YES Scotland and ask them. I understand it originated from a Facebook page run by a student who enjoys creating "memes". I may however be wrong so best for you to ask direct.


To be honest I am not bothered enought about what some spotty faced student does in between masturbation sessions to go emailing YES Scotland.
It is probably doing more good than harm as far as I am concerned, but it is interesting (if not a little disturbing) of the Yes folks perception of a No voter.

----------


## mi16

Is gambling the sort of thing Yes scotland want to found thier dreams on?
Also if YES Scotland is not being run by Eck / SNP then why is he out begging for money?

----------


## Alrock

> ....Just like the whole of this independence wish....
> 
> Something like 4/5's of Scotlands population live in the central belt.  For that reason, the rest of Scotland would fare badly in independence....


So what you're saying is that in an Independent Scotland the 1/5th of the population living outside the central belt will be treated unfairly?

So if we stay as part of the UK that 1/5th of Scotland will be an even smaller % of the UK population (you do the maths if you want to know exact %), so how will that make us be treated any better? Do you really think that the Westminster Government care about us more than an Independent Scottish Government would?

----------


## squidge

> To be honest I am not bothered enought about what some spotty faced student does in between masturbation sessions to go emailing YES Scotland.It is probably doing more good than harm as far as I am concerned, but it is interesting (if not a little disturbing) of the Yes folks perception of a No voter.


Ahhhh see I thought you were genuinely alarmed and concerned that it was official. But guess not lol.

----------


## mi16

> Ahhhh see I thought you were genuinely alarmed and concerned that it was official. But guess not lol.


Had it been official then yes I would have been concerned, but I am prepared to accept yur word for it that a student has mocked it up and used the logo without the permission of the first minister or whoever is in charge of the campaign.
However as I stated earlier, it is interesting (if not a little disturbing) of the Yes folks perception of a No voter.

----------


## Chook a demus

Politicians who are bound by rules and regulations as to what they can and cannot say are less than trustworthy. Political Activists who consider any means to score a point for their side are even less trustworthy IMHO. But what do I know about any of it all I do is go vote and hope I'm making the right decision.

----------


## orkneycadian

> So if we stay as part of the UK that 1/5th of Scotland will be an even smaller % of the UK population (you do the maths if you want to know exact %), so how will that make us be treated any better? Do you really think that the Westminster Government care about us more than an Independent Scottish Government would?


7/8's of the UK population live outside London (location of the UK parliament) and a significant proportion of that 7/8's is rural.

----------


## Alrock

> 7/8's of the UK population live outside London (location of the UK parliament) and a significant proportion of that 7/8's is rural.


Whatever... Can't be bothered massaging figures to justify my argument...

Besides... You still haven't actually answered my question.... "Do you really think that the Westminster Government care about us more than an Independent Scottish Government would?"

----------


## orkneycadian

Yes.  For starters, we have a government that we voted for representing us in Westminster.  Well, in a coalition form at least.  We did not vote for an SNP government.

----------


## orkneycadian

Secondly, the Westminster government were accommodating enough to allow Eck his referendum on independence.

Meanwhile, the SNP are being completely unaccommodating when it comes to the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles independence referendum.  

A prime example of how Westminster cares more.

----------


## orkneycadian

The "Inconvenient Truth" for the SNP and the Yes camp, is that the oil, upon which they are pinning their independance financial hopes on, is mainly located in waters off land that does not support them, and has never had a majority SNP vote.

Alex Salmond seems to hope that that will not be noticed, and the issue will fade away.

It may be the case that Princes Street will need to be hacked up yet again to initiate all the fracking that will be required to  sustain the economy of an Independent Central Belt.  Alternatively, Alex might just keep on hoping that the islanders will be generous enough to share their oil with him.

----------


## Alrock

> Yes.  For starters, we have a government that we voted for representing us in Westminster.  Well, in a coalition form at least.  We did not vote for an SNP government.


So, the SNP did not win a majority in the last Scottish Election?





> Secondly, the Westminster government were accommodating enough to allow Eck his referendum on independence.
> 
> Meanwhile, the SNP are being completely unaccommodating when it comes to the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles independence referendum.  
> 
> A prime example of how Westminster cares more.


Do you honestly think that the Westminster would be any more accommodating on the issue of an Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles independence referendum?

----------


## mi16

> So, the SNP did not win a majority in the last Scottish Election?


Not in the islands they didn't 


> Do you honestly think that the Westminster would be any more accommodating on the issue of an Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles independence referendum?


 Westminster have a considerably better record of granting a referendum than the Scottish government.

----------


## orkneycadian

My sentiments exactly MI16

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

Mi16 I think it may be worth voting "YES" just to prove you were right all along..... these "YES" knuckleheads seem content on going in blindfolded so why not let them do so and (this time next year) you can tell them how stupid they all were to vote for an independent Scotland on the say so of the krankies  :Wink: 



I cannot believe that pair of comedians even got air time, let alone managed to brainwash a few Daily Record readers to say "yes!", and still cannot believe how seriously some folk are "debating" this.......

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> my sentiments exactly mi16


x2................................................  ........................................

----------


## mi16

Maybe relocate to an independant Shetland

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Maybe relocate to an independant Shetland


I think you have misspelt that........ an independent Shetland would be renamed (under independence) as "Shitland".... the Holyrood crowd will only be interested in what happens in Edinburgh, Just like "westminster" who doesn't even know (or care) where Birmingham is on the map........ The powers that be will rename Wick to "Sick" and Lairg to "lack", Montrose to Munsterfield and Troon to tolly, keiss to kiech and oban to iban.....


YES YES YES!!

----------


## squidge

> Westminster have a considerably better record of granting a referendum than the Scottish government.


And once again.... Westminster granted a referendum because Scotland's electorate returned a majority SNP government. Voters voted for the SNP knowing they would hold a referendum. They didn't grant a referendum based on an internet petition. If in 2016 the northern isles return an MSP  who promises to ask for a referendum then I would expect it to be held but the last opinion poll on this subject which was held in 2012 I think showed 8% of islanders supported the idea of independence from Scotland.

----------


## Chook a demus

And if the Northern Isles do vote for a candidate with an agenda for independence and they get that referendum which would be their democratic right, there would go the oil and gas with them and so much for a newly independent Scotland which would then be heading for financial ruin because the Independence  yay Sayers have built a house of cards on the revenue from oil and gas. There's a difference between the islanders who want to be independent from Scotland which is currently part of the UK and an independent Scotland run from Holyrood. If the voting pattern is currently majority lib dem and has been for some time those aren't the sort of people who would alley  themselves with SNP values easily, so may radically change the current 8% to a much a higher percentage and indeed fuel enough disenchantment to gain the momentum required to create the change.

----------


## mi16

> And once again.... Westminster granted a referendum because Scotland's electorate returned a majority SNP government. Voters voted for the SNP knowing they would hold a referendum. They didn't grant a referendum based on an internet petition. If in 2016 the northern isles return an MSP who promises to ask for a referendum then I would expect it to be held but the last opinion poll on this subject which was held in 2012 I think showed 8% of islanders supported the idea of independence from Scotland.


So what you are saying is, should Alasdair Carmichael (assuming he is still the Orknsy and Shetland MP) request an independance referendum for Orkney and Shetland, you would fully expect it to be granted by our fist minister no problem at all?

----------


## gerry4

and what would happen to England if London broke away. Lots of people are talking about that. 

Daft argument as neither will happen as there is no real support for it. Look at P & J's poll last year

----------


## Alrock

Can I have a referendum to declare my house as an independent state please?

----------


## mi16

Ask your MP, shouldnt be a problem according to Squidge.

----------


## squidge

> So what you are saying is, should Alasdair Carmichael (assuming he is still the Orknsy and Shetland MP) request an independance referendum for Orkney and Shetland, you would fully expect it to be granted by our fist minister no problem at all?


Mi16, If Alisdair Carmichael stood for election on the manifesto that he would ask for a referendum and was elected with a majority then I would absolutely expect that it would be granted. And I would support the rights of the islanders to hold such a  vote. Why would I not? I don't think it's appropriate personally because Orkney and Shetland have never been  a nation in their own right. Just like I wouldn't think it's appropriate for Lancashire. However, if the majority voted to do that then why would I want to deny them the right to do that. I wouldn't. 

Interestingly the  argument that  Chock a Demus  makes about the oil just makes me shake my head. Aren't we being told the oil is running out? That it's a burden? That we aren't big enough of clever enough to make the oil revenue work for us? Then how will we fail without it? Wouldn't we be glad to give it away?  Make your minds up guys.

----------


## Chook a demus

Well if you'd like to research your history a wee bit better prior to the hadrians wall episode you'd be aware there was a king of Orkney so that would imply that it wasn't part of Scotland but an independent nation. You seem to wish to place your historical markers where it suits your argument best but not where they are factually correct. Bit of a school girl error don't you think ?It would also be respectful if you could at least ensure you get people names rights it's quite demeaning to make such an error for one who clams to be so right on at all times. Giving that a large part of the SNPs budgets are built on oil revenues and having read back through the threads at how vociferously you defend them almost to the point of sounding like a highly trained political activist, you may shake your head all you wish but the SNP is the one who is using oil and gas revenues to make independence look so attractive but apparently with your all seeing eye your telling us it makes no difference! Surely that's a bit like having your cake and eating it.  It matters when I want it to matter but when I say it doesn't well !!  I would suggest it's the YES camp who need to make their minds up but I guess that would mean having to actually use figures which tally up and make sense to the majority of the electorate.

----------


## Bobinovich

The figures *here* indicate that GDP per head even without oil & gas would be very similar to the rest of the UK...

----------


## squidge

Goodness me Chook ( I'll stick to that, wouldn't want to get a row for spelling it wrong again) your posts are so confrontational!!! Did I offend you in your previous existence? If I did I'm certainly sorry. You are ABSOLUTELY right -  Orkney reputedly had a king in AD43. That does indeed suggest that it might have been an independent nation at some point 2000 years ago. You use that historical marker if it suits you lol... I was simply expressing my own opinion. 

As for oil, well I don't think I said anything about oil but simply questioned why unionists seek to portray it as nothing.- a burden, running out next week, and far too complicated for an independent Scotland to manage  because we aren't clever enough and yet then get all worried  when you think  Orkney and Shetland will take it with them.

 I'm sorry my posts make you so grumpy - it must be really exhausting  :Frown:

----------


## mi16

> Orkney reputedly had a king in AD43. That does indeed suggest that it might have been an independent nation at some point 2000 years ago. You use that historical marker if it suits you lol... I was simply expressing my own opinion.


It was a fair and very valid point that Chook a demus made, if previous independance is a reason to have a current day referendum then it should not matter how far back it occurred.
After all, it wasnt exactly yesterday that Scotland were last an independant country.

----------


## squidge

Absolutely it was mi16.  Chook was absolutely right, however history is not a reason for a referendum. The ONLY reason to have a referendum is if the people of the area want one to the degree that they give their ELECTED representatives a mandate to ask for one. I expressed my own opinion that as  I thought Orkney and Shetland had never been an Independent Nation it isn't appropriate but I would  uphold their right to hold a referendum if they vote to do so. I am also happy to have my historical knowledge increased. Learning something new is always good.

----------


## mi16

> however history is not a reason for a referendum.


You did however cite history as a reason for a referendum to be inapropriate.

If say Joe Bloggs stodd as an independant for Orkney and Shetland with his manifesto stating he would go for independance for the Orkney and Shetland isles, and subsequently won.
I do not believe for one second that it would be granted by either Westminster or the Scottish Parliment.

----------


## Chook a demus

My point is that if the SNP are budgeting using oil and gas within their budgets then the removal of oil and gas from those budgets would create a massive deficit to the sum of many billions therefor not making an Independent Scotland as wealthy as we are being led to believe it will be. If Scotland becoming independent triggers a movement within the isles for independence then I feel the many things we are being promised by the first minister will not be deliverable.It doesn't make me grumpy or exhausted my my what a vivid imagination you have :0))

----------


## Rheghead

> My point is that if the SNP are budgeting using oil and gas within their budgets then the removal of oil and gas from those budgets would create a massive deficit to the sum of many billions therefor not making an Independent Scotland as wealthy as we are being led to believe it will be. If Scotland becoming independent triggers a movement within the isles for independence then I feel the many things we are being promised by the first minister will not be deliverable.It doesn't make me grumpy or exhausted my my what a vivid imagination you have :0))


I thought that was you no longer posting here?  Ithink you are a sock puppet.  Duke?

----------


## Chook a demus

Well I'm nae a  duke that's fer sure as for ta personal insults keep em tae yerself pal

----------


## orkneycadian

> Orkney reputedly had a king in AD43. That does indeed suggest that it might have been an independent nation at some point 2000 years ago.


Its a lot more recent than that.  Orkney and Shetland only became part of Scotland in 1468.  More than 150 years after William Wallace kicked the bucket!  In terms of the last 2000 years, Orkney and Shetland are not really very Scottish at all.  The only reason Eck and Nic want them to be is for the oil.  Whilst this is indeed declining in production fast, it will sustain 40 or 60 thousand islanders an awful lot longer than it will 4 and a half million Central Belters.

----------


## mi16

there are quite a few blocks that have not been explored yet also.

----------


## squidge

> Its a lot more recent than that.  Orkney and Shetland only became part of Scotland in 1468.  More than 150 years after William Wallace kicked the bucket!  In terms of the last 2000 years, Orkney and Shetland are not really very Scottish at all.  The only reason Eck and Nic want them to be is for the oil.  Whilst this is indeed declining in production fast, it will sustain 40 or 60 thousand islanders an awful lot longer than it will 4 and a half million Central Belters.


So... Are you going to stand then Orkneycadian? On a manifesto of a referendum for the Northern Isles?

----------


## Phill

> I don't think it's appropriate personally because Orkney and Shetland have never been  a nation in their own right. Just like I wouldn't think it's appropriate for Lancashire.


It all depends which bit of history you wish to use. Lancashire is effectively part of what was Scotland, well, under Celt control, since Roman times. So wee Eck should annex it as part of the Motherland once he assumes control and then he can claim the Morecambe Bay Gas fields too.

----------


## squidge

> Do these offensive pics of AS cary the official better together branding?


Seems like these "offensive pics" don't even need the UKOK branding when the stuff is on the cover of the New Statesman and is coming directly out of the mouth of Alistair Darling himself. Unsurprising to see a quick back pedal on the "blood and soil" comment Alistair Darling is alleged to have said. I hope that is true. If not then what on earth was he thinking.

However, it seems like he is in good company as Alex Salmond has been likened by various politicians to an assortment of murderous dictators by elected representatives and anti independence journalists.  Here is a list courtesy of Wingsoverscotland.com who says 

We’re not aware of any elected Nat representative or even pro-independence journalist ever having likened Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or Ed Miliband to Hitler, but the brave defenders of the Union have no such scruples


1. Slobodan Milosevic? YES. (Denis MacShane, Labour MP)
2. Benito Mussolini? YES. (Lord Foulkes, Labour peer)
3. Adolf Hitler? YES. (Tom Harris, Labour MP)
4. Adolf Hitler (again)? YES. (Ann Moffat, Labour MP)
5. Adolf Hitler (again)? YES. (David Starkey, Conservative historian)
6. Joseph Stalin? YES. (Alan Cochrane, the Telegraph)
7. Robert Mugabe? YES. (Lord Cormack, Conservative peer)
8. Robert Mugabe (again)? YES. (Jeremy Paxman, BBC)
9. Kim Jong-Il? YES. (Lord Forsyth, Conservative peer)
10. Caligula? YES. (John Macleod, the Times)
11. Nicolae Ceausescu? YES. (Neil Collins, the Financial Times)
12. Genghis Khan? YES. (Kevin McKenna, the Observer)
13. Nero? YES. (Annabel Goldie, Conservative MSP)


Anyone seen anymore?

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Yes, looks like they just ran out of any viable argument whatsoever, so decided to resort insults. So much for "positive" campaigning from the No side.

----------


## Chook a demus

Wingsoverscotland is  tha nae the bunch that has an advert banned from Glasgow underground for being racist 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...te-as-qracistq

complaint says website was racist and xenophobic.

Nice to see the sort of folks who openly support this sort of thing are tha same ones tryin ta convince us tae vote for em.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Thanks for that really old link, which was subsequently discredited on Twitter and Facebook, amongst others Try http://www.wingsoverscotland.com/wha...-darling-said/ Nobody is trying to convince you to vote for... em. I expect you'll find yourself doing that without any help at all.

----------


## Chook a demus

Aye so twitter n Facebook are credible sources I dinnae want tae sound stupid but I would nae give either of them credibility oer ma aunt morags gossiping oer tha garden wall. But Im nae gonna believe everything Wingsoverscotland say either cause I taken a look at ta website and it's full o gibberish. Mind we still know fae sure ole Alex admires vlad let's annex another country Putin.  United Soviet Scottish Republic mebbe if he gets his way. But there is one good thing if tha isles want a referendum like the SNP would be hypocrites to refuse as they stood aside in 1987 to let the party going fae independence have a run at it. An that time they got 14.5% of the vote

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Gibberish,yes....and I can only bow to an expert on gibberish. Do you actually live in Caithness, or Scotland?  Do you have any idea at all about any aspects of the debate? Who actually cares about the spin put on what Alex Salmond said about Putin? Alastair Darling has said yesterday that Scots voting for independence are Nazis - how do you spin that?

----------


## squidge

The accusation by Alistair Darling...  Or not..... Of Blood and Soil Nationalism Is a curious one for those opposing independence to make.

Many of the no voters have posted here in the past to express their unhappiness with the fact that Scottish born people living in the rest of the UK, and indeed the rest of the world do not have a vote. It's been something which has made many No voters here and elsewhere quite angry. I have seen posts here which express fury that I, as am English woman living in Scotland, have the right to vote on Independence, and yet a person born in Scotland but living in England cannot vote. 

In the same and other posts both here and elsewhere, I have seen that people are voting NO because Immigration is likely to be less strict in an Independent Scotland. It seems to be a bit off for No supporters to then accuse the YES campaign of racism and "blood and soil" Nationalism don't you think? 

It is NO supporters who seem to believe votes should be allowed on the grounds of Ethnicity and NO supporters who want closed borders and less immigration; it is no supporters who want Scotland and the UK out of Europe and isolated. Is it not therefore No supporters who are espousing an ethnic nationalism - completely at odds with the Civic independence movement of the YES campaign. A campaign which encourages EVERYONE living here in Scotland to vote on the future of the country they have chosen to live in regardless of their Ethnic Background, a campaign which is promoting an outward looking inclusive future for Scotland where immigrants will be encouraged and welcomed and where Scotland will take an active part in The EU. 

So I would say to anyone reading Alistair Darling's utter nonsense and that of some posters here who seem to have as many identities as I have socks that you should Look at these accusations of racism, xenophobia and "blood and soil" nationalism and see them for what they are - desperate and insulting and above all... No... Not scaremongering ... Lies... Simply lies ... And those uttering such drivel are liars of the worst type.

----------


## Chook a demus

I hadn't read the Alistair Darling thing so thought I'd check it out. I found this about the blood and soil comment.....


In the New Statesman interview, Mr Darling had originally been quoted as using the controversial phrase "blood-and-soil" about Scottish nationalism.The magazine later admitted the phrase had been used by the interviewer and issued a clarification, blaming a transcription error. A correction appeared online but the magazine has already gone to print.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Sad spin. It's already been described as an "incoherent comment" by the New Statesman, who are now panicking. It is actually a racist and derogatory statement on the electorate of Scotland, who cannot be trusted to see through the propanganda, because they are too thick and too racist to decide for themselves.

----------


## Chook a demus

Aye  sad spin from the Yes campaign to smear someone for words he never said! I'd say the derogatory comments are trying to put words into someone's mouth. Discussions on mass immigration arent racist it's those who try to make them seem it that way that are scaremongering. Mind from what I've seen cybernats troll this forum like crazy to dismiss anyone else's point of view ! Nae wonder the these threads are a wee bit quiet between yous two ya troll ta death anyone who mentions No. Mebbe yae  should kin its a discussion forum not a yes voters forum. I dinnae go to the meeting cause you were threatening  to be filming people and I find that mentality scarey and ominous. All your tryin to do is silence any voice that disagrees with yae about the subject and make it one sided

----------


## squidge

The print version of The New Statesman quotes Alistair Darling directly as saying "The SNP does not offer a civic nationalism . . . at heart it is blood-and-soil nationalism. If you ask any nationalist, ‘Are there any circumstances in which you would not vote to be independent?’ they would say the answer has got to be no. It is about how people define themselves through their national identity."

Even if he did not, as the New Statesman now says use that phrase directly, and I'm happy enough to believe them - then by saying that  it is about how people define themselves through their national identity and stating categorically that the SNP is not offering Civic Nationalism then he is clearly and unambiguously branding the SNP as "blood and soil" or Ethnic nationalism. 

Again I would refer you to the post I made above - votes for everyone living here, regardless of nationality, pro immigration, pro EU - how is that ethnicity based campaigning? 

He also says that this is about every YES voters national identity... Well, I'm English and British and that's MY national identity. I met with a group of women on Tuesday night, amongst us was a polish woman, an Asian woman, an American and an Israeli woman - all living here and entitled to vote. How is their decision to vote YES to independence about THEIR national identity?

 Chook throws words like racist, cybernat and troll around like Alistair Darling throws his garbled utterances around and with about as much truth as Darling too. All the bluff and bluster, mock outrage and name calling and insults cannot mask the fact that Alistair Darling lied....

----------


## Chook a demus

I haven't thrown the word racist around what I said is that a discussion about mass immigration isn't racist. You're trolling me squidge and I'm find it rather upsetting that every time I mention anything you attack me now your misquoting me and smearing me. You're rather scarey Im starting to feel like I can't say anything without you having a go at me.

----------


## squidge

Your words are there for all to see and I'm trying chook, really trying to comment on your posts in a way that won't upset or offend you. If I have moved from monstering to trolling then I must be getting better. Hopefully I will continue to improve.

----------


## Oddquine

> Wingsoverscotland is  tha nae the bunch that has an advert banned from Glasgow underground for being racist 
> 
> http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...te-as-qracistq
> 
> complaint says website was racist and xenophobic.
> 
> Nice to see the sort of folks who openly support this sort of thing are tha same ones tryin ta convince us tae vote for em.


Racist? _Racist?_ *Racist? * How is it being _racist_ to print a FACT (which had/has nothing to do with race), instead of lies and spin? What is racist about saying _There are 37 National or Daily newspapers in Scotland. Just five of them are owned in Scotland. None of the 37 supports Independence?   Wouldn't you at least like to hear both sides of the story? _

----------


## Oddquine

> Your words are there for all to see and I'm trying chook, really trying to comment on your posts in a way that won't upset or offend you. If I have moved from monstering to trolling then I must be getting better. Hopefully I will continue to improve.


I'm afraid you are better than I am, squidge. Such deliberate flaming from the very first post makes me not want to give a toss about upsetting or offending the chook!  A troll from the start.

----------


## Chook a demus

Here ya go the same wee group all backing each other up nothing but a bunch of peedie bullies.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

I doubt if anybody gives a toss what you are voting for. Well done for ruining another potential exchange of ideas. If you are an actual Scottish resident, don't forget to vote.

----------


## squidge

Its interesting  to wonder what the papers would be printing if Alex Salmond had made similar comments about David Cameron,

----------


## mi16

> Its interesting  to wonder what the papers would be printing if Alex Salmond had made similar comments about David Cameron,


I thought independence was nowt to d with fat boy or the PM

----------


## squidge

Of course it is "to do " with them it is, however not ABOUT either of them  ::

----------


## Tubthumper

> I thought independence was nowt to d with fat boy or the PM


You love Cameron don't you? You prefer posh English Etonians to Scottish people. Wow that's strange. 
And haven't you heard that using terms like 'fat boy' are immature and not very PC these days?

----------


## mi16

> You love Cameron don't you? You prefer posh English Etonians to Scottish people. Wow that's strange. 
> And haven't you heard that using terms like 'fat boy' are immature and not very PC these days?


Apologies, in future I will refer to him as the rotund gentleman.
I have never claimed to be PC.
I do not evaluate a person based on their nationality or social standing, I could not care less if a person is from Islington or Iraq and their place of education matters not either.
I do not think I have spoke in support of the PM have I?

----------


## Tubthumper

> Apologies, in future I will refer to him as the rotund gentleman.I have never claimed to be PC.I do not evaluate a person based on their nationality or social standing, I could not care less if a person is from Islington or Iraq and their place of education matters not either.I do not think I have spoke in support of the PM have I?


 OK then that's fine.

----------


## squidge

> Apologies, in future I will refer to him as the rotund gentleman.I have never claimed to be PC.I do not evaluate a person based on their nationality or social standing, I could not care less if a person is from Islington or Iraq and their place of education matters not either.I do not think I have spoke in support of the PM have I?


Do you evaluate them based on how fat you think they are?

----------


## mi16

> Do you evaluate them based on how fat you think they are?


 Nah their obesity is purely for poking fun at.

----------


## piratelassie

I will be ashamed to admit that I'm Scottish if we dont get the " yes" vote, as we will be the only country in history that has'nt voted for its own independence. Ok it will take time to sort out all the financis etc., after all Rome was'nt built in a day, but think long term, and let Westminster look after England , and us look after our own !

----------


## mi16

Yeah, stick to calling yourself British instead then

----------


## orkneycadian

> ...as we will be the only country in history that has'nt voted for its own independence.


Really?

Do you think that even if this were true, that there might be a reason for it?

----------


## squidge

So today we had the audio recording of Alistair Darlings interview with the New Statesman released and published on line. 

I was delighted to hear that it was the interviewer who actually said those words but quickly dismayed by Alistair Darlings response.

 The excerpt starts with the interviewer saying that Alex Salmond had rebranded the SNP as Civic Nationalism to which Alistair Darling says "it's not". Then when the interviewer asked "what is it? Blood and soil nationalism Alistair Darling says "yea ... At heart" he then goes on to say that it is about National identity. 

Well Alistair. My national identity is English and glad to be so. How does that make me a "blood and soil nationalist at heart"? 

You can hear it on www.NewsnetScotland.com. 

I don't really know what to say, other that this man, this educated man, just branded me, and everyone else who has voted SNP,who supports a YES vote as bad as the Nazis. How to win friends and influence people eh?

----------


## Phill

I find today's response to a lady's donation to the YES vote quite interesting too. Quite the bitch it would seem, apparently there are now to be pyres of burning books!  ::

----------


## squidge

Lol... You been paddling around in the twitter sphere gutters Phil?
And yet in the REAL world this is the attitude of the majority of YES voters shared over 3000 times and 40000 views in 3 hours  :Smile:  

Dear J.K. Rowling,

I was saddened to read your blog post about your reasons for supporting the Better Together campaign. I was dismayed to read your fears that a minority of nationalists will consider you ‘insufficiently Scottish’ to have a valid view. Yes, there are extreme views on either side of the debate, but they are in the minority.It is healthy for any democracy that the great literary figures of a nation feel able to express their views with such clarity. People such as yourself hold influence across our society and your words have brought hope and joy to children and adults not just here but across the world.

 I hope your expression here allows more women to feel able to engage constructively in our debate.

I would not call myself a nationalist. I would not call myself an anti-nationalist either: it makes no sense to me to define myself in such negative terms. The nationalism I feel comfortable with is a civic nationalism, a welcoming narrative, a politics of inclusion where all those who choose to live here, on this part of the planet, are welcome. The kind of nationalism that makes you deeply uncomfortable – an ethnic nationalism, a politics of exclusion – makes me deeply uneasy too. Yes, nations are fictions; they are stories created out of the imagination of humans. This debate for me is not about where you come from, or the ‘purity of your lineage’, it’s about the direction we want to take as a society. It’s about the story we choose to believe in.

I appreciate that there are legitimate concerns with independence. Yes, a 21st century Scotland faces the same pressures as all nations across the world. Of course there are huge risks with independence, and we would be foolish not to appreciate the serious nature of these. For me, the opportunities far outweigh the risks. Like many others, I have to believe that we can do better.

I would never pretend to have an answer to your personal fears about medical research. Scottish universities and research are amongst the best on the planet, and there’s no reason why we can’t continue to excel after independence, and there’s no reason why we can’t continue to work with others internationally. In the 21st century, knowledge doesn’t restrict itself to borders. Unlike you, I have no doubts that cross-border NHS treatment will continue after independence. To quote Dr Khan, “As a doctor, I do not ask if a patient is Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh. Doctors treat patients, not nationalities.”

Neither do I share your confidence about devolution post-No. Yes, devolution has protected us from what is being done to public services south of the border: a systematic destruction of the NHS, welfare and education. A free health service, a welfare system and free education for all is absolutely vital for the flourishing of society. The only possible means to protect what is vital is to vote Yes.And Yes, I understand your frustration and suspicion of the Yes campaign’s never-ending smiles and rainbows. 

But this is politics: the Yes campaign is forced into a situation where it cannot be seen to admit any flaws in its argument. It is the positive polemic to the No campaign’s relentless negativity. But look beyond Alex Salmond’s veneer, beyond the official campaign. There are the official campaigns with all the trappings of political manipulation and maneuvering, and there is the unofficial grassroots campaign of many colours. Like never before, we are witnessing a flourishing of ideas, and outpouring of passion and energy, where reasoned, intelligent political thinking beyond each side’s rhetoric and propaganda can be found.

The campaign you see is not the campaign I see. I see a generation of people who are not afraid, who speak articulately, passionately about the possibilities of a better future. I am struck on a daily basis by the goodwill, kindness, open-mindedness, generosity, inspiration, intelligence, creativity, humility and sheer dedication of all of those giving their everything to this campaign. My own involvement has been one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life. Of course, we don’t all agree on our political vision, but we do have one thing in common: we have the desire to work together towards a better future.

To be asked, ‘what kind of country do you want to live in?’ is the most wonderful gift. Many people have empowered themselves with knowledge. They are actively engaged, not passively accepting of the status quo. They could have chosen to remain “comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how things might be improved.” They could remain switched off. Now we frequently overhear the #indyref discussed passionately at the taxi rank at 3 o’clock in the morning on a Friday night; in the chippy queue; at the hairdressers. It is being discussed by high school leavers: full of hope, full of promise for life and all the joy and wonders and pain it brings.
This referendum question has sparked the imagination of the nation. J.K. Rowling, I do not need to extol to you the virtues and the power of the imagination.

I am reminded of reading a speech you gave in 2008 to a class of Harvard graduates. I had just begun researching for my PhD (on the power of imagination, the power of story). I found your speech to be honest, inspiring, and true.“The way you vote, the way you live, the way you protest, the pressure you bring to bear on your government, has an impact way beyond your borders. That is your privilege, and your burden.”This rings true J.K. Rowling, for me and the countless others who have dedicated themselves to this campaign. 

I do not believe that independence will be easy or will somehow magically cure society’s problems. What this historical moment provides us with is an unmatched opportunity to participate in the writing of our own future. We have a chance to liberate ourselves from the stranglehold of austere Westminster politics and lead by example. We must ask ourselves, what really matters?

This is campaign is about hope over fear. J.K. Rowling, to quote your own words,“What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.That is an astonishing statement and yet proven a thousand times every day of our lives”We need a new story to live by. A friend of mine reminded me of this beautiful poem by Maurice Lindsay. Scotland is an attitude of mind.“We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.”In your own words: As is a tale, so is life: not how long it is, but how good it is, is what matters.We would be delighted to extend an invitation to yourself to attend one of the many Yestival events taking place across Scotland this July. Our ‘Imagine a Better Scotland’ event at Summerhall in Edinburgh between the 9th and 12th of July promises to be a series of inspiring and engaging events for everyone who attends. We’d be thrilled to see you there

Marie McFadyen
@MJMcFadyen
National 

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/0...o-j-k-rowling/

----------


## Phill

:: 
More long winded rambly cobblers telling her she's a stupid bint. More than 140 C's though, suppose that's summit'.

----------


## squidge

That sort of language does nothing to help the debate. Most of it is mysoginistic  claptrap and thankfully not evident of what's happening in the debate outside of twitter on EITHER side. Even Facebook is not so bad as twitter. It's made me feel like I need a wash today. Both sides of the debate TBH - this morning my weekly count was 2 traitors, 3 nazis and half a dozen c's tonight it's still 2 traitors, 7 nazis, 11 c's and some rather imaginative suggestions with a hairbrush. I am always relieved to resurface in the real world to find that people are much better than I fear.

----------


## Phill

The Lotto couple that gave dosh to the Indy campaign have had a load of abuse as well, in the real world.
There's no debate left now. Just lies and abuse.

It'll get interesting in October.

----------


## squidge

Indeed they did Phil. You know though, There is Plenty of debate Phil, but it's in the real world, not on twitter or on Facebook except occasionally. If anyone is wanting to get really good debate, conversation or information then I would strongly urge them to go to events for both sides or engage with both sides at local stalls. I have been part of several women's events which have included yes, no and don't knows. No guest speakers, people talk to each other about the issues which are important to them and they have been lively events full of information, respectful and humerous. Really really enjoyable. At one Kiltarlity event, a lady - a no voter - came along "because the camera club isn't on tonight". She took a very active part in the conversations, she was fab. At the end of the evening she said that despite the fact that she didn't agree with us, it had been fantastic to see so many women talking so passionately and intelligently about politics. Get along to whatever you can and make yourself informed about both sides, take part in the real debate - it's exciting to be part of it.

----------


## rob murray

> Indeed they did Phil. You know though, There is Plenty of debate Phil, but it's in the real world, not on twitter or on Facebook except occasionally. If anyone is wanting to get really good debate, conversation or information then I would strongly urge them to go to events for both sides or engage with both sides at local stalls. I have been part of several women's events which have included yes, no and don't knows. No guest speakers, people talk to each other about the issues which are important to them and they have been lively events full of information, respectful and humerous. Really really enjoyable. At one Kiltarlity event, a lady - a no voter - came along "because the camera club isn't on tonight". She took a very active part in the conversations, she was fab. At the end of the evening she said that despite the fact that she didn't agree with us, it had been fantastic to see so many women talking so passionately and intelligently about politics. Get along to whatever you can and make yourself informed about both sides, take part in the real debate - it's exciting to be part of it.


WOuld tend to agree, one thing this scenario has done has reawakened interest in politics by a large chunk of the general populace, post vote, if its a yes then I would expect more interest and scrutiny going forward .Because of polls, Yessers / NOers are now increasingly concerned over the position and suspected inactivtity 
of the de politicised / non voters in the comming vote. Imagine a narrow yes win because some couldnt care lessers couldnt be bothered voting eh ! Well thats democracy but what a situation that would be.

----------


## richardj

Scottish referendum poll tracker - Interested BBC page www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker 

Still a lot of undecided (or will they just not bother to vote?)

----------


## orkneycadian

Its beyond me what all the fuss is about over this "blood and soil" malarky.  I have had some prime words hurled at me for bringing in blood and soil on my boots after burying a ewe, but I don't think it had anything to do with any Nazi's.   ::

----------


## mi16

> Scottish referendum poll tracker - Interested BBC page www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker Still a lot of undecided (or will they just not bother to vote?)


 Just need 5% to side with the No campaign and we are home and dried

----------


## Rheghead

Latest opinion poll puts Yes campaign at 48% No 52% with the Don't Knows stripped out 50/50.  But research shows that D/Ks vote Yes when pressed for an answer by 2:1 which means there will be an independent Scotland.

----------


## mi16

> Latest opinion poll puts Yes campaign at 48% No 52% with the Don't Knows stripped out 50/50.  But research shows that D/Ks vote Yes when pressed for an answer by 2:1 which means there will be an independent Scotland.


 That contradicts the bbc poll tracker, according to them even with the fence sitters splitting 2/1 in favour of yes they have it with no.The thing is when it comes to the day some will vote differently than they posted in the polls.

----------


## Rheghead

> That contradicts the bbc poll tracker, according to them even with the fence sitters splitting 2/1 in favour of yes they have it with no.The thing is when it comes to the day some will vote differently than they posted in the polls.


Then I think you need to find out what the latest poll is and use some maths.

----------


## mi16

> Then I think you need to find out what the latest poll is and use some maths.


 I couldn't really give a monkeys

----------


## Rheghead

> I couldn't really give a monkeys


Then why the continual No vote slant?

----------


## mi16

> Then why the continual No vote slant?


I couldn't give a monkeys about which poll says what or which is the latest.
the no is a constant

----------


## Oddquine

> Then why the continual No vote slant?


Because the lady, or gentleman, is not for turning?  I have found, through experience, that many no voters on forums, and elsewhere, only engage in "debate" to try to stop yes voters engaging in debate in other places.  I have put many on ignore in the last few months in various places and now rarely interact with adamant no voters (don't even try to convert my three cousins who intend to vote no), because, while I may well tell them something they don't know....I can't tell them anything to which they will listen, unless I say Union good..independence and Alex Salmond bad!

----------


## mi16

> Because the lady, or gentleman, is not for turning?  I have found, through experience, that many no voters on forums, and elsewhere, only engage in "debate" to try to stop yes voters engaging in debate in other places.  I have put many on ignore in the last few months in various places and now rarely interact with adamant no voters (don't even try to convert my three cousins who intend to vote no), because, while I may well tell them something they don't know....I can't tell them anything to which they will listen, unless I say Union good..independence and Alex Salmond bad!


why would you try to "convert" a person from their way of thinking to yours?

----------


## squidge

She just said she doesn't

----------


## mi16

> She just said she doesn't


 Indeed, perhaps I picked that up wrongI presumed that by stating she didn't even try to persuade her cousins she was reporting by exception.My apologies if I got that wrong.

----------


## Gronnuck

> Latest opinion poll puts Yes campaign at 48% No 52% with the Don't Knows stripped out 50/50.  But research shows that D/Ks vote Yes when pressed for an answer by 2:1 which means there will be an independent Scotland.


I have to agree with you *Rheghead*. As a fence-sitter I will admit to being drawn to 'Yes' vote when pressed. I tend to look beyond the referendum and Alex Salmond to the 2016 election when we, the electorate, can start to make a difference. There are a number of issues that have influenced my thinking, not least the negativity displayed by the 'No' campaigners; they should have known never to tell a Scot he/she cannot do something because invariably he/she will do so just to prove you wrong.

----------


## orkneycadian

When I was peedie, my folk told me not to jump in the slurry tank, as I would drown.  I can't say I have ever felt the need to do it to try and prove them wrong....

Perhaps that means that we here in the isles are not Scots after all, and should therefore secede from Scotland in the unlikely event of a Yes vote?   :Wink:

----------


## Liz

> When I was peedie, my folk told me not to jump in the slurry tank, as I would drown.  I can't say I have ever felt the need to do it to try and prove them wrong....
> 
> Perhaps that means that we here in the isles are not Scots after all, and should therefore secede from Scotland in the unlikely event of a Yes vote?


Do you not think that being ruled by Westminster we are already in the slurry tank?

----------


## orkneycadian

Well, I have still not drowned, as far as I am aware!  :Wink:

----------


## squidge

You maybe haven't Orkneycadian but actually many people are.  Seems like for some the only things keeping them afloat are Foodbanks.

----------


## Liz

I fear that many who are not already in the 'slurry tank' may be pushed into it if we continue to let Westminster govern us.  How sad that we need food banks!!!

We have the chance to never have a Tory government in power again.  For this reason alone it is worth voting for independence.

----------


## orkneycadian

> You maybe haven't Orkneycadian but actually many people are.  Seems like for some the only things keeping them afloat are Foodbanks.


Reported on Radio Scotland today that Glaswegians "invest" half a million pounds per day in Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.  Thats not counting all the other money they bet over the counter in the bookies, in the puggie down the pub, the bingo, the online betting and the rip off TV channels.

I don't think Westminster policies can be blamed for the resulting increase in foodbank use, with that level of frittering away of money going on.  Unless that is, Westminster brought in a bill to turn every third high street shop into a bookies, and make it compulsory for city residents to frequent them.

----------


## squidge

Ahhhh Orkneycadian and the "undeserving poor". Never mind that in Glasgow and surrounding areas working people gamble too. Or maybe you think gambling is something only people on benefits do.

Meanwhile people are having to wait a year for their Employment Support Allowance, are still dying and committing suicide when their benefits are stopped and still having sanctions imposed that should never have been imposed in the first place. 

I'll post this here again with no apologies and no expectation that you will watch it Orkneycadian but someone else might and have their eyes opened. 

Introducing Dennis from Loaves and fishes who gave evidence to the Scottish Government on Foodbanks

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZMwp1elXw

----------


## orkneycadian

Au contraire Squidge.  But I did get fed up of the repetition by about 8 minutes and pulled the plug....

Moans about folk that go for an interview / work trial and are not successful / not suitable, complaining that they don't get paid.  Since when did people get paid their time for going to an interview?

Does this mean that if you now go into a shop and try on a pair of shoes, but they are not suitable, you have to pay the hire of the shoes for the time you had them on?

As the proportion of the population that don't want to fend for themselves increases, whilst the proportion that are trying to support them dwindles, then the problem will only get worse.

----------


## golach

I have to agree with Orkneycadian, that video was boring and repetative. I am a pensioner so I do not consider myself wealthy by any means, I have never starved in my life. I was brought up as a farm labourers son, yes we were poor, but we never had luxuries such as TV, my father never gambled, rarely went to the pub. I as the eldest child scored I rarely had to wear hand me downs, but my siblings had too, as a farm loon, it was mandatory to work at the harvests, the Peas, the Berries, and the Tatties, all hard graft, the monies earned went into the family purse, to buy school and winter clothes When I became a parent, I was a postman as my sons went to school, my wife used to meet me at 7am in the street to get my wages from me, to buy the kids their breakfast, ( I was paid at 6am ), my wife ( the banker) then divided my paltry wage in to the relevant tins, ie Rent, Power, insurance , and HP , what was left fed us for the week. Our only vice we both smoked.We never had to claim any subsistence from the government, it was a shame in those days not an entitlement as it seems to be now.Ok there was not a bookies shop on every corner with dozens on one armed bandits in them, and no Jenny Awe thing shops selling cheap booze on the other corners. HP credit was hard to get then not like now. Needs of parents today differ from my day, ie white goods in the kitchen, my mother never needed them, TV's in every room , kids with all the electronic gadgets you can name. But why do they have to go to food banks? I would means test all, do you smoke? How many TV's have you got? How many time a week do you go to the pub / bingo?  Food banks!! I don't need them!!

----------


## squidge

Golach, I am TRULY glad that you don't.

 I don't either.

 But you know what that does not prevent me for feeling angry because other people do.

 1 million people are waiting for ESA, PErsonal Independence Payments for disabled people are taking so long that people can't manage, the system is failing those with mental health problems because it is not assessing them properly, leaving them penniless and reliant on Foodbanks. Something like 70% of appeals against decisions to disallow benefit lead to those decisions being overturned because they were wrong but it leaves the person without money for, often months. 

Carers are being told they have to relocate if they can't afford the bedroom tax, sometimes miles away, one case this week was reported where a carer was told to relocate from London to Birmingham. What happens to the mother with dementia, the father who has had a stroke, the sister with mental health issues? The answer is that the carer doesn't relocate, they take the hit, they rely on Foodbanks and as well as the stress of caring they have the stress of running up arrears and homelessness. 

Foodbanks are a shocking indictment of the last 30 years of cuts to the welfare system and the last 10 years of greedy, immoral politicians and the media placing the blame for economic downturns at the feet of those with least power, least influence and least voice. 

There was a march in London yesterday against austerity, thousands marched. It has been completely ignored by all media except the Guardian. You know why? It doesn't fit the stereotype that they want to portray. 

We are not all in this together.
Many of us would like to change the system, change society's view, support people to get off benefits and out of the soul destroying misery that can engulf people with no hope.  But the rest? Too many have the same view as  Orkneycadian. That it's ok to be Standing on the sidelines pointing and laughing at those who are struggling the most.

----------


## Rheghead

It is laughable really.  We are told by the Better Together campaign that voting Yes is too 'risky' yet voting No means more austerity and poverty.  

It seems to me they're saying "You don't have to face your worst fears if you vote No, by the way, here is your _worst fear_."

----------


## Phill

> There was a march in London yesterday against austerity, thousands marched. It has been completely ignored by all media except the Guardian. You know why? It doesn't fit the stereotype that they want to portray.


Wasn't this one of the guys who was speaking....... to the poor people, telling them the rich people woz robbing them?

----------


## squidge

The conservative Press Office for the North of England tonight tweeted "sick of Benefit Scroungers? Vote Tory for the first time we have capped them. Labour let them get out of control"

Rachel Reeves today said there was no way that they weren't as hard as the Tories after all they are saying a further £165 million of cuts from the young and the elderly will be taken from the welfare budget. 


They are having a peeing contest with people's lives ...  It's really unpleasant.

----------


## Rheghead

> The conservative Press Office for the North of England tonight tweeted "sick of Benefit Scroungers? Vote Tory for the first time we have capped them. Labour let them get out of control"
> 
> Rachel Reeves today said there was no way that they weren't as hard as the Tories after all they are saying a further £165 million of cuts from the young and the elderly will be taken from the welfare budget. 
> 
> 
> They are having a peeing contest with people's lives ...  It's really unpleasant.


Well it seems they have deleted their own tweet.  Once they start doing that then you know they are in a flap.

----------


## Rheghead

George Osborne's daft comments re. creating a 'northern powerhouse' just shows how far the UK Government's own horizons fall short for the rest of Britain.  Just a little bit north of Leeds so it seems.

----------


## tonkatojo

> George Osborne's daft comments re. creating a 'northern powerhouse' just shows how far the UK Government's own horizons fall short for the rest of Britain.  Just a little bit north of Leeds so it seems.


They didn't do map reading (orienteering) at his posh school it would appear, I am surprised he would think of Leeds as that is north of Manchester where the north ends for tory, spin him around twice and he wouldn't know his way home without his perk limo.

----------


## Phill

Don't be too harsh on poor Gideon. He does, after all, have that very northern and austerely poor Tatton constituency.
Poor beggar.

----------


## tonkatojo

> Don't be too harsh on poor Gideon. He does, after all, have that very northern and austerely poor Tatton constituency.
> Poor beggar.




Not even two thirds of the way up the length of England, He doesn't realise the amount of England left before he hits the border. As for North of that Well we all know about.

----------


## Rheghead

The Isle of Mann government has just tweeted David Cameron to correct a map that shows The IoM as part of the UK.  That is one part of the British Isles that is fiercely proud to be not part of the UK.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Wasn't this one of the guys who was speaking....... to the poor people, telling them the rich people woz robbing them?


This astute bit of posting, Phill, seems to have been totally wasted on the socialists, who seem to be quite happy to ignore it.  Just like when Piratelassie pitches a statement into a thread, then runs away from the resulting debate in case it reveals something she doesn't want to hear.

----------


## Phill

Either that or I'm on everyones ignore list. But then, I'd ignore me too.

----------


## squidge

Lol Phil. I'm sorry you feel like you're on ignore. I have spent the last week preparing (sewing) for and appearing the BannockburnLive. See if you can spot my lovely daughter on the Daily Record pictures of what was a sell out event. A few issues with queuing but it seems to have been accepted as a success.

As for rich people like Russell Brand appearing against austerity measures, why is that a problem. I know a lot of folk who would like to paint the "socialists" as anti rich but the truth is never that simple. Rich or poor, celebrity fool or ordinary person the way we treat the sick disabled, vulnerable today and target them with austerity measures is wrong  :Smile:

----------


## Phill

> As for rich people like Russell Brand appearing against austerity measures, why is that a problem.


Because it annoys me that multi millionaire businessmen like Brand, use various means of avoiding tax, legally or questionably. Either in the UK or the US, whichever is more favorable to their ends.
And then use the guise of their concerns for austerity to increase their own public image thus furthering their Book, DVD, Film sales etc.

These, like the Owen Jones & the Ed Milibands pray on the 'poor' to con them into thinking they care whilst all the while use the system to increase their own wealth.

It's the hypocrisy of these people that is the problem. They need 'poor' people to keep them in business.

----------


## mi16

> Because it annoys me that multi millionaire businessmen like Brand, use various means of avoiding tax, legally or questionably. Either in the UK or the US, whichever is more favorable to their ends.And then use the guise of their concerns for austerity to increase their own public image thus furthering their Book, DVD, Film sales etc.These, like the Owen Jones & the Ed Milibands pray on the 'poor' to con them into thinking they care whilst all the while use the system to increase their own wealth.It's the hypocrisy of these people that is the problem. They need 'poor' people to keep them in business.


 What tax avoidance scheme has Russell brand been involved in?

----------


## Phill

Seemingly investors in his production company get tax breaks. Nothing illegal, it is after all good business.

----------


## mi16

> Seemingly investors in his production company get tax breaks. Nothing illegal, it is after all good business.


Why would it annoy you then?
Do you invest in a pension scheme at all?

----------


## squidge

> Because it annoys me that multi millionaire businessmen like Brand, use various means of avoiding tax, legally or questionably. Either in the UK or the US, whichever is more favorable to their ends.
> And then use the guise of their concerns for austerity to increase their own public image thus furthering their Book, DVD, Film sales etc.
> 
> These, like the Owen Jones & the Ed Milibands pray on the 'poor' to con them into thinking they care whilst all the while use the system to increase their own wealth.
> 
> It's the hypocrisy of these people that is the problem. They need 'poor' people to keep them in business.


Ahhh - if your point is that there is hypocrisy in doing this to further ones own business or career whilst cynically avoiding tax then I absolutely agree but the mere fact that A rich person stands up and opens his mouth in support of a cause like this isnt an issue in itself and doesnt detract from the message.

----------


## Rheghead

Something to think about.

----------


## mi16

Regarding point 2, I believe salmond will fall on his sword when the no vote is returned.

----------


## golach

> Something to think about.


Point 7 is a very dodgy yes vote Rheg, according to the latest polls, have above to see the one on the Org lol

----------


## Rheghead

Latest opinion poll puts Tories surging ahead of Labour by 2%.  Looks like we will get another Tory government with big majority in 2015.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-cont...ull-tables.pdf

----------


## Phill

> Why would it annoy you then?
> Do you invest in a pension scheme at all?


Because the guy is a multimillionaire businessman using the tax system in multiple countries to his personal advantage, selling his 'media persona' whilst trying to pass himself off as one of the 'poor' downtrodden masses.
Effectively a rich man using the 'poor' for his personal gain.
A hypocrite.

----------


## mi16

> Because the guy is a multimillionaire businessman using the tax system in multiple countries to his personal advantage, selling his 'media persona' whilst trying to pass himself off as one of the 'poor' downtrodden masses.
> Effectively a rich man using the 'poor' for his personal gain.
> A hypocrite.


has he ever actually claimed to be poor or downtrodden?
I don't see how he gains from the poor either to be honest.

----------


## Oddquine

> Latest opinion poll puts Tories surging ahead of Labour by 2%.  Looks like we will get another Tory government with big majority in 2015.
> 
> http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-cont...ull-tables.pdf


To be fair, we'll get another Tory government even if Nulabour are the biggest Party.....can't get a thin sheet of cheap toilet paper between their policies nowadays, after all.

----------


## Oddquine

> Regarding point 2, I believe salmond will fall on his sword when the no vote is returned.


No he won't....why would he?  He will be first minister until May 2016...and the fight for independence will begin again from 19th September 2014!  ::

----------


## Phill

If Scotland says Nae & there's a Tory Govt in 2015, as some polls predict, there may well be a revolution. Mr Salmond may well be doing his Mel Gibson bit yet.

----------


## Phill

> has he ever actually claimed to be poor or downtrodden?
> I don't see how he gains from the poor either to be honest.


Listen to some of his recent interviews, and his _opulent_ use of the language. Whist he is getting air time he earns, that's his business, however he's spinning it from the angle of being one of the 'poor' cast aside by the capitalist rich.
As far as I'm concerned he's just another champagne socialist cashing in.

----------


## mi16

> No he won't....why would he?


Because he would have failed and he would be seen to all as a failure.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Latest opinion poll puts Tories surging ahead of Labour by 2%.  Looks like we will get another Tory government with big majority in 2015.
> 
> http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-cont...ull-tables.pdf


A random barking dog, on the pavement, would "surge" ahead of labour by 2%...... Ed Milliband and his speech impediment is not a leader, he is a total liability.  Surely labour have someone that can actually "speak" in a non spastic way?

----------


## golach

> If Scotland says Nae & there's a Tory Govt in 2015, as some polls predict, there may well be a revolution. Mr Salmond may well be doing his Mel Gibson bit yet.


 Oh no, I could not face seeing Eck bare backside, seeing his smug face is enough for me

----------


## squidge

Jeez Tangerine-Dream you are charming tonight. What on earth do you mean by "a non-spastic way"? Ed milliband is not a total liability because of how he speaks but because he leads a party which has no direction, no original policies and no idea!

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

He may have been a fat, bald, git but he had a good way with words!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQwa73KXbs

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

This is a true leader and a leader with balls!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTRL_QraUrA

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

He is a Spaz (Milliband)..... I don't need to expain why........  it's self evident.

----------


## Phill

An uber Spaz being played by Umunna.

----------


## Phill

> Oh no, I could not face seeing Eck bare backside, seeing his smug face is enough for me


Mr Salmond is barebacking who?  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> Because he would have failed and he would be seen to all as a failure.


So Cameron is going to resign if we vote YES...as he'll have failed to save the Union, then?   Think he has already said he won't.

How is it a failure by Salmond, anyway, to get us, the people, our very first say _ever_ on membership of this this Union?  How is it _his_ failure because the No Better Together Thanks MPs from Scotland have spent the last 300 years troughing it up in Westminster on the taxpayers' dime, helping them colonise us....and three years hasn't been enough time to rid enough of us of our almost ingrained 300 year old Stockholm Syndrome type cringe factor?

----------


## golach

> Mr Salmond is barebacking who?


Eck if he follows Mel Gibson doing his bit.  ::

----------


## squidge

It makes no difference whether Alec Salmond stays or goes or whether David Cameron stays or goes. If there is a no vote then things will continue to get harder for the poor, the weak, the vulnerable, Foodbanks will increase and Britain will become more isolated as we back away from Europe - referendum on the EU or not. Trident will remain where it is and we will contribute more than any suggested cost of Independence to a High Speed Rail link which will come as far as Birmingham. We appear to be heading for a Tory win in 2015 as Labour are trailing in the polls and lack any real direction. There will remain no opportunity for changing any of these things as our political parties all sing from the same sheet. That remains the case whether Alex Salmond remains  in post or not. 

If we vote yes, we have the opportunity to do something different. A fairer welfare system, a stronger relationship with the EU, policies which focus on Scotland's priorities and address issues and the needs of people here. Housing, tax, defence, welfare, health will all truly be under Scotland's control in a way none of them, including devolved issues are today. This will also be the same whether David Cameron steps down. 

Alex Salmond and David Cameron and their respective careers are not reasons for voting either way.

----------


## Phill

Why go for independence only to be ruled by the EU?
It's an oxymoron.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

You don't think we're already "ruled by the EU" like Germany, France and all the other European countries? At least with independence, *we* get to decide whether or not we remain in the EU, and are not told by Westminster whether or not we will be. I am yet to be convinced myself, but a lot of jobs and businesses in Scotland depend on our EU membership. Like everything else in this debate, once we are an independent country again, we can vote for whoever puts up a candidate who meets our political aspirations. If you want to leave the EU, vote for the party which supports leaving the EU. At least we get a chance to vote for ourselves as a country, and will not have our opinions completely overrun by voters in the South East of England.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> At least with independence, *we* get to decide whether or not we remain in the EU, and are not told by Westminster whether or not we will be.


Incorrect! "we" have no say in the matter....... it's up to the EU to decide whether or not it will let "us" in  :Wink:  As an independent Scotland "we" will be removed from the EU and will have to apply to become part of the EU. Scotland is not in the EU at the moment.... the "United Kingdom" is. As soon as / IF Scotland chooses to go independent then bang goes our EU membership.

There's no guarantee that Scotland will be accepted when they apply to be a member of the EU (if an independent Scotland chooses to go down that route) and there is also uncertainty that "we" will be able to keep the pound.

"we" are basically voting to go into no man's land if "we" vote YES and that could have disastrous results for all of us. It could also turn out to be the best thing Scotland has ever done BUT it's a gamble we are taking.... there are no certainties..... voting "Yes" is like buying a pie from an unknown source.... it may promise "steak" on the label but you could also end up eating minced horse.

I prefer sticking with the butchers I already know  :Wink:

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Housing, tax, defence, welfare, health will all truly be under Scotland's control


And that is what worries me!!!

Bang goes the National Health service, bang goes the army, the navy, the air force, bang goes welfare but up goes tax.

I suppose you believe that an independent Scotland will "as if by magic" regain the pound, remain part of the NHS, remain part of the welfare state, remain part of the UK defence force, keep the pound and also be accepted into the EU?

If not, then who is going to pay for a Scottish defence force, a Scottish National Health Service, a welfare system etc. etc. etc. (the list is endless) ?! 

Your type talk a good game but when it comes to scoring goals you don't even know how to kick a ball.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Ed milliband is not a total liability because of how he speaks but because he leads a party which has no direction, no original policies and no idea!


Much like the SNP then.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> If there is a no vote then things will continue to get harder for the poor, the weak, the vulnerable, Foodbanks will increase and Britain will become more isolated as we back away from Europe.


Is that "fact" based on extensive research or just a load of old tosh spouted out of your mouth, as usual?

----------


## squidge

> And that is what worries me!!!Bang goes the National Health service, bang goes the army, the navy, the air force, bang goes welfare but up goes tax.I suppose you believe that an independent Scotland will "as if by magic" regain the pound, remain part of the NHS, remain part of the welfare state, remain part of the UK defence force, keep the pound and also be accepted into the EU?


So, for your list .... I'm not sure how we "regain" the pound whilst keeping the pound but I would prefer an Independent Scotland has a new currency. Remaining part of the NHS is impossible as Scotland's NHS has always been seperate. All the countries of the UK have independent health services. Independence will offer Scotland the opportunity to properly fund our NHS as we won't have a reducing Barnett Formula. See TD the Barnett Formula reduces as the amount spent on public services in the rest of the UK reduces which impacts on Scotland's ability to protect the NHS from the worst of the privatisation we see in England. 

As for "remaining part of the Welfare state" an Independent Scotland will be able to change the Welfare State to meet the priorities of Scotland. In an Independent Scotland the Welfare state will stand alone and we will have the opportunity to improve it and alter it, pensions, benefits as we need to in order to meet the needs of Scotland's people. Things like not having to set aside money to pay the bedroom tax as a nation but being able to abolish it; it means not having to increase the pension age but choosing to implement our own rules; it means focusing on finding jobs for unemployed young people rather than punishing them by denying them benefits. 

Next, the UK does not have a defence force, it has armed Services. An Independent Scotland will have its own seperate defence force. The plans are for around 15 000 personnel with more money spent on defence in an Insependent Scotland than is currently spent here by the MOD. Ironically that will actually deliver a saving on the amount Scotland currently contributes. Win, win all round I think.  

I do expect an Independent Scotland to be accepted into the EU. Not "as if by magic" but because we meet all the Copenhagan Criteria for membership and because the cast majority of citizens of an Indy Scotland will actually be EU citizens. Is it likely that they will say no given those circumstances? I doubt it. 




> If not, then who is going to pay for a Scottish defence force, a Scottish National Health Service, a welfare system etc. etc. etc. (the list is endless) ?! Your type talk a good game but when it comes to scoring goals you don't even know how to kick a ball.


My type eh? Lol lol I dread to think  :Wink:  

Ahhh the Scotland is too poor to afford all the things it needs argument. Scotland will either have assets from being part of the UK, plus all the sources of income it has now, plus a defecit less than that of the UK plus borrowing ability or it will have No assets and no debt, plus all the sources of income it has now, plus borrowing capability. it will have no need to contribute billions of pounds for HS2/3 for Trident or for the London sewers. Scotland is not subsidised by the rest of the UK. It pays it's share of everything it needs now and more besides. Why do you think that would change.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Something to think about.


In relation to point 8.  Eh?

Is there no end to the tactics the Yes camp will try to swing the votes?

----------


## squidge

> Is that "fact" based on extensive research or just a load of old tosh spouted out of your mouth, as usual?


Well let's see, both parties likely to win the next general election plan further cuts to welfare. Labour boasting that they absolutely WILL be as hard and harder than the Tories on welfare in a recent interview with Rachel Reeves. The DWP gave just quietly changed the target for responses to mandatory reconsiderations to 28 days which will lengthen the time people are without benefits. Charges are also set to be introduced for people who want to appeal a wrong decision. Neither party will change the position we are in with PIP despite it taking a year for some decisions to be made...  More hardship. Is this the sort of environment where Foodbanks use FALLS?

 It also looks unlikely that we will see a labour victory in the 2015 General Election so a referendum on the EU is likely as David Cameron tries to curtail the appeal of UKIP. Out of Europe, out of ECHR, does that sound like an inclusive outward looking country to you?

----------


## squidge

> In relation to point 8.  Eh?


This is referring to the fact that we will have a referendum in September to decide whether to be independent or not and then in 2016 we will have a general election to decide who we want to lead our independent country. At that election Orkneycadian you will be able to vote for a whole range of parties with a whole range of leaders. So, vote yes for independence and then vote for whichever party you choose. Come on now, it's not rocket science!!!

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

Nice to see you taking time to reply to my one liners.... that always shows a "stay at home, bored out of their skull" type.

Keep typing..... it's most amusing.

----------


## Phill

Actual LULZ
I've got to spread the rep' apparently.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

It's not an independent "Scotland" that's required..... it's an independent "Squidge" that is needed....


I wish you all the best with your search to find your inner freedom.

Mike.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Actual LULZ
> I've got to spread the rep' apparently.


Any chance you can translate that into Queen's English? I'm not au fait with Klingon.

----------


## squidge

> Nice to see you taking time to reply to my one liners.... that always shows a "stay at home, bored out of their skull" type.Keep typing..... it's most amusing.


I'm glad you are enjoying it. It amuses me too.

----------


## orkneycadian

> So, vote yes for independence and then vote for whichever party you choose. Come on now, it's not rocket science!!!


Remind me never to get in a rocket designed by the Yes camp....

I have seen some wild claims by them so far, but this one takes the biscuit!  So, if I want to vote Tory / UKIP / Labour / Lib Dem / Monster Raving Loony Party in 2016, then I need to vote Yes in September?

If I vote No in September, then what happens?  Do these options no longer become available?

Come on Yes folks, you really need to find a better way to promote your cause rather than trying to hoodwink the population.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> I'm glad you are enjoying it. It amuses me too.


I am almost laughing and feel like doing a gentle trot on my indoor treadmill  :Wink: 

Take care Squidge xx

----------


## squidge

> Remind me never to get in a rocket designed by the Yes camp....I have seen some wild claims by them so far, but this one takes the biscuit!  So, if I want to vote Tory / UKIP / Labour / Lib Dem / Monster Raving Loony Party in 2016, then I need to vote Yes in September?If I vote No in September, then what happens?  Do these options no longer become available?Come on Yes folks, you really need to find a better way to promote your cause rather than trying to hoodwink the population.


Once again for you Orkneycadian  This point is that the referendum is not about Alex Salmond, it is about the sort of democracy we want for Scotland. Even if you do not like Alex Salmond  then you can still vote YES and vote for the party with the leader you want at the General Election in 2015.

----------


## golach

> Even if you do not like Alex Salmond  then you can still vote YES and vote for the party with the leader you want at the General Election in 2015.


Vote yes, and everything thats wrong with the world will be all right, then wait two years to vote Eck out, aye right, sorry Squidge my head does not button up the back, I am not falling for that one. Eck and his cronies will hang on in power by fair means or foul, as they are doing now.

----------


## theone

> This is referring to the fact that we will have a referendum in September to decide whether to be independent or not and then in 2016 we will have a general election to decide who we want to lead our independent country. At that election Orkneycadian you will be able to vote for a whole range of parties with a whole range of leaders. So, vote yes for independence and then vote for whichever party you choose. Come on now, it's not rocket science!!!





> the referendum is not about Alex Salmond, it is about the sort of democracy we want for Scotland. Even if you do not like Alex Salmond  then you can still vote YES and vote for the party with the leader you want at the General Election in 2015.


But that's not true, is it?

Because you're NOT only voting for independence or not.

You're voting for independence under Alex Salmond's terms.

It is Alex Salmond who will be in control of Scotland whilst we negotiate what we keep from the UK, and what we give away.

It is Alex Salmond who will be in control of Scotland whilst we produce a constitution setting out the rules for future governments.

Yes, you may well be able to vote for another party in 2016, but by that time they will all have one hand tied firmly behind their back. Left with the resources of Alex Salmonds choosing and bound by his constitution.

The fact is that none of the alternative major parties believes independence would be good for Scotland. They don't believe they can do the best for Scotland outside the UK. Giving them power in 2016 is pointless. It's akin to needing a tooth filling, finding a good dentist, but then telling him he's not allowed to use his dental tools, he's got to use a joiners toolkit.

----------


## squidge

There are alternatives to Alex Salmond's view of how an Independent Scotland will be. 

The Green Party, the Jimmy Reid Foundation and others have  offered alternatives - heck there is even a whole book about their suggestions and views. The negotiations will be cross party and will involve third sector organisations and experts and  both the conservative and lib dem  leaders have said they will take an active part in these negotiations. Labour, of course have made no decisions.  The constitution  is open for public comments and  I shared the link recently for people to do so. Have you commented yet? 

It's interesting that many who don't support independence are so keen to make this about Alex Salmond. The independence debate is so much bigger than one person or one party you just have to go along to any YES event to see that. 

Alex Salmond is not some sort of omnipotent being able to control and influence everything. Clearly the No side must think he is formidable if they believe that he can personally direct, influence and control everything that will happen between a referendum and Independence Day. Maybe they think he has a number of doppelgangers who will sit on every committe, appear at every conference and chair every meeting. 

Again, cross party negotiations will take place with experts and with other organisations who have a role in a particular area. . 

In the event of a YES vote all the mainstream parties will develop policies for an independent Scotland. The referendum asks one question. Do you agree that Scotland should be an Independent Country? That's it

----------


## golach

> The referendum asks one question. Do you agree that Scotland should be an Independent Country? That's it


Strange Squidge I thought there are two questions on the referendum paper, not just one, thankfully we sensible voters will have an alternative to tha yes vote.

----------


## theone

> There are alternatives to Alex Salmond's view of how an Independent Scotland will be. 
> 
> The Green Party, the Jimmy Reid Foundation and others have  offered alternatives - heck there is even a whole book about their suggestions and views. The negotiations will be cross party and will involve third sector organisations and experts and  both the conservative and lib dem  leaders have said they will take an active part in these negotiations. Labour, of course have made no decisions.  The constitution  is open for public comments and  I shared the link recently for people to do so. Have you commented yet? 
> 
> It's interesting that many who don't support independence are so keen to make this about Alex Salmond. The independence debate is so much bigger than one person or one party you just have to go along to any YES event to see that. 
> 
> Alex Salmond is not some sort of omnipotent being able to control and influence everything. Clearly the No side must think he is formidable if they believe that he can personally direct, influence and control everything that will happen between a referendum and Independence Day. Maybe they think he has a number of doppelgangers who will sit on every committe, appear at every conference and chair every meeting. 
> 
> Again, cross party negotiations will take place with experts and with other organisations who have a role in a particular area. . 
> ...


I don't agree with that.

Whatever cross-party discussions take place, or whatever public comments are made on the constitution, the ultimate decision will be made by a vote in Hollyrood, with an SNP majority.

Therefore the breakup agreement will be on SNP's terms, and the constitution will be on the SNP's terms.

Yes, the referendum may ask "Do you agree that Scotland should be an Independent Country?". But to blindly answer yes or no without looking at the consequences is foolish.

----------


## squidge

Hang on in power by fair means or foul, did they not win an election Golach? Won't they need to win another one to remain in power? I know you hate the SNP Golach but even you have to accept that they won an election fairly and democratically. It might stick in your craw but it is true

. Theone, you can think I am wrong and you are perfectly entitled to do so. However it seems to me that many of us have been "looking at the consequences" since the referendum was announced and as far back as the election as we knew that an SNP victory would mean a referendum. The fact that we don't agree does not mean that we are blind or foolish as you suggested. Nor does it mean we are not sensible as Golach suggested or that we talk shite as TD so politely put it. We have a different view and different expectations and different priorities but those of you who are anti independence do not have extra powers of insight or intellect. You have simply tried to make sense out of the debate in your way. I think you guys are wrong difference is I don't suggest you are foolish. 

Get a better argument - YES voters are stupid doesn't cut it  :Wink:

----------


## theone

> Get a better argument - YES voters are stupid doesn't cut it


Not my point at all.

The question being asked is "Do you think Scotland should be an independent country?"

Now, that seems quite simple, yes or no.

The problem is that a YES vote will not just result in Scotland being an independent country, it will result in Scotland being an independent country with the resources and rules set by the SNP.

So to answer Yes or no without looking at the SNP policies, or to pretend it is not Salmond who will shape the future, but whoever gets voted in in 2016, is blind and foolish. Not simple at all.

The SNP have already slipped their policies into the draft constitution - nuclear disarmarment being one. The negotiations for split up of the UK will go the same way.

----------


## golach

Squidge, it was you in post #42 that stated that there was only one question being asked on the referendum paper, I disagreed, there are two , we No voters are not that stupid either. Another possible two years of nationalist corrupt rule, aye right.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Wait a minute - how does a political party "set" resources? Oh, wait a minute...Michael Fallon, Uk energy minister has decided how much shale gas we have in the central belt. Not much apparently, only 80 trillion cubic feet, so hardly worth bothering about, then. And now he has "set" one of Scotland's resources, Alex Salmond and the SNP can go mad and decide how much wind will blow in Caithness over the next 2 years. Quite a lot, looking at this website.

----------


## squidge

> Squidge, it was you in post #42 that stated that there was only one question being asked on the referendum paper, I disagreed, there are two , we No voters are not that stupid either. Another possible two years of nationalist corrupt rule, aye right.


Two questions Golach? What is the second? The ballot paper will ask "Should Scotland be an Independent Country" and you will be able to answer YES or NO. No second question. 

Theone I disagree with your point. As far as "slipping" a policy in - have they  not been clear about  the removal of trident being fundamental to  an independent Scotland? Hardly "slipping" it in. There will be cross party involvement in the negotiations and that all the political parties will be involved in shaping a new country. I don't agree that the SNP will create a society in the likeness of Alex Salmond. I understand that I will be able to vote for a government to implement policies in 2016 and start the process of growing this country. I understand you disagree but my disagreement does not make me foolish.

----------


## golach

> Two questions Golach? What is the second? The ballot paper will ask "Should Scotland be an Independent Country" and you will be able to answer YES or NO. No second question. .


Ok but two answers, and I will be a No, I do not want to see my country go down the drain, as it surely will if the yes vote wins.

----------


## squidge

And that is absolutely your choice and I am delighted you have considered everything and made your decision.

----------


## orkneycadian

> The referendum asks one question. Do you agree that Scotland should be an Independent Country? That's it


Not quite....

Squidge, you really are going to have to stick to the truth in this debate.  The above wording was what the SNP proposed, but was changed after the Electoral Commission Scotland recommended it be changed as it could be construed as leading.  That was more than 18 months ago.

This is fairly typical of the tactics employed by the SNP, the Yes camp and their supporters to try and state something that is not actually the case.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Once again for you Orkneycadian  This point is that the referendum is not about Alex Salmond, it is about the sort of democracy we want for Scotland. Even if you do not like Alex Salmond  then you can still vote YES and vote for the party with the leader you want at the General Election in 2015.


Squidge, like all the other misleading information the Yes camp spouts, point 8 is misleading.  Point 8 suggests that you should vote Yes anyway, irrespective of your political preference, and then vote according to your political preference 2016.  There is nothing enshrined in law to say that everyone should vote Yes, and then for a party.  I suspect that virtually everyone who does not like the SNP will vote No, and then vote for someone other than the SNP.

Again, misleading, hoodwinking tactics.

----------


## Oddquine

> Squidge, like all the other misleading information the Yes camp spouts, point 8 is misleading.  Point 8 suggests that you should vote Yes anyway, irrespective of your political preference, and then vote according to your political preference 2016.  There is nothing enshrined in law to say that everyone should vote Yes, and then for a party.  I suspect that virtually everyone who does not like the SNP will vote No, and then vote for someone other than the SNP.
> 
> Again, misleading, hoodwinking tactics.


You do kinda read things from your own POV, she is not saying that everybody _should vote Yes anyway, irrespective of your political preference, and then vote according to your political preference 2016_.....but what she* is* saying is that,_ if_ the only reason for *NOT* voting for Independence is that you don't like/trust Salmond and/or the SNP...then that is a pretty stupid reason....*because* you can_ vote according to your political preference 2016_.

Given everybody in the NO camp seem to be talking about Alex Salmond as if voting YES will make him immortal, so Scotland will never have any other option but him and the SNP.....beats me why *anybody* is voting no, if they want to live forever as well....given a YES vote appears to guarantee immortality, in their opinions.  ::

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

I'm closer to 60 than I am to 50 so what the hell? If my "freeview" TV gives me less Alex Salmond and more interesting viewing after they shut the hell up then I may shout out YES!

I fear that shouting "NO!" may result in another mind numbing period of "Salmon and Sturgeon" TV.

If it's a YES outcome, they will disappear from our screens and commence profiting from our stupidity voting YES but at least we will see the back of them........... they will soon become unaccountable when the "YES" verdict has been delivered.

One thing this thread has taught me..... there sure are a lot of stupid "YES" people in Scotland.

----------


## Chook a demus

Well the Salmond / Sturgeon Lickspittles certainly dominate this thread I shall be glad when it's over and done with.

----------


## Oddquine

> Well the Salmond / Sturgeon Lickspittles certainly dominate this thread I shall be glad when it's over and done with.


And you _know_ that there are no Green, Labour, Tory, LibDem for Independence lickspittles posting on this thread? How exactly?

Try counting the numbers of posts by each camp, and you may well find that the domination is by SNP, Green, Labour, Tory, LibDem _Unionist_ lickspittles posting a lot, but saying not a lot of use, ornament or debate on it.

If it was _only_ SNP members/supporters who were going to vote YES......then would the Union have been panicked into Project Fear, Smear and Denigration, as a campaign ethos?  If it was only SNP voters who were in favour of independence, the No Better Together Thanks side would be _dozens_ of points ahead in the polls, wouldn't they?

----------


## squidge

Ahhhh chook, another useful contribution to the subject. You are right Orkneycadian I made a mistake with the question. Thanks for pointing it out but I'm sure you will be pleased to know I had already corrected it in a later post.  In the last two pages there has been hardly a post from any no voter which hasn't included some sort of insult or sneer or name calling. You really need to up your game guys lol.

----------


## Colin Manson

I've stopped following some of the No voters that I'm friends with on Facebook, I don't really mind the occasional vote yes or no post but I can't abide the continual raving of the no voters, they seem to be nearly foaming at the mouth.

----------


## golach

> I've stopped following some of the No voters that I'm friends with on Facebook, I don't really mind the occasional vote yes or no post but I can't abide the continual raving of the no voters, they seem to be nearly foaming at the mouth.


I have tried the same thing Colin, but Squidge keeps finding me on Facebook  :: 

but your post here explains a lot to me.

----------


## squidge

Ach golach you know you love me really when you arent calling me names mmmwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :Wink:

----------


## orkneycadian

> You do kinda read things from your own POV, she is not saying that everybody _should vote Yes anyway, irrespective of your political preference, and then vote according to your political preference 2016_.....but what she* is* saying is that,_ if_ the only reason for *NOT* voting for Independence is that you don't like/trust Salmond and/or the SNP...then that is a pretty stupid reason....*because* you can_ vote according to your political preference 2016_.


The point should therefore read.....

"If you do not like the SNP, then in 2016, you can vote for another party"

The Yes camp are the first to say that the referendum is apolitical.  When it suits.  Then, when they think they can get a free hit, they suggest that you should vote Yes, and then for the political party you want!

----------


## Oddquine

> The point should therefore read.....
> 
> "If you do not like the SNP, then in 2016, you can vote for another party"
> 
> The Yes camp are the first to say that the referendum is apolitical.  When it suits.  Then, when they think they can get a free hit, they suggest that you should vote Yes, and then for the political party you want!


To be fair, what squidge actually said, and the remark to which you responded was:

_Once again for you Orkneycadian  This point is that the referendum is  not about Alex Salmond, it is about the sort of democracy we want for  Scotland. Even if you do not like Alex Salmond  then you can still vote  YES and vote for the party with the leader you want at the General  Election in 2015._

So fair enough, she muddled the dates of the UK General, the Referendum and the Scottish Parliamentary elections(which you didn't appear to notice).......but how the hairy hell you manged to get that she _hasn't_ said _ "If you do not like the SNP, then in 2016, you can vote for another party"_ or words to that effect as a _fault_ in the Yes campaign..when that is *the whole point of the YES campaign*.......to get a Government we vote for, which will run the country as near as dammit to what we want.

It is political in so much as it will be an ending of a political treaty, which has often been broken in the past by Westminster, and it is apolitical in as much as the YEs movement is not in the ownership and control of any individual political party......despite the hard work being done in the media and in the No Better Together Thanks campaign to focus the whole thing on Salmond, the SNP and the "cybernats". 

Only the terminally thick believe everything (or even anything) produced by the MSM....but you and other Unionists on this forum may well find some kindred spirits here.
.https://twitter.com/BritNatAbuseBot

----------


## squidge

Gosh I muddled loads of stuff lol. Been a hard week. Last weekend BannockburnLive, 2 day performance, 10 to 7 each day, just short of 20 000 people through the gates. This week I have been working, last week of school madness, preparing to speak at a WFI event today - let's hope I don't get confused and tell them about medieval food and pottage, getting car ready for its MOT, and wading thro twitter to counteract some lies that were being spread about the event at the weekend. So forgive me if I get a bit muddled sometimes. 

Let me make clear the two facts here. 

1. In September we get to vote for the type of democracy we want. One where we remain part of the UK and Westminster decides how much money we have to spend and how we spend most of it, or one where we are an Independent country where the money raised here is spent on Scotland's priorities by a Scottish Government chosen by us. 

2. In 2016 we get to vote for the party which will form that government.

 All clear now?

----------


## Chook a demus

Does anyone else feel like the jukebox has got stuck or someone has filled it with the same record which plays over and over regardless what you select !!

----------


## orkneycadian

> All clear now?


At last - Clarity and truth!

Thank you.

Now, keep it up!

----------


## orkneycadian

> Does anyone else feel like the jukebox has got stuck or someone has filled it with the same record which plays over and over regardless what you select !!


Fortuanelty, Chook a demus, the Neverendum, which seems to have been going for ever is getting closer to conclusion.  Then, we can get back to normal again!

----------


## squidge

Well chook it might help if people didn't keep asking the same question over and over again to be given the same answer. Although of course at least those people ARE asking questions unlike you.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Well chook it might help if people didn't keep asking the same question over and over again to be given the same answer. Although of course at least those people ARE asking questions unlike you.


Two of my friends happen tae be very vocal yes supporters I've had many civilised conversations with them and others about the referendum so your assumption is rather insulting you just think because you can troll the org and constantly repeat yourself ad nausem that it makes you important alas my friends don't go on the org because they find your style embarrassing for the yes side. You know we've all read your posts we are all quite aware of your views but as you're nae a politician and claim to be just an ordinary person how bout given tha rest of us a chance to discuss it with oot constantly jumping on everyone eh. This referendum isn't just aboot you and your opinions.

----------


## Rheghead

46 ways to get improve job prospects amd better employment which can be done in an independent Scotland.  It is not going to happen otherwise...

1) End austerity, and invest in creating better public services – creating more jobs in our NHS, schools and key services for the people of Scotland. (Scotland’s Future)

2) Encourage more local lending, creating a banking system that serves small business and creates jobs in the local economy, building on the example of German Sparkassen banks. (Green Yes Jobs)

3) Structural reform of the banking sector and new public investment vehicles. (STUC – A Just Scotland)

4) A Jobs Guarantee, where anyone older than 25 who has received JSA for two years or more, or anyone under 25 who has received JSA for one year or more, will get a guaranteed job. Most of these jobs are with small businesses, who will often keep people on after the 6 month guarantee period. (Labour – Together We Can)

5) A government-led Green New Deal investing in job-rich sustainable industries such as home insulation, joined up public transport, low carbon energy, independent small retail, waste recycling and local food production. (Green Yes Jobs)

6) Delivering a new national development plan, including a substantial investment in infrastructure, improving transport and ICT, as well as the delivery of air hubs. (N56)

7) A National Investment Bank to encourage long-term investment, working alongside a network of local publicly-owned banks and savings banks which would identify and implement infrastructure investment priorities in their areas. (Common Weal)

8) New models of funding to support the Scottish economy, bringing together public and private finance. (N56)

9) Full representation in Europe would make Scotland eligible for a better deal in EU funding for rural communities, supporting more jobs. Being an independent EU state would have brought an extra billion euros in agricultural funding to Scotland over the next six years. (Scotland’s Future)

10) A transformational increase in free childcare, with a near doubling of nursery provision to universal levels. This would allow parents to get back to work earlier and boost economic productivity, as well as creating more than 30,000 jobs in childcare alone. (Scotland’s Future)

11) Move important government departments like the Home Office and the Foreign Office here to create more career pathways in Scotland. (Scotland’s Future)

12) Simplify Scotland’s tax system, with the aim of making savings to the taxpayer of £250 million a year by the end of the first term of the independent Parliament – meaning more money to invest in our economy. (Scotland’s Future)

13) Tax and tax credit support measures to encourage more companies to undertake research and development work – innovating and making Scotland a modern economic powerhouse. (Scotland’s Future)

14) Action to tackle energy bills by moving subsidies to general taxation – meaning less of a burden on small businesses and making it easier for them to expand and employ. (Scotland’s Future)

15) Reduce business compliance costs and increase incentives for investment in new businesses, following on from the success of tax strategy in New Zealand. (N56)

16) Increase National Insurance employment allowance for small businesses – making it easier for them to hire more staff. (Scotland’s Future)

17) Reduce Air Passenger Duty by 50% in the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament, with a view to abolishing it when finances allow – boosting tourism and exports overseas. (Scotland’s Future)

18) A targeted VAT break for the tourism industry – building on the experience of Dublin, which gained 1,000 jobs in the restaurant sector alone from this. (Common Weal/Options for Scotland/N56)

19) Reform of competition policy to encourage greater diversity in the Scottish economy. (Common Weal)

20) Use powers over procurement in new policy areas to invest locally. Money spent on local procurement is more likely to keep circulating in the local area and sustain local jobs. (Green Yes Jobs)

21) Targeted use of loan guarantees from the independent Scottish Government to encourage more investment in Scotland. (Scotland’s Future)

22) Use licensing arrangements for renewable energy developments to ensure the Scottish economy and businesses benefit from associated employment, the sourcing of goods and services, and the associated R&D (Common Weal/Options for Scotland).

23) Capitalise on Scotland’s vast marine renewables potential and create thousands more jobs in construction, grid development and research in the sector. (Green Yes Jobs)

24) Focus on establishing Scotland as a centre of excellence in low-carbon building skills and technologies. (Green Yes Jobs)

25) Grow our chemical industry by developing greener alternative ways to use our fossil fuels. (Green Yes Jobs)

26) A national energy generation company (and lots of local companies) borrowing against the cost of electricity generated, creating immediate and on-going jobs, growth and income. (Common Weal)

27) New policy measures in support of the oil and gas sector, including exploration incentives, ensuring fiscal stability and a suitable fiscal regime – encouraging more investment and more jobs. (N56)

28) Diversify shipbuilding from one-off military contracts to a sustainable model built on smaller commercial boat building and manufacturing for the renewable energy industry. (Green Yes Jobs/Scotland’s Future)

29) Focus on developing new technologies and services to help support our ageing population, presenting new opportunities to export Scottish ideas to the world. (N56)

30) Continuing the small beer revolution in Scotland will support more skilled brewing jobs. (Green Yes Jobs)

31) Promote the living wage and fair pay. A higher pay economy means a higher tax take and more money to invest in the economy. (Scotland’s Future)

32) Active labour market measures designed to enhance skills and support the creation of decent, high-quality employment. (STUC – A Just Scotland)

33) Boost investment in economic infrastructure by over £400 million per year, to bring transport links and utilities up to the standard of the world’s top advanced competitor economies, such as Switzerland, Singapore and Finland. (N56)

34) Greater investment in high-speed broadband across the country, with the key focus of connecting our rural areas to the world in order to boost business opportunities. (Scotland’s Future/Green Yes Jobs)

35) Providing cheaper connected public transport, better quality accommodation in rural areas and promoting activities such as sailing, mountain biking, walking and cycling trails to make Scotland a more attractive holiday destination and boost the tourism sector. (Green Yes Jobs)

36) With full control over spending , investment in Scotland’s housing will create jobs and apprenticeships, which, in turn, creates wealth for the nation, and a moral economy means that everyone shares in that wealth. (Labour – Together We Can)

37) Deliver more apprenticeships for men and women, supported employment and trainee programmes. (Green Yes Jobs)

38) Youth Guarantee – allowing Scotland to tap into funding from the EU-wide initiative, we can make sure that everybody under the age of 25 has access to employment, education or training opportunities. (Scotland’s Future)

39) Integrating skills and employability support, bringing together the wide range of services aimed at supporting people into work which are currently delivered by different departments and governments. That means a more effective way of getting people into the workforce and contributing to the economy. (Scotland’s Future)

40) An industrial strategy which creates sufficient jobs and better quality jobs, with an emphasis on middle income jobs. (STUC – A Just Scotland)

41) Investment in R&D to support growth in our life sciences industry, creating and exporting medical devices and researching new life-saving treatments. (Green Yes Jobs)

42) Develop a new exports strategy including development of a Scottish brand to enhance the productivity of exporting (or potentially exporting) sectors through investment in R&D, infrastructure and education (including languages). (N56)

43) Establish a Scottish Innovation Agency, mirroring successes in countries like Finland, to promote further innovation amongst businesses in Scotland (Scottish Government – Reindustrialising Scotland)

44) Set up a Scottish Business Development Bank, to provide more public funding support for small businesses in key sectors like manufacturing. (Scottish Government – Reindustrialising Scotland)

45) Develop new “anchoring strategies” to encourage industries to stay in Scotland. (Common Weal)

46) Use Scotland’s international diplomatic network to promote Scottish business abroad, boosting exports and attracting investment into Scotland. With Yes we have up to 90 embassies working 100% of the time for Scotland, instead of 200 working 10% of the time. (Scotland’s Future)


http://www.yesscotland.net/news/46-w...nd-better-jobs

----------


## Chook a demus

And I'd just popped a coin in a ta jukebox I'm sure I asked for a different tune but nae same ole same ole

----------


## squidge

But chook I post here because that's what I'm interested in and that's what I like to do. I'm going nowhere and I will continue to post whatever I like. 

I'm not important you are right, but you know what I don't care one iota what you think if you hate my posts then block the things. I make no assumptions about you chook, I just comment on your posts. I don't know you and don't know your friends or the conversations you have. You don't however ask any questions on this subject. You may well be the most inquisitive person about the referendum in the whole of Scotland but on here you are something else. That's all I have to comment on. 

Ahhh but then if you blocked my posts you wouldn't get to have a wee dig would you. If all you and your pals have to talk about is my wee mutterings and how dreadful I am then I suggest you go get a hobby or go to a few meetings or start a petition or something. 

I am here to stay and whatever the result on 18th September I'll be working for a better fairer place to live - I been doing this on this board and in real life for years and I will continue to do so. Politely and forcefully.

If you don't like it honey... Tough! I don't give a stuff what you think.

----------


## Chook a demus

Haha we tha amount o time you spend on here I'd say it's you who needs ta get oot a bit more and get a hobby. Then it has been noticed in Caithness society tat uses e org and actually live here ,how peoples who cross you suddenly vanish of e org so much for that better fairer society as long as they don't upset you aye ! Nuff said luckily most peoples up here are fed up o yer blethering. Guess you'll only be happy till it's just you talking to yerself .

----------


## Chook a demus

Mind I now knows how ta block someone so tats ok

----------


## squidge

Caithness Society lol lol lol. Listen to yourself! Like I have any influence on who is on this board or not. It is clear you don't like me Chook, and that's me as opposed to my views. That's fine, I get it. I have pretty much guessed why you feel the need to target me personally with your particular brand of spite and nastiness. And you know what I'm sorry for you. I truly am. I won't respond to any of your rudeness or snidey insinuations - it's boring but  I won't be pushed around by you either. You don't like me I get it.

----------


## squidge

> Mind I now knows how ta block someone so tats ok


Halleluyah.

----------


## Chook a demus

Meanwhile the big questions like Currency, EU membership that have been there since the very beginning remain stoically unanswered by the yes campaign just more blethering about a free, fair society that we the people have a say in.Meantime armed police are routinely placed on the streets in the highlands and everything becomes more and more centralised by a party that claims to be working for a better society as it misses more of its own NHS targets and yet we are supposed to believe, give them a free hand and everything will be ok.

----------


## Rheghead

> Meanwhile the big questions like Currency, EU membership that have been there since the very beginning remain stoically unanswered by the yes campaign just more blethering about a free, fair society that we the people have a say in.Meantime armed police are routinely placed on the streets in the highlands and everything becomes more and more centralised by a party that claims to be working for a better society as it misses more of its own NHS targets and yet we are supposed to believe, give them a free hand and everything will be ok.


I think they have been answered.  Scotland will be sharing the £ despite all the politicking from Osborne.  It is the only sensible solution UNLESS the rUK wants to cut off their own nose to spite their face.

As for EU membership then that has been answered, Scotland will become an EU member given about a 18 month procedural process, UNLESS you are saying that Scotland doesn't tick all the economic and human rights criteria which it does.

As for armed police on the streets, Dounreay has more armed police in one small area than Highland council has put together.  And that is definitely as a result of UK policy.

And as for NHS missed targets, that is exactly what this independence vote is all about, unlocking Scotland's true potential, currently this country is locked into a union that is hellbent on privatising and cutting spending on the NHS in England so when the maths is done on the block grant then we receive much reduced money to spend on vital hospital services.

----------


## Chook a demus

I did credit you with slightly more intelligence rheg surely the answers have not been answered you assume the currency is still going to be the £ despite being repeatedly told No. You assume EU membership is only a procedural issue despite being told it's up to the member states and a newly formed country which cedes from another isn't automatically granted access. So despite having the answers you clearly think that everything will just fall into place because a couple of politicians have told you it will be alright on the night ! It's somewhat absurd to suggest the armed police required for a nuclear facility are justified on the same rationale as for the general populace. And NHS targets firmly under the control of the majority ruling party the SNP they have failed to deliver so it's not about unlocking Scotland's potential it's seeing that the party that is promising so much is actually failing to deliver on areas it does control so how can it be trusted on bigger issues. Hellbent on privatising as opposed to hellbent on delivering a quasi socialist centralised state  which promises  everything and delivers nothing.All I've heard so far is wonderful rhetoric from the yes side but absolutely not one single item achieved to create this so called wonderful free fair society all I have seen is a country riven by the political ideology of a pair of incompetent chancers.

----------


## Rheghead

> I did credit you with slightly more intelligence rheg surely the answers have not been answered you assume the currency is still going to be the £ despite being repeatedly told No. You assume EU membership is only a procedural issue despite being told it's up to the member states and a newly formed country which cedes from another isn't automatically granted access. So despite having the answers you clearly think that everything will just fall into place because a couple of politicians have told you it will be alright on the night ! It's somewhat absurd to suggest the armed police required for a nuclear facility are justified on the same rationale as for the general populace. And NHS targets firmly under the control of the majority ruling party the SNP they have failed to deliver so it's not about unlocking Scotland's potential it's seeing that the party that is promising so much is actually failing to deliver on areas it does control so how can it be trusted on bigger issues. Hellbent on privatising as opposed to hellbent on delivering a quasi socialist centralised state  which promises  everything and delivers nothing.All I've heard so far is wonderful rhetoric from the yes side but absolutely not one single item achieved to create this so called wonderful free fair society all I have seen is a country riven by the political ideology of a pair of incompetent chancers.


That is pretty same old same old Chooky.  As for centralisation then Yes I agree with you, there isn't anything more centralised than Westminster.  There isn't just the SNP involved with the Yes campaign, the Scottish Greens are fully committed to decentralising Scotland's government.  Putting more power into local people.  That is never going to happen under a No vote.

----------


## Chook a demus

But aye Greens aren't in power and aren't likely to be so it's a bit o a waste of time saying what they'll do because unless they get voted in nothing tha say will make much of a muchness

----------


## squidge

I am not a fan of routinely armed police at all.  I think its mad that the same rules are being applied to Inverness and the north of Scotland as to the central belt.  However we have a Centralised Police Scotland  to save money.  The Scottish Government has had to find savings in its budget and to be honest I would rather centralise the police service and make sure that people dont have to pay the Bedroom Tax and still get their council tax rebate and we have house building so I have to just accept that for now.  Each divison has a local policing policy so its incumbent on us as residents and voters to put pressure on our local representatives to change things so they reflect local priorities and objectives. John Finnie is working on the issue just now I think.  Police Scotland is a new organisation and so will grow and change as the months pass. 

I would also prefer a new Scottish currency but I understand the benefits of using the pound so I will be watching what happens with interest. There are several different options if The rUK cuts its nose off to spite its face but I doubt it will. One thing I know is that on Independence day I will still have money in my pocket, still be getting paid and still be able to buy things in the shop.  Thats what happened with decimalisation and what happened in those countries who chose to use the euro - one day the franc - next day the euro and the world didnt stop. 

I agree with Rheghead that EU membership is not problematical.  We meet the Copenhagan Criteria, we have all the legislation in place and 90% of our poulation will be EU citizens - is it likely that they will say no when Independence will be a democratic decision by the people with the acceptance of the Westminster Government?  This is not an armed struggle and despite the assertions of the No campaign it is not a "separation". If Scotland becomes independent it will be because it is the will of the people and it will be a negotiated settlement. None of the leaders of the countries of the EU are saying they will boycott Scotland's membership - not one - not even Spain. 

Targets in the NHS are a bit of a complex issue - whilst some aspects have missed their targets it remains true that the NHS is performing better on a variety of indicators than it was ten years ago. People waiting less than 4 hours at A and E is at 93% an increase on the 87% that it was ten years ago.  Not good enough for sure but still shows an improvement.  The chair of the BMA Scotland has said that he and the government are firefighting all the time and that must be massively frustrating. It is clear that Scotland has to rely on what we are given to address improvements and that is not enough. Scotland has managed to  increase spending on the NHS by around £2bn since 2007 but but that is clearly not sufficient and it is hard to see how we can continue without cuts in the face of a shrinking block grant from Westminster. Without control of taxation, borrowing and spending Scotland cannot decide on its own priorites and only Independence gives us that control and that opportunity.

----------


## Rheghead

> But aye Greens aren't in power and aren't likely to be so it's a bit o a waste of time saying what they'll do because unless they get voted in nothing tha say will make much of a muchness


It was you who raised the issue of centralisation of power and that you disagreed with it.  I say a No vote is exactly that, a vote for continued centralisation. The only chance to get away from it is through a Yes vote.  Partly because, yes, the Scottish Greens will actively decentralise power but also, independence is a form of decentralisation by definition, it gives the people of Scotland the power to determine their own destiny.

----------


## Oddquine

> I did credit you with slightly more intelligence rheg surely the answers have not been answered you assume the currency is still going to be the £ despite being repeatedly told No. You assume EU membership is only a procedural issue despite being told it's up to the member states and a newly formed country which cedes from another isn't automatically granted access. So despite having the answers you clearly think that everything will just fall into place because a couple of politicians have told you it will be alright on the night ! It's somewhat absurd to suggest the armed police required for a nuclear facility are justified on the same rationale as for the general populace. And NHS targets firmly under the control of the majority ruling party the SNP they have failed to deliver so it's not about unlocking Scotland's potential it's seeing that the party that is promising so much is actually failing to deliver on areas it does control so how can it be trusted on bigger issues. Hellbent on privatising as opposed to hellbent on delivering a quasi socialist centralised state which promises everything and delivers nothing.All I've heard so far is wonderful rhetoric from the yes side but absolutely not one single item achieved to create this so called wonderful free fair society all I have seen is a country riven by the political ideology of a pair of incompetent chancers.


Exactly which part of _anybody in the world can use the pound as their currency if they so choose, because it is a fully tradeable currency on the international markets,_ are you having such difficulty comprehending....particularly given the subject has been done to death just about everywhere there is a Unionist poster saying we can't, including here. The fact that some people keep on producing the same old crap all the time, including the Westminster politicians, simply illustrates that they are struggling for benefits from staying in the Union. We may not have a currency Union, which is in the gift of the rUK, just as letting Trident stay in Scotland for more than 10 minutes is ours (and personally, I hope we don't hold on to Trident longer than we have to for the sake of removing it safely....or have a currency union)....but you can take it that, as Ireland did after their independence in 1921, we will be using the pound, at least until it no longer works for us..just as Ireland did for fifty years using a currency board.

The only people who have said we'd find it hard to get EU membership have been_ politicians with axes to grind_. We tend to rely more on the opinions of those who work/have worked/have extensively studied in the areas which actually make the recommendations (like, for example, the bloke who is an adviser to the Better Together Campaign). Again, personally, I'd prefer EFTA to the EU, so I'm not bothered either way..but you know something, if we go from the EU, so does our fishing waters.....so, sure as hell, at least the Spanish fishermen will be incandescent with their government, don't you think? Anyway, given it looks as if the UK is liable to be coming out in 2017, I suspect that they'll be glad to have us (unfortunately). And by the way.....the problem with your theory is that we would be ceding from the Union with agreement (via the Edinburgh Agreement) of Westminster. The countries with problems re recognition are those who declare UDI, and the main thumbs on their heads object to their temerity...but we wouldn't be doing that, would we?  :: 

The small contingent of armed police thing...I don't agree with armed police....but given the restrictions on income that a Scottish Government has to work with, at least in the short term to save money, a single Scottish Police force is certainly cheaper...but that does mean that, because of distances, it is not so easy to trot back to the police station and collect the guns, if necessary, in an emergency. However, that, like all other policies, are not set in stone past May 2016.....no policy is. 

Re the NHS, which part of the more Westminster privatises in England, the less Scotland gets to spend, do you not quite understand? 

It wouldn't be so much of a problem if, at the same time, we didn't have to take our share of pain to cut the UK annual deficit (_to which we added not a penny, btw_) and not get a Barnett share of spending on London and the South's transport systems, Westminster's subsidising of England's privately owned water companies, England's privatised health care, England's PFI contracts for just about everything which would usually have been paid for by public funds (and been counted for Barnett Consequentials). Which part of Westminster takes out private contracts for a lot of public services in England, therefore that cuts the proportional Barnett payment, so we have to cut back our own spending......but we *still* have to pay our share into paying for the profits of the private companies Westminster chooses to use........private companies, which, in Health Services alone, have 70 MPs and 140 Lords as shareholders...but that is fine by them....no conflict of interest there then......and it appears, fine by you.

I, at least, am getting sick and tired of trying to get it through to the terminally thick that *a)* any Scottish Government can only do what they can with what they get to spend...they will never please everybody...and definitely will never please those, like yourself, who think the SNP are the Horsemen of the Apocalypse personified, but complain because they don't have the power Westminster won't let them have to do all you think they should be doing...and * b)* if the SNP are elected as the Government in May  2016.....it will be because we have voted them in..and that is the democracy we are trying to have in every election, a Scottish government elected by the Scottish people with all the powers needed to improve our lives, and without the restrictions imposed by policies put in place to cope with the overheated economy in  London and the South. The BofE is talking  about putting up base rates in the next few months or so...which will put up mortgage and business interest rates as well....and it won't be because we, in Scotland, _need_ an interest rate rise...but because they are starting to worry that the house prices in London and the South may well produce a damaging house price bubble, much as started the global banking meltdown.

In the Union, there is nothing we can do to combat the effects of an interest rate rise on Scotland, bar move our restricted block grant money from Peter to Paul and maybe split some between Patricia and Pauline.and maybe even have enough for Peregrine and Percival.....or, of course, we could always make Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK by increasing taxes (and losing some dosh, even then, because we have to pay for collection, despite already helping to fund HMRC)......or we could start privatising the NHS, start charging University fees, stop free prescriptions, maybe let Westminster sell of Scottish Water (no, that wouldn't work because we wouldn't get the money from that, Westminster would), stop bus passes etc. 

Even after the Scotland Act 2012 comes in, the only difference that would make is that we could borrow money.but only from the Treasury......so we will be permitted to borrow from the Treasury the limited amount we are allowed..and the Westminster Treasury will collect the interest we will obviously pay....but we will *still*, on top of funding from our block grant our _own_ borrowing, have to pay our share of the money Westminster borrows, which currently is running at around £48 billion annually in interest......and none of the borrowing is down to us. 

And even if we did spectacularly well and grew our economy and our tax income......we will get not one brass farthing of the money we have made to fill the Westminster coffers.  Can't say I'm at all surprised at the lengths Westminster are going to to scupper any YES vote, though....they know they need us (or our monetary input) more than we need them.  I have a nephew in the army, who will vote YES, but has been told he is not allowed to leaflet for YES on the camp(though we could in 1979 in the RAF camp)....and one of the lads in his office told him that he was voting NO, because he would be being posted back home to England, and England needed Scotland's money.  ::

----------


## orkneycadian

> I think they have been answered.  Scotland will be sharing the £ despite all the politicking from Osborne.  It is the only sensible solution UNLESS the rUK wants to cut off their own nose to spite their face.


If we ahsre someones currency, then we are not indpendant.  For comaprison, France, Germany, et al, share a new currency, the Euro.  Not one of their existing ones.




> As for EU membership then that has been answered, Scotland will become an EU member given about a 18 month procedural process, UNLESS you are saying that Scotland doesn't tick all the economic and human rights criteria which it does.


If we join the EU, then we are not independent.

----------


## Rheghead

Leader of Scottish Labour and Vote No Grandee says "We are not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions"

What contempt she has for us all, she is saying we are too thick to look after ourselves

----------


## Oddquine

> If we ahsre someones currency, then we are not indpendant.  For comaprison, France, Germany, et al, share a new currency, the Euro.  Not one of their existing ones.
> 
> 
> If we join the EU, then we are not independent.


So you are saying that France, Germany et al, are all one country because they share a currency, and are not a number of individual sovereign countries who have chosen to share a currency?  What makes you think that sharing a new currency is any different to sharing a currency, btw?  You are saying that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are part of the UK because they use sterling? You are saying that Ireland was only independent for the length of time it was in the ERM, as it used sterling before....and the euro after?

You are saying that having your own currency makes you independent..well tell that to Canada, Australia and NZ.....they had their own Currencies long before they got their independence from the UK. You are saying that the UK is not independent because it is a member of the EU? And you are saying that Scotland does not already have its own  Scottish pound, which has to be backed pound for pound by the banks who produce them by keeping sterling deposits in the BofE? Seems to me you have more chance of getting "paid on demand" if you use a Scottish bank note today than if you use an English bank note, given there are £3+ billion in sterling assets to cover Scottish pounds...whereas, does the UK have even £3 billion in easily accessible cash without borrowing it?

----------


## golach

> ? And you are saying that Scotland does not already have its own  Scottish pound, which has to be backed pound for pound by the banks who produce them by keeping sterling deposits in the BofE? Seems to me you have more chance of getting "paid on demand" if you use a Scottish bank note today than if you use an English bank note, given there are £3+ billion in sterling assets to cover Scottish pounds...whereas, does the UK have even £3 billion in easily accessible cash without borrowing it?


Just remind us how much money did the UK Government commit to bailing out the Royal Bank and the Bank of Scotland?

----------


## Rheghead

Just think about this when you go to vote in September.  With a No vote, any attempt by Scotland to influence UK policy is totally drowned out.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> With a No vote, any attempt by Scotland to influence UK policy is totally drowned out.


With a YES vote any attempt by Scotland to influence UK policy is most definitely drowned out.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> I agree with Rheghead that EU membership is not problematical.


So let me get this straight..... you guys want to leave the United Kingdom and then join the European Union?  Surely if you want "total control" of your countries "destiny" then the European Union would be the LAST thing you would want to join. You think that "Westminster" is a pain in the butt but can't wait to be accepted back into the EU?

Strange.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Just think about this when you go to vote in September.  With a No vote, any attempt by Scotland to influence UK policy is totally drowned out.


So your graph shows Scotland has 9% of seats which equates to a population of about 5 million now consider the population of the UK is over 60 million it means it's proportionately over represented so not sure what there is to complain about on that one shows that the UK allows Scotland more than it's fair share of representation very democratic I'd call that. Now in a newly independent Scotland how much representation or weight would Caithness get or as I suspect would all the power be centralised down in Holyrood with us being no better of possibly worse off.

----------


## Rheghead

> With a YES vote any attempt by Scotland to influence UK policy is most definitely drowned out.


Good, it would be called 'interfering' otherwise.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Good, it would be called 'interfering' otherwise.


So that means when they don't place any orders for warships on the Clyde you're fine with it because it's interfering otherwise ! I'm sure that'll make tha shipbuilders reet happy caring lot Yes voters

----------


## Chook a demus

> Leader of Scottish Labour and Vote No Grandee says "We are not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions"What contempt she has for us all, she is saying we are too thick to look after ourselves


And if tha takes a wee bit oh time ta read odquines posts she calls people terminally thick as well so maybe the yes camp agree as these things tend ta come from tha top down! Tha way the SNP have failed ta answer any questions comprehensively shows they think we are thick enough to believe them. Cuts both ways it seems.

----------


## Rheghead

> So that means when they don't place any orders for warships on the Clyde you're fine with it because it's interfering otherwise ! I'm sure that'll make tha shipbuilders reet happy caring lot Yes voters


Scotland get the crumbs out of UK defence.  Scotland contributes £3.5 billion per year to defense yet only receives £2.2 billion per year back in defence contracts.  I call that _short changing_ someone.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Scotland get the crumbs out of UK defence.  Scotland contributes £3.5 billion per year to defense yet only receives £2.2 billion per year back in defence contracts.  I call that _short changing_ someone.


And how many members of the armed forces are Scottish ? Or are ya willing to just toss them on tha scrap heap as well!How many MOD bases are there in a Scotland and how much money goes oot into the local economies from those bases. Also Scotland has more security when it's protected by the total UK armed forces than having just a wee defence force not capable of doing much of anything should something go wrong. 2.2 billion of contracts out of a total spend of 3.5 billion isn't crumbs when you consider the whole picture. It's a better deal than you'll get off the EU

----------


## Oddquine

> So that means when they don't place any orders for warships on the Clyde you're fine with it because it's interfering otherwise ! I'm sure that'll make tha shipbuilders reet happy caring lot Yes voters


Given there is only one to be built yet, it will be built on the Clyde, because there isn't anywhere else right now......and whether we do or don't get independence, I would think it unlikely that the rUK will be building many more warships this century, especially if they are going to renew Trident, do you?   

Anyway...Westminster politicians don't have much credibility when it comes to keeping promises/doing what they say they will, once they have succeeded in getting their their way.....hadn't you noticed?  So even if we stay in the Union, the Clyde is likely to be building less ships for the UK than they would be in an independent Scotland to meet the needs of a Scottish Navy....though as _we_ won't be doing war, maybe not warships.  ::

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> And how many members of the armed forces are Scottish ? Or are ya willing to just toss them on tha scrap heap as well!How many MOD bases are there in a Scotland and how much money goes oot into the local economies from those bases. Also Scotland has more security when it's protected by the total UK armed forces than having just a wee defence force not capable of doing much of anything should something go wrong. 2.2 billion of contracts out of a total spend of 3.5 billion isn't crumbs when you consider the whole picture. It's a better deal than you'll get off the EU


X2


I'm sick of reading the "YES" crap...... it's all a load of English people who want Scotland off their back.... I want to stay part of the union because it works

Is that a too simple reply?

----------


## Chook a demus

So given it's on 2014 now I take you're trying ta be funny when ya say UK won't be building anymore warships this century ....haha yup that's really funny in a ridiculous terminally thick sort of way.

----------


## Chook a demus

> X2I'm sick of reading the "YES" crap...... it's all a load of English people who want Scotland off their back.... I want to stay part of the union because it worksIs that a too simple reply?


Aye I hae noticed that a whilee ago tha would a been called treason luckily we live in a democratic civilised union not run by autocratic despots who will tell yae anythin ta get power

----------


## Oddquine

> And if tha takes a wee bit oh time ta read odquines posts she calls people terminally thick as well so maybe the yes camp agree as these things tend ta come from tha top down! Tha way the SNP have failed ta answer any questions comprehensively shows they think we are thick enough to believe them. Cuts both ways it seems.


Ah.but I'm not a pro-union member of the Scottish Parliament, or a pro-union MP in Westminster..because the thing is that, in the No Better Together Thanks, the nastiness is _definitely_ coming from the "top" down. I bet I can beat you hands down with a list of the vituperation from pro-Union MPs and MSPs against pro-indy punters and politicians compared to any list you can come up with from pro-indy politicians railing against pro-union punters and politicians.

Anyhow, terminally thick may well be offensive to those who assume I am talking about them, because they believe every word spewed out by the MSM, but that's their problem, not mine, because I'm not forcing anyone to don the cap to test it for fit. 

I'm sure we are answering questions a great deal more comprehensively than the No Better Together Thanks lot, which is, I believe, delivering a leaflet atm  which is full of already debunked crap..like we can't keep the pound.and we won't get our pensions.  ::   Nobody can give precise figures even as much as a year ahead, even if they have all the facts and figures at their disposal....as you are bound to realise given the Westminster Government hasn't yet managed to hit any announced annual budget target for anything, so the year of finally balancing the UK budget has been put back yet again (but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen even then!)  

However, we do know that we will save a fair bit of money just because  we won't be subsidising the rUK, and we won't, despite the beliefs of the IFS in their reports, be slavishly following all the profligacy of the UK spendthrifts.  The Uk has become a country in which the rich can't lose and the poor can't win....and we can do so much better for all of us with independence and access to the tools Westminster will never let us have.

----------


## Big Gaz

> Given there is only one to be built yet, it will be built on the Clyde, because there isn't anywhere else right now......and whether we do or don't get independence, I would think it unlikely that the rUK will be building many more warships this century, especially if they are going to renew Trident, do you?   
> 
> Anyway...Westminster politicians don't have much credibility when it comes to keeping promises/doing what they say they will, once they have succeeded in getting their their way.....hadn't you noticed?  So even if we stay in the Union, the Clyde is likely to be building less ships for the UK than they would be in an independent Scotland to meet the needs of a Scottish Navy....though as _we_ won't be doing war, maybe not warships.


Have you not stopped to think that maybe....just maybe....the Clyde shipyards can possibly flourish again if independence occurs?  There will be nothing to stop the Scottish shipyards tendering for outside contracts if they survive after independence but thats not to say rUK will award them anything. Scotland could be and possibly will be a great country to live in if it gains independence but there's always 2 sides of the coin and i'm more than certain that Scotland will suffer at the hands of Westminster as payback if the NO vote goes through. You only have to look at the news the other day about the £500 million being given by Westminster to rejuvenate Glasgow......yeah £500m *over the next 20 years*!....so just exactly where did this £500m come from that it couldn't be used to spare the welfare and NHS cuts in Scotland this last year?? 
The NO campaign are telling us we will suffer and lose this that and the next thing, this will cost more, that will be cut and so on yet claim Salmond and co can't tell us a single thing about what will happen. If, as they claim,  Salmond doesn't know and can't say what will happen then how come the current knobs of the NO campaign claim to know what will happen?

The other laugh i get is with all the non-Scottish people being allowed to vote on Scotland's future.....how many immigrant workers living here are going to vote yes when the threat of them being jobless and possibly sent home is looming according to the NO campaign? How many English, Welsh & Irish retirees living here are going to vote yes with the threat of pension cuts and higher taxes and cost of living on the horizon.......and just how many Scots are going to vote YES just for the hell of it, and because they can??

The whole situation sucks, on both YES & NO sides, and neither party know what will happen for sure, only what could happen.......

----------


## Rheghead

> The whole situation sucks, on both YES & NO sides, and neither party know what will happen for sure, only what could happen.......


Yep, counter claim and counter claim.  It is confusing isn't it?

Two things are for certain in all this that neither side disputes.  A Yes vote will put Scotland's affairs back into Scotland's hands.  And you can be also sure that the people of Scotland are uniquely capable of deciding what is in the best interests of Scotland.  

Take for example the increasingly likelyhood of a tory landslide next year.  Then an in/out referendum on EU membership will happen that will drag the UK out of the EU into the European wilderness.  Not because the people of Scotland desire it but because the south of the UK is Tory and UKIP dominated.  This would disadvantage Scotland disproportionately, giving her the worst of both worlds, out of the EU and no voice on the edge of Europe.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Scotland contributes £3.5 billion per year to defense yet only receives £2.2 billion per year back in defence contracts.  I call that _short changing_ someone.


Oh dear, if thats the way the Yes camps budgets are planned, heaven forbid a Yes vote....

You cannot pay £3.5 billion for defence, and expect to get it all back!  Would you go into a bakers, buy a loaf of bread, scoff it, then complain that the baker hasn't bought an equal value of ingredients from you?

----------


## Tangerine-Dream



----------


## Alrock

> 


Don't you just love Photoshop....

----------


## Big Gaz

i just sprayed a mouthful of beer all over the place when i saw that pic.....absolute classic!!!!   ::  ::  ::

----------


## Kevin Milkins

> i just sprayed a mouthful of beer all over the place when i saw that pic.....absolute classic!!!!


Peasant, I just sprayed some G&T.

----------


## Big Gaz

> Peasant, I just sprayed some G&T.


Don't blame you Kevin, i wouldn't drink that crap either..... ::

----------


## Oddquine

> Oh dear, if thats the way the Yes camps budgets are planned, heaven forbid a Yes vote....
> 
> You cannot pay £3.5 billion for defence, and expect to get it all back!  Would you go into a bakers, buy a loaf of bread, scoff it, then complain that the baker hasn't bought an equal value of ingredients from you?


What I'm going to post now is both a response to your specific point, and is also my interpretation of the ONS/OBR/IFS/GERS etc figures as applied to the UK/Scotland...and I would be delighted if, for the very first time on this forum, someone on the No Better Together Thanks side will debate with factual rebuttal rather than one or two line sneering. This decision is much too important to Scotland's future, and the UK's, to be polarised on  the lines of "I'm all right, jack and two fingers up to the rest of you..just take it" or  "better the devil you know" or a combination of both.

You say....._You cannot pay £3.5 billion for defence, and expect to get it all back_!  I say...._not in the UK you can't_.....but I say that we _could_ in an independent Scotland...just as, in an independent Scotland, we could get the benefit of some of the jobs we currently help subsidise in shared UK public services,  like DWP, HMRC, MOD etc jobs coming to Scotland. Last lot of figures I can find has the UK with 320 Departments and 448,840 Civil Service employees, with the bulk of the employees, including the highest paid employees, south of the border.  According to the ONS figures, specifically identifiable Scottish departments in 2012-2013, have 45460 employees. (I assume 2012-2013 relates to a year end of March 2013 (Q1)). In Q3 2013, the Scottish government had, in the devolved Civil Service, which we fund directly from the block grant, a total of 16,700 civil servants(3,7%), and in the reserved areas(which are part of the identifiable expenditure by the UK on behalf of Scotland), a total of 28,400 employees (6.32%). so that means that, in total, Scotland receives, by UK level calculations, on roughly 8.4 % of the population approx 10.1% of UK civil service jobs, and within that total is included the costs of the Scottish Office, which would be unnecessary in an iScotland. So of all the civil service jobs in Scotland, of that 10.1% only 37.2% specifically applicable to devolved Scottish Government responsibilities with the other 62.8% down to those in reserved responsiblities over which the Scottish government has no control or say at all.

We could also save a lot of our share of UK embassies and their staffing, plus the extra £3000 a throw it costs us to hire them to host Scottish Trade missions. We could save our share of the cost of running of two Houses of Parliament and MPs and Lords salaries, expenses, pensions etc and the upkeep of England's historic buildings, including the Palace of Westminster...we could save our share of HS2, London's sewage system, our share of the unitary payments for England's 791+ PFI contracts which take money out of the Barnett consequentials, and therefore out of Scotland's block grant. We could save our share of  every department which applies solely to England, as in every department which deals, in England, with the responsibilities devolved to Scotland which we pay ourselves. 

We could re-adjust the state pension age so that we are not obliged to make people work (and reduce job availability) according to the needs of a UK, in which figures are skewed by the longevity of those mostly in the better off South of England, but relate it to the current circumstances in Scotland. That would mean, if we were still in the Union and had any say at all, when the pension age was due to rise, according to UK average life expectancy,to 67 in 2020, as currently estimated, Scotland, would only need to increase it to 67 around the same time the UK was increasing it to 68.

I wouldn't _go into a bakers, buy a loaf of bread, scoff it, then complain that the  baker hasn't bought an equal value of ingredients from you?_ But I would go into a bakers and complain that I had paid enough to buy a whole loaf, but only received a half a loaf.

----------


## Chook a demus

Using the same argument as Oddquine, should we happen to go independent how can the Yes campaign guarantee that the money collected from taxpayers in Caithness that is paid into defence coffers is spent in Caithness. At the moment money raised in the United Kingdom is for defence of the United Kingdom not just for one part. Your argument of £3.5 billion  paid in but only £2.2 billion received in contracts back is actually deliberately misleading argument as it starts off with Scotland being treated as a separate issue to the whole country rather than a part, it also seeks to disclaim the cost of armed forces wages and the money which returns into the economies around bases. Despite your dislike of Faslane and Trident the towns themselves would be financially worse off without them with raised unemployment less money in those towns economies being but two parts of the whole issue. You suggest that Scotland would retain the whole of its defence industry spending within Scotland with non being spent elsewhere. I'd ask where has Scotland got the manufacturing and technological infrastructure to build all the types of vehicles and machinery required by even a modest modern day defence force ? The reality is that a larger percentage of that money would go out of the country as Scotland doesn't possess the manufacturing capabilities to produce the wide range of equipment require where as the United kingdom as a whole has a larger spread of manufacturing capability for the majority of its equipment .So on that one argument of defence spending and independent Scotland would infact have to spend more outside Scotland than if it remains part of the United Kingdom. This goes to show the limited understanding the yes campaign has of defence spending and procurement and is another  reason why if taken at face value the argument is a fair one but once inspected a little closer it falls apart.
It seems you want to see a Scotland with no embassy's around the world all very nice until you're a Scottish citizen in a foreign country who requires  assistance and let's not forget the huge amount of vital export revenue gained from those events at the embassy's. 
You want to lower the age of retirement increase pensions without any mention of the huge costs involved all the while ignoring the increasingly ageing population. 
The arguments when put the way you try to seem good until you apply some real scrutiny to them and that's when they fall apart.

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh dear, if thats the way the Yes camps budgets are planned, heaven forbid a Yes vote....
> 
> You cannot pay £3.5 billion for defence, and expect to get it all back!  Would you go into a bakers, buy a loaf of bread, scoff it, then complain that the baker hasn't bought an equal value of ingredients from you?


But we are not talking prices after profit was put on, keep up will you.

----------


## Tangerine-Dream

> Don't you just love Photoshop....


Superb!  :Wink:

----------


## Oddquine

> So given it's on 2014 now I take you're trying ta be funny when ya say UK won't be building anymore warships this century ....haha yup that's really funny in a ridiculous terminally thick sort of way.


Which part of many more this century equates to any more this century, pray tell?  Quote.._....I would think it unlikely that the rUK will be building many more warships this century_. Reading skills not up to scratch?

----------


## Chook a demus

[QUOTE=Oddquine;1088784]Which part of many more this century equates to any more this century, pray tell?  Quote.._....I would think it unlikely that the rUK will be building many more warships this century_. Reading skills not up to scratch?[/QUOTE. I can concede I misread that one word but even if the word is not many I'm not sure how you can suggest an island nation which relies on sea defence will not be building many more warships now would you care to address the rest of the points instead of zeroing in on one small error.

----------


## squidge

I saw an interesting bit of information which suggested that Ireland has 7 maritime patrol vessels whilst Scotland has none. Seems like we might need to build some ships of our own!

----------


## golach

> I saw an interesting bit of information which suggested that Ireland has 7 maritime patrol vessels whilst Scotland has none. Seems like we might need to build some ships of our own!


I wonder how much more taxes that will cost?

----------


## Phill

The UK currently have several. With a few consistently in Scottish waters.

----------


## squidge

The UK has no Major Surface vessels  based in Scottish Waters and no maritime patrol aircraft. The Scottish Government currently provides 3 fisheries monitoring vessels from Marine Scotland. That's why in both 2011 and 2013 vessels had to be sent from Portsmouth to  see why a Russian ship was lurking close by. 

Another fact about Scotland's contribution to the Defence Budget us that Scotland currently contributes around 3bn to the defence budget. That's you and me and the taxes we pay. The MOD spends less that 2bn in Scotland. The papers yesterday reported there are likely to be further cuts in the defence budget to pay for this upgrade of Trident. The Plans for a defence force have been costed and will come in at around 2.5bn. That's both a saving of half a billion pounds and an increase in spending of half a billion pounds in an Independent Scotland.

 How we will afford these things is the same way ever other country affords them, through taxation, other income and borrowing. We will also have the negotiated settlement which will see a sharing of assets.

----------


## Chook a demus

> The UK currently have several. With a few consistently in Scottish waters.


That's the nice thing about ships you can move them about easily. I have noticed that the yes brigade have this warped vision of spending a £1 on defence on that £1 remaining in Scotland but haven't addresses the fact a lot of equipment comes from other countries also all the R & D costs. Personally I'm sick of being treated like a mug by paid quislings who think as an ordinary  person they can hoodwink me with politicised posts on various sites and not have the decency to admit what they actually are . I for one will be glad when the neverendum is over

----------


## Big Gaz

Hmm, So say Scotland gains independence, the rUK govt tell them no pound, they insist Scotland take a share of the national debt and then get told they have no defence whatsoever because rUK are taking the MOD so no ships, no soldiers, no tanks, no weapons blah blah blah for Scotland.....so is rUK just going to empty Scotland of everything and tell them to do one? hmm, logical words captain Kirk!

----------


## squidge

Thats an interesting issue Big Gaz.  There are a few points worth thinking about around this issue of co operation.

Firstly the Edinburgh Agreement commits both countries to negotiations.  Secondly international law sets out the two options for countries which declare their independence.  

The first is that the two countries share the assets and the liabilities - In this instance, Scotland would be a "continuing country" and would therefore, be entitled to a share of the assets of the existing country but would have to take a share of the debt too. 

The second is that Scotland would be a New Country and in this scenario Scotland would not receive any of the assets of the UK but would also not be required to take any of the debt. 

There is a whole lot of nonsense talked about Scotland defaulting on its debt when these two points are discussed.  Scotland has no debt.  It didnt take the debt , it didnt sign up to the debt so it has no debt to default on.  The Scottish Government recognises its responsibilities however and  has made it abundantly clear in everything it has produced or said that it is committed to negotiation and sharing of both assets and debt. That it recognised the responsibility that it has to share both the benefits and the burdens. There is no suggestion that the plan is to walk away from the Edinburgh agreement by the Scottish Government. IF the rUK choose to walk away from negotiations, or refuse to negotiate fairly then that is their responsibility.

  I dont beleive that they will do that.  In the scenario you describe they would leave Trident and Faslane with no military presence at all and they will never do that. That - by the way -  is why Scotland will be admitted to Nato.  As much as there are many of us who would love to see the back of Trident - it WILL be with us for some time after Independence.  Is it likely that America and the rUK and Nato will  leave a country which has nuclear weapons and which also controls one  of the most strategic North Atlantic routes outside of Nato?  It is not. 

The other point which is worth making is that the reputation of the Uk is massively important and its status in the eyes of the world that of honesty, reliability and "doing the right thing".  It would damage the reputation of Britain for the UK to do anything other than act according to the law. 

Chook says that it is a warped vision that military spending by Scotland should remain in Scotland if we are part of the UK and he is right - my post is not however a comment on what is past but an explanation of how things would be different in the future. The suggestion that Scotland couldnt afford its defence force doesnt make sense when we are contributing more just now and affording THAT and we can save money and still spend more on Defence forces in an Independent Scotland 

Also my unionist insult bingo card is filling up nicely lol ::

----------


## Phill

> The UK has no Major Surface vessels  based in Scottish Waters and no maritime patrol aircraft. The Scottish Government currently provides 3 fisheries monitoring vessels from Marine Scotland. That's why in both 2011 and 2013 vessels had to be sent from Portsmouth to  see why a Russian ship was lurking close by.


So we're talking assets not just boats. Agreed, the maritime aircraft is a huge issue and one that we have our 'special' cousins to thank for. However, that would have been the same for Scotland.
Currently Scotland has begger all in regards to assets, as does Wales and England. The UK MoD has the assets.
Currently at least 7 Naval vessels are in Scottish waters and 2 maritime patrol vessels that are known about. Others may or may not be about.

When the Russian's come for a bit of sport, NATO nations respond accordingly. You can bet that the Russians picked the times when they knew suitable UK vessels were not in the areas they wanted to play in, just for purpose of testing the response.

The argument that Scotland doesn't have this or that is misleading.

----------


## Chook a demus

Interesting point phil not many realise the actual costs involved involved with building naval craft for defence purposes a couple of billion doesn't really get you much for your money.
 Taking it a newly independent Scotland would have to buy its own equipment and develop new equipment you'd have not only a navy to consider but an airforce as well plus equip,want for it's army. Here's an idea of the cost of naval vessels.
http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/It's
 interesting to note we see a lot of hyperbole from the yes campaign about costs but a newly independent Scotland seems to have an awful lots of costs which are just airbrushed out of the equation or not actually answered. Costs of new taxation system. Costs of new pension schemes, costs of new defence force and still no real clear answers only a matter of weeks away from tha referendum. I see a lot of tugging on heart strings but the actual questions are never actually answered. 
What you I or an average person on the street would prefer as a currency doesn't really cut it as to what will the currency be. 
Saying the rUK will still be using trident and Faslane means we would get access to NATO isn't an explicit statement from  the USA saying it has agreed that a newly formed non nuclear country will be allowed into NATO. 
The same applies to all the other questions floating about many people will post what their views or opinions are on the subject but the people in charge the SNP have consistently failed to answer these salient questions. All the jumping up and down hand wringing complaining and being offended by online posts is all very well and good and arise plain and simply because the Government of Scotland, the SNP have failed to comprehensively answer with satisfaction these very important questions.
 No doubt there will be the usual flurry of posts from yes campaigners deriding everything but as they say they are just normal folks same as you and I and are not party to the inner sanctums of the SNP and the real answers so why would a word they say be credible. 
If Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon can't answer these questions publicly  this close to the referendum  why would anyone with a grain of sanity listen to some keyboard warrior online. Unless of course that person is an official spokesperson for the SNP or YES campaign paid and supplied with credible evidence of those answers.
Meantime I shall watch the news read the various papers, read the official statements and ignore the online people who claim to know every answer without having any real connection to the people with the answers.

----------


## squidge

you are right Phil - Scotland doesnt have anytihng in the way of assets but if we go back to the negotiating issue then scotland is entitled to 8.4% of the assets of the Uk. The assets of the MOD are conservatively estimated at around 90bn.  

So if £90 billion is the value of the MOD assets Scotlands population share of that is £7.5 billion. Thats a huge amount of money for a nation the size of Scotland to have to set up a new defence force. Chook is right the cost of naval vessels is massive,I cant comment on the link that he shared as it doesnt work , however we can look at what the costs of a variety of equipment is.  The type 26 frigate for example, (which might be a bit of an overkill for an Independent Scotland where our navy would be deployed protecting oil installations and patrolling our waters)  - costs around 250 - 300 million each.  In addition the Royal Navy adds in bespoke items for extra costs which we are unlikely to need in an Independent Scotland so the cost for an "off the shelf" one of those is likely to be cheaper.

If we go on to look at the costs of aircraft too then we can see that a tornado costs around £9.4 million and a typhoon around £65 million off the shelf price.  So if we look at the Uk fleet of twenty typhoons and assume that Scotland opts for a generous 5 of those plus around 20 tornados - we are looking at spending around £560 million. Add into that five type 26 frigates at £300 million we are up to just over £2 billion pounds.  We could also add in The P8 poseidon aircraft as a replacement for the nimrod - the RAAF have just ordered 8 of these. If we suggest Scotland orders again a generous 4 of these as its  long range reconnaisance and surveillance aircraft for around £1.1 billion pounds This would mean that we  have so far spent less than £4 billion out of our £7.9 billion share of MOD assets and we have a ridiculously over equipped force.  In reality it is likely to be much much less than that.

For all Chook talks about hyperbole in the YES camp it seems that the Anti independence posters are perfectly capapble of doing their "It will cost Billions and Billions and Billions " hyperbolic nonsense all by themselves.  As chook says " watch the news read the various papers, read the official statements and ignore the online people who claim to know every answer without having any real connection to the people with the answers." and this applies to the nonsense being spouted about affording defence force costs too. All the information is there for you if you look and I can provide links for all the figures shown in this post however Adding links to iPhone posts is almost impossible. 

We are indeed ordinary folks and that simply underlines the fact that the information and the answers are out there if you should choose to look. ITs up to you to decide about what is important to you and which evidence you accept or dont.  

As for being offended by the online nonsense of posts by people like Chook and Tangerine Dream arising because the government somehow hasnt answered questions - well that is patently nonsense. If I get offended by the online posts it is simply because they are bloody rude and insulting. 

If you want the supporting information then send me a PM and Ill send you the links later when Im on my laptop.

----------


## Phill

Think your mincing your figures there. 
The point I was trying to make is the line that Scotland doesn't have a boat, _'because Westminster robbed us for £3.5Bn_'. The hyperbole, if you will, or obfuscation is the way this is pitched.

You could look at it another way, Scotland pays £3.5Bn and gets access to £90Bn worth of kit.

----------


## squidge

I don't really know what mincing my figures means. I don't think the UK has robbed  us of anything but I DO think we can afford to equip and maintain an effective Scottish Defence force and  that the figures support that.

----------


## Phill

So you agree then, that the line you took from Scotland's Future is misleading.

----------


## Oddquine

> So you agree then, that the line you took from Scotland's Future is misleading.


What line? The one about paying £3.5 billion and only getting £2.3 billion or whatever of it spent in Scotland?  How is a fact misleading?  
How do you mean access to £90 billion worth of kit?  *WE* don't....the *UK*  does . 

Scotland can't say to the MOD, you have removed the Nimrods, and all our offshore protection, so we want access to a dedicated boat or two and a couple of suitable planes  in order to protect our coast, seeing as we have already paid for a few planes and boats out of the ones you control and you have left us without any.  

Think you are living in a parallel universe in which Scotland has some say in anything.

----------


## Chook a demus

Oddquine I'm not sure why you feel that Scotland is currently vulnerable. Just because you don't see a surface vessel about doesn't mean the navy hasn't got assets deployed. And those planes that fly oer top of ma house seem a bit better equipped for defence than a nimrod. Mind I guess it's easy to forget about satellites watching what's going on so less need for nimrods nowadays. Your argument on defence assets isn't particularly well thought out. And even if we do go independent getting some second hand assets off the MOD won't last long you'd have to invest large amounts of money into upgrading those assets and keeping them current up to date and serviceable. Then at some stage you'd need to buy new ones another huge expense and then you'd be buying foreign armaments. So your £3.5 billion expenditure for a return of £2.2 billion would soon vanish in the cost of a few frigates and some new fighters.

----------


## squidge

It's not misleading, it is what is happening. Whether you think it us value for money or not is up to you but the  Figures show what I said they show.  If we can afford to spend that money on defence now then we can afford to spend that money after Independence. 

And as an independent country we can spend less and yet spend more here in Scotland on whatever defence priorities we have.  The other point is that an Independent Scotland is not wanting to replicate what the UK has. The Scottish Defence Force will have different objectives and a different reason for its existence. 

The  negotiations will take place and an Independent Scotland will not start with nothing, it will have resources to draw on and it will be able to afford to BE that independent country.

----------


## Phill

?  :: 

You really think that SDSR was just an attack on Scotland?

I'm confused as to why people are getting so concerned about this £3.5bn to £2.3bn. Did the evil treasury personally come and visit people in Scotland demanding a specific amount of money to play soldiers?
If the pesky Russians turn up and start annexing the Isle of Stroma, the response will brought from UK assets not just out of the £2.3Bn in Scotland.

Again, you are perpetuating the myth that Scotland has somehow been robbed of military presence. 
The UK has military assets, a portion of 'Scottish' tax goes into the pot, The assets are located, moved, relocated and based on some sort of plan, and I do not believe it is an anti Scottish plan.

Scotland's Future reads as if there is a specific and calculated lack of 'Scottish' naval vessels in Scottish waters. The truth is, there are navy (and other patrol) vessels in Scottish waters.
The Nimrod was removed at the US's behest, these were based in Scotland and England and patrolled ALL UK areas of interest, not just the Scottish coast.

This issue is pure misinformation.

----------


## squidge

At no point did I suggest there was robbery going on. Scotland doesn't have a boat, not because of the robbery of 3,5 billion but because of the sweeping and devastating cuts that have been made to the armed services a cross the whole of the UK which has left all our armed services reduced to the state where I read recently the US is concerned about our ability to be useful in future operations. 

 If, however you want to talk about the MOD and robbery then there are plenty of places to start. 

We could talk about the robbery of the careers of military personnel who returned from overseas service to be given redundancy notices. 

We could talk about the billions of pounds wasted by the MOD that I referred to in a previous post whilst some armed forces personnel are living in poor quality accommodation and whilst support for those leaving the services fails to the extent that a significant proportion of homeless people are ex regs. 

We can talk about the £130 bn the MOD is planning to spend on replacing trident whilst cutting the pension entitlement of its personnel. There is so much to choose from when we are talking robbery, especially the daylight sort.

 The figures I quoted are indicative of the affordability of defence in an independent Scotland. The fact that we spend £3 bn on defence now from our taxes and yet less that £2 bn is spent in Scotland means that in an Indy Scotland we can not only match the spending in Scotland but increase it to meet extra costs like having marine patrol vessels in SCottish Waters ALL the time as and yet still SAVE on what we are spending now. If you add that to our share of the assets then it must be clear that even with the ridiculous extravagant spending that I suggested, an Independent Scotland can Absolutely afford it's defence spending plans.

----------


## Phill

My last post was in reply to Oddquine, I wasn't saying you suggested any robbery.

However, I'm now even more confused over this magical £3.5 to £2.3bn figure which now has £130Bn attached, that is wanted rid of.

I'll say again, misinformation.

----------


## Chook a demus

£130 bn might refer to trident which of course the SNP wants rid of because they want a nuclear free Scotland. Meanwhile Faslane sits safely in Scotland therefor Scotland receives the benefit of having Nuclear Submarines lurking in her waters on a frequent basis, which are aboot as big a deterrent you can get. Mind much better tae get rid o them for a couple o kayaks paddling round the Orkneys manned by indomitable highlanders like on question time last night.

----------


## squidge

As I said the 130 billion  is what the "MOD plan to spend on replacing trident" well done  Chook for spotting  that. Good start to the morning  :Smile: 

I stuck in a few paragraphs to make it clearer

----------


## Phill

But it is still misinformation. Scotland doesn't have a boat for the same reason Wales & England don't have a boat either. However, there are military & law enforcement vessels in Scottish waters.

----------


## squidge

Ok Phill, what would you like me to say. That on the day the Russian navy came calling there were no major surface vessels in Scottish waters so they had to send one from Portsmouth. It is good to know though that we aren't disagreeing that Scotland CAN afford it's own defence force.  :Smile:

----------


## Phill

Not wanting to give the game away, but there may be good reason the _surface_ vessels were otherwise engaged. :Wink: 

It is good to know though that we aren't disagreeing on Scotland's Future having misleading information in it.  :Smile:

----------


## golach

> Ok Phill, what would you like me to say. That on the day the Russian navy came calling there were no major surface vessels in Scottish waters so they had to send one from Portsmouth. It is good to know though that we aren't disagreeing that Scotland CAN afford it's own defence force.


I agree Squidge, as long as we include a Astute class Submarine in our defence force

----------


## squidge

> Not wanting to give the game away, but there may be good reason the _surface_ vessels were otherwise engaged.It is good to know though that we aren't disagreeing on Scotland's Future having misleading information in it.


. Ahhhh Phill lol....so you have "inside information" then that can't BE challenged or debated except on a nod and a wink basis. How can I even begin to assess whether what you ARENT telling me cos you don't want to give the game away is misleading, accurate, false massively important or of no significance at all. And how can I assess whether your assertions that the statement about vessels in Scottish waters is misleading is actually accurate when you "don't want to give the game away"? But crack on Phill, whatever you say about Scotland's Future at least it is there and open for discussion.

----------


## Phill

Oh dear.
You can go to many websites to track military & law enforcement vessels, for free and without any nods or winks. Currently looks like 8 or 10 vessels in and around Scotland, but just so you don't think my assertions are misleading, I have to add the caveat that they do move around so the number could differ as time goes on.
(also the military do have a habit of switching on & off their AIS depending on what games they're playing)

I know you are capable of searching the 'web but I'll post a couple of quotes for other viewers benefit: 
_The Royal Navy said: "We do not discuss submarine movements for reasons of security."
_
_         "We do not routinely comment on  submarine operations so we are unable to discuss the detail"_

The UK, Nato and other nations play cat and mouse with the Russians, and they have for years. This is well documented, so again, no nods or winks or inside info that can't be challenged.
In short, there may well have been a sub' watching those pesky Russian's or maybe not. If Scotland had its own boat the chances are it would have been in or around the Clyde. So still would have had a bit of a drive to get round to the Moray.
But then, if they chose another day it may well have been parked in the Moray.

Point being the UK has assets that can be moved around /deployed as & when required. Arguing the toss over whether Scotland gets pound for pound back is a moot point when a couple of times of the year half of Nato is parked in the Minch.

----------


## Chook a demus

I'd agree with Phill there you'd have to totally discount Faslane and it's use to not believe there are frequently rather large powerful submarines lurking in Scottish waters. The Russians have flown a few aircraft into Scottish airspace as well and been turned back. Amazing considering the so called lack of military hardware that they always turn around.

----------


## golach

Squidge, Phill is correct, about the number of warships floating around the UK's territorial waters, I buy a publication called the Navy News and each month it prints a chart showing the rough deployment of UK warships around the world.Of the 3 Scottish Fishery vessels, the Jura, the Minna, both Scottish built, and the newest the Hirta, built in Poland, maybe these could be used by the Nats to defend Scotland.

----------


## orkneycadian

> so you have "inside information" then that can't BE challenged or debated except on a nod and a wink basis. How can I even begin to assess whether what you ARENT telling me cos you don't want to give the game away is misleading, accurate, false massively important or of no significance at all.


Pretty much how the SNP and Yes Camp refuse to divulge the details of "how its going to be post independance".

----------


## squidge

Ooh ok thanks for all that information and I will get a good look at what it tells me when I get a minute.looks like you are right Phil. However it doesn't detract from the fact that Scotland can afford it's Scottish Defence Force.

----------


## golach

> Ooh ok thanks for all that information and I will get a good look at what it tells me when I get a minute.looks like you are right Phil. However it doesn't detract from the fact that Scotland can afford it's Scottish Defence Force.


Where would an Independant Scotland buy these vessels from, they are not cheap and take a long time to build

----------


## squidge

Golach honey , I'm in a field in Dunfermline for the Bruce Festival this year its 700 years since Bannockburn and 100 since 1st Wotld war and both are being commemorated here. If anyone is close by its a free event so pop along. I'm doing the medieval food presentation so say hello. It's been a great day and it's on tomorrow too. Then as as I am spending next week helping to look after 20 German medieval reenactors who are visiting from Bavaria,  I'm happy to concede that the point about the boats not being in Scottish waters takes no account that boats may be elsewhere but this week I haven't time to research a shopping list for the Scottish Defence Force. You guys clearly have more knowledge about these things than I do so I bow to that. Me, I was just saying we can afford it.

----------


## Headwark

Not sure if this relevant, but the Bookies seem to have an idea of the result of the Referendum. 

No vote    1/7
Yes vote   4/1

----------


## golach

> Golach honey , I'm in a field in Dunfermline for the Bruce Festival this year its 700 years since Bannockburn and 100 since 1st Wotld war and both are being commemorated here. If anyone is close by its a free event so pop along. I'm doing the medieval food presentation so say hello. It's been a great day and it's on tomorrow too. Then as as I am spending next week helping to look after 20 German medieval reenactors who are visiting from Bavaria,  I'm happy to concede that the point about the boats not being in Scottish waters takes no account that boats may be elsewhere but this week I haven't time to research a shopping list for the Scottish Defence Force. You guys clearly have more knowledge about these things than I do so I bow to that. Me, I was just saying we can afford it.


Stay dry Squidge xxx

----------


## Phill

> However it doesn't detract from the fact that Scotland can afford it's Scottish Defence Force.


Scotland will be able to afford many things, but not everything, or have a high tax regime to cover all costs.
What has to be considered is the risks to newly iScotland and their commitment to NATO & the EU military force. Here again the size, capability (costs) and control will not be in iScotlands hands.

----------


## Chook a demus

Not sure why the SNP claim they can just join NATO I've taken this off the NATO website it does state quite clearly you have to be invited  by the North Atlantic  Council  
Q: What are the conditions for joining NATO? Which countries are eligible?
A: NATO has an open door policy with regard to enlargement. Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council.
Countries aspiring for NATO membership are also expected to meet certain political, economic and military goals in order to ensure that they will become contributors to Alliance security as well as beneficiaries of it.
NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) is designed to assist aspirant partner countries in their preparations by providing a framework which enables NATO to channel assistance and practical support to them on all aspects of NATO membership.

This is from MAP also on NATO website

MAP members should also guarantee that their domestic legislation doesn't pose any hurdles in their cooperation with NATO.

(This would be forcing Faslane to close and remove nuclear deterrent from Scotland )

----------


## Rheghead

Mums are saying Yes to Scottish independence, a common theme seems to be they want their voice heard and their vote to matter in a new independent Scotland, something they don't see happening in the UK.

http://www.mumsforchange.com/

----------


## Chook a demus

How large a group is mums for change?  and how representative are they of Scotland's female vote demographic ?  do they exclude any females who aren't mothers? For someone who want a a fairer more inclusive society I see a website that discounts any male view or one from non mothers all seems a bit discriminatory to me .  I only see 5 quote from the newly made website.

----------


## Rheghead

> How large a group is mums for change?  and how representative are they of Scotland's female vote demographic ?  do they exclude any females who aren't mothers? For someone who want a a fairer more inclusive society I see a website that discounts any male view or one from non mothers all seems a bit discriminatory to me .  I only see 5 quote from the newly made website.


Being a mother is a full time job and moresome.  The fact that Mums for Change have come out for independence in their spare time is admirable.

----------


## Chook a demus

[QUOTE=Rheghead;1089076]Being a mother is a full time job and moresome.  The fact that Mums for Change have come out for independence in their spare time is admirable


Would that be Mums For Change who are on twitter have 698 followers and 553 on Facebook many of whom aren't mums but men or organisations affiliated to the yes campaign and was only launched in March and had 22 people attend their meeting in Glasgow some of whom claimed to be undecideds .

The population of Scotland is around 5 million

----------


## Phill

> Being a mother is a full time job and moresome.  The fact that Mums for Change have come out for independence in their spare time is admirable.


Actual LOL.

What sexist, patriarchal bullsheet.

----------


## Rheghead

> Would that be Mums For Change who are on twitter have 698 followers and 553 on Facebook many of whom aren't mums but men or organisations affiliated to the yes campaign and was only launched in March and had 22 people attend their meeting in Glasgow some of whom claimed to be undecideds .
> 
> The population of Scotland is around 5 million


Oh so this is a peeing contest about twitter now is it? Drink this...

Better Together 26,500 followers

Yes Scotland  51,900 followers.

 :Wink:

----------


## Chook a demus

Not a peeing contest at all just thought it was worth mentioning the stats behind the group you're putting out there. If you're embarrassed by purporting such a minority group as a major player in the referendum debate that would be your problem not mine.

I'd also add the twitter for better together or yes Scotland isn't worth talking about considering population is 5 million.

----------


## Rheghead

> Not a peeing contest at all just thought it was worth mentioning the stats behind the group you're putting out there. If you're embarrassed by purporting such a minority group as a major player in the referendum debate that would be your problem not mine.
> 
> I'd also add the twitter for better together or yes Scotland isn't worth talking about considering population is 5 million.


If I was a No voter then I wish I could share your confidence as 51,900 is 1.2% of the voting population, some polls show that a 3% swing on referendum day will change the trend in the polls.  I think the hare is getting worried about how the gap is narrowing.

----------


## Rheghead

Don't forget that a lot of these polls are conducted by landline telephone, I expect that will introduce a bias as most younger people are more social media savvy than that so the difference in the twitter followers is not an absolute figure but more a barometer of how the younger generation are going to vote.

----------


## Chook a demus

> If I was a No voter then I wish I could share your confidence as 51,900 is 1.2% of the voting population, some polls show that a 3% swing on referendum day will change the trend in the polls.  I think the hare is getting worried about how the gap is narrowing.


I'm not desperately grasping at straws to win a point if we go independent so be it but all the constant making out minor events to seem major and sniping does the yes lobby no favours.

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm not desperately grasping at straws to win a point if we go independent so be it but all the constant making out minor events to seem major and sniping does the yes lobby no favours.


Sniping, who just sniped?

----------


## golach

> Don't forget that a lot of these polls are conducted by landline telephone, I expect that will introduce a bias as most younger people are more social media savvy than that so the difference in the twitter followers is not an absolute figure but more a barometer of how the younger generation are going to vote.


Thats very ageist Rheg, many silver surfers use the social media and are very savvy with it, Ecks ploy to give bairns the vote has not worked very well in his favour according to the stats I have read.

----------


## Rheghead

> Thats very ageist Rheg, many silver surfers use the social media and are very savvy with it, Ecks ploy to give bairns the vote has not worked very well in his favour according to the stats I have read.


Not ageist Golach, just an observation.

----------


## Rheghead

Does anyone have an opinion on that the biggest oilfield in the world may lie to the west of Lewis and the allegation is that the UK government is trying to keep it secret to prevent it fuelling the campaign for Scottish independence?




> In a communication with a Mr S Fisher, a retired oil industry executive, who was involved in seismic work in the Scottish Atlantic Margin, he stated: “The biggest oil-field in the world lies to the west of Lewis, but would be very difficult to work (but not impossible) since it has been shattered and fragmented by ancient volcanic action. But it is there”. Chris Baker, Energy Institute, London (January 2014) stated: “There are enormous reserves, proven and estimated, west of Shetland (Faroese-Shetland Basin) and the potential is for more to be discovered (bear in mind that Shetland is part of Scotland, and these “enormous” oil and gas reserves are located in Scottish waters).


http://yes2014.net/2014/06/13/bigges...west-of-lewis/

----------


## Rheghead

Scottish shipbuilding will thrive in an independent Scotland according to Scottish shipbuilding expert.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...rders.24741558

----------


## orkneycadian

> Does anyone have an opinion on that the biggest oilfield in the world may lie to the west of Lewis and the allegation is that the UK government is trying to keep it secret to prevent it fuelling the campaign for Scottish independence?
> 
> http://yes2014.net/2014/06/13/bigges...west-of-lewis/


Brilliant!  This will make the Peoples Republic of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles rich beyond their wildest dreams.  We just need to escape the greedy clutches of the politicians in the Central Belt!

Vote Independence on the 25th of September!

----------


## orkneycadian

> Scottish shipbuilding will thrive in an independent Scotland according to Scottish shipbuilding expert.
> 
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...rders.24741558


He is so Scottish, he lives and works in Australia....

He, and Mr Baird, also seem to have formed an opinion that the "export market" for smaller ferries will shun the cheaper yards of the far east and flock to the Clyde for a much higher priced offering.  Wishful thinking.

----------


## golach

Where were the Northlink ferries built, Scotland? Naw Finland, Fishery Protection vessel Hirta, Scotland? Naw Poland.  I am sure I could trawl for more, but it's boring.

----------


## Rheghead

> Where were the Northlink ferries built, Scotland? Naw Finland, Fishery Protection vessel Hirta, Scotland? Naw Poland.  I am sure I could trawl for more, but it's boring.


It is sad that you quote a sad situation and use it as a basis for it to continue.  A No vote is a serious limitation on the aspirations of the Scottish people.

----------


## orkneycadian

Wasn't it the Scottish Government that placed the order for the Northlink Ferries with Finland (either directly, or though their "subsidiaries", including the Royal Bank of Scotland)?

----------


## Rheghead

> Wasn't it the Scottish Government that placed the order for the Northlink Ferries with Finland (either directly, or though their "subsidiaries", including the Royal Bank of Scotland)?


I don't know but you're referring to that Scottish Government that has its hands tied you mean?

----------


## orkneycadian

I take it you haven't read "Who Pays the Ferryman? - The Great Scottish Ferries Swindle"  then?

ISBN 978-1-78027-122-4

----------


## Rheghead

> I take it you haven't read "Who Pays the Ferryman? - The Great Scottish Ferries Swindle"  then?
> 
> ISBN 978-1-78027-122-4


No I haven't but there are a few 1 star ratings for it on Amazon quoting lack of objective research.

----------


## golach

> It is sad that you quote a sad situation and use it as a basis for it to continue.  A No vote is a serious limitation on the aspirations of the Scottish people.


It's sad that all this was done on Eck's remit.

----------


## orkneycadian

> No I haven't but there are a few 1 star ratings for it on Amazon quoting lack of objective research.


Indeed there are.  3 in fact.  One of which the comments allude to being from a Cal-Mac emplyee and union representative, so not exactly unbiased.

But there are 4 reviews giving it 5 stars, and 1 giving it 4, to an average of 3.4 stars out of 5.  Some of their comments....

_"Roy Pederson understands his subject and is able to explain it well. The introduction by Alfred Baird (Professor of Maritime Business at Napier University) said The ongoing ferry fleet and port procurement activities sponsored by the state make the Edinburgh tram debacle look like a very good deal indeed Pederson's excellent book proves that beyond doubt."

"This very readable book brings all the subterfuges visited on the Hebridean ferry links for the last forty years by vested interests - with the notable exception of Skye, to reasonable scrutiny."

"Very well researched and written. A must for anyone interested in Scottish ferry services and the prolific waste of public finances."

"well written book and reveals lots of thought provocking points,should be mandatory reading in schools as it illustrates the hypocrasy that the government feeds the populace,shows how much influence central belt executive have even though they theit knowlrdgr, of things is pathetic to say the least"

"Pedersen was for many years a staff member at the Highlands and Islands development board, working on ferry policy"

"__He lists missed opportunities to improve things and takes a visceral aim at the lack of transparency in the state funded ferries in Scotland"_

Lack of objective research eh?

----------


## Rheghead

> Indeed there are.  3 in fact.  One of which the comments allude to being from a Cal-Mac emplyee and union representative, so not exactly unbiased.


Pure speculation though, yes?

----------


## orkneycadian

Completely.

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/george-lonie/54/2b7/947

----------


## Rheghead

> Completely.
> 
> http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/george-lonie/54/2b7/947


Then that is the first manager I know of that is a union representative.

----------


## orkneycadian

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6094

Google is your friend!  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

This indy referendum is about our hopes and aspirations about the future of Scotland and the younger generation, the future of Scotland at T in the Park seem to be all out for support with Scottish independence. Despite rumours that the BBC tried to confiscate Yes flags off punters, the ground was awash with Yes flags and only the odd No flag to be seen.

----------


## Chook a demus

Aye if flying plenty o flags and hopes and aspirations  for victory guarantee success then why did tha  English do sae badly at bannockburn. Makes yae wonder aye

----------


## Big Gaz

I was on the phone to a mate of mine over the weekend and he was telling me that his and many others "YES" car sticker in the area had been covered over with a "NO" sticker last weekend along with some peoples windows being spray painted to cover the "YES" poster. Getting serious down south ah see!

----------


## Oddquine

> Where were the Northlink ferries built, Scotland? Naw Finland, Fishery Protection vessel Hirta, Scotland? Naw Poland.  I am sure I could trawl for more, but it's boring.


Would those be the contracts taken out when the _NuLab/LibDem_ Government was in power in 2005/2006.....Two ferries  in Finland, one in Port Glasgow for Northlink and the one in Poland for the Fisheries?  Would these be contracts which are bound by EU procurement rules.......which _doesn't_ allow you to choose a company in your own country, over a cheaper tender in an EU country, unless the contracts are for military or security reasons?  Oh........of course it would.    ::

----------


## squidge

Quick post, great weekend at Dunfermline's Bruce Festival. Yesterday was dry Golach but we were certainly damp on Sat night. One of our group, a driving instructor from Galashiels and a staunch NO voter spent his weekend asking people he met how they were voting. A few observations - this caused NO aggravation at all, everyone was good humoured and happy to talk about it. Of those who had decided he found about a fifty fifty split but plenty folk still saying they don't know. Plenty YES badges and T shirts and smiling people. 

There were around 10k visitors to pittencrieff park yesterday. We were MOBBED. Battle featured, of course, Bannockburn. The Bruce was loudly cheered and Edward 2nd loudly booed and then the Gordon Highlanders 1914-1918, did a moving presentation about WW1. Which ended  with a 2 minute silence where yes and no voters, English and Scottish "knights" 20 German reenactors, musicians jousters and the crowd bowed their heads and paid respects. Around the fires at night the discussions continued, plenty beer, plenty singing, plenty disagreeing and robust arguments which went on til 3am when the WW1 guys decided the medieval knights had best them in the beer department and bumbled off to their tents. 

The point of telling you guys this is to remind us all that  outside of the bad tempered insults and nasty digs which fly around this board, outside of twitter, Facebook and internet nonsense this debate is being conducted in the main, in a good humoured and respectful manner with common sense and hope. 

Right I'm off to cook haggis neeps and tatties and reply on behalf of the lassies in Grantown for our German friends. I'll be counting the bruises after Strip the Willow tomorrow but it'll be worth it  :Smile:  For any of you guys scowling into the PC and grumbling about the referendum. Go find your happy place. Remind yourselves how proud we should be that here in Scotland this debate is taking place in a positive, non violent and hopeful manner and SMILE!

----------


## Rheghead

T in the Park was seemingly awash with YES flags despite allegations that the BBC tried to confiscate yes flags out their concerns that their tv reporting of the event would give a one sided report on the popularity of independence.

----------


## golach

> T in the Park was seemingly awash with YES flags despite allegations that the BBC tried to confiscate yes flags out their concerns that their tv reporting of the event would give a one sided report on the popularity of independence.


The city of Stirling was awash with thousands of Union Flags on Armed Forces day, very few yes flags to be seen, what's your point Rheg? I doubt your allegation that the BBC tried to confiscate any flags, more yes crowd propaganda and miss truths.

----------


## Rheghead

> The city of Stirling was awash with thousands of Union Flags on Armed Forces day, very few yes flags to be seen, what's your point Rheg? I doubt your allegation that the BBC tried to confiscate any flags, more yes crowd propaganda and miss truths.


That is different.  I too think it was totally appropriate to fly the union flag on armed forces day, afterall that is the flag UK forces should be flying.  There is no choice there.   

No mention of union flags being flown at TITP mind...

----------


## orkneycadian

> This indy referendum is about our hopes and aspirations about the future of Scotland and the younger generation, the future of Scotland at T in the Park seem to be all out for support with Scottish independence. Despite rumours that the BBC tried to confiscate Yes flags off punters, the ground was awash with Yes flags and only the odd No flag to be seen.


Can you help me out with some links to pictures?  I have spent ages scanning 2014 T In The Park pics on the web till I have gone cross eyed, and I can't find a single Yes or No flag in any of them.  Saltires, Union Jacks, and a smattering of international flags, yes, but no political ones.

----------


## golach

> That is different.  I too think it was totally appropriate to fly the union flag on armed forces day, afterall that is the flag UK forces should be flying.  There is no choice there.   
> 
> No mention of union flags being flown at TITP mind...


How is Armed forces day different, Union flags fly daily over the capitol. I still have to find any mention of yes products being banned at Ballado, another of your scaremongering and lies, or should I say miss truths Rheg?

----------


## Rheghead

> Can you help me out with some links to pictures?  I have spent ages scanning 2014 T In The Park pics on the web till I have gone cross eyed, and I can't find a single Yes or No flag in any of them.  Saltires, Union Jacks, and a smattering of international flags, yes, but no political ones.


Lots people complaining about seeing lots of Yes flags on twitter.  Can't see them making it up.  Anyway, it has kept you busy for a while.

----------


## Rheghead

You didn't look very hard.









http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5580698.html

----------


## Rheghead



----------


## orkneycadian

Cripes.  Your right.  The place is positively awash with them.  There must be at least one in every picture!

Did you photoshop the first one?

----------


## Rheghead

Then there is the performers endorsing a Yes vote.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...ampaign=buffer

----------


## Rheghead



----------


## Rheghead

> Cripes.  Your right.  The place is positively awash with them.  There must be at least one in every picture!
> 
> Did you photoshop the first one?


There would have been a lot more if the BBC who own the film rights didn't confiscate flags off punters.

----------


## golach

> Cripes.  Your right.  The place is positively awash with them.  There must be at least one in every picture!Did you photoshop the first one?


I can only see one also, more disinformation from Rheg

----------


## golach

> There would have been a lot more if the BBC who own the film rights didn't confiscate flags off punters.


Aye Right Rheg , why would the BBC do that, when all they needed to do was edit the film

----------


## Rheghead

> Aye Right Rheg , why would the BBC do that, when all they needed to do was edit the film


Plenty of eyewitness accounts on twitter of it happening.

----------


## Rheghead

> I can only see one also, more disinformation from Rheg


It must be a miracle that all those pics managed to get the same flag in it then eh?   ::

----------


## orkneycadian

I don't think its so much of a miracle.  More that the cameraperson took more than one pic of the same flag.....  :: 

The flag in the pics with the baldy guy with the mic is definitely the same one.  How many does that make?  About 3 or 4 in total?

----------


## orkneycadian

> Of those who had decided he found about a fifty fifty split but plenty folk still saying they don't know.


 ::  - Jeepers Creepers.  Only 50/50?  At a Bannockburn re-enactment event??  In the Central Belt???

That must be deeply concerning to the Yes camp and akin to going to a Hunt protest and discovering that half of your fellow protesters turn up with horse and hounds!

----------


## Rheghead

Something to think about

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't think its so much of a miracle.  More that the cameraperson took more than one pic of the same flag..... 
> 
> The flag in the pics with the baldy guy with the mic is definitely the same one.  How many does that make?  About 3 or 4 in total?


So now it is a conspiracy then is it? how can you explain that the photos are from different sources?

----------


## Rheghead

I still think this a poignant image though.

----------


## Rheghead

More Yes flags and badges at titp

----------


## golach

still no proof that the BBC tried to confiscate the flags, as you origionally stated!!!!

----------


## Chook a demus

Well I've watched T in the park and I'd hardly say it was awash with yes flags although e org is becoming awash with pictures of them. Looks like a bit of desperation is setting in.

----------


## squidge

Why would a 50/50 split trouble anyone orkneycadian lol.  Its a reflection of what the polls are showing and a good place to be going into the last few weeks of the campaign. The event at Dunfermline is an interesting event to do because it is a free event. This makes the crowd very different from an event at a historic Scotland site for example, which people have to pay to get into and usually are there because they are already interested in the history.  Dunfermline and BAnnockburn live were not protest events at all.  they were fun entertaining and engaging events for people to enjoy history and have a good day out. 

Im also a bit surprised that you think only YES voters or even more YES voters would attend a historical reeenactment of Bannockburn. People can love their history or enjoy a great spectacle regardless of their political views - heck we have people portraying Scottish nobles who fought at Bannockburn who are voting No in the referendum. We have serving members of the armed forces who spend their weekends battering the English soldiers and who are voting No too.  The suggestions that i have seen here and elsewhere that going along to something which commemorates the Battle of Bannockburn is a "nationalist" thing to do or that if you are a NO voter you cant somehow enjoy or be Fascinated by Scottish medieval history is a bit nuts.  The stories of early Scotland are fabulous stories and the wars of Independence offer some wonderful tales of loyalty and betrayal.  We do a presentation called "Robert the Bruce - Hero or Villain" which has the Bruce trying to persuade a Templar Knight to join him when he meets the Edward at Bannockburn and during which he has to justify his actions and then the audience decides whether he was a villain or a hero.  Its a great way for people to think about history and enjoy it - regardless of their political views.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> Well I've watched T in the park and I'd hardly say it was awash with yes flags although e org is becoming awash with pictures of them. Looks like a bit of desperation is setting in.


Okay, I have tried to stay off this website, after being threatened with a baseball bat by a No voter, but your continual stream of misinformation and negetivity is starting to annoy me. You appear to think that voters in Caithness are too dim to check out facts and figures and will believe anything U Kok tells them.
Scotland will not be thrown out of the EU on September 19 in the event of a Yes vote, unless the EU is prepared to re-write it's constitution, Article 50 and the Copenhagen Agreement, in which case the rUK will also lose it's membership.
Scotland will continue to use Sterling, as can any country in the world, because Sterling does not belong to Westminster, the Bank of England or George Osborne.
Desperation......you wish.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Well I've watched T in the park and I'd hardly say it was awash with yes flags although e org is becoming awash with pictures of them. Looks like a bit of desperation is setting in.


I think with a very generous benefit of the doubt, 10 or so seperate flags can be counted.  Thats not including the ones that are very obviously the same flag from different angles (check the cranes and funfair gear in the backgrounds, the attire of the people round about and the connection become obvious.)

So, 10 flags and 250,000 attendees over 3 days.  Even if everyone went for 3 days, and there are only 85,000 attendees, thats not many flags each!  If there were 40,000 flags spread among 85,000 folk, it would be awash.  But 10?

----------


## Chook a demus

That's your opinion which of course you're more than welcome to despite everything that's been said by other people far more qualified than me to say. 
Of course sterling is a fully tradeable currency you're quite correct but a monetary union is a different thing all together so no misinformation on that part rUK has categorically stated from a number of highly placed people this will not happen, now whether I choose to believe you or the chancellor, shadow chancellor, governor of the BofE and any number of other parties who have said no to a monetary union is a matter of choice . 
If Scotland should become independent and use a different countries currency it does not have full control over its economy. 
As for the EU issue it's not my opinion I choose who to listen to same as everyone else either 
A. Alex Salmond and the SNP 
or 
B various  EU people one says it's ok the other says not so easy if it happens. 
It's not misinformation it's listening to the facts as stated by both sides and deciding which sound more credible. 
 Side  A says it will be ok just trust us even though we have no definitive answers to the serious questions, 
 Side  B says there will be issues and you won't get everything you  want.

What any of that's got to do with the number of flags a T in tha park is beyond me although why you'd think politicising a music concert is a good idea is beyond me.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Scotland will continue to use Sterling, as can any country in the world, because Sterling does not belong to Westminster, the Bank of England or George Osborne.


 ::   If only it were that simple!  If it were, then all any bank would need to do is decide what they are printing on their bank notes and go with it.  But currency has more to do with monetary policy than just simply what you call it.  If (and it doesn't look likely at the moment), an independent Scotland were to retain sterling, then they would find their hands as tied as they are at the moment.  The country that is supposedly independent would have no control over its own monetary policy or its interest rates, and would find that its currency strength is only as good as the rUK.  Unlike other countries, Scotland, if it did well, would not experience the currency strengths that other countries can when their economies are doing well.

It might be called independence, but independence it certainly would not be.

----------


## golach

> Scotland will not be thrown out of the EU on September 19 in the event of a Yes vote, unless the EU is prepared to re-write it's constitution, Article 50 and the Copenhagen Agreement, in which case the rUK will also lose it's membership.


In a meeting with MEPs, Mr Juncker was questioned on the possibility of Scottish independence by Catalan MEP Josep Maria Terricabras. 
The former Luxembourg premier, who is due to take up  his new role in November, said: "I am in favour of democratic expressions but I'm not so arrogant to pre-empt the debate. 
"I will respect the result of ­Scotland's referendum."
But he then made clear: "One does not become a member of the EU by sending a letter."

so much about your statement

----------


## Rheghead

> In a meeting with MEPs, Mr Juncker was questioned on the possibility of Scottish independence by Catalan MEP Josep Maria Terricabras. 
> The former Luxembourg premier, who is due to take up  his new role in November, said: "I am in favour of democratic expressions but I'm not so arrogant to pre-empt the debate. 
> "I will respect the result of Scotland's referendum."
> But he then made clear: "One does not become a member of the EU by sending a letter."
> 
> so much about your statement


And it won't be just a letter, will it?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Juncker deals blow to Alex Salmond's EU claims


Another example of UK media misinforming the Scottish people, call it scaremongering if you like, reporting that Juncker says 'no more EU states for 5 years', 

He really said 'no EU expansion for 5 years' meaning geographical expansion, we are already EU citizens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...EU-claims.html

----------


## Chook a demus

> Another example of UK media misinforming the Scottish people, call it scaremongering if you like, reporting that Juncker says 'no more EU states for 5 years', He really said 'no EU expansion for 5 years' meaning geographical expansion, we are already EU citizens.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...EU-claims.html


If you read tha article it says no more new countries with a cap at 28. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but Scotland would be a new independent country which would mean 28 would have tae become 29. Scotland would be leaving the United Kingdom and becoming a new country it's ok using all the bluster about rUK not being still in but tha reality is rUK isn't the one breaking away to become a new state it would be Scotland, so the question has never been about rUK being kicked out of Europe it's not tha one choosing or not as the case may be to become a newly formed independent country. It seems every time someone high up within tha EU says NO the SNP claim otherwise without give clarification on what tha base their opinion.

In a speech to EU lawmakers before the vote, he said: “There will be no new enlargement in the next five years. The EU needs to mark a pause in its enlargement process so that we can consolidate what has been done with 28.”
The bloc has expanded rapidly from 15 member states over the past decade, with the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe joining en masse. Croatia was the last country to join the EU, in July last year, and Serbia began membership talks in January.
Mr Juncker, whose job includes being the “guardian” of EU treaties, last week told MEPs he would respect Scottish voters’ decision but “one does not become a member of the EU by writing a letter”.
SNP ministers have argued that a separate Scotland could be fast-tracked into the EU by amending the relevant treaties instead of following the lengthy accession process.
However, Mr Barroso said earlier this year Scotland would have to apply from scratch and it was highly likely some of the existing member states – all of which would have to agree – would object.
His comments were later backed by Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, the body consisting of the leaders of all the EU’s countries.


Now that seems quite a few people within tha EU tend ta disagree with Mr Salmond scuse me for seeming sceptical when some on tha org thinks they know better

----------


## Rheghead

> If you read tha article it says no more new countries with a cap at 28. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but Scotland would be a new independent country which would mean 28 would have tae become 29. Scotland would be leaving the United Kingdom and becoming a new country it's ok using all the bluster about rUK not being still in but tha reality is rUK isn't the one breaking away to become a new state it would be Scotland, so the question has never been about rUK being kicked out of Europe it's not tha one choosing or not as the case may be to become a newly formed independent country. It seems every time someone high up within tha EU says NO the SNP claim otherwise without give clarification on what tha base their opinion.


Do you believe the article?

----------


## Chook a demus

> Do you believe the article?


You're the one who posted it and it seems to tally with what various news channels and other news outlets are saying ! 
The bit about cap at 28 is pretty clear as it's a direct quote tha does nae look like Scotland would make it to Number 29 for a few years

----------


## Rheghead

BBC's James Cook reporting that Jean Claude Juncker's spokeswoman has said he was not referring to Scotland when he talked about a five year pause in EU accession

----------


## Chook a demus

Here's his speech definitely mentions no expansion over the 28

http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-co...docs/pg_en.pdf

----------


## Rheghead

> Here's his speech definitely mentions no expansion over the 28
> 
> http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-co...docs/pg_en.pdf


Clearly refering to geographical enlargement and the Balkans/Ukraine.  Not Scotland as has already been clarified by Juncker spokes person.

----------


## Chook a demus

Aye he said no geographical expansion but also mentions the 28 so that still means Scotland would be 29 . Then ya have last weeks statement.
Mr Juncker, whose job includes being the “guardian” of EU treaties, last week told MEPs he would respect Scottish voters’ decision but “one does not become a member of the EU by writing a letter”.

Yae seem ta be reading and interpreting the bits ya want ta see not what it actually says.

----------


## Rheghead

> Scottish independence: Jean-Claude Juncker 'not referring to Scotland'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-28311938

----------


## Chook a demus

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-28311938


Here's the killer line Mr Juncker's office confirmed to the BBC that his remarks were referring to countries already in an accession process with the EU and not to a hypothetical case involving Scotland.

He does nae have to refer to Scotland because Scotland isn't a country that has applied as it says it's a hypothetical question. 
The others have already applied there's a big difference Scotland hasn't applied because it's not an independent country so his statement doesn't apply until it does become independent !

----------


## Rheghead

> Here's the killer line Mr Juncker's office confirmed to the BBC that his remarks were referring to countries already in an accession process with the EU and not to a hypothetical case involving Scotland.
> 
> He does nae have to refer to Scotland because Scotland isn't a country that has applied as it says it's a hypothetical question. 
> The others have already applied there's a big difference Scotland hasn't applied because it's not an independent country so his statement doesn't apply until it does become independent !


So he isn't saying anything at all, no allusion to anything can be made about Scotland yet UK media clearly twisted it for their own devices.

----------


## Chook a demus

No he's quite clearly saying tha cap is 28 no expansion into new areas. Until such time as Scotland becomes a new country it isn't for him to publicly comment as he might be seen to be trying to influence the outcome of the referendum. But the statement is pretty clear when you cap at 28 that means no 29

----------


## Rheghead

> No he's quite clearly saying tha cap is 28 no expansion into new areas. Until such time as Scotland becomes a new country it isn't for him to publicly comment as he might be seen to be trying to influence the outcome of the referendum. But the statement is pretty clear when you cap at 28 that means no 29


Clutching...   ::

----------


## Chook a demus

> Clutching...


You do appear to be but what do I know !

----------


## Rheghead

> You do appear to be but what do I know !


Well do you really think the EU leadership will ignore a democratic referendum for independence from 4 million of it own citizens on the basis of just "Ah but, I did say 28 not 29!" when Scotland clearly ticks all the economic, sovereign and human rights boxes for EU membership criteria?

----------


## gerry4

> No he's quite clearly saying tha cap is 28 no expansion into new areas. Until such time as Scotland becomes a new country it isn't for him to publicly comment as he might be seen to be trying to influence the outcome of the referendum. But the statement is pretty clear when you cap at 28 that means no 29


This is what James Cook reported from Juncker spokesperson. Seems you only want to be reports that suits your view & not the facts.

"*James Cook @BBCJamesCook** · 3h*

*Jean Claude Juncker's spokeswoman says he was not referring to Scotland when he talked about a five year pause in EU accession. "

"*Jean-Claude Juncker spokesperson "At no point is Scotland mentioned, as this is an entirely separate issue."

----------


## orkneycadian

Why are the Yes camp so hell bent on EU membership anyway?  Its a very "watery" independence, being "independent", but not?

The EU has been the biggest contributor to the decline and near extinction of some of Scotlands oldest and most significant industries, and many,(Yes voters amongst them I am sure) cannot wait to see the back of them.  The rest of the UK are finally voting with this in mind, giving UKIP the number 1 position in the last European Elections.

Why then are the SNP so hell bent on keeping us in this shambles, whilst promoting independence?

And which box do you tick on the referendum slip if you want Scotland to be truly independent?  Not just "sort of independent" in a wishy washy sort of way?  Will there be supplementary boxes to tick for "EU In/Out?", "Nuclear Yes/No?" after the main one on Scotlands independence?

----------


## Rheghead

> Why are the Yes camp so hell bent on EU membership anyway?  Its a very "watery" independence, being "independent", but not?


In 2011, Scots overwhelmingly voted for the SNP and they got an overall majority.  It is an pro-Euro party as they believe that EU membership benefits Scotland.

----------


## Chook a demus

> This is what James Cook reported from Juncker spokesperson. Seems you only want to be reports that suits your view & not the facts."*James Cook @BBCJamesCook** · 3h**Jean Claude Juncker's spokeswoman says he was not referring to Scotland when he talked about a five year pause in EU accession. ""*Jean-Claude Juncker spokesperson "At no point is Scotland mentioned, as this is an entirely separate issue."


Why not read Junckers own words direct from the EU website rather than believe what anyone else says.

http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-co...docs/pg_en.pdf

 Very easy to quote the BBC from twitter or any other news source but a lot harder to twist what he has officially put out himself. It clearly says the cap is 28 no one else's words no twists no mentions of any exceptions or special treatment it just is what it is.
 It's also interesting to read what he says about closer integration on finance, defence and a whole range of other topics which if you're truly inclined toward being an independent  country should be enough to make you blanch. 
But I guess it's far easy to quote news sources and quotes  from other sources than deal with the real issues. A 
newly independent Scotland even if it did get easy access to the EU would hardly be truly independent when pushed around from within Europe a tiny population of 4 million trying to make demands of far bigger countries, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, United Kingdom all of whom hold much more power at the negotiation table the reality is you'd be told what to do when and how to do it in a pretty much take it or leave basis, the democratic desires of the Scottish electorate would become meaningless when Brussels hands out new rules and regulations. The amount of MEPs an independent Scotland would have effectively means you'd get zero in concessions as you'd have insufficient power to broke any deals. If the current United  Kingdom with a population of 65 million gets nowhere when trying to negotiate with the EU what hope does independent Scotland stand with a population of 5 million.

----------


## Rheghead

Juncker also said in his speech. "we need to secure Europes borders"

Kicking out an independent Scotland will create an extra non-EU border.   ::

----------


## Chook a demus

> Juncker also said in his speech. "we need to secure Europe’s borders"Kicking out an independent Scotland will create an extra non-EU border.


Can you point me to which particular part of his speech mentions Scotland in any way shape or form ? 
Remembering he does specifically mention not expanding the 28 members which of course Scotland would be 29.Whilst you're at it can you point out which part of choose whatever currency you like fits in with his ideas on the Euro
 Just  highlight and paste any part of his speech which refers specifically to Scotland. 

Remembering in EU terms independent Scotland is purely hypothetical  situation.

So also is it not true that if the SNP truly believes that Scotland is going to be fast tracked into the EU then why hasn't it been honest about currency as membership means using the Euro not Sterling

----------


## Bobinovich

> In 2011, Scots overwhelmingly voted for the SNP and they got an overall majority.  It is an pro-Euro party as they believe that EU membership benefits Scotland.


I know I'm not alone in my hatred of some of the SNP's policies but I'll admit to having voted for them in 2011.  It was not a vote for the party but, like many others, simply for the opportunity to have an independence referendum.  If the majority vote Yes in September then, when it's time for elections in 2016, I'll be looking forward to voting for whatever party offers the best mix of policies to suit the needs of me and my kids.

I truly can't understand the mentality of those who believe a Yes vote in the referendum is a vote for the SNP / Alex Salmond.  It's a vote to determine the road which we who live here choose to take - one which either continues the ConDem & NuLabour political domination, or one which gives the Scottish electorate the power to choose who will lead an independent Scotland.

----------


## Chook a demus

Ergo a vote for yes is a vote for remaining in the EU and acceptance of the Euro.Which will affect the costs of exports worldwide including exporting goods to England increasing transactional trade between Scotland and rUK, quite possibly making goods and service provided by rUK based companies more expensive ,also affecting the exchange rates of pensions which are currently held within the for arguments sake rUK financial system. Also meaning Scotland would have to have its own banking system another cost which hasn't been mentioned in the debate.

----------


## Rheghead

> I know I'm not alone in my hatred of some of the SNP's policies but I'll admit to having voted for them in 2011.  It was not a vote for the party but, like many others, simply for the opportunity to have an independence referendum.


Exactly Bobinovich, it should be the people of Scotland that have the power to now choose the destiny of Scotland.  Scotland has every right to expect automatic EU membership between Sept 2014 and March 2016.  But this is the thing, we will have the power to decide OUR own membership of the EU if we say Yes. 

If we say No then that decision will be taken for us by Tories and UKIP from elsewhere in the UK.

----------


## Bobinovich

> Ergo a vote for yes is a vote for remaining in the EU and acceptance of the Euro.Which will affect the costs of exports worldwide including exporting goods to England increasing transactional trade between Scotland and rUK, quite possibly making goods and service provided by rUK based companies more expensive ,also affecting the exchange rates of pensions which are currently held within the for arguments sake rUK financial system. Also meaning Scotland would have to have its own banking system another cost which hasn't been mentioned in the debate.


You see I don't believe that either.  In 2016 who's to say the majority won't elect an anti-EU government who offer, as part of their manifesto, the promise of an in-out referendum.  I'm not denying that the first decade of an independent Scotland might be unsettled, with many changes taking place, but nothing good has ever come easy.  I see the Scots as being incredibly single minded and determined to see through what they believe in - if independence is won, I'm sure the people will do whatever is necessary to establish a much better country than we can expect if we continue on our present path.

----------


## Chook a demus

Aye so let's say you're right . Sept referendum SNP in power till 2016 they start the wheels rolling and in they're right 18 months later we are in the EU fully committed. That would have to be one well organised anti EU party to get in power get a referendum organised and voted through before we entered into the EU. Considering the 18 month fast track will have effectively happened by then. So that'll mean we go independent sept 2014 fast track EU membership 18 months March 2016 have an election just as we become a full member of the EU courtesy of the SNP. Then vote in an anti EU party who then has to organise an in/out referendum and get us out. That'll make a fine comedy sketch when the Edinburgh fringe comes aboot.

----------


## Rheghead

> Here's his speech definitely mentions no expansion over the 28
> 
> http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-co...docs/pg_en.pdf


No he doesn't.  

He says "The EU needs to take a break from enlargement so that we can consolidate what has been achieved among the 28."

Clearly no mention of a cap of 28 states.  You are twisting it again.

----------


## Chook a demus

> No he doesn't.  He says "The EU needs to take a break from enlargement so that we can consolidate what has been achieved among the 28."Clearly no mention of a cap of 28 states.  You are twisting it again.


Or you're being very optimistic :0)

----------


## squidge

Oh boys!!!!! All this arguing - the fact is that it isnt up to the President of the EU as to who gets in or doesnt. The decision is made by the heads of the member states, none of whom has said that they will boycott Scotland's membership.  

So in fact what this president says is about as much of an indicator or will they or wont they as the last president said.  

I am with Bob on his one when he said 




> ..... if independence is won,  I'm sure the people will do whatever is necessary to establish a much  better country than we can expect if we continue on our present  path.


Constitutional issues are all very well but at the heart of this debate are people and we do well to remember that.

----------


## Bobinovich

> Aye so let's say you're right . Sept referendum SNP in power till 2016 they start the wheels rolling and in they're right 18 months later we are in the EU fully committed. That would have to be one well organised anti EU party to get in power get a referendum organised and voted through before we entered into the EU. Considering the 18 month fast track will have effectively happened by then. So that'll mean we go independent sept 2014 fast track EU membership 18 months March 2016 have an election just as we become a full member of the EU courtesy of the SNP. Then vote in an anti EU party who then has to organise an in/out referendum and get us out. That'll make a fine comedy sketch when the Edinburgh fringe comes aboot.


But we're already in the EU! so all they would be doing is negotiating the terms of our new membership from within if I understand the articles.  The right way to go about it IMO would be for a newly independent Scottish government to ask it's population what they want before even starting the negotiating process... maybe through a vote on a number of key issues.  However the SNP is the current Scottish Government and they are a pro-EU party so, regardless of what might happen in 2016, they will want to ensure they finish their stint and have the country in a good position (in their eyes) to start it's next journey.

----------


## Phill

> Juncker also said in his speech. "we need to secure Europes borders"
> Kicking out an independent Scotland will create an extra non-EU border.


It will only move a border, and in effect make it smaller. A non issue for the EU but more of an issue for rUK & England.
However, if iScotland does join the EU, then it will have bigger problems with the frontier. Many people forget that Scotland is a frontier border, so the EU will dictate how Scotland looks after its own borders. But only until 2025 when the EU military force takes over under control of Brussels.




> Aye he said no geographical expansion but also mentions the 28 so that still means Scotland would be 29 . Then ya have last weeks statement.Mr Juncker, whose job includes being the guardian of EU treaties, last week told MEPs he would respect Scottish voters decision but one does not become a member of the EU by writing a letter.


Don't forget the EU is bent as a bent thing with a special reason for being bent. They will change the rules, treaties & regulations as they see fit.
iScotland will have little problem gaining entry to the EU. Probably 'fast tracked' if they agree the correct deal with the commission. Don't forget, you don't get a real say in the EU, it's a plastic democracy.




> I truly can't understand the mentality of those who believe a Yes vote in the referendum is a vote for the SNP / Alex Salmond.  It's a vote to determine the road which we who live here choose to take - one which either continues the ConDem & NuLabour political domination, or one which gives the Scottish electorate the power to choose who will lead an independent Scotland.


Probably because if there is a Yes, Mr Salmond will be in the driving seat for the initial negotiations. 
Realistically, the SNP would hold a good majority in any future elections I would expect, all the other parties want union. Why would the people of Scotland vote to rid themselves of the troughers at Westminster only to vote for the exactly same troughers but wearing tartan clothing as their government.

----------


## Rheghead

> Probably because if there is a Yes, Mr Salmond will be in the driving seat for the initial negotiations. 
> Realistically, the SNP would hold a good majority in any future elections I would expect, all the other parties want union. Why would the people of Scotland vote to rid themselves of the troughers at Westminster only to vote for the exactly same troughers but wearing tartan clothing as their government.


That doesn't make sense.  The Labour party and Tories can't just go on as if the referendum had never happened and still cuddle up to their Westminster overlords.  In reality, at the candidate selection process, the parties should be very wary of putting up old union sops as they would be disastrous in an election.  I think the nation will get behind whichever the result goes.  

Incidentally, I think the SNP will disappear in the event of a Yes vote and to a lesser degree in event of a No vote.  But one thing is for certain, in indy Scotland, Scottish politics wil be normalised without having the independence question skewing the political landscape.  Which would be refreshing in my view.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

You are completely correct, in the event of a Yes vote. The only reason for the SNP as a political party was to give the people of Scotland the opportunity to vote for independence. They received an overwhelming majority in the last election, which mandated them to call for a referendum. However, in the sad event of a No vote, I think they will continue as a party, until independence is achieved. I will probably vote Green in the post independence Scottish General election, but I guess we have to wait and see what the other parties in an independent Scotland offer the electorate. At least *we* will be able to decide who governs us here in Scotland, unlike now.

----------


## golach

[QUOTE=Rheghead;1089545Incidentally, I think the SNP will disappear in the event of a Yes vote and to a lesser degree in event of a No vote.  But one thing is for certain, in indy Scotland, Scottish politics wil be normalised without having the independence question skewing the political landscape.  Which would be refreshing in my view.[/QUOTE]

Like all yes voters and snp supporters, you are right, you "think" or surmise, you do not know, that's the whole scenario of the snp, maybe, the pound, maybe cheaper living, maybe in the EU, maybe this or that or the next thing, nothing hard or fast.

----------


## Bobinovich

> Like all yes voters and snp supporters, you are right, you "think" or surmise, you do not know, that's the whole scenario of the snp, maybe, the pound, maybe cheaper living, maybe in the EU, maybe this or that or the next thing, nothing hard or fast.


Sorry Golach, even our Westminster overlords are unable to predict the future or they would have seen problems such as the banking crash coming and done something about it, so it's not just an SNP thing.  All we can base an independent Scotland's future on is the hopes and dreams of it's people, bolstered by the facts and figures we do actually know.

Westminster has steadfastly refused to discuss anything post-referendum in order to make the Scots believe they are Better Together...by promoting the fear and uncertainty we will face if we do go it alone.  However, as I've said before, the Scots are not considered canny for nothing and thankfully many have looked past those tactics and come to their own conclusions based on the information available in the public domain.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Golach Are you real? Nobody knows what's going to happen tomorrow, never mind in X months/years time. There is no mechanism in the EU for throwing out existing members, which Scotland is, You are a member of the European Union as a Scottish citizen, If you have a British passport, you will continue to have a British passport, until and unless you want to have a Scottish passport. Sterling is a currency open to all, and a currency union will be negotiated post-independence, with the best interests of England, Wales and Northern Ireland hanging on that contingency. Whose interests are best served by refusing a deal? Scotland has many levers to ensure it happens, You appear to believe everything you read in the papers and on the BBC.

----------


## Big Gaz

The new EU president Juncker has openly stated that he intends to stop any further EU expansion asap and certainly within the next 5 years so fat eck better get his skates on or he'll be up the proverbial without a paddle. I'm all for a change and happy to vote yes but not interested in doing so if fat eck is going to put us straight back in with the gEUns.

----------


## Rheghead

> The new EU president Juncker has openly stated that he intends to stop any further EU expansion asap and certainly within the next 5 years so fat eck better get his skates on or he'll be up the proverbial without a paddle. I'm all for a change and happy to vote yes but not interested in doing so if fat eck is going to put us straight back in with the gEUns.


We've just debunked that twaddle, please keep up.  :Grin:

----------


## Chook a demus

> We've just debunked that twaddle, please keep up.


I don't recall seeing it being debunked I've seen a few opinions but not a single definitive answer. 
Misinformation seems rife within the Yes campaign. 
Scotland is currently part of the United Kingdom the signatory for the EU, Scotland has as an independent country yet to apply for membership to the EU. Yes if you hold a British passport you'd still retain the United a Kingdoms membership but I thought this was all about INDEPENDENCE not holding on to as many facets of being part of the UK as possible. 

Even the SNP accept that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership, hence the statements about fast track entry. That statement is one proposed by the SNP and has not been voiced by any senior member of the EU. 

As always just because the SNP claim something does not make it so. 

Same goes for sterling a currency union is not the same as using a tradeable currency and to keep claiming two different things are the same is disingenuous at best.
 Despite the highly vocal protestations of yes campaigners on e org non of these questions have been definitively answered by the people who should of done their job properly Mr  Salmond and Ms Sturgeon and the SNP. 
The real scarey point is people are actually listening to what people on the internet are claiming as fact when they aren't facts. Project Fear and smear is a catchy little boot strap thought up by yes campaigners to dismiss any argument that disagrees with their constant protestations that everything is ok and under control. 
Reality is the big issues which people need answers to aren't being answered by the people who should be answering them. Instead we have claims and counter claims on the internet even on issues like currency, EU membership, NATO membership the yes campaign have not actually sorted any of these issues out and expect people to blindly put faith in what they say despite being told on some issues the answer is NO.
 Silly pictures of people waving flags disrespect the mentality of the electorate, catchy boot straps to dismiss serious questions again diminish the debate. 
And just stating that an issue has been dealt with does in no way mean it has been. And still the independent polls show the No campaign with a healthy lead which hasn't really changed over the months. All that means is the yes campaign has not answered the serious questions to the satisfaction of the electorate.

----------


## Rheghead

For pity's sake.  The BBC reported that Juncker's comments re expansion were not about Scotland.

----------


## golach

> For pity's sake.  The BBC reported that Juncker's comments re expansion were not about Scotland.


But Rheg, you and your nationalistic cronies don't believe Aunty Beeb, you have posted that constantly, make up your minds.....do you or don't you?

----------


## orkneycadian

> The decision is made by the heads of the member states, none of whom has said that they will boycott Scotland's membership.


Er, I think you will find that Spain have repeatedly stated that they would block Scotlands membership application.  As it only takes the one, you have a pretty big problem.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...p-6292846.html

----------


## Chook a demus

> For pity's sake.  The BBC reported that Juncker's comments re expansion were not about Scotland.


 Aye right enough he said he wasn't commenting on a hypothetical question about Scotland. Which doesn't mean it's carte Blanche for EU membership by any stretch of the imagination. I will make it easy for you a Rheg the EU has a website find me one single statement anywhere on it which states that an independent Scotland will be given membership to the EU or a quote from any present or past senior member of the EU that agrees with what you're saying.Don't quote rules or regulations  just statements. Meanwhile it's easy to find statements which do not paint such a rosey picture.

----------


## Rheghead

> Aye right enough he said he wasn't commenting on a hypothetical question about Scotland. Which doesn't mean it's carte Blanche for EU membership by any stretch of the imagination. I will make it easy for you a Rheg the EU has a website find me one single statement anywhere on it which states that an independent Scotland will be given membership to the EU or a quote from any present or past senior member of the EU that agrees with what you're saying.Don't quote rules or regulations  just statements. Meanwhile it's easy to find statements which do not paint such a rosey picture.


I don't need to search, I know there is no hard fast statement because there has been NO precedence set in such circumstances.  Likewise, show me any such statements which say that Scotland would lose their EU membership if they gain independence from a member state.  I know you can't.

But this is where it gets interesting, I have to make a judgement now, do I think the EU will kick Scotland out and cause economic disruption for 5 years or will there be a fast track membership on offer through negotiation??  A choice of 2, it shouldn't be too difficult to see that the fast track way is reasonable route and the kicking out route makes the EU look a bit silly seeing as Scotland is already a part of the EU and ticks all the boxes on economic, sovereign and human rights criteria.

I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to create uncertainty where none exists.

----------


## Chook a demus

> I don't need to search, I know there is no hard fast statement because there has been NO precedence set in such circumstances.  Likewise, show me any such statements which say that Scotland would lose their EU membership if they gain independence from a member state.  I know you can't.But this is where it gets interesting, I have to make a judgement now, do I think the EU will kick Scotland out and cause economic disruption for 5 years or will there be a fast track membership on offer through negotiation??  A choice of 2, it shouldn't be too difficult to see that the fast track way is reasonable route and the kicking out route makes the EU look a bit silly seeing as Scotland is already a part of the EU and ticks all the boxes on economic, sovereign and human rights criteria.I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to create uncertainty where none exists.


I think you answered the question when you stated there has been NO precedence. So taking that Scotland is not in itself a member of the EU as you keep incorrectly stating, the United Kingdom is part of the EU and Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. Then you have Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and becoming a new state.  The SNP have stated that entry into the EU will be a fast track but have no proof of this from anywhere within the EU. Infact Junckers has stated that writing a letter isn't enough. So in real terms there is uncertainty because no proof of the SNPs assertions  exists. You also have to factor in to the picture that every one of the member states has to vote Scotland in. Some such as Spain and France might not be so keen to do so due to the precedent it will set.
No one will be kicking Scotland out of the EU as Scotland as an independent state has never been a member.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think you answered the question when you stated there has been NO precedence. So taking that Scotland is not in itself a member of the EU as you keep incorrectly stating, the United Kingdom is part of the EU and Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. Then you have Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and becoming a new state.  The SNP have stated that entry into the EU will be a fast track but have no proof of this from anywhere within the EU. Infact Junckers has stated that writing a letter isn't enough. So in real terms there is uncertainty because no proof of the SNPs assertions  exists. You also have to factor in to the picture that every one of the member states has to vote Scotland in. Some such as Spain and France might not be so keen to do so due to the precedent it will set.
> No one will be kicking Scotland out of the EU as Scotland as an independent state has never been a member.


That is a pretty black and white view on the world you have there.  Well you have completely fabricated the second sentence that I said Scotland is a member state of the EU, the UK is the member, Scotland is part of the EU as a result.  I think we can hopefully agree on this.  

The SNP cannot talk to the EU on behalf of Scotland as the UK is the member.  Seeing as you only deal in absolutes, the only player that is creating your kind of uncertainty is actually the UK for refusing to discuss the matter.

----------


## Chook a demus

> That is a pretty black and white view on the world you have there.  Well you have completely fabricated the second sentence that I said Scotland is a member state of the EU, the UK is the member, Scotland is part of the EU as a result.  I think we can hopefully agree on this.  The SNP cannot talk to the EU on behalf of Scotland as the UK is the member.  Seeing as you only deal in absolutes, the only player that is creating your kind of uncertainty is actually the UK for refusing to discuss the matter.


I tend to disagree with you as it's not the job of the government of the United Kingdom to discuss Scotland entry into the EU. Reality time is Scotland as a country /state and member of the EU does not currently exist as a separate entity it is part of the United Kingdom which is the country that holds the EU membership. It would appear you're trying to fabricate Scotland as a state  already which is patently obvious not a fact. Hence the requirement for it to join the EU via whatever method is decided should it become independent. See there are areas of grey and absolutes in this world the one thing we have ascertained is entry into The EU is infact not decided by any stretch of the imagination regardless of SNP claims, it takes but one EU state to veto and it doesn't happen. That is not within the control of anyone within the SNP so despite whatever you may have said previously Scotland's entry into the EU is uncertain.  The population of the EU is about 741 million 4 million on the outskirts don't have much bargaining power.

----------


## Chook a demus

And in answer to you other question the SNP themselves accept that they would have to enter the EU hence their assertions that entry would be fast tracked in 18 months. That implies that Scotland would not be an EU member during that time, that's best case scenario.

----------


## squidge

Er. I think you will find that Spain has said the following as recently as February Orkneycadian. The article below came from the Financial Times "Asked about the independence campaign, Spains foreign minister said: We dont interfere in other countries internal affairs. If Britains constitutional order allows  and it seems that it does allow  Scotland to choose independence, we have nothing to say about this..http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/977a39ea-8...#axzz37fN8R68N

----------


## Chook a demus

More misinformation.
 There is a fundamental difference between interfering with the independence referendum which quite obviously has nothing to do with Spain, and allowing an Independent Scotland into the EU which the quoted  articles states quite clearly 

"you have to achieve candidate status, then negotiate 35 chapters which have to be ratified by EU institutions and then has to be ratified by 28 national parliaments. 

Nothing like playing smoke and mirrors with the truth to suit a political end but the upshot is the article does prove that a newly independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU . 

It also puts pay to the currency debate as a criteria for new states membership is using the Euro 

The same goes with the arguments on currency.
A world of difference between using a fully tradeable currency and monetary union. One you can do without any agreement the other requires agreement.

Similar  goes with the NATO argument
 NATO isn't a club you tell them what you're prepared to do, you have to agree to their rules one of which is a Nuclear First strike capability which is incompatable  with the SNPs stance.

Muddle the argument to confuse people but the issues are worlds apart and saying the are the same is playing fast and loose with the truth .. So much for the yes campaign and all their posturing

----------


## wavy davy

> More misinformation.
>  There is a fundamental difference between interfering with the independence referendum which quite obviously has nothing to do with Spain, and allowing an Independent Scotland into the EU which the quoted  articles states quite clearly 
> 
> "you have to achieve candidate status, then negotiate 35 chapters which have to be ratified by EU institutions and then has to be ratified by 28 national parliaments. 
> 
> Nothing like playing smoke and mirrors with the truth to suit a political end but the upshot is the article does prove that a newly independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU . 
> 
> It also puts pay to the currency debate as a criteria for new states membership is using the Euro 
> 
> ...


Couldn't have put it better. 

The SNP position that the EU, Nato, Bank of England etc will bend over backwards to support their aspirations is just not credible. Why would they? Similarly, why should/would the UK /rUK governments do anything which would disadvantage themselves. They want/wanted to stay together. You want/got a divorce, crack on, just don't expect to get the kids, the car, the house etc.

----------


## Rheghead

> Er. I think you will find that Spain has said the following as recently as February Orkneycadian. The article below came from the Financial Times "Asked about the independence campaign, Spain’s foreign minister said: “We don’t interfere in other countries’ internal affairs. If Britain’s constitutional order allows – and it seems that it does allow – Scotland to choose independence, we have nothing to say about this.”.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/977a39ea-8...#axzz37fN8R68N


Indeed.  The EU is inclusive, kicking Scotland out would violate its core mission.  It is citizens that come first not member states.

----------


## wavy davy

> Indeed.  The EU is inclusive, kicking Scotland out would violate its core mission.  It is citizens that come first not member states.


You guys are something else. Scotland isn't a EU member, it isn't there to be kicked out. It would be an independent state applying for membership. Spain's foreign minister's comments clearly relate to the referendum, not that Spain would support or not support Scotland's application for EU membership.

----------


## Even Chance

Yer all arguing over keich. In/out, who cares, as long as we're independant....

----------


## Chook a demus

> Indeed.  The EU is inclusive, kicking Scotland out would violate its core mission.  It is citizens that come first not member states.


I do wish you'd stop with this kicking Scotland out misinformation

 Scotland wouldn't be kicked out it would be out due to it leaving the United  Kingdom of its own accord with no one forcing it to do anything.
 The way you constantly use emotive terms to try and defend and undefenceable position shows nothing more than the weakness the argument.

It's been quite clear since Mr Salmond and Ms. Sturgeon started mentioning fast track entry into Europe that a newly Independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU feigning shock,surprise or trying to misrepresent the situation shows political naivety or a deliberate attempt to mislead .

----------


## squidge

> And in answer to you other question the SNP themselves accept that they would have to enter the EU hence their assertions that entry would be fast tracked in 18 months. That implies that Scotland would not be an EU member during that time, that's best case scenario.


The scenario is that there is 18 months between the referendum during which time Scotland would remain part of the UK and as a result would remain in the EU. If the negotiations take 18 months it is clear. - not implied- that Scotland remains an EU member during that time.

Key to this, and different to every other situation is that Scotland would be negotiating Independent membership of the EU from within - as existing members with a population which are already EU members. In addition all the difficult issues which face new members which are set out in the Copenhagan Criteria are already met. THATS the stuff that normally takes the time, ensuring human rights legislation, employment legislation, all other laws and practices are compliant with the EU. Scotland meets ALL those criteria now. 

All of this information is available for you to look at if you care to research the subject.

----------


## Rheghead

> I do wish you'd stop with this kicking Scotland out misinformation
> 
>  Scotland wouldn't be kicked out it would be out due to it leaving the United  Kingdom of its own accord with no one forcing it to do anything.
>  The way you constantly use emotive terms to try and defend and undefenceable position shows nothing more than the weakness the argument.
> 
> It's been quite clear since Mr Salmond and Ms. Sturgeon started mentioning fast track entry into Europe that a newly Independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU feigning shock,surprise or trying to misrepresent the situation shows political naivety or a deliberate attempt to mislead .


Scotland won't be kicked out of the EU because an independent Scotland intends to join the EU and will negotiate a fastrack route to EU membership.  The EU membership is all about citizenship, EU citizenship alone defines what makes a country an EU member.  Scots are already citizens of the EU.  There has been no suggestion from the EU that that would be otherwise.  Like squidge says, no state has objected to Scotland becoming an EU member.

----------


## Big Gaz

Sorry but i want to vote for independence, not to dump us back into the EU. 

As for no state objecting to membership, the Spanish govt has had serious concerns about Scotland becoming an EU member for several years now as it may open the door to splitting their own country up with the Basque and Catalan regions wanting independence from Spain. The Spanish govt has even refused to recognise Kosovo as an independent state and didn't want them joining the EU either. 

There is also a murmur on the net quoting several MP's saying the rUK govt itself may refuse to cast their vote for Scotland to join the EU which if true, is indeed extremely spiteful. They did a similar thing with Iceland when it applied to join the EU with the UK govt and the Netherlands govt objecting to membership on the grounds they were owed money by Iceland from the Icesave collapse and unless it was repaid, they would object to them joining the EU so they have done it once, there is nothing to stop them doing this with Scotland because on gaining independence, we will probably owe rUK a substantial amount of dosh.

----------


## sam09

As I have repeatedly said:  Where is the independence in joining the E.U.?  Being run by a corrupt bunch of bureaucrat`s
is not my idea of independence.

E.U membership application should be decided in a referendum after achieving a yes vote in September.

If Cameron does have a referendum on E.U. Membership and r.U.K. decides to leave (which seems likely). Where does that leave Scotland?

----------


## Rheghead

This referendum is about our personal vision and aspirations for Scotland.

I see it as a choice between 

1.  A future of staying in the same Union that is no longer a worldpower of any global infuence (but likes to think it still is), where Scotland only gets the government that it votes for some of the time.  A stuffy future where pomp and tradition requires money to feed itself which could be used more wisely.

or

2. A bright and forward looking future, where we are fully represented and with the ability that actually can fully utilise its resources for the good of the people of Scotland.  A greener and fairer society. A future that will be a big adventure in to the bigger world where everyone knows we aren't going after global domination but we will join the international community to put our stamp on it.

----------


## Rheghead

> As I have repeatedly said:  Where is the independence in joining the E.U.?  Being run by a corrupt bunch of bureaucrat`s
> is not my idea of independence.
> 
> E.U membership application should be decided in a referendum after achieving a yes vote in September.
> 
> If Cameron does have a referendum on E.U. Membership and r.U.K. decides to leave (which seems likely). Where does that leave Scotland?


A government only holds referendums if it wants to change something.  It doesn't.  We overwhelmingly voted in a pro-EU party with an overall majority and we are already EU citizens.

But here is the main thing, upon independence, we can vote for a Euro sceptic party after Indy in 2016 to leave the EU, that will be our decision to leave and ours alone and not taken for us by Euro sceptics from the rUK.  That is real democracy.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Scotland won't be kicked out of the EU because an independent Scotland intends to join the EU and will negotiate a fastrack route to EU membership.  The EU membership is all about citizenship, EU citizenship alone defines what makes a country an EU member.  Scots are already citizens of the EU.  There has been no suggestion from the EU that that would be otherwise.  Like squidge says, no state has objected to Scotland becoming an EU member.


  Scots are currently EU citizens whilst they hold a British passport .
Equally no state has accepted Scotland becoming an EU member and it requires all 28 to say yes !

You really do like to try and make it sound so easy and simple when the reality is the deal isn't done and hasn't even been properly discussed with the EU as of yet, you can throw as many assumptions around as you like but that's all they are,based on not one single verifying document from the EU.

----------


## orkneycadian

> I see it as a choice between 
> 
> 1.  A future of staying in the same Union that is no longer a worldpower of any global infuence (but likes to think it still is), where Scotland only gets the government that it votes for some of the time.  A stuffy future where pomp and tradition requires money to feed itself which could be used more wisely.


When you put it like that, staying in the European Union does indeed sound like a stuffy future.




> 2. A bright and forward looking future, where we are fully represented and with the ability that actually can fully utilise its resources for the good of the people of Scotland. A greener and fairer society. A future that will be a big adventure in to the bigger world where everyone knows we aren't going after global domination but we will join the international community to put our stamp on it.


Whilst your vision for leaving Europe sounds a lot better.  How do we vote for this Europe Free utopia?

----------


## Chook a demus

> This referendum is about our personal vision and aspirations for Scotland.2. A bright and forward looking future, where we are fully represented and with the ability that actually can fully utilise its resources for the good of the people of Scotland.  A greener and fairer society. A future that will be a big adventure in to the bigger world where everyone knows we aren't going after global domination but we will join the international community to put our stamp on it.


So it's going to be Alex & Nics Big Adventure ? I wonder if they'll use a phone booth for it ? Maybe form a group Wylde Coo's

----------


## Rheghead

> So it's going to be Alex & Nics Big Adventure ? I wonder if they'll use a phone booth for it ? Maybe form a group Wylde Coo's


 It is not about Alex Salmond or Nichola Sturgeon, the people of Scotland voted the SNP over whelmingly to form a majority government and they provided the basis for a Scottish independence referendum.   That is democracy.  If you disagree with our right to have this referendum then I suggest you make your feelings best heard by boycotting the referendum. A low turnout will negate the referendum!!  In fact, that is how the UK foreign policy seems to decide what is what in other countries that are discontent about their set up.

----------


## Oddquine

> A government only holds referendums if it wants to change something.  It doesn't.  We overwhelmingly voted in a pro-EU party with an overall majority and we are already EU citizens.
> 
> But here is the main thing, upon independence, we can vote for a Euro sceptic party after Indy in 2016 to leave the EU, that will be our decision to leave and ours alone and not taken for us by Euro sceptics from the rUK.  That is real democracy.


There will, at the very least, be the SDA, standing in an Independent Scotland, I should think, as they have already had candidates in Scottish elections.  For those who would prefer to come out of the EU, that would be a place for their votes, come May 2016.  I may do that, myself, but it would depend on their other policies as well.

----------


## Chook a demus

> It is not about Alex Salmond or Nichola Sturgeon, the people of Scotland voted the SNP over whelmingly to form a majority government and they provided the basis for a Scottish independence referendum.   That is democracy.  If you disagree with our right to have this referendum then I suggest you make your feelings best heard by boycotting the referendum. A low turnout will negate the referendum!!  In fact, that is how the UK foreign policy seems to decide what is what in other countries that are discontent about their set up.


Well that was a bit sad is yae  worried aboot ma wee vote what about our democratic right to a referendum as well, yae dinnae own tha country,now  consider how many youre turning off voting with your daily   misinformation. I'd suggest yae keep quiet for tha sake of the yes campaign !

----------


## Rheghead

> Well that was a bit sad is yae  worried aboot ma wee vote what about our democratic right to a referendum as well, yae dinnae own tha country,now  consider how many youre turning off voting with your daily   misinformation. I'd suggest yae keep quiet for tha sake of the yes campaign !


You want guarantees?  Tell you what, you vote No for your guarantees, I'm cool with that.  But this referendum is all about new _opportunities_ for Scotland which are completely cut off from us.  So I'll trade your guarantees of the status quo for new opportunities to do things better for Scotland at any time.

----------


## Chook a demus

> You want guarantees?  Tell you what, you vote No for your guarantees, I'm cool with that.  But this referendum is all about new _opportunities_ for Scotland which are completely cut off from us.  So I'll trade your guarantees of the status quo for new opportunities to do things better for Scotland at any time.


New opportunities and guarantees why not crystal balls and wishes they hold about as much weight. I've not seen any new opportunities thrown about ...EU we are already in that. NATO we are already in that...Currency...we already use Sterling... Head of State ...stays the same. Ability to trade globally, we already have that.. So what are all these wonderful new opportunities armed police on the streets in the highlands we didn't want that but we've got it. NHS targets being missed they seem to be doing well on that one all by themselves. Centralised power in the central belt we already have that. See the reality is hardly anything will be gained except for years of political upheaval by a bunch of self serving greedy corrupt politicians  who only care about themselves and their crony wannabes hoping to get on the gravy train and milk it for all it's worth . Remember the old saying . The more things change the more they stay the same.

----------


## Rheghead

> See the reality is hardly anything will be gained except for years of political upheaval by a bunch of self serving greedy corrupt politicians  who only care about themselves and their crony wannabes hoping to get on the gravy train and milk it for all it's worth . Remember the old saying . The more things change the more they stay the same.


You mean those snouts in the trough at Westminster who got found out and now have been given secret reimbursements?  Amongst other hideous things which I do not want to make an independence issue about.  That is the reality.  

In an independent Scotland, every vote will count for something.  Too many votes are just wasted in the first past the post system.

----------


## Chook a demus

> You mean those snouts in the trough at Westminster who got found out and now have been given secret reimbursements?  Amongst other hideous things which I do not want to make an independence issue about.  That is the reality.  In an independent Scotland, every vote will count for something.  Too many votes are just wasted in the first past the post system.


I wasn't aware an independent Scotland was already set for proportional representation or is that just wishful thinking on your part. Far as I can see the new system is just Holyrood snouts able to stick their snouts as deep in the trough as they like without anyone to stop them..how much did they tartan trews cost ?

----------


## Oddquine

Love this!  Sounds like me when I'm reading the MSM and listening to the radio (bar his accent, of course)!

----------


## Rheghead

Better Back Together Campaign gets started in Ireland! https://sites.google.com/site/betterbacktogether/home

----------


## Chook a demus

Haven't they had a referendum in Northern Ireland and voted to stay part of the UK or is this like the EU keep doing it until you get the vote you want. So much for people's democratic choices being respected. Nae doubt if this referendum doesn't go the way they want we will have another once in a lifetime opportunity some whiles down the road.

----------


## squidge

We might indeed if, just like this time, the voters in Scotland vote for a party who offer a referendum as part of their manifesto commitments. It's ways worth remembering that this referendum is being held because the party who offered a vote on independence achieved a majority in an election.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Haven't they had a referendum in Northern Ireland and voted to stay part of the UK or is this like the EU keep doing it until you get the vote you want.


Heaven forbid if we have Neverendums in 2015, 2016, 2017....

This should be the SNPs only chance.  If they cannot pull it off, then they should step aside.

----------


## Oddquine

> Heaven forbid if we have Neverendums in 2015, 2016, 2017....
> 
> This should be the SNPs only chance.  If they cannot pull it off, then they should step aside.


You are _joking_, aren't you?   If at first we don't succeed etc!  This has been going on, in one way or another, since we joined  the Union. Whatever you might think, the attempts to get out of it started in 1713......and that first attempt was made by the Earl of Seafield, who was one of those who had negotiated the thing in the first place.  

Best way to get rid of the SNP, if they are your obsession...... is to vote YES!   ::

----------


## Chook a demus

Assuming the SNP doesn't  get the vote they want they will be a politically spent force anyway, why would the population keep putting themselves through this over and over again a few hardcore separatists may have the stomach for it but the mass of the populace aren't so passionate. The reason the SNP got to power last time had very little to do with a referendum it just piggy backed in the other issues. Mind not long to go now thankfully

----------


## orkneycadian

> Best way to get rid of the SNP, if they are your obsession...... is to vote YES!


Nah, vote No!  On the 19th of September, it will be rewarding to hear Alex's concession of defeat speech, followed by his resignation as first minister, and the SNP's call for an early Scottish election.  At which they will not contest any seats.  That would be the honourable thing to do.  Will we get it?

----------


## octumnal

What vote to run our own country? like all other self respecting countries do,That's sooo difficult.And No we could not possibly be any worse off than being a run down backwater of england.Whats wrong with half the people of this country.(yes that's right! we are a country)

----------


## Chook a demus

> What vote to run our own country? like all other self respecting countries do,That's sooo difficult.And No we could not possibly be any worse off than being a run down backwater of england.Whats wrong with half the people of this country.(yes that's right! we are a country)


Well I'd disagree you could quite possibly be a lot worse off as when the union was formed and Scotland was on the verge of Bankruptcy so there's a historical precedent as well to confirm my position where as yours is purely aspirational. And at the moment it's a bit more than half the population of this country. But don't worry it will all be decided soon enough one way or the other :0)

----------


## Rheghead

If Scotland was already independent today and a clown came along and proposed that we should enter a political union with 3 other countries where all our natural resources would get spread over 63 million rather than 5 million then he'd get the biggest laugh of his career.

----------


## golach

> If Scotland was already independent today and a clown came along and proposed that we should enter a political union with 3 other countries where all our natural resources would get spread over 63 million rather than 5 million then he'd get the biggest laugh of his career.


We already have a clown at our helm, why let the inmates run the institution?

----------


## Chook a demus

> If Scotland was already independent today and a clown came along and proposed that we should enter a political union with 3 other countries where all our natural resources would get spread over 63 million rather than 5 million then he'd get the biggest laugh of his career.


So would that be a clown who wanted to join a club of 28 other countries where you put more in than you get out and loose control of your currency and many of your law making decision a club which hasn't managed to get any auditors to sign off their accounts for years because of fiscal ineptitude and corruption. 

Mind if was goin ta listen to someone it would nae be an Englishman living in a Scotland who is  desperately trying to sell a property with tha intention of moving ta who knows where ! 

See that would be pure madness

----------


## Rheghead

> So would that be a clown who wanted to join a club of 28 other countries where you put more in than you get out and loose control of your currency and many of your law making decision a club which hasn't managed to get any auditors to sign off their accounts for years because of fiscal ineptitude and corruption. 
> 
> Mind if was goin ta listen to someone it would nae be an Englishman living in a Scotland who is  desperately trying to sell a property with tha intention of moving ta who knows where ! 
> 
> See that would be pure madness


I didn't understand what you were getting at with the last bit.  Explain.

----------


## Chook a demus

The last bit  ! well if I have tae explain what pure madness is tae ya I'd suggest you learn ta use a dictionary

----------


## Rheghead

> The last bit  ! well if I have tae explain what pure madness is tae ya I'd suggest you learn ta use a dictionary


Well If I think I know what you meant then you need to get your facts straight.  But then that is nothing new for you is it?

----------


## Chook a demus

> Well If I think I know what you meant then you need to get your facts straight.  But that is nothing new for you is it?


But If you think you know, but aren't sure you know, then how can yae be sure that the facts which you think you know, but aren't sure you know aren't right. Because if you think you know but aren't sure you know then you'd be assuming and we all know what happens when you ASSUME.

----------


## Rheghead

An independent Scotland can do more for small businesses.  More jobs and more prosperity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3gcTuISdpc

----------


## golach

I wonder if the poster of this poll has noticed the results so far? What's your explaination of difference Rheghead?

----------


## Rheghead

> I wonder if the poster of this poll has noticed the results so far? What's your explaination of difference Rheghead?


I actually find this poll result encouraging.  We live in Caithness which has prospered from 2 UK sponsored industries.  So I am not surprised to find a high level of UK support in this poll.  But we need to break our mindset and see that there are no lifeline packages for either in the pipeline.  The biggest threat to jobs in the county is now the UK government for failure to support job prosperity in Caithness.

Westminster is also anti EU leaning which means we could see further huge losses in job security in other areas like fishery and agriculture.  In an independent Scotland, we will have the power to prioritise what is important for Scotland like those industries, instead, David Cameron deals them away like a bargaining chip for what he feels is important.

----------


## Chook a demus

Not sure how you work out an independent Scotland would ensure more job security for workers. The fact the EU doesn't ensure job security for any industry it has to be competitive. 

Your views on independence are somewhat akin to people who believe everything the salesman at car show rooms tell them. They are lured in by the promises of massive savings on fuel economy's based on statistics not based on real world conditions gullibly believe everything  they are told but once they own the car find out the fuel consumption bears no resemblance to the manufacturers figures and they end up with a car they can't really afford to drive and use the bus instead.

 Is that the future you want for Scotland one based on idealised figures based on best case scenarios unlikely to work out under true market conditions but once we've made the choice it's too late to go back and we all end up riding the bus ?

----------


## Rheghead

> Not sure how you work out an independent Scotland would ensure more job security for workers. The fact the EU doesn't ensure job security for any industry it has to be competitive. 
> 
> Your views on independence are somewhat akin to people who believe everything the salesman at car show rooms tell them. They are lured in by the promises of massive savings on fuel economy's based on statistics not based on real world conditions gullibly believe everything  they are told but once they own the car find out the fuel consumption bears no resemblance to the manufacturers figures and they end up with a car they can't really afford to drive and use the bus instead.
> 
>  Is that the future you want for Scotland one based on idealised figures based on best case scenarios unlikely to work out under true market conditions but once we've made the choice it's too late to go back and we all end up riding the bus ?


Without releasing Scotland's full potential we will keep on driving that secondhand car.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Without releasing Scotland's full potential we will keep on driving that secondhand car.


See that's very telling I consider Scotland a nice shiney new car, where as you consider it a second hand car so much fae national pride in your country. I would nae tell too many people you consider Scotland a second hand car of a nation. Maybe that's why your so keen to trade it in for an EU model !

----------


## Rheghead

> See that's very telling I consider Scotland a nice shiney new car, where as you consider it a second hand car so much fae national pride in your country. I would nae tell too many people you consider Scotland a second hand car of a nation. Maybe that's why your so keen to trade it in for an EU model !


Ha ha! You are right because our resources are spread amongst 60m rather than 5m!!

The only people that demean Scotland are those that deny its right for self determination.  If we stay in the Union then we will continually get thrown the bread crumbs and be made to feel it is a privilege to be here.

We have the largest oilfield on the planet, the largest tidal and wave energy potential in Europe, but most of all we have the people of Scotland whse ingenuity have given so much to the world.

Why do we insist on having our hopes and dreams continually taken away from us?

Vote Yes to empower our lives!!  Guess what?  We will need to think for ourselves after September, wow , such a responsibility!!   The No campaign think we aren't capable of doing that.

----------


## Chook a demus

But you see there within lies the problem with one hand your saying Scotland only get breadcrumbs and on the other you're saying it's the 14th richest country in the world. 

You keep telling us we are so hard done by but at the same time telling us we have all these industries which are able to sustain us if we are independent. 
Now unless I've missed  something  your argument is flawed we can't be fed crumbs and rich at the same time. 
We can't be held under thumb but have all these industries which can sustain us at the same time. 
The reality is that as part of the United Kingdom, Scotland has prospered and built quality industries and during the hard times it has relied on the whole of the United Kingdom to help it through same as other parts of the UK in good and bad times the country has pulled through together. 
I haven't seen anyone taking anything from Scotland especially hopes and dreams in the past, all inventions poetry literary and art works are fully credited to the creators all industries renowned for being Scottish so what you're really talking about is a group who regardless of how well Scotland has done and will do will insist on going it alone despite the costs despite the risks despite whatever damage it inflicts upon Scotland they will always want it regardless of any rational reasons for remaining a part of the UK. 
No one says Scotland isn't capable of doing anything that's a myth bandied about by the Yes campaign who want to make the United Kingdom seem so bad, reality is if it's so bad and treated this country so harshly why is Scotland so good. 
The reason is we are Better Together.
All the yes campaign aim to do is get control of a vibrant economy to do as they wish with it, without and guarantees for the future just vague promises about what might potentially be.

----------


## Shpongle

Mouthpiece with no clout.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead, You appear to come across (to me) as having an anti English


I am English.  Please give me one example where I have been anti-English.  I am waiting Mr Tangerine Dream.

----------


## Rheghead

> But you see there within lies the problem with one hand your saying Scotland only get breadcrumbs and on the other you're saying it's the 14th richest country in the world. 
> 
> You keep telling us we are so hard done by but at the same time telling us we have all these industries which are able to sustain us if we are independent. 
> Now unless I've missed  something  your argument is flawed we can't be fed crumbs and rich at the same time. 
> We can't be held under thumb but have all these industries which can sustain us at the same time. 
> The reality is that as part of the United Kingdom, Scotland has prospered and built quality industries and during the hard times it has relied on the whole of the United Kingdom to help it through same as other parts of the UK in good and bad times the country has pulled through together. 
> I haven't seen anyone taking anything from Scotland especially hopes and dreams in the past, all inventions poetry literary and art works are fully credited to the creators all industries renowned for being Scottish so what you're really talking about is a group who regardless of how well Scotland has done and will do will insist on going it alone despite the costs despite the risks despite whatever damage it inflicts upon Scotland they will always want it regardless of any rational reasons for remaining a part of the UK. 
> No one says Scotland isn't capable of doing anything that's a myth bandied about by the Yes campaign who want to make the United Kingdom seem so bad, reality is if it's so bad and treated this country so harshly why is Scotland so good. 
> The reason is we are Better Together.
> All the yes campaign aim to do is get control of a vibrant economy to do as they wish with it, without and guarantees for the future just vague promises about what might potentially be.


At the moment, tax revenues get sent to Westminster and we receive a block grant which is based upon public spending that is done in England and Wales.  We are not in charge of our finances.  face/palm

----------


## Shpongle

> I am English.  Please give me one example where I have been anti-English.  I am waiting Mr Tangerine Dream.


You are nothing more than an "anti" everything nobody with a low self esteem and a glowing advert for the "org".

See you on the bus if my car breaks down  :Wink:

----------


## Chook a demus

Well now I'm amused an Englishman trying to tell a Scotsman that's he's wrong about independence and should vote the way he's told. I'm wondering how many Scots will appreciate an Englishman telling him tae do with his vote !

----------


## Rheghead

> You are nothing more than an "anti" everything nobody with a low self esteem and a glowing advert for the "org".
> 
> See you on the bus if my car breaks down


So you offer nothing to back up your empty words.   Please tell us the REAL reasons why you really wanted more public transport here.  I know why...

----------


## Chook a demus

> At the moment, tax revenues get sent to Westminster and we receive a block grant which is based upon public spending that is done in England and Wales.  We are not in charge of our finances.  face/palm


So if we aren't in charge of anything why are we paying all this money tae Holyrood and Alex Salmond with his fancy trews

And your answer does nae answer how we managed to become 13th richest country in the world with all these fantastic industries whilst being paid such a pittance from Westminster . Guess that was just good luck eh

----------


## Rheghead

> So if we aren't in charge of anything why are we paying all this money tae Holyrood and Alex Salmond with his fancy trews


That is the whole point chooky.  We aren't paying it tae Holyrood, I wish...

We are paying it tae Westiminster and they give us what they think we deserve.

----------


## Shpongle

...............

----------


## Rheghead

> You are English?
> 
> One would have never guessed?
> 
> Rheghead "English?"
> 
> Englisjh???????
> 
> Scotland's "destiny" ??
> ...


I find you a huge boost for the Yes campaign.  Crack on.

----------


## Shpongle

............

----------


## Shpongle

...........................

----------


## Rheghead

> You are ENGLISH and now trying to speak the lingo? How sad is that?


I am a citizen of Scotland, trying to get what is best for Scotland

----------


## DMFB

> Rheghead,
> 
> You are, it seems, a slightly mixed up dude? You are English, living in Scotland. You appear to come across (to me) as having an anti English / anti anything that "works" slant in your posts.
> 
> You've got a lot to say but DO very little on a local level.
> 
> Remember when the Reay to Thurso bus only ran two days per week?
> 
> A bus that only ran between Reay and Thurso "two" days per week?
> ...





> Mouthpiece with no clout.





> You are nothing more than an "anti" everything nobody with a low self esteem and a glowing advert for the "org".
> 
> See you on the bus if my car breaks down





> You are English?
> 
> One would have never guessed?
> 
> Rheghead "English?"
> 
> Englisjh???????
> 
> Scotland's "destiny" ??
> ...





> You are ENGLISH and now trying to speak the lingo? How sad is that?





> Stop pretending mate....... you are a small (thick as a brick) mouthpiece who deserves a good kicking..............


Oh dear Oh dear !!

Weve seen them come Weve seen them go.
I for one dont loiter  or come on here to read such utter venom directed to fellow posters.
I wouldnt say that some of your posts are very eloquently put whether they be in English or Scots. I may be on in years but even I can see this being a short stay membership if your not a little less shall we say aggressive in your tone. Advocating violence towards another person a little distasteful.

----------


## squidge

See the only anti English behaviour I gave ever come across as part of this campaign is from no supporters like shpongle who complain that "English" people that support independence, like rheg and I should keep our mouths shut as it is not our business and our opinions are not as valid as someone born here - it would be funny if it didn't deteriorate into " deserves a kicking" comments by someone who clearly has personal knowledge of rheg. 

This whole "I know who you are" stuff that we see on this board recently on a number of threads and which shpongle and chook have posted here with their comments about rheghead are really unpleasant and smack of bullying. Neither of them appear with their real names and dropping in personal details to identify another poster whilst sitting smugly and cowardly behind their own assumed identities is nasty stuff. 

 It's also interesting to note that no supporters here continue to denigrate Scotland's ability to run it's own affairs and then say that they dont think  Scotland is lesser but say all SCOTLANDS politicians are fools whilst Westminster's are saviours.

 They complain about a pair of tartan trews whilst smiling benevolently at taxpayers spending more than that PER DAY for old men to sleep through debates in the House of Lords! 

This poll is what it is but it is also worth remembering that there have been several banned members who are back with new identities and who will have voted no AGAIN. It is also worth remembering that those of us who are involved in Streetwork and canvassing for the YES campaign are getting positive messages and great results from the folk we are talking to.

 Scotland has the ability, the resources to make our own decisions and decide our own priorities. We have intelligent people, a diverse population, a skilled workforce and hope and excitement for the future. Why would an Independent Scotland not succeed? 

Posters like shpongle with their I know who you are and "you deserve a kicking" and their anti English nonsense bring nothing to the debate and hopefully will disappear as suddenly as they appeared just as DFMB says.

As we enter the last few weeks of the campaign it might be worth looking at single issues in some depth in a different way than this thread has done....

----------


## Phill

> Westminster is also anti EU leaning which means we could see further huge losses in job security in other areas like fishery and agriculture. In an independent Scotland, we will have the power to prioritise what is important for Scotland like those industries


I see quite the opposite. Westminster & MP's are quite pro EU. Too much of a gravy train for them to give up.
Why use the same mentality of the No campaign of the sky falling in if Scotland becomes independent of rUK and / or EU.

An iScotland should be that, not giving up the dross at Westminster only to be crucified by the EU thieving scum that will only serve the Brussels Mafia (of which Mr Salmond is desperate to try and join).

Surely the best thing for iScotland would be to reclaim the fishing grounds and actually get the industry back instead of being raped by the EU.

----------


## golach

> It's also interesting to note that no supporters here continue to denigrate Scotland's ability to run it's own affairs and then say that they dont think  Scotland is lesser but say all SCOTLANDS politicians are fools whilst Westminster's are saviours.
> 
>  They complain about a pair of tartan trews whilst smiling benevolently at taxpayers spending more than that PER DAY for old men to sleep through debates in the House of Lords! 
> 
> This poll is what it is but it is also worth remembering that there have been several banned members who are back with new identities and who will have voted no AGAIN. It is also worth remembering that those of us who are involved in Streetwork and canvassing for the YES campaign are getting positive messages and great results from the folk we are talking to.
> 
>  Scotland has the ability, the resources to make our own decisions and decide our own priorities. We have intelligent people, a diverse population, a skilled workforce and hope and excitement for the future. Why would an Independent Scotland not succeed? 
> As we enter the last few weeks of the campaign it might be worth looking at single issues in some depth in a different way than this thread has done....


Squidge, as an committed NO voter I take exception at your comments that I have no right to denigrate the yes camp and the present government in Holyrood, no right to bring up the tartan trews that tax payers paid for along with many other expenses our dearly beloved first haggis has claimed for and got. I have every right!!!
I am an anti yes campaigner and always will be, none of your rose coloured views of Scotland and independence, will convince me otherwise.

----------


## Chook a demus

I'm still waiting for one of the yes voters to answer how Scotland became 13th richest country in the world and developed all these major industries capable of sustaining an independent Scotland whilst being downtrodden and suppressed by Westminster at every conceivable turn. 
The yes campaign are quite happy to denigrate the No campaign using terms like project fear a name given to the No campaign by them but get all upset by any mention of Tartan trews. They also try and spin everything into making themselves being some poor little suppressed group whilst pouring vitriol on any one who disagrees. 
 It's quite noticeable  that political activists are claiming to be just normal folk and not highly politicised people using all their skill, cunning and political guile to steer the debate the way the want at any costs.

----------


## squidge

Oh Golach, wind your neck in... Where on earth did I say you have no rights? I simply highlighted the strangeness of the two views. 

Phil you are right about the fishing. I know you don't want to be a member of the EU and I do understand that. It is true that fishing rights have been reduced and reduced but you know, Scotland has suffered from a lack of prioritisation of fishing rights by those negotiating on our behalf in Europe. I think that an Independent Scotland will have its own voice in the EU and that can only be beneficial for such things as fishing rights. Apart from the evidence that shows small countries tend to do very well out of Europe, as recently as this year the Scottish Government asked Westminster to raise an issue in Europe and they didn't. When asked why not the minister concerned said he had forgotten. In or out of Europe, Scotland having it's own voice has got to be beneficial for all sorts of things, not least fishing.

----------


## squidge

> I'm still waiting for one of the yes voters to answer how Scotland became 13th richest country in the world and developed all these major industries capable of sustaining an independent Scotland whilst being downtrodden and suppressed by Westminster at every conceivable turn. The yes campaign are quite happy to denigrate the No campaign using terms like project fear a name given to the No campaign by them but get all upset by any mention of Tartan trews. They also try and spin everything into making themselves being some poor little suppressed group whilst pouring vitriol on any one who disagrees.  It's quite noticeable  that political activists are claiming to be just normal folk and not highly politicised people using all their skill, cunning and political guile to steer the debate the way the want at any costs.


Project Fear came from this quote in the  Herald "Privately some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear". It was then picked up by the rest of the mainstream press. 

 I haven't really seen much complaining about being suppressed at every conceivable turn here either. I know it suits you chook to present those of us posting in support of Independence as some sort of political elites but you know what honey, you are wrong, and I think you know that. You'll be saying we are getting paid next... Oh I forgot you already did... What next eh chook. You have nothing positive to say so you just fling around nonsense but, on ya go...sigh

I'm also highly amused that you suggest that Yes supporters here are " pouring vitriol" on you poor ordinary no voters in a thread where you and the lovely shpongle indulge yourselves by playing I know who you are and what you are doing and which include a post that suggests rheg needs a kicking. Vitriol?  Aye... Right.

----------


## Rheghead

How many No voters does it take to change a light bulb?

----------


## golach

> How many No voters does it take to change a light bulb?


LMAO Rheg , who is writing your scripts, better get rid of them  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> LMAO Rheg , who is writing your scripts, better get rid of them


At least I got a laugh out of you.  :Grin:

----------


## golach

> At least I got a laugh out of you.


I laugh continually at you and Squidge's pro independence posts, I should not really, but cannot help it.

----------


## Heisenberg

I think I'll buy mesel a wee box o candils

----------


## Chook a demus

> I laugh continually at you and Squidge's pro independence posts, I should not really, but cannot help it.


I was taught as a child that it's rude to mock the afflicted

----------


## Rheghead

Here is a list of UK government approved weapons export licences to other countries.  The crows always come home to roost thus exposing the myth that being part of the UK makes us safe.  Make your mind up.



http://www.publications.parliament.u...5/20504.htm#a8

----------


## Heisenberg

Rhaghead please explain am a bit o a fickie eh

----------


## Rheghead

> Rhaghead please explain am a bit o a fickie eh


It means that the UK government has a blood stain from the Tibetan, Syrian and palestinian people etc all over its bank notes whilst at the same time supplying weapons that may be used against us in future conflicts.  The double personality of the UK government, a visible one of trying to broker peace in conflicts and a darker side of supplying weapons to oppressive regimes that create those conflicts in the first place.  You couldn't make it up.

----------


## golach

> It means that the UK government has a blood stain from the Tibetan, Syrian and palestinian people etc all over its bank notes whilst at the same time supplying weapons that may be used against us in future conflicts.  The double personality of the UK government, a visible one of trying to broker peace in conflicts and a darker side of supplying weapons to oppressive regimes that create those conflicts in the first place.  You couldn't make it up.


The French sold Exocet missiles to us as Ship to Ship missiles but also sold the same to tha Argies as air anti ship missiles , we had very little defence and lost good ships and men as a result. Arms are big business to many nations . I now have my own embargo on French and Argie goods, I do not knowingly buy or consume anything from those two countries.

----------


## Rheghead

> The French sold Exocet missiles to us as Ship to Ship missiles but also sold the same to tha Argies as air anti ship missiles , we had very little defence and lost good ships and men as a result. Arms are big business to many nations not just us. I now have my own embargo on French and Argie goods, I do not knowingly buy or consume anything from those two countries.


I get it now.  You know it goes on.  You know something can be done about it.  You choose to ignore it.

----------


## Rheghead

Scotland shares the North Sea with Norway.  In 1905 norway achieved independence from Sweden to become the 2nd poorest country in Europe.  Now look at them.  

It goes to show that the Better Together campaign's scaremongering on technicalities is largely irrelevant.  What really forges national self determination, is not who uses what currency or EU membership, it is _National identity_, _National confidence_ and National _Trust_.

Do we have the confidence and trust in ourselves to take Scotland on to a new level?  Is our national identity distinct and unique enough to allow ourselves to govern Scotland in the way what is best for Scotland's people?

Those are the key issues.  And we have a better understanding now about the prospects for Scotland than the Norwegians had in 1905.

----------


## Chook a demus

Why not look at the whole picture rather  than select Norway.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...United_Kingdom

Whose to say an Independent Scotland won't end up like Zimbabwe or Uganda see the reality is most countries that have gone independent end up having nasty things called civil wars

----------


## Rheghead

> Why not look at the whole picture rather  than select Norway.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...United_Kingdom
> 
> Whose to say an Independent Scotland won't end up like Zimbabwe or Uganda see the reality is most countries that have gone independent end up having nasty things called civil wars


Why do you think they have gone for independence?  Do any want to come back?

Anyhow, Who will be the rival factions?

----------


## Rheghead

Interesting read in the Herald.  

Alistair Carmichael claiming the UK needs to 'strengthen' its voice in Scotland in the event of a No vote.  That doesn't sound much like more devolution for Scotland to me, more like putting Scotland under a bigger lock and key.  Could this be a window into the minds at the heart of the Better Together campaign?

The only guarantee to get the powers to unleash Scotland's full potential is through voting Yes.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...r-all.24865471

----------


## Chook a demus

> Why do you think they have gone for independence?  Do any want to come back?Anyhow, Who will be the rival factions?


Aye shows how much yae know about history up thesea ways

----------


## Rheghead

> Aye shows how much yae know about history up thesea ways


What worries me is that you have no hesitation comparing Scotland to Uganda or Zimbabwe.

----------


## Chook a demus

I noticed the Yes vote 43% fell by 2%   last month but the No Vote 57% increased by 2%

http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/

----------


## golach

> It means that the UK government has a blood stain from the Tibetan, Syrian and palestinian people etc all over its bank notes whilst at the same time supplying weapons that may be used against us in future conflicts.  The double personality of the UK government, a visible one of trying to broker peace in conflicts and a darker side of supplying weapons to oppressive regimes that create those conflicts in the first place.  You couldn't make it up.


Is the UK the only country in the world to supply export licenses to the countries you have listed, or is this another of your red herrings to make the yesnp look good? How many of the goods that were exported made solely south of the border and not manufactured in Scotland? I am sure much of the techology and know how for these arms came from Scottish brains and minds and know how. I know for a fact there is a highly secret MOD establishment in Caithness, as do many Caithnessians,I wonder if it will still be there if the yesnp nutters get in power.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> I noticed the Yes vote 43% fell by 2% last month but the No Vote 57% increased by 2%
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/


That would suggest to me that the NO people are stronger in number than the YES people. I am a yes to NO voter and also a no to YES voter. I have never been a simple YES or NO man. I vote yes to NO and no to YES, there are no simple words like YES or NO in my vocabulary.

If you are buying an ice cream and are asked "would you like a flake inserted in it?" most normal people would answer "yes please" or "no thanks". They wouldn't reply with "YES!" or "NO!", that would be plain bad manners.

I refuse to vote when the only available answer to the question is yes or no. If it was a YES please or NO thanks type vote then I may enter into it but to simply say YES or NO seems so one dimensional and crude.

You would expect a family having dinner in KFC to cry out "YES!" when posed the "would you like your bucket supersized" question but would expect a more polite answer from the majority of civilised people who don't eat their meals out of supersized buckets. "Would you like a drizzle of olive oil on your bacon and basil ciabbata sir?" Oh yes please! (or even a simple "yes please") is a lot more civilised than yelling out YES! (or NO!, as the case may be). 

There are actually fully developed adults wandering about the streets with YES! / NO! T-shirts, badges, bags and hats on their personage.... This shows the class of people who will be voting in this election..... people who eat street food "on the move", people who think that saying YES or NO is a form of supreme communication...... they take 5 seconds out of their insular iphone existence to utter the word YES or NO and BINGO! we have ourselves a new, forward thinking generation, that will take Scotland into unheralded wealth and opportunity.

It's very easy to say "YES!" (when you are faced with the salt and vinegar question) but it is a lot harder when you are faced with the "would you like vinegar with your salt?" question. 

A very complex debate (If you are an idiot) I'll stick with my standard "YES please" when anybody asks me if I'd like salt and vinegar with my chips.

----------


## Chook a demus

Mind only a rank hypocrite would complain about defence contractors but work for one

----------


## theone

> Here is a list of UK government approved weapons export licences to other countries.  The crows always come home to roost thus exposing the myth that being part of the UK makes us safe.  Make your mind up.


I fail to leaving the UK would change this situation, or make us safer.

----------


## orkneycadian

Scotland had better get themselves on this list sharpish, in the unlikely event of independence.  We won't even be able to defend ourselves using air rifles....

----------


## squidge

This story appeared recently. 

“Lessons must be learned” from the death of a Stevenage diabetic who could not afford electricity to keep his insulin cool after his benefits were stopped.One year ago on Sunday (July 20), former soldier David Clapson died aged 59 at his home in Hillside from fatal diabetic keto-acidosis, which the NHS calls “a dangerous complication of diabetes caused by a lack of insulin.”His jobseeker’s allowance of approximately £70 a week – on which his family says he was reliant – had been suspended three weeks before on June 28, for missing meetings.According to his family, Mr Clapson was found “alone, penniless and starving” a short distance from a pile of printed CVs, with nothing to his name but £3.44, six tea bags, a tin of soup and an out-of-date tin of sardines.The coroner found that David – a former BT engineer of 16 years, who had served two years in Northern Ireland with the Royal Corps of Signals during The Troubles – had nothing in his stomach when he died.Now his sister, Gill Thompson, says “lessons must be learned” by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) before vulnerable benefit claimants are sanctioned in future."

It's  also worth reading this

"Mr D. is a single man in his 50's living on his own in rented housing. Following a serious car accident he has physical and mental disabilities, including mobility problems, brain damage leading to memory problems and learning difficulties, including difficulty understanding and responding to complex written information and difficulty remembering appointments and managing his daily life. Mr D. has faced several problems dealing with DWP mistakes in the last 2-3 years, whilst he has been seeking work. In 2012/13, he was underpaid £31/week for over 9 months, when his part-time job ended and the change in circumstances he reported to the DWP was not actioned, as the DWP paid him as if he was working. After a complaint from Wiltshire Citizens Advice he was awarded over £1,100 in back payment of benefit. In August 2013 his Jobseekers Allowance was stopped abruptly after the DWP decided he had not attended a job seeking interview. This caused associated problems with his linked awards of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction. Citizens Advice represented him at a benefit tribunal and the judge ruled in his favour, with the result that he received £235 in back payment of benefit. In October 2013, whilst struggling to cope with this cut in his benefit, he was sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for enough jobs. Again, Wiltshire Citizens Advice supported him to appeal this decision, which was overturned, resulting in repayment of £930 in withheld benefit. To add to his distress, he was refused hardship payments on the grounds that he had “savings” – this was some of the money repaid by the DWP from their previous error in 2013. The impact of these errors and failure by the DWP to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person is that Mr D. has suffered from periods of depression, has struggled to budget and to manage his basic needs, such as food and heating. At times he has relied on food parcels from his local food bank, and has been supported by his local church. Although he has been successful in his appeals, the DWP and tribunal process is very slow, so it has taken over 8 months to resolve both these appeals – that is 8 months of not knowing what may happen, failing to be believed and having to prepare evidence. Mr D. now lives in fear of the next decision by the DWP to sanction or stop his benefit without warning."

And this…

"Mrs A first attended the Salisbury office in September 2013 in order to request a food bank voucher, during this meeting the client reported increasing levels of concern regarding rent arrears that were accruing as a result of under occupancy or the ‘bedroom tax’ as it has come to be known. The client has a two bedroom council property where she has lived for 28 years and is in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance. There were no other debts other than the rent arrears which totalled around £250 at that point. Her weekly shortfall as a result of the ‘Bedroom tax’ came to a little over £12.00. Mrs A does not enjoy good health and has found the letters from the Council regarding her rent arrears both worrying and distressing. A call to the Council confirmed the facts and allowed the case to be put on hold whilst we searched for potential solutions. In terms of increasing Mrs A’s income there was limited potential but an Assisted Water Tariff was secured which resulted in a saving of £164 p.a. A discussion about potential charitable support for the rent arrears uncovered the fact that Mrs A had worked for a major high street bank in the past. Further investigations led to the identification of a pension fund worth £2909.80 accessible on Mrs A’s 60th birthday in June of 2014. With the pension fund providing evidence of employment with a bank it was possible to apply for a charitable donation through a banking charity. The grant totalled £892.81 which included £448.81 for rent arrears, £244 for bus passes and £200 for general living expenses. These amounts were designed to allow the client to pay off the accumulated rent arrears and maintain rent payments for the next six months at which time the occupational pension will become available. The £200 for general living expenses could be spent as she wished. Early in 2014 the reports of the ‘bedroom tax’ legislative loophole began to emerge and following a discussion with the client Wiltshire Council were informed that it was believed Mrs A met the qualifying criteria as she had been in the same property for 28 years and had been in receipt of housing benefit for some time with no significant breaks. Shortly afterwards confirmation was given that Mrs A’s rent arrears would be reversed and that her Housing Benefit would not be reduced again until early April 2014. Having discussed the matter of the rent arrears with the bank charity they felt that the grant had been made for the good of the client and asked if the client could usefully use the £448 that had been allocated for rent arrears. Mrs A has now ordered a new fridge / freezer, bed, mattress and microwave oven. The current items had all been purchased when she first moved into her council property 28 years ago and are in various states of disrepair."

Now we can squabble about export licences, we can focus on EU membership or currency or air rifles but the bottom line is that it is only with a YES vote that we have the opportunity to change things for the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. A NO vote will ensure that situations like the above continue to occur, and get worse as all three Westminster parties are committed to further cuts to welfare.

 Only independence gives us the power to do something different.  

Links available if you want them send a PM.

----------


## Chook a demus

Going independent gives you no more than the ability to be independent with reference to the previous post all limited individual cases all in England so nothing to do with independence or Scotland. It's very easy to pick three individual cases out of a population of 60 million but with the SNP currently failing their NHS targets there are no guarantees that exactly the same wouldn't happen here whether we go independent or not. More fear mongering from the pro-independence camp shame on them for using totally unrelated subject to try and win their argument, no doubt their attempts will become more desperate as we get closer to the big day and they realise they are still behind in the polls.

----------


## Phill

Clearly the system is failing. And maybe the 3 main parties have committed to further cuts.
But please explain how the SNP are going to realign the benefits system in an iScotland to prevent these types of cases in Stevenage and Wiltshire?

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> Mind only a rank hypocrite would complain about defence contractors but work for one


I've been reading this thread (how sad am I?) to get up to speed on things and the absolute corker (IF I have read into this correctly) is that Raghead is actually employed by a firm that produces "weapons" / "defence" products?

What will he do for a living IF Scotland decides to go it alone?

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

Sorry..... that should have read "Rheghead" (not Raghead) my new keyboard isn't fully bedded in yet.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

What say you to that Rheghead?

----------


## orkneycadian

> This story appeared recently. 
> 
> Lessons must be learned from the death of a Stevenage diabetic who could not afford electricity to keep his insulin cool after his benefits were stopped.One year ago on Sunday (July 20), former soldier David Clapson died aged 59 at his home in Hillside from fatal diabetic keto-acidosis, which the NHS calls a dangerous complication of diabetes caused by a lack of insulin.His jobseekers allowance of approximately £70 a week  on which his family says he was reliant  had been suspended three weeks before on June 28, for missing meetings.According to his family, Mr Clapson was found alone, penniless and starving a short distance from a pile of printed CVs, with nothing to his name but £3.44, six tea bags, a tin of soup and an out-of-date tin of sardines.The coroner found that David  a former BT engineer of 16 years, who had served two years in Northern Ireland with the Royal Corps of Signals during The Troubles  had nothing in his stomach when he died.Now his sister, Gill Thompson, says lessons must be learned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) before vulnerable benefit claimants are sanctioned in future."


It is stunning beyond belief that the Yes campaigners are now resorting to trying to blame the deaths of people on the fact we are not independent.

To even suggest that Mr Clapsons unfortunate death is directly due to his insulin not being kept cool, which in turn was due to his inability to afford electricity, which in turn is due to his "benefits being stopped" is in very bad taste.

Firstly, any diabetic will be aware that their insulin will keep at room temperature for at least a month after being opened.  Guidance is usually to store the insulin you are using *outside* the fridge to make it more comfortable to inject.  "Official" guidance is 1 month from opening at room temperature, but we all know that such official guidance, like food best before dates, errs well on the side of caution.  So - If Mr Clapsons insulin was stored outside of a fridge for 3 weeks, that alone was not responsible for his death.

Secondly, no power company would have cut off anyones electricity after just 3 weeks, especially if hardship or life dependancy was demonstrated.  Even if on a prepayment / card meter, there would be a facility for "emergency" electricity.  This is typically £5 - £10.  

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2164842/How-household-gadgets-cost-run-16-electricity-bills-wasted-appliances-left-standby.html

...suggests that Mr Clapsons fridge would have run for at least 2 months on the £5 emergency credit.

Thirdly, if Mr Clapson found himself with out of date, impotent insulin, he would have been readily given a further supply at his local chemist or A&E

Next, there is the assertion that he was starving and had an empty stomach.  Again, any Type 1, insulin dependent diabetic will tell you that in that case, its not insulin you need but sugar or sugar producing carbohydrates.  If Mr Clapson hadn't eaten, then insulin would be one of the last things he needed.

I do not profess to be expert on the treatment of diabetes, but I do find the above suggestion that Mr Clapson died because Scotland is not an independant nation to be in extremely bad taste.

If this is the depths that the Yes campaigners have stooped to to try and sway some Yes votes, then I simply cannot wait until this infernal referendum is over with, and we can get back to normal life again.

----------


## Chook a demus

Should also be noted that if the person mentioned was a retired serviceman at 59 he would of been in receipt of his armed force pension so wouldn't be totally reliant on job seekers allowance

----------


## Rheghead

Washington Post declares that the Scottish independence debate is too close to call as the Yes campaign continues to gain ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...close-to-call/

----------


## orkneycadian

And unless I am mistaken, the gap between Yes and No votes on 'e orgs poll on independence is widening....

----------


## Heisenberg

> Washington Post declares that the Scottish independence debate is too close to call as the Yes campaign continues to gain ground.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...close-to-call/


(To american horse race bugle call)  coming up on the outside

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> Washington Post declares that the Scottish independence debate is too close to call as the Yes campaign continues to gain ground.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...close-to-call/


Do you work in the UK defence / weapons industry? a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Washington Post declares that the Scottish independence debate is too close to call as the Yes campaign continues to gain ground.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...close-to-call/


Interesting how you don't use any of the major polls that show the No campaign in the lead and yes campaign loosing 2%. And if you have a look there's an article in the Scotsman that says 700000 would consider leaving Scotland if there's a yes vote. That wouldn't be good for the economy !

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5624870.html. That's 17% of the population considering leaving if the yes campaign win 


http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/.   A not so biased poll showing no firmly in the lead 57% yes 43% a 2% backward slide for the yes campaign

----------


## orkneycadian

Does that 700,000 include the citizens of the PROOSWI?

----------


## Heisenberg

> Sorry..... that should have read "Rheghead" (not Raghead) my new keyboard isn't fully bedded in yet.


oops! I though it were rhaghead too. But at least there's no evidence  as for some reason my innocent post was deleted. At least there was no wind damage today eh.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Do you work in the UK defence / weapons industry? a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


is it Salt or Vinegar?

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> And unless I am mistaken, the gap between Yes and No votes on 'e orgs poll on independence is widening....


A Major thanks to Raghead for that! He is, single handedly, putting off "YES" voters with every sentence of nonsense he speaks from his the bravery of being out of range, UK defence funded "keyboard".

----------


## orkneycadian

I wouldn't give Rheghead all the credit.  Squidge, Oddquine and Piratelassie are also doing a pretty good job of turning "Don't Knows" into "Nos"

----------


## Chook a demus

Well said orkneycadian, I still haven't worked out what events in Salisbury and Stevenage have to do with the Scottish referendum or what the Scottish govt are supposed to do about it when they can't even hit their own NHS targets

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> I wouldn't give Rheghead all the credit.  Squidge, Oddquine and Piratelassie are also doing a pretty good job of turning "Don't Knows" into "Nos"


I thought it was just me who found these people PARTICULARLY annoying, I'm so happy to realise that I wasn't wrong.

----------


## orkneycadian

Yes Chook, I kinda missed the fact that Mr Clapson was in England, not Scotland.  But the original posting still insinuated that "the system" that we have have at the moment, as part of the UK, had lead directly to his death, and that in an independant Scotland, we would be "free" of such a system.  

I find it very sad that someone who isn't here to state his own case is being used as a pawn in the Scottish independence debate.  And he didn't even live in Scotland.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Yes Chook, I kinda missed the fact that Mr Clapson was in England, not Scotland.  But the original posting still insinuated that "the system" that we have have at the moment, as part of the UK, had lead directly to his death, and that in an independant Scotland, we would be "free" of such a system.  I find it very sad that someone who isn't here to state his own case is being used as a pawn in the Scottish independence debate.  And he didn't even live in Scotland.


That's due to a simple thing some people have no respect for others and no shame trying to promote their cause using any means they can. Still amazes me the mendacity of the yes campaign to say its project fear from the No campaign when they post drivel like that.

----------


## orkneycadian

> I thought it was just me who found these people PARTICULARLY annoying, I'm so happy to realise that I wasn't wrong.


Maybe a bit strong to call them annoying....  Each to their own and all that....  And unlike Ywindythesecond, they have not made it onto the Ignore list yet! 

Squdge is the mistress of the War and Peace posts that have caused the printing on my "Page Down" button to have become worn off.  I do not agree however with her latest techniques to try and curry favour with the "Don't knows"

Piratelassie on the other hand is the mistress of the "Light the blue touchpaper and run" technique, using postings of no more than 20 words, without contributing any more

Oddquine falls somewhere in between.

If they didn't post, we would have no debate.  But I do wish Squidge would at least keep the conversation above board and not drag some poor deceased individual into it.

----------


## Chook a demus

Quite simple I block them as you say each to their own freedom of speech and all that. Only time I do read the posts is when I read e org and don't sign on. They also don't seem to understand hyperbole particularly well.

----------


## Chook a demus

> If they didn't post, we would have no debate.  But I do wish Squidge would at least keep the conversation above board and not drag some poor deceased individual into it.


Any chance their aiming for the Portgower vampire vote having run out of all other alternatives or maybe trying to resurrect the ones they've bored to death !

----------


## orkneycadian

> As far as I know about this message forum is one where we sign on anonymously and it is written in the rules that we never disclose any personal information about other posters without consential disclosure.  It is my hope people respect that.
> 
> My own view is that this independence referendum is bigger in importance than my own personal circumstances.  I am also a husband, a father and a friend to other Scots.  I will decide how I vote on priorities that are greater than my own.  
> 
> I am a patriotic Englishman who recognises that the English wish to remain part of the UK so I wish what is best for the rUK. Independence will just result in a reduction of 8.4% of the UK. The consequences of independence is mild for rUK but huge for Scotland.  I believe the rUK should still have the defence in force that is needed to justify their rightful place at the top international table.  I do not believe it is the correct destiny of Scotland to stay with the rUK.  Westminster obsesses with its post colonial obsession with international police work and that is OK by me, rather, I would like a greener, fairer and peaceful future for Scotland. With indy, Scots will no longer be sent to wars without the agreement of the Scottish government.


Have you been taking posting tips from Squidge?

----------


## orkneycadian

A slightly unfortunate comparison, Chook.  The SNP and Yes supporters would rather we were rid of Patriots.  And Tridents.  And Minutemans....

I believe they would rather that we picked up wooden shields, pitchforks and claymores, just like William Wallace.

----------


## Chook a demus

Yes hence I deleted it Orkney. But a true patriot wouldn't rail against the country of their birth and try to break it up from a successful union.

----------


## Rheghead

> patriotNOUNA person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors:a true patriot !Err nope you don't fit that category I'm afraid


The UK is not a country, it is a contractual arrangement between nations.  People do not derive their nationality or patriotism from a contract.  And yet the Better Together campaign claim otherwise.  Bizarre.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> As far as I know about this message forum is one where we sign on anonymously and it is written in the rules that we never disclose any personal information about other posters without consential disclosure.



You answered the question and answer yourself via screeds of your own writings. Please don't cry "foul" now that you have been sussed.... accept your total humiliation with grace.

----------


## Chook a demus

Most people of this island consider themselves English Scottish Welsh or Irish but the vast majority consider themselves British as well. It's only in the mind of separatists that a 300 yr union is a mere contract. And it's that type of mentality that's made the Ukraine the mess it is at the moment.

----------


## orkneycadian

> The UK is not a country, it is a contractual arrangement between nations.  People do not derive their nationality or patriotism from a contract.  And yet the Better Together campaign claim otherwise.  Bizarre.


So Scotland, including Orkney and Shetland is not a country either?  I don't think there was even a contract in 1468 for the dowry arrangment.  So what you are saying then is that "Scotlands" oil is not Scottish?

Even more bizarre....

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> As far as I know about this message forum is one where we sign on anonymously and it is written in the rules that we never disclose any personal information about other posters without consential disclosure.  It is my hope people respect that.


Rules for the boys?

----------


## Rheghead

> You answered the question and answer yourself via screeds of your own writings. Please don't cry "foul" now that you have been sussed.... accept your total humiliation with grace.


If you are trying to claim that I have consentually disclosed my personal circumstances then you are mistaken.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> Rules for the boys?


I don't agree with your forum rules and would like to change them... can we have a referendum or will you just SHOOT me?

----------


## orkneycadian

Sorry UBJ, under SNP rules, there will be no shooting in Scotland.  Its what Kenny McAskill calls the "Rabbits Charter"

----------


## Rheghead

> Most people of this island consider themselves English Scottish Welsh or Irish but the vast majority consider themselves British as well. It's only in the mind of separatists that a 300 yr union is a mere contract. And it's that type of mentality that's made the Ukraine the mess it is at the moment.


British is defined by the fact you were born on the island of Great Britain.  Scots born in an independent country will still be British like English and Welsh.  Most people therefore erroneously confuse _British_ with _Unionist_ .

----------


## Oddquine

> It is stunning beyond belief that the Yes campaigners are now resorting to trying to blame the deaths of people on the fact we are not independent.
> 
> To even suggest that Mr Clapsons unfortunate death is directly due to his insulin not being kept cool, which in turn was due to his inability to afford electricity, which in turn is due to his "benefits being stopped" is in very bad taste.
> 
> Firstly, any diabetic will be aware that their insulin will keep at room temperature for at least a month after being opened.  Guidance is usually to store the insulin you are using *outside* the fridge to make it more comfortable to inject.  "Official" guidance is 1 month from opening at room temperature, but we all know that such official guidance, like food best before dates, errs well on the side of caution.  So - If Mr Clapsons insulin was stored outside of a fridge for 3 weeks, that alone was not responsible for his death.
> 
> Secondly, no power company would have cut off anyones electricity after just 3 weeks, especially if hardship or life dependancy was demonstrated.  Even if on a prepayment / card meter, there would be a facility for "emergency" electricity.  This is typically £5 - £10.  
> 
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2164842/How-household-gadgets-cost-run-16-electricity-bills-wasted-appliances-left-standby.html
> ...


Where is anyone saying that the reason any person in England died is_ because Scotland is not independent_, pray tell?   :: 

What is being said, as far as I can see,  is that an independent Scotland would not have, as Westminster does, viewed the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, as a drain on its resources, to be deliberately removed from the support to which they are entitled..and in many cases to be killed by Government policies which amount to verging on criminal actions, just as surely as they would have been killed if IDS had run over them in a taxpayer funded limousine, driven by a drunk chauffeur, as he was on the way to trough down his £39 a head breakfast. 

We can certainly argue about the scope of the 21st century definition of poverty and the entitlement culture which has grown around it, which has long since surpassed affordability....but we can't blame people who have been brought up to believe they are entitled to what they have always been promised....and have come to rely on it...for relying on it, particularly as, unlike when I started working, decent paying jobs are as rare as hen's teeth or Hobby Horse's droppings. 

Those of us in Scotland, who have a modicum of empathy for the underclass the UK voter has been instrumental in creating, can, however, and will, continue to blame those in both Houses of Westminster for deliberately, and with malice aforethought, quite knowingly and very deliberately targeting the poorest and least able to resist, while at the same time giving tax cuts to the wealthy, allowing the wealthy and big business to continue to take advantage of tax loopholes the Government deliberately created for that purpose.and subsidising UK companies, however much they make in profits to pay crap wages........oh, and give themselves a 16% pay rise and allow criminal bankers to keep their jobs, and still collect silly money wages and bonuses. 

My father fought in WWII, and came home to a land not fit for heroes, and worked hard for the local Labour Party to help get only decent policy the UK has *ever* produced, and the only thing which ever made the Union worth living in, for the ordinary punter who couldn't take advantage of the UK "London and the south" gravy train, which had, along with the war dead, helped to reduce the Scottish population drastically..the Welfare State.  And since 1979, the Westminster Government has been rolling back that same Welfare State to meet the Victorian values so praised by Thatcher, to the extent that we now have increasing levels of the same Victorian era health problems besetting the poor.

I notice you make much of Mr Clapson, basically saying it was his own fault, as he was too thick to know what you know, having googled it. Myself, I'd have wondered where his family was when he was having problems, but that is just the way I think. I also notice you appear to have no opinion on the other examples from squidge. Would that be because even you can't manage to come up with any justification for their treatment as a result of the application of government policies?

----------


## squidge

Part two 

 The cases that I cited at the start of the day are simply three which have been reported this week. But here are some scottish statistics for you 


A 400% increase in sanctions in a very deprived area of South West Glasgow alone.The impact of sanctions on tenants is affecting the work of Housing  Associations; the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations is  currently gathering evidence from its members.During April 2012, over 200 sanctions were applied to claimants every working dayCitizens Advice Bureaux and other third sector organisations give  examples of individuals and families left in extreme hardship because of  sanctions applied with little or no consideration of personal  circumstances and in some cases having wider impact on family and  support networks (e.g. sanctions on those with caring responsibilities).73% of referrals to food banks were related to benefit sanctions and delays.Poor communication around expectations of claimants and when/why sanctions are applied cause tremendous worry and stress.There is evidence of “stockpiling” of sanctions – Citizens Advice in  Scotland have seen a number of cases where sanctions have been applied  retrospectively for issues which occurred up to 14 months previously.  This is as a result of the change in law made through the Jobseekers  (Back to Work) Act 2013.Sanctions are being applied for personal circumstances which a  claimant cannot change – and which actually create savings for statutory  services – for example, kinship and unpaid care situations. Examples  are highlighted in the Coalition of Care Providers in Scotland’s  response to the Expert Working Group on Welfare. Anecdotally we are  aware of unpaid carers moving towards Jobseeker conditionality but with  no support for their caring roles to enable them to take up employment.
The problem with Sanctions is not that they exist - they have always existed and been used where necessary - it is the staggering way they are being handed out left right and centre. In addition when appealed, almost 60% of sanctions are overturned and when if the appeals get as far as a tribunal - the very last stage of appeal then 9 out of 10 sanctions are overturned. This is utterly shocking and a complete and utter waste of money as well as completely devastating to those people who face being sanctioned unfairly. 

The Welfare system is a clear indicator of why Scotland should be independent.  The Scottish Government has shown that it wants to take a different direction on welfare. It has taken several steps over the last few years to mitigate the effect of welfare reforms by meeting shortfalls in funding to ensure that people are supported as much as possible and by developing its Community Jobs Programme.  However - despite these efforts to alter the direction of travel - there is no opportunity for Scotland as part of the union to do anything truly different - so we can play around the edges but not change anything.  Take the Bedroom tax, Currently the Scottish government meets the cost of the Spare Room Subsidy in full.  To do this, the Scottish Government  had to ask permission from Westminster to allow the Scottish Government to commit the extra money to meet this cost. The Scottish Government does not have the power to abolish the bedroom tax despite the fact 91% of Scottish MPs voted to impose this tax.  So we have to allocate money from our budget to pay it. 

So this is a policy which a huge majority of our MPs voted against, which is causing hardship for so many people and which we do not want in Scotland and yet we cannot get rid of it. Our government does not have the power to abolish the bedroom tax.  

Independence will give us the choice to do something different and the opportunity to  make that choice.  In taking that opportunity Scotland will be able to show rUk that there is a different and better way to deal with people who are receiving benefits and then it would be up to the people of the rUk to demand that changes are made in their parliament. 

Without independence, as part of the UK,  there is NO opportunity to change things. None.  The tragic and shocking stories which I mentioned at the start of the day and which are happening all over Britain today will continue.  We need to show there is a different way of doing things and Independence gives us the chance to do that.

----------


## orkneycadian

> British is defined by the fact you were born on the island of Great Britain.  Scots born in an independent country will still be British like English and Welsh.  Most people therefore erroneously confuse _British_ with _Unionist_ .


You really don't want the oil that is off the coast of the United Kingdom do you?  If you are going to be separatist, then calling it solely Britain (the singular big island) is it.

OK, we'll keep it if you don't want it.  All the more for the PROOSWI!

----------


## orkneycadian

> I notice you make much of Mr Clapson, basically saying it was his own fault, as he was too thick to know what you know, having googled it.


Whoa!!!!!!!

Now your stating that I am saying it was Mr Clapsons own fault?

This is getting beyond belief....

Have you tried living with diabetes?

----------


## Oddquine

> You really don't want the oil that is off the coast of the United Kingdom do you?  If you are going to be separatist, then calling it solely Britain (the singular big island) is it.
> 
> OK, we'll keep it if you don't want it.  All the more for the PROOSWI!


How's about you stop talking utter bollox just for the sake of arguing?  It seems to be a No Bitter Together Thanks supporters' (and leaders), propensity.

----------


## Oddquine

> Whoa!!!!!!!
> 
> Now your stating that I am saying it was Mr Clapsons own fault?
> 
> This is getting beyond belief....
> 
> Have you tried living with diabetes?


Nope.if you read your post again YOU are saying it!    ::

----------


## orkneycadian

> Have you tried living with diabetes?


Come on now Squidge, like Rheghead, all it takes is a Yes / No answer.  Have you lived with hypos?  Checking your levels?  Regular visits to the diabetic nurse?

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

> British is defined by the fact you were born on the island of Great Britain.  Scots born in an independent country will still be British like English and Welsh.  Most people therefore erroneously confuse _British_ with _Unionist_ .


You are ENGLISH and have no idea of the Scottish culture. An Englishman with no concept of the Scottish culture is a lot more offensive than Margaret Thatcher.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Nope.if you read your post again YOU are saying it!


I have.  Several times.  All it points out are facts.  

The main one being "is there no end to the depths the SNP / Yes camp will stoop to?"

----------


## orkneycadian

> Come on now Squidge, like Rheghead, all it takes is a Yes / No answer.  Have you lived with hypos?  Checking your levels?  Regular visits to the diabetic nurse?


Hurry up Squidge, we don't have all night....  

Have you lived with diabetes, or was this just a story that suited your political ends?

----------


## orkneycadian

That'll be a no then.....

----------


## Chook a demus

Let's not forget that the SNP themselves say they will require a million or so immigrants to move to a newly independent Scotland which is about an extra  20% of the population just to keep everything working properly. Think of the strain the will put on public services, schools hospitals and the effect it will have on wages. Let alone the cultural impact it will have on the country all in the space of 20yrs. That would be 1 in 5 of the population with no cultural ties moving here just to fund all the social spending, within a couple of generations the Scotland we know and love would be changed beyond recognition.

----------


## orkneycadian

I don't see why we need to discuss you behind closed doors, when you are happy to discuss poor Mr Clapson on a public forum.

I deduce that you saw the story somewhere and thought that could be bent to try and show how bad "the system" is.

If you do not have diabetes, or have lived with it, fair enough.  No further questions required.

----------


## orkneycadian

Night night Squidge.

Make sure you have no nighttime hypos now....   :Wink:

----------


## orkneycadian

> That would be 1 in 5 of the population with no cultural ties moving here just to fund all the social spending, within a couple of generations the Scotland we know and love would be changed beyond recognition.


Would we need to have haggis appreciation night school classes?

----------


## Chook a demus

> Would we need to have haggis appreciation night school classes?


Aye and how ta wear your kilt properly

----------


## Chook a demus

Mildly concerned  that even when you block someone and make it patently clear you have no desire to discuss anything with them, they can't help but keep making personal digs. I will give Rheg his due at least he gives as good as he gets despite the political differences we have, but I do find the one who will not be named attempts to keep trying to associate others words to me becoming rather obsessive and it's beginning to creep me out.

----------


## Phill

This is coming along nicely.

*popcorn*

----------


## Chook a demus

> This is coming along nicely.*popcorn*


Salt or butter ? Would you like to max it ?

----------


## squidge

> Let's not forget that the SNP themselves say they will require a million or so immigrants to move to a newly independent Scotland which is about an extra  20% of the population just to keep everything working properly. Think of the strain the will put on public services, schools hospitals and the effect it will have on wages. Let alone the cultural impact it will have on the country all in the space of 20yrs. That would be 1 in 5 of the population with no cultural ties moving here just to fund all the social spending, within a couple of generations the Scotland we know and love would be changed beyond recognition.


Chook is right to say that Scotland will need immigrants to help to support the economy and ensure that our population is growing and that we meet the skills that employers are looking for as well as the cost of pensions. He is however wrong aboutseveral key points.  The SNP have not said anywhere that the immigration figure would be one million immigrants. The one million figure was quoted as coming from Gregg McClymont by the Herald and by the Daily Record shortly after, as coming from Yvette Cooper just before her visit to Inverness.  The link to the Daily Record is here from 24th April.  

This article pointed out several paragraphs down, that the figure refers to the total net migration *by 2051*  – almost 40 years into the future - Not the 20 which Chook suggests and the articles in both the Herald and the Record point out that this is an average of 24000 a year. 

By referring to the National Records Office shows us the statistics for the last ten years and we can see that net migration to Scotland over the last ten years has been as follows.  

2002/3: *5,643*
2003/4: *18,622*
2004/5: *25,307*
2005/6: *18,822*
2006/7: *33,049*
2007/8: *26,409*
2008/9: *24,422*
2009/10: *26,075*
2010/11: *32,209*
2011/12: *12,738* 

Average: *22,330*

Interestingly this is only 1700 a year less than the 24,000 a year that Yvette and Gregg suggested we need.  Its also interesting to note that the Daily Express published an article here last August which says 


> Economists believe the population needs to grow by 24,000 people a year just to keep pace with European economies.


 which was supported by the Conservatives.

So it appears that the figure of 1 million is not the terrifying surge in immigration that Chook suggests, but a small increase of less than 8% per year on current figures. The white paper also makes it clear that there is no plan for unfettered immigration into Scotland. EU residents will have their rights to free movement as now but an Independent Scotland will have its own immigration controls. The difference is that these controls will be designed to ensure Scotland's immigration needs are met and not ignored. 

Chook's suggestion that increasing our immigration by around 1700 per year will destroy our culture, and Labour's suggestion that this is an extremely difficult figure to achieve is a bit of an over exaggeration. 

We know that many NO spokespeople are a bit obsessed with foreigners and we see many suggestions that "foreigners" might have a detrimental effect on Scotland whether it is by moving here or by  our Aunties, mums, dads and other relatives transforming into foreigners as soon as Independence is declared.  It is however true that the Scottish Government and you know, the Scottish people as well,  have traditionally been very welcoming to immigrants and I don't expect that to change with Independence.

Any links that you need just PM me and I will let you have them.

----------


## squidge

Here is a link to a petition demanding an inquiry into benefit sanctions by the family of the poor man, David Clapson, who's story I highlighted yesterday. If you are as horrified by the way sanctions are being used as I am,  then please think about signing it. http://www.change.org/petitions/davi...acebook_mobile

----------


## erniesspeedshop

> Scotland shares the North Sea with Norway.  In 1905 norway achieved independence from Sweden to become the 2nd poorest country in Europe.  Now look at them.


 Norway is often cited as a good example of a successful independent country. In historical terms, they were almost immediately invaded and occupied by Germany, then used as a base from which to bomb Scotland. They built their modern economy post WWII largely with the help of the UK and paid for by reparations and the USA. I hope Scotland doesn't have to go through all that to become successful. Sorry, newbie, can't make the paragraphs work. ::

----------


## Chook a demus

Seems the yes camps maths is rather bad .
Population of Scotland approx 5 million.
Projected immigration requirement 1 million.
Somehow that equals 8% .
It's also noticeable how the immigration figures quoted are from a period of unfettered immigration which the govt is now stemming hence the reduction in recent figures.
So that would be more of the same but worse from the Yes campaign wi no excuses and the usual blaming someone else.
And not sure how a discussion on immigration turns into using the term "foreigners" that's  starting to verge into hate speech so much for the yes campaign and their high standards. 

One things very clear the SNP are good at using sound bites from other people then when it comes back to bite them they blame someone else. 
It's got a bit tiring over the months how everyone else is always wrong.

----------


## squidge

Immigration is vital to Scotland's economic wellbeing, however nowhere is it suggested that Scotland will opt for unfettered immigration. Even using the figure of 1 million immigrants required over almost 40 years that only works out as an increase of less than 8% per year on the average annual immigration for the last 10 years. Remember the 1 million figure quoted by labour is between now and 2051! How they know what Scotland's population needs will be in 2051 I don't know but hey ho.... That's what the Labour Party says. 

The white paper clearly states that Scotland will change the rules back so that people who come here to study can stay and work after achieving their degree. In addition the current Scottish Government sets out plans for a points based system for immigrants from outside the EU which will reflect Scotland's population and economic  needs.  Is that not what many people who are concerned about immigration want? A points system? Immigrants are net contributors to the economy of the UK and of Scotland and the need for Scotland to have its own policies to meet its own needs is recognised by all those parties supporting independence.

----------


## Alien Adrenaline Reflex

> Seems the yes camps maths is rather bad .
> Population of Scotland approx 5 million.
> Projected immigration requirement 1 million.
> Somehow that equals 8% .
> It's also noticeable how the immigration figures quoted are from a period of unfettered immigration which the govt is now stemming hence the reduction in recent figures.
> So that would be more of the same but worse from the Yes campaign wi no excuses and the usual blaming someone else.
> And not sure how a discussion on immigration turns into using the term "foreigners" that's  starting to verge into hate speech so much for the yes campaign and their high standards. 
> 
> One things very clear the SNP are good at using sound bites from other people then when it comes back to bite them they blame someone else. 
> It's got a bit tiring over the months how everyone else is always wrong.


An 8% jump on the vurrent level of immigration doesn;t seem too much of a leap. Maybe it is for a moron?

----------


## Rheghead

I'm glad you cleared that up about immigration squidge.  It sounds like the pro-UK media and Better Together campaign were trying to twist SNP policy into something that is scaremongering again.

----------


## Chook a demus

I suggest you read the migration watch website

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/10.20

Here are some salient points.

In any case, immigration as a solution to the pensions problem has long been dismissed by experts.  Most recently, the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs concluded that "Arguments in favour of high immigration to defuse "the pensions time-bomb" do not stand up to scrutiny as they are based on the unreasonable assumption of a static retirement age as people live longer and ignore the fact that, in time, immigrants too will grow old and draw pensions.  Increasing the official retirement age will significantly reduce the increase in the dependency ratio and is the only viable way to do so".

Economic Benefits
It is also argued in Scotland that immigrants are needed to fill vacancies.  The House of Lords Economics Committee concluded, however, that "Because immigration expands the overall economy, it cannot be expected to be an effective policy tool for significantly reducing vacancies.  Vacancies are to a certain extent, a sign of a healthy labour market and economy.  They cannot be a good reason for encouraging large-scale labour immigration".

 It is also suggested that immigrants are needed to do jobs that Scots will not do.  Again, this was dismissed by the House of Lords Economic Committee who concluded that "The argument that sustained net immigration is needed to fill vacancies, and that immigrants do the jobs that locals cannot or will not do, is fundamentally flawed.  It ignores the potential alternatives to immigration for responding to labour shortages, including the price adjustments of a competitive labour market and the associated increase in local labour supply that can be expected to occur in the absence of immigration"

Finally, it is claimed that Scotland needs the dynamism provided by immigrants.  The House of Lords was unconvinced.  They concluded that “Although possible in theory, we found no systematic empirical evidence to suggest that net immigration creates significant dynamic benefits for the resident population in the UK.  This does not necessarily mean that such effects do not exist but that there is currently no systematic evidence for them and it is possible that there are also negative dynamic and wider welfare effects.”

A special scheme for Scotland?

 A start has been made in this direction through the "Fresh talent: working in Scotland Scheme" recently introduced.  However, no such scheme could be enforced unless immigration controls and a physical barrier were to be put in place - reinforced perhaps by maritime patrols and the inspection of vehicles and trains.   This only has to be stated to be dismissed as impractical.

In the absence of immigration controls, there is clearly a risk that many of those admitted for work in Scotland would head South for higher wages, a warmer climate and, often, compatriots already in England.  The area of destination in the UK could be factored into a Points Based System but it would have to be on a very limited scale.  Otherwise the net result would be a back door to England which provided little or no benefit to Scotland.  (Australia, which has a regional dimension to its immigration regime, also has a facility for employers to check on line the immigration status of applicants).

Conclusion
There is no significant economic case for large scale immigration to Scotland.  A separate immigration system that such a policy would require would be unenforceable, ineffective and undesirable.

----------


## squidge

Nowhere is the Scottish Government suggesting that we need a "high level" of immigration or large scale immigration. 

The figure of 1 million, quoted by chook are  figures provided by Labour MPs and not the Scottish Government. It's a bit rich to quote those figures and then provide information from the same parties to suggest that the figures quoted are wrong. That also assumes that 1 million immigrants over 40 years is a "high level" when I have already shown that is not really the case. 

Immigration is one tool to help Scotland grow and prosper as an independent country. It is a tool in a whole toolbox of policies and to suggest it is needed to " fill jobs Scots won't do" or to reduce vacancies or that the Scottish Government is somehow basing ALL it's hopes on immigration completely ignores the rest of the tools which are available to improve and support the Scottish economy. 

These include better support to return those on benefits to work, and includes a work programme that actually improves the chances of people finding work, which the current programme  does not do; it includes developing a pension policy and system which meets Scotland's particular needs, it includes childcare policies to enable parents to return to work, it includes apprenticeships and inward investment. 

Immigration, a fair transparent and sensible policy which meets Scotland's particular needs - like that which is proposed will help Scotland be a successful independent country, but it isn't what we are relying on, it's just part of the package.

----------


## Rheghead

> I suggest you read the migration watch website


What's that?  You mentioned a number of groups/bodies, migrationwatch (littered with ex westminster MPs), House of Lords, House of Lords Economics Committee, the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs.

How in touch are they with Scottish affairs?

It seems to me that your post gives a good example of why I think the only people who are the best qualified to make decisions for Scotland is the Scottish people themselves.  

It goes right at the heart of what this referendum is all about.

----------


## golach

> What's that? How in touch are they with Scottish affairs? It goes right at the heart of what this referendum is all about.


too right Rheg, A BILLION pounds of anti-poverty measures has been diverted by the Scottish Government to patch over local authority cuts and subsidise handouts for the wealthiest Scots, a new Labour-commissioned report is to claim.

----------


## golach

More ducking and diving from our big fearty FM Eck Salmond, first he knocks back two live BBC debates with Alistair Darling and now he's also knocked back Andrew Neil's numerous requests for an interview... 
 Eck Salmond is hiding away under the safety of the SNP controlled and very bias STV (Salmond TV). Utterly pathetic.

----------


## Rheghead

> too right Rheg, A BILLION pounds of anti-poverty measures has been diverted by the Scottish Government to patch over local authority cuts and subsidise handouts for the wealthiest Scots, a new Labour-commissioned report is to claim.


Face/Palm, you are getting desperate now.  The author of the report admitted that Westminster plans to cut Scotland's block grant by £2.2 billion. Also in his report,  he fails to factor in the 'free' benefits that are provided by the Scottish Government that directly benefit people in poverty.

----------


## Chook a demus

See the nice thing about migration watch is it is not just one party it covers cross party consensus where as young rheg likes to support the SNPs totally unsupported line, it may have escaped your notice but the House of Lords and all the other groups also includes Scots. 
Where as your line on 1 million immigrants is just acceptable because the SNP says so. 

The reality is during the debate we have you who denounces anything that doesn't tow official SNP policy, and the other one who is so ashamed of the policies that she refuses to publicly post them and constantly asks for PMs, so her position can't be challenged publicly.
 A Duplicitous and underhand attempt to manipulate people's opinion at least the No people have the decency to keep the debate public and out in the open.

The amount of times in recent posts figures have been quoted  as Labours, does makes you wonder of the SNP are capable of making their own policy instead of using Labours discredited immigration policy.

----------


## Rheghead

> rheg likes to support the SNPs totally unsupported line.


I do not support the SNP.  I only support truth of what has been said and not said and what can be factually verified.  Big difference.

----------


## Chook a demus

> I do not support the SNP.  I only support truth of what has been said and not said and what can be factually verified.  Big difference.


Can you show me independent stats on immigration I've yet to see any verified factual evidence that an extra million people are required.

 And whilst you're at it can you show me the verified factual evidence for EU & Nato membership or currency  for an independent Scotland. 

I'd really like to see your independent verified facts on these issues.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can you show me independent stats on immigration I've yet to see any verified factual evidence that an extra million people are required.
> 
>  And whilst you're at it can you show me the verified factual evidence for EU & Nato membership or currency  for an independent Scotland. 
> 
> I'd really like to see your independent verified facts on these issues.


It is not just facts you need but a well reasoned interpretation as well.  That is why the Yes campaign is still on track because the Yessers are determining the debate whilst Better Together are still repeating the same old scare stories.

----------


## golach

> It is not just facts you need but a well reasoned interpretation as well.  That is why the Yes campaign is still on track because the Yessers are determining the debate whilst Better Together are still repeating the same old scare stories.


Your still not providing "verified factual evidence" yet.........why not?

----------


## Headwark

Betting is now  1/8  for a no vote 
              and   9/2  for a yes vote .

Seems like all the talk is Hypothetical to me.

----------


## Rheghead

> Your still not providing "verified factual evidence" yet.........why not?


Here is one verified undeniable fact for you.  The UK government has refused to discuss anything to do with post independence negotiations.  

If you want to see the SNP's vision for an independent country then read Scotland's Future.  

In all honesty, the SNP have gone to long lengths to make sure you have the best info to make your choice.  But the Scottish Labour Party has not made ANY vision for an independent Scotland and that is less than 2 years away.  How scarily ill prepared is that?

----------


## Rheghead

> Betting is now  1/8  for a no vote 
>               and   9/2  for a yes vote .
> 
> Seems like all the talk is Hypothetical to me.


Good odds for a Yes vote.  If it is _in the bag,_ why are the No campaigners looking increasingly desperate?

----------


## golach

> If you want to see the SNP's vision for an independent country then read Scotland's Future.


Ah you mean Eck's wish list, nothing in that paper is verifiable, we want facts, not maybe's or half truths

----------


## Rheghead

> Ah you mean Eck's wish list, nothing in that paper is verifiable, we want facts, not maybe's or half truths


So if you are effectively saying the choice on the table is a certain future of chronic political disempowerment or an uncertain future with all the powers to change our destiny then I say it is a no brainer.

----------


## golach

> So if you are effectively saying the choice on the table is a certain future of chronic political disempowerment or an uncertain future with all the powers to change our destiny then I say it is a no brainer.


Show me, where we will have a certain future , with powers to change our destiny, you cannot. No brainer I would say in return.

----------


## Chook a demus

> I do not support the SNP.  I only support truth of what has been said and not said and what can be factually verified.  Big difference.


So the question was asked and you where called to answer !



> It is not just facts you need but a well reasoned interpretation as well.  That is why the Yes campaign is still on track because the Yessers are determining the debate whilst Better Together are still repeating the same old scare stories.


And then when called to task it appears nothing you say is factually verifiable ! 

Then you change tact and once again try to claim the yes campaign is gaining ground as you've been saying over and over , but once again it's another unverifiable non fact based on your assertions and actually disproved by the vast majority of unbiased polls which show the yes campaign has not gained any ground in months and actually looks as though it's taken a 2 percentile drop in the last month.

 Political rhetoric is all very well and good but when it flies in the face of all the evidence it's a deliberate attempt to mislead.

You also complain that the UK govt will not negotiate with the SNP prior to the outcome, part of the job of the govt is to maintain the Union why should they negotiate anything until you actually have something to negotiate about. As of yet Scotland is not an independent country and there is no requirement to negotiate about a hypothetical situation that looks like it may never occur.

----------


## squidge

> Can you show me independehint stats on immigration I've yet to see any verified factual evidence that an extra million people are required.


Crikey Chook for the third time I think....The SNP has not said anywhere that Scotland needs 1 million immigrants - nowhere do they use this figure. This figure was produced by the Labour MPs named in the articles. The SNP has only ever said that Scotland needs immigration and an Indy Scotland will be able to design an immigration policy which meets the needs and priorities of Scotland. The SNP can't be expected to provide evidence to support figures which are touted as what Scotland needs by other parties. 

The Labour MPs quoted figures which said Scotland needs 1 million immigrants by 2051. That's not such a huge amount more than we are already getting and secondly the SNP has not said Scotland needs 1 million, a huge amount, a massive increase or that we will need to rely on immigration as our only hope of anything. They have simply said Scotland needs an immigration policy to meet the needs of Scotland and we do not have that now.

----------


## Rheghead

> Show me, where we will have a certain future , with powers to change our destiny, you cannot. No brainer I would say in return.


I didn't say that.  I said it was was a no brainer to take an uncertain future with powers to change things for the better over a certain future with chronic political disempowerment.  How difficult is that for you to understand golach?

----------


## erniesspeedshop

> I didn't say that.  I said it was was a no brainer to take an uncertain future with powers to change things for the better over a certain future with chronic political disempowerment.  How difficult is that for you to understand golach?


I don't think the majority of people particularly care about politics so I certainly don't see that as a big draw to either yes or no. I think an uncertain future is much more of a reason to stay in UK rather than go it alone.

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't think the majority of people particularly care about politics so I certainly don't see that as a big draw to either yes or no. I think an uncertain future is much more of a reason to stay in UK rather than go it alone.


If that is your view then fair enough.  But if they aren't bothered about poitics then they won't be voting in the referendum, will they? But there have been many times in history such as when we get a Conservative government, the poll tax, bedroom tax, foreign wars etc where Scotland is helpless to help itself.  With independence Scotland will have the government that it votes for.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Crikey Chook for the third time I think....The SNP has not said anywhere that Scotland needs 1 million immigrants - nowhere do they use this figure. This figure was produced by the Labour MPs named in the articles. The SNP has only ever said that Scotland needs immigration and an Indy Scotland will be able to design an immigration policy which meets the needs and priorities of Scotland. The SNP can't be expected to provide evidence to support figures which are touted as what Scotland needs by other parties. The Labour MPs quoted figures which said Scotland needs 1 million immigrants by 2051. That's not such a huge amount more than we are already getting and secondly the SNP has not said Scotland needs 1 million, a huge amount, a massive increase or that we will need to rely on immigration as our only hope of anything. They have simply said Scotland needs an immigration policy to meet the needs of Scotland and we do not have that now.


It's all very well and good producing a white paper with lots of attractive polices in but absolutely not one jot of information about how the proposed policies are to be paid for.
 To then become disengenoius about how those policies would be paid for when opposition parties state the obvious is almost childlike in its naivety.

 You have two choices higher taxation which would align us closer to Scandinavian countries  or higher immigration. 

Which is it ? constantly denying everything and blaming it on other parties does not answer the fundamental question. 

Where is the money coming from ?  
Higher Taxation 
Immigration

Either one of them aren't vote winners hence the reason for the white paper being light in detail.

----------


## Chook a demus

> If that is your view then fair enough.  But if they aren't bothered about poitics then they won't be voting in the referendum, will they? But there have been many times in history such as when we get a Conservative government, the poll tax, bedroom tax, foreign wars etc where Scotland is helpless to help itself.  With independence Scotland will have the government that it votes for.


You seem very concerned with other people not voting who don't see your point of view it's not the first time you've suggested people don't vote.

----------


## erniesspeedshop

> If that is your view then fair enough.  But if they aren't bothered about poitics then they won't be voting in the referendum, will they? But there have been many times in history such as when we get a Conservative government, the poll tax, bedroom tax, foreign wars etc where Scotland is helpless to help itself.  With independence Scotland will have the government that it votes for.


Actually, I think there will be a very high turnout in the referendum, primarily because people object to having fanatics decide their future for them. After that, they will be able to go back to living their lives in peace. On a couple of your other points. Scots have been enthusiastic participents in foreign wars. (aren't all wars foreign?)
Not all Scots object to Spare room subsidy removal, Conservative governments or Poll tax. I've noticed the Yes camp tend to like to think they speak for Scotland, when they actually speak for the minority (still).

----------


## Heisenberg

> If that is your view then fair enough.  But if they aren't bothered about poitics then they won't be voting in the referendum, will they? But there have been many times in history such as when we get a Conservative government, the poll tax, bedroom tax, foreign wars etc where Scotland is helpless to help itself.  With independence Scotland will have the government that it votes for.


I don't really care about politics in general but I will most definitely be voting, thank you very much Mr Spock! I don't care which way the vote goes as I know for certain the future will be uncertain either way. I will most likely vote NO mostly based on the garbage being spouted on this thread by the YES campaigners

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't really care about politics in general but I will most definitely be voting, thank you very much Mr Spock! I don't care which way the vote goes as I know for certain the future will be uncertain either way. I will most likely vote NO mostly based on the garbage being spouted on this thread by the YES campaigners


As if there was any indecision in the first place.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> Actually, I think there will be a very high turnout in the referendum, primarily because people object to having fanatics decide their future for them. After that, they will be able to go back to living their lives in peace. On a couple of your other points. Scots have been enthusiastic participents in foreign wars. (aren't all wars foreign?)
> Not all Scots object to Spare room subsidy removal, Conservative governments or Poll tax. I've noticed the Yes camp tend to like to think they speak for Scotland, when they actually speak for the minority (still).


Erm excuse me but at the last election, the SNP got an overall majority in a political set up that was designed to stop the SNP from getting an overall majority.  So forgive me for saying so but they are entitled to speak for Scotland.  It was your fellow Scots (a big assumption there) that voted them in.

----------


## squidge

> It's all very well and good producing a white paper with lots of attractive polices in but absolutely not one jot of information about how the proposed policies are to be paid for.To then become disengenoius about how those policies would be paid for  when opposition parties state the obvious is almost childlike in its  naivety.


The disingenuity is saying that the white Paper is light on details when you conveniently "forget" or ignore perhaps,  that the financial case for independence was  set out in a paper all of its own. "Scotland's economy - The case for independence" was published in May 2013. Since then there has been a plethora of additional information for people to read and digest and consider when deciding for themselves whether they believe Scotland can afford Independence. This document is available for download from the Scottish Government Site - just google it. 




> You have two choices higher taxation which would align us closer to Scandinavian countries  or higher immigration. 
> 
> Which is it ? constantly denying everything and blaming it on other parties does not answer the fundamental question. 
> 
> Where is the money coming from ?  
> Higher Taxation 
> Immigration
> 
> Either one of them aren't vote winners hence the reason for the white paper being light in detail.


Lets see - Scotland's money - its income does not just come from personal taxation or from immigration - what a bizarre thing to suggest.  There are a whole range of ways in which any country raises money to fund the policies which it's electorate vote for. 

Scotland has plenty of resources and  it can be confident that it can afford to be independent. The financial Times said as much fairly recently too.

Examples are 
£17billion construction industry
£10 billion tourism indistry
£13 billion food and drink industry
£10 billion Business Services industry
£3 billion Creative industries
More than £10 billion in Chemical and life sciences 
and £7 billion Financial services industry.  Whisky exports generate £4.3billion

And i havent even mentioned oil and gas yet!!!!

Scotland has significant natural resources.  It has an historic environment which alone is worth £2.3billion.

The total value of international exports from Scotland in 2012 was  £26billion and of exports to the rest of the UK was £47billion. 

When comparing Scotland's GDP from the first quarter of 2013 to the first quarter of 2014 we see a growth of 2.6%

So income from all of the industries mentioned,  Personal Taxation,other taxation, investments,  borrowing, the alternatively hated and feted EU grants - all of these  and more makes up the income of Scotland just like in any other country.  

In addition we can factor in savings which we will make as a result of not being part of the UK, things which we choose to do differently which will reduce costs - welfare is a key area where savings can be made with very little expenditure, closing taxation loopholes and devising a simpler system will also free up money to spend elsewhere.  We have done defence spending to death but to remind you that Scotland can save £1billion whilst increasing spending on Defence; Not having to pay for things like the London sewer system and HS2 will also mean that Scotland has more money to spend. Removing trident will also in the long term mean Scotland having more money to pay for policies which its electorate vote for. 

There will of course be costs associated with becoming independent but Scotland is well placed to be a successful and wealthy country and with Independence we have the change to use that wealth for the good of all. 

Remember also that we arent starting from nothing - Scotland is entitled and will receive a share of the assets of the UK and will take a share of the debt too of course but to suggest that the things laid out in the White Paper by the Scottish Government can only be afforded by increased taxation or immigration makes no sense.

----------


## squidge

> I don't really care about politics in general but I will most definitely be voting, thank you very much Mr Spock! I don't care which way the vote goes as I know for certain the future will be uncertain either way. I will most likely vote NO mostly based on the garbage being spouted on this thread by the YES campaigners


I am delighted you will be voting Heisenberg, I dont give a hoot which way you vote just that you have the opportunity to hear all sides of the arguments before you do so.

----------


## Rheghead

> In addition we can factor in savings which we will make as a result of not being part of the UK, things which we choose to do differently which will reduce costs


Indeed squidge, there is the matter of removing 2 complete layers of governance, the House of Lords and the Westmister MPs.  That must account for a saving of £millions.

----------


## Rheghead

Here is an inconvenient truth about Scotland's place in the UK.  A healthy distribution of GDP across the UK, Yes I admit the No campaign are keen to generate money and are very good at it.  But look where the richest households are distributed.  The money gets sucked south leaving us with the crumbs as usual.  Scotland needs to take control of its finances to keep the money back in Scotland.  Scotland has the oil but all the trade in oil takes place in London for the benefit of Westminster and London.

----------


## Chook a demus

And indeed there is money in the economy already which is already being spent on public services any bright spark can list off where the money in the economy comes from but where is the additional money required for these schemes coming from that is the question. 
As I said additional taxation or immigration ? 
Then we have the costs to Scotland or trade with rUK that may well be lost or cost more.

Very ingenious publishing a white paper for the public to decide which way to vote but publish the financial detail elsewhere nothing like making it easy for people. 

Doesn't really matter how much you type the public aren't buying into the SNP smoke and mirrors games.  How many times can you spend a £ I've given up trying to count how times the SNP can spend the same £. 

It's about as credible as Rhegs constantly saying the yes campaign is gaining ground but polls remain stubbornly the same ..

What the yes campaign lacks is credibility

----------


## Chook a demus

As for Rhegs pretty little diagrams if the population of the highlands was as dense as the south east of England then the maps would certainly look different how can you expect a country the size of Scotland with 5 million inhabitants to have anything like the wealth distribution of say London which has more people in than the whole of a Scotland. Another desperate attempt to distort the reality of the situation

----------


## Rheghead

> As for Rhegs pretty little diagrams if the population of the highlands was as dense as the south east of England then the maps would certainly look different how can you expect a country the size of Scotland with 5 million inhabitants to have anything like the wealth distribution of say London which has more people in than the whole of a Scotland. Another desperate attempt to distort the reality of the situation


The info is based on percentages and per capita not absolute totals.  The population size is irrelevant.

----------


## Even Chance

The current Scottish Government have already done the world of good to Scotland over the last few years, making living here and having our way of life the envy of all living in the RUK. Think NHS, Education etc, all driving Scotland to become the best Nation in the World.
Why do you feel that they will make a botch of it after Independence when the track record is so good already? Voting Yes will assure we continue to prosper, and things can only get better when the choices are made by us. Remember this all you Salmond haters out there......_Its not really all aboot Salmond, but dont tell everyone!_

----------


## Chook a demus

So comparing the GDP of a rural area with hardly one living in it to a densely populated finance city is going to give you an accurate representation. Mind how many people do earn over £967000 if you also look at the other diagram central belt & Aberdeen and surrounding area seems to do ok compared to the south east .

----------


## Rheghead

Less than Scotland's population share of employers who are taking advantage of the Employment allowance are in Scotland.  UK is not working for Scotland.  Big bias towards SE England though.

----------


## Chook a demus

Fact: Scotland spent £12 billion more than it raised in taxes last year (thats from the Scottish Governments own figures, including North Sea revenues). So its hard to see how wed be able cut corporation tax and air passenger duty on one hand but still spend more on benefits and create an oil fund on the other.

----------


## Rheghead

> Fact: Scotland spent £12 billion more than it raised in taxes last year (that’s from the Scottish Government’s own figures, including North Sea revenues). So it’s hard to see how we’d be able cut corporation tax and air passenger duty on one hand but still spend more on benefits and create an oil fund on the other.


Cut us free then, you'll save a packet.

----------


## Chook a demus

Fact: The white paper does not answer the key questions. Many of the independence plans, for example on currency and EU membership, are in the hands of foreign governments who would be acting in the interests of their own citizens ahead of Scotlands. And the white paper does not add up - the plans to cut taxes and extend childcare need £1.6 billion of additional funding.

----------


## Chook a demus

Fact: The EU .Wed have to apply as a new state and negotiate entry  its hard to imagine it would be an easy process (look at how long it took Croatia to join - almost eight years), and even harder to imagine that wed be given advantageous terms (like the UK rebate or opt-outs, including from the Euro).

----------


## squidge

How will additional money be raised in an independent Scotland?Well chook, let's see. If additional money was needed and you know that's a big if, the figures for Scotland's economy that we have don't include VAT for example, They don't include export tax for whisky which is allocated to the English economy because they leave from English ports. There are clearly savings to be made as both I and rheg have suggested unless you think that those savings don't exist. If we need to raise extra money then Scotland would do what EVERY OTHER INDEPENDENT COUNTRY does. Increase borrowing, raise taxes, make cuts.... Scotland is not different than any other country. Those of us supporting yes aren't asking for anything that doesn't happen elsewhere. It's not going to be some sort of utopia and we may have to make changes to our plans or prioritise some things over others. The point is however that wherever the money comes from, money raised in Scotland will be spent by a Scottish Government on the priorities of Scotland and it's you and I who get to decide what those priorities are when we vote. That doesn't happen now.

----------


## Rheghead

Mere technicalities do not create a sense of nationhood, national identity, national self-confidence to do better for ourselves and ultimately trust in ourselves will create national self determination.  A well reasoned think about those important issues can be sorted out in the 18 month negotiation period.

----------


## Chook a demus

ONE of the big drivers of inequality in Scotland is that we have, in Edinburgh, some of the highest-paid financial staff in the Western world.In Scotland, as the economists David Eiser and David Comerford have shown, the richest one per cent had 6.3 per cent of pre-tax incomes in 1997 but 9.4 per cent by 2009.The SNP know that  and it is one of the reasons theyve refused to commit to Labours proposals for a 50p tax rate. Nor do they support a new top-rate band on council tax, or a mansion tax, a higher rate of stamp duty for the most expensive house sales.They dont even support a tax on bankers bonuses. In fact, their main tax pledge is to cut corporation tax by up to three per cent, which would reduce revenues for public services.The SNP do not look to be serious about tackling inequality. That isnt simply a political failing on their  part as a party  it is a direct result of the notion of independence itself, which focuses on the constitutional status of the nation rather than the inequalities within it.

----------


## Chook a demus

WHAT about the SNPs predicted growth through immigration?For the purposes of their analysis of the impact of migration on growth and the fiscal position, the Institute for Fiscal Studies assume that long-term productivity levels in Scotland will be similar to those of the UK.But it is doubtful whether a major increase in immigration can give us all the extra growth we need. Survey evidence suggests there is little difference in attitudes to immigration between Scotland and the rest of the UK, making it hard to secure public backing for immigration rates at the level Scotland would need.The IFS have examined the impact of an increase in net inward migration over the next 50 years and calculated the impact of a rise from the current average of 9000 people a year to 26,000 a year.This trebling of net inward migration would require immigration to exceed emigration by an overall total of more than one million people between now and 2062.The Treasury believe that net migration between Scotland and the rest of the UK, which has been running at 40,000 a year, may fall to 10,000 a year.But even the most optimistic projection  an additional £1.3billion added over five decades through net migration  would  not give us the extra growth we need, according to the IFS, to keep our fiscal position in order.

----------


## Chook a demus

> How will additional money be raised in an independent Scotland?Well chook, let's see. If additional money was needed and you know that's a big if, the figures for Scotland's economy that we have don't include VAT for example, They don't include export tax for whisky which is allocated to the English economy because they leave from English ports. There are clearly savings to be made as both I and rheg have suggested unless you think that those savings don't exist. If we need to raise extra money then Scotland would do what EVERY OTHER INDEPENDENT COUNTRY does. Increase borrowing, raise taxes, make cuts.... Scotland is not different than any other country. Those of us supporting yes aren't asking for anything that doesn't happen elsewhere. It's not going to be some sort of utopia and we may have to make changes to our plans or prioritise some things over others. The point is however that wherever the money comes from, money raised in Scotland will be spent by a Scottish Government on the priorities of Scotland and it's you and I who get to decide what those priorities are when we vote. That doesn't happen now.


Fact: During the last crisis the UK taxpayer shelled out £66 billion to bail out the banks – more than £1,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Including guarantees, UK taxpayers gave more than £320 billion of support to Royal Bank of Scotland alone. Could we really afford these sorts of sums on our own?

And you're talking about borrowing more despite all the rhetoric about UK debt

----------


## Chook a demus

> Mere technicalities do not create a sense of nationhood, national identity, national self-confidence to do better for ourselves and ultimately trust in ourselves will create national self determination.  A well reasoned think about those important issues can be sorted out in the 18 month negotiation period.


Hundreds of thousands of Scots and English have made their homes in each other's nation. Half of us have English neighbours. Hundreds of thousands of Scots were born in England. This interdependence - the coming together of family, friends, ideas, institutions and identities - is a strength not a weakness, and is an ideal worth celebrating. The truth is we're better together.

----------


## Rheghead

> Hundreds of thousands of Scots and English have made their homes in each other's nation. Half of us have English neighbours. Hundreds of thousands of Scots were born in England. This interdependence - the coming together of family, friends, ideas, institutions and identities - is a strength not a weakness, and is an ideal worth celebrating. The truth is we're better together.


We will still be friends and family after Scottish independence.  My mum assured me of that.

----------


## erniesspeedshop

> Erm excuse me but at the last election, the SNP got an overall majority in a political set up that was designed to stop the SNP from getting an overall majority.  So forgive me for saying so but they are entitled to speak for Scotland.  It was your fellow Scots (a big assumption there) that voted them in.


So? It would appear that a goodly number of  SNP voters are not going to be yes voters so my point remains. I also don't like the idea that the yessers seam to think they have exclusive title to the Saltire.

----------


## Rheghead

Even institutions like English Heritage and Historic Scotland will share membership perks.  RSPCA and SSPCA will carry on as normal.   A Scottish defence force will work side by side with rUK forces to keep this coastline secure, sharing info and resources.  There is too many examples to list where it does not matter if Scotland goes independent.

Unless Lex Luther has moved to Scotland and has a grand real estate plan in the borders, I do not think Scotland will be cast adrift into the big unknown.

----------


## Rheghead

> I also don't like the idea that the yessers seam to think they have exclusive title to the Saltire.


I don't think that is the case, I have seen little evidence of it but then you've got the Union Flag, haven't you?

----------


## golach

> I don't think that is the case, I have seen little evidence of it but then you've got the Union Flag, haven't you?


We all have the Union Flag Rheg, even you, and the Saltire is part of it.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Even institutions like English Heritage and Historic Scotland will share membership perks.  RSPCA and SSPCA will carry on as normal.   A Scottish defence force will work side by side with rUK forces to keep this coastline secure, sharing info and resources.  There is too many examples to list where it does not matter if Scotland goes independent.Unless Lex Luther has moved to Scotland and has a grand real estate plan in the borders, I do not think Scotland will be cast adrift into the big unknown.


Can you show me anywhere that the govt or Mod has said they are prepared to work alongside a Scottish defence force and keep Scotland's coastline secure let alone share information. As the govt has made clear if a Scotland does become independent and it's immigration policy is out of alignment with that of rUK an official border will appear and be manned. Why do you assume that rUK  is going to be benevolent to Scotland on these issues if Scottish policy diverges to much from that of rUk.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can you show me anywhere that the govt or Mod has said they are prepared to work alongside a Scottish defence force and keep Scotland's coastline secure let alone share information. As the govt has made clear if a Scotland does become independent and it's immigration policy is out of alignment with that of rUK an official border will appear and be manned. Why do you assume that rUK  is going to be benevolent to Scotland on these issues if Scottish policy diverges to much from that of rUk.


Again reason saves the day.  It wouldn't be benevolence, it would be pragmatism to be cooperative in the best interests of both.

----------


## Rheghead

With independence, Scotland can improve its digital connectivity for the benefit of Scottish businesses.  As we all know, connectivity is dire here.  But progress is being hampered by the fact that telecommunications policy and regulation is reserved to Westminster.

An independent Scotland will have the powers necessary to issue future spectrum licences that will have safeguards to ensure cover in rural areas.

Westminster just auctions off licenses with no such guarantees of uniform coverage.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...ital-networks/

----------


## Chook a demus

> Again reason saves the day.  It wouldn't be benevolence, it would be pragmatism to be cooperative in the best interests of both.


Considering Alex Salmonds somewhat belligerent approach to issues so far I don't  for see  excessive amounts of benevolence being bestowed upon Scotland should it become independent especially in the early days. I'd expect no more than the very minimum rUK can do and no more.

----------


## Chook a demus

> With independence, Scotland can improve its digital connectivity for the benefit of Scottish businesses.  As we all know, connectivity is dire here.  But progress is being hampered by the fact that telecommunications policy and regulation is reserved to Westminster.An independent Scotland will have the powers necessary to issue future spectrum licences that will have safeguards to ensure cover in rural areas.Westminster just auctions off licenses with no such guarantees of uniform coverage.http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...ital-networks/


But unless you're prepared to privatise companies there's very little you can do to force them to give super fast broadband to rural locations, and if you do it will only means horrendous price  increases for consumers.

----------


## orkneycadian

> ..... But look where the richest households are distributed.  The money gets sucked south leaving us with the crumbs as usual.  Scotland needs to take control of its finances to keep the money back in Scotland.  Scotland has the oil but all the trade in oil takes place in London for the benefit of Westminster and London.


Right, lets "zoom in" a bit and see what the picture looks like for Scotland....



Now, whats that saying....  Cripes!  It says that the Highlands, Moray, Clackmannashire and Dumfries and Galloway are the 4 regions with the highest proportion of employees getting less than £7 an hour.  Whilst the Central Belt and the East Coast have the lowest proportion of employees on less than £7 an hour.

So in Scotland, the best paid employees live in the Central Belt / East Coast.  Where the centre of government is situated.

How is that different from the UK?

And how concerned should we be to hand the reins of government to the area where 80% of the population live, and where the wages are the highest?

Finally, what plans have the SNP got to redress this imbalance in regional wages?  It affects a whopping 20% of the population, so must be about top of their priority list!

----------


## orkneycadian

> Scotland has the oil but all the trade in oil takes place in London for the benefit of Westminster and London.


Who's oil?

Once they start fracking under Princes and Sauchiehall Streets, then rScotland might be able to have a decent sized claim to oil and gas!

----------


## squidge

> But unless you're prepared to privatise companies there's very little you can do to force them to give super fast broadband to rural locations, and if you do it will only means horrendous price  increases for consumers.


That is not necessarily true. The Scottish Government has entered into a partnership arrangement to deliver high speed broadband across Scotland. This is a publicly funded initiative, with money from the Scottish Government, the EU and private business. This initiative has begun in the Highlands and Islands. Dingwall has benefitted from this and the roll out is set to continue throughout Scotland until 2020.

----------


## Chook a demus

> That is not necessarily true. The Scottish Government has entered into a partnership arrangement to deliver high speed broadband across Scotland. This is a publicly funded initiative, with money from the Scottish Government, the EU and private business. This initiative has begun in the Highlands and Islands. Dingwall has benefitted from this and the roll out is set to continue throughout Scotland until 2020.


So the public are paying for it so it must mean a higher bill somewhere. And your answer once again assumes Scotland is part of the EU and retains schemes which pay for such enterprises. I can't see how you can say an EU scheme is set to continue till 2020 when you can't be sure Scotland or the UK will still be part of the EU at that time.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Right, lets "zoom in" a bit and see what the picture looks like for Scotland....Now, whats that saying....  Cripes!  It says that the Highlands, Moray, Clackmannashire and Dumfries and Galloway are the 4 regions with the highest proportion of employees getting less than £7 an hour.  Whilst the Central Belt and the East Coast have the lowest proportion of employees on less than £7 an hour.So in Scotland, the best paid employees live in the Central Belt / East Coast.  Where the centre of government is situated.How is that different from the UK?And how concerned should we be to hand the reins of government to the area where 80% of the population live, and where the wages are the highest?Finally, what plans have the SNP got to redress this imbalance in regional wages?  It affects a whopping 20% of the population, so must be about top of their priority list!


Answer is they don't most of what they say is rhetoric, poorly thought out ideas with no intention of implementing most of them. As usual the govt will look after the 80% and the 20% will be nae better off.

----------


## squidge

> Considering Alex Salmonds somewhat belligerent approach to issues so far I don't  for see  excessive amounts of benevolence being bestowed upon Scotland should it become independent especially in the early days. I'd expect no more than the very minimum rUK can do and no more.


It is not benevolence. Both Governments are committed already to working together. In The Edinburgh agreement, signed by both parties the  text is: The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.This makes explicit that each of the two governments is equally commited to work in the equal interests of the peoples of both Scotland and the continuing United Kingdom, in the event of a vote for independence; and to work in the interests of the peoples of both Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, in the event of a vote for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom.The eyes of the world will be watching how Westminster handles a YES vote and I fully expect that negotiations will be tough but fair.

----------


## squidge

> So the public are paying for it so it must mean a higher bill somewhere. And your answer once again assumes Scotland is part of the EU and retains schemes which pay for such enterprises. I can't see how you can say an EU scheme is set to continue till 2020 when you can't be sure Scotland or the UK will still be part of the EU at that time.


Whether they are or not this programme gives the lie to the suggestion that there is nothing that can be done to roll out super fast broadband to areas without it costing consumers an arm and a leg. The Scottish Government recognise that this is vital for the future and as such fund an initiative to do so. If Independent Scotland can make more choices like this and will have the freedom to allocate ALL the income Scotland has to meet the priorities the voters choose when the vote for their government

----------


## Chook a demus

I think you'll find there is a world of difference between what Scotland will consider it's best interests and what rUK consider their best interests.
 To believe that rUK will concede to every whim of a newly independent Scotland is naivety of the highest order. As for the rest of the world consider who has the balance of power Scotland a newly independent country with some exports and a bit of oil . Or rUk a larger economy more global reach than Scotland and with all the trade deals and memberships it requires already locked in place. 
The world is a far more pragmatic place than you may wish to believe. 
You're already seeing the rumblings of what it will be like with currency a simple No it's not in our interests is all it took.

----------


## Chook a demus

> Whether they are or not this programme gives the lie to the suggestion that there is nothing that can be done to roll out super fast broadband to areas without it costing consumers an arm and a leg. The Scottish Government recognise that this is vital for the future and as such fund an initiative to do so. If Independent Scotland can make more choices like this and will have the freedom to allocate ALL the income Scotland has to meet the priorities the voters choose when the vote for their government


Yes it proves that when the govt spends public and EU money anything can be achieved quite easy with profligate public spending but that doesn't mean it will continue. Dingwall is quite a distance from here so let's wait and see. All the income you mean the 12 billion deficit you still haven't managed to successfully explain where all this money is coming from for these wonder projects. A list of what Scotland's income will not suffice in this instance or hyperbole. This is extra new spending that has to come from somewhere current future spending for an independent Scotland puts it in a financial black hole from day one.

----------


## golach

> , in the event of a vote for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom.The eyes of the world will be watching how Westminster handles a YES vote and I fully expect that negotiations will be tough but fair.


There you go again Squidge, assuming the yesnp vote will win. When the NO vote wins, there will be no need for tough negotiations will there?

----------


## Chook a demus

When we get the fully expected NO vote will Mr Salmond do the honourable thing and resign and call a snap election so we the people can be rid of this troublesome wee man

----------


## Rheghead

> When we get the fully expected NO vote will Mr Salmond do the honourable thing and resign and call a snap election so we the people can be rid of this troublesome wee man


He says he will stay on either way. But and it is a big but, if we vote Yes in Sept 2014 then vote for who we really want in 2016 then Alex Salmond will disappear off the political map.

Vote No and he remains as the flea in your ear.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

It's all the same wherever you are, these maps and graphs are most misleading. If you are purchasing an average house in London (costing £750,000) then you will require a wage of around £80,000 per year. If you are purchasing a house in Caithness (costing £75,000) then a wage of £7 per hour will be more than enough.

People in the south are not "richer".... they have to pay a million quid for a house that you get up here for £100,000 so if their income is way above the national average it's only because of the strength of the pound in their area.

Free parking everywhere in Caithness..... £30 for a days parking in London, £11.50 congestion charge to drive into the centre of London etc. you would expect the wage rates to be higher down there or nobody could afford to live.

This impression that some people have that all southerners are "loaded" is absolute nonsense, they are actually worse off because they have to pay entry into almost every venue / car park / zoo / club / bar and some people have to PAY to park outside their own house!!

You'll go a lot further on a Monkey up here than you will in London.... in fact, a Monkey up here will get you through the week with ease.... a Monkey down in London will not go far. A monkey is £500 just incase you don't know. If you are prudent then you could easily get by on a score a day up here. A pony a day (pocket money) would get you some decent shopping with ZERO parking fees.

When it doesn't work is when someone from Caithness goes to London for a weeks holiday..... they will need a couple of grand (minimum)...... a Londoner can come up here with a Monkey and still have spare change when he gets back home to the smoke. Thing is, when the Londoner gets back to the smoke, his pony will only be worth a fiver compared to what he could do with it in Caithness.

I reckon the minimum "living" wage in Caithness should be set at a monkey per week..... anybody who reckons £500 (per person) isn't enough are quite simply expecting too much. It wasn't too long ago that a potato was classed as a desirable foodstuff up here and limpets kicked off rocks were a sunday dinner norm.

Has anybody noticed the amount of Audi and BMW cars on the road up here?  You would think, by all these graphs and statistics, that all you would see on the roads are rusty old MK4 cortinas with different coloured doors...... nope, most of the cars are almost brand new and a very high Audi and BMW count.

Looking at the graphs / maps, you would think that everybody up here had tuberculosis, didn't wash, had no electricity and had heather growing out of their ears.

Not at all! Fine dining is available to all at Sandras Hostel (they do a superb battered mars bar for 75 pence!), you can eat like a lord at the upmarket Robin's fish and chip shop or you can dine out in style at Shelina Spice (remember to ask them for a free wooden fork and napkin).......

To be honest, any more than minimum wage and I would run riot around Thurso indulging in everything it had to offer.... it wouldn't be good for my health..... I would be like a madman sampling all the Thai, Indian, Indonesian, French, Spanish, Greek, African, Somalian, Russian, English, Moroccan, Australian, American, Vietnamese etc. etc. etc. restaurants.

And the pub crawl? The Com bar, the Newmarket and the Holborn...... that's what I'm talking about! Living the dream!


Who needs all this "Southern" type entertainment? We have it all here with a cheap as chips entry fee.

----------


## Chook a demus

> He says he will stay on either way. But and it is a big but, if we vote Yes in Sept 2014 then vote for who we really want in 2016 then Alex Salmond will disappear off the political map.Vote No and he remains as the flea in your ear.


He can stay until 2016 if he looses the referendum as expected he will be a politically spent force I'd fully expect the SNP to jettison him as quickly as possible. Nothing worse for a political party whose main objective is independence to loose a referendum and still have the leader who lost them vote hanging round their neck like an albatross.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

It's all the same wherever you are, these maps and graphs are most misleading. If you are purchasing an average house in London (costing £750,000) then you will require a wage of around £80,000 per year. If you are purchasing a house in Caithness (costing £75,000) then a wage of £7 per hour will be more than enough.

People in the south are not "richer".... they have to pay a million quid for a house that you get up here for £100,000 so if their income is way above the national average it's only because of the strength of the pound in their area.

Free parking everywhere in Caithness..... £30 for a days parking in London, £11.50 congestion charge to drive into the centre of London etc. you would expect the wage rates to be higher down there or nobody could afford to live.

This impression that some people have that all southerners are "loaded" is absolute nonsense, they are actually worse off because they have to pay entry into almost every venue / car park / zoo / club / bar and some people have to PAY to park outside their own house!!

You'll go a lot further on a Monkey up here than you will in London.... in fact, a Monkey up here will get you through the week with ease.... a Monkey down in London will not go far. A monkey is £500 just incase you don't know. If you are prudent then you could easily get by on a score a day up here. A pony a day (pocket money) would get you some decent shopping with ZERO parking fees.

When it doesn't work is when someone from Caithness goes to London for a weeks holiday..... they will need a couple of grand (minimum)...... a Londoner can come up here with a Monkey and still have spare change when he gets back home to the smoke. Thing is, when the Londoner gets back to the smoke, his pony will only be worth a fiver compared to what he could do with it in Caithness.

I reckon the minimum "living" wage in Caithness should be set at a monkey per week..... anybody who reckons £500 (per person) isn't enough are quite simply expecting too much. It wasn't too long ago that a potato was classed as a desirable foodstuff up here and limpets kicked off rocks were a sunday dinner norm.

Has anybody noticed the amount of Audi and BMW cars on the road up here?  You would think, by all these graphs and statistics, that all you would see on the roads are rusty old MK4 cortinas with different coloured doors...... nope, most of the cars are almost brand new and a very high Audi and BMW count.

Looking at the graphs / maps, you would think that everybody up here had tuberculosis, didn't wash, had no electricity and had heather growing out of their ears.

Not at all! Fine dining is available to all at Sandras Hostel (they do a superb battered mars bar for 75 pence!), you can eat like a lord at the upmarket Robin's fish and chip shop or you can dine out in style at Shelina Spice (remember to ask them for a free wooden fork and napkin).......

To be honest, any more than minimum wage and I would run riot around Thurso indulging in everything it had to offer.... it wouldn't be good for my health..... I would be like a madman sampling all the Thai, Indian, Indonesian, French, Spanish, Greek, African, Somalian, Russian, English, Moroccan, Australian, American, Vietnamese etc. etc. etc. restaurants.

And the pub crawl? The Com bar, the Newmarket and the Holborn...... that's what I'm talking about! Living the dream!


Who needs all this "Southern" type entertainment? We have it all here with a cheap as chips entry fee.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

He's already losing his hair, the poor man is stressed to hell with all his lies and misinformation, I hope the result in September doesn't kill him.

----------


## golach

> He says he will stay on either way. But and it is a big but, if we vote Yes in Sept 2014 then vote for who we really want in 2016 then Alex Salmond will disappear off the political map.Vote No and he remains as the flea in your ear.


Oh I love your optimism Rheg, a winning yesnp vote???

----------


## squidge

> Yes it proves that when the govt spends public and EU money anything can be achieved quite easy with profligate public spending but that doesn't mean it will continue. Dingwall is quite a distance from here so let's wait and see. All the income you mean the 12 billion deficit you still haven't managed to successfully explain where all this money is coming from for these wonder projects. A list of what Scotland's income will not suffice in this instance or hyperbole. This is extra new spending that has to come from somewhere current future spending for an independent Scotland puts it in a financial black hole from day one.


The £12billion deficit is another number like the 1 million immigrants - initially terrifying but in reality less so. The deficit is a serious issue and any increase in deficit is concerning especially if it were to show a significant divergence from the deficit of the UK. However, it doesn't. 

The £12billion equates to a deficit for Scotland of 5.9%. During the same period the deficit for the UK was 5.8%. This £12billion comes on the back of record investment in oil which led to a fall in oil revenues. It also reflects a change in government spending to capital projects and investment in Scottish water. GERS also shows that the average five year deficit was 4.3% in Scotland compared to 5.9% for the UK. It actually goes to show that if Scotland can suffer a difficult year economically and still keep it's deficit in line with that of the UK then that surely indicates the underlying strength of the Scottish Economy.

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

The maps / graphs are all relative to where you live.

----------


## squidge

> I think you'll find there is a world of difference between what Scotland will consider it's best interests and what rUK consider their best interests. To believe that rUK will concede to every whim of a newly independent Scotland is naivety of the highest order


I think what I said was that negotiations are likely to be tough but fair. The suggestion that YES supporters believe that the UK will concede to every whim of a newly independent Scotland is your chook. Not mine. To reiterate - both countries have signed the Edinburgh Agreement which commits them to working together constructively regardless of the outcome.

----------


## Chook a demus

> The £12billion deficit is another number like the 1 million immigrants - initially terrifying but in reality less so. The deficit is a serious issue and any increase in deficit is concerning especially if it were to show a significant divergence from the deficit of the UK. However, it doesn't. The £12billion equates to a deficit for Scotland of 5.9%. During the same period the deficit for the UK was 5.8%. This £12billion comes on the back of record investment in oil which led to a fall in oil revenues. It also reflects a change in government spending to capital projects and investment in Scottish water. GERS also shows that the average five year deficit was 4.3% in Scotland compared to 5.9% for the UK. It actually goes to show that if Scotland can suffer a difficult year economically and still keep it's deficit in line with that of the UK then that surely indicates the underlying strength of the Scottish Economy.


One major problem you have with that is the current record low rate of borrowing the Scottish govt has access to. In a newly independent Scotland with an adjusted credit rating and without the backing of the BoE the cost of borrowing will be higher. Unless Scotland decides to have its own currency with all the associated costs and requirement for a central bank . It will be tied to either using sterling or the euro so there goes your ability to manage your own economy and all the costings and your 5.9% deficit suddenly becomes a bigger problem as you have to then access money markets to borrow that money at considerably higher cost than we do now. Not such a pretty picture under those circumstances which is what you fail to mention. Let's not brush off so lightly the loss in trade and extra costs involved in shipping goods out of a Scotland either so there will be a drop in revenue. Estimates are a loss of £8 billion to the Scottish economy.

----------


## Chook a demus

> I think what I said was that negotiations are likely to be tough but fair. The suggestion that YES supporters believe that the UK will concede to every whim of a newly independent Scotland is your chook. Not mine. To reiterate - both countries have signed the Edinburgh Agreement which commits them to working together constructively regardless of the outcome.


Well working constructively can mean different things to different people and depends where you're standing Scotland will hardly be in a position to make demands who is going to listen ? The EU ...not a member..NATO ...not a member....the commonwealth ...not a member . Infact globally you won't be in any of the clubs that count so that puts Scotland in a very weak position. Population of 5 million demanding fair play from a population of 55 million it's just decided to leave. I'd say unless you're very naive you can expect a bit of a rough ride with many issues being not acceptable to the electorate of rUK

----------


## Uncle-Bobs-Johnny

Do any of you people actually have a life or is your time spent tapping away on a keyboard?

----------


## Chook a demus

I live in Portgower Nuff said give us a pint of your best claret  :0))

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh I love your optimism Rheg, a winning yesnp vote???


Yep, I fully expect a Yes vote.  It is the only decision you can make if you look critically at the evidence, the indyref is not a football match, we shouldn't pick sides and then blindly support your team.  We should impartially look at the debate and make our choice about who had the best case.

I did that, I was convinced that the No campaign was the best way to go.  But I kept my open mind and listened to both sides despite my viscous negativity towards squidge and oddquine etc.  I quickly realised the No side erroneously repeated facts that weren't reasoned and were totally debunked.  BT had no vision for the future or ambition for Scotland.  I kept repeating their dogma until I had to think to myself 'I can't go on doing this'

Since then, I have liberated myself from the shackles of the unionist dogma and I see a bright future for Scotland.

Come on golach, jump in, the water is lovely.

----------


## golach

Sorry Rheg no way , I am for the Union and always will be thanks for the invite but no way will I share your bath water, I have seen who you have been consorting with

----------


## squidge

Standard and Poor expect Scotland to have the highest rating and whilst Moody's  expect Scotland to have a lower credit rating than the rest of the UK, they also expect this will increase reasonably promptly after independence.  No one has said that Independence will be an easy ride Chook, least of all me, but none of the things you mention are catastrophic, or even severe enough to suggest Scotland can't afford Independence.  

You also  seem to forget that during the negotiating period  Scotland WILL be a member of the EU, Scotland WILL be a member of NATO and Scotland WILL be a member of the Commonwealth. There are likely to be independent people brought into support and facilitate negotiations. Once again  - I think for the third time, no one is saying it will be easy, nothing worth having ever is chook. 

Uncle Bobs Johnny lol - this is a welcome break after my lovely son got the keys for the first house he and his girlfriend have bought. On top of that, my other lovely son got word that he has secured the flat he wanted in Edinburgh. After all the excitement and the moving of boxes it's good to be sitting quietly politely discussing issues around independence, whilst my lovely husband works on a wee project of his own.  :Smile:

----------


## Chook a demus

Oh the arguments getting weaker and weaker during a 16 month window of opportunity you hope to achieve everything. I'd enjoy seeing that if it where likely to happen but as we are both aware the yes campaign has lost support in the past couple of months and it's highly unlikely to win. A 2% drop in support this close to the referendum is a sign things aren't going your way.

----------


## squidge

It has been widely reported that an 18 month window - September 2014 to March 2016  is 18 months - is a reasonable time period to allow key negotiations to take place.  You seem to think you have it in the bag, chook. I congratulate you on your certainty and wish you luck.  Me? I'll keep campaigning and speaking wherever I am asked to speak and wait and see what the 18th September brings.

----------


## Chook a demus

> It has been widely reported that an 18 month window - September 2014 to March 2016  is 18 months - is a reasonable time period to allow key negotiations to take place.  You seem to think you have it in the bag, chook. I congratulate you on your certainty and wish you luck.  Me? I'll keep campaigning and speaking wherever I am asked to speak and wait and see what the 18th September brings.


All the polls show the yes camp lagging behind and even if a large percentage of the don't knows vote yes it's still not enough to change the outcome.

Does seem odd that you're requested to speak at events but claim to be just one of us normal folk,appears that you're far more ingrained in the political system than the ordinary person in the street but seem shy about admitting it.

----------


## squidge

If that's what you believe chook, why would I try to dissuade you?  I have little interest in opinion polls, I just speak to people and do what I can and I will be doing exactly that until the polls close on September 18th. If you are so certain that NO have won the race I'm surprised you haven't booked a holiday  :Smile:

----------


## Chook a demus

Why would I book a holiday and miss my opportunity to fulfill my democratic right. If you need no voters to not vote you must be on shakey ground.

----------


## Rheghead

The old Better Together scaremongering that Scotland is going to be kicked out of the EU and will have to reapply again is ridiculous.  I mean, look at what they're saying.   No undecided person is going to believe that and vote No when everybody knows 75% of the No campaign hates the EU and wants to get the heck out of it at the nearest opportunity.

----------


## Chook a demus

> The old Better Together scaremongering that Scotland is going to be kicked out of the EU and will have to reapply again is ridiculous.  I mean, look at what they're saying.   No undecided person is going to believe that and vote No when everybody knows 75% of the No campaign hates the EU and wants to get the heck out of it at the nearest opportunity.


So let's totally ignore Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon blethering on about fast track membership to the EU as you know something that don't eh ! Problem is membership of the EU isn't down to the electorate of Scotland but the 28 members of the EU accepting Scotland as a member.Now your 75% of no voters wanting out of the EU is just a made up number more of your misinformation and scaremongering. Sounds like you're getting desperate Rheg having to make up statistics is the sight of failure looming on the horizon making you realise how many people disagree with you.

----------


## Rheghead

> So let's totally ignore Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon blethering on about fast track membership to the EU as you know something that don't eh ! Problem is membership of the EU isn't down to the electorate of Scotland but the 28 members of the EU accepting Scotland as a member.Now your 75% of no voters wanting out of the EU is just a made up number more of your misinformation and scaremongering. Sounds like you're getting desperate Rheg having to make up statistics is the sight of failure looming on the horizon making you realise how many people disagree with you.


Incorrect again.  Here is the first line of the EU mission statement.




> The Directorate General Taxation and Cu
> stoms Union's mission is to develop
> and manage the Customs Union, a foundation of the European Union, and to
> develop and implement tax policy across
> the EU for the *benefit of citizens*,
> businesses and the Member States. 
> Particular attention is given to the Internal
> Market, by making sure it func
> tions smoothly and efficiently.


In other words, existing citizenship takes priority over country matters. We are already EU citizens, same as we are UK citizens.

----------


## squidge

> Why would I book a holiday and miss my opportunity to fulfill my democratic right. If you need no voters to not vote you must be on shakey ground.


 not at all chook.  :Smile:  

Although, Gosh,  I am really surprised that you don't know that you can register for a postal or proxy vote so that taking a holiday does not mean you will miss the vote!!!!!!

There is still time to apply for a postal or proxy vote for anyone who needs to do so. If you haven't registered to vote yet then you can do so up until 2nd September. You can apply for a proxy vote - where someone votes on your behalf or a postal vote - where you can send in your vote by post - up to 3rd September. 

If anyone hasn't registered and is worried about how to do that then drop me a PM and I'll point you to the right advice about registering, whatever your political view is, I don't care. It is simply important that everyone who wants to vote can do so.

----------


## orkneycadian

Steady Chook.  As they say, "the show ain't over till the fat boy sings"

That he might be singing for his supper on the 19th of September is a different matter!  ::

----------


## Chook a demus

> Incorrect again.  Here is the first line of the EU mission statement.In other words, existing citizenship takes priority over country matters. We are already EU citizens, same as we are UK citizens.


Interesting but incorrect interpretation of the facts Rheg, I'm surprised you find understanding that Scotland would be leaving the United Kingdom ...the member of the EU and becoming a new state ...not a member. Yes whilst still under a British passport you remain an EU citizen but until such time as An independent Scotland secures membership of the EU that won't be guaranteed. And once you do secure it your currency becomes a problem as you'll have to use the Euro :0))

No need to worry it's all hypothetical just remember yes votes are slipping away. 
So carry on with your misinformation and misleading you're doing a grand job of turning peoples heads to NO as they know it makes sense.

----------


## Chook a demus

> not at all chook.  Although, Gosh,  I am really surprised that you don't know that you can register for a postal or proxy vote so that taking a holiday does not mean you will miss the vote!!!!!!There is still time to apply for a postal or proxy vote for anyone who needs to do so. If you haven't registered to vote yet then you can do so up until 2nd September. You can apply for a proxy vote - where someone votes on your behalf or a postal vote - where you can send in your vote by post - up to 3rd September. If anyone hasn't registered and is worried about how to do that then drop me a PM and I'll point you to the right advice about registering, whatever your political view is, I don't care. It is simply important that everyone who wants to vote can do so.


I've no desire to go on holiday during such an exciting time for Scotland. On the 19th I'm rather looking forward to seeing the look on Ecks face as he is humbled into announcing he's lost. That will be better than any holiday.

----------


## squidge

In order to be a member of the EU a country has to meet the Copenhagan criteria. Scotland already does that. Scotland's laws, procedures, human rights record and policies, economy, all meet the standards laid down by the EU. All the member states have to accept Scotland as a new member - none of these states have said that They will veto Scotland's membership, not even Spain despite the best efforts of the press to suggest they would.

If there is a YES vote Scotland's independence will be achieved through a democratic process agreed by both parties, not through conflict - something we should be very proud of. In addition the vast majority of Scottish residents will be British Citizens and will remain British Citizens for their whole lives, or as long as they want to. Is it likely that the EU will refuse membership to a country which fulfils all the criteria and which is full of its citizens? I think not 

You guys have to weigh up the evidence for yourselves but so far all I see from the no camp is "Scotland won't be accepted as a member of the EU because erm erm because it just won't". Because Scotland already fulfils all the criteria for membership, the 18month timescale for negotiations which I expect will be tough but fair, has been said to be realistic by the UK governments own adviser.

----------


## Chook a demus

And equally the cost of joining the EU will be less negotiating power than the Uk currently has and accepting the Euro as a currency which means all your pensions, savings and any investments,held in rUK would be affected by exchange rates the cost of exporting to a Scotland's largest market rUK suddenly increases with the extra paperwork involved and your economy is suddenly at the behest of Germany who effectively controls the Euro.

Whilst squidge is quite correct you will remain a British citizen whilst you hold a British passport but your children will not necessarily enjoy dual nationality.
 And as squidge quite correctly states non of the 28 members of the EU have said they will not accept Scotland into the EU non have said they will.
 But a very telling statement is the recent one about not expanding the 28 current states. Scotland would become number 29 !
See giving the implications of rejoining the EU are important that's why we are Better Together.

----------


## Rheghead

When Scotland becomes an EU member, our MEP tally will increase from 5 MEPs to 13 MEPs thus increasing our influence to the same level as other countries of our size.

----------


## Chook a demus

> When Scotland becomes an EU member, our MEP tally will increase from 5 MEPs to 13 MEPs thus increasing our influence to the same level as other countries of our size.


Surely that should be IF an independent Scotland becomes a member of the EU after the transition period and all 28 members vote to allow you to join and Scotland accepts the Euro as a currency. 

But first and foremost you have to win the referendum and with Polls putting support for the separatist slipping backwards that looks increasingly unlikely.

Because people don't want all the hassle of changing currency just to pop down and see friends and family. Business does not want the extra burden of currency conversion to their largest market. Pensioners don't want to loose money on exchange rates. 

That's why we are Better Together and people realise seperatism is the way of the past staying within a successful Union means stability and increasing prosperity.

----------


## theone

> When Scotland becomes an EU member, our MEP tally will increase from 5 MEPs to 13 MEPs thus increasing our influence to the same level as other countries of our size.


Yes. Countries with huge power on the European and world stage like Croatia and Ireland. Half as many as greece and Belgium, and a few less than Slovakia.

If power and influence in the EU is your desire, the only way to achieve it is to vote no and stay in the UK.

----------


## Rheghead

The real winners from independence won't be me or you, it will be our children and their children.  Scotland is awash with rich resources that currently aren't being utilised to make our lives better.  We've contributed more than we have taken out of the UK for over 30 years now.  The UK needs us to pay their bills.

When the Better Together team say we aren't big enough, clever enough or strong enough to stand up on our own two feet then that makes me think that we are going to do it anyway.

----------


## Rheghead

The oil company Shell has no major concerns over Scottish independence and will carry on investing in the North Sea.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...mail%252Balert

----------


## squidge

Ok, hmmm let's see. 

 1. British Citizenship - if as parents you both are British Citizens then your children will also be British Citizens. By the time your grandchildren are born they won't care that they are not British Citizens. 

2. Scotland will  not have to join the Euro. To join the euro any country has to first join the ERM (exchange rate mechanism) which is voluntary. The Rules for this are "set out in the 16 June 1997 Resolution of the European Council establishing the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the 16th March 2006 agreement between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area. These make clear "participation in ERM II is voluntary for the non-euro area Member States". 

3. Is it "power and influence" Scotland wants or a fair deal for Scotland? There are plenty of studies which show that smaller countries like Scotland do well within the EU because they focus on the issues that are important to their country and don't get sidetracked by the politicking and jostling for power that the UK, France and Germany do. Scotland is not going to be a super power but surely those supporting independence don't expect it to be. If you are wanting to strut your stuff as such a superpower then you should vote NO. You just then have to hope that the UK doesn't take us out of the EU when we have a referendum on membership. 

4. Representation. Scotland is represented in the EU by Westminster, recently a minister had to apologise because having been asked to raise a specific issue at an EU meeting he didn't. His reason was "he forgot". I have some sympathy but having Scotland represented in the EU by people who's job is to represent Scotland's Interests and only Scotland's interests will surely be better than being represented by someone who has FOUR different countries to represent. 

5. Polls, I don't really care about polls but  for those if you that do, the latest information is that the referendum is too close to call. YES are trailing slightly but for statistical purposes and given the margin of error it's pretty much neck and neck. Reminds me of a few weeks ago when the NO campaign, the mainstream media and many MPs were saying the BannockburnLive event had poor sales and was going to be a huge flop. In actual fact it was sold out on the Saturday by lunchtime and 100 tickets short of a sell out on the Sunday. 19,900 people! Let's just wait and see shall we.

----------


## golach

Many thanks for your detailed posts Squidge, thank you, I have trouble sleeping these days, but your screeds manage to make me fall asleep quickly, usually about paragraph 2

----------


## Heisenberg

> The real winners from independence won't be me or you, it will be our children and their children.  Scotland is awash with rich resources that currently aren't being utilised to make our lives better.  We've contributed more than we have taken out of the UK for over 30 years now.  The UK needs us to pay their bills.When the Better Together team say we aren't big enough, clever enough or strong enough to stand up on our own two feet then that makes me think that we are going to do it anyway.


No the real winners won't be the children (not mine anyway -as I have non), it'll be the politicians as it usually is."The UK needs us to pay their bills" , just spouting the same old crap over and over doesn't make it true you know.The UK doesn't need Scotland, it wants Scotland as it is an asset to both Scotland and the rest of the UK to remain attached in politics as it is in land. It doesn't have to be complex at all.

----------


## squidge

> Many thanks for your detailed posts Squidge, thank you, I have trouble sleeping these days, but your screeds manage to make me fall asleep quickly, usually about paragraph 2


Not quickly enough for me Golach, you still find time to post!

----------


## golach

> Not quickly enough for me Golach, you still find time to post!


Yawn, stretches , sorry Squidge I must have popped off again, thanks for your good work keep it up please.

----------


## Chook a demus

Meanwhile back in the real world far far away from yes campaign spin central, real people see through the lack of honest answers the lack of detailed answers and the pure spin and still the majority believe that we are Better Together.

----------


## erniesspeedshop

So in the EU,  using the Pound, piles of cash for everyone. Still voting No.

----------


## Chook a demus

I think someone  needs tae take a look at the current entry requirements for the EU ....Indy Scotland uses the Euro or doesn't join plain and simple. Nothing like trying to confuse people with misinformation and deliberately misleading them .

Only dear old Rheg would use 30 yrs out of 300 to argue the case for eternal exit for the union. Maybe that's why he uses the picture of an imaginary alien on his profile........totally illogical Spock !

----------


## squidge

> Meanwhile back in the real world far far away from yes campaign spin central, real people see through the lack of honest answers the lack of detailed answers and the pure spin and still the majority believe that we are Better Together.


Where have any of the things that I say been dishonest?

Golach complains that there is too much detail, you that there is not enough, which is it? 

And which of my answers are pure spin? 

With many issues or to be honest MOST issues there is plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument. Academics, politicians, journalists, can be wheeled out to provide evidence for every point of view. Just because we think different things does not make my answers dishonest. And even when you are wrong, like about children not being British citizens, or about 1 million immigrants over 20 years I don't think you are being dishonest, I assume that you have made a mistake.

----------


## golach

> Golach complains .


Where was I complaining? I was thanking you! My sleep is most important to me.

----------


## orkneycadian

> 5. Polls, I don't really care about polls but  for those if you that do, the latest information is that the referendum is too close to call.


Thats odd, as the Poll Tracker on the BBC webpage has the latest poll update (Panelbase), says that the Yes/No gap has not changed since their last poll in May.

The latest Survation poll also shows no change in gap between 16th June and 8th July

The rest show either a very minor narrowing, or a major widening.  

Average them all out and the gap is widening.

----------


## orkneycadian

> When Scotland becomes an EU member, our MEP tally will increase from 5 MEPs to 13 MEPs thus increasing our influence to the same level as other countries of our size.


Jeez.  Even more bureaucracy....

----------


## Chook a demus

Nicola Sturgeon e day was saying commonwealth games would make more peoples vote yes she obviously didn't hear all the applause from the crowds for people of all nations competing and winning. Sad she has to try and politicise the games as the day grows closer their desperation gets more palpable.

----------


## squidge

Here is the excerpt from the report in the Observer of the interview Chook is referring to. 

" In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Sturgeon, who is leading the SNP's yes campaign, said: "I do think the momentum is with us. I think, as we come out of the Commonwealth Games at the weekend, that is us in the final straight of the campaign and you will see that momentum quite visibly."

Asked about the impact of the Games on the referendum, she suggested that while any impact would be indirect, voters in Scotland had been instilled with a renewed belief in the country's potential for going it alone. "I think it will inevitably leave a feelgood factor," she said. "I think confidence not only in Glasgow but across the country is high."Not only have we staged already what is being talked about as the best Commonwealth Games ever, but the team has done incredibly well with a record number of medals. But sport is sport, politics is politics." 

Doesn't seem like she says the commonwealth games is going to win the referendum for us. 

The games have been fantastic and I have thoroughly enjoyed watching them and cheering for many different nationalities. It's been awesome. And despite all the things that the unionists would have us believe have been staged by the Scottish Government to influence people, it seems that the SG and Nicola Sturgeon are well aware that this referendum is not about who's athletes perform best, how loudly people cheer for commonwealth games, BannockburnLive, armed Forces Day, your favourite band at T in the park or some old showing of a crappy in historic film from years ago. It is about people, democracy and the type of society we want.

----------


## Chook a demus

Aye wee Ecks was said tae be reet upset when he found out tossin e salad was nae a recognisable sport at e games.

----------


## Chook a demus

6 weeks to go and the everyone's talking yes campaign take another 1% slide backwards despite the expected uplift from the commonwealth games.

----------


## erniesspeedshop

Jim Murphy is holding street meetings as part of his 100 streets tour tomorrow 4 August 11.30am in Thurso outside M&Co in the precinct and in Wick at 2.00pm outside M&Co. He will be bringing the message about the benefits to Scotland of remaining with the UK.

I'm not a Labour supporter but I have a lot of time for Jim, a very genuine guy.

----------


## Gronnuck

I’m still sitting on the fence completely confuddled.  From what I’ve seen, heard and read many people in England want us to separate and good riddance.  Some comments have been quite vitriolic.   They complain about the Barnet formula, jobs, contracts and all sorts of big subsidies granted to Scotland by Westminster.  Yet the politicians who represent these same people appear to go to any lengths to want us to remain part of the UK!  If Scotland is really such a drain on England’s resources I would have thought they would be happy to be shot of us!  Someone south of the border is lying through their teeth.

----------


## Rheghead

> Where was I complaining? I was thanking you! My sleep is most important to me.


If Scotland votes No and then we go on to sing about Scotland being an independent country once again every Commonwealth games and 6 nations, how can we sleep at night if we didn't take this chance?  I will really think we're bunch of cowards to think we couldn't go independent.  Go on, give in to the Better Together propaganda.  At least I was proud to say Yes rather than too scared to say Yes.

----------


## squidge

> Im still sitting on the fence completely confuddled.  From what Ive seen, heard and read many people in England want us to separate and good riddance.  Some comments have been quite vitriolic.   They complain about the Barnet formula, jobs, contracts and all sorts of big subsidies granted to Scotland by Westminster.  Yet the politicians who represent these same people appear to go to any lengths to want us to remain part of the UK!  If Scotland is really such a drain on Englands resources I would have thought they would be happy to be shot of us!  Someone south of the border is lying through their teeth.


If you are finding it confusing Gronnuck then it's a great idea to go to some of the informal events and formal events being held by both sides of the debate. The informal ones are great cos you get to chat to other people about how they arrived at their decision or what issues they are struggling with. If you can't manage an event the. Engage with some of the street stalls. The people doing these will be delighted to talk to you from both sides I am sure  :Smile:

----------


## scorrie

Well, if you believe the bookies the Yes campaign doesn't have much chance. The best odds you can get on a No vote are 1/5, with as low as 1/8 with some firms. 

I have been watching the betting for some time now and a few quid went on the Yes vote for a while. Some betting pundits said the odds would get a lot closer nearer the time but it hasn't happened, if anything it's gone the other way.

When you get down to it, no matter how gung ho and Braveheart you might be, the choice will boil down to accepting what you have or risking believing in the  promises of something better if you vote yes. How much do people really trust politicians to deliver the greener grass, that you can't see on the other side of the fence but they want you to believe is there? 

I think people will stick with what they know they have now, rather than jump the fence and step right into a pile of dog turd that the Yes men didn't happen to mention before.

----------


## orkneycadian

> If Scotland votes No and then we go on to sing about Scotland being an independent country once again every Commonwealth games and 6 nations, how can we sleep at night if we didn't take this chance?


I for one will not feel compelled to sing about Scotland being independant every commonwealth games and 6 nations.  I'll be too busy sleeping at night!  :Wink:

----------


## golach

> If Scotland votes No and then we go on to sing about Scotland being an independent country once again every Commonwealth games and 6 nations, how can we sleep at night if we didn't take this chance?  I will really think we're bunch of cowards to think we couldn't go independent.  Go on, give in to the Better Together propaganda.  At least I was proud to say Yes rather than too scared to say Yes.


I will sleep well when its a No vote, and I rareley sing that dirge written by the Corrie's. When it is a No vote, we will go back to singing the UK national anthem. I find your reference that I am too scared, is a very school playground type threat, but hey ho names calling will never hurt me.......so there Rheg.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, if you believe the bookies the Yes campaign doesn't have much chance. The best odds you can get on a No vote are 1/5, with as low as 1/8 with some firms. 
> 
> I have been watching the betting for some time now and a few quid went on the Yes vote for a while. Some betting pundits said the odds would get a lot closer nearer the time but it hasn't happened, if anything it's gone the other way.
> 
> When you get down to it, no matter how gung ho and Braveheart you might be, the choice will boil down to accepting what you have or risking believing in the  promises of something better if you vote yes. How much do people really trust politicians to deliver the greener grass, that you can't see on the other side of the fence but they want you to believe is there? 
> 
> I think people will stick with what they know they have now, rather than jump the fence and step right into a pile of dog turd that the Yes men didn't happen to mention before.


Sounds like political Stockholm syndrome.

----------


## scorrie

> Sounds like political Stockholm syndrome.


And your point is?

I have already bet somebody that there will not be a YES vote. Effectively I have got even money on an event that is as low as 1/8 

You can talk all you want but the odds ie likelihood of a YES vote, indicate it is going to be a minor shock if it occurs.

----------


## Mr Z

I have read some of the posts here and its all about what a YES vote will give or not give. Can the Org experts help explain to the undecided voters what Scotland gets with a NO vote.
Westminster wants to keep us Cameron says Scotland put the Great into Great Britain but what will we actually get/gain from a NO vote. Will vague promises be delivered or will we become the Guinea Pigs for experiment like the '80's poll tax.
Tonight's tv debate may answer some questions however I still believe Cameron should be the voice for No because if it is a No vote he will certainly be heard then after Sept with what Scotland will or wont get from Westminster.

----------


## Big Gaz

personally i think Scotland will get royally screwed over in the event of a NO vote and i'm more than certain that Cameron and his cronies will ensure that every asset, mineral and piece of wealth that is currently available to Scotland will be tagged and exploited to ensure that any possible future independence bids will leave Scotland with nothing. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if once this was done, then England would have a vote on independence from the rest of the UK and we all know how that will turn out!

----------


## Chook a demus

Well leaving the above post which absolutely baseless

 Here's a good article on why you should vote no.

http://www.sheilagilmore.co.uk/the-i...-im-voting-no/

----------


## Big Gaz

lol, i really don't give a NO vote if its baseless, it's as much a reality as many of the fairy stories in this thread.   :Grin: 

As for Gilmore, she paints a pretty picture, always has done but in reality it's a blank canvas. All the things she's quoted on the link you gave are possibly true but if so, then why isn't she out campaigning to get them implemented now and not using them as a reason to vote NO?

----------


## Chook a demus

Well at least you give it as much worth as a fairy story.  Says it all .

----------


## Big Gaz

> Well at least you give it as much worth as a fairy story.  Says it all .


From what i've seen on the threads here on the Org, you're the one saying it all. As for reality and worth, nothing you say fits the bill for either. touché

----------


## Rheghead

Don't forget to watch the big debate @8pm

----------


## Chook a demus

Note to self .... Never mock the afflicted !

----------


## Chook a demus

So Alex Salmond on Currency no to the euro, no to a Scottish currency it's a currency union or nothing ....NO plan B C D E F or anything ...fail

----------


## golach

Who is writing Fat Eck's comic scripts? Answer the question!!!

----------


## Chook a demus

Well this is how Alex Salmond respects the electorate by turning it into a silly jokes session instead of dealing with the issues  shame on him !

----------


## Gronnuck

Well I'm more confuddled than ever before. ::   Alex spun is a good yarn, lots of positives but little substance.  Alistair listed a load of negatives and scared the whatsit out of me.  I reckon Ill just spin a coin on September 18th  ::

----------


## golach

Eck 0 - Better together 1

----------


## Rheghead

> Eck 0 - Better together 1


A clapometer would indicate 'Vote Yes', but I say 'It's make your mind up time!!'

----------


## scorrie

The Guardian ICM viewers Poll gave Darling as the winner by 56% to 44%

----------


## golach

> A clapometer would indicate 'Vote Yes', but I say 'It's make your mind up time!!'


Made my mind up so long ago!!

----------


## Chook a demus

> A clapometer would indicate 'Vote Yes', but I say 'It's make your mind up time!!'


Would that be the clapometer that totally ignored the bit where Alex Salmond was loudly booed for failing to answer a question !

Parts of it where typical politics but that boo spoke of a total inability to answer a vital question .

----------


## Rheghead

> Would that be the clapometer that totally ignored the bit where Alex Salmond was loudly booed for failing to answer a question !
> 
> Parts of it where typical politics but that boo spoke of a total inability to answer a vital question .


No it was referring to the clap at the end of the debate.

----------


## Rheghead

You know Chook, I am convinced that you are on the the Yes campaign and you are paroding this ridiculous No campaigner that is totally desperate.  You've even taken over from golach.  Crack on kidder... ::   You are too clever for me

----------


## Rheghead

oops perhaps I have scunnered our best card? Listen to the best evidence, vote Yes

----------


## erniesspeedshop

I thought both performances were cringeworthy. I can sympathise with Alistair D though, you know how frustrating it is to try to reason with someone who is talking rubbish, when you know they know they are talking rubbish. Nicola in the post debate bit looked a bit embarrassed to me. A.S. is very good at bringing up what people have said in the past and trying to beat them with it. If you do it to him (Pound = millstone anyone?) it is quite legitimate to change your mind apparently. As far as the currency is concerned, it looks like Alex is pinning everyone's future financial wellbeing on what an un-named someone, allegedly, senior in the government, allegedly said. I don't think I would risk nailing my colours to that particular mast.                                                                                                                                           Europe, again we hear Scotland wants to be in Europe, we know that that, may well not be true.

----------


## Chook a demus

> oops perhaps I have scunnered our best card? Listen to the best evidence, vote Yes


But we did listen to the first Minister last night and unfortunately he failed to answer the important questions.

Sept 19th 2014 is when I will be laughing Rheg !

----------


## Mr Z

Both sides failed to answer questions, even refused to answer questions- politics at its best!! Got more useful info from the audience!!
So with 6 weeks to go no one can tell us what's going to happen whichever way the vote goes.

----------


## golach

> But we did listen to the first Minister last night and unfortunately he failed to answer the important questions.Sept 19th 2014 is when I will be laughing Rheg !


Me too Rheg, laughing my head off last night too.

----------


## Big Gaz

> Both sides failed to answer questions, even refused to answer questions- politics at its best!! Got more useful info from the audience!!
> So with 6 weeks to go no one can tell us what's going to happen whichever way the vote goes.


Without a crystal ball (and possibly the help of Crayola) No-one can tell us what's going to happen in the future, if they could, then the country wouldn't be in the mess it is now and we possibly wouldn't have gotten to the stage where we are now where we are attempting to break up the union.

----------


## Rheghead

> Without a crystal ball (and possibly the help of Crayola) No-one can tell us what's going to happen in the future, if they could, then the country wouldn't be in the mess it is now and we possibly wouldn't have gotten to the stage where we are now where we are attempting to break up the union.


You are right about not seeing into the future.  But the whole point of this debate is that when it comes to making the big decisions that shape our lives, it is the people of Scotland that are best qualified to make them.

----------


## Rheghead

Clair Ridge oilfield contains 8 billion barrels of oil. This is the big league. This will make Scotland insanely rich as an independent country.  If we stay in UK then it will be squandered on policies that Scotland didn't vote for.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-23681061

----------


## theone

> Clair Ridge oilfield contains 8 billion barrels of oil. This is the big league. This will make Scotland insanely rich as an independent country.  If we stay in UK then it will be squandered on policies that Scotland didn't vote for.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-23681061


The whole Clair area held an estimated 8bn barrels. The majority of which is not recoverable.

The Clair ridge platform itself will recover about a 12th of that 8 billion barrels over 40 years.

And the UK (or Scottish) governments won't see a penny in cash from it until after the first 7 years of production, when the original investment is repaid. Somewhere around 2025.

----------


## Rheghead

> The whole Clair area held an estimated 8bn barrels. The majority of which is not recoverable.
> 
> The Clair ridge platform itself will recover about a 12th of that 8 billion barrels over 40 years.
> 
> And the UK (or Scottish) governments won't see a penny in cash from it until after the first 7 years of production, when the original investment is repaid. Somewhere around 2025.


Strange that, ETFDaily were saying there is game changing technology coming out to recover that oil and more some.  You can be sure of one thing, _where there is oil, there is a way_.

----------


## theone

> Strange that, ETFDaily were saying there is game changing technology coming out to recover that oil and more some.  You can be sure of one thing, _where there is oil, there is a way_.


I see nothing strange.

Your own article mentions 640m barrels.

The technology is EOR, it involves pumping chemicals in with injection water. The 640m barrels recoverable includes EOR.

----------


## Rheghead

> I see nothing strange.
> 
> Your own article mentions 640m barrels.
> 
> The technology is EOR, it involves pumping chemicals in with injection water. The 640m barrels recoverable includes EOR.


The BBC article is a year old and makes no mention of the basement drilling that would recover that 8 billion barrels.  ::

----------


## Phill

Isn't this fossil fuel reliance at odds with a 'green' manifesto (and your own views?).

This West of Shetland basin nonsense has been made up to be a stick for either side to beat each other with. As far as I understand it has been known about for decades but the cost / technology to extract is not yet viable.

The UK is sat on huge coal reserves, but we import from China.

----------


## theone

> The BBC article is a year old and makes no mention of the basement drilling that would recover that 8 billion barrels.


You can drill as many wells as you want.

The platform is designed for 40 years with a maximum throughput of 120 thousand barrels a day dry oil. Add Increasing watercut from the EOR and formation water and that production figure reduces in time.

Even without water, the platform would take 180 years to produce 8 billion barrels.

Not happening.

----------


## Rheghead

> You can drill as many wells as you want.
> 
> The platform is designed for 40 years with a maximum throughput of 120 thousand barrels a day dry oil. Add Increasing watercut from the EOR and formation water and that production figure reduces in time.
> 
> Even without water, the platform would take 180 years to produce 8 billion barrels.
> 
> Not happening.


So you've just shown that the oil wells have a rich sustainable future.  120,000 barrels of oil per day for 180 years.

----------


## Rheghead

> Isn't this fossil fuel reliance at odds with a 'green' manifesto (and your own views?).
> 
> This West of Shetland basin nonsense has been made up to be a stick for either side to beat each other with. As far as I understand it has been known about for decades but the cost / technology to extract is not yet viable.
> 
> The UK is sat on huge coal reserves, but we import from China.


My views are irrelevent, just pointing out facts.  But I would say that a Yes vote and a vote for Scottish Greens will give us the best chance to keep that oil in the ground.

----------


## Rheghead

Clair Ridge is being described as the next oil boom for Scotland.  If we vote Yes then it will be used for Scotland's priorities and not squandered on David Cameron's priorities.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...-new-oil-boom/

----------


## theone

> So you've just shown that the oil wells have a rich sustainable future.  120,000 barrels of oil per day for 180 years.


And we've also shown that the new Clair Ridge platform will not produce anything remotely close to 8 billion barrels, and the field wont make Scotland insanely rich anytime soon.

----------


## scorrie

> Without a crystal ball (and possibly the help of Crayola) No-one can tell us what's going to happen in the future, if they could, then the country wouldn't be in the mess it is now and we possibly wouldn't have gotten to the stage where we are now where we are attempting to break up the union.


There is no crystal ball but bookmakers moved their lines after last night's debate, towards the NO vote. The best odds are now 1/6 from 1/5 and the YES vote went out to 5/1, which is the biggest price it has been for a while.

One intrepid punter has placed £400,000 on the NO vote, the biggest bet ever placed on a Political event, after turning up at a William Hill shop with a banker's draft for the amount. Another punter has £200,000 invested on the same bet and is believed to be the same person who placed the identical amount, successfully, on David Cameron to become the next Conservative leader back in the day.

If we wind the clock back to May of this year, the odds on a YES vote were as low as 7/4 in a place and if we were to compare the drift from those odds to 5/1, with a racehorse in the same position, it might not quite be the case that the YES campaign are flogging a dead horse, but certainly one that appears to have lost a leg in recent months.

----------


## Rheghead

> And we've also shown that the new Clair Ridge platform will not produce anything remotely close to 8 billion barrels, and the field wont make Scotland insanely rich anytime soon.


So you are effectively saying the UK government is throwing £7 billion of our money down the pan if it isn't going to make money?  You aren't making sense.  I go where the money is.

----------


## theone

> So you are effectively saying the UK government is throwing £7 billion of our money down the pan if it isn't going to make money?  You aren't making sense.  I go where the money is.


I don't understand your question.

What £7 billion?

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't understand your question.
> 
> What £7 billion?


The £7 billion that the UK has spent on developing the oilfield.

----------


## golach

> So you are effectively saying the UK government is throwing £7 billion of our money down the pan if it isn't going to make money?  You aren't making sense.  I go where the money is.


I do not understand this, why would the UK government spend £7 million , it's usually a private developer that invests that amount of cash, they were granted the licence to develop it, and  pay for the privilege , not the government , please enlighten me Rheg.

----------


## theone

> The £7 billion that the UK has spent on developing the oilfield.


The UK hasn't spent a penny developing the field. 

BP and it's partners have.

That's why the government won't see a penny from the field for 7 years - the companies don't pay tax until their investment is returned.

After that, they only pay tax on their profits.

In 2012 the government got roughly £17 tax per barrel. As lift costs increase in deeper fields requiring expensive technologies such as EOR,  that amount will reduce.

----------


## Rheghead

> I do not understand this, why would the UK government spend £7 million , it's usually a private developer that invests that amount of cash, they were granted the licence to develop it, and  pay for the privilege , not the government , please enlighten me Rheg.


£7 billion has been spent on the oilfield, not £7 million.

----------


## Rheghead

> The UK hasn't spent a penny developing the field. 
> 
> BP and it's partners have.
> 
> That's why the government won't see a penny from the field for 7 years - the companies don't pay tax until their investment is returned.
> 
> After that, they only pay tax on their profits.
> 
> In 2012 the government got roughly £17 tax per barrel. As lift costs increase in deeper fields requiring expensive technologies such as EOR,  that amount will reduce.


The UK has given away tax breaks and incentives so effectively BP etc have built it for free.

----------


## golach

> £7 billion has been spent on the oilfield, not £7 million.


Oh dear me I made a typo, slaps my own wrist.  :Frown:

----------


## Rheghead

UK government offering incentives for the drilling.  Mind you, it cocks a snoop at ywindythesecond's assertion that fossil fuels do not get subsidised.  ::   But that is a different thread.




> “The UK government is very keen to see the basement reservoirs developed, and is making noises about offering tax losses for the basement play, which could certainly improve the economics.”

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh dear me I made a typo, slaps my own wrist.


It is OK, I do it all the time but it is as if I've deliberately lied to everyone by some individuals on here  ::

----------


## theone

> The UK has given away tax breaks and incentives so effectively BP etc have built it for free.


No.

The tax break comes from future production. They still have to invest their own money, wait for a return, then they can operate without paying tax until the £7 Billion is returned.

They're certainly not building it for free. In actual fact problems or delays could have a huge effect on the share price and hence major developments like this are a big risk to company and investors.

----------


## Rheghead

> No.
> 
> The tax break comes from future production. They still have to invest their own money, wait for a return, then they can operate without paying tax until the £7 Billion is returned.
> 
> They're certainly not building it for free. In actual fact problems or delays could have a huge effect on the share price and hence major developments like this are a big risk to company and investors.


They've only scraped the surface with that £7 billion and yet it is the future of the oilfield that will return the money.  I'm not going to get bogged down into details of who paid what.  The bottom line is that nobody is going to pay £7 billion for an oilfield with little return which is your assertion.

The oilfield is freeliy being described as the next boom sector by the oil industry.

----------


## Chook a demus

I'm not sure where rheg gets his un-named petroleum industry quotes from or his figures but if you want to read about the Clair ridge Field why not read BPs site at least it's the official one funny how it mentions. £4.5 billion investment with 640 million barrels over a 40 yr period with peak production at 120000 a day. Sounds a bit different to what Rheg is claiming.



http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporat...-shetland.html

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm not sure where rheg gets his un-named petroleum industry quotes from or his figures but if you want to read about the Clair ridge Field why not read BPs site at least it's the official one funny how it mentions. £4.5 billion investment with 640 million barrels over a 40 yr period with peak production at 120000 a day. Sounds a bit different to what Rheg is claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporat...-shetland.html


I little while ago you were asserting the oilfield didn't exist.  lol

----------


## Chook a demus

No I've never claimed it didn't exists everyone knows there's oil out there just not on the scale you've been claiming for a few days and certainly not as part of some big conspiracy hush hush story. 


Now stop frothing at the mouth and sit in the corner.

----------


## Rheghead

And the tragedy of it all is that the Clair Ridge HQ is in London yet the oilfield is in Scottish waters.  All the money goes south.

----------


## Rheghead

> No I've never claimed it didn't exists everyone knows there's oil out there just not on the scale you've been claiming for a few days and certainly not as part of some big conspiracy hush hush story. 
> 
> 
> Now stop frothing at the mouth and sit in the corner.


No, you tried desperately to discredit any source that the oilfield exists.  You tried a damage limitation exercise.

----------


## Moira

When all's said and done the only numbers which matter is the final count on the final day - Thursday 18th September 2014.

I will be voting "NO".  

When I first viewed this poll I rolled my eyes and thought "Here we go....."  I voted "Yes" on this Poll for no other reason than because I could.

I've listened to and read all the arguments in the No/Yes debate and I've not been tempted to change my mind at all

When the vote closes on 18/9/2014 and anyone wants to compare the national vote with the Caithness dot Org Poll, please remember that the vote I cast in this Poll should be transferred to the No side or at least discounted.

----------


## Rheghead

Everyone knows that after the first phase of drilling, other companies take over oilfields with different technologies to drain the remaining oil out.

----------


## Chook a demus

> No, you tried desperately to discredit any source that the oilfield exists.  You tried a damage limitation exercise.


Actually I discredited the websites you use not the existence of the oil field. 

Regardless of whether it contained 30 trillion barrels of oil after last nights little gaff by Mr Salmond it's all by the by. 

You may as well give up pack your bags and expect a NO vote. 

Remember when he blew it for the yes party...No Plan B

Start accepting reality Rheg you're about to loose and all the bluff and bluster can't undo what happened last Night.

NO Plan B C D E F or anything else.

----------


## Rheghead

> When all's said and done the only numbers which matter is the final count on the final day - Thursday 18th September 2014.
> 
> I will be voting "NO".  
> 
> When I first viewed this poll I rolled my eyes and thought "Here we go....."  I voted "Yes" on this Poll for no other reason than because I could.
> 
> I've listened to and read all the arguments in the No/Yes debate and I've not been tempted to change my mind at all
> 
> When the vote closes on 18/9/2014 and anyone wants to compare the national vote with the Caithness dot Org Poll, please remember that the vote I cast in this Poll should be transferred to the No side or at least discounted.


Well Moira, I would really like to know the result of this org poll if we had all the No voting sock puppets removed from the tally who keep repeatedly getting banned for trolling and joining under another login.

----------


## Rheghead

> Actually I discredited the websites you use not the existence of the oil field. 
> 
> Regardless of whether it contained 30 trillion barrels of oil after last nights little gaff by Mr Salmond it's all by the by. 
> 
> You may as well give up pack your bags and expect a NO vote. 
> 
> *Remember when he blew it for the yes party...No Plan B*
> 
> Start accepting reality Rheg you're about to loose and all the bluff and bluster can't undo what happened last Night.
> ...


He answered it perfectly clear.  There WILL be a shared currency because that is in the best interests of Scotland.  Darling believes a shared currency is the best option for both sides.

If rUK are going bite their nose to spite their face then there a range of other options which are not a secret.  ::

----------


## Chook a demus

Ahh the desperation of a drowning man throwing wild accusations about in a futile attempt to change the inevitable.

----------


## theone

> They've only scraped the surface with that £7 billion and yet it is the future of the oilfield that will return the money.  I'm not going to get bogged down into details of who paid what.  The bottom line is that nobody is going to pay £7 billion for an oilfield with little return which is your assertion.
> 
> The oilfield is freeliy being described as the next boom sector by the oil industry.


Not at all Rheghead. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

You started this with nonsense figures of production, which I proved wrong..

You've then claimed the government is spending money on oilfields, which is wrong.

You then claimed that BP are developing the field at no cost, which is wrong.

I've done my best to give you facts and figures on a subject you obviously understand very little about.

The field will provide a good return to the oil companies after 7 years or so. The government will then benefit through taxation, which I've shown will be a lot lower than most people would think.

Now. Let's put Clair Ridge into perspective.

Expected production 700 million barrels over 40 years.
That averages 17.5 million barrels a year.
17.5 million barrels a year, with the government getting £17 a barrel equals less than £300 million a year tax revenue.
£300 million a year divides by 5.5 million Scots equals Less than £55 per head.

Now, do you still maintain, as stated in your previous post, that Clair Ridge will make Scotland "insanely rich" or are you willing to accept the facts presented to you?

----------


## Chook a demus

> He answered it perfectly clear.  There WILL be a shared currency because that is in the best interests of Scotland.  Darling believes a shared currency is the best option for both sides.If rUK are going bite their nose to spite their face then there a range of other options which are not a secret.


He was clearly asked for plan B and failed to answer we all know he wants a currency union,but he can't answer that one question clearly instead he insults the electorate with repetition or his preferred position.

----------


## Rheghead

> Ahh the desperation of a drowning man throwing wild accusations about in a futile attempt to change the inevitable.


I am not so sure about that.  Pro-union Daily Record are running a poll on their website just now about how the big debate has changed their readership's view on independence.  73% are for voting Yes.  That flies in the face of their headlines.  I wonder how long it takes before it gets pulled?

----------


## golach

> Well Moira, I would really like to know the result of this org poll if we had all the No voting sock puppets removed from the tally who keep repeatedly getting banned for trolling and joining under another login.


That was Squidge's theory , another yesnp excuse, the figures don't add up in our favour, so there must be some gingery pockery going on with the count, Eck will be howling that on the 19th Sept lol

----------


## Rheghead

> Not at all Rheghead. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
> 
> You started this with nonsense figures of production, which I proved wrong..
> 
> You've then claimed the government is spending money on oilfields, which is wrong.
> 
> You then claimed that BP are developing the field at no cost, which is wrong.
> 
> I've done my best to give you facts and figures on a subject you obviously understand very little about.
> ...


Yes, it will.  8 billion barrels of oil plus Scotland's other assets will put us up with Qatar.  However, I concede your points or nitpicking over my generalisation.  It is still our money, we pay the oil companies to run our cars and those investments will still need to be recovered by transferring the costs on the price of a litre of petrol.  I'm not going to get bogged down by your details about who paid who by who on what other than that.  I was purely saying £7 billion has been spent developing the oilfield and that has been encouraged by the UK through incentives.  You asserted that the gains from Clair Ridge amount to nothing much.   Clair Ridge is being celebrated within the oil industry as the next boom sector.  10/10 for picking up on me saying the 'UK' has paid.

----------


## Chook a demus

Aye let's not not pick as we all know the saying ...devils in the detail...something you and Alex Salmond are light on.

----------


## theone

> You asserted that the gains from Clair Ridge amount to nothing much.


I've just shown you that the Clair Ridge platform will provide the people of Scotland £55 each per year for 40 years.

It is up to the individual to decide if that amounts to "nothing much" (my opinion) or "insanely rich" (your opinion).

----------


## Chook a demus

> I am not so sure about that.  Pro-union Daily Record are running a poll on their website just now about how the big debate has changed their readership's view on independence.  73% are for voting Yes.  That flies in the face of their headlines.  I wonder how long it takes before it gets pulled?


All it's means is lots of yes voters are trying to delude themselves that by rigging online polls it will effect the referendum outcome. More delusions or are you suggesting that one poll so starkly different to all the other polls is somehow credible.

----------


## Rheghead

> I've just shown you that the Clair Ridge platform will provide the people of Scotland £55 each per year for 40 years.
> 
> It is up to the individual to decide if that amounts to "nothing much" (my opinion) or "insanely rich" (your opinion).


I've come across those sort of statistics when I have spoke about wind farms, eg Renewable incentives putting x amount on top of bills.  Once you dig into the details then most are folly or unsound.

Facts are that nobody knows for sure about what is out there, unlike you.  Experts are claiming a _potential_ of 8 billion barrels of oil.  Like with North Sea,  they will always find more oil, find new technologies to justify to open up old oilfields where it wasn't recoverable.  etc etc.  North Sea oil would have dried up years ago going by original expectations.

Once a Yes vote is in the bag, we can then think about the massive oilfield.  It isn't going anywhere fast.

----------


## Rheghead

> All it's means is lots of yes voters are trying to delude themselves that by rigging online polls it will effect the referendum outcome. More delusions or are you suggesting that one poll so starkly different to all the other polls is somehow credible.


Have you got any evidence of Yes voters are rigging the vote?  The poll is for the readership of the Daily Record, a traditional Pro-union paper.

----------


## golach

> Have you got any evidence of Yes voters are rigging the vote?  The poll is for the readership of the Daily Record, a traditional Pro-union paper.


One newspaper, that's not a good example of a poll Rheg, what had the Scottish Sun have to say about the gap between the two sides?

----------


## theone

> Experts are claiming a _potential_ of 8 billion barrels of oil.


Show me a quote from ONE "expert" that says there's 8 billion barrels of RECOVERABLE oil.

There is an estimated TOTAL oil volume of 8 billion barrels. Most North Sea fields yield somewhere in the region of 30% of total oil. Even using modern technologies. Clair Ridge will have a lower than average yield because it is a very complicated resevoir, full of fractures and difficult geology.

Now, regardless of recovery rate, and regardless of new technologies, the Clair Ridge platform will only be able to deliver somewhere in the region of 700m barrels over 40 years. And that's a more generous figure than BP are aiming for.

----------


## theone

> I've come across those sort of statistics when I have spoke about wind farms, eg Renewable incentives putting x amount on top of bills.  Once you dig into the details then most are folly or unsound.


Look into the figures of north sea production over the last few years and compare them with the figures of government cash generated. That way you'll get a price per barrel.

I chose 2012 because those were the figures I found most easily.

Multiply that cost per barrel by what Clair Ridge platform can produce.

Feel free to dig into the detail, then tell me if you find them folly or unsound.

----------


## golach

> Look into the figures of north sea production over the last few years and compare them with the figures of government cash generated. That way you'll get a price per barrel.I chose 2012 because those were the figures I found most easily.Multiply that cost per barrel by what Clair Ridge platform can produce.Feel free to dig into the detail, then tell me if you find them folly or unsound.


The one, your figures will be dismissed as untruths by Rheg and his yesnp cronies, they do not compute with the facts as they see them

----------


## Rheghead

> Look into the figures of north sea production over the last few years and compare them with the figures of government cash generated. That way you'll get a price per barrel.
> 
> I chose 2012 because those were the figures I found most easily.
> 
> Multiply that cost per barrel by what Clair Ridge platform can produce.
> 
> Feel free to dig into the detail, then tell me if you find them folly or unsound.


It is not about just x times Y.  For every £ reaped from the oil, you have real people earning money and spending wages.  For every man on a platform, you may have 3 more in supporting industries.

----------


## Rheghead

> The one, your figures will be dismissed as untruths by Rheg and his yesnp cronies, they do not compute with the facts as they see them


well I am not the one (pardon pun) who constantly putting down Scotland's potential in the world.   You seem to repeat the UK government's mantra that Scotland isn't big enough or smart enough to be an independent country.

Question for you golach, nothing too hard.  

"Do you think Scotland can be a prosperous independent country?"

----------


## theone

> It is not about just x times Y.  For every £ reaped from the oil, you have real people earning money and spending wages.  For every man on a platform, you may have 3 more in supporting industries.


Indeed.

But how much money in wages, and the income from taxes and expenditure would be required to make Scotland "insanely rich"?

Because EVEN if  30% of the money Clair Ridge makes is spent on wages, and EVEN if every penny of that remains in Scotland (it won't - a significant proportion of north sea workers live elsewhere), it would amount to less than £100 per head of population per year.

Insanely rich?

----------


## Rheghead

> Indeed.
> 
> But how much money in wages, and the income from taxes and expenditure would be required to make Scotland "insanely rich"?
> 
> Because EVEN if  30% of the money Clair Ridge makes is spent on wages, and EVEN if every penny of that remains in Scotland (it won't - a significant proportion of north sea workers live elsewhere), it would amount to less than £100 per head of population per year.
> 
> Insanely rich?


Well I've seen reports of 250,000 barrels per day from just the Clair Ridge, that is high expectation.  You say £17 per bbl?  By my maths that amounts to £310 per person going to an independent Scotland treasury per year.  Realistic expectation is 125,000 bbl per day, £155 per person.  Add to that the tax gained from everybody that is employed and works in Scotland that works Clair Ridge.  In an iScotland, I believe the HQ will be moved to Scotland thus improving benefits to Scotland.  Yes, that is indicative of an insanely wealthy nation just from one oilfield.

----------


## theone

> Well I've seen reports of 250,000 barrels per day from just the Clair Ridge, that is high expectation.  You say £17 per bbl?  By my maths that amounts to £310 per person going to an independent Scotland treasury per year.  Realistic expectation is 125,000 bbl per day, £155 per person.  Add to that the tax gained from everybody that is employed and works in Scotland that works Clair Ridge.  In an iScotland, I believe the HQ will be moved to Scotland thus improving benefits to Scotland.  Yes, that is indicative of an insanely wealthy nation just from one oilfield.


Whatever reports you have seen about 250000bpd  are wrong. The Clair Ridge platform is physically incapable of producing that amount. FACT.

125000 barrels a day is close to the design MAXIMUM operating rate.

But platforms have to shutdown due to unplanned trips and for planned maintenance. Ops efficiency for a typical platform in the north sea is somewhere around 65%.

BP believe they will develop less than 700 million barrels over 40 years. That averages less than 50,000 barrels per day. 5.5 million people - £50 odd quid a year each.

You believe BP, a company that operates in 80 countries worldwide, producing 3.2 million barrels of oil a day is going to move its headquarters for the sake of one oil field producing 50,000 barrels a day?????

----------


## Rheghead

> Whatever reports you have seen about 250000bpd  are wrong. The Clair Ridge platform is physically incapable of producing that amount. FACT.


I don't know where you get your info from but even David Cameron says Clair ridge is a MASSIVE boost for jobs and growth.  

This report says 200-250 thousand barrels per day from CR.  It isn't a SNP source or pro YES.  ::   :: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JhqTVZDCnw

----------


## theone

> I don't know where you get your info from but even David Cameron says Clair ridge is a MASSIVE boost for jobs and growth.  
> 
> This report says 200-250 thousand barrels per day from CR.  It isn't a SNP source or pro YES.  
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JhqTVZDCnw


The link you've posted was from original project sanction, before the design work was done. Now that work has been done, maximum production figures are roughly half that.

It CANNOT produce 250,000 barrels of oil a day.

Of course it's a massive boost. Any new fields and platforms getting built in a region where production has been declining for 10 yeas is a massive boost.

And yes, it's a "game changer" in that it's a new development west of Shetland using new technologies.

But I'm sorry, it's won't make Scotland "insanely rich".

----------


## Rheghead

> The link you've posted was from original project sanction, before the design work was done. Now that work has been done, maximum production figures are roughly half that.
> 
> It CANNOT produce 250,000 barrels of oil a day.
> 
> Of course it's a massive boost. Any new fields and platforms getting built in a region where production has been declining for 10 yeas is a massive boost.
> 
> And yes, it's a "game changer" in that it's a new development west of Shetland using new technologies.
> 
> But I'm sorry, it's won't make Scotland "insanely rich".


I have tried to produce credible resources for my claims. I cannot discredit maths. You have produced none to back up yours.  You only have opinion, yours.  The latest info that describes the Clair Ridge oilfield is that it is a game-changer from ETFDaily.  It isn't a pro indy website, it is a website that promotes up to date info for investors.

----------


## Rheghead

How do you equate MASSIVE boost for jobs and growth with 'not much really'?  Still waiting...

----------


## theone

> I have tried to produce credible resources for my claims. I cannot discredit maths. You have produced none to back up yours.  You only have opinion, yours.  The latest info that describes the Clair Ridge oilfield is that it is a game-changer from ETFDaily.  It isn't a pro indy website, it is a website that promotes up to date info for investors.


What maths would you like me to produce resources for? Ask and I will try.

The ETFDaily may indeed call it a game-changer. But you've got to define game-changer and what it means.

It could mean many things, I'll give a few examples:

The majority of oil production will change from north sea to atlantic ocean. Game changer.
The majority of oil production will rely on EOR techniques. Game changer.
Oil production from traditional extraction methods will be overtaken by that of EOR. Game changer.
UKCS oil recover will rise for the first time in 10 years. Game changer.

Game changer can mean a lot of things. And yes, Clair Ridge is a game changer in terms of UKCS exploration and exploitation strategy.

But it is not a field that will make Scotland "insanely rich". Unless you regard insane richness as a 3 course meal in the upper deck.

----------


## Rheghead

Sorry it is an impasse.  You say that, I say this.  I say to anyone, do the proper research.  Make your own mind up.  There's plenty of info that supports that david cameron tried to stop the Clair ridge oilfield being a referendum issue.  And why would he?

----------


## theone

> Sorry it is an impasse.  You say that, I say this.  I say to anyone, do the proper research.  Make your own mind up.


No, it's not an impasse.

You made the claim here that the new Clair Ridge platform would/will make Scotland "insanely rich". I believe I have shown it won't. If you need any further clarification/info/resources, let me know - I will try to provide them.

You tried to promote a reason for independence, hoping it would help your cause, no doubt influencing voters. I believe I have shown that reason to be false. 

I will not pick faults in genuine/valid arguments for independence but quoting Clair Ridge as something that will make us "insanely rich" is absolutely untrue, and therefore I had to challenge it.




> There's plenty of info that supports that david cameron tried to stop the Clair ridge oilfield being a referendum issue.  And why wouldn't he?


Can you expand on that? Clair Ridge was sanctioned as a project several years ago (before the referendum was decided). Contacts were open to tender and the platforms are being built in Korea. BP has recently announced it is 1 year behind schedule.

I don't see how anything about the project is being kept secret, or how Davis Camerson could stop it becoming and issue in the debate. Please enlighten me.

----------


## Rheghead

an impasse


It’s like asking me how I’m getting to work
“I’ll take the car”
- But what if you can’t
- but I can it’s the best option
- but what if it’s broken and you can’t use it? What’s your plan B?
I don’t need one I will take the car but I can take the other car, I could take one of three buses, I could take a taxi, I could walk”
So which other method will you choose.
I won’t I’ll take the car
But what is your plan B?
Well any one of a range of options
So what transport will you use
I’ll take the car
But what if it’s broke
It isn’t
What’s plan b?
Well there are a range of options
So how are you getting to work?
I’ll take the car
What if you can’t?
But I can
What’s plan b?
Well there are a range of options but I’ll be taking the car!!

----------


## theone

No.

An impasse is when two sides can't agree once all the evidence has been presented.

I believe I have given enough evidence to prove your assertions are completely wrong. But you deny it even though you know you understand little of the subject.  If you genuinely require further evidence, I am willing to present it. I only need you to request it.

I believe you have been disingenuous with your posts on this subject, I believe you have deliberately tried to mislead people and I believe you know you were wrong, but you're now trying to shy away from that with a "let's agree to disagree" approach. 

Poor show. As one of the more respected poster on this message board it's disappointing that you disgrace yourself with such underhand behaviours.

Fail.

----------


## Rheghead

As long as we remain in the UK, we are vulnerable to having more powers being taken away from Scotland and brought back under Westminster control like with the Energy Bill.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...-from-scotland

----------


## golach

> As long as we remain in the UK, we are vulnerable to having more powers being taken away from Scotland and brought back under Westminster control like with the Energy Bill.
> 
> http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...-from-scotland


Scaremongering!!!!

----------


## Rheghead

> Scaremongering!!!!


It is only scaremongering if I couldn't cite an example.  I am just merely pointing out a fact that holyrood is vulnerable to having its powers removed if we stay in the union.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Clair Ridge oilfield contains 8 billion barrels of oil. This is the big league. This will make Scotland insanely rich as an independent country.  If we stay in UK then it will be squandered on policies that Scotland didn't vote for.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-23681061


Is this the Clair oilfield west of Shetland, or the one in the Firth of Forth?

----------


## orkneycadian

> Clair Ridge is being described as the next oil boom for Scotland.  If we vote Yes then it will be used for Scotland's priorities and not squandered on David Cameron's priorities.


Clair Ridge is being described as the next oil boom for Scohetland. If we vote Yes then it will be used for Scohetland's priorities and not squandered on David CameronAlex Salmond's priorities.

----------


## orkneycadian

> All the money goes south.


Just like the SNP are proposing.....

----------


## orkneycadian

I started watching this clip and actually thought for a moment that there was someone in the yes campaign with some credibility!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28691840

At the start, he agrees that the currency issue is a problem for the Yes campaign.  That seemed quite refreshing, rather than Alex's blanket denial.  I thought for a moment that this chap might actually be someone who would be able to work through some of the issues associated with independence.

It goes a bit pear shaped at 0:57 when he suggests the problem can simply be overcome by pegging the Scottish pound, 1 to 1 with the rUK pound, but it really falls apart at 1:26 when he says that a key strength of an independent Scotland will be its ability to bring in foreign currency reserves in the form of Euros, Sterling, Deutschemarks....

Hang on - I thought we were keeping Sterling under Jim's plan and Deutschemarks?  Well, I thought that they went out in 1998 when Germany adopted the Euro....

And he started off so well.....

Does anyone know where we can buy the "What's Plan B Alex?" T Shirts that were mentioned in some of the reviews of Alex's drubbing the other night?

and where can I find the Deutschemark to Scottish Pound exchange rate?

----------


## WhiteSettler

> I am just merely pointing out a fact that holyrood is vulnerable to having its powers removed if we stay in the union.


Alex Salmond cited a few examples the other evening about food banks in Scotland yada yada and essentially claimed that these would disappear under an independent Scotland. Hold on a moment, this is the first minister for Scotland who is currently in power in Scotland and, as far as I am aware, these food banks have only started cropping up under his period of running the country. I presume he will be blaming this on Westminster and it has nothing to do with his leadership? I believe that Scotland was a far better run place before the Holyrood crowd got their fingers in the pie and I would like to see that building demolished and all decisions made in one place, for ALL. The Houses Of Parliament seem a good meeting place for all the politicians, it's large, it's instantly recognisable (so they won't get lost trying to find it), it has nice leather benches for them to sleep on and they can get a damned good lunch within walking distance for under £200 per head.

Holyrood is an eyesore and the politicians look so common, as if they have just strolled in from the local housing scheme, I hope that their powers _are_ removed when the sensible people of Scotland vote no to breaking up our wonderful union. All this referendum is about is more _power_ for a few people, namely the politicians, and has nothing to do with the welfare of the 5 million Scots living in this part of the United Kingdom. To even think that the oil is "ours" is absolutely stupid, it belongs to corporate giants such as BP, Esso, shell, to name but a few and whether Scotland is independent or not one thing is certain..... the 5 million Scots will never benefit from the oil revenue. It's big hitting, global, ruthless people who run the oil industry and you will never see a penny from it in your pocket, whoever is in power "onshore".

Scotland is so good with oil and oil refining that we, in Caithness, pay the highest price for fuel in the entire UK. If it is so plentiful up here then why don't they refine it here and then ship it south? Simple answer is that the major refineries are in England and they are not refining Scottish oil as Scottish oil wouldn't even keep all the cars in Scotland running for one day, let alone a week.  Ask yourself the same question, if there is so much Scottish oil then why can't we fill up at Scrabster, with cheap petrol, why can't we buy a litre of paraffin in town (at sensible prices)..... why is it, when there's a fuel shortage, the only place in Scotland that refines oil is Grangemouth?

You would think with all this talk of oil that Scotland would have it on tap, available for all, but the truth is that Scottish oil plays a miniscule part in the global "tank" of oil..... it's much like a bloke urinating into a bath full of water to top it up, that is Scotland's contribution on a worldwide scale and zilch to get excited about.

Has anybody yet figured out what Plan B could be? I felt a tad sorry for that poor man, he was totally out of his depth (and up against a lightweight like Alistair Darling too) I would have improvised and just shouted out:

"Plan B is the Thistle"
"Plan C is the Haggis"
"Plan D is the Kilt"
"Plan E is totally mess it up and do a runner"

It would have been a lot more interesting than no reply and I would have spent my ten minutes with Alastair discussing Plan B "The Thistle".

I cannot believe this so called "debate" was actually aired on television, let alone viewed by so many, what a cheap and nasty airing of a couple of boring people that was.

Stroll on September and bring on winter fast!

----------


## WhiteSettler

Just awaiting the ban stick for stating my opinion..... this seems to be a very pro (YES!) biased joint with a few ENGLISH weirdos fuelling the flames..........

----------


## wavy davy

> Just awaiting the ban stick for stating my opinion..... this seems to be a very pro (YES!) biased joint with a few ENGLISH weirdos fuelling the flames..........


Your original post was sound. Your views. No direct insults, no incitement to violence, no swearing. No basis for a ban there.

But, oh, the bit about ENGLISH weirdos, now that's downright RACISM and I suspect THAT might get you into a bit of trouble.

----------


## Moira

> Well Moira, I would really like to know the result of this org poll if we had all the No voting sock puppets removed from the tally who keep repeatedly getting banned for trolling and joining under another login.


Then, direct your concerns to the admin. I've only ever had one user registration

----------


## Rheghead

> Then, direct your concerns to the admin. I've only ever had one user registration


Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country?

----------


## erniesspeedshop

> Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country?


 I don't know, And I think it is too risky to try to find out. That is what Alistair Darling should have said.

----------


## golach

> Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country?


I don't think so after Tuesdays fiasco by our first haggis,  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> Alex Salmond cited a few examples the other evening about food banks in Scotland yada yada and essentially claimed that these would disappear under an independent Scotland. Hold on a moment, this is the first minister for Scotland who is currently in power in Scotland and, as far as I am aware, these food banks have only started cropping up under his period of running the country. I presume he will be blaming this on Westminster and it has nothing to do with his leadership? I believe that Scotland was a far better run place before the Holyrood crowd got their fingers in the pie and I would like to see that building demolished and all decisions made in one place, for ALL. The Houses Of Parliament seem a good meeting place for all the politicians, it's large, it's instantly recognisable (so they won't get lost trying to find it), it has nice leather benches for them to sleep on and they can get a damned good lunch within walking distance for under £200 per head.
> 
> Holyrood is an eyesore and the politicians look so common, as if they have just strolled in from the local housing scheme, I hope that their powers _are_ removed when the sensible people of Scotland vote no to breaking up our wonderful union. All this referendum is about is more _power_ for a few people, namely the politicians, and has nothing to do with the welfare of the 5 million Scots living in this part of the United Kingdom. To even think that the oil is "ours" is absolutely stupid, it belongs to corporate giants such as BP, Esso, shell, to name but a few and whether Scotland is independent or not one thing is certain..... the 5 million Scots will never benefit from the oil revenue. It's big hitting, global, ruthless people who run the oil industry and you will never see a penny from it in your pocket, whoever is in power "onshore".
> 
> Scotland is so good with oil and oil refining that we, in Caithness, pay the highest price for fuel in the entire UK. If it is so plentiful up here then why don't they refine it here and then ship it south? Simple answer is that the major refineries are in England and they are not refining Scottish oil as Scottish oil wouldn't even keep all the cars in Scotland running for one day, let alone a week.  Ask yourself the same question, if there is so much Scottish oil then why can't we fill up at Scrabster, with cheap petrol, why can't we buy a litre of paraffin in town (at sensible prices)..... why is it, when there's a fuel shortage, the only place in Scotland that refines oil is Grangemouth?
> 
> You would think with all this talk of oil that Scotland would have it on tap, available for all, but the truth is that Scottish oil plays a miniscule part in the global "tank" of oil..... it's much like a bloke urinating into a bath full of water to top it up, that is Scotland's contribution on a worldwide scale and zilch to get excited about.
> 
> Has anybody yet figured out what Plan B could be? I felt a tad sorry for that poor man, he was totally out of his depth (and up against a lightweight like Alistair Darling too) I would have improvised and just shouted out:
> ...


I can't make up my mind if you are being ironic and satirising the willful obtuseness of those on here who make much very much the same kind of anti-independence/Scottish Government/Salmond comments,  genuinely believe what you have written, or are just bored and want a debate/argument. 

If it's the first....... :: .   

If the last - Benefit levels and benefit sanctions etc are a Westminster construct, therefore the foodbanks which are a result of those policies and their implementation is not down to the Scottish Government;  

the Westminster politicians chose and contracted for the building of Holyrood.  The common people would have been quite happy with the old Royal High, which had already been prepared at great expense by Westminster in case we voted YES to devolution in 1979; 

the *oil* isn't _Scotland's_, any more than the oil belongs to the UK......but the licence/taxes etc from the oil is, or should be Scotland's. The clue is in the expression "Scottish Territorial Waters";  

Westminster sets petrol duty, and they get added to the delivery costs of companies which have to use petrol to deliver petrol to Caithness, hence the petrol/diesel prices in the North generally. It's much the same with electricity prices....since privatisation, even with the growing numbers of windmills up here, the transmission costs mean we pay one of the highest prices  for that in the UK as well;

Plan A is the pound with a Currency Union. Why would you think anyone would go into negotiations with all the options laid out for the negotiators on the other side to pick over? Plan B will logically be the pound, though perhaps not in a currency Union, and possibly only in the short/medium term....but that's just my opinion. Anyway, for anyone who can read, there is set out in various places, Plans A,B,C,D and E in no order of preference after Plan A. 

I'd prefer our own currency, and to use Sterling, one way or another in the meantime, without a Currency Union, as Ireland did......because we will _have_ to balance the books without a Lender of Last Resort.   The UK has shown that having a Lender of Last Resort is just a licence to rack up debt, print money and waste billions on paying interest to those who buy gilts..billions which, in their turn, have to be borrowed. It's a bit like taking out more and more credit cards to pay off the credit card you took out donkey's years ago to pay off a bank loan, because you couldn't afford the monthly repayments on that when your circumstances changed.

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't thinks so after Tuesdays fiasco by our first haggis,


You and Alistair darling may be prepared to do Scotland down but I won't and neither will David Cameron.

----------


## neilsermk1

> Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country?


Are you suggesting Scotland is not a successful country already ?

----------


## Murdo

Ach It'll all be fine. As our much loved PM Maggie said ' We the English, who are a marvelous people , are very generous to Scotland'

----------


## Murdo

Or as General Wolfe famously said ' We will send the Scotchmen in first. They are fearless and brave, but if they fall it will be no great mischief'.

----------


## Rheghead

> Are you suggesting Scotland is not a successful country already ?


It hasn't succeeded in getting its independence.

----------


## golach

> It hasn't succeeded in getting its independence.


And I doubt it ever will.

----------


## Rheghead

> And I doubt it ever will.


Is it the natural state of a nation to have its decisions made by another?

----------


## Mr Z

I asked a few days ago what benefits would come Scotland's way if it was to be a NO vote. The No campaigners have been very quiet to answer that one. Alistair Darling was very reserved with his answer on Tuesday night also.
A better together leaflet came through the door recently with very little to offer if we vote NO, most of what was promised should already be available in Scotland.
I feel the carrots are going stale and what should we do? Perhaps its time for a change as i'm fed up of years of nothing but lies and empty promises from Westminster.

----------


## orkneycadian

> I asked a few days ago what benefits would come Scotland's way if it was to be a NO vote.


We won't have a King Alex
We will have a currency called the pound
We will have the financial backing of the rUK
We will have the comfort of a nuclear deterrent in these times of ever increasing global tension
We will not have any membership hassles in relation to NATO or the EU
We will get to vote in the up and coming EU in/out referendum
We will be shot of this neverendum and can get back to normal life again

Just a few.  I daresay we could fill pages and pages!

----------


## Mr Z

Is that not what we already have?
I asked what new improved Scotland would we get?

----------


## Chook a demus

Question you should really ask is what is it independent Scotland want that they haven't already got.

Head of State...The Queen ...        no change 
Currency ....They want sterling .... no change 
EU they want to stay in ...             no change 
NATO ..want to stay in ...               no change
NHS... Still want it...                     no change
Defence ..  Still want it just don't want to pay 

So  bottom line is it's all about taxation money money money and not much else.  

As for the at least in and independent Scotland you'll get the government you want line, that's absolute rubbish unless they change to a proportional representation system.

----------


## erniesspeedshop

Personally I don't care if nothing changes. I think the big problem if we vote yes is the numberless vacumes that we will have that won't be filled as a priority. Such as security services like GCHQ, look what happend in Norway when they dropped the ball! When half the world has the West's demise as a goal, anything other than total and unrelenting vigilence will be punished.

----------


## Chook a demus

Whilst not personally subscribing to the impending apocalypse theory. It is well worth remembering the pains that society in this country as a whole has been through to get to where we are. We aren't oldest and most stable democracy in the world for nothing even though id be the first to admit it's not perfect. Having read a bit  of history I've learnt that blind ideology  and nationalistic  fervour generally speaking don't do countries much good.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Is that not what we already have?
> I asked what new improved Scotland would we get?


As part of the union, we are, sort of well, united....

Its not so much what Scotland gets per se, more what we get to keep.  What we will get is what the UK gets.  Like the vote on EU membership.  The SNP will not give us that, but the UK will.

I don't really see the point of Scotland being in the UK, but having devolved powers from our colleagues in the union.  Whilst some will say that devolution is a bonus, just as many will say that what the SNP do differently from Westminster is worse for them.

----------


## orkneycadian

The other side of the coin is what voting Yes will not bring us.  As the SNP keep telling us, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.  Its is also a once in a lifetime wasted opportunity to;
Put in place a robust and fit for purpose justice systemPut in place a robust "workfare" system that overcomes the pitfalls that the "welfare" system has fallen into over the last 40 yearsMake sure that the rural population of Scotland are given a fair treatment by EuropeMake sure that the urban population of Scotland can similarly escape the Euro madnessBut, we are told by the SNP / Yes camp that there will be no change (they use the word "maintain") in these areas.  So pretty much a wasted opportunity.

----------


## squidge

So to summarise the last six posts.... In response to the question what benefits Scotland will have if it remains in the union - the answer from the voices above is ..................................................  ...............................................

 exactly what it has now.  

Conveniently none of those answering said 

We will have one of the lowest pensions in the EU
Will will have a wide and varied network of foodbanks
We will have some of the the most expensive childcare in Europe
We will have to pay for prescriptions 
We will have to pay for tuition fees
We will have to pay the Bedroom tax
We will have to pay for personal care for the elderly
We will have increasing petrol prices - despite the fact we can almost wave to the guys on the rigs off the Caithness coast
We will have an increasingly insular society as immigration is curtailed and we leave europe
We will have the opportunity for fracking in Loch Lomond National Park
We will have weapons exports to some of the worlds most volatile countries
We will have the chance sit at the "Top Table" of the UN and we will get to allow the situations in Syria and Israel and Ukraine to continue
We will have the chance to wave our big scary nukes around despite the fact that EVERYONE knows we will never use them
We will have more rich people in the house of lords
We will have another Tory Government perhaps even with Boris Johnson as PM
We will have a privatised NHS
We will have fewer human rights as the next government will remove us from the ECHR


Chook says 


> So  bottom line is it's all about taxation money money money and not much else.  
> 
> As for the at least in and independent Scotland you'll get the  government you want line, that's absolute rubbish unless they change to a  proportional representation system.


And as usual completely misses the points - both of them.  For Chook it may be all about money, money,money  but for many of those who are voting yes it is about people and improving the lot of people that live in Scotland.

In addition when we say we will have the government we want - its not about having the Government that we  - each of us personally - votes for. It is about having the government that Scotland votes for.  The Government that, after all the votes are counted in Scotland, is the one we as a whole have chosen to form our government. 

Ernie talks about his worries about defence and I understand his point about the GCHQ thing, that is why I beleive and the Scottish Government beleive that we must be in NATO. An Independent Scotland WILL be in NATO and the reasons for that are that want them or not we will be sitting with nuclear weapons on the clyde for some considerable time. We also are responsibile for one of the most important corridors in the North Atlantic.  There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that NATO will leave either of those two things in the control of a country not in NATO. As part of NATO we can look for support from other members to help us over the initial development period.  I was recently talking to a Colonel who used  was the chief of Staff for North of England and Scotland and he explained to me that in his opinion career officers and soldiers from all over NATO and the commonwealth would grab at the chance to be seconded to developing a new defence force. It would be a massive opportunity and one to be grabbed with both hands.  

We have the chance to do something different but we can only do that with a YES vote because as we have seen from our friends above - without a yes vote everything stays the same until the Block Grant is reduced and they can bring us into line by preventing us using our money to help people through personal care, through prescription charges and through tuition fees to name but a few

----------


## orkneycadian

> We will have one of the lowest pensions in the EU


Only if you sit and wait for the handouts.  Providing for your own retirement will not be affected.




> Will will have a wide and varied network of foodbanks


Only if you sit and wait for the handouts.  Providing for yourself will not be affected.




> We will have some of the the most expensive childcare in Europe


Or you could look after your own kids....  




> We will have to pay for prescriptions


Just like us farmers have to pay for all the medicines for the animals we rear to put food on your table....




> We will have to pay for tuition fees


Is there any chance I can get some of this "Money for Nothing"?




> We will have to pay the Bedroom taxw


Bearing in mind that those that complain about "Bedroom Tax" don't own the Bedrooms in the first place, this is a bit rich....




> We will have to pay for personal care for the elderly


Personally, when I get to the stage where I need someone to wipe my backside, I don't expect them to do it for nothing.




> We will have increasing petrol prices - despite the fact we can almost wave to the guys on the rigs off the Caithness coast


I waved to the last oil tanker in Scapa Flow!  I think it was in February....




> We will have an increasingly insular society as immigration is curtailed and we leave europe


I think you will find that that is the "Facebook" effect....




> We will have the opportunity for fracking in Loch Lomond National Park


About time the Weegies took their share of the burden of Scotlands oil and gas....




> We will have weapons exports to some of the worlds most volatile countries


Face it.  From now on, the world is going to be a volatile hotch potch.




> We will have the chance sit at the "Top Table" of the UN and we will get to allow the situations in Syria and Israel and Ukraine to continue


As Bachman Turner Overdrive sang - "You aint seen nothing yet.   bbbbbbbaby...."




> We will have more rich people in the house of lords


I think you will find that the House of Lords has a fixed number of seats....




> We will have another Tory Government perhaps even with Boris Johnson as PM


We might, like we have at the moment, get the government we voted for.




> We will have a privatised NHS


At some point, the population needs to realise you cant get everything for nothing.




> We will have fewer human rights as the next government will remove us from the ECHR


Bring it on!  The ECHR has been the biggest charter for murderers, rapists, con-men and scroungers that ever was....




> An Independent Scotland WILL be in NATO


Do you have that in writing?  Especially after you kick them out of Faslane?




> We have the chance to do something different but we can only do that with a YES vote because as we have seen from our friends above


Thats odd.  The last time I read the SNP prospectus, it still said that much would be the same as before....

----------


## squidge

Oh Orkneycadian none of what I said honey was for you. 

I. Know you are all right jack. 

I also know that you know none of that which you slag off is free. It all is paid for. Thing is you see, that it is about how we spend our money. Do we spend it on trident or supporting people who are sick or disabled. Do we spend it on shareholders dividends for companies like G4S who singularly fail to do a proper job or on initiatives like the SG community jobs fund which does significantly better than  the Westminster programmes? Do we spend it on HS2 or on educating our young people and enabling women to return to the workforce and help build a robust economy.

 I know  you think everyone should be like you and that everyone getting a benefit is getting a handout and should be cast adrift to sink or swim or die penniless, alone and hungry without hope. I didn't realise that you also thought that a university education should be the preserve of the wealthy, that old people should have to pay for personal care even though they have paid in all their lives, and that women should stay at home where they are needed to raise their children. 

It also appears that the only people you think justify support are farmers. 

What a man you are! What a vision you have for Scotland and our future.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Oh Orkneycadian none of what I said honey was for you. 
> 
> I. Know you are all right jack. 
> 
> I also know that you know none of that which you slag off is free. It all is paid for. Thing is you see, that it is about how we spend our money. Do we spend it on trident or supporting people who are sick or disabled. Do we spend it on shareholders dividends for companies like G4S who singularly fail to do a proper job or on initiatives like the SG community jobs fund which does significantly better than  the Westminster programmes? Do we spend it on HS2 or on educating our young people and enabling women to return to the workforce and help build a robust economy.
> 
>  I know  you think everyone should be like you and that everyone getting a benefit is getting a handout and should be cast adrift to sink or swim or die penniless, alone and hungry without hope. I didn't realise that you also thought that a university education should be the preserve of the wealthy, that old people should have to pay for personal care even though they have paid in all their lives, and that women should stay at home where they are needed to raise their children. 
> 
> It also appears that the only people you think justify support are farmers. 
> ...


Try finding this information out Squidge....

"What is the average hourly rate for an agriculturaul worker (including farm owners / employers)"

When you find the answer, let us know.  And let us know what kind of militant campaign you are planning to highlight their plight, especially when you find that most of them are working for less than the legal National Minimum Wage, and probably what we would get on the dole!

And finally, let us know what your natioanl insurance number is.  Just so I can live off your kind donations!

Then, and only then, can you say that I am "alright Jack"

----------


## orkneycadian

Oh, and Squidge, please can you do some maths for me, and let me know where the tipping point is between having everyone on benefits vs everyone employed.  I thought there was a tipping point somewhere, but from your postings, I understand that its possible for everyone to be on benefits and the country still to function?

----------


## orkneycadian

Have a look at this Squidge;

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

See that blue bit in the tail fins?  Thats our share.  Alex is very keen to highlight that we are the Saltire and vice versa.  Well, this is what we have got.

Now, how do you anticipate we can deal with this >100 billion £ debt (our share), on the strength of ever increasing welfare bills, and ever decreasing oil revenues?

Summed up very well in your favourite film....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE

----------


## squidge

I absolutely know how hard farmers work and for little return but you know Orkneycadian, they - you - are t the only ones. 

Try being a carer. You get the lowest rate of any benefit, you are there often 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you often have no help, no social life, can't even think of going to work, maybe can't get time to even have a coffee with your friends. And whilst living with all this you may be watching the person you love most in the whole world suffer dreadful pain, struggle with life or even die. And then you get a demand for the bedroom tax. 


orkneycadien, I really really really wish I could make you understand that I don't want support for one part if society at the expense of another. I WANT a fairer deal for farmers, I WANT children of those who pay bigger dates if tax to get free tuition, I WANT better livelihoods for fishermen. I want our economy, our society to put all of us first... Us, people, voters, workers, farmers - not money, individual wealth or the pursuit of power and status. That is idealistic, I know that and  Independence is not a magic potion or fairy spell which will make that happen. I know that too. 

What it is however, is the opportunity to make changes to start to move to a society where people have better life chances and where society works together to maximise the potential of every single one of us, through health, welfare,education and a healthy strong vibrant economy. Without a yes vote there is no opportunity for change.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Try being a carer. You get the lowest rate of any benefit, you are there often 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you often have no help, no social life, can't even think of going to work, maybe can't get time to even have a coffee with your friends. And whilst living with all this you may be watching the person you love most in the whole world suffer dreadful pain, struggle with life or even die.


Some day, Squidge, you might grasp the concept, that farmers have to be farmers, and carers.

Carers, per se, never have to be farmers.

Farmers have family that need cared for too.  :Frown: 

I guess you have never had to juggle trying to run a farm, calf coos, lamb ewes and look after a family member.   :Frown:

----------


## squidge

None of my posts about welfare have been about increasing the welfare Bill, having a bigger welfare state or about leaving people alone to languish on benefits for their whole life. I want to drive down welfare costs, I want to move people off benefits and into work. I want people to be sanctioned if it is necessary and the right thing to do and I want people who are sick or disabled to be supported. What I don't want is what we have now, unfair, immoral, victimisation of poor people. It is possible to have a welfare system which is fair and transparent and it would save money and support people better

----------


## squidge

> Some day, Squidge, you might grasp the concept, that farmers have to be farmers, and carers.Carers, per se, never have to be farmers.Farmers have family that need cared for too. I guess you have never had to juggle trying to run a farm, calf coos, lamb ewes and look after a family member.


Then if that is your situation then I am truly sorry that you are struggling so because being a carer alone can be terrifically difficult. This is not a peeing contest about whose life is the most difficult though is it? It is about how we start to try to make lives better for all of us. If we remain as part of the union you have already said things will stay the same. That is not good enough, for me or, in my opinion for the sick, disabled, unemployed, or for farmers OR for carers. I am surprised it's good enough for you.

----------


## orkneycadian

Squidge.  Its what we have got.  If life deals you a bum hand, then you knuckle down and get on with it. Or you moan, pleep and girn, and hope that someone else deals with it for you.  

We cannot all be on the receiving end of benefits, no matter how needy we might feel.  The piggy bank just isn't big enough.  We can get all militant, spit out the dummy, go on strike, but it will not change the basic arithmetic.

----------


## squidge

You are absolutely right we can't all be on benefits. That's why we need a fairer better welfare system - and you will note I have not said bigger- that supports people into work rather than forcing them into poverty. How do you present to an employer at your best if you are hungry and living without electricity? 

You know we can change our welfare system  with one flaming email in an independent Scotland. One email which we do not have the power to send as part of the union. 

We need the control of spending and taxation to drive up growth, investment, increase our working population, push up wages, develop a highly skilled and educated workforce. We don't have those controls now. 

None of the main parties in Westminster offer anything like the opportunity do the things I mention. None.

----------


## orkneycadian

The good folkies of Caithness really need to read this....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959

Presently the headline news on the BBC website for Scotland.

Whilst I appreciate that some of you Weekers have reservations about 'e windmills, here we have the Scottish Government telling you that they want shot of anything nuclear.  Talk about a boot in the balls for Caithness! 

I trust that you will all be telling Mr Salmond what he can do with his non nuclear policies come the 18th of September.  Remember, he has the wishes of the Central Belt at heart.  Not what you Caithness folk want!

What will all you Atomics do on the 19th of September if you vote Yes?  Will there be enough windmill jobs to sustain you?  Or will you all become "Squidgettes" and go on the dole?

----------


## orkneycadian

You know, it must be really galling to hear from the Scottish Government that your work of the last 60 years or so has been in vain, and that the Scottish (SNP) Government want to flush all you efforts down the pan.  The folk of Caithness (And Orkney) have put up with all the disruption of Dounreay, not to mention the risk to life and limb if it went pop.  Now Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are telling you that you shouldn't have bothered!

Ouch!

----------


## theone

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959
> 
> Presently the headline news on the BBC website for Scotland.


That article, and part of what it contains is, I think, one of the single biggest reasons we must not vote for independence under SNP.




> The paper stresses the SNP's commitment to ensure environmental protection is at the heart of a written constitution.


and




> the Scottish government already has the powers it needs to protect the environment.


So there you have it.

The constitution of an independent Scotland, which would be decided by the SNP government currently in power.

But the SNP aren't content to allow future governments (that may not be SNP led) to decide future environmental policy. They want the SNP way etched on the constitution, a constitution that future governments must follow.

The same with including an anti-nuclear section. Who knows what the future will bring? Perhaps in 20, or 50 years time a return to nuclear power would be the best option for Scotland. Why then are they trying to force these policies into a constitution, making it significantly more difficult for future elected governments to make these decisions?

It is the SNP who currently tell us a YES vote is not a vote for a single party.

I'm sorry, but with the SNP in power at the time of a constitution, the Scottish people aren't allowing themselves the ability to determine their own future, they are being locked into SNP policies regardless of who is in power.


Of course, constitutions can be amended in future. But that is a much more difficult process than simply changing government policy (which the SNP constitution is trying to ensure). Ask Americans looking to ban guns.

----------


## squidge

If the Scottish government already has the powers it needs to protect the environment how come Westminster removed a key Scottish power over renewables when it tabled amendment 54 to the Energy Bill? Without consultation with the SG and in the House of Lords which avoids debate in the commons. Seems like we have the power to protect the environment that Westminster lets us have for as long as it allows us.

----------


## theone

So, assuming independence would allow our elected government to control policy,  why does the snp insist on getting it's policies into a binding future constitution?

----------


## gerry4

> The good folkies of Caithness really need to read this....
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959
> 
> Presently the headline news on the BBC website for Scotland.
> 
> Whilst I appreciate that some of you Weekers have reservations about 'e windmills, here we have the Scottish Government telling you that they want shot of anything nuclear.  Talk about a boot in the balls for Caithness! 
> 
> I trust that you will all be telling Mr Salmond what he can do with his non nuclear policies come the 18th of September.  Remember, he has the wishes of the Central Belt at heart.  Not what you Caithness folk want!
> ...


Never knew Westminster were trying to build a new nuclear power station in Caithness? Where did you hear this?

As no one has any plans to build one here how is this policy a kick in the teeth for caithness?

----------


## theone

> Never knew Westminster were trying to build a new nuclear power station in Caithness? Where did you hear this?
> 
> As no one has any plans to build one here how is this policy a kick in the teeth for caithness?


I think the point here is not that there's currently plans for a new build, it's that the Scottish (SNP) constitution would prevent future elected (non SNP) governments from building one.

----------


## squidge

Well theone, I have linked to the consultation on the constitution, in addition these are, you are right, these are  SNP Commitments for a Scottish Constitution. It has been made absolutely clear that the constitution will be drawn up by a cross party group which includes all parties in Scotland after a referendum, as well as members of the public and third sector organisations. The constitution will be drawn up in negotiation and with agreement. Bit of a far cry from the amendment I referred to which pulled powers back from the Scottish government on Energy policy, there was no negotiation, no consultation and no agreement on that. In fact it was not even offered for debate in the House of Commons by any MPs never mind Scottish ones.  Since when  has putting  forward your proposals  been " insisting"? Every other political party will have a role to play in drawing up a constitution. These are the SNP ones. You yourself can make your views clear now and can be part of the debate on the constitution at a variety of levels. Good luck trying that at Westminster.

----------


## theone

Come on squidge, that's not how it works and you know it.


The constitution will be discussed in the same "cross party group" manner in which current laws are discussed. By the MPS in Hollywood. 

And, as with current laws, the decision isn't met by agreement of all concerned, it is met by a majority vote.

And the SNP will have that majority vote throughout discussions on the constitution,  and indeed the share of UK assets.

----------


## Oddquine

> So, assuming independence would allow our elected government to control policy,  why does the snp insist on getting it's policies into a binding future constitution?


The constitution is an interim one, and no more set in stone than the American Constitution is. 

The Scottish Government has outlined the process which would follow a Yes vote in  September 2014, including an interim constitution which would serve as  the basis for the government of Scotland from Independence Day in March  2016, and take us through the first elections to an independent Scottish  Parliament in May 2016.  Following this election, work will begin to  craft a permanent written constitution for Scotland, involving people  from all walks of life.

----------


## squidge

> Come on squidge, that's not how it works and you know it.The constitution will be discussed in the same "cross party group" manner in which current laws are discussed. By the MPS in Hollywood. And, as with current laws, the decision isn't met by agreement of all concerned, it is met by a majority vote.And the SNP will have that majority vote throughout discussions on the constitution,  and indeed the share of UK assets.


The fact remains that this is the SNP position on the constitution. Their policies, their plans. So far none of the other parties are setting out their stall. YOU have been invited to contribute, I would urge you to do so if you haven't already. It's a bit rich to complain that the SNP are getting it all their own way when none of the other parties are saying what they propose. Give it a chance!

----------


## sam09

Her we go with the same old stories given out by the better together campaign:  The S.N.P. will do this that and the other to the detriment of Scotland`s interests.  
Why does it not sink in, that the S.N.P. will only be in Government in an Independent Scotland if we the electorate vote them in.

----------


## Oddquine

> Her we go with the same old stories given out by the better together campaign:  The S.N.P. will do this that and the other to the detriment of Scotland`s interests.  
> Why does it not sink in, that the S.N.P. will only be in Government in an Independent Scotland if we the electorate vote them in.


Because that doesn't fit the No Better Together Thanks agenda?  If they can't daemonise Alex Salmond and the SNP, what* do* they have left to say, because, to date, they have offered* no* positive reasons as to why we would want to continue as we are.

----------


## Heisenberg

> So you've just shown that the oil wells have a rich sustainable future.  120,000 barrels of oil per day for 180 years.


 


> Because that doesn't fit the No Better Together Thanks agenda?  If they can't daemonise Alex Salmond and the SNP, what* do* they have left to say, because, to date, they have offered* no* positive reasons as to why we would want to continue as we are.


we'll see what WE want after sept 18th, I think.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Yes Heisenberg, you are right. For the first time in decades, after independence we will actualty get whatever government *we* *in Scotland* decide to vote for. I think what the posters you quoted are trying to do here is to give you an alternative vision of what this debate is about, as opposed to the misinformation being fed to us by the mainstream media. The UK government, for example, appears to have made no contingency plans in the event of a Yes vote. What are they going to do with Trident? Nobody in England or Wales wants it dumped on their doorstep.What are they proposing to do with the UK government debt in the event of them refusing a currency union and Scotland not obliged, legally, to pay it's share of that debt?
We never seem to get any much needed answers from the No side. Danny Alexander refused to say what additional devolved powers the Scottish parliament would receive in the event of a No vote, in his recent BBC debate in Inverness. Is that because, according to Boris Johnston, there won't be any?

----------


## Heisenberg

QUOTE=Humerous Vegetable;1093432]Yes Heisenberg, you are right. For the first time in decades, after independence we will actualty get whatever government *we* *in Scotland* decide to vote for. I think what the posters you quoted are trying to do here is to give you an alternative vision of what this debate is about, as opposed to the misinformation being fed to us by the mainstream media. The UK government, for example, appears to have made no contingency plans in the event of a Yes vote. What are they going to do with Trident? Nobody in England or Wales wants it dumped on their doorstep.What are they proposing to do with the UK government debt in the event of them refusing a currency union and Scotland not obliged, legally, to pay it's share of that debt?We never seem to get any much needed answers from the No side. Danny Alexander refused to say what additional devolved powers the Scottish parliament would receive in the event of a No vote, in his recent BBC debate in Inverness. Is that because, according to Boris Johnston, there won't be any?[/QUOTE]Firstly, I did not mean to include the quote from rheghead in my post, it just seems to have materialised there.Secondly, I don't see why Scotland should not be liable for its share of UK debts, but that's just my opinion irrespective of how I will be voting.Its a shame that many of the more knowledgeable 'orgers' supporting the NO campaign have been silenced by banning, for what ever reason. Personally I can't be bothered with the argument anymore.

----------


## squidge

The debt question is an issue for which there is a quite clear internationally recognised procedure. The Vienna convention explains the options although it is true to say that the UK isn't a signatory. 

There are two options which are internationally recognised. First option is the one that the SNP and others in the YES camp have said is the one Scotland is expecting. We share the assets and take our share of the debt. That's not complex and it has been and remains the position of the YES campaign. 

The second is that Scotland becomes a new country and gets none of the assets and as a result none of the debt. The issue around whether Scotland takes a share of the debt has only arisen because the UK Government has set out their refusal to negotiate around assets. 

Scotland can use the pound regardless but if the UK refuse Scotland a negotiated share of a key asset then they are saying that Scotland is a new country, with none of the rights, responsibilities assets or DEBT of a continuing country. It's up to the UK which they want to happen.

Just as an aside, all those recently banned were banned for being sock puppets Heisenberg. Not for their views or their bad behaviour but - like a sock puppet is - because there was one user with maybe two or more identities. I have no problem debating with anyone as I am sure you know, but one person using several ids to skew a debate is just a bit bonkers!

----------


## Rheghead

Well Alistair Darling spent what seemed 75% of the debate with Alex salmond banging on about a currency Plan B when he could have got all the info from Mark Carney the governor of the Bank of England who has made provisions in the event of a Yes vote.  So all Darling's bluster was null and void and just scaremongering.

Even Darling has quoted that a shared currency is in the best interests of both sides.

----------


## Heisenberg

I hear what you say squidge , about sock puppets that is. But I don't think your right. I don't want to argue or debate with you, as it appears anyone who does gets banned.

----------


## golach

> I hear what you say squidge , about sock puppets that is. But I don't think your right. I don't want to argue or debate with you, as it appears anyone who does gets banned.


 I have noticed that also, strange, but hey I am owld and a Naw voter

----------


## squidge

And yet, goodness me Golach - you and Heisenberg are not banned, neither is Orkneycadian, theone, lizz, Moira, Scorrie, Phill, mi16 and on and on lol. I wonder how that happened.I have no idea who the people are, who were banned recently, however the admin stated underneath their names that they were sock puppets guys. I was disappointed and surprised to see there were so many. Its not a question of ME being right Heisenberg lol lol, I simply gave you the definition of sock puppet - that's all. Investigations and decisions were made by people much more important than me!

----------


## sam09

The Better Together side keep alluding to extra powers for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a no vote but fails to disclose them.  Lets make it quite clear, what Westminster gives Westminster can take away. Why should we here in Scotland always settle for second best when we can become a successful independent country in our own right?  We can shape our own destiny free from the shackles of Westminster, get the government that the electorate of Scotland vote for, acting in the best interests of the people of Scotland. The better together side which is lead by a failed chancellor, who did not bring the U.K. economy to its knees, but laid it firmly on its back. 

Mr. Darling avoided the question: Could Scotland be a successful Independent Country even though Mr. Cameron agreed Scotland could be.  I am just of the telephone with the Better Together campaign and asked them the same question, the answer I got was:  It is not as simple as that.  Well I am sorry, it is as simple as that.

Membership of the E.U.:  I do not agree with Mr. Salmond`s idea of this, but think that this question should be decided by the Scottish electorate in event of a yes vote.  

My opinion is: A trade agreement with the E.U.

Trident:  I would like to know who actually controls it.

The so called Top Secret nuclear site/s in Caithness, (which no side has mentioned):  What will happen to them?

I have lots of questions about Scotland`s future, both inside the U.K. and as an Independent Country but I would prefer all decisions to be made on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland and not dictated by a succession of governments we did not vote for.

The Better Together`s answer to this is:  We get the Government that the Majority of U.K. voters vote for.

Do I think there will be a yes vote:  No, because the majority of Scotland`s electorate are too gutless to go it alone.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Good post Sam09. Yes, there will be many options open to the Scottish electorate after a Yes vote, *decided by the people living, working and paying taxes in Scotland*, and not the far few living in London and the Home counties. *We * can decide what policies we want to adopt as regards the EU, Nato, the Constitution controlling how we are governed and how we want to spend our own money. That will include defending the Scottish NHS from privatization, and our free university access for Scottish students, if that's what we decide.
The point being, that we have very little control of what's happening to us now, with Westminster holding the power over our entire fiscal system, the welfare system, and control over how much of our own money they grudgingly disemburse to the Scottish parliament.
I hope you are wrong about the Scottish electorate being frightened into voting No. I have more faith in them, and think they will see through the seemingly unending scare stories from the media and the BBC. I think people are smarter than you think.

----------


## Heisenberg

> So you've just shown that the oil wells have a rich sustainable future.  120,000 barrels of oil per day for 180 years.


 


> The Better Together side keep alluding to extra powers for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a no vote but fails to disclose them.  Lets make it quite clear, what Westminster gives Westminster can take away. Why should we here in Scotland always settle for second best when we can become a successful independent country in our own right?  We can shape our own destiny free from the shackles of Westminster, get the government that the electorate of Scotland vote for, acting in the best interests of the people of Scotland. The better together side which is lead by a failed chancellor, who did not bring the U.K. economy to its knees, but laid it firmly on its back. Mr. Darling avoided the question: Could Scotland be a successful Independent Country even though Mr. Cameron agreed Scotland could be.  I am just of the telephone with the Better Together campaign and asked them the same question, the answer I got was:  It is not as simple as that.  Well I am sorry, it is as simple as that.Membership of the E.U.:  I do not agree with Mr. Salmond`s idea of this, but think that this question should be decided by the Scottish electorate in event of a yes vote.  My opinion is: A trade agreement with the E.U.Trident:  I would like to know who actually controls it.The so called Top Secret nuclear site/s in Caithness, (which no side has mentioned):  What will happen to them?I have lots of questions about Scotland`s future, both inside the U.K. and as an Independent Country but I would prefer all decisions to be made on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland and not dictated by a succession of governments we did not vote for.The Better Together`s answer to this is:  We get the Government that the Majority of U.K. voters vote for.Do I think there will be a yes vote:  No, because the majority of Scotland`s electorate are too gutless to go it alone.


or simply don't want to 'go it alone'

----------


## Heisenberg

> Good post Sam09. Yes, there will be many options open to the Scottish electorate after a Yes vote, *decided by the people living, working and paying taxes in Scotland*, and not the far few living in London and the Home counties. *We * can decide what policies we want to adopt as regards the EU, Nato, the Constitution controlling how we are governed and how we want to spend our own money. That will include defending the Scottish NHS from privatization, and our free university access for Scottish students, if that's what we decide.The point being, that we have very little control of what's happening to us now, with Westminster holding the power over our entire fiscal system, the welfare system, and control over how much of our own money they grudgingly disemburse to the Scottish parliament.I hope you are wrong about the Scottish electorate being frightened into voting No. I have more faith in them, and think they will see through the seemingly unending scare stories from the media and the BBC. I think people are smarter than you think.


 As we are presently part of the UK I think the Scottish government have quite a lot of control over fiscal matters, free education, free prescriptions etc the rest of the UK don't get the benefit of this. I think more people will be frightened and pressured into voting YES than NO. I hope you are right that people are smart enough to make the right choice. Which ever way it goes, I hope that those who backed the loosing side will concede gracefully and help to make either an independant Scotland or Scotland as part of the UK work. I feel which ever way it goes Scotland itself will need to unite, as at present it is most definitely split.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

No, it has control over the limited amount given back to them by Whitehall, under the Barnett formula. It then has decided to use this amount to prioritise the NHS and education in Scotland, as Westminster could do with it's own budget, if it so decided....but hasn't.   Why would anybody be "frightened" into voting Yes, given that all the scare spin is coming from the No side? For example - Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, yesterday made a completely calm and balanced statement that the BoE has contingency planin place in the event of a Yes vote. Today this has been spun as an "emergency" plan to scare the undecided by most of the mainstream media.Some will believe anything they read, most of us will not.

----------


## Heisenberg

> No, it has control over the limited amount given back to them by Whitehall, under the Barnett formula. It then has decided to use this amount to prioritise the NHS and education in Scotland, as Westminster could do with it's own budget, if it so decided....but hasn't.   Why would anybody be "frightened" into voting Yes, given that all the scare spin is coming from the No side? For example - Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, yesterday made a completely calm and balanced statement that the BoE has contingency planin place in the event of a Yes vote. Today this has been spun as an "emergency" plan to scare the undecided by most of the mainstream media.Some will believe anything they read, most of us will not.


Last time I looked at the figures in the Barnett formula, the limited amount given by Whitehall to the Scottish people amounts to 4% more per head than the rest of the UK population receive, I don't think this has changed. However I think that in the event of a YES vote a plan B is definitely going to be required if this http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/hu...winney-4051106 is to be believed.  Plan B really should be announced NOW.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

I have just done more Googling on your 4% figure than is sensible for a normal human being at this time of night, and can't find any reference to it anywhere. Maybe you could post a link to it? I think it has been widely documented that Scotland pays into the treasury more than it gets back, and has done for many years. If you read the Daily Record, maybe you could get them to look at 
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00419554.pdf where 5 options are listed. How many plan Bs do we need? I myself would like to hear a plan A from the No side about any factor at all concerned with Scottish independence. So far, the only message we are getting from them is that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after ourselves. How come we're too poor if Westminster is chucking this mythical extra 4% at us? Please explain, with some reliable back up, if possible.

----------


## Heisenberg

> I have just done more Googling on your 4% figure than is sensible for a normal human being at this time of night, and can't find any reference to it anywhere. Maybe you could post a link to it? I think it has been widely documented that Scotland pays into the treasury more than it gets back, and has done for many years. If you read the Daily Record, maybe you could get them to look at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00419554.pdf where 5 options are listed. How many plan Bs do we need? I myself would like to hear a plan A from the No side about any factor at all concerned with Scottish independence. So far, the only message we are getting from them is that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after ourselves. How come we're too poor if Westminster is chucking this mythical extra 4% at us? Please explain, with some reliable back up, if possible.


 http://www.scotsman.com/news/holyroo...mula-1-3018639

----------


## Heisenberg

And.....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ng-widens.html

----------


## Heisenberg

Looking at the figures quoted in these links, I think the difference is more like 20% !. ....... ....Nobody gets out what they pay in either, as things like free prescriptions and education cost the SG heavily,  giving the impression to the population that the country is poor and hard done to. When actually it is just poor management by the SG... .... ....But whilst their giving out freebies, they look fab......don't they?

----------


## squidge

You still here Heisenberg?

----------


## Heisenberg

> You still here Heisenberg?


yep, escaped the wrath so far.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I don't come on here very often nowadays, as you can tell from the number of posts I  have managed to make in the last 8 years. There are no "freebies" from any government, UK or Scottish. We pay for everything we access or consume. What we have, in limited amounts, is the ability to prioritise what we feel are important issues for the Scottish electorate - health and education. We have no control over welfare and setting the benefits agenda, except by diverting some of the budget kindly returned to us by Westminster, to mitigate some of the effects imposed upon us by the UK government. 
Thank you for your links. I forced myself to look at them, which was a hard ask, given my natural aversion to the right-wing press. I see where even the Daily Telegraph admits that "Scotland contributes more per head in taxation than the UK average".
The Scottish government has never said that we are poor and hard done by. It is saying that we are rich and hard done by. Time to change the hard done by issue on September 18 and vote Yes.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I don't come on here very often nowadays, as you can tell from the number of posts I  have managed to make in the last 8 years. There are no "freebies" from any government, UK or Scottish. We pay for everything we access or consume. What we have, in limited amounts, is the ability to prioritise what we feel are important issues for the Scottish electorate - health and education. We have no control over welfare and setting the benefits agenda, except by diverting some of the budget kindly returned to us by Westminster, to mitigate some of the effects imposed upon us by the UK government. Thank you for your links. I forced myself to look at them, which was a hard ask, given my natural aversion to the right-wing press. I see where even the Daily Telegraph admits that "Scotland contributes more per head in taxation than the UK average".The Scottish government has never said that we are poor and hard done by. It is saying that we are rich and hard done by. Time to change the hard done by issue on September 18 and vote Yes.


The Telegraph didn't 'admit' anything they reported it. Obviously if we vote yes on 18th sept we'll be paying less tax as well as having free healthcare and education then?

----------


## Rheghead

Boris Johnson is probably our next Primeminister but this is what he thinks of Scotland.

He reckons it is far more value to the country (UK) to spend a £ on Croydon from a strict utilitarian calculus than spending a £ on Strathclyde.  We have a get out of jail card called a yes vote though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUfV7GvrHY

----------


## Heisenberg

> Boris Johnson is probably our next Primeminister but this is what he thinks of Scotland.He reckons it is far more value to the country (UK) to spend a £ on Croydon from a strict utilitarian calculus than spending a £ on Strathclyde.  We have a get out of jail card called a yes vote though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUfV7GvrHY


 Vote YES then rheghead. I'll be voting NO I think.

----------


## Rheghead

Even in the event of a Yes vote, Danny Alexander has said he will campaign to work against the best interests of his own country by trying to prevent Scotland sharing the £.

----------


## Rheghead

Seemingly there is an oilfield originally discovered in 1977 on the east side of Shetland and has recently announced to have over 700 million barrels of oil in it.  No mention of it on BBC mind.

----------


## golach

> Even in the event of a Yes vote, Danny Alexander has said he will campaign to work against the best interests of his own country by trying to prevent Scotland sharing the £.


Make up your mind Rheg, what do you want, our oil or our pound, you cannot have both.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Seemingly there is an oilfield originally discovered in 1977 on the east side of Shetland and has recently announced to have over 700 million barrels of oil in it.  No mention of it on BBC mind.


Your obsessed man. Oil oil millions of oil, its all mine, mine a tell thee!

----------


## Rheghead

> Make up your mind Rheg, what do you want, our oil or our pound, you cannot have both.


It is not about me golach.  But I think we will use the £ and have the oil.  I'd rather keep it in the North Sea but I see the value to the Yes campaign when I see the No campaign trying to keep the recent oil discoveries off the indyref agenda.

----------


## golach

Does anyone else find it strange that there has been no mention from Eck or his deputy about the news of Ferguson's Shipbuilders going into administration today. According to Ms Sturgeon shipbuilding in the Clyde was going to be safe under the Snp. Vote yes and there will be more yards closing soon.

----------


## Rheghead

> Does anyone else find it strange that there has been no mention from Eck or his deputy about the news of Ferguson's Shipbuilders going into administration today. According to Ms Sturgeon shipbuilding in the Clyde was going to be safe under the Snp. Vote yes and there will be more yards closing soon.


How can the Scottish government support Ferguson when they have not got the full range of financial powers to do what is best for Scotland?  Ferguson have gone under on David Cameron's watch.

----------


## golach

> How can the Scottish government support Ferguson when they have not got the full range of financial powers to do what is best for Scotland?  Ferguson have gone under on David Cameron's watch.


Under Eck's watch Rheg, he is all wind and bluff. I thought him and his clone would be using this as propaganda, but not a peep from them, maybe they are taking their free tickets at the Tattoo, or appearing at the Stand as a comedy duo.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Seemingly there is an oilfield originally discovered in 1977 on the east side of Shetland and has recently announced to have over 700 million barrels of oil in it.  No mention of it on BBC mind.


 Recent oil discoveries you say.

----------


## Rheghead

> Recent oil discoveries you say.


No.  It was discovered in 1977 and recently announced about the true extent of it this week.  Over 700 million barrels, enough to last until 2050.

----------


## Rheghead

> Under Eck's watch Rheg, he is all wind and bluff. I thought him and his clone would be using this as propaganda, but not a peep from them, maybe they are taking their free tickets at the Tattoo, or appearing at the Stand as a comedy duo.


Do you believe that government should step in to support or subsidise businesses?

----------


## golach

> Do you believe that government should step in to support or subsidise businesses?


What Government Rheg, mine or yours?

----------


## Rheghead

> What Government Rheg, mine or yours?


I didn't specify which, I was referring to the principle of government (any government) supporting/subsidising businesses.  Do you?

----------


## golach

What is going to happen to the 27000  civil servants currently employed by the UK government in Scotland at the moment?

----------


## Rheghead

> What is going to happen to the 27000  civil servants currently employed by the UK government in Scotland at the moment?


Any chance of getting a breakdown of those 27,000?

----------


## Oddquine

> What is going to happen to the 27000  civil servants currently employed by the UK government in Scotland at the moment?



If they are employed directly by the UK Government, as opposed to the Scottish government, they will have been  employed to work in reserved UK departments, although their salaries  will already be allocated to Scotland in the accounts as identifiable  expenditure, just as the Scottish Office costs are charged to Scotland. (ie we already pay for them). An independent Scotland will undoubtedly need to have  equivalent departments for some, if not all, of those dealing with  reserved UK powers, therefore there would probably be jobs for them in  an independent Scotland.....and the tax they pay will go into Scotland's pocket and not that of Westminster.

----------


## theone

> No.  It was discovered in 1977 and recently announced about the true extent of it this week.  Over 700 million barrels, enough to last until 2050.


No.

It was announced many months ago, March I believe.

But it has made it's way onto yes campaign websites in the last week to support their new smear tactic of pretending the UK government is hiding these finds.

Clair Ridge,  and the Bentley field have been in the public domain for months and years. Nothing new. And  no great conspiracy.

----------


## Rheghead

> No.
> 
> It was announced many months ago, March I believe.
> 
> But it has made it's way onto yes campaign websites in the last week to support their new smear tactic of pretending the UK government is hiding these finds.
> 
> Clair Ridge,  and the Bentley field have been in the public domain for months and years. Nothing new. And  no great conspiracy.


No
Nowhere have I claimed the Bentley field has been kept a secret.  I just want to make it clear that the No campaign are keen to keep oil out of the debate as the evidence clearly shows that Scotland is rich with it.  

I was referring to the announcement from the Bentley oil field itself where they have upgraded their reserves significantly.  I'll even give supporting evidence to show everyone that it is a most recent announcement, 14th August.

http://www.xcite-energy.com/investor...-news/12051260

----------


## Rheghead

Here is just one example of how Alistair Darling is hoodwinking us. 


“I’ve always said Scotland could go it alone, however you’d have to cut your cloth according to your means.....I think it would be less successful and we’d be less prosperous if we left the UK, if you look at countries like Denmark you pay a lot more in tax, the amount of money that people have got to spend is less.”

But if you look at the data, the average wages in Denmark (after taxes have been taken off) are actually higher than in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_average_wage

----------


## mi16

try a night on the lager there though

----------


## theone

> No
> Nowhere have I claimed the Bentley field has been kept a secret.  I just want to make it clear that the No campaign are keen to keep oil out of the debate as the evidence clearly shows that Scotland is rich with it.  
> 
> I was referring to the announcement from the Bentley oil field itself where they have upgraded their reserves significantly.  I'll even give supporting evidence to show everyone that it is a most recent announcement, 14th August.
> 
> http://www.xcite-energy.com/investor...-news/12051260


Read your own link.

It says recoverable reserves of between 203 and 317 million barrels. History shows it'll probably land in the middle.

If you knew this, why then would you quote the 700 million barrels figure if you weren't deliberately trying to mislead the readers here?

Also, the EXACT SAME FIGURES were released here on 28 March. http://www.xcite-energy.com/assets/bentley

So no, your "evidence" does not show it to be "a most recent announcement".

Now, no, you never said the Bentley field was kept a secret. But the separatist websites promoting the find as "new" and "secret", in the same way they did Clair Ridge (with nonsense figures that you also quoted) did.

The people casting their votes deserve the truth, not lies and spin.

----------


## golach

> try a night on the lager there though


Rheghead , stay off the malts, they befuddle your brain

----------


## Rheghead

> Read your own link.
> 
> It says recoverable reserves of between 203 and 317 million barrels. History shows it'll probably land in the middle.
> 
> If you knew this, why then would you quote the 700 million barrels figure if you weren't deliberately trying to mislead the readers here?
> 
> Also, the EXACT SAME FIGURES were released here on 28 March. http://www.xcite-energy.com/assets/bentley
> 
> So no, your "evidence" does not show it to be "a most recent announcement".
> ...


No.

You read the link.  It does not say reserves between 203 and 315 million barrels.  

It says "Upgrade in 1P, 2P and 3P oil reserves for the Bentley field to 203 MMstb, 257 MMstb and 317 MMstb, respectively, effective 31 December 2013 and based on an initial 35 year production period."

You add 203+257+317= 777 million barrels in Bentley.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead , stay off the malts, they befuddle your brain


I am trying to keep this indyref debate on the facts and not on personal attacks.

----------


## golach

> I am trying to keep this indyref debate on the facts and not on personal attacks.


I consider you telling me/ us to vote yes as a personal attack, please desist.

----------


## theone

> No.
> 
> You read the link.  It does not say reserves between 203 and 315 million barrels.  
> 
> It says "Upgrade in 1P, 2P and 3P oil reserves for the Bentley field to 203 MMstb, 257 MMstb and 317 MMstb, respectively, effective 31 December 2013 and based on an initial 35 year production period."
> 
> You add 203+257+317= 777 million barrels in Bentley.


Rheg, stop, please.

You are embarrasing yourself as you obviously HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT.

1P is proven recoverable reserves in the field. 203 million.
2P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves. 257 million.
3P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves PLUS possible reserves. 317 million.

You CANNOT add 1P to 3P, as 3P already contains 1P!!!!!!

The absolute maximum recoverable oil is 3P, 317MMsb.

And that's absolutely best case. History shows real recoveries are generally much lower. Oil companies on the stock exchange like to make "best" guess figures to boost their share price.

A long way from 777 million barrels............ Nationalists maths.............

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheg, stop, please.
> 
> You are embarrasing yourself as you obviously HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT.
> 
> 1P is proven recoverable reserves in the field. 203 million.
> 2P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves. 257 million.
> 3P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves PLUS possible reserves. 317 million.
> 
> You CANNOT add 1P to 3P, as 3P already contains 1P!!!!!!
> ...


Oh please.  When you are in a hole you should stop digging.

----------


## theone

> Oh please.  When you are in a hole you should stop digging.


Yes, you really should.

----------


## Rheghead

> The Bentley Field, which is due to be drilled by Xcite Energy, has up to 777 million barrels of oil reserves, the company has revealed.


http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...rty-five-years

----------


## theone

> http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...rty-five-years


Rheghead.  There's reserves. Then there's recoverable reserves.

What part of that don't you understand?

Read up on 1P,  2P and 3P figures. YOU quoted them.

http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/mainpages/jargon.html

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead.  There's reserves. Then there's recoverable reserves.
> 
> What part of that don't you understand.
> 
> Read up on 1P,  2P and 3 figures. YOU quoted them.
> 
> http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/mainpages/jargon.html


I understand the bit that reserves become recoverable reserves when the price of oil goes up enough to make recovery viable.  You don't seem to understand that concept.

----------


## theone

> I understand the bit that reserves become recoverable reserves when the price of oil goes up enough to make recovery viable.  You don't seem to understand that concept.


I can assure you I'm well aware of that concept. 

But there's a limit to what technology can do, at any price.

I repeat, the absolute maximum RECOVERABLE oil from Bentley is 317 million barrels. That's what YOUR LINK shows. A link to an announcement to the stock exchange that the oil company is legally bound to ensure it is accurate.

That's what's been proven there and is recoverable, what should be there and is recoverable and what might be there and recoverable all added together.

How many fields, in the history of oil production, have achieved over 50% of total reserves recovered?

----------


## Rheghead

> How many fields, in the history of oil production, have achieved over 50% of total reserves recovered?


I wouldn't know and I am not googling it for you.

But last week you were trying to play down the Clair Ridge reserves by saying that the reserves of 8 billion barrels could only yield less than 300 million barrels.  Even if a low estimate of 10% of that 8 billion can can recoverable then it could yield 800 billion barrels.  But oh no, you refused to entertain the thought that there was a boom of oil at Clair Ridge because it doesn't fit your agenda.

----------


## theone

> I wouldn't know and I am not googling it for you.
> 
> But last week you were trying to play down the Clair Ridge reserves by saying that the reserves of 8 billion barrels could only yield less than 300 million barrels.  Even if a low estimate of 10% of that 8 billion can can recoverable then it could yield 800 billion barrels.  But oh no, you refused to entertain the thought that there was a boom of oil at Clair Ridge because it doesn't fit your agenda.


Google it not for me, but for yourself, perhaps you will become less ignorant of oil production and maybe willing to admit when you are mistaken or wrong.

The definition of a boom can be wide ranging and open to interpretation. Speculate as you wish.

The figures discussed on Clair Ridge were not my own. They are those of BP.

BP have said there's 8 billion barrels there, but that the reservoir is highly fractured and extremely complicated,  hence why the new Clair Ridge platform will only produce somewhere less than 300 million barrels.

There's been no lies from me. No spin. Only statement of facts. Regardless of "my agenda".

Ask me to prove or explain any of my figures (as I've offered many times) and I will. But unfortunately you don't want clarification or truth, because unfortunately it doesn't suit YOUR agenda.

Anyone reading this thread will see you have made numerous nonsensical claims and assumption,  the majority of which I have proven to be so. If you don't accept this, again, feel free to ask, I'll put you right using real facts. I doubt you will.

----------


## Rheghead

> Google it not for me, but for yourself, perhaps you will become less ignorant of oil production and maybe willing to admit when you are mistaken or wrong.
> 
> The definition of a boom can be wide ranging and open to interpretation. Speculate as you wish.
> 
> The figures discussed on Clair Ridge were not my own. They are those of BP.
> 
> BP have said there's 8 billion barrels there, but that the reservoir is highly fractured and extremely complicated,  hence why the new Clair Ridge platform will only produce somewhere less than 300 million barrels.
> 
> There's been no lies from me. No spin. Only statement of facts. Regardless of "my agenda".
> ...


Oh your tone has suddenly changed.  You are getting desperate now.  I only have links and sources to prove you wrong.

----------


## Rheghead

The UK government have thrown £7 billion of investment at Clair Ridge oilfield.

Nothing to see here, move along!!!

----------


## theone

> Oh your tone has suddenly changed.  You are getting desperate now.  I only have links and sources to prove you wrong.


My tone hasn't changed. Yours certainly has.

What sources prove me wrong?

----------


## theone

> The UK government have thrown £7 billion of investment at Clair Ridge oilfield.
> 
> Nothing to see here, move along!!!


Really? 

Can we have some proof?

----------


## Rheghead

> My tone hasn't changed. Yours certainly has.
> 
> What sources prove me wrong?


The numerous sources that prove that Clair Ridge and Bentley have more oil than the No campaign are prepared to make an indyref issue.  In fact I've never seen anything from the No campaign that says they are proud to extract the natural resources from Scotland for the betterment for the rest of the UK.  Instead, we are continually being fed a down rated version of what is out there in the North Sea and West of Shetland.  

In fact, it is only a few weeks ago that the No campaign was trying to say that the curse of oil was actually in the worse interests of an independent Scotland.  It is the first time in history that the discovery of oil is bad news for the country.

----------


## Rheghead

> Really? 
> 
> Can we have some proof?


Beg pardon

It is £4.5 billion investment.  The report i was reading says in dollars.  Even so, my point still stands, Clair Ridge is the future.

----------


## theone

> Beg pardon
> 
> It is £4.5 billion investment.  The report i was reading says in dollars.  Even so, my point still stands, Clair Ridge is the future.


Correct. Dollars not pounds.

But you made two lies in one sentence.

The UK government hasn't invested one penny.

----------


## squidge

No matter what anybody says, there is a shed load of oil still to be recovered and a shed load of oil which we have the ability to recover NOW and are likely to be able to recover with technological advances in the future. Time will tell whether we are having the wool pulled over our eyes about how big or how lucrative Scotland's oil fields are. Westminster have form on this. Recently Dennis Healey explained how WM lied about oil in the 70s and the McCrone report was only released after a Freedom of Information request so it is understandable that many many people are prepared to believe that there are some sort of shenanigans going on right now. Whatever the ins and outs of it all, whether Clair Ridge is massive or massively massive, whether there is oil off the west coast which we haven't been able to develop or not - Scotland is well able to afford it's independence. There is no doubt about that at all.

----------


## Rheghead

> Correct. Dollars not pounds.
> 
> But you made two lies in one sentence.
> 
> The UK government hasn't invested one penny.


I didn't say there that the UK government made investment.  I conceded in the other post last week your point.  But the point has been made.  £4.5 billion has been invested in Clair Ridge.  You tried to convince us that it is negligible.  Small potatoes.

----------


## Rheghead

> No matter what anybody says, there is a shed load of oil still to be recovered and a shed load of oil which we have the ability to recover NOW and are likely to be able to recover with technological advances in the future. Time will tell whether we are having the wool pulled over our eyes about how big or how lucrative Scotland's oil fields are. Westminster have form on this. Recently Dennis Healey explained how WM lied about oil in the 70s and the McCrone report was only released after a Freedom of Information request so it is understandable that many many people are prepared to believe that there are some sort of shenanigans going on right now. Whatever the ins and outs of it all, whether Clair Ridge is massive or massively massive, whether there is oil off the west coast which we haven't been able to develop or not - Scotland is well able to afford it's independence. There is no doubt about that at all.


Exactly squidge.  theone will claim victory on tripping me up on minor details.

----------


## theone

> The numerous sources that prove that Clair Ridge and Bentley have more oil than the No campaign are prepared to make an indyref issue.  In fact I've never seen anything from the No campaign that says they are proud to extract the natural resources from Scotland for the betterment for the rest of the UK.  Instead, we are continually being fed a down rated version of what is out there in the North Sea and West of Shetland.  
> 
> In fact, it is only a few weeks ago that the No campaign was trying to say that the curse of oil was actually in the worse interests of an independent Scotland.  It is the first time in history that the discovery of oil is bad news for the country.


What sources?

The only people who have an idea of how much oil is in Clair Ridge and Bentley are the companies who have explored, drilled, and are developing the reservoirs. 

Companies trying to make money. Companies who want to raise their share prices. Companies whose share price would rise with higher published reserves.

But you suggest pro independence websites who know little of oil extraction know better. That it's a great conspiracy.  That these companies, who operate all over the world, are hiding their oil. To the detriment of their share price.........


The fact is the No campaign have no control over these figures. Indeed most of the figures quoted by yourself have been in the public domain for months and years, but are only being banded around now by the yes campaign because they are losing public support on financial issues after the TV debate. 


Again. I challenge you. What statements have I made are wrong or confusing?

----------


## theone

> I didn't say there that the UK government made investment.  I conceded in the other post last week your point.  But the point has been made.  £4.5 billion has been invested in Clair Ridge.  You tried to convince us that it is negligible.  Small potatoes.


ARE YOU SERIOUS???????

Less than 1 hour ago you said this:




> The UK government have thrown £7 billion of investment at Clair Ridge oilfield.
> 
> Nothing to see here, move along!!!


So yes, you DID say the UK government made investment.

----------


## theone

> No matter what anybody says, there is a shed load of oil still to be recovered and a shed load of oil which we have the ability to recover NOW and are likely to be able to recover with technological advances in the future. Time will tell whether we are having the wool pulled over our eyes about how big or how lucrative Scotland's oil fields are. .................................. Whatever the ins and outs of it all, whether Clair Ridge is massive or massively massive, whether there is oil off the west coast which we haven't been able to develop or not - Scotland is well able to afford it's independence. There is no doubt about that at all.


I agree with all you've said that I've quoted squidge.

I've given up trying to persuade people to my point of view on the referendum, let people decide on their own, based on the truth available.

What I don't believe in in lies, spin, denial and deception from either side.

Which is exactly what Rheghead is spouting with regards to Clair Ridge/Bentley on this forum.

A shame really, because his positive, founded arguments on other subjects such as renewables are degraded by his unwillingness or inability to admith he is wrong on subjects he is ignorant about, such as oil.

----------


## Rheghead

> ARE YOU SERIOUS???????
> 
> Less than 1 hour ago you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, you DID say the UK government made investment.


Oh my goodness, you are right, me bad.  

the fact remains that there has been £4.5 billion investment into Clair Ridge when you claimed it was no major thing.  Fact is that the UK has to make major tax incentives to allow that investment to take place.  Incentives and subsidies means that the UK tax payers foots the bill.  Same as the UK pays.

Why don't you rejoice that your country is in a fantastic position in the world?  It is in a historic position wrt the referendum but it is mega rich if it went independent?  Or do find solice in doing Scotland down?  ::  ::

----------


## theone

> Oh my goodness, you are right, me bad.


Not your first on this subject. I wonder if it was indeed amistake or an atempt to let your lies slip through unchallenged.




> the fact remains that there has been £4.5 billion investment into Clair Ridge when you claimed it was no major thing.


I never claimed it was no major thing. A big investment indeed. I only challenged your claim it would make us "rinsanely rich"





> Fact is that the UK has to make major tax incentives to allow that investment to take place.  Incentives and subsidies means that the UK tax payers foots the bill.  Same as the UK pays.


NO THIS IS NOT A FACT.

Your knowledge on taxation appears to be as poor as that of oil extraction.

There is NO subsidy on oil exploration. The government (taxpayer) does not pay ONE PENNY to the oil companies. NO SUBSIDY.

The incentive is "no tax before investment returned". Tax that would not be payed if the field wasn't developed. SO THERE IS NO BILL TO BE FOOTED.




> .
> Why don't you rejoice that your country is in a fantastic position in the world?  It is in a historic position wrt the referendum but it is mega rich if it went independent?  Or do find solice in doing Scotland down?


I acknowledge it is in an historic position.

But I don't believe it would be mega rich with independence. See previous posts...............

----------


## squidge

Do we need to be mega rich? I truly don't think so, although (in much the same way as I think about a lottery win) it would be nice  :Smile:  What we need is the ability to choose our own priorities, the ability to decide how we spend our money, and the freedom to choose to follow the direction that suits us, Scotland. We can do these things with a Independence with or without oil bonanzas.

----------


## theone

> Do we need to be mega rich? I truly don't think so, although (in much the same way as I think about a lottery win) it would be nice  What we need is the ability to choose our own priorities, the ability to decide how we spend our money, and the freedom to choose to follow the direction that suits us, Scotland. We can do these things with a Independence with or without oil bonanzas.


And if that's your argument for independence squide, it is a noble one.

I chose to go the other way. Mainly because I don't see any better argument for defining "WE" as the border south of berwick than "WE" on this big island, or indeed "WE" within the border between Reay and somewhere south of Dunbeath.

Obvious lies, deceit, ignorance, confusion and spin are not so noble. Other Yes (and I'm sure, No) supporters on the org could learn a lot from you

----------


## squidge

Jeezo theone, I'm not 'noble'.  

My argument for Independence is  a pragmatic one. I know our society needs to change and over the years I have tried through a variety of paid work, voluntary work, support for Individuals, voting for change, speaking out where I see things that are wrong and immoral. I have tried to make a difference and I HAVE done so on an individual basis and in a small way but here we are - nothing has changed really. I haven't made one iota of difference to society as a whole.

 So,  WM is not changing, the direction of travel is further away from the things I believe in, the things that matter to me and to many others. And then here we are, we have the chance to make a change. A huge change, the opportunity to write our future the way we want to. We - Scotland - have that chance. I have had to accept that I cannot change WM with my vote or my voice, and you know, if you keep trying to make changes that need to be made and no one is listening, there comes a point where you have to make the changes and SHOW people what can be achieved. 

I believe that is what independence will do. There is no opportunity for change within the UK. None. All the parties are singing the same song. Only with a YES vote do we have the chance to make the changes that need to be made. Whether we do that or not is up to us, setting priorities, spending wisely, holding politicians to account, putting people at the heart of our politics. It'll be hard work and we will get it wrong sometimes but we have the opportunity and that opportunity is lacking as part of the UK. 

That's what I believe, it's not some "noble cause' theone lol. It's the logical decision for someone who sees the need for something better and fairer.

----------


## theone

Haha, careful, I said your argument was noble.

For the record, I never once said you were noble ;-)

----------


## golach

> Jeezo theone, I'm not 'noble'.  My argument for Independence is  a pragmatic one. I know our society needs to change and over the years I have tried through a variety of paid work, voluntary work, support for Individuals, voting for change, speaking out where I see things that are wrong and immoral. I have tried to make a difference and I HAVE done so on an individual basis and in a small way but here we are - nothing has changed really. I haven't made one iota of difference to society as a whole. So,  WM is not changing, the direction of travel is further away from the things I believe in, the things that matter to me and to many others. And then here we are, we have the chance to make a change. A huge change, the opportunity to write our future the way we want to. We - Scotland - have that chance. I have had to accept that I cannot change WM with my vote or my voice, and you know, if you keep trying to make changes that need to be made and no one is listening, there comes a point where you have to make the changes and SHOW people what can be achieved. I believe that is what independence will do. There is no opportunity for change within the UK. None. All the parties are singing the same song. Only with a YES vote do we have the chance to make the changes that need to be made. Whether we do that or not is up to us, setting priorities, spending wisely, holding politicians to account, putting people at the heart of our politics. It'll be hard work and we will get it wrong sometimes but we have the opportunity and that opportunity is lacking as part of the UK. That's what I believe, it's not some "noble cause' theone lol. It's the logical decision for someone who sees the need for something better and fairer.


Yawn, what a load of rubbish,  I know your a clever woman Squidge, but in my opinion your living in a make believe world, independence will not work.

----------


## squidge

> Haha, careful, I said your argument was noble.For the record, I never once said you were noble ;-)


Phew thank goodness for that.  I was awful sure you were gonna be disappointed.!

----------


## squidge

> Yawn, what a load of rubbish,  I know your a clever woman Squidge, but in my opinion your living in a make believe world, independence will not work.


G

Golach you are as ever, constructive in your feedback and say absolutely nothing of any use at all. Let's see if we can pin you down. Which bit won't work? All of it? 

You have said previously that no one in Scotland has the intellectual capacity, the experience or the ability to run our country and yet you put your faith in a bunch of people who have no real world experience. Nothing like you have, nothing like I have.  I think it is you who is living in a make believe world. Show me where the opportunity to change things is just now Golach? Prove me wrong. 

Show me how you and I can influence what WM decides over defence, taxation, social policy, welfare? Show me how voting NO will improve life expectancy, reduce inequality, Show me how voting no makes us a better fairer place to live. Please. I'm not a nationalist of the heart Golach, I don't believe fundamentally that I need Scotland to be independent. So show me how the things I believe in can be achieved as part of the union. On ya go.

----------


## golach

> GGolach you are as ever, constructive in your feedback and say absolutely nothing of any use at all. Let's see if we can pin you down. Which bit won't work? All of it?  IYou have said previously that no one in Scotland has the intellectual capacity, the experience or the ability to run our country and yet you put your faith in a bunch of people who have no real world experience. Nothing like you have, nothing like I have.  I think it is you who is living in a make believe world. Show me where the opportunity to change things is just now Golach? Prove me wrong. Show me how you and I can influence what WM decides over defence, taxation, social policy, welfare? Show me how voting NO will improve life expectancy, reduce inequality, Show me how voting no makes us a better fairer place to live. Please. I'm not a nationalist of the heart Golach, I don't believe fundamentally that I need Scotland to be independent. So show me how the things I believe in can be achieved as part of the union. On ya go.


All of it!!! I am not changing and I see no reason telling you why, I am a No voter  for ever

----------


## squidge

Oh Golach  I know THAT. I am not trying to change your mind - I might as well plait fog! But neither am I telling you that your opinions and beliefs are rubbish. You DO know we can disagree but still accept each other's point of view don't you. I am sure you can't have got to your wise old age and not know that and yet, sadly not for the first time, you just choose to be rude. I know my reasons are not yours, I know my reasons are different from loads of folk - yes, no, don't know - but what gives you the right to say my reasons are rubbish whilst saying yours cannot be challenged? If you think my reasons are rubbish then let's hear you offer ME an alternative view. Otherwise,  in the words of that immortal creature "Thumper" (from Disney's  Bambi) if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all  :Smile:

----------


## Heisenberg

> All of it!!! I am not changing and I see no reason telling you why, I am a No voter  for ever


 I will always keep an open mind, open to new ideas, I think people should always be willing to switch allegiance, and able to admit when they were following  the wrong ideals. So what I would say is 'i will be voting NO as so far the argument for independance is too week to change my mind' .

----------


## golach

> Oh Golach  I know THAT. I am not trying to change your mind - I might as well plait fog! But neither am I telling you that your opinions and beliefs are rubbish. You DO know we can disagree but still accept each other's point of view don't you. I am sure you can't have got to your wise old age and not know that and yet, sadly not for the first time, you just choose to be rude. I know my reasons are not yours, I know my reasons are different from loads of folk - yes, no, don't know - but what gives you the right to say my reasons are rubbish whilst saying yours cannot be challenged? If you think my reasons are rubbish then let's hear you offer ME an alternative view. Otherwise,  in the words of that immortal creature "Thumper" (from Disney's  Bambi) if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all


Oh its sad Squidge, you ask me what my reasons for not voting yes, and when I tell you in the shortest way possible,( because I am not long winded unlike some)  you call me rude, maybe I was too blunt for you, but my mind is not for changing, I see no reason to break up our nation, its as plain as that.

----------


## Gronnuck

> All of it!!! I am not changing and I see no reason telling you why, I am a No voter  for ever


In all the threads on this subject *golach* I don't recall you presenting a coherent arguement why we should vote no.  *squidge* has covered a variety of subject areas and issues and consistently presented eloquent arguements for a yes vote.  Yet I admit to being a first class cynic.  All you appear to have done is present negatve bluster and feign boredom.
I'm undecided; a fence-sitter and I've scoured the media but a lot of what I see is squabbling, both petty and quite vicious.
So* golach* tell me why I should vote no.

----------


## golach

> In all the threads on this subject *golach* I don't recall you presenting a coherent arguement why we should vote no.  *squidge* has covered a variety of subject areas and issues and consistently presented eloquent arguements for a yes vote.  Yet I admit to being a first class cynic.  All you appear to have done is present negatve bluster and feign boredom.I'm undecided; a fence-sitter and I've nscoured the media but a lot of what I see is squabbling, both petty and quite vicious.So* golach* tell me why I should vote no.


Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.

----------


## Gronnuck

> Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.


So am I right in thinking you're not taking part in this debate?

----------


## squidge

> Oh its sad Squidge, you ask me what my reasons for not voting yes, and when I tell you in the shortest way possible,( because I am not long winded unlike some)  you call me rude, maybe I was too blunt for you, but my mind is not for changing, I see no reason to break up our nation, its as plain as that.


I did NOT ask you for your reasons Golach. I explained mine and you rudely told me they were rubbish and make believe. I asked you to explain to me where I was wrong and why my reasons are rubbish. I simply asked you to  prove me wrong. There is no point in trying to persuade you or even explore with you what your reasons are. I respect that. But what you said was my reasons are rubbish and so I think it is acceptable to ask you to tell me why you think that. That may not be the same as your own reasons for voting No and thats ok but to say im talking rubbish and not tell me why is a bit of a cheek.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.


Nobody could accuse you of ever sifting anything at all, which is probably why your argument, if you even had one, would be as full of lumps as the rest of U Kok's weird political porridge. Why not debate your reasons for staying in the Union? Have you actually got any, apart from credulity and fear of something else?

----------


## Gronnuck

> Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.


I have to ask you *golach* why have you bothered to post anything on any of the independent threads?  Its not as if youve contributed anything to the discussion is it? 
I will admit my first thoughts were No, never but over time Ive opened my mind, read and listened to both sides of the arguement.  Im still sitting on the fence because the No Campaign have not revealed anything new and innovative to hold me.  300 years and more of the same old-same old is no longer good enough.  I was hoping you would be able to help enlighten me.

----------


## Rheghead

> NO THIS IS NOT A FACT.
> 
> Your knowledge on taxation appears to be as poor as that of oil extraction.
> 
> *There is NO subsidy on oil exploration. The government (taxpayer) does not pay ONE PENNY to the oil companies.* NO SUBSIDY.
> 
> The incentive is "no tax before investment returned". Tax that would not be payed if the field wasn't developed. SO THERE IS NO BILL TO BE FOOTED.





> The chancellor said in his budget statement: "We will end the uncertainty over decommissioning tax relief that has hung over the industry for years by entering into a contractual approach ... *We are also introducing new allowances including a £3bn new field allowance for large and deep fields to open up west of Shetland,* the last area of the basin left to be developed."


http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/m...l-industry-tax

And once again, you have been caught out to be unequivocally misleading the members of this forum.

----------


## theone

> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/m...l-industry-tax7
> 
> And once again, you have been caught out to be unequivocally misleading the members of this forum.


Haha, open your eyes and read the first sentence in your link.

A "3 billion pound tax break".

A tax break is not a subsidy. Not a penny leaves the treasury to go to the oil companies. The companies receive the tax break on future profits from the oil. Hence why (I've already told you) Clair Ridge won't start paying for 7 years or so.

No misleading on my behalf Rheghead.

----------


## Rheghead

> Haha, open your eyes and read the first sentence in your link.
> 
> A "3 billion pound tax break".
> 
> A tax break is not a subsidy. Not a penny leaves the treasury to go to the oil companies. The companies receive the tax break on future profits from the oil. Hence why (I've already told you) Clair Ridge won't start paying for 7 years or so.
> 
> No misleading on my behalf Rheghead.





> Tax subsidy
> 
> Government can create exactly the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the tax code is so complicated.


A tax break is a subsidy.  If I wanted to build a house that cost £100,000 and the government came along gave me a £50,000 tax break next year so I could build it then that is as good as the government giving me £50,000.  It also means that the government is going to have to tax something else to recoup the loss, same as if they had given me the money.

Just face it, the Clair Ridge oilfield is huge.  The big green blob west of Shetland is far bigger than any of the rest.

----------


## theone

> A tax break is a subsidy.  If I wanted to build a house that cost £100,000 and the government came along gave me a £50,000 tax break next year so I could build it then that is as good as the government giving me £50,000.  It also means that the government is going to have to tax something else to recoup the loss, same as if they had given me the money.
> 
> Just face it, the Clair Ridge oilfield is huge.  The big green blob west of Shetland is far bigger than any of the rest.


There's a flaw in that comparison.

Because the government isn't making any "loss" by giving the tax break. If the field is undeveloped,  it gets no tax. Normal tax rates make it uneconomical to develop. Therefore reducing the normal tax rate is the only way to receive ANY tax.

It's not a case of "paying up front".

On your second point, not once have I said Clair Ridge isn't a  huge field. I just argued it will not make us "insanely rich" and provided the real production figures as opposed to trapped reserves.

----------


## catz2

Warning from History - SNP are like the Nazis not listening to no one - Alex Salmond - Hitler, Nicola Sturgeon - Goebbels,  John Swinney - Goering, Kenny Macaskill - Himmler, Alex Neil - Mengele etc., NHS having problems, Police havings problems , Local Authorities having problems. SNP thinks the the golden bullet - Oil, thats not going to last, overwriting decisions against local councils and the general public on windfarms etc., also what it the atcual costs of setting up new services - Own Passports Services, DVLA, Welfare System, the list goes on.  I can also see the amalgamation of the call centres ie combine the police, ambulance, nhs and fire service into one.  Due away with local authorities and run direct from Edinburgh

----------


## squidge

Oh dear God Almighty. More nazi similies. Can't imagine where I've seen that before.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Oh dear God Almighty. More nazi similies. Can't imagine where I've seen that before.


I don't think it was me

----------


## Shabbychic

> Warning from History - SNP are like the Nazis not listening to no one - Alex Salmond - Hitler, Nicola Sturgeon - Goebbels,  John Swinney - Goering, Kenny Macaskill - Himmler, Alex Neil - Mengele etc., NHS having problems, Police havings problems , Local Authorities having problems. SNP thinks the the golden bullet - Oil, thats not going to last, overwriting decisions against local councils and the general public on windfarms etc., also what it the atcual costs of setting up new services - Own Passports Services, DVLA, Welfare System, the list goes on.  I can also see the amalgamation of the call centres ie combine the police, ambulance, nhs and fire service into one.  Due away with local authorities and run direct from Edinburgh


Well jings, crivens and help ma boab......we better all join the Nawbags then!!!!!

----------


## sam09

One simple fact that has not been mentioned is that all powers that The Scottish Parliament are devolved powers and that means just that -  Devolved, and any powers devolved can be taken away by Westminster at any time.

----------


## Heisenberg

> One simple fact that has not been mentioned is that all powers that The Scottish Parliament are devolved powers and that means just that -  Devolved, and any powers devolved can be taken away by Westminster at any time.


Hi sam09, are you trying to say, that, in the event of a successful NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away? If so upon what facts are you basing this argument?

----------


## sam09

Heisenberg, Read my post (it is not on Police Scotland) "can" and I meant just that. Devolved powers are just that "Devolved Powers" and can be taken away by Westminster at any time.  Can you say that the powers that are devolved will not be taken away?  Or further diluted by budget restraints?

----------


## Heisenberg

> Heisenberg, Read my post (it is not on Police Scotland) "can" and I meant just that. Devolved powers are just that "Devolved Powers" and can be taken away by Westminster at any time.  Can you say that the powers that are devolved will not be taken away?  Or further diluted by budget restraints?


Wow sam09, you've totally lost me, who mentioned Police Scotland? I can't say what will happen either way, I am not a politician, nor as far as I believe are any other orgers, unless you know better...............?

----------


## sam09

Heisenberg, What points were you trying to score this time?  Devolved Powers ARE just that, Devolved and CAN be taken away by Westminster at any time and in many ways, such as cutting the budget allocation to the Scottish Government.
I did not say "in event of a successful no vote" you did.

The vote that we the Scottish Electorate have is the first vote we have had to shape Scotland`s future in 2014 years.  We did not have a vote for the Treaty of Union,  (before that we just did not have a vote) we did not have a vote on joining the E.U. 


When it comes to Police Scotland, if the cap fits wear it.  Are you not the same Heisenberg that posts on the Police Scotland forum?  I have read these post and found them very entertaining.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Heisenberg, What points were you trying to score this time?  Devolved Powers ARE just that, Devolved and CAN be taken away by Westminster at any time and in many ways, such as cutting the budget allocation to the Scottish Government.I did not say "in event of a successful no vote" you did.The vote that we the Scottish Electorate have is the first vote we have had to shape Scotland`s future in 2014 years.  We did not have a vote for the Treaty of Union,  (before that we just did not have a vote) we did not have a vote on joining the E.U. When it comes to Police Scotland, if the cap fits wear it.  Are you not the same Heisenberg that posts on the Police Scotland forum?  I have read these post and found them very entertaining.


 Again sam09 you amaze me with your lack of knowledge, and assumptions, I did not realise there was an on going competition where points were being awarded, I may have tried harder. I'm glad you found the posts on police Scotland forum amusing, sadly its not me. I'm sure if you ask squidge she will fill you in on the time frames involved, and what the referendum is actually about, as I can't be bothered with you. I do however await your next post, purely for my own sad amusement you understand.

----------


## sam09

O.k. Heisenberg just for your sad amusement. You think I am wrong, in what may I ask?  Devolved means just that, "devolved" and can be taken away at the whim of Westminster in more ways than one. Such as  cutting the budget allocation. 

The referendum to put it simply so that even you can understand it:  Is: in the event of a YES vote for all decisions on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland by the Government that the Scottish electorate vote in to serve us.

----------


## Heisenberg

> O.k. Heisenberg just for your sad amusement. You think I am wrong, in what may I ask?  Devolved means just that, "devolved" and can be taken away at the whim of Westminster in more ways than one. Such as  cutting the budget allocation. The referendum to put it simply so that even you can understand it:  Is: in the event of a YES vote for all decisions on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland by the Government that the Scottish electorate vote in to serve us.


 I didn't say you were wrong, I said you have a lack of knowledge and were making assumptions. If you could tell me how the points system works and what the score is, am I winning or loosing?

----------


## Murdo

Does it really matter if there are a few barrels of oil more or less either way ?, does it matter if we are going to be a few £ either way better or worse off?. Scotland is a wee country with good resources,a skilled workforce, a good reputation in the world, and given the opportunity , could , in time, produce a fairer society with a bit more even distribution of wealth-- vote no and you accept more of the same; vote yes and at least you have the courage to hope for something better.

----------


## Murdo

And of course Heisenberg,he of the well known uncertainty principle, is someone to rely on for definitive answers.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Good post, Murdo. Calm, reflective comments in a increasingly desperate onslaught from the unionists. Still no positive vision for a future Scotland, following their leader's hammering the other night, though. What are the measures being devolved to the Scottish parliament this weird collaboration of Scottish Labour, LibDems Tories and Ukip are promising if we vote no?

----------


## sam09

> I didn't say you were wrong, I said you have a lack of knowledge and were making assumptions. If you could tell me how the points system works and what the score is, am I winning or loosing?


Heisenberg. (The defective would be detective)  So I am not wrong, that makes me right. So where does the lack of knowledge come in ? By the way "losing" is spelt thus.  I still fail to see what point you are trying to make, if I am right in what I say then where is is assumption ? 

I agree with what Murdo has posted but I honestly think that the majority of the electorate are too gutless to vote YES and we will end up with more of the same.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Hi sam09, are you trying to say, that, in the event of a successful NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away? If so upon what facts are you basing this argument?


 Hi sam09, I have gone right back to my original question and reposted it, and await a clear answer. The lack of knowledge of the subject is just that. The assumption, you assumed I was another.  As for spelling mistakes, well to point this out is just typical of those losing an argument, to try make themselves look better than there opponent. As we are not arguing, this does not apply, if we were arguing, and I needed to look better than my opponent, I might bring into question the very poor grammar and also spelling of my opponent, as we aren't, I won't.

----------


## sam09

> Hi sam09, I have gone right back to my original question and reposted it, and await a clear answer. The lack of knowledge of the subject is just that. The assumption, you assumed I was another.  As for spelling mistakes, well to point this out is just typical of those losing an argument, to try make themselves look better than there opponent. As we are not arguing, this does not apply, if we were arguing, and I needed to look better than my opponent, I might bring into question the very poor grammar and also spelling of my opponent, as we aren't, I won't.


Dear me Heisenberg once again you fail to read my post I said "can be taken away" I did not say:  would be.  For once in your life pay attention.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Dear me Heisenberg once again you fail to read my post I said "can be taken away" I did not say:  would be.  For once in your life pay attention.


 Sorry Sir, maybe you should actually read mine, and yours come to think of it. I did not say you said it 'would' I said 'may'.  You do have quite the attitude, don't you.  This is where you would say "read with your eyes, not your mouth".

----------


## sam09

> Sorry Sir, maybe you should actually read mine, and yours come to think of it. I did not say you said it 'would' I said 'may'.  You do have quite the attitude, don't you.  This is where you would say "read with your eyes, not your mouth".


I love the banter with you Heisenberg.  You do not give in do you.  You said I was not wrong and then you go on to question it.  Where was I making any assumption ? I was stating a fact. Devolved powers can be taken away at anytime by Westminster.  I did not say that they may be taken away.  It was you that made that assumption.  I ask you:  Why you would make that assumption?  Also why we should accept devolved powers that could be taken away, when with a yes vote, we here in Scotland would ensure that all decisions made on Scotland`s future would be made here in Scotland by a Goverment elected by the electorate here in Scotland?  Incidently I did not say anywhere "in the event of a NO vote any powers now has, may be taken away"

----------


## Heisenberg

> I love the banter with you Heisenberg.  You do not give in do you.  You said I was not wrong and then you go on to question it.  Where was I making any assumption ? I was stating a fact. Devolved powers can be taken away at anytime by Westminster.  I did not say that they may be taken away.  It was you that made that assumption.  I ask you:  Why you would make that assumption?  Also why we should accept devolved powers that could be taken away, when with a yes vote, we here in Scotland would ensure that all decisions made on Scotland`s future would be made here in Scotland by a Goverment elected by the electorate here in Scotland?  Incidently I did not say anywhere "in the event of a NO vote any powers now has, may be taken away"


. No that's what I said! You made the assumption that I was posting on Police Scotland forum! I have made no assumptions.  AND that's not the correct spelling of government

----------


## Heisenberg

Come back rheghead and the one, save the day pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaase!

----------


## squidge

Heisenberg, whatever happens with a no vote devolved powers can be taken back to Westminster. Westminster can also abolish or change the Barnett Formula. Whether they will or will not would remain to be seen. I would hope not but the fact remains that they could. Some politicians argue for removing the Scottish Parliament or reducing powers for Scotland's Parliament. Some argue for getting rid of the Barnett Formula and slashing Scotland's Block Grant. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. 

What this conversation does rather illustrate though is that the only way to ensure Scotland retains the powers it has and gets new ones, the only way to guarantee the continuation of a Scottish Parliament is to vote YES for independence.

----------


## Heisenberg

[QUOTE=squidge;1095242]Heisenberg, whatever happens with a no vote devolved powers can be taken back to Westminster. Westminster can also abolish or change the Barnett Formula. Whether they will or will not would remain to be seen. I would hope not but the fact remains that they could. Some politicians argue for removing the Scottish Parliament or reducing powers for Scotland's Parliament. Some argue for getting rid of the Barnett Formula and slashing Scotland's Block Grant. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. [QUOTE/]Thank you squidge,  I totally agree with this statement, nowhere in this thread have I said otherwise. I merely asked samo 'upon what he was basing' his point on.

----------


## sam09

Heisenberg:  One simple fact that has not been mentioned is that all powers that the Scottish Government has are devolved powers and that means just that - Devolved, and any powers can be taken away by Westminster.

A simple truth, with no assumptions.

Your reply:  Hi sam09, are you trying to say, that, in the event of a NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away?  If so upon what facts are you basing this argument?

Read again my post and let the statement sink in and again maybe you will start to engage brain before assuming I was  trying to say,  " that, in the event of a NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away" I was stating the above fact, no more no less. 

I asked you;  are you not the one and the same Heisenberg posting on Police Scotland ? Do deny it?

----------


## Rheghead

If anyone is in doubt about the extreme right wing political direction of the rest of the UK then you just have to take stock of the Douglas Carswell MP defection to UKIP.  

Do you want Scotland's future being determined by these rightwing elements at Westminster?  We should take Scotland's future into our own hands.

Vote Yes

----------


## sam09

Yes Rheghead we should indeed take Scotland`s future into our own hands, but not turn our future over to a Federal E.U.

My main worry is that Mr. Salmond will take a YES vote as a mandate to join/re-join the E.U. with out a referendum of the Scottish electorate.  A view that I share with many people here on the org and the rest of Scotland.

----------


## Rheghead

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan says "Being part of the UK is impossible to be proud of" and "all they think (uk ministers) of is keeping control of resources".  A very disturbing account of behind the scenes of UK diplomatic life.  He even goes on to say that you cannot vote No and be a moral person.  WoW, that is powerful stuff and not something that I personally would have promoted until I listened to what he had to say.

youtu.be/CIQ8VVn8AJA

----------


## Gronnuck

> If anyone is in doubt about the extreme right wing political direction of the rest of the UK then you just have to take stock of the Douglas Carswell MP defection to UKIP.  
> 
> Do you want Scotland's future being determined by these rightwing elements at Westminster?  We should take Scotland's future into our own hands.
> 
> Vote Yes


Scary stuff since one of UKIP's stated aims is to re-establish and protect the sovereignty of the UK parliament.  That might well mean rescinding the devolved administrations in Cardiff, Stormont and Edinburgh.

----------


## gleeber

I just filled In my postal vote and I voted yes. I made my mind up today. I was a unionist and didn't pay much attention to the debate until John Littles 'secessionist' theory a couple of years ago. Then Ducati made a good case for everything else. Squidge has always held her ground and took a fair bit of stick, and Rheghead too. Thanks to all of you for helping me make my mind up.

----------


## squidge

Wow Gleeber. Vote cast. I'm glad you have considered everything and made your decision. Whatever the result it's the settled will of the Scottish people  we want. It's quite a moment.

----------


## Rheghead

After a No vote then a source inside FIFA has said FIFA may stop Scotland football team playing international matches.  ::   I actually don't think that will happen but it is a risk.

AARGH, no more chance of England thumping the auld enemy yet again.  A bland UK football team. The tragedy...

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140828/1...rnational.html

----------


## Heisenberg

> After a No vote then a source inside FIFA has said FIFA may stop Scotland football team playing international matches.   I actually don't think that will happen but it is a risk.AARGH, no more chance of England thumping the auld enemy yet again.  A bland UK football team. The tragedy...http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140828/1...rnational.html


Its only a game.................But what isn't sportsman like are 'egg attacks' by nationalist on Better Together campaigners as happened to Jim Murphy in Kirkaldy..........as for thumping the auld enemy, perhaps it should be 'egging' the auld enemy..................All football is bland anyway

----------


## squidge

> Its only a game.................But what isn't sportsman like are 'egg attacks' by nationalist on Better Together campaigners as happened to Jim Murphy in Kirkaldy..........as for thumping the auld enemy, perhaps it should be 'egging' the auld enemy..................All football is bland anyway


Egg attacks? Is there an epidemic? Jim Murphy got hit by an egg. He stands on the street and campaigns loudly. I'm not sure why he is surprised. It's not "sportsmanlike" you are right. But  neither is it sinister or dangerous as is being portrayed in the media.

 Maybe if he had received anonymous notes telling him to stay away "if he values his health" like Jim Sillars did this month. Or even been chased by a car or received death threats like Alex Salmond then there may have been a case for the sense of outrage that has been manufactured here. But he got hit by an egg by it is suggested, the same disgruntled labour member who heckled Gordon Brown in Dundee recently.

 There is no place for threats from either side but manufactured outrage does no one any favours. Thankfully these incidents are rare.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Egg attacks? Is there an epidemic? Jim Murphy got hit by an egg. He stands on the street and campaigns loudly. I'm not sure why he is surprised. It's not "sportsmanlike" you are right. But  neither is it sinister or dangerous as is being portrayed in the media. Maybe if he had received anonymous notes telling him to stay away "if he values his health" like Jim Sillars did this month. Or even been chased by a car or received death threats like Alex Salmond then there may have been a case for the sense of outrage that has been manufactured here. But he got hit by an egg by it is suggested, the same disgruntled labour member who heckled Gordon Brown in Dundee recently. There is no place for threats from either side but manufactured outrage does no one any favours. Thankfully these incidents are rare.


You are right of course squidge, threats and physical action of this kind are unacceptable from either party, and are counter productive.I only mentioned it, as rheg seemed to be 'scaremongering' again, with the threat against football. I would vote YES if Alex Salmon's said he would outlaw football, and all the nonsense that goes with it, in an independent Scotland.

----------


## Rheghead

> Its only a game.................But what isn't sportsman like are 'egg attacks' by nationalist on Better Together campaigners as happened to Jim Murphy in Kirkaldy..........as for thumping the auld enemy, perhaps it should be 'egging' the auld enemy..................All football is bland anyway


There seems to be some speculation that Jim Murphy or Better Together arranged for a bloke to throw the egg at him.  This is a classic tactic that has happened before.  We've got a photo of the bloke now so it is a matter of time before the truth will out.

----------


## Heisenberg

> There seems to be some speculation that Jim Murphy or Better Together arranged for a bloke to throw the egg at him.  This is a classic tactic that has happened before.  We've got a photo of the bloke now so it is a matter of time before the truth will out.


 Like Alex Salmond making up death threats against him, eh rheg. What a lot of nonsense this referendum has become.

----------


## Rheghead

> You are right of course squidge, threats and physical action of this kind are unacceptable from either party, and are counter productive.I only mentioned it, as rheg seemed to be 'scaremongering' again, with the threat against football. I would vote YES if Alex Salmon's said he would outlaw football, and all the nonsense that goes with it, in an independent Scotland.


Actually, the Green Yes campaign has recently released their plans to have football teams owned by their fans.  Their plans to have football teams to be owned by comunity groups could in theory sort out the worse aspects of the modern game like ridiculous wages and sectarianism on the terraces.  Only a Yes vote will give us this chance for change, a No vote will maintain the status quo.  Nothing scaremongering about that, only hopes and aspirations for a better future.

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/unc...e-of-football/

----------


## Rheghead

> Like Alex Salmond making up death threats against him, eh rheg. What a lot of nonsense this referendum has become.


Well it just goes to show, Alex Salmond get death threats and keeps on campaigning, Jim sillars gets death threats and keeps on campaigning.  Jim Murphy gets hit by an egg and goes home to wash his shirt.  ::

----------


## squidge

> Like Alex Salmond making up death threats against him, eh rheg. What a lot of nonsense this referendum has become.


Only from those lookin in from outside. These incidents are rare so let's put it in perspective. RIC have canvassed over 80k people directly with no aggression. WFI are attending events almost every day of the week, with no aggression. Yes stalls in many many towns at weekends and during the week - no aggression. Expected turn out of over 80%, more people registering to vote than there has been for years. Next week I'm doing 4 events. I'm not expecting any aggression. One man gets hit with an egg and the papers are all over it. You are absolutely right Heisenberg - what a load of nonsense.

----------


## budgeJ

> Only from those lookin in from outside.


And that's where most of us are looking at you from.  From the outset the referendum (like any other election) has been hijacked by the usual small band of immature, partisan, socially challenged 'activists' who seem to think its more important to score some sorry little point with someone of a different political colour than actually take a big picture, mature and intelligent view.  

People like you are the sort of people you see on election night television in the 'audience' at election count results - they aspire to be characters in "The Thick of It" but are just feckless individuals who stick leaflets through doors and harass people via social media.  If your political party told you to jump off a cliff you'd campaign for everyone to do, and you'd do it yourself.  If your defence is that you think you are 'grass roots political activists' then it's about time someone came and mowed the lawn.

(and the above applies to those no matter what side they are on)

----------


## squidge

> And that's where most of are looking at you from.  From the outset the referendum (like any other election) has been hijacked by the usual small band of immature, partisan, social challenged 'activists' who seem to think its more important to score some sorry little point with someone of a different political colour than actually take a big picture, mature and intelligent view.  People like you are the sort of people you see on election night television in the 'audience' at election count results - they aspire to be characters in "The Thick of It" but are just feckless individuals who stick leaflets through doors and harass people via social media.  If your political party told you to jump off a cliff you'd campaign for everyone to do, and you'd do it yourself.  If your defence is that you think you are 'grass roots political activists' then it's about time someone came and mowed the lawn.(and the above applies to those no matter what side they are on)


Lol lol lol. You are absolutely right I'll be at the count. My job will be to scrutinise the process and make sure it's being carried out fairly. There are 150 of us who will be doing that in Highland so You can be sure of the result. Will I cheerif there is a YES vote. Bloody right I will.  

I am sorry that you are missing what's going on. No matter what dide of the vote you are on. The engagement of people in this process is hugely exciting. People who never voted. Who thought they couldn't make a difference are trying to do just that. That's massive. 

Am I an activist yes I guess I have become exactly that, and I'm proud of standing up for what I believe in. I dont have a political party. I'm just me but I have addressed meetings, spoken at events, leafletted and and will continue to do so. I am pleased to say I have never been rude to anyone ... Yet lol 

I'm interested to see you think I'm feckless, immature, partisan and socially challenged when you gave no idea about me or who I am or what I do out with this place. I am however utterly sure that in real life you are a kind polite mature and intelligent soul. Maybe you're just having a bad day.

----------


## budgeJ

Q.E.D.



abcdefghijk

----------


## weeker2014

I love the big yes set up the guy in Thrumster has a street along from me!! Hat off to ya for doing it!!!

----------


## grant02

There is a lot of talent in Scotland. 
You have many additional natural resources currently not developed or exploited. 
By changing the course of history and voting Yes you will be the catalyst for the much needed change in society for the people of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. 
Changing the hearts and minds of 65 million people in the UK where the gap between poverty and wealth is immense and the power of Westminster, London and the South East dominates what happens across the country, ludicrous. Uniting 6- 7 million is an easier task.
Create your own currency - what about 'the Groat' - STERLING needs Scotland - you will have even greater power to negotiate if you vote Yes.
*Just make sure* you have *the right people* *in the right jobs* at the heart of your new Scottish Government and across the regions.
 Financial services, Education, Health and Social Care are strong in Scotland - you have clever, resourceful people in touch with the needs across your communities. 
*Everyone,* even the work shy and those with the 'society owes me/ will pay attitude' will have to unite and pull their weight, but you can make it happen. 
A YES vote is a brave step, but....... nothing changes by doing the same old thing.

Please make the A9 Dual carriage ALL the way to Inverness and build a beautiful skyway bridge across the Berridale Braes (with the option for those of us who love that piece of road to wind our way up the hill at leisure). 

Oh and by the way.......Tidal Energy will be a lot more reliable and efficient than Wind farms - (may also be kinder on the wildlife)

----------


## Heisenberg

> Actually, the Green Yes campaign has recently released their plans to have football teams owned by their fans.  Their plans to have football teams to be owned by comunity groups could in theory sort out the worse aspects of the modern game like ridiculous wages and sectarianism on the terraces.  Only a Yes vote will give us this chance for change, a No vote will maintain the status quo.  Nothing scaremongering about that, only hopes and aspirations for a better future.http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/unc...e-of-football/


 Scottish football without sectarianism will never happen, ever, even if Celtic and Rangers merged into one team, they would still fight amongst them selves, sectarianism in Scotland, is as Scottish as haggis, square sausage and Bonnie prince Charlie ( who was neither Scottish nor bonnie by all accounts-and probably wasn't even a prince)

----------


## Rheghead

> Scottish football without sectarianism will never happen, ever, even if Celtic and Rangers merged into one team, they would still fight amongst them selves, sectarianism in Scotland, is as Scottish as haggis, square sausage and Bonnie prince Charlie ( who was neither Scottish nor bonnie by all accounts-and probably wasn't even a prince)


Do we just shrug our shoulders and concede that this is as good as it gets or do we think there is need for some _Hopes_ and _Aspirations_ for something better for Scotland?

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> Scottish football without sectarianism will never happen, ever, even if Celtic and Rangers merged into one team, they would still fight amongst them selves, sectarianism in Scotland, is as Scottish as haggis, square sausage and Bonnie prince Charlie ( who was neither Scottish nor bonnie by all accounts-and probably wasn't even a prince)


I hope you are wrong about sectarianism in Scottish football, but the truth is that our nation has alwas been open to and welcoming of outside influences, be it Northern Ireland unionists,Southern Ireland catholics, Italians, Poles, Russians,Asians, Norse or whoever. We are an inclusive society and nation. We have sent family and friends, explorerers and gifted innovators throughout the world for hundreds of years. I think your "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was actually born in Rome, to a Polish mother, and that haggis was actually first documented as being a Lancastrian dish in 1430, although it may have originated in Scandinavia. Lorne sausage - the clue is in the word.
What I am trying to say, not very coherently I admit, is that our country has a long history of taking in other points of view, other cultures and beliefs and incorporating them into the Scottish mindset. This vote is not about us, it is about the opportunities of our children and our children's children and for the future of our nation.

----------


## grant02

The opportunity it there.......do we have the courage to make it happen for future generations ?

----------


## Heisenberg

> Do we just shrug our shoulders and concede that this is as good as it gets or do we think there is need for some _Hopes_ and _Aspirations_ for something better for Scotland?


 There should always be hopes and aspirations for something better for Scotland. I'm not sure independence is the answer. The devolved government have enough powers to make a difference without the need to break up the union with the rest of Great Britain, much improved management might be better.  Whoever ends up on power after either a Y or N vote, will need to pull their socks up and be better than the present government.

----------


## Rheghead

> There should always be hopes and aspirations for something better for Scotland. I'm not sure independence is the answer. The devolved government have enough powers to make a difference without the need to break up the union with the rest of Great Britain, much improved management might be better.  Whoever ends up on power after either a Y or N vote, will need to pull their socks up and be better than the present government.


Independence is the answer because it is the people of Scotland who are the best qualified to run Scotland.  We are the ones who care most about Scotland.

----------


## squidge

> Independence is the answer because it is the people of Scotland who are the best qualified to run Scotland.  We are the ones who care most about Scotland.


Independence is the answer because there is no opportunity for changing our society with the confines of the Westminster System. Independence gives us that opportunity.

----------


## BetterTogether

> Independence is the answer because there is no opportunity for changing our society with the confines of the Westminster System. Independence gives us that opportunity.


Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty. The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP who currently hold a majority which means that at the time of becoming independent the SNP will effectively write into Stone the rules by which they alone think an Independent Scotland should be run. The argument that this will be by cross party consensus is not a good ones as the SNP hold an unassailable majority which means to all intents and purposes they can do as they wish.
To claim that Westminster is unable to change is to deny the very society which we all live in and the monumental changes that have occurred to make society free and fair. Free and Fair can mean many things to many people and as we have seen by the vast majority of posts on this particular subject there has been very little free or fair when one political activist has ruthlessly applied themselves to ensuring that democratic debate is all but quelled on this community website. Is this really the free and fair society that you'd wish to sign up for where any voice that doesn't comply with the party line is ruthlessly culled.
With the Yes campaign desperately grasping at straws these last few weeks no chance for them to score a point will be missed even down to members of the public being arrested for making comments online about the first minister, the SNP cannot even tell the difference between a serious threat and Hyperbole, this shows proves that contrary to the free and fair society you're being promised and more centralised police state awaits. Youve already seen the first signs with armed police routinely walking the streets the only place in the whole country where this is seen to happen and how much input did the public get...NON

We had to listen to the First Minister on TV behaving as though he had won some great debate when he crowed that an Independent Scotland could use the pound. That has never been disputed but a currency union is very different matter and it is truly insulting to the electorate to pretend that he has successfully answered the serious questions that have been asked of him.
We as a Nation deserve to be treated with respect and have those serious questions answered honestly.
Currency still not answered honestly
Europe still not answered honestly
NHS still not answered honestly
NATO still not answered honestly
and the list goes on of all the questions you the electorate deserve to have answered. 
If you genuinely want to get answers then ask the right people. 
Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making the decisions.

Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, with further powers of devolution promised we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHER
so remember when you see all the yes stickers plastered everywhere and the online activists doing their masters service just remember to say NO THANKS

----------


## Shabbychic

> Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, *with further powers of devolution promised* we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHER



Could you tell us what these powers of devolution are, that we have been promised?

Johann Lamont doesn't appear to be able to answer this question.

----------


## Rheghead

> Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty. The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP who currently hold a majority which means that at the time of becoming independent the SNP will effectively write into Stone the rules by which they alone think an Independent Scotland should be run.


Now who is the one not being quite honest here?

The First Minister said in the second debate that a cross party group called in his own words 'Team Scotland' will conduct the post Yes negotiations.  He even welcomed Alistair Darling as part of that process.  But I am sure if there is one person that you would want on your side to get the best deal for Scotland and that is Alex Salmond.  It is obvious that a shared union on currency is the best option but Danny Alexander and Alistair Darling will still campaign against the interests of Scotland.

----------


## Gronnuck

The simple answer *Better Together* is that no constitutions are written in stone. They are subject to amendments and change.  Examples can be found in the histories of constitutions of the USofA, Australia and Ireland to name just a few.
140 countries have gained independence since the end of WW2 and none of them have wanted to revert to their original status.
When I saw Alistair Darling wagging his finger like an irate headmaster, that brought home to me the attitude of the Westminster elite; that they know best what’s good for us.  Well I’m not convinced. 
And a’m gettin’ gye unheartsome at sittin oan ‘e fence.

----------


## budgeJ

> Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty. The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP who currently hold a majority which means that at the time of becoming independent the SNP will effectively write into Stone the rules by which they alone think an Independent Scotland should be run. The argument that this will be by cross party consensus is not a good ones as the SNP hold an unassailable majority which means to all intents and purposes they can do as they wish.To claim that Westminster is unable to change is to deny the very society which we all live in and the monumental changes that have occurred to make society free and fair. Free and Fair can mean many things to many people and as we have seen by the vast majority of posts on this particular subject there has been very little free or fair when one political activist has ruthlessly applied themselves to ensuring that democratic debate is all but quelled on this community website. Is this really the free and fair society that you'd wish to sign up for where any voice that doesn't comply with the party line is ruthlessly culled.With the Yes campaign desperately grasping at straws these last few weeks no chance for them to score a point will be missed even down to members of the public being arrested for making comments online about the first minister, the SNP cannot even tell the difference between a serious threat and Hyperbole, this shows proves that contrary to the free and fair society you're being promised and more centralised police state awaits. Youve already seen the first signs with armed police routinely walking the streets the only place in the whole country where this is seen to happen and how much input did the public get...NONWe had to listen to the First Minister on TV behaving as though he had won some great debate when he crowed that an Independent Scotland could use the pound. That has never been disputed but a currency union is very different matter and it is truly insulting to the electorate to pretend that he has successfully answered the serious questions that have been asked of him.We as a Nation deserve to be treated with respect and have those serious questions answered honestly.Currency still not answered honestlyEurope still not answered honestlyNHS still not answered honestlyNATO still not answered honestlyand the list goes on of all the questions you the electorate deserve to have answered. If you genuinely want to get answers then ask the right people. Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making the decisions.Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, with further powers of devolution promised we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHERso remember when you see all the yes stickers plastered everywhere and the online activists doing their masters service just remember to say NO THANKS


....... tl;dr

----------


## sam09

> ....... tl;dr


Further powers of devolution promised.  Why should the Scottish electorate want further devolved powers that can be taken away by Westminster government, when we can have all decisions about Scotland`s future made here in Scotland by a Government elected by the Scottish people ?

----------


## Shabbychic

> Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making the decisions.


Does this not also apply to you, or are you special?

----------


## squidge

Hello Better Together how nice to see you.  I have tried several times to get you to come along to the various cafe events I have been involved in so you can put the positive case for the union without much success so im delighted to see you here. 




> Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty.


I can say that because I look at the three main parties and see very little difference between the policies.  I see no opportunity to vote for anything other than a determination to follow a direction which leads to a smaller public service, the dismantling of the welfare state, profits before people and the selling off of public serices to private profit making companies.  Now is that honest?  Well its MY honest viewpoint.  You may disagree but I dont think you can call me a liar. 






> The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP...the SNP hold an unassailable majority which means to all intents and purposes they can do as they wish.


Rheghead has already pointed out that this is not the plan at all.  IN addition there has already been work done to enable members of the public to have a say on the constitution and as well as the three main political parties it is likely that , in the event of a YES vote organisations like Women For Independence, Radical Independence Convention and others will be consulted. There has been a commitment given by the first minister that the 3rd Sector will also have a key role in drafting a constitution - that commitment was given in February this year at the Third Sector Conference in Glasgow.  They can do as they wish?  Isnt their wish that they have a team to deliver the constitution for the people of Scotland. 






> To claim that Westminster is unable to change is to deny the very society which we all live in and the monumental changes that have occurred to make society free and fair. Free and Fair can mean many things to many people and as we have seen by the vast majority of posts on this particular subject there has been very little free or fair when one political activist has ruthlessly applied themselves to ensuring that democratic debate is all but quelled on this community website. Is this really the free and fair society that you'd wish to sign up for where any voice that doesn't comply with the party line is ruthlessly culled..


 It is not at all about denying the monumental changes that have been made but to accept that a Union which worked for a long time is no longer working for the benefit of all. Many people are completely disengaged by the political process which exists in westminster and there was a report only last week which showed how eleitist and further disconnected from the people of this country, Westminster is becoming.  Contrast this with the amazing upsurge in engagement across the whole of society which is talking place as a result of simply holding this referendum. The view is that around 80% of those eligible will vote. That is massive.  As for the quelling of democratic debate on this website  - Which Political Activist are you talking about Better Together? The vast majority of the posts on this thread and others have actually been in support of the union and have remained in place even when those posting have been identified as sock puppets.  




> With the Yes campaign desperately grasping at straws these last few weeks no chance for them to score a point will be missed even down to members of the public being arrested for making comments online about the first minister, the SNP cannot even tell the difference between a serious threat and Hyperbole, this shows proves that contrary to the free and fair society you're being promised and more centralised police state awaits. Youve already seen the first signs with armed police routinely walking the streets the only place in the whole country where this is seen to happen and how much input did the public get...NON


I assume that you are speaking about the threat that some daft lad posted on twitter to assassinate Alex Salmond. I am not sure why that is so much less of an issue that Jim MUrphys egg incident which has been all over the press.  Interestingly the reports of the twitter threat state that this incident was reported to the police by an american living here not by the SNP.  I absolutely agree with you about Armed Police and thats one of the things I would hope will change regardless of whether we get a YES or a NO vote.  





> We had to listen to the First Minister on TV behaving as though he had won some great debate when he crowed that an Independent Scotland could use the pound. That has never been disputed


 I am very surprised to hear you say that when so many of your leaflets specifically say that independence will mean that Scotland will LOSE the pound, Will not be allowed to use the pound or that the only way to guarantee the use of the pound is to vote NO. Those leaflets are all over the place. 




> but a currency union is very different matter and it is truly insulting to the electorate to pretend that he has successfully answered the serious questions that have been asked of him.
> We as a Nation deserve to be treated with respect and have those serious questions answered honestly.
> Currency still not answered honestly
> Europe still not answered honestly
> NHS still not answered honestly
> NATO still not answered honestly
> and the list goes on of all the questions you the electorate deserve to have answered. 
> If you genuinely want to get answers then ask the right people. 
> 
> Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are  told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making  the decisions.


Would the right people be you?  I hope so and i hope then that you will come along to the Referendum Cafe which is being held in Wick on Saturday at 10am in the PPP Cafe and again in The Pentland Hotel at 2pm. I can assure you that you will be welcome and I am sure that people attending would be delighted to hear from you as would I. Listening to Activists and campaigners is an excellent way of hearing different sides I only wish that you would have been happier to engage at a local level as I so often find myself having to put your side of the argument forward too and my heart isnt in that I am afraid.  I will also look forward to hearing from you what the Devolved powers you are guaranteeing will be. 





> Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, with further powers of devolution promised we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHER
> so remember when you see all the yes stickers plastered everywhere and the online activists doing their masters service just remember to say NO THANKS


I would say that whilst the society we live in is good for me I believe it can be better - a lot better, particularly for those who are sick, disabled, carers, unemployed or poor. Im also not sure why you suggest that we who are voting YES are "doing their masters service" whilst you who are here, posting and persuading people that a NO vote is the right vote are not ddoing YOUR masters service.  

However - like i said - its good to hear from you and i look forward to see you on Saturday  - Dont forget now  :Smile:

----------


## sam09

Squidge I have just spoken to YES SCOTLAND on the telephone and  asked the following questions:  Will Mr. Salmond take a YES vote as  mandate to join the E.U.  The person that I spoke to would not give a  straight answer but replied: During the eighteen months negotiating  period before the Scottish election (in event of a yes vote)  he, Alex  Salmond will negotiate Scotland`s membership of the E.U.  When asked:   Would the Scottish Electorate be given a referendum on E.U. membership,  he replied "Not by the S.N.P.

So how can I vote yes to the question Should Scotland be an Independent  Country when voting yes means that I will be voting to join the E.U. ?  Where is the Independence in a Federal E.U.? 				 
 Last edited by sam09; 01-Sep-14 at 16:22. 				 				 					Reason: spelling

----------


## BetterTogether

It would appear everytime i try to respond i get logged out

----------


## Bobinovich

> It would appear everytime i try to respond i get logged out


Either you're not ticking the Remember Me box under the username when logging in, or possibly you have set your cookies not to be stored - either one will most likely cause you to log out in between posts unless they're close together...

----------


## squidge

> Squidge I have just spoken to YES SCOTLAND on the telephone and  asked the following questions:  Will Mr. Salmond take a YES vote as  mandate to join the E.U.  The person that I spoke to would not give a  straight answer but replied: During the eighteen months negotiating  period before the Scottish election (in event of a yes vote)  he, Alex  Salmond will negotiate Scotland`s membership of the E.U.  When asked:   Would the Scottish Electorate be given a referendum on E.U. membership,  he replied "Not by the S.N.P.So how can I vote yes to the question Should Scotland be an Independent  Country when voting yes means that I will be voting to join the E.U. ?  Where is the Independence in a Federal E.U.? 				  Last edited by sam09; 01-Sep-14 at 16:22. 				 				 					Reason: spelling


The SNP has a stated aim of keeping Scotland in the EU. I have not seen any indication that membership of the EU is a constitutional commitment. This means it is SNP policy. So in an independent Scotland you would vote for the party in 2016 which offers the policy of leaving the EU. Just like in any election. Remember the referendum is not about party politics but about democracy. 

But Sam09 if membership of the EU is your critical issue - The one issue which determines how you vote then you need to decide which system of government is more likely to meet your desire to leave Europe. However it's also worth considering whether Scotland will have its voice heard louder in the EU as part of the union or as an independent country because WM cannot guarantee the UK  will leave the EU. So what can you live with Sam? Scotland as part of the union in the EU or an Independent Scotland In the EU? 

The choice is up to you Sam09. I would not dream of telling you which way to vote . I decided based on what's important to me and that's what you should do. If that decision is No then that's fine  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

YouGov, the most pessimistic pollster towards Scottish independence now has the Yes Campaign 47% No campaign 53%.  The momentum is with the Yes vote as the people of Scotland reject the scaremongering of the No campaign and start to believe that Scotland can be prosperous as an independent nation.

----------


## Heisenberg

> It would appear everytime i try to respond i get logged out


 Perhaps the YES vote biased admin have locked you out, a few NO vote campaigners appear to have been banned in the passed for expressing 'strong' opinions, now it appears there may be a 'lockout' of some sort going on. Jacko having been locked out for almost a week, his user name and password not recognised, this came just after being suspended for three hours. Despite emailing the admin they have yet to explain. I apologise for posting this if this has been rectified.

----------


## Even Chance

Hardly, he managed to post the fact he cant get logged on ok enough!! lol 
You were quick to stamp on heids tho werent you. Disna surprise me really. You do realise that there will be a resounding YES vote dont you? You may as well just accept it. The tide has turned, and yer side is gonna get swamped.
 Caithness is bound to have a larger No following due to Dounreay and Vulcan folks worrying about their jobs. The plants are not going anywhere in their lifetimes are they! Its their childrens lives they could change by voting Yes and stopping being so selfish.

----------


## mi16

> Hardly, he managed to post the fact he cant get logged on ok enough!! lol You were quick to stamp on heids tho werent you. Disna surprise me really. You do realise that there will be a resounding YES vote dont you? You may as well just accept it. The tide has turned, and yer side is gonna get swamped. Caithness is bound to have a larger No following due to Dounreay and Vulcan folks worrying about their jobs. The plants are not going anywhere in their lifetimes are they! Its their childrens lives they could change by voting Yes and stopping being so selfish.


 So are you voting based on your children's views or yours?

----------


## Even Chance

> So are you voting based on your children's views or yours?


Im voting FOR my childrens good, but its obviously my view entirely. Saying that, even my bairns can tell the difference. 
 My job is also on the line so to speak, but I have the ability to look further than myself when voting Yes. Dounreay wont close, its not like someone will switch the lights off in 2016 and say "off home chaps, nowt to do here"
 Still havent heard anything saying why we would be better together yet. Its just a tirade of negativity thats doing Scotland as a whole no favours. Thats not good. Whats the RUK's plan A should we become Independant? They dont seem to be planning anything. Bit shallow of them to neglect their own people dont you think? Maybe they know the result can be rigged easily enough?

----------


## Tubthumper

Dounreay will go into the 'liabilities' column as part of the negotiations, along with Chapelcross. What's more worrying is what happens to Torness & Hunterston - at present are they viewed as assets or liabilities, seeing as they're privately-owned but will revert to taxpayer ownership once they're done.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> Im voting FOR my childrens good, but its obviously my view entirely. Saying that, even my bairns can tell the difference. 
>  My job is also on the line so to speak, but I have the ability to look further than myself when voting Yes. Dounreay wont close, its not like someone will switch the lights off in 2016 and say "off home chaps, nowt to do here"
>  Still havent heard anything saying why we would be better together yet. Its just a tirade of negativity thats doing Scotland as a whole no favours. Thats not good. Whats the RUK's plan A should we become Independant? They dont seem to be planning anything. Bit shallow of them to neglect their own people dont you think? Maybe they know the result can be rigged easily enough?


I don't think Westminster can envision a time where Scotland will vote for independence, so will not negotiate any post-yes scenario. They think they have us in their pockets for all time to come, like they have for the past 300 years, and that Scots voters would never see past the lies and propaganda they have been served by governments they never elected.
It's time to stand on our own two feet, and take reponsibility for the governance of our own country, with our own money, assets, talents and innovative thinkers and doers. We are bright enough, rich enough and talented enough to do this, but are we brave enough to try?

----------


## Even Chance

Im hearin ye HV.
Caithness is a particularly difficult area, because of the afore-mentioned employment establishments. Thankfully the rest of Scotland are making up for our local lacking in support. Polls closing the points all the time, truths eventually coming out and the No camp appearing more desperate every day is becoming a reality I like. Their recent Ad campaign really shot themselves in the foot. Just goes to show how out of touch they are with Scots. They have no clue that we are actually a wee bit more switched-on than they would have liked.
 We have the voice, and we can have the power to go with it.
Either way, Scottish politics has been re-vamped in a way like never before. Its invigorating now. Folk you never thought of as having an interest in politics are now speaking up for their beliefs. Its simply amazing.

----------


## BetterTogether

Sorry for being unable to reply in depth to any questions it would appear each time I attempt a detailed post the system logs my out, yesterday for some reason the system refused to accept my username and password and the admin had to be contacted to reset this. I am unsure why this problem only seems to occur on this Org but if you feel there is political bias being shown on this org I suggest you contact Better Together Media Team 0141 332 4634

----------


## Even Chance

You managed to post that, so wheres the detailed post? Write it out offline, then copy and paste. Thanks.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Hardly, he managed to post the fact he cant get logged on ok enough!! lol You were quick to stamp on heids tho werent you. Disna surprise me really. You do realise that there will be a resounding YES vote dont you? You may as well just accept it. The tide has turned, and yer side is gonna get swamped. Caithness is bound to have a larger No following due to Dounreay and Vulcan folks worrying about their jobs. The plants are not going anywhere in their lifetimes are they! Its their childrens lives they could change by voting Yes and stopping being so selfish.


 I would rather it were a NO vote, but you are right as we live in a democracy, I will accept it which ever way it goes. Will you?

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> I would rather it were a NO vote, but you are right as we live in a democracy, I will accept it which ever way it goes. Will you?


Why wouldn't we? Have we suddenly stopped being a democracy since I last has a shufti at the state of play? Or is this yet another scare tactic from the No side, along the pathetic lines of the Glasgow Herald's Riots and Mayhem at the Polling Stations stuff, for which they received a Police Scotland censure this morning?

----------


## Heisenberg

> Why wouldn't we? Have we suddenly stopped being a democracy since I last has a shufti at the state of play? Or is this yet another scare tactic from the No side, along the pathetic lines of the Glasgow Herald's Riots and Mayhem at the Polling Stations stuff, for which they received a Police Scotland censure this morning?


 I don't see how my saying, 'as we live in a democracy' or that, 'I will accept the outcome which ever way it goes', could be a scare tactic of any kind.As I don't read any paper, I could not comment on the story you quote, however I wouldn't be surprised if isolated incidents broke out at some polling stations. Personally I'm not planning starting a riot on polling day, nor do I think anyone else I know is.

----------


## Even Chance

> I would rather it were a NO vote, but you are right as we live in a democracy, I will accept it which ever way it goes. Will you?


Absolutely. We're all Scots after all. We stand firm as a nation, and a wee squabble like this wont get us doon. I'll still have a tin of beer with any No voter and get the crack.

I'll take whatevers coming at me, be it a Yes or a No.
 As a nation, we've been ground down over the last few hundred years to just accept things. Its just our nature.......aye right! Now is the time to have a wee re-think about it all. Roll on the 19th. Not long now til its all over and we can start afresh. Cheers...

----------


## mi16

> Absolutely. We're all Scots after all. We stand firm as a nation, and a wee squabble like this wont get us doon. I'll still have a tin of beer with any No voter and get the crack.I'll take whatevers coming at me, be it a Yes or a No. As a nation, we've been ground down over the last few hundred years to just accept things. Its just our nature.......aye right! Now is the time to have a wee re-think about it all. Roll on the 19th. Not long now til its all over and we can start afresh. Cheers...


 I hope the rest of the nation will share your outlook on it, I fear not though

----------


## theone

> Absolutely. We're all Scots after all. We stand firm as a nation, and a wee squabble like this wont get us doon. I'll still have a tin of beer with any No voter and get the crack.
> 
> I'll take whatevers coming at me, be it a Yes or a No.
>  As a nation, we've been ground down over the last few hundred years to just accept things. Its just our nature.......aye right! Now is the time to have a wee re-think about it all. Roll on the 19th. Not long now til its all over and we can start afresh. Cheers...


I sincerely hope you're right.

I'll still be voting no but I do believe a yes vote is now quite likely - it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Although I'm not looking forward to another 2 years of insults and blame from both sides during the negotiations - this could be the dirtiest divorce settlement in history - I just hope it gets over and done with asap.

Rioting in the street wouldn't surprise me (either way the vote goes) , I've seen nothing in my lifetime as divisive as the independence debate, between friends, family and strangers.

----------


## Even Chance

The Scots wont riot. Remember when the big riots were raging in England twa years ago and they destroyed their own cities and the Scots just sat back and laughed at them for being such numpties?
 Maybe Ive got the rose coloured specs on again, but we can and will work together after the Yes vote to build this country. We need all those No voters to help build it after all! 
 Since you are starting to sound more positive about a Yes vote, why not go the whole hog and actually join us in voting Yes? Every vote counts, and your most welcome. I'll have a tinny of Tenants on ice for you! lol

----------


## theone

I'm not becoming more positive in favour of a yes vote, I still don't believe it is the  best thing for the nation. I'm just accepting it is a real possibility.

As I say, if (when) the negotiations are completed and the reality, as opposed to the promises, become apparent, I predict trouble. I hope I'm wrong.

----------


## mi16

> The Scots wont riot. Remember when the big riots were raging in England twa years ago and they destroyed their own cities and the Scots just sat back and laughed at them for being such numpties? Maybe Ive got the rose coloured specs on again, but we can and will work together after the Yes vote to build this country. We need all those No voters to help build it after all!  Since you are starting to sound more positive about a Yes vote, why not go the whole hog and actually join us in voting Yes? Every vote counts, and your most welcome. I'll have a tinny of Tenants on ice for you! lol


 Violence has been breaking out already in the central belt. I too will accept whatever result until it becomes more advantageous to live elsewhere.As for joining the yes campaign...... I think I will pass on that

----------


## Even Chance

Can only ask guys! Respect to you though.  :Smile: 
Theres been violence on both sides. Awful really, but its instigated by numpties, usually hell bent on some vendetta regardless. All they need is a difference of opinion about anything to spark it. Its also human nature unfortunately. As they say, some folk are just eejits, full stop.

----------


## teenybash

This is worth a read...Was not written by me, but think everyone should go over this before Sept 18th.

I'm not taking any credit for this, I just saw someone's post on the Vote NO to Scottish independence and protect the union page and I thought it was genius!!
"I always find that if you flip the debate around with a no or undecided voter it always has the desired result. Try this next time you speak with a no voter, ask them how they would vote in this situation.....there can only be one outcome.
Imagine Scotland was already independent and we were about to have a referendum on whether to join a union with the rest of the UK.
Could the Pro-union side convince us that getting together would be better when we were told what would happen to Scotland after such a union? Some bullet points from the campaign…
-Your main Parliament will move 600 miles away, and your MPs will be in a tiny minority & will therefore have limited ability to effect policy on your behalf
-Scotland will get a government it didn’t vote for.
-All of your oil and gas revenues will be handed over to the treasury in London.
-Even though not 1 inch of track will touch Scottish soil your taxpayers will contribute £4.2bn to the HS2 project.
-Your taxpayers will also subsidise the crossrail project to the tune of £4.2bn
-The biggest nuclear weapons facility in Western Europe will be built on the river Clyde, just 30 miles from your largest city.
-Even though you only have 8.2% of the UK’s population you will contribute 9.9% of the UK’s total tax take yet will only receive 9.3% of that tax take back to spend in Scotland (you will lose £4.4bn per year to the UK treasury)
-You will devolve all of the economic levers you have used to shape your economy directly to London and will now only have control of 7% of your economy
-Even though 79% of your MP's voted against it we will privitise your publicly owned mail service
-Even though 91% of your MPs voted against the bedroom tax in your parliament, we will impose it.
-Even though 82% of your MP's believed that a VAT increase would be detrimental to your economy, we will impose a VAT increase.
-You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised.
-Now and again you’ll get dragged into an illegal foreign war.
-An austerity budget will be imposed from London cutting jobs and threatening vital public services even though 81% of your MP's voted against the cuts.
-The financial regulation system will be so weak and so lax that your whole economy will be brought to the brink of collapse.
-The most weak and vulnerable in society, instead of getting the protection and support they deserve will be interrogated and humiliated in an effort to get them off the meagre levels of support to which they are entitled.
Who in Scotland would vote for such a package?
Who would vote for that union?
So why would anyone vote to remain in such a union now?
This is about democratic ownership, social responsibility and the fact that Scotland on its own will be economically stronger from day one of independence....."

----------


## Gronnuck

> I'm not becoming more positive in favour of a yes vote, I still don't believe it is the  best thing for the nation. I'm just accepting it is a real possibility.
> 
> As I say, if (when) the negotiations are completed and the reality, as opposed to the promises, become apparent, I predict trouble. I hope I'm wrong.


The same could be said of the aftermath of the 2015 General Election; a hung parliament with a major schism in the Tory party and a dispute as to which parties will form an administration.  The question of an in out referendum on the EU.   Meanwhile UKIP with a few more seats contibuting a load of hot air and labour sulking but making a lot of noise hoping someone will listen.
Trouble?  We've already got trouble.

----------


## David Banks

> Sorry for being unable to reply in depth to any questions it would appear each time I attempt a detailed post the system logs my out, yesterday for some reason the system refused to accept my username and password and the admin had to be contacted to reset this. I am unsure why this problem only seems to occur on this Org but if you feel there is political bias being shown on this org I suggest you contact Better Together Media Team 0141 332 4634


Don`t worry. Nothing nefarious is going on here.

Just check the Remember Me box when you sign in  --  I had the same problem (years ago), and a friendly orger helped me out.

----------


## Moira

> Either you're not ticking the Remember Me box under the username when logging in, or possibly you have set your cookies not to be stored - either one will most likely cause you to log out in between posts unless they're close together...


Good advice Bob.  

I'm still here and posting with no problems, apart from my own dodgy internet connection.  I'm a definite NO btw.

----------


## Tubthumper

I think Jim Murphy would make a good first minister of an independent Scotland.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think Jim Murphy would make a good first minister of an independent Scotland.


It depends on where his allegience lies upon a Yes vote.

----------


## Rheghead

It seems that oil reserves worth £trillions have been underestimated by 100%.  West of Shetland can provide energy for at least 100 years.

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/...rth-trillions/

----------


## Heisenberg

> It seems that oil reserves worth £trillions have been underestimated by 100%.  West of Shetland can provide energy for at least 100 years.http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/...rth-trillions/


 Can yer nae just shuttit about the wretched oil man, yer like a broken record.

----------


## Tubthumper

Now now Heisenberg - back in yer box. Oh wait, that was Schrodinger wasn't it...

----------


## Heisenberg

> Now now Heisenberg - back in yer box. Oh wait, that was Schrodinger wasn't it...


 oh you mean Erwin, I'm Wolfgang, also he was Austrian and I'm German, but I will get back In my box.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can yer nae just shuttit about the wretched oil man, yer like a broken record.


Nothing to see here, move along.

----------


## Heisenberg

> Nothing to see here, move along.


 right back atcha rhegs, nothing to see here move along, I would add in agreement with theone, and your self, " ne sutor ultra crepidam" as I'm sure you know means (generally) don't give opinions outside your knowledge or judgement.

----------


## richardj

Is it not time for someone (admin) to start a New Poll - to see how people now stand for the Yes/No vote - I personally have not changed my mind - still No, but it has wavered in the last week or two. I personally have not been impressed with Darling on the TV debates, I agree with him, but not impressed. The one thing that may still swing my vote is the Nuclear/Trident Free Scotland. I try and not be naive about deterrence and as I get older (not saying wiser!) I have come to think that deterrence with Trident is necessary. When I was younger I definitely was anti-bomb.

Anyway - how about a NEW poll to see how people now feel now that we are only days away from the vote?

----------


## squidge

It was interesting to Hear Margaret Beckett on Radio 4 talk about her own personal move away from uni;ateral disarmament which was, of course the labour party position on nuclear disarmament for a long time. She said that in the 80s with CND she fully supported unilateral disarmament and in fact in those days that was seen as the nly way we were going to get rid of the abomination that is nuclear weapons.  She also said that those supporting multinational disarmament were thought of as fools - that it would never happen and that it was simply a way of saying you didnt support nuclear weapons when you did really.  We went on to see multi national nuclear reduction in a way that was surprising to those of us who were around and marched with CND at that time.  I wonder - and it is just something to think about Richard, whether we have come as far as we are able now with Multi national disarmament and whether its time to revisit unilateral disarmament. Scotland has the opportunity to disarm Scotland and potentially the UK. I dont know. But its worth thinking about.

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> It depends on where his allegience lies upon a Yes vote.


To his pocket, no doubt. No change there, then. I can't personally imagine a more horrible scenario myself, than having a load of unemployed Labour and LibDem MPs suddenly fighting for seats in an independent Scottish parliament, having spent their entire political careers doing nothing at all for their constituents or their country if it impacted adversely on their bank accounts. 
Hopefully they will all be too busy trying to get a seat and all the associated perks, in the House of Lords, which *we * will not be paying for.

----------


## mi16

With the recent political cleansing that has been carried out on here, I would expect a new poll to be a resounding yes, somewhere in the 80/20 region.Thankfully the no voters cannot be banned from the ballot box.

----------


## Rheghead

> Thankfully the no voters cannot be banned from the ballet box.


They must be quite expensive seats?

----------


## mi16

> They must be quite expensive seats?


 Jings, crivvens and help my boab, surely not a typographic errorI better scurry away and correct that misplaced vowel.

----------


## Rheghead

> Jings, crivvens and help my boab, surely not a typographic errorI better scurry away and correct that misplaced vowel.


I wasn't doing the spelling police thing, I'm not bothered how posters spell as long as it is understandable.  I just thought it was funny.

----------


## Rheghead

Top stock market analysts back Alex Salmond about his claims on Scottish oil.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...almond-on-oil/

----------


## neilsermk1

top stock market analysts and banks also created the last global financial catastrophe

----------


## Tubthumper

> Anyway - how about a NEW poll to see how people now feel now that we are only days away from the vote?


 Sorted that for you.

----------


## richardj

Thanks Tubthumper - I've voted on the new Poll, I seem to be the only NO vote!

----------


## squidge

There is time yet Richard. I'm sure we'll see a few more  :Smile:

----------


## Even Chance

Cheers Tubs, new poll already beginning to show a trend. Now theres a surprise. Folk are a wee bit more learned now than they were before.

----------


## squidge

Come along to the Indy cafés tomorrow. 10am PPP wick, 2pm Pentland Hotel Thurso. No guest speakers, just a quick hello then talk to other people and ask questions about the referendum issues that are important to you. Yes, no, undecided are all welcome.

----------

