Board logo

Have you vote on Independence – Even if you don’t live there!
Mr Whippy - 9/9/14 at 12:15 PM

This seems to be the only topic in the office for the last week, well that and GTA5…

We’re up in Aberdeen so oil revenue is the main reason given for independence, others just say they don’t feel British whatever that means.

Personally I thought it would be a landslide NO but it’s sounding surprisingly close, so I thought I’d put a poll on here for a laugh to see what it came to.

Read the category’s properly before voting!

Cheers

Irony - 9/9/14 at 12:22 PM

Personally I hope for a 'No' vote. I don't think the average voter knows enough about economics to make a educated decision on the subject. I also don't think there has been enough unbiassed factual information released by both parties. I was listening to it on Radio 2 yesterday and the speaker for the 'YES' vote was mocking the 'better together' campaign basically saying 'why aren't we better now'. But she never produced any evidence other than spin about how we would be better apart.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

scootz - 9/9/14 at 12:54 PM

There's a lot of work being done to secure the average Scottish Labour members vote... that will be the key to this election.

I think some still feel guilty about voting 'No' in the late-70's after swallowing the promise of more devolved governance (pretty much the same as the last-minute 'Devo-Max' offer that's being cobbled together just now). Of course Scotland was ultimately shafted when Maggie conceded nothing, but instead ripped our industries to shreds... and then experimented on us with the 'poll tax'.

chrisxr2 - 9/9/14 at 12:57 PM

I have posted this in every post I have replied to on Scottish independence and thus one will be no different.

I think what the good people of Scotland fail to realise is that if they do gain independence, about ten minutes later the Shetland Islands will declare themselves a sovereign nation and claim all the oil rights etc that are within their territorial waters and the rest of Scotland will be absolutely potless.

Also paying back the share of the banks that where bailed out "all Scottish" they are going to be a bit short on cash too.

scootz - 9/9/14 at 01:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by chrisxr2
I have posted this in every post I have replied to on Scottish independence and thus one will be no different.

I think what the good people of Scotland fail to realise is that if they do gain independence, about ten minutes later the Shetland Islands will declare themselves a sovereign nation and claim all the oil rights etc that are within their territorial waters and the rest of Scotland will be absolutely potless.

Also paying back the share of the banks that where bailed out "all Scottish" they are going to be a bit short on cash too.




If it's such a sure-thing, then why have Shetland, Orkney, and the Western Isles not done this already?

Probably because Shetland (a Scottish archipelago) comes under the jurisdiction of Scots Law... as does the maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north (where 90% of the oil comes from). Becoming a sovereign state is so much more difficult if you are not already a recognised 'country'. Scotland is... the Scottish Islands are not.

ali f27 - 9/9/14 at 01:15 PM

Scotland wont have a problem with the debt if england denies them the pound think about it no pound no debt simples

prawnabie - 9/9/14 at 01:21 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by chrisxr2
I have posted this in every post I have replied to on Scottish independence and thus one will be no different.

I think what the good people of Scotland fail to realise is that if they do gain independence, about ten minutes later the Shetland Islands will declare themselves a sovereign nation and claim all the oil rights etc that are within their territorial waters and the rest of Scotland will be absolutely potless.

Also paying back the share of the banks that where bailed out "all Scottish" they are going to be a bit short on cash too.




If it's such a sure-thing, then why have Shetland, Orkney, and the Western Isles not done this already?

Probably because Shetland (a Scottish archipelago) comes under the jurisdiction of Scots Law... as does the maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north (where 90% of the oil comes from). Becoming a sovereign state is so much more difficult if you are not already a recognised 'country'. Scotland is... the Scottish Islands are not.


It will be like Sealand all over again!

D Beddows - 9/9/14 at 01:45 PM

The sensible real world answer is no - but if people want it so much (and that self serving twonk Alex Salmond for their king) then let them have it - just lets not let them back in 5 years or so when it's all not been quite as good as they expected and they have to pay university tuition fees/ more taxes etc etc because there isn't actually as much money as they were lead to believe.......

scootz - 9/9/14 at 01:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by chrisxr2
Also paying back the share of the banks that where bailed out...



Scotlands share of the National Debt is currently thought to be £100 billion.

One way of looking at that is that Scotland pays £3.3 billion per year to the treasury for defence. Only £1.9 billion of which ever comes back north of the border. And of what does, a large portion of it will go towards the maintenance of Trident and Scottish Regiments involvement in overseas operations.

An independent Scotland will no longer be paying towards either of these nonsenses.

It has been forecast that an independent Scotland will set it's defence budget at £2.5 billion per year. That's a saving of £0.7 billion from the get-go. I guess that money could go straight towards Debt repayment. It would pay off Scotlands share within 160 years (inclusive of interest) and the country wouldn't even have noticed the funds leaving the account!

But there's more good news... that £2.5 million defence budget is now being wholly spent in Scotland. Remember - that's £0.7 billion MORE than is currently being spent in Scotland and there's the added benefit of no Trident maintenance or wars in 'Wherevastan' to fork out for. That money can be spent on defence equipment FOR Scotland and the redeployment of those who no longer work for Trident based departments. JOBS!

Sure, it's much more complicated than this, but the basic projections look good for an independent Scotland.

*Edited because I got the national debt figure wrong!

[Edited on 9/9/14 by scootz]

nick205 - 9/9/14 at 01:58 PM

Outside Scotland and NO

Alex Salmond comes across IMHO as a megalomaniac hell bent on taking Scotland to perceived independence. Again IMHO a better approach would be carefully considered and methodically implemented devolution of powers to Scotland, whilst maintaining the union for the benefits it brings to all parties in the globalised world we now live in.

scootz - 9/9/14 at 02:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205
Outside Scotland and NO

Alex Salmond comes across IMHO as a megalomaniac hell bent on taking Scotland to perceived independence. Again IMHO a better approach would be carefully considered and methodically implemented devolution of powers to Scotland, whilst maintaining the union for the benefits it brings to all parties in the globalised world we now live in.



So that better approach will be 'Devo Max' option that Alex Salmond favoured on the ballot papers over the single 'Yes / No' vote then!? The same option that was clinically dismissed by the UK Government who DEMANDED it be a 'Yes / No' vote only.

And now the forecasts have it neck-and-neck the Westminster elite are desperately trying to cobble together a quasi-Devo-Max plan. Too little, too late, too reminiscent of the false promises given in the 1979... and quite probably breaking the basic democratic Purdah rules!

mcerd1 - 9/9/14 at 02:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by chrisxr2
I have posted this in every post I have replied to on Scottish independence and thus one will be no different.

I think what the good people of Scotland fail to realise is that if they do gain independence, about ten minutes later the Shetland Islands will declare themselves a sovereign nation and claim all the oil rights etc that are within their territorial waters and the rest of Scotland will be absolutely potless.

Also paying back the share of the banks that where bailed out "all Scottish" they are going to be a bit short on cash too.




If it's such a sure-thing, then why have Shetland, Orkney, and the Western Isles not done this already?

Probably because Shetland (a Scottish archipelago) comes under the jurisdiction of Scots Law... as does the maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north (where 90% of the oil comes from). Becoming a sovereign state is so much more difficult if you are not already a recognised 'country'. Scotland is... the Scottish Islands are not.


maybe Orkney and Shetland will just re-join Norway instead - after all they've only been part of Scotland for a ~540 years

scootz - 9/9/14 at 02:31 PM

Same sentiment applies...

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 02:43 PM

Bored with the whole thing. I hope there is a Yes vote and be shot of them....I don't see why the rest of the UK should subsidise Scotland any further, Devo Max is pandering to the partner that wants to go, so away you go and don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

We'll keep the debt/pound/Trident/RBS/BoS/Scottish Regiments and so on. Nah bother. You have a whale of time on the Oil Dollar....till it runs out.

[Edited on 9/9/14 by jeffw]

whitestu - 9/9/14 at 02:59 PM

If it is a choice of vote no and get devo max or vote yes and sperate I'd go for yes, so I agree with JeffW.

Slimy38 - 9/9/14 at 03:03 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Irony
I don't think the average voter knows enough about economics to make a educated decision on the subject.


My thoughts exactly. I doubt even the politicians themselves can understand/predict the full impact.

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 03:07 PM

Looking forward to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Scotland and the rise of the working man so long held down by the yoke of English oppressive rule. I do wonder who you will all blame for your problems when you're masters of your own destiny...Tony Blair/Gordon Brown, great scots one and all.

Here some questions for all the Yes/SNP supporters...

if there is a Yes vote the SNP becomes irrelevant, yes or no?
If there is a Yes vote there will be no point in any Scottish MPs in Westminster after next May's election?

Just think, we'll be able to cancel all the shipbulding contracts in the foreign country and bring it all home. Don't worry about finishing the carriers, we'll tow them to Portsmouth.

[Edited on 9/9/14 by jeffw]

[Edited on 9/9/14 by jeffw]

snapper - 9/9/14 at 03:18 PM

At this late stage there is still no clarity on NHS, pensions, Nuclear, borders, etc, etc, etc,
I just don't think either side has explained enough and I truly fear for the futer of all if the union splits up

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 03:26 PM

NHS is easy, NHS Scotland is a separate entity for which all the budgets and control where devolved several years ago (funny how they Yes campaign blame the English for their NHS....)

Borders are as is...depending on Scotland joining the EU or not will dictate the requirement for border posts.
Scotland doesn't want a Nuclear Deterrent (even though they wish to be members of NATO) so that will have to shift from Coalport/Faslane to either Devonport or somewhere in Wales.

I actually hope the Scots join the EU....I can then send my son to a Scottish University for free !

scootz - 9/9/14 at 03:40 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
Here some questions for all the Yes/SNP supporters...
If there is a Yes vote the SNP becomes irrelevant, yes or no?
If there is a Yes vote there will be no point in any Scottish MPs in Westminster after next May's election?



The SNP will still exist as a political party after a 'Yes' vote... their relevance once independence is signed, sealed and delivered would be decided by the electorate though.

If there is a 'Yes' vote, then it will take time for the transition to occur. I think the proposed date is May 2016, so there's a year where Scotland should still have representation at Westminster. I would suspect that these seats would be given up once Scotland I declared a sovereign state though.

A question for you.. can you break down the figures please that show how the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland (as per your suggestion in a previous post).

snakebelly - 9/9/14 at 03:49 PM

None of you are asking the right question.. Will we have to pay import duty on Scootz's disposal bargains?

scootz - 9/9/14 at 03:55 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
NHS is easy, NHS Scotland is a separate entity for which all the budgets and control where devolved several years ago (funny how they Yes campaign blame the English for their NHS....)



Just to be clear - the amount of money made available for NHS Scotland is set and delivered by Westminster. The complaint is not what is done with it, but that it is not enough in the first place... especially when weighed against what is spent on the likes of Trident, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

scootz - 9/9/14 at 03:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by snakebelly
None of you are asking the right question.. Will we have to pay import duty on Scootz's disposal bargains?



No need... we will bootleg via a 'locost-tunnel'!

D Beddows - 9/9/14 at 04:05 PM

Everyone in Scotland will be millionaires this time in 2 weeks and they wont have to spend anything anyway because everything will be free, paid for by the limitless oil reserves in the North Sea

That seems to be the message being fed to the tabloid reading Jeremy Kyle watching 'common man' in return for their vote. There are going to be some very disappointed faces!

mcerd1 - 9/9/14 at 04:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
complaint is not what is done with it, but that it is not enough in the first place..

I've got plenty of complaints about whats done with the money regardless of any yes or no votes ! (not that its any better in England either mind)

for a start they could sack 2 out of 3 people in the back offices / middle management side of it and not notice any drop in performance (I've know enough people that worked in the offices to know what goes on)

then you could let the doctors decide who needed appointments - not the waiting list managers who currently decide not just when you get seen but also in some cases if you ever get seen at all

then with all the money they've saved by sacking that lot they could actually build a hospital that's at least close to big enough !!!!

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 04:18 PM

quote:
I would suspect that these seats would be given up once Scotland I declared a sovereign state though.


Trust me when I say they will be escorted to the border.

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 04:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
NHS is easy, NHS Scotland is a separate entity for which all the budgets and control where devolved several years ago (funny how they Yes campaign blame the English for their NHS....)



Just to be clear - the amount of money made available for NHS Scotland is set and delivered by Westminster. The complaint is not what is done with it, but that it is not enough in the first place... especially when weighed against what is spent on the likes of Trident, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.


The Department of Health had a £110 billion in 2013-14, most of this being spent on the NHS.
NHS Scotland had an operating budget of £11.9 billion in 2012–13, up from £11.35 billion during 2010-11

Looks like more than the 9% of population that lives in Scotland...

scootz - 9/9/14 at 04:26 PM

quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
Everyone in Scotland will be millionaires this time in 2 weeks and they wont have to spend anything anyway because everything will be free, paid for by the limitless oil reserves in the North Sea

That seems to be the message being fed to the tabloid reading Jeremy Kyle watching 'common man' in return for their vote. There are going to be some very disappointed faces!



There's too much focus on oil and gas. Most respected economists agree that Scotland would still be able to function perfectly well without the oil and gas industry.

It's a bonus... something to use to get over the transition period, and then to invest wisely (particularly in renewable energy schemes) for rainy days ahead. It's a great asset to have... yet it's being painted (by some) as some kind of millstone around Scotlands neck.

Scotland still has income streams from tangible resources like agriculture, fishing, renewable energies, food and drink (whisky), construction, electronics and textiles... oh, and still some reasonable fossil fuel reserves. There's also a very healthy tourism industry to add to the mix and a recovering financial service sector that has hopefully learned from it's previous mistakes.

More than enough for a nation of just over 5 million people.

The UK as it stands however is much more reliant on 'services'. It forms 77% of our GDP. This is not a tangible income steam. It's not real. It can be destabilised in an instant by events thousands of miles away, and is not a sensible main source of income for a nation of 63 million.

scootz - 9/9/14 at 04:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
NHS is easy, NHS Scotland is a separate entity for which all the budgets and control where devolved several years ago (funny how they Yes campaign blame the English for their NHS....)



Just to be clear - the amount of money made available for NHS Scotland is set and delivered by Westminster. The complaint is not what is done with it, but that it is not enough in the first place... especially when weighed against what is spent on the likes of Trident, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.


The Department of Health had a £110 billion in 2013-14, most of this being spent on the NHS.
NHS Scotland had an operating budget of £11.9 billion in 2012–13, up from £11.35 billion during 2010-11

Looks like more than the 9% of population that lives in Scotland...



1+1=3

You've compared a department of Health budget for 2013/14, to a NHS Scotland Operating budget for 2012/13, and then made mention of the 2010/11 budget. Could you perhaps draw some conclusions by comparing the national budgets of 2010/11, 2012/13, and 2013/14 to the devolved budgets in the same year (2010/11, 2012/13, and 2013/14).

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 04:33 PM

As I said....bored with the whole thing. It is like listening to an ex-wife going on about how she will be better off without you...well just get on with it then.

sdh2903 - 9/9/14 at 04:43 PM

As a resident I was fully open to the idea of independence however I've been on the side of no from the start and am firmly camped now in the No camp.

The reason for this? Simple there are No Hard Facts! None. It's all projection this, projection that, maybe we could do this, maybe we could do that, and it goes on and on and on.........

It's like someone telling you to buy a house without even seeing it. A life changing decision without no Hard facts to help you decide. It's ridiculous, this referendum has been on the cards for years. Surely issues surrounding currency, eu membership, immigration, defence, national debt etc etc should have been sorted ages ago allowing the voting public to make an informed decision on the future of the country. It actually infuriates me that both sides are so poorly prepared for this. And the 2 characters leading the charge, el presidente salmon and Alastair "no charisma" darling, seriously? What a pair of plonkers. They should have sent Boris up to lead the No campaign

To be honest I can't wait for the whole thing to be over and I'm hoping the sensible people make their way to the polling stations and we wake up part of the union the next morning

scootz - 9/9/14 at 05:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
As a resident I was fully open to the idea of independence however I've been on the side of no from the start and am firmly camped now in the No camp.

The reason for this? Simple there are No Hard Facts! None. It's all projection this, projection that, maybe we could do this, maybe we could do that, and it goes on and on and on.........

It's like someone telling you to buy a house without even seeing it. A life changing decision without no Hard facts to help you decide. It's ridiculous, this referendum has been on the cards for years. Surely issues surrounding currency, eu membership, immigration, defence, national debt etc etc should have been sorted ages ago allowing the voting public to make an informed decision on the future of the country. It actually infuriates me that both sides are so poorly prepared for this. And the 2 characters leading the charge, el presidente salmon and Alastair "no charisma" darling, seriously? What a pair of plonkers. They should have sent Boris up to lead the No campaign



It's always the 'Yes' side that's asked for hard facts and projections. Where are the 'Better Together' hard facts and long term projections for the UK as it stands? There are none, and that's because no-one can see all that far into the future! I'll take a shot though and try to envisage the UK in 2016... a Tory / UKIP alliance where Boris is the PM and Farage his Deputy. A buffoon and a fascist in charge of a sinking ship that's been cut adrift from the EU following the promised 'In/Out' referendum. This would be a disaster... particularly for rural Britain.

As for the issues surrounding EU membership... well, the UK government can take full responsibility for the obfuscation of this issue! All that is required is for PM Cameron to ask Brussels the question and there would be a straight answer. HE HAS REFUSED TO DO THIS! Most probably because he knows what the answer will be and it doesn't suit his agenda.

sdh2903 - 9/9/14 at 05:23 PM

And el salmon couldn't ask this question? Hmm I'm sure he could.

If there was fact and honest answers regarding finances and the key issues I would be interested, until that happens how on earth can I make a decision??? It's absurd to vote when there's no hard facts. I'm sorry but if you vote on the basis of theories and guesswork then you are incredibly foolish.

britishtrident - 9/9/14 at 05:24 PM

So what happens at the Holyrood Parliment post yes...
In the event of a post Yes situation the political parties will evolve and regroup, a Scottish Conservative party may find its feet again probably a bit to the left of the England and Wales party , the Scottish Labour party probably won't change much but will regain some support, the Scottish Lib-Dems less tarnished than the Westminster Lib-Dems will survive. The SNP is likely to shrink and may splinter but will go on.

Holyrood unlike Westminster or the Welsh ans NI assemblies work surprisingly well, it passes legislation quickly effectively because the major parties have to work together and hammer out any issues before any bill goes before the parliament.

Badger_McLetcher - 9/9/14 at 05:25 PM

Not Scottish, voted no. We've done some awesome things as a union, I'd hope we've more (non-imperial) awesome to come. There is a massive amount of uncertainty over what would happen with a Yes vote, one way or t'other.
I'd prefer to see the entire UK pull together and sort its poo out than it fragment, following the historical pattern of the collapse of most empires. Would be nice to give historical pattern a kick in the teeth too. The Scots are not the only people who want to see the investment and focus of power move away from London and the South East - in fact I'd wager it's only London and the South East that don't
A final note on the Scottish politicians in Westminster - I think in the case of a Yes vote they would have a massive conflict of interest, given that they would be negotiating for the best terms for an independent Scotland. They should at least have their power limited only to issues that directly affect Scotland.

The choice is that of the Scottish people, I wish them the best either way.

watsonpj - 9/9/14 at 05:29 PM

Scootz I'm interested how you get to this statement

"Scotlands share of the National Debt is currently thought to be £23 billion. "


The current Uk debt is >1,400Billion so if the figures are done by capita then this figure is a fair bit more than £23Billion so it may take a bit longer to pay off.


Also the notion that I don't have the currency (£) means I don't have the debt is great in theory but in reality the debt will still exist and the UK gov said they will shoulder it. The markets however will see a fledgling country effectively defaulting on what it owes which doesnt seem a good way to start and will make for hard times when trying to borrow which will have to be immediately I suspect.


I personally don't want to see the breaking of the union but I understand that people get peed off with what is happening not just in scotland but in the whole of the Uk. The problem I see is that the spin as usually as over taken the facts and its almost impossible to see the truth in the figures.

I think Alex has a much easier job to sell the new and shiny over the "no campaign" this is it take it or leave it, and trying to offer more powers at the 11th hour was always going to be seen as negative.

If scotland goes who may follow? We may have to pay import duty on pasties

Pete

scootz - 9/9/14 at 05:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
And el salmon couldn't ask this question? Hmm I'm sure he could.


No... he can't. It's a well discussed point and the answer is that ONLY the UK Government can ask the question.

britishtrident - 9/9/14 at 05:34 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
And el salmon couldn't ask this question? Hmm I'm sure he could.

If there was fact and honest answers regarding finances and the key issues I would be interested, until that happens how on earth can I make a decision??? It's absurd to vote when there's no hard facts. I'm sorry but if you vote on the basis of theories and guesswork then you are incredibly foolish.


Alex Salmond can't ask the question because by EU law it has to asked be the premier of current full member of the EU.

David Cameron won't ask the question because the political golden rule of asking question is; Don't ask a question unless you already know the answer and the answer suits your purpose.

watsonpj - 9/9/14 at 05:41 PM

And thats the Alex Salmon reply

"thought to be £100 million..." the darling version would of course be £100 Trilion

scootz - 9/9/14 at 05:41 PM

quote:
Originally posted by watsonpj
Scootz I'm interested how you get to this statement
"Scotlands share of the National Debt is currently thought to be £23 billion. "




Not sure myself!

It is indeed wrong... apologies!

Scotlands share of the national debt is presently thought to be £100 billion...

ali f27 - 9/9/14 at 05:42 PM

I can understand lots of people in scotland being disillusioned with westminster very little progress has been made in my lifetime both major political partys have had chances to take the country forward both have failed miserably it begs me to ask the question what has Scotland to lose . I live in Cumbria and considerable numbers of people here think that because westminster think england stops at manchester maybe in the future our future may be better with an independent Scotland. I was for most of my working life a civil enginerring contractor and worked all over Scotland there allways seemed to be and intrest in developing the inferstructure I can undertstand the desire to break free from the city of london and the fragile economy we have if you study it we have an economy based on gambling waht ever Scotland decides good luck to them.

britishtrident - 9/9/14 at 06:17 PM

quote:
Originally posted by ali f27
I can understand lots of people in scotland being disillusioned with westminster very little progress has been made in my lifetime both major political partys have had chances to take the country forward both have failed miserably it begs me to ask the question what has Scotland to lose . I live in Cumbria and considerable numbers of people here think that because westminster think england stops at manchester maybe in the future our future may be better with an independent Scotland. I was for most of my working life a civil enginerring contractor and worked all over Scotland there allways seemed to be and intrest in developing the inferstructure I can undertstand the desire to break free from the city of london and the fragile economy we have if you study it we have an economy based on gambling waht ever Scotland decides good luck to them.


Looking south I always have the impression that some perhaps a majority who live in the home counties consider Birmingham the far north.
It is true that many Welsh and Northern English cities in an even more neglected state than those in Scotland and it seems to me things are getting worse rather than better.
For me a decision to vote Yes has been heavily influence by a total lack of confidence in those Downing Street.
I my eyes Cameron is just an uber-Blair but with different backers to pay off favours to and by the fact the downward spiral is likely to get worse rather better.
I also frightened of the signs in England of the rise of the extreme right largely brought about by a lack of any kind of sensible control on immigration, UKIP may seem a protest joke party at the moment but extreme right wing parties tend to gather momentum very quickly.

One other thing has influenced my decision, the No Campaign has at times had downright nasty tone and not really engaged with the issues that really concern those who have to make the choice.

graememk - 9/9/14 at 06:18 PM

My mother and family is Scottish and she felt the need to spell my name "Graeme" in the northern way, I can say I wish things to stay as they are, I don't see any benefit to leaving the UK.

If Scotland left the uk, I for one will be avoiding buying goods from them, any trips to see family will involve me being very careful not to spend any more money than necessary that side of the boarder.

now if many other people also do the same this would I assume bugger up there estimated figures quite a bit as to how much spare cash they have to run the country.

I can live without salmon, Edinburgh woollen mill, scotch, and 3in1 oil.

now as "most" of my family are well educated people they are in general voting to stay in the uk, I only have a few Jeremy kyle family members who bleat on about Maggie thatcher, coal mines and the 70's blar blar blar and to be honest as long as the benefits still come they'll vote to whoever promises them money to keep there council house in large screen tv's

graememk - 9/9/14 at 06:32 PM

or we could wait for Scotland to get independence, then wait 6 months for scootz to sell the place on ebay

AdrianH - 9/9/14 at 06:49 PM

quote:
Originally posted by ali f27
I live in Cumbria and considerable numbers of people here think that because westminster think england stops at manchester maybe in the future our future may be better with an independent Scotland.


I have to disagree with your thoughts here. Most of Westminster thinks England stops at the outskirts of London. Where the Financial institutions are:

If independence gains the most votes then fine. We have the Welsh Assembly, Ireland is independent, we even have the Isle of Man Parliament for goodness sake. So no more crying about it every section wants to set their own rules for the benefit of their bit of country. Just a pity we will be left with the same bunch down south.

I have been putting English for Nationality for sometime now.

Adrian

[Edited on 9-9-14 by AdrianH]

ali f27 - 9/9/14 at 06:50 PM

What a strange comment i could do without salmon etc we the uk went to war with Germany and yet buy everthing German we can .Whts wrong with Scotland wanting self determination westminster has failed them as it has the rest of us they have a chance to make things better wheres the
wrong in that

motorcycle_mayhem - 9/9/14 at 06:53 PM

I'm resident in England, Westminister does nothing for me, except perhaps to make me hope that we'll eventally find another way - other than to embrace the sleazy political class.

Only interested in their own faces in their own troughs, I can see why 50% of the Scottish may well be disillusioned. However, I'm unsure that to declare King Salmond is a good way forward. Unsure what is.

I've watched powerless as the sleaze balls feed themselves, invade and occupy oily foreign countries in the name of humanity. I've felt sick at the City money printing (yes, the RBS bailouts too, massive Scottish greed/debt) that I work hard to provide.

The ONLY person I can see that entered Westminister with honourable intentions was Guy Fawkes.

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 06:57 PM

quote:
Originally posted by graememk
or we could wait for Scotland to get independence, then wait 6 months for scootz to sell the place on ebay


That made me snigger...

ali f27 - 9/9/14 at 06:58 PM

Lots of people would find it difficult to live without tunnocks tea cakes

JC - 9/9/14 at 07:16 PM

What about the Putin solution? Let the scots become independent, and then invade and take it back!!!

ali f27 - 9/9/14 at 07:22 PM

If putin had tried tunnocks tea cakes he would be here now

ali f27 - 9/9/14 at 07:25 PM

Been sitting here trying to figure out how we stop Scottish salmon swimming up English rivers

Benzine - 9/9/14 at 07:29 PM

Copland - 9/9/14 at 08:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by JC
What about the Putin solution? Let the scots become independent, and then invade and take it back!!!


How about we send you homewards to think again.

Think it's funny how a lot are saying to kick us out even tho a lot of us scots want to stay together!

I myself am on the "YES" side, but not because I hate the English or anything just because I think it will help Scotland get what we want/need and I really don't understand how the South think they are paying for us?

More chance of the Muslim extremists taking England than anything else the way things are goin.

jeffw - 9/9/14 at 08:09 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-george-galloways-stirring-speech-in-defence-of-the-union-9566418.html

Listen to George Galloway (!) and then tell me you are in favour....

AndyGT - 9/9/14 at 08:59 PM

^^^^
Any chance of subtitles!! I didn't understand a word he said!!!

dave - 9/9/14 at 09:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by AndyGT
^^^^
Any chance of subtitles!! I didn't understand a word he said!!!



Nobody understands what he say's, the man's a balloon.

dave - 9/9/14 at 09:21 PM

My uneducated tuppence worth. I set out to vote a definite NO, however listening to the debates political and others, I have swung to a definite YES. I have had enough of Westminster and all who reside in her walls of power they are a rancid boil on the erse of a down and out country (UK&I).

blakep82 - 9/9/14 at 10:41 PM

If its a yes, I expect there'd be another massive recession across the whole of the uk, worse than anythjng any of us have lived through so far, theres far too many unanswered question, too many holes in the white paper (the plan for defence is "after a yes vote, defence can be negotiated with neighbouring countries" same goes for currency, theres a pattern...

In the long run we may be better off, but I'm 31, and I doubt I'll see the benefit in my life time. Salmond will go into history, which I expect is his only goal. He'll disappear off abroad annd leave us all in it.

Yes or no there'll be riots, trouble, and resentment, like northern ireland. Maybe even worse

No, ok things aren't great at the moment by any means, but I cant see we'll get much worse (certainly nowhere near as bad as if its a yes)

The nationalist like to say voting no because you don't like alex salmond is like not buying a house because you dobt like the wall paper, meaning you get a new first minister after.
I guess that goes for cameron and voting yes, but to me voting yes is like buying a house, blind, at auction, having no idea where it is, what condition its like, how much its actually worth, not seeing the legal pack, and not having a survey done.

Theres just too many unanswered questions and too many government services missing. No mention of stuff that interests us, such as DVLA and VOSA, we'd fall under eu laws (assuming we are in, which we still don't get a straight answer from snp) which I guess means we'd lose iVA etc. No mention of foreign embassies, loads more but you get the idea.

It HAS to be a no surely. A yes would just be ridiculous.
I read somewhere riot gear is being brought in from the south before the 19th. If its a yes, I hope southern police forces demand their riot gear back and tell us to deal with it ourselves, if thats what 'we' want

Also, can you imagine the statues of salmonds smug face that will go up everywhere? Urgh, I'd much rather see the crushing disappointment on his face as his lifes work falls apart before him. Fingers crossed

If its a yes, I'm out!


[Edited on 9/9/14 by blakep82]

splitrivet - 9/9/14 at 10:58 PM

I reckon we English should have a vote whether or not we still want the whingeing buggers and why should they get get preferential treatment ( free uni education etc etc).

Cheers,
Bob

[Edited on 10/9/14 by splitrivet]

twybrow - 10/9/14 at 02:11 AM

One big waste of time and money when we have better things to use both on.

If the Scots go independent, then good luck to them but I strongly suspect you will just have a new government to resent rather than giving you this panacea you are being described by history maker Salmond. Those south of the border also have issues with our elected leaders, but this is not a good way to invoke a positive change Scotland!

Personally I don't want to break up the Union. I strongly believe we are mightier together than in bits and Scotland would see far more of a negative impact than the rest of the UK if it were a Yes vote.

jeffw - 10/9/14 at 05:26 AM

quote:
Originally posted by AndyGT
^^^^
Any chance of subtitles!! I didn't understand a word he said!!!



There is a transcript of the speech on the page.

daviep - 10/9/14 at 06:51 AM

Quite surprised by the level of bigotry on display, usually this is a decent forum without too many the keyboard warriors

Cheers
Davie

britishtrident - 10/9/14 at 07:02 AM

quote:
Originally posted by ali f27
Been sitting here trying to figure out how we stop Scottish salmon swimming up English rivers


Nothing a frying pan and a knob of butter won't fix.

whitestu - 10/9/14 at 07:34 AM

quote:

Quite surprised by the level of bigotry on display, usually this is a decent forum without too many the keyboard warriors

Cheers
Davie


Banter aside that element of it surprises me as well - not so much on here but everywhere. Personally if the Scottish people want to run their own affairs I say good luck to them. Unfortunately whichever way it goes it looks like there are going to be roughly half of the Scottish people who get something they don't want.

If the result is a 'No' though I think there should be a serious look across the UK as a whole on how things are run and where the money goes, because it isn't just the Scots that think they get a bad deal.

Mr Whippy - 10/9/14 at 08:02 AM

quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
quote:

Quite surprised by the level of bigotry on display, usually this is a decent forum without too many the keyboard warriors

Cheers
Davie


Banter aside that element of it surprises me as well - not so much on here but everywhere. Personally if the Scottish people want to run their own affairs I say good luck to them. Unfortunately whichever way it goes it looks like there are going to be roughly half of the Scottish people who get something they don't want.



That's why I think the vote should really be set more like 75% or higher to go either way

Interesting seeing the poll results as it not remotely as close as I hear on the news

britishtrident - 10/9/14 at 08:17 AM

Alex Salmond’s opponents south of the border have all missed one important factor, that Salmond is a very astute politician who has been able to out manoeuvre all his opponents into giving him exactly what he wanted. Twenty years ago the SNP were shrinking rapidly to a core group that had more than its’ fair share of nutters Salmond turned his party around. The tartan nutters are still there but the SNP is a serious political force. Had the three main Westminster parties not been pre-occupied with internal wars and elected more effective leaders rather than compromise candidates Westminster government might have been more effective and we would not be the situation we have today.

Today we have the situation where in what has all the signs of panic the leaders of the three big Westminster parties have cancelled all at business short notice and are heading north to rally support I can only think that this is intended for the benefit of the audience south of the border as in Scotland it is largely seen as a major mistake, a sign that they have been paying little attention to the political actuality in Scotland.

The desire for independence is not like hatred that drove the Irish rebellion, there is no evidence that an independent Scotland would not feel intense loyalty to our friends and kin folk south of the border after all we stood side by side through wars major and minor.

D Beddows - 10/9/14 at 08:25 AM

I actually think a lot of people who live north of Watford are in fact secretly rather jealous

Having said that I have a suspicion that once the euphoria of a 'Yes' victory (should it happen) has worn off it will be a case of 'meet the new boss - the same as the old boss' rather than a brave new world, we are talking about politicians after all!

FuryRebuild - 10/9/14 at 08:42 AM

English - voted yes.

One interesting point that hasn't been dwelled on is "if you go, it's forever".

I was a firm no at one point but the rhetoric (and the propensity for some to blame the English for everything) means I'd sooner just be shot of Scotland, and let's watch and see what happens. If Scootz does sort out an ebay bargain, maybe I'll bid.

If it's a great success, there will be massive changes dragged through RUK, and all will benefit. If it all turns to ratshit, then it will be quite interesting to watch. Watching may not be so easy unless the SBC add more power to their video streaming clusters

I also think the position of westminster only having a view that extends to the M25 is a bit false. My wife works in the charity sector, and they get a lot of support from government for the projects they are doing in cities like Bradford. I admit some northern cities are bloody awful, and we shouldn't forget why. Big industrial towns that pissed on their own feet. Think of ship building in Sunderland - there was a great phrase there: "there's not better job than a ship-yard painter". The unions screwed ship-building in the north, and for a while, it's only principle export was spite and racism. At some point, government can't just keep bailing out loss making loony-bins, and EU legislation stopped it for good.

I have my flame proof jacket on

M

ali f27 - 10/9/14 at 09:22 AM

I read with interest your thoughts on unions etc. Miss managment by poor managers who often didnt get thier jobs on merit and union leaders with there own political ambitions were equaly to blame, the unions caused Maggie to be elected the miners played into her hands. the problem since then no goverment has made real efforts to get manifacturing going again with modern industry, the inferstructure roads rail etc are negleted and we are still reliant on the services lindustry and the volitile city of london an economy based on city gamblers who will at some point drop the ball agian and leave the country in the turd Scotland it appears wonts to move forward and good luck to them

Irony - 10/9/14 at 10:25 AM

quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
I actually think a lot of people who live north of Watford are in fact secretly rather jealous



I personally find the narrow-mindedness of southerners very very frustrating. My partner is from Notting Hill and I am from Lincoln. Some of her friends and family barely realise that there is anything outside of the M25. A couple refuse to go outside Zone 3 on the tube. None of her friends drive (they don't need to apparently) and a garden is a flower box on the windowsill. They all either live in a rented 'room' or live with there parents at 35. A couple who are civil servants earn exactly the same amount in central London as they would in Lincoln. On there wages they cannot afford to buy a property at all and yet up here they could get a 3 bed house!

I have worked and lived in London and I just don't see the appeal unless you are 20 something and single.........

jeffw - 10/9/14 at 11:01 AM

quote:
Originally posted by daviep
Quite surprised by the level of bigotry on display, usually this is a decent forum without too many the keyboard warriors

Cheers
Davie


Don't confuse wee taking and boredom with the whole subject with bigotry. I'm happy for the Jocks to leave (or stay) I just don't think it is that much of a deal either way and certainly not enough to give the Scots 'Devo Max' There does seem to be an element of what ever the No campaign (or any one who doesn't want to see the break-up of the union) say will be miss-construed. There also seems to be an air of entitlement in the Yes campaign....it is 'our' £ and you can't stop us using it.

If there is a Yes vote it will be a messy divorce but as Scotland accounts for less than 10% of the population of the UK it really will not effect the UK much.

britishtrident - 10/9/14 at 11:43 AM

In the event of a Yes vote elements the NO camp seem intent on making the divorce as messy as possible, which sort of undermines their own position.
Nations can split without rancour it is worth researching the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia. The split of Czechoslovakia was not dissimilar with very similar problems but somehow it was managed without rancour and good cultural and economic relations between the two states continue.

jeffw - 10/9/14 at 12:15 PM

In the example you give both parties wanted to split, which is not the case here.

JoelP - 10/9/14 at 12:30 PM

I vote yes. Local governance would seem more appropriate. 30 years is a long time to adjust your economy away from oil. They could avoid wasting money on trident etc, since, maybe selfishly, they don't need to maintain a nuclear deterrent if they aren't trying to assert themselves on the world stage. And equally, the prospect of a tory ukipalliance next parliament is an awful thought.

So there.

JoelP - 10/9/14 at 12:30 PM

I vote yes. Local governance would seem more appropriate. 30 years is a long time to adjust your economy away from oil. They could avoid wasting money on trident etc, since, maybe selfishly, they don't need to maintain a nuclear deterrent if they aren't trying to assert themselves on the world stage. And equally, the prospect of a tory ukipalliance next parliament is an awful thought.

So there.

Mr Whippy - 10/9/14 at 11:25 PM

They do go on about oil but I wonder about Aberdeen's future tbh, its just booming at the moment (good luck finding a house) and they say there's at least another 30 odd years of oil production left but the platforms are literally falling it bits, there just never going to make it that far. Everything is currently just patching them up and getting last bit of life out the rotting wreaks, not building replacements.

I lived in Inverness when the oil platform yards in Nigg and mcdermott's closed + the smelter a few years earlier and the area was just devastated, my folks had to sell their house for just a third of it's value before the closures to get a small run down 50 year old cottage outside Aberdeen. I probably see the same happen to Aberdeen so will just go back to driving buses

jeffw - 11/9/14 at 06:12 AM

One week before the Peoples Socialist Republic of Scotland is created.


Ummmm....I wonder if they will join the Commonwealth. I note the EU has said that Scotland can join after a suitable period and with a unanimous vote, can't wait to see the way Spain votes.

Mr Whippy - 11/9/14 at 06:46 AM

Yes isolated from the rest of the country we could very well devolve back into barbarism , start wearing skirts and baring our bottoms and other bits at those English foreigners. How dare they come here and steal all our moneys and women folk! Lest we forget those who fell at Culloden, on whatever side we Scots were fighting…

whitestu - 11/9/14 at 07:44 AM

quote:

start wearing skirts and baring our bottoms and other bits at those English foreigners.


I thought that happened already?

I've never quite understood why some men with very tentative links back to Scotland will put on a tartan skirt at any opportunity!

[Edited on 11/9/14 by whitestu]

Mr Whippy - 11/9/14 at 07:51 AM

or Americans...

I've never worn a kilt in my life, looks almost as daft as morris dancers and I'm sorry but bag pipes sound horrific they should be banned (my dad use to play them in the house ffs!!)

Mr Whippy - 11/9/14 at 08:59 AM

Salmonds Scottish Defence Force...

jeffw - 11/9/14 at 10:09 AM

Very funny....I guess it will be HMSS for the two ships you get.

My Auntie (Flora MacDonald, I kid you not) lives in Crieff and still handmakes Kilts at the age of 78.

MikeR - 11/9/14 at 11:33 AM

Interesting looking at the vote,

Currently ....
2/3 of 'non scots' don't want a divorce.
4/5 of scots don't want a divorce.

Note quite what the media is reporting. I know a friend who works in Edinburgh uni is not looking forward to a 'yes' vote. Higher education expects to get decimated over the next 5 years along with the bankers as changes take effect and lots of them then head south.

Mr Whippy - 11/9/14 at 11:53 AM

yeah not what I'm seeing reported in the papers, makes you wonder where their getting their figues

Are they just reporting poll results that they like given the papers arn't neutral?

ravingfool - 11/9/14 at 02:18 PM

There is an awful lot of tosh talked on this subject.

At the end of the day it shouldn't be a huge impact on the rest of the UK whatever occurs although I'd much prefer that Scotland remain a part of the UK as there will at the very least be a negative impact initially on everyone both sides of the border and a huge costs to Scotland in establishing a lot of the necessary facilities which are otherwise handled in the UK at present. Obviously the rUK is not going to contribute towards those if we're not going to see future benefit from it whereas at present we all share the expense of running one large union together (subject to some duplication by the local administration).

I just can't see the benefit to Scotland in separating. Yes you'll have more individual say but at present Scotland is well represented at Westminster amongst the rest of the UK so I fail to understand why it is being suggested that having the whole say in a small government with a small budget is going to be preferable to having a large say in a large government with a much larger budget?

If you're not happy with what your MPs achieve in westminster have you considered voting for different ones rather than saying that you no longer want to play football with us and what's more you're taking your ball with you? Ok, we'll just carry on with our own ball I guess.


Granted, I'm being a little silly but I think people do blow a lot of this stuff out of proportion. I live near London and the reason I live near London is that there are lots of good jobs here - I'm not saying that there aren't good jobs elsewhere but it is a hub which employs and feeds a large number of the residents of the UK. I don't think it's surprising that the area gets a large amount of investment in terms of services etc and these things are clearly self perpetuating whereas fostering growth in other areas is obviously more nuanced and difficult. It doesn't seem to me though that Scotland fair any worse than any other part of the country and the backlash against London is a bit of a nonsense as it's really a backlash against banking and we all know that the banks based in Scotland were as badly affected if not more so than those based in London.

I disagree with devolution on principle for the UK. Presently it's a nonsense because England doesn't have any individual parliament and the trouble makers elsewhere try to suggest that the UK parliament is effectively English and they discount the MPs from the rest of the union.

There was nothing wrong with a system which had a central government for the entire UK and a series of local authorities to which appropriate issues which require more careful local planning were assigned (not devolved). Devolution seems only to foster separatism and in-fighting and none of the time spent on this argument has really been in the interests of anyone in the UK.

If it were England trying to accede from the UK I'd be dead against it without a clear plan for basically everything. No-one in the UK is entirely happy with current politics but the Scottish Yes campaign seem to be suggesting that they're the only ones not getting what they want. If you have a population of more than 1 then guess what, you can't please all of the people all of the time!

Final points. IF Scotland votes yes, and I don't think they will, then it'll be no skin off my back but please have Salmond keep his nonsense to himself thereafter because in England most of us are even more sick of him that the Scots are. If you want a currency union, you have to pay to play. It's not in our interests as a continuing UK to tie ourselves to the economy of a separate Scotland without necessary control over taxation and spending. If you're happy to leave those things with us anyway, why bother asking for independence? The £ is not an asset; it is a form of currency which only really has value because of who prints it and says it is worth something. The UK prints and controls the £ and if you leave the UK then you have no right to print or control it. You can carry on using it if you like but at your own risk. It is just total nonsense in economic terms to seek independence without taking control of your own currency. Also find it hilarious that Salmond thinks that he can bargain the £ in return for taking on debt. The debt of the UK is a debt of all the member states together, the markets are not going to react well if Scotland decides to walk away from paying its creditors on independence and the average Scot will suffer in terms of interest rates and cost of living as Scottish companies will also suffer increased costs.

*eta also in case not completely obvious already; as the £ is only worth something so long as the people who control it also pay their debts; and a Scottish currency would be effectively worthless if it was started to default on their share of UK debt.

[Edited on 11/9/14 by ravingfool]

mcerd1 - 12/9/14 at 07:33 AM

no ones mentioned the biggest issue of the lot - if he gets his yes vote will I still need to go for an IVA test ? and will it cost me more ?

jeffw - 12/9/14 at 09:04 AM

Now....when all you Yes vote boys lose, you are not going to go on about it are you? It will be another 300years before you get another chance to become 'free'.

It will mean all us English will get to keep all the oil revenue

[Edited on 12/9/14 by jeffw]

woodster - 12/9/14 at 09:32 AM

i don't want to see the union broken up, i have a few scots friends and i've been there a couple of times the people in general are lovely ...... i personally wouldn't want Alex Salmon as a leader he comes across as a bit of a knob and he looked a proper knob when murry won wimbledon, talk about living in the past.

snakebelly - 12/9/14 at 02:18 PM

The only US news channel I ever watch had an interesting report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJRYJdTQYE4&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ

mark chandler - 12/9/14 at 07:00 PM

Unfortunately whatever the result Scotland's now screwed itself, business will not want to locate in Scotland if they vote no because of insecurity of this happening again in five years it, if yes banks and big business move out.

It's a lose lose situation that will prevail for years to come, as a result more bitterness towards the UK will grow along with poverty that will be the legacy from this round of voting.

D Beddows - 13/9/14 at 01:33 AM

excuse my ignorance but if Scotland votes 'yes' does Alex Salmond automatically become your king, or do you have to have general election type thing? That might be fun.......

britishtrident - 13/9/14 at 07:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
excuse my ignorance but if Scotland votes 'yes' does Alex Salmond automatically become your king, or do you have to have general election type thing? That might be fun.......


If you had been taught British history rather than English history in school you would know the answer to that. The two thrones are separate but held by the same person since Mary Queen of Scots son King James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England in 1606 to become James I of England.

A No result in the referendum will undo the 1707 Union of the Parliaments not the 1606 Union of the Crowns.

Post 1707 Scotland was to be known as North Britain and England as South Britan and there are many surviving letters from the period showing people in Scotland giving their return adress as "North Britain" and this continued for couple of decades, but you will find few letters from England giving a return address as "South Britain".

jeffw - 13/9/14 at 08:12 AM

BT falls for the piss-take yet again....loosen up mate (and change the name lol)

blakep82 - 13/9/14 at 11:14 AM

quote:
Originally posted by mark chandler
Unfortunately whatever the result Scotland's now screwed itself, business will not want to locate in Scotland if they vote no because of insecurity of this happening again in five years it, if yes banks and big business move out.

It's a lose lose situation that will prevail for years to come, as a result more bitterness towards the UK will grow along with poverty that will be the legacy from this round of voting.


5 years? Are you sure? I thought there was talk of 25
Anyway, yes all salmonds has done is put a massive wedge between everyone. And so many blatant lies. Ok lies come from both sides, but this one spent 20k on hiding his eu legal advice scam from everyone, and people trust him!

Texan - 18/9/14 at 11:30 PM

I'm waiting to hear the outcome with bated breath. I have no dog in this fight and can see both sides.

I'm a direct descendant of said Mary Queen of Scotts and James I, but that's not my interest.

I live in Texas and many of us have had the same thoughts as the Scots. If Scotland does it and we can all see how it works out for them it just could be the impetus to us.

Angel Acevedo - 19/9/14 at 01:27 AM

I read the first couple of pages a few days ago and read some of the last comments...
So this may be written somewhere within this thread.

I remember a couple of adages that my father used to tell me and my brother and sister.
one was "Divide and you will conquer"
And the other "Union Makes strength"
Based on this, I would think is better to stay together...
But that´s just me... Not even British...

nick205 - 19/9/14 at 05:42 AM

All over and it's a NO then!

jeffw - 19/9/14 at 05:53 AM

but 45% of the voters voted yes....this will not go away so easily. The Scots will get more powers and more money for staying, at the expense of everyone else. The £ has rebounded by 2c as well.

Mr Whippy - 19/9/14 at 06:27 AM

BenB - 19/9/14 at 06:57 AM

So does this mean that Alex S has to go? Its difficult to see how the "union" can work effectively when one party clearly doesn't want to be in it and is now probably proper sulky I reckon we need a referendum down here to see if we want to keep them

Irony - 19/9/14 at 08:20 AM

Personally one good reason for a no result was that we can keep the Union Jack as our flag. In my opinion its the greatest looking flag in the world!!!!

r1_pete - 19/9/14 at 08:31 AM

I wish I'd the time to understand all the arguments / facts, though from what I heard there were very few of the latter, a break away would have probably cost both parties more than the next 10 years benefit, if there was one.

Salmond did seem quite gracious in defeat listening to the radio on my way to work this morning...

sdh2903 - 19/9/14 at 08:51 AM

quote:
Originally posted by r1_pete
I wish I'd the time to understand all the arguments / facts, though from what I heard there were very few of the latter, a break away would have probably cost both parties more than the next 10 years benefit, if there was one.

Salmond did seem quite gracious in defeat listening to the radio on my way to work this morning...


In my opinion this is the only main reason why the yes campaign failed, simply down to a complete lack of Facts.

As much as I'm not a massive fan of Salmond I don't think anyone could say he and his team didn't put on a very good effort, much more so than the lazy No campaign which only really came to life when the opinion polls became close. To see an 85% turnout is impressive too.

Texan - 19/9/14 at 06:47 PM

At 45% against staying this issue is not going away any time soon. There will need to be some major concessions to salve some wounds.

That's a huge amount of discontent and it's going to need to be addressed and soon.

I would not be surprised to see it surface again in a few years.

v8kid - 19/9/14 at 08:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Texan
At 45% against staying this issue is not going away any time soon. There will need to be some major concessions to salve some wounds.

That's a huge amount of discontent and it's going to need to be addressed and soon.

I would not be surprised to see it surface again in a few years.


I think you underestimate the BRITISH capacity for putting democracy into practice. I doubt any other country could have gone through this process with so much civility.

I am now even more proud of my country and think we are an example to the rest of the world. Would Spain for example have the courage to do this? Suppose Texas wanted to be independent would the USA allow the people to have their say? I think not in both cases.

Cheers!

RK - 19/9/14 at 10:56 PM

You did much better with it than our clowns did here, where the question was the very definition of obfuscation. Thankfully people came to their senses. The questions of military spending came up: don't forget the budget now, is not going to include buying all new stuff, like airplanes etc. Those cost more than the entire budget of the country sometimes. And that isn't including tanks, water pistols or whatever the army likes to use, etc.

Texan - 20/9/14 at 03:51 AM

quote:
Suppose Texas wanted to be independent would the USA allow the people to have their say? I think not in both cases.

Cheers!


I can guarantee they wouldn't and they'd (Washington) would villify everyone there. It would almost another War of Northern Aggression to break away even tho by treaty we have the right to. Texas was an independent nation who decided to join the Union with strings attached.

There was a graph floating around recently (around a lot in Texas) that showed the American economy and how it had improved in the last few years.

There was also one floating around without Texas' contribution and w/o Texas it was still in the crapper. So the people the least like Obama are what's keeping the country afloat.

But that was a given.

[Edited on 20/9/14 by Texan]

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 07:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by v8kid
quote:
Originally posted by Texan
At 45% against staying this issue is not going away any time soon. There will need to be some major concessions to salve some wounds.

That's a huge amount of discontent and it's going to need to be addressed and soon.

I would not be surprised to see it surface again in a few years.


I think you underestimate the BRITISH capacity for putting democracy into practice.


It also fails to recognise the fact that the SCOTTISH reputation for being all mouth and trousers is well earned...

The Irish were always willing to risk their lives, backed up by guns and bombs, for their principles. Hell, even the Welsh were willing to commit a few acts of arson to prove their point. The Scottish have just demonstrated that despite all the nationalist bluster and bully-boy tactics in the campaign, when it came to marking crosses on ballot papers in a free and unfettered vote, they're not even willing to risk any uncertainty to their wallets.

As far back as the Jacobite rebellion (in which one of my ancestors was a leading player, incidentally), the Scots have had tended to windbag and bluster about how much they believe in Scottish 'freedom' and independence, but when push comes to shove they prefer getting pissed on scotch and whinging morosely about it than actually doing something.



It further fails to recognise the ENGLISH talent for presenting themselves as a beacon of democratic reason on the world stage, whilst being a right bunch of devious, malicious, vindictive and self-serving bastards behind their genteel and self-deprecating front.

All the Westminster government needs to do now is to overburden Scotland with public spending, by the simple means of delivering to them exactly the additional layers of government and bureaucracy that they're asking for, give their socialist-biased politicians the freedom to overspend on benefits, health and education, whilst subtly keeping them starved of additional investment elsewhere.

...then wait for the oil to run out.

With such measures and in a generation's time, it will be even more obvious than it is now that independence would be economic suicide.

If the Westminster Government manages this with even the slightest degree of competence, they can put Scotland's nationalist ambitions to bed forever.

[Edited on 20/9/14 by Sam_68]

daviep - 20/9/14 at 12:20 PM

^^^^^ says the man with a chip on his shoulder.

Cheers
Davie

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 12:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by daviep
^^^^^ says the man with a chip on his shoulder.


What chip do you think I have, and on which shoulder, Davie?

I suppose you think I am pro-English, anti-Scottish?

But before mouthing off about chips on shoulders, perhaps we should consider who has just seen their preferred result in the referendum, and who has just seen their espoused views ass-raped by their own electorate?

RK - 20/9/14 at 01:37 PM

Not worth getting your pants in a knot anymore. Of course, this isn't an issue with the Scots.

daviep - 20/9/14 at 02:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
^^^^^ says the man with a chip on his shoulder.


But before mouthing off about chips on shoulders, perhaps we should consider who has just seen their preferred result in the referendum, and who has just seen their espoused views ass-raped by their own electorate?


Not sure there is any need for references to sexual violence, this is usually a family friendly forum.

Perhaps you are homophobic? Or perhaps with nothing useful to say you just default foul language and insults?

Cheers
Davie

sdh2903 - 20/9/14 at 02:24 PM

Think he's angling for a cotswolds separation referendum, I say let him have one.............

What's done is done, get over it

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 02:53 PM

Actually, sdh, while I live in the Cotswolds, I'm a Yorkshireman by birth, a Scot by heritage, and I work in Wales. I've got a foot in almost every camp, so you can run, but the only place you could hide would be Belfast...

But surely you can't begrudge us gloating just a little while longer, after all the anti-Union pigswill and propaganda the Scot Nats have been spouting for the last few months?





Do I sense just the teeniest hint of sour grapes, Davie?

We're glad to be able to continue milking you for oil revenue...

Ahem; I mean we're glad you've chosen to remain a much-valued part of our great nation

... for a while longer.

scootz - 20/9/14 at 02:57 PM

Oh dear Sam. I know you're trolling, but that is quite possibly one of the most bigoted posts I've ever seen on this generally excellent forum!

I really shouldn't bite, but...

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
It also fails to recognise the fact that the SCOTTISH reputation for being all mouth and no trousers is well earned...


I think you'll find it was a VERY open conversation in Scotland. The Yes's said they would vote 'Yes' and did so. The No's said they would vote 'No' and did so. The polls suggest that far more switched allegiance from 'No' to 'Yes' in the run up to the vote. I honestly don't think there was a significant number who said one thing and then voted the other way.

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
The Irish were always willing to risk their lives, backed up by guns and bombs, for their principles...


That's such a stupid disrespectful comment... whether your tongue was lodged firmly in your cheek or not! Just moronic! The Irish had their land forcibly taken from them and were mentally, physically, sexually, and fiscally abused during their occupation. I understand completely why Irish people took up arms and joined the IRA after the Troubles.

As you are well aware, Scotland's situation is completely different. Our complaints surround FAR more subtle acts of oppression. A democratic peaceful process was ALWAYS going to be the only way.

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
... and bully-boy tactics ...


I think even 'No' voters would admit that the 'bully boy tactics' came from the UK Government, the UK opposition party, and the UK media. A campaign based on fear and negativity won the day.

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
As far back as the Jacobite rebellion (in which one of my ancestors was a leading player, incidentally), the Scots have tended to windbag and bluster about how much they believe in Scottish 'freedom' and independence, but when push comes to shove they prefer getting pissed on scotch and whinging morosely about it than actually doing something.


You do actually realise that 'when push came to shove' 45% of the Scottish population voted 'Yes'. That is a huge number of people who were prepared to take a leap of faith into the relative unknown!

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
It further fails to recognise the ENGLISH talent for presenting themselves as a beacon of democratic reason on the world stage, whilst being a right bunch of devious, malicious, vindictive and self-serving bastards behind their genteel and self-deprecating front.


The main players of 'devious, malicious, vindictive and self serving bastardry' on this occasion were Westminster tied Scottish politicians. The UK Govt agreed to the Referendum because they didn't believe there was a hope in hell of a 'Yes' vote. And then the Westminster elite visibly shat themselves a few days before the vote and ran about like headless chickens.

David Cameron nearly became the man who lost the Union. He had massive assistance from political, media, and financial sector influences from across the globe... and was so very nearly defeated by an ordinary bloke called Alex.

I'm genuinely gutted that Scotland voted 'No', but I'll move on and get over it. I'm not so sure though that you'll be able to jettison that massive chip that sits on your shoulder (the likes of which you seek to project on the shoulder of a minority of Scots).

sdh2903 - 20/9/14 at 02:57 PM

Gloat all you want but I do think you overstepped the mark a little.

And don't forget the oil or the decrepit rigs out in the north sea won't last forever so enjoy the milking while it lasts

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 03:34 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scootz...
possibly one of the most bigoted posts I've ever seen


If you think that, then you've got completely the wrong idea about where I'm coming from.

As I think I mentioned on the other Scottish thread, politically, I'm very, VERY anti-nationalist in every shape or form.

I think it's about time we realise that we are living on one, very small planet, and that the whole concept of 'nationhood' is outmoded and unhelpful.

The main reason I'm anti-Scottish nationalist is that it's a step in the wrong direction. The right direction, for me, would be toward a federal Europe, and thence a federal global society. That's a long way off, of course, but the current trend for regression into an ever-increasing number of historic principalities and tribal kingdoms just doesn't make any sense, from where I'm standing.

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
I think you'll find it was a VERY open conversation in Scotland.


But you surely have to admit that all the mouthing-off, the bully-boy tactics and the shouting-down that happened on the streets as part of the debate appeared to be on the Nationalist side?

The ‘no’ vote isn’t being referred to as the silent majority for nothing…
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The Irish had their land forcibly taken from them and were mentally, physically, sexually, and fiscally abused during their occupation. I understand completely why Irish people took up arms and joined the IRA after the Troubles.

Absolutely; I’ve always been pro-Republican in the Irish question, and I always will be.

Ironically, the biggest trouble causers in Northern Ireland have never been the English or the Irish. They’ve been the Ulster Scots.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
As you are well aware, Scotland's situation is completely different. Our complaints surround FAR more subtle acts of oppression. A democratic peaceful process was ALWAYS going to be the only way.


ALWAYS?

Actually, if you’re talking about a snapshot of the current political situation, then you’re being delusional if you think that there is any ‘oppression’, subtle or otherwise, by the English of the Scots, any more. It’s ancient history, being whipped up in a much-distorted form by a small minority of politicians with their own agenda. The Union has been equitable, peaceful and mutually respectful since the Georgian era.

If you take your snapshot back in the days of the Highland Clearances, or Butcher Cumberland, or Edward I ‘the Hammer of the Scots’, then all the abuses that you’ve claimed for the Irish applied to the Scots as well… but that is ancient history.

Get over it.

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
I think even 'No' voters would admit that the 'bully boy tactics' came from the UK Government…


What, that they refuse to let you continue to share a currency, in an arrangement that would have been technically and legally unworkable? That wasn’t bullying – it was merely pointing out a few unwelcome home truths.

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The main players of 'devious, malicious, vindictive and self serving bastardry' on this occasion were Westminster tied Scottish politicians. The UK Govt agreed to the Referendum because they didn't believe there was a hope in hell of a 'Yes' vote. And then the Westminster elite visibly shat themselves a few days before the vote and ran about like headless chickens.

David Cameron nearly became the man who lost the Union. He had massive assistance from political, media, and financial sector influences from across the globe... and was so very nearly defeated by an ordinary bloke called Alex.


You think?

I think that you, the SNP, and the British Labour party have all been bamboozled into thinking that poor, inept David Cameron was ‘nearly the man who lost the union’, when he and his Party (who, I should stress, I do not support!) have in fact maneuvered themselves in such a way that they’ve come out of this better than anyone… the SNP have failed, period, and the new agenda for democratic overhaul will cut away the power that the Labour party used to be able to derive from their Scottish MP’s.

I think you’ve all been sold a dummy in spectacular style!


[Edited on 20/9/14 by Sam_68]

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 03:39 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903...don't forget the oil or the decrepit rigs out in the north sea won't last forever


No indeed!

We might cut you loose, next time, if you're still daft enough to want to go.

...you may well be nothing but a millstone, by then!

sdh2903 - 20/9/14 at 04:03 PM

Don't do it scootz. Don't feed him..........

scootz - 20/9/14 at 04:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
But you surely have to admit that all the mouthing-off, the bully-boy tactics and the shouting-down that happened on the streets as part of the debate appeared to be on the Nationalist side?


No Sam... I live here and saw first hand the impact on the streets. Both sides were equally vocal, and post-referendum it has been the Unionists who have caused any trouble. The Union Flag waving, burning of Saltires, assaults, and nazi-salutes that we saw in George Square last night were disgusting.

There has been NOTHING of such similar incidence from a Scottish Nationalist side.

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
ALWAYS?

Actually, if you’re talking about a snapshot of the current political situation, then you’re being delusional if you think that there is any ‘oppression’, subtle or otherwise, by the English of the Scots, any more. It’s ancient history, being whipped up in a much-distorted form by a small minority of politicians with their own agenda. The Union has been equitable and peaceful since the Georgian era.

If you take your snapshot back in the days of the Highland Clearances, or Butcher Cumberland, or Edward I ‘the Hammer of the Scots’, then all the abuses that you’ve claimed for the Irish applied to the Scots as well… but that is ancient history.

Get over it.


Nowhere did I say that the 'oppression' I was alluding to came from the English. You have simply assumed that to be the case through your breathtaking ignorance of the subject. The vast majority of Nationalist Scots have no problem with the English, Welsh or Northern Irish. Their problem lies with Westminster. You simply don't understand the situation and have bought into the gutter-presses caricature of a Scottish Nationalist. Shame on you.

Oh, and I am well 'over' any ancient abuses inflicted on the Scots. In fact, I was never 'under' them!

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
What, that they refuse to let you continue to share a currency, in an arrangement that would have been technically and legally unworkable? That wasn’t bullying – it was merely pointing out a few unwelcome home truths.


Again Sam. you don't know enough about the subject. It wasn't just the currency issue (which was both technically and legally workable!). Scotland has been bombarded with UK Govt sponsored scare-stories of being shunned by the EU, pensions not being paid, financial collapse, companies leaving the country, breakdown in disorder, invasion from unknown aggressors, etc, etc, etc. Its been utter nonsense!

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
I think that you, the SNP, and the British Labour party have all been bamboozled into thinking that poor, inept David Cameron was ‘nearly the man who lost the union’, when he and his Party (who, I should stress, I do not support!) have in fact maneuvered themselves in such a way that they’ve come out of this better than anyone… the SNP have failed, period, and the new agenda for democratic overhaul will cut away the power that the Labour party used to be able to derive from their Scottish MP’s.

I think you’ve all been sold a dummy in spectacular style!


I would agree that much of the 55% have been sold a spectacular dummy, and that Scottish (and UK!) Labour has been seriously wounded in this campaign. The Scottish Conservatives however will continue to be a non-entity.

Given that it's only taken less than 24hrs for the (unspecified and frankly ridiculous) 'Pledge' to stumble, then I can only see a rise in support for the SNP going forward. Most had tipped the 'Yes' vote to fall flat on its face. The SNP however succeeded in raising support for an independent Scotland from the low 30%'s to the mid 40'%s. They gathered well over 1.5 million votes of support and almost achieved the apparently 'unachievable aim'. I do not agree that they 'failed'. I would say that they succeeded.

And I also think that the UK has benefitted as this whole process has opened up debate for England, Wales and NI to get further devolved powers, and for further examination of 'The West Lothian Question'.

Stick to technical inputs concerning car / trike building Sam. You have a lot to offer there and I highly respect those inputs. Your contributions however to this particular subject is just plain bigoted BS!

scootz - 20/9/14 at 04:41 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
Don't do it scootz. Don't feed him..........



I know he's trolling, but there's definitely an underlying bigotry in there - the type he's trying to project onto Nationalist Scots and that pisses me off.

I wouldn't let him get away with it if we were face-to-face and I won't let him get away with it on this forum!

I'm sick fed up with people linking Scottish Nationalism with anti-English sentiment. It's BS. The only folk who espouse such nonsense are the tiny minority of brain dead idiots... and all countries in the UK has those idiots (seems England has one of their very own in Sam!).

I, and the vast majority of Nationalist Scots, have huge respect and love for our English, Welsh and NI cousins, and as a Nationalist Scot, I would still do all I could to support each of them in a given situation if it was morally correct to do so.

sdh2903 - 20/9/14 at 04:57 PM

Bigotry bordering on racism, but he's just fishing for a reaction as he so often does. Let him stew in his own twisted juices.

daviep - 20/9/14 at 05:08 PM

It's very frustrating that such people spoil what could be interesting discussion.

Regards
Davie

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 05:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
Bigotry bordering on racism.


How does that work, since by race and heritage I'm Scottish?!

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 05:21 PM

Scootz, you think my input is bigoted (English nationalist?) bullshit that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subtleties of Scottish nationalism. I equally think that your, and more particularly Davie's, input is bigoted, Scottish nationalistic bullshit that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the bigger picture of how national economies and politics work as part of the wider world.

Clearly, we won't see eye to eye, but don't make the mistake of thinking that you, and no-one else, has a proper understanding of the situation.

...because even in Scotland the significant majority have just demonstrated that they disagree with you.

quote:
Originally posted by scootzScotland has been bombarded with UK Govt sponsored scare-stories of being shunned by the EU, pensions not being paid, financial collapse, companies leaving the country, breakdown in disorder, invasion from unknown aggressors, etc, etc, etc. Its been utter nonsense!


Whereas every word and every statistic from the SNP side has been factually correct gospel truth?

Oh, come now, Scootz, are you really that naive?

Of course there has been propaganda and bullshit, on both sides. It's politics, what do you expect?

There are some fundamental basic principles around economies of scale (or should that be scales of economies?) that can't be avoided, however. Scotland as an independent nation of 5 million would have been dramatically less sustainable than Scotland as part of a nation of 64 million.

I agree that the vast majority of the Scots, nationalist or otherwise have no problem with the English. Which makes it even more ludicrous to fight for an independence that is not in their country's best interest.

I agree that much of the United Kingdom's problem lies with the London-centric decision making of the Westminster Government, but fragmenting the UK into a number of unsustainably small splinter kingdoms isn't the answer to that one - sdh's attempted jibe about an Independent Republic of the Cotswolds was right in that much, at least. Personally, I don't think that local democracy on a microscopic scale is either - it just multiplies bureaucratic inefficiency, whilst leaving the London divide where it is.

You don't seem to be very clear yourself about why you wanted independence - is it because you don't want to be part of the United Kindgom (and if so, why, given that it delivers clear and unambiguous economic and political benefits on the world stage?), or is it just that you don't like the current flavour of the Westminster government (if so, join the club...)?

Can we agree on one, simple incontrovertible fact: you lost!

sdh2903 - 20/9/14 at 05:28 PM

Because of your lack of class in your responses which include crass and insulting language. You really need to make your mind up what you are as well, a few posts ago you were a Yorkshireman by birth so that would make you English or in the spirit of togetherness your British.

I agree with davie there's many ways to debate this topic without sinking to the level of insults that you are Sam.

As a mancunian born brit living in the west of Scotland I've had several top debates with both sides without ever dropping to the level you have in this thread.

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 05:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903You really need to make your mind up what you are as well, a few posts ago you were a Yorkshireman by birth


A few posts ago, I did indeed say that I was a Yorkshireman by birth. I also said, if you can handle whole sentences at one time, that I am Scottish by heritage (my grandparents were Scottish, of a very distinguished Scottish family), I live in the Cotswolds and I work in Wales.

I do not like to characterise myself as being of any nationality.

Of course, by quirk of birth I find myself living in the UK, speaking English, and am therefore allocated a UK passport, but there's not much I can do about that.

I hold no respect for anyone who defines themselves by their nationality, regardless of what that nationality is: I find nationalism itself to be a divisive and antagonistic trait, which this thread amply demonstrates!

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
...there's many ways to debate this topic without sinking to the level of insults that you are Sam.


Whilst Davie initiated this particular slanging match by saying that I had a chip on my shoulder (I may have, but it's anti-nationalistic generally, not anti-Scots nationalism; I hate English nationalism in equal measure, and I was at least equally insulting of the English character in my first post) and Scootz called me a 'brain dead idiot', amongst other things.

Sticks and stones... but I don't think I've directed any such personal insults toward other members on this forum?


[Edited on 20/9/14 by Sam_68]

twybrow - 20/9/14 at 05:49 PM

Sam can you stop the language please. This is a family forum. If you wish to exercise your potty mouth (or fingers), then please go back under your bridge where trolls are more at home.

scootz - 20/9/14 at 05:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
You don't seem to be very clear yourself about why you wanted independence - is it because you don't want to be part of the United Kindgom (and if so, why, given that it delivers clear and unambiguous economic and political benefits on the world stage?), or is it just that you don't like the current flavour of the Westminster government (if so, join the club...)?


Why?

I think that the UK is far too reliant on 'services' (77% of UK GDP).
I do not want the NHS to be privatised.
I do not want to blindly follow the US into conflicts overseas.
I do not want nuclear weapons in my country.
I do not want to squander any portion of what is left of the oil and gas money on the likes of nonsense wars and Trident
I want it invested in health services, local industries, and renewable energies.
I want to remain in the EU.
I want a voice in politics... Scotland too often does not get the Govt it voted for.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

I satisfied myself that there was a future for an independent Scotland based on our existing tangible assets / industries and I saw voting 'Yes' as being in the best interests of generations to come.

Yes, of course there is a selfish aspect there. I see the UK as a sinking ship due to Westminster incompetence and nationwide apathy, and I saw that Scotland had a chance to deploy the lifeboats. Seems the majority were too scared to do this as they thought the seas may have been a bit choppy and cold. We'll reap what we've sown... that's democracy!

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
Can we agree on one, simple incontrovertible fact: you lost!


We did. But I can hold my head high as I did my best.

Sam_68 - 20/9/14 at 06:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Why?

I think that the UK is far too reliant on 'services' (77% of UK GDP).
I do not want the NHS to be privatised.
I do not want to blindly follow the US into conflicts overseas.
I do not want nuclear weapons in my country.
I do not want to squander any portion of what is left of the oil and gas money on the likes of nonsense wars and Trident
I want it invested in health services, local industries, and renewable energies.
I want to remain in the EU.
I want a voice in politics... Scotland too often does not get the Govt it voted for.


It may surprise you to find that, despite my apparently being a brain-dead idiot, we are in agreement about every single one of those points.

Though with regard to your last point, I should say that Bradford, Birmingham, Berkeley and Brian who works down the Butchers frequently don't get the government they voted for either... that's democracy for you (allegedly).

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Yes, there is a selfish aspect there - I see the UK as a sinking ship and Scotland had a chance to deploy the lifeboats.


There, of course, we differ.

The ship isn't sinking; economically it's just sailed out of a storm with remarkably little damage, so (in the opinion of a brain dead idiot) leaping from the 6th largest ship in the world onto a small lifeboat with only enough supplies to last you until the oil runs out (and its slowing down already) would have been a very silly thing to do, and one that you'd have come to regret.

And, of course, I'm not selfish.

Badger_McLetcher - 20/9/14 at 10:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scootz
I think that the UK is far too reliant on 'services' (77% of UK GDP).
I do not want the NHS to be privatised.
I do not want to blindly follow the US into conflicts overseas.
I do not want nuclear weapons in my country.
I do not want to squander any portion of what is left of the oil and gas money on the likes of nonsense wars and Trident
I want it invested in health services, local industries, and renewable energies.
I want to remain in the EU.
I want a voice in politics... Scotland too often does not get the Govt it voted for.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

I agree on all the above points (barring Trident, Mr Poo-in-a-tin has swung me round on that matter), and think there's a better chance of sorting them out now that Scotland's staying. I think it's unfair to expect change overnight, but reform must be had. I'm glad Scotland's stayed, but now the hard work begins. From what I've seen the referendum has been incredibly divisive, not just in Scotland but in the entire UK. Without wishing to sound like some kind of inspirational poster, now's the time for the UK to pull together.

And kick Westminster's arse