JoelP
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 11/9/14 at 08:59 AM |
|
|
Salmonds Scottish Defence Force...
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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".
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 13/9/14 at 08:12 AM |
|
|
BT falls for the piss-take yet again....loosen up mate (and change the name lol)
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 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!
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
Texan
|
| posted on 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.
I drive therefore I am.
|
|
|
Angel Acevedo
|
| posted on 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...
Beware of what you wish.. for it may come true....
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 19/9/14 at 05:42 AM |
|
|
All over and it's a NO then!
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 19/9/14 at 06:27 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
