View Full Version : Are you British or are you a wimp?
secrets in symmetry
28-Jul-12, 01:08
Tonight's Olympic ceremony celebrated the best of Britain. Did you enjoy it, or are you one of those wimpish Scottish Nationalists that can't compete on a global scale?
I know something about Wee Fat Eck that I suspect no-one else on this forum knows. The man is a total disgrace in my opinion.
Two flat spots for me was Queenie not raising even the hint of a smile and Paul McCartney getting brought on yet again. It saddened me to see Muhammed Ali looking so frail, one of the worlds greatest sportsmen reduced by a cruel disease. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the show, I think Danny Boyle did a fantastic job bringing it all together, it does make one proud to be British.
Im a wimp....took to watching ice age1, 2 and 3 tonight and only watchingbits of the olymic openings between DVDs....
rogermellie
28-Jul-12, 01:59
i was dreading tonight's show after seeing the rehearsals on the news, it looked like a cheap west end show, but the show in all it's glory was superb.
'I know something about Wee Fat Eck that I suspect no-one else on this forum knows. The man is a total disgrace in my opinion. '
stop being a tease and spill the beans ...
Danny Boyle dared to dream. He dared to inspire. His continuum of past, present and future worked beyond expectations. There were so many highlights, culminating in that totally brilliant cauldron sequence. There was laughter, and tears. There was pride and humility. There was wise old age, and blossoming youth. Above all, there was love in the air, and a pride not in being a citizen of any nation, but in a commonality of a wonderful experience shared by all. Danny simply tapped into the great universal, and gave us a simple and childlike wonder to warm our hearts and inspire us all. Thank you, Danny.
rogermellie
28-Jul-12, 02:30
Danny Boyle dared to dream. He dared to inspire. His continuum of past, present and future worked beyond expectations. There were so many highlights, culminating in that totally brilliant cauldron sequence. There was laughter, and tears. There was pride and humility. There was wise old age, and blossoming youth. Above all, there was love in the air, and a pride not in being a citizen of any nation, but in a commonality of a wonderful experience shared by all. Danny simply tapped into the great universal, and gave us a simple and childlike wonder to warm our hearts and inspire us all. Thank you, Danny.
very well put, Danny, or should i say 'sir' Danny was a great choice, he's a creative force in the UK, the Brunel/industrial scenario was awesome ... but Mike Oldfield ?! ... if Roger Waters had been in place of him it would have been a perfect night for me.
as for starting the musical medley with the sugababes ....
I thought it was Fabulous. i thoroughly enjoyed it and watched every minute. I loved the industrial revolution and I loved the wee tease with Rowan Atkinson and the one with the queen. I thought the cauldron was superb and I loved the drums and it was fabulous. I am delighted i watched it.
The man is a total disgrace in my opinion.
He said the same thing about you only last week !!!
That show made me proud to be British, well done to all who took part in make it an enjoyable evening
So you are saying if i didnt enjoy last nights' ceremony then im an uncompetitive wimpish nationalist eh? what the hell are you on? why on earth do you bother posting on here because everything i see from you is either inflammatory or derogatory. A forum is for discussion, not to deliberately post threads which the sole intention of doing so is to provoke people.
Mystical Potato Head
28-Jul-12, 11:20
Tonight's Olympic ceremony celebrated the best of Britain. Did you enjoy it, or are you one of those wimpish Scottish Nationalists that can't compete on a global scale?
I know something about Wee Fat Eck that I suspect no-one else on this forum knows. The man is a total disgrace in my opinion.
Well if thats the case then the Queen is a wimp and must be a dead cert to be the next leader of the SNP because she clearly
didnt look like she was enjoying it.
So you are saying if i didnt enjoy last nights' ceremony then im an uncompetitive wimpish nationalist eh? what the hell are you on? why on earth do you bother posting on here because everything i see from you is either inflammatory or derogatory. A forum is for discussion, not to deliberately post threads which the sole intention of doing so is to provoke people.
Nicely written!
I have managed to miss every hint of the games so far...and intend to continue to do that for as long as it is on. Never watch the Beeb, much anyway, so not watching it is no hardship. Luckily Radio 4, so far doesn't have that much about it, and just snippets. I hope they don't start doing whole programmes though.
Can't remember the last time I watched an Olympics. Not a lot to do with being a wimp.....or even not being British, even though I'm not........but because the only reason to watch something so monumentally boring is if your country is involved.....and mine isn't.
I will probably suffer the Commonwealth Games when it comes around, as I always do.....but I expect it will be only marginally less boring than the Olympics.
Green_not_greed
28-Jul-12, 11:31
Well I watched the whole thing and thought it was brilliant. A huge well done to Danny Boyle and his team. As a Scot who has lived all over the UK and abroad, I was proud to be part of the British nation. Even without the TV commentary I would have followed what it was all about, though I'd be interested to know what other nations made of it. Probably a bit confused.com in places......
billmoseley
28-Jul-12, 12:47
Hats off to the queen at her age jumping from a helicopter and not even looking ruffled after. next she will be joining the paras
Nicely written!
Hear, Hear!!!
C3.............;)
Hmmm - Secrets equates enjoying the opeening ceremony with Britishness and not with wimpishness and an inability to compete and being a Scottish nationalist. Where Secrets is clearly very smart and knows loads about loads they always disappoint on the subject of independence, SIS always seems to lazily rely on the old If you are a nationalist you must be anti english or anti British. Its a lazy and boring argument. I am British, I am proud to be British I am proud to be English and specifically a northerner. I will cheer on team GB whoever is competing and be proud that Britain did such a good job of the opening ceremony. the most important thing about these games is the athletes and the effort they put into being there and doing their absolute utter best. Its fantastic and transcends politics. But I live in Scotland and I believe in independence. I believe that an independent Scotland is the right way to go. I wont be giving up my British citizenship nor would I be any less proud of where I was born and what shaped me. But the referendum is about the future and what will give future generations the best possible lives. I think that is Independence. Does that make me a wimp?
billmoseley
28-Jul-12, 13:00
Heres a thought lets just enjoy the sports which all these young men and women have trained so hard for. this a once in life chance for some these competitors and be proud that they are getting their chance in Britain.
I think that's what Danny Boyle intended! Good luck to them all.
Hmmm - Secrets equates enjoying the opeening ceremony with Britishness and not with wimpishness and an inability to compete and being a Scottish nationalist. Where Secrets is clearly very smart and knows loads about loads they always disappoint on the subject of independence, SIS always seems to lazily rely on the old If you are a nationalist you must be anti english or anti British. Its a lazy and boring argument. I am British, I am proud to be British I am proud to be English and specifically a northerner. I will cheer on team GB whoever is competing and be proud that Britain did such a good job of the opening ceremony. the most important thing about these games is the athletes and the effort they put into being there and doing their absolute utter best. Its fantastic and transcends politics. But I live in Scotland and I believe in independence. I believe that an independent Scotland is the right way to go. I wont be giving up my British citizenship nor would I be any less proud of where I was born and what shaped me. But the referendum is about the future and what will give future generations the best possible lives. I think that is Independence. Does that make me a wimp?
I seem to remember in a thread in which you were deliberately trying to downplay the impact that your nationality has had in defining the person who you are today, it suited your line of argument that you were trying to put across at that time. Now you seem to be stressing the opposite to again suit your agenda.
Where Secrets is clearly very smart
Is because he wanted a reaction to his OP and he got one. It's a form of Trolling and one where he obviously gets a kick from. It's us that aren't very smart because we reacted and posted on this very silly styled thread!!!
He will no doubt come on later and have a really good laugh at us and who can blame him?
Anyway, in answer to his silly question, it's a no and a no from me!!
C3.........[disgust]
i dont really understand your point Rheghead. Being british isnt what defines me its just a part of a whole. I perhaps would be more likely to say that being brought up a northerner is more defining for me than being British but I am proud of being British and English and i dont see why i shouldn't be so. That isnt MORE important than doing what I think is right and actually my point is that being a supporter of independence doesnt make you less proud of our athletes, doesnt make you less likely to cheer them on and doesnt make you anti british or anti english despite the many efforts to make it look that way. Go team GB!!!!
linedancer1
28-Jul-12, 14:43
Enjoyed the bits that I watched apart from the Arctic Monkeys, wot a load of rubbish, thought they could have come up with something more appropriate than that from GB.
Is because he wanted a reaction to his OP and he got one. It's a form of Trolling and one where he obviously gets a kick from. It's us that aren't very smart because we reacted and posted on this very silly styled thread!!!
He will no doubt come on later and have a really good laugh at us and who can blame him?
Anyway, in answer to his silly question, it's a no and a no from me!!
C3.........[disgust]
I dunno corrie - the more we get the chance to discuss the issues in a sensible manner the better. I just wonder that SIS never has anything very challenging to say about it. Thats all. Go teamGB :D
oldmarine
28-Jul-12, 17:25
Tonight's Olympic ceremony celebrated the best of Britain. Did you enjoy it, or are you one of those wimpish Scottish Nationalists that can't compete on a global scale?
I know something about Wee Fat Eck that I suspect no-one else on this forum knows. The man is a total disgrace in my opinion.
I am not a Brit nor a Scot, but I enjoyed my time in the highlands when I worked at the Thurso Naval Station during the design and installation of the Satellite Communications terminal.
I dunno corrie - the more we get the chance to discuss the issues in a sensible manner the better. I just wonder that SIS never has anything very challenging to say about it. Thats all. Go teamGB :D
I'm with SIS (rarely) no point in discussing anything. Minds are made up. No good reason to change (other than to massage the ego of a meglamaniac).
I'm with SIS (rarely) no point in discussing anything. Minds are made up. No good reason to change (other than to massage the ego of a meglamaniac).
So you don't believe there are enough Scots undecided to swing the result in either direction? My mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it.....but any discussion is not aimed at the polarised on both sides of the argument but at the swing vote.....as all elections and referenda campaigns are.
I, however,am puzzled as to why anyone would assume that a completely London-centric Olympic games would necessarily instill a sense of Britishness in all those outside London who have forked out their taxes and lost large chunks of lottery money in order to pay for improvements to life in London and profits to London business for no benefit for their own areas. I could almost feel Britishness at the pomp and ceremony of an Armistice Day commemoration at the Cenotaph, or even at the likes of Princess Diana's or Winston Churchill's funerals....but I'm sure you will excuse me if I don't get excited over a load of sports people who would represent GB at the opening of an envelope if they thought it would further their careers. They'd be just as happy competing anywhere in the world as themselves.
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 00:09
My mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it.....
So never mind whether it is better or worse for the country, or at least keeping an open mind to finding out any facts or figures regarding this God help Scotland if its future is decided by people with archaic blinkered attitudes like this,
So you don't believe there are enough Scots undecided to swing the result in either direction? My mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it.....but any discussion is not aimed at the polarised on both sides of the argument but at the swing vote.....as all elections and referenda campaigns are.
I, however,am puzzled as to why anyone would assume that a completely London-centric Olympic games would necessarily instill a sense of Britishness in all those outside London who have forked out their taxes and lost large chunks of lottery money in order to pay for improvements to life in London and profits to London business for no benefit for their own areas. I could almost feel Britishness at the pomp and ceremony of an Armistice Day commemoration at the Cenotaph, or even at the likes of Princess Diana's or Winston Churchill's funerals....but I'm sure you will excuse me if I don't get excited over a load of sports people who would represent GB at the opening of an envelope if they thought it would further their careers. They'd be just as happy competing anywhere in the world as themselves.
No.
Well it does, and has, get over it. :lol:
billy5000
29-Jul-12, 01:25
didnt even watch the opening to the games and not really into any of it:)
i did see the bond sketch news report and video which i thought was kinda funny but shame she didnt dive herself as she would have rocked for doing that)
but other than that im not a follower as its not my thing but all the best for team GB
Tonight's Olympic ceremony celebrated the best of Britain. Did you enjoy it, or are you one of those wimpish Scottish Nationalists that can't compete on a global scale?
I know something about Wee Fat Eck that I suspect no-one else on this forum knows. The man is a total disgrace in my opinion.
Have you nothing else to do in life but post obnoxious, ignorant and potentially libellous material on this site. You must live in "cloud cuckoo land" to have the audacity to covertly call a person "a total disgrace."
Your' comment imply's that this person has done something perhaps illegal, or, this is a juicy piece of gossip which you are hoping people will want to find out. You might be under the mistaken idea that you are "anonymous." However, "Wee Fat Eck" may not see it like that and may want to take this offensive statement further.
You should realise by now after all the posts you have made, that, you still have no friends and no one has a nice comment to make about you.
The only thing your post shows is how ignorant and quote,"...wimpish (sp not even a word in the dictionary)..." you really are. You do not even have the guts to say this to the person you named. What a nasty, ignorant person you are.
"Empty vessels make the most noise!"
I don't think it is at all libellous to call someone a total disgrace. Your name's not Alex is it? He is a total disgrace just for wanting to break up the UK in my opinion.
So never mind whether it is better or worse for the country, or at least keeping an open mind to finding out any facts or figures regarding this God help Scotland if its future is decided by people with archaic blinkered attitudes like this,
I am reasonably intelligent and have never believed that what has always been is what always should be, simply because it always had been. But equally, I have never believed that change simply for the sake of change is a good thing. Admittedly my perceptions as a teenager were predominantly driven by the way my political mindset was forming, as about the same time I also became pro-Palestinian as a reaction to the immorality and excesses of successive Israeli Governments.
However what I have seen in my lifetime, and most particularly over the last forty or so years, has served only to firm up that original teenage perception that Scotland at the very least can do no worse as an independent country.......and could most probably serve the Scottish people much better. It seems to me that the archaic blinkered attitudes are those of Unionists in Scotland, who are happy to do same old, same old...for no other reason than that is a known quantity, even if it is not necessarily the best option, but it does have the merit that the fact that it is the status quo saves them having to do anything but cuddle under the Union security blanket.
Believe me, I know facts and figures....from both points of view. Do you? I would be more than happy to seriously discuss the merits of the Union compared to the possibilities and probabilities of Independence, and even the concept of devo max......but few in the Unionist camp anywhere are currently doing anything other than scaremongering and making snide remarks like yours above.
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 12:29
I have never believed that change simply for the sake of change is a good thing.
No but you clearly are not open to any other line of thinking other than your own blinkered one as you made your mind up 50 years ago
Scotland at the very least can do no worse as an independent country.......and could most probably serve the Scottish people much better. another sweeping statement including the P word
It seems to me that the archaic blinkered attitudes are those of Unionists in Scotland, who are happy to do same old, same old...for no other reason than that is a known quantity, even if it is not necessarily the best option, Or that they don't want to risk jumping out of the frying pan into the fire on the advice of blinkered views of people who's " mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it..... "
but it does have the merit that the fact that it is the status quo saves them having to do anything but cuddle under the Union security blanket.
listening to the pro independent supporters arguments so far im not sure that a security blanket wouldn't be a better option
Believe me, I know facts and figures....from both points of view. Do you?
No I certainly don't, but unlike you I want to hear valid arguments from both sides before I decide which side to support, but the only reasoning im hearing from your side is "My mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it....." by the way, how did you come to this conclusion 50 years before knowing the current facts and figures?
I would be more than happy to seriously discuss the merits of the Union compared to the possibilities and probabilities of Independence, and even the concept of devo max......but few in the Unionist camp anywhere are currently doing anything other than scaremongering
and the point of that would be what as you are clearly set in your ways and would only want to give your blinkered view from 50 years ago and the view that "Scotland at the very least can do no worse as an independent country.......and could most probably serve the Scottish people much better"
and making snide remarks like yours above.
I cant don't recall making any snide remarks. I think its a shame that we may end up losing a chance in a lifetime to make a go of Independence, because too many people like me are looking for valid reasons to become Independent and as you say leave the "Union security blanket" and are met with people like you who's idea of a valid reason is that it will "probably be better"...............
Wow,
Someone's (almost) learned how to use the multi-quote!
Give that man a bronze medal!!
C3..........;)
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 12:51
Wow,
Someone's (almost) learned how to use the multi-quote!
Give that man a bronze medal!!
C3..........;)
the stalker returns, I would only accept the Medal if you sing our National anthem whilst I receive it from you my proud fellow Brit,
actually while you are here you may be able to help Oddquine (http://forum.caithness.org/member.php?2626-Oddquine) with the argument for Independence ie your ground breaking views on how all crime, poverty, health ,education, child abuse issues etc etc will all "probably" disappear over night and we will all be rich from Oil with one wave of the Independent Wand.........oh no I forgot you only make sweeping unfounded statements born from years of bitter bigoted inbred inferiority complexes rather than any relevant facts
No.
Well it does, and has, get over it. :lol:
Do you have figures to prove that the Olympics have instilled a sense of Britishness into the population of this island?
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 13:01
Do you have figures to prove that the Olympics have instilled a sense of Britishness into the population of this island?
do you mean current figures or from 50 yrs ago
the stalker returns, I would only accept the Medal if you sing our National anthem whilst I receive it from you my proud fellow Brit,
actually while you are here you may be able to help Oddquine (http://forum.caithness.org/member.php?2626-Oddquine) with the argument for Independence ie your ground breaking views on how all crime, poverty, health ,education, child abuse issues etc etc will all "probably" disappear over night and we will all be rich from Oil with one wave of the Independent Wand.........oh no I forgot you only make sweeping unfounded statements born from years of bitter bigoted inbred inferiority complexes rather than any relevant facts
:roll::lol:;)
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 13:30
:roll::lol:;)
and there I rest my case................
No but you clearly are not open to any other line of thinking other than your own blinkered one as you made your mind up 50 years ago
How difficult do you find it to read and respond to a whole post in context? Which part of my further comment However what I have seen in my lifetime, and most particularly over the last forty or so years, has served only to firm up that original teenage perception that Scotland at the very least can do no worse as an independent country.......and could most probably serve the Scottish people much better has been written in Sanskrit so that you interpret it as clearly indicates that I am not open to any other line of thinking?
another sweeping statement including the P word
Now now.I am being honest.which is more than Unionists are.....probably is all any of us, Unionist or non-Unionist can say regarding the future. And an Independent Scotland in the future is as much an unknown country as the Union is right now, far less in two years time. There are perhaps some options which can be considered certainties in an independent Scotland..such as no Trident and no illegal wars, and social policies which don't trash the disabled..but, as in the UK in this current economic climate, everything else is just conjecture from a level of commonsense and logic. See Unionists don't really do commonsense and logic.......or use the word probably. They rush to print with their interpretation of just about everything from a basis that Scotland will be kicked out of the world into oblivion if they dare bite the hand that claims to feed them.
Or that they don't want to risk jumping out of the frying pan into the fire on the advice of blinkered views of people who's " mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it..... "
The frying pan is already smouldering and on the verge of bursting into flames itself........haven't you realised that yet? I am not giving advice in this thread, and won't anywhere, though I will give facts and figures if there appears to be any point......in this thread I am giving my personal opinion....and re blinkered views of people who's " mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it..... " I refer you to my response to your first snippet of my original post.
listening to the pro independent supporters arguments so far im not sure that a security blanket wouldn't be a better option
Funny that, given there have been no arguments from either side. Plenty personal opinion, but no considered arguments.
No I certainly don't, but unlike you I want to hear valid arguments from both sides before I decide which side to support, but the only reasoning im hearing from your side is "My mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it....." by the way, how did you come to this conclusion 50 years before knowing the current facts and figures?
And you will get them..once you stop your snide remarks and actually want to so something other than insult. I have the time and information if you have the open mind. I am also more than happy to listen to all your valid arguments in support of the Union......they are currently on the internet as rare as hobby horse's droppings. I think it is unlikely I would ever vote for the status quo.but may be persuaded to consider devo-max. Again, re "My mind has been made up for about fifty years.....no chance at all of anyone changing it....." by the way, how did you come to this conclusion 50 years before knowing the current facts and figures? I refer you to my response to your first snippet of my post.
and the point of that would be what as you are clearly set in your ways and would only want to give your blinkered view from 50 years ago and the view that "Scotland at the very least can do no worse as an independent country.......and could most probably serve the Scottish people much better"
Kinda running out of stuff to say now, aren't you....I refer you to my responses to both the first and second snippets you have chosen to use from my posts.
I cant don't recall making any snide remarks. I think its a shame that we may end up losing a chance in a lifetime to make a go of Independence, because too many people like me are looking for valid reasons to become Independent and as you say leave the "Union security blanket" and are met with people like you who's idea of a valid reason is that it will "probably be better"...............
I'm afraid I interpret So never mind whether it is better or worse for the country, or at least keeping an open mind to finding out any facts or figures regarding this God help Scotland if its future is decided by people with archaic blinkered attitudes like this, as a response to one very selectively snipped part of a response as someone being snide because that what suits. If I am wrong, then my bad. Re people like you who's idea of a valid reason is that it will "probably be better".............. I refer you to my response to your second snippet of my original post.
and there I rest my case................
:roll::lol:;)
do you mean current figures or from 50 yrs ago
The last London Olympics were conducted in a different time frame if that is what you mean by fifty years ago (although they were actually 64 years ago). I am sure, given my parents thought of themselves as British at that time I'd have been in my pram waving a Union Flag.
Not appropriate for applying to an Olympics taking place in 2012, though.
I assume that means you have no figures. Maybe ducati has.
Hmmm I have made it very clear that I am supporting Independence and equus I have asked and asked for answers to questions about how the union will help us do things in future, what we might acheive as part of the union and how Scotland will flourish as part of the union in the future. I havent really had any. Despite this I have been challenged to put my points of view across and I have done so. All that happens is that the debate just stops. Few challenge my pro independence stance and few offer any opinion on how Scotland will be better off in future in the union.
I am not a fifty years decided person, I am still working through in my mind the pros and cons and I have well documented my opininons on various websites and here. I try really really hard not to be blinkered and I am very particular about making my posts as open as possible. I am not confrontational nor dismissive and I try to avoid cheap political jibes - although sometimes mischief gets the better of me. I have seen little of any REAL discussion and I dont understand why.
A while ago orgers used to meet and chat lol maybe we should have an Orgers meet up night to discuss face to face some of the issues and reasons behind both the YES and the NO campaigns. That might be fun.... or not lol
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 14:32
The last London Olympics were conducted in a different time frame if that is what you mean by fifty years ago
No why I mentioned 50 yrs was because you said thats when you decided about Independence
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 14:48
[QUOTE]clearly indicates that I am not open to any other line of thinking?
No the statement "and nobody will change my mind" does that
and no illegal wars, what do you mean the ones started and supported by the Scots (Blair Cameron Brown etc)
The frying pan is already smouldering and on the verge of bursting into flames itself........haven't you realised that yet?
could be a good thing for cooking all the chips on your shoulders
Funny that, given there have been no arguments from either side. Plenty personal opinion, but no considered arguments.
not really just find it funny how the same ridiculous statements keep appearing regardless of what side they are from (although I think you are easily leading that race) as I cant actually remember any such nonsense stated on here from the other side unless you would like to point some out
I have the time and information if you have the open mind.
that's rich, open mind have you forgot your "and no one will change my mind" statement
Kinda running out of stuff to say now, aren't you....
no not really
I refer you to my response to your second snippet of my original post.
and...............
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 14:59
firstly my comments wasn't aimed at you Squidge ?? and I have said on numerous occasions that I don't have any answers but I am trying to find them, but that doesn't mean that I cant tell when someone is talking rubbish and will continue to point this out regardless of the political stance of the speakers, and was it not you who until recently was in a seemingly similar position as me regarding being undecided and wanting answers? if so you seem to be pretty convinced now, can you explain the facts for and against that helped you reach this point
I answered this on the North Sea Oil thread but here you go again
Ok what do I think the advantages of Independence are.
There are a couple of things you need to understand about my beliefs before I start - Firstly you need to know that I thinnk Scotland is a different country country from Wales, Ireland and England. I dont beleive that it is "North Britain" or that it is just another region - like the North West or the Midlands. That isnt a new thing - I was taught in school that Scotland was a different country and I cant quite get me head round those who say it isnt.
The second thing is that I have quite a soapbox about fairness and equality for all people -I cant beleive that there is anyone out there who doesnt know this about me lol but its worth saying because it means that I am dissatisfied with the society we have today.
So given these two basic things - here is what I believe the advantages of Independence will be.
1. Absolutes
We will be able to raise our own money.
We will be able to spend our own money.
We will be able to target our spending to the priorities of Scotland
The political landscape will change after the referendum and offer more choice and so we will be able to vote and get a government which reflects the voting by the Scottish People.
No Trident
Free Education
2. Aspirations
We will be able to develop a democratic process which suits the People of Scotland and is our own. Last weekend the Electoral Reform society held "The people's gathering" which took 129 randomly selected people ( I was invited but didnt go because I have been ill ) and asked them for ideas about the sort of democracy Scotland could have - they will be taking forward this work to look at different ways of developing the ideas they received further. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk
We will be able to develop Scottish solutions to the problems we face here in Scotland with terrible health inequalities, social deprivation and lack of opportunities for the poorest in society.
We will be able to work towards creating wealth through inward investment, through an economy which puts growth and the creation of jobs at its heart and we can work to develop a more diverse business sector developing rules and regulations which try to curb the worst excesses of big business - tax avoidance, and banking shenanigans for a couple. Maybe even look at improving ethics within large companies.
We will be able to promote Scotland as an Independent country - this can only benefit things like tourism and rural issues. Although Edinburgh is not very close to places like Caithness it IS closer than Westminster and better able to understand the peculiar needs of the different areas within Scotland and therefore be able to address these issues better than Westminster.
We will be able to focus everything we do on creating a more equal and fairer society - closing the gap between poor and rich and working toward every child having the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
We will be able to develop a better welfare system which doesn't demonise people as wasters and scroungers and which could offer real help for those trying to find work by focusing on growth and investment to create jobs and help people back into work.
We will be able to make all decisions about Scotland's future, here in Scotland, by people that know Scotland and want the best for the people of Scotland.
That's a start but before you all jump up and down and say that I dont KNOW these things will happen. You are right I dont know but the overriding advantage of Independence for me is that we have the CHANCE to change things. We have the CHANCE to grasp an opportunity to do all of the above. Nothing is going to happen tomorrow or referndum+1day but it will change over the following weeks, months, years and decades. I might be dead before the things I want to see happen will happen but I honestly and truly beleive that I can do the best thing for my children and the future of Scotland by voting for Independence. The politicians cant make any of this happen. I don't believe there is a will to do any of the above at Westminster. Either with this government or with the current Labour Party. The only way any of the above things even stand a remote chance of happening is if WE make them happen - the people of Scotland by voting YES in the referendum.
That's it. That MY view on Independence. You can agree or disagree and I guess that Phil and Golach are right - if you are happy with the Status Quo and satisfied that we live in the best society we could live in then vote NO and be happy with that. I wont think you are stupid or ignorant - I am happy that I have looked at the issues which are important to me and made my decision based on those things and you have to do the same.
There you go Equus thats MY opinion. It might be worth asking some specific questions about what is important to you and then those of us that have opinions both unionist and nationalist can answer them as best we can and you can choose which answer appeals to you most.
No why I mentioned 50 yrs was because you said thats when you decided about Independence
I repeat......if anything had happened since to change my mind.......I'd have changed it. Nothing has.....so I have not changed my mind. Now why do you find plain English so hard to understand?
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 15:30
I answered this on the North Sea Oil thread but here you go again
There you go Equus thats MY opinion..
ok thank you and sorry for making you repeat it, but I thought you might have a bit more information, regarding currency, defence, NHS, taxes, borrowing (credit rating), debt, incomings and outgoings etc etc etc as surely these are fundamental to anyone making a proper and sensible decision ...........but then again lol
[QUOTE=Oddquine;966638] No the statement "and nobody will change my mind" does that
, what do you mean the ones started and supported by the Scots (Blair Cameron Brown etc)
could be a good thing for cooking all the chips on your shoulders
not really just find it funny how the same ridiculous statements keep appearing regardless of what side they are from (although I think you are easily leading that race) as I cant actually remember any such nonsense stated on here from the other side unless you would like to point some out
that's rich, open mind have you forgot your "and no one will change my mind" statement
no not really
.
and...............
And you have the temerity to say my mind is closed! I am not about to fill this thread responding to even more two or three word snippets taken out of context. If you feel inclined to troll, then you are welcome to do that. I am sure you will forgive me if I refuse to play your games.
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 15:33
I repeat......if anything had happened since to change my mind.......I'd have changed it. Nothing has.....so I have not changed my mind. Now why do you find plain English so hard to understand?
mmmm that's completely contradictory to your statement "and nothing will change my mind" so I would look at your understanding of the English language before questioning mine and going round in circles
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 15:36
[QUOTE=equusdriving;966650]
And you have the temerity to say my mind is closed! I am not about to fill this thread responding to even more two or three word snippets taken out of context. If you feel inclined to troll, then you are welcome to do that. I am sure you will forgive me if I refuse to play your games.
well I will just look elsewhere for sensible answers to back Independence as you clearly don't have them
ok thank you and sorry for making you repeat it, but I thought you might have a bit more information, regarding currency, defence, NHS, taxes, borrowing (credit rating), debt, incomings and outgoings etc etc etc as surely these are fundamental to anyone making a proper and sensible decision ...........but then again lol
No... These are technicalities that need to be sorted out by whichever government is elected to the new parliament once independence has been gained...
How many other former colonies of the English empire based there decision on independence on purely financial & economic considerations?
ok thank you and sorry for making you repeat it, but I thought you might have a bit more information, regarding currency, defence, NHS, taxes, borrowing (credit rating), debt, incomings and outgoings etc etc etc as surely these are fundamental to anyone making a proper and sensible decision ...........but then again lol
I could fill twenty seven pages with detail Equus - if you have a question then ask it - dont make the assumption that I havent considered it and thats why I havent told you. ASK or even better - look it up yourself. Enter into debates with other people both online and in real life, Attend meetings, write articles about it and take on board the feedback you get, sit up til the wee small hours reading economic tomes that make your head hurt. Oh and when you have done ALL that - which is actually what I have been doing - then you can sneer at me or take a dig at me for lack of detail or failing to make a proper and sensiblel decision..... but then again lol
How many other former colonies of the English empire based there decision on independence on purely financial & economic considerations?
Not many and that is why most have gone to the dogs.
Not many and that is why most have gone to the dogs.
OK, so a lot have but not all & I'm sure Scotland would fair better than most, no military dictators or genocidal fighting between the various Scottish Clans.
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 15:56
Not many and that is why most have gone to the dogs.
yes but it seems that there are a lot of people who are happy to send us to the dogs, as long as THEY are in charge of the Kennel
no military dictators or genocidal fighting between the various Scottish Clans?....oh i don't know, maybe some old wag of a local councillor will erect a border point between Thurso and Wick and there will be stand-offs, pot-shots and sword wiggling at dawn between the villagers ...hey maybe even a few of the Orgers will get hit by a stray bullet...or is that wishful thinking ;)
I could fill twenty seven pages with detail
No point in filling all those pages and clogging the Org Squidge, when even Alex Salmond cannot or will not answer questions put to him by the opposition MSP's on important issues such as the State Pensions. Can you tell me what will happen if we ever get independence?
no military dictators or genocidal fighting between the various Scottish Clans?....oh i don't know, maybe some old wag of a local councillor will erect a border point between Thurso and Wick and there will be stand-offs, pot-shots and sword wiggling at dawn between the villagers ...hey maybe even a few of the Orgers will get hit by a stray bullet...or is that wishful thinking ;)
http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/021/4/c/devil_laghin_by_Scotsgirl_606.gif
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:01
I could fill twenty seven pages with detail Equus - if you have a question then ask it - dont make the assumption that I havent considered it and thats why I havent told you. ASK or even better - look it up yourself. Enter into debates with other people both online and in real life, Attend meetings, write articles about it and take on board the feedback you get, sit up til the wee small hours reading economic tomes that make your head hurt. Oh and when you have done ALL that - which is actually what I have been doing - then you can sneer at me or take a dig at me for lack of detail or failing to make a proper and sensiblel decision..... but then again lol
OK lets start with what will the total yearly expenditure be compared to the outgoings
then what will the credit rating of an independent Scotland be
and what currency will we hope to use (and do we know if we will we be allowed to)
how are those for starters
how are those for starters
Will there be an independent banking system?
No point in filling all those pages and clogging the Org Squidge, when even Alex Salmond cannot or will not answer questions put to him by the opposition MSP's on important issues such as the State Pensions. Can you tell me what will happen if we ever get independence?
Yes golach I can. i can tell you that decisions about how to spend our money and how to help our poor and disadvantaged and how to get our unemployed into work will be taken by a Scottish government who have been voted in by the majority of Scottish voters. That seems to me to be a better deal than we get now. As for the answers on important issues there are many answers golach and political parties will come out with their own manifestos for an Independent Scotland. Some of the suggestions there are are a bit off the wall but some are worth thinking about. The details runs to a massive amount of information because there is not one definitive answer but a lot of options and suggestions. However if we stick with the status quo there is only one answer and only one way forward.
Now golach can you tell me what will happen to Scotland if we remain in the Union? what will happen to state pensions? Do YOU have any definitive answers?
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:08
OK, so a lot have but not all & I'm sure Scotland would fair better than most,
Oh well as long as your sure we would fair better than most ,what more could we possibly want!
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:11
Will there be an independent banking system?
will the bailed out Scottish banks have to be paid for by the Scottish Government
Oh well as long as your sure we would fair better than most ,what more could we possibly want!
You don't sound very convinced there... Care to explain how you think we are going to fall into civil war & military dictatorship?
Now golach can you tell me what will happen to Scotland if we remain in the Union? what will happen to state pensions? Do YOU have any definitive answers?
Sorry Squidge I do not have the answers, you on the other hand seem to have the ear of the present government, I asked what is going to happen to my State Pension, you have answered with a lot of political babblespeak, saying a lot but not answering the question.
I have no answers, but I will stick with the status quo, I am happy to be a part of the Union, Rule Britannia
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:26
You don't sound very convinced there... Care to explain how you think we are going to fall into civil war & military dictatorship?
no but then again id like to hear how you think this alone is grounds to vote for Independence
I doubt if Scotland could pull off an Olympics like this one. It cost £9billion across a population of 60million, so cost per capita is just £150, an independent Scotland cost per capita would be £1800.
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:31
It seems that after all the hot air, as soon as there are questions to be answered the usual suspects are all nowhere to be seen! but I expect that as usual when this thread has died down they will reappear on another thread, only to do the same
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:35
I doubt if Scotland could pull off an Olympics like this one. It cost £9billion across a population of 60million, so cost per capita is just £150, an independent Scotland cost per capita would be £1800.
don't be silly, your forgetting about our oil revenue that will enable everyone to retire at 18 with a massive pension, new car every year etc etc
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:39
No... These are technicalities that need to be sorted out by whichever government is elected to the new parliament once independence has been gained...
Oh I get it now, vote for Independence and then see if we can afford it or go bankrupt , wow what a plan........................
OK lets start with what will the total yearly expenditure be compared to the outgoings
The economy is really difficult to assess both for an independent scotland and for the Union however there is also a wealth of evidence to show that Scotland would have run at a surplus if we were independent and both had a share of the oil revenues and didnt contribute to something which Gers calls UK national expenditure - this includes things like the olympics and the london birmingham high speed link. There are however others who believe that Scotland will be worse off but we are currently doing a little better than the UK as a whole and that should give us an indication that things can get better. There are many many pages equus which you can search to see what the experts think. I am no expert. In addition the budget will be decided by the government that we elect to take us into independence and their spending and borrowing plans.
then what will the credit rating of an independent Scotland be
Many financial institutions and newspapers suggest that the credit rating of an independent scotland may not be AAA as the uk enjoys right now. However it does depend on the economic situation and the settlements agreed at the point we become independent. Given that there is a suggestion by the SNP based on OECD figures that Scotland will be the 6th richest country in the world it would seem that we might have about an evens chance of holding on to the AAA credit rating. Take your pick.
and what currency will we hope to use (and do we know if we will we be allowed to)
how are those for starters
Well this would depend on what political party we want to lead us into Independence and whether they will want to use the pound or not. the SNP have stated that we will stay with Sterling and use the pound but other parties are prepared to look at alternatives. There are strong financial reasons for continuing to use the pound and indeed that I beleive is what happened in Ireland to start with. I would prefer us to stay with sterling until such a time as we are ready to change that. As for being allowed to use the pound well it is not within the power of Westminster to stop Scotland using the pound as it is a fully tradeable currency.
Remember Equus - you asked me what I thought about when deciding about independence and thats what I am sharing with you I am not an expert on economics at all. The economy isnt a deal breaker for me but it might be for you - if it is then go look it up yourself.
Sorry Squidge I do not have the answers, you on the other hand seem to have the ear of the present government, I asked what is going to happen to my State Pension, you have answered with a lot of political babblespeak, saying a lot but not answering the question.
I have no answers, but I will stick with the status quo, I am happy to be a part of the Union, Rule Britannia
Thats fine golach. you do that.
Given that many financial experts suggest that Scotland will be the 6th richest country in the world it would seem that we have about an evens chance of holding on to the AAA credit rating.
Can you give us a link to who these experts are and what exactly they're saying? Thanks.
It seems that after all the hot air, as soon as there are questions to be answered the usual suspects are all nowhere to be seen! but I expect that as usual when this thread has died down they will reappear on another thread, only to do the same
jeepers Equus - give me a chance! I have a child with chicken pox a bored 3 year old and i have dinner to make and my husband is away. You and your laziness and inability to research the answers to your own questions arent my main priority just now. And as for questions to be answered neither you nor golach ever answer questions about how we are going to improve things, achieve more and be better off in the union.
I doubt if Scotland could pull off an Olympics like this one. It cost £9billion across a population of 60million, so cost per capita is just £150, an independent Scotland cost per capita would be £1800.
I wouldn't want Scotland to stage the Olympics and I am sure most people wouldn't, why put our children and their children into debt for years to come just for 3 weeks of glorified sports days? I read the other day that the Govt are shutting down a few children's heart hospitals, one in Leicester because they can no longer afford to run them but it's ok to cripple the UK with years of debts just because a few peoples ego's need to be inflated, if you need names ok, Coe, Cameron, Johnson, Beckham. Remember these names because in a few years time when the UK is bankrupt these are the people that did it to us.
And instead of asking for answers on Independence on here why don't you e-mail the SNP MSP for Caithness, thats what they are here for!
C3..........[disgust]
Can you give us a link to who these experts are and what exactly they're saying? Thanks. not jsut now no - for the reasons that i have already said. i will try to come back to it later but life is a bit demanding just now. But thanks for saying thanks
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:50
The economy is really difficult to assess both for an independent scotland and for the Union however there is also a wealth of evidence to show that Scotland would have run at a surplus if we were independent and both had a share of the oil revenues and didnt contribute to something which Gers calls UK national expenditure - this includes things like the olympics and the london birmingham high speed link. There are however others who believe that Scotland will be worse off but we are currently doing a little better than the UK as a whole and that should give us an indication that things can get better. There are many many pages equus which you can search to see what the experts think. I am no expert. In addition the budget will be decided by the government that we elect to take us into independence and their spending and borrowing plans.
Many financial institutions and newspapers suggest that the credit rating of an independent scotland may not be AAA as the uk enjoys right now. However it does depend on the economic situation and the settlements agreed at the point we become independent. Given that many financial experts suggest that Scotland will be the 6th richest country in the world it would seem that we have about an evens chance of holding on to the AAA credit rating. Take your pick.
Well this would depend on what political party we want to lead us into Independence and whether they will want to use the pound or not. the SNP have stated that we will stay with Sterling and use the pound but other parties are prepared to look at alternatives. There are strong financial reasons for continuing to use the pound and indeed that I beleive is what happened in Ireland to start with. I would prefer us to stay with sterling until such a time as we are ready to change that. As for being allowed to use the pound well it is not within the power of Westminster to stop Scotland using the pound as it is a fully tradeable currency.
Remember Equus - you asked me what I thought about when deciding about independence and thats what I am sharing with you I am not an expert on economics at all. The economy isnt a deal breaker for me but it might be for you - if it is then go look it up yourself.
Ok Squidge thank you for your answers, but I, like yourself have tried to gather hard facts and figures, and also only come up with ifs, buts and maybes and I personally require a bit more than that to commit to Independence and as its the pro Independence supporters that want change surely the onus must be on them to prove their case
not jsut now no - for the reasons that i have already said. i will try to come back to it later but life is a bit demanding just now. But thanks for saying thanks
You're welcome!
I'll wait patiently, then thank you again!
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:52
jeepers Equus - give me a chance! I have a child with chicken pox a bored 3 year old and i have dinner to make and my husband is away. You and your laziness and inability to research the answers to your own questions arent my main priority just now. And as for questions to be answered neither you nor golach ever answer questions about how we are going to improve things, achieve more and be better off in the union.
LOL I didn't actually mean you Squidge I was referring to oldquine and corrie3
If that is what is important to you Equus then you will have to wait or be proactive in trying to find out or persuade others to provide the information that you want. Personally it is wanting change that leads me to Independence. By that I mean social change - a fairer society. I would pay higher taxes for that than i do now and so for me the pounds shilling and pence wont change my mind.
LOL I didn't actually mean you Squidge I was referring to oldquine and corrie3
So when you say jump we have to jump do we?
It must be in your genes that you have to make an enemy out of anyone who supports Independence,......... or your upbringing!!
C3..............:roll::roll:
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 16:59
jeepers Equus - And as for questions to be answered neither you nor golach ever answer questions about how we are going to improve things, achieve more and be better off in the union.
oh so if you are happy shopping in Tesco's and the co-op wants you to support them its down to you to convince them why you want to stick with Tesco's and not join the co-op? ........... no I didn't think so
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 17:04
you have to make an enemy out of anyone who supports Independence,.........
C3..............:roll::roll: No only the bigoted racist blinkered sad ones like you, who spout hot air and then disappear when there is a question to answer about their spouting s until they come out of the sad hole that is their world to start all over again
Personally it is wanting change that leads me to Independence. By that I mean social change - a fairer society. I would pay higher taxes for that than i do now and so for me the pounds shilling and pence wont change my mind.
I find that interesting.
Do you think independence will result in a social change towards a fairer society? If so, in what ways?
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 17:08
It must be in your genes
C3..............:roll::roll:
what the good old British genes we share ,God save OUR Queen eh Corrie
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 17:12
what the good old British genes we share ,God save OUR Queen eh Corrie
Corrie...............Corrie quickly jump i am talking to you hahaha but be very careful remember what happened the last time you didn't keep a check on that Potty mouth of yours
No only the bigoted racist blinkered sad ones like you, who spout hot air and then disappear when there is a question to answer about their spouting s until they come out of the sad hole that is their world to start all over again
:roll::lol:;)
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 17:18
:roll::lol:;)
Im glad to see that you have finally learnt that if you have nothing worth saying, to keep it shut
chirpy chick
29-Jul-12, 17:35
Calm down dear and whatch the olympics.You Are missing the boxing.
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 17:41
Calm down dear and whatch the olympics.You Are missing the boxing.
OK I will go and watch it now and calm down LOL
Im glad to see that you have finally learnt that if you have nothing worth saying, to keep it shut
:roll::lol:;)....
Just having a laugh at your expense.
oh so if you are happy shopping in Tesco's and the co-op wants you to support them its down to you to convince them why you want to stick with Tesco's and not join the co-op? ........... no I didn't think so
You answer your own questions all the time equus - are you not interested in what I mean? I am not even going to play with your analogy it is too shallow to be of any use at all.
Remember I am asking from MY own point of view I dont speak for anyone else.
I am not happy with the status quo. I am not happy for vodafone and mightily rich corporations and people to get off paying taxes whilst children in care are failed to the extent that the vast majority leave school with no qualifications and many of them end up in prison, I am not happy for Osborne to cut taxes for the rich and yet deny many sick people their benefits; I am not happy to spend millions of pounds on trident and rail links in the south of England whilst police officers are being made redundant and we have to call the army in to help with policing. I look ahead and I cannot see any desire on behalf of this government to tackle the inequalities that exist in society, any desire to invest in growth and jobs or any desire to improve the lives of those who are weak or vulnerable in society. That isnt acceptable to me. It makes me dissatisfied with the way the UK is being governed and I see nothing in the political landscape which suggests that there is anyone who is willing to start to try to address these issues. I want a better life for my children and their children. A life where every child can achieve their potential.
Scottish Independence would mean there is an opportunity to do things differently. To prioritise people over money and to try to create a fairer and better society. When I look ahead i see a road less travelled... I see opportunity and a chance to do things differently. ITs a blank page with Scotland written on it. I beleive that we can do better as an independent scotland. These things wont be changed overnight, It might take 20 or 30 years - the rest of my life - but we surely have to try. There are of course no guarantees but there is a CHANCE, an OPPORTUNITY and that is more than we have as part of the union.
When I ask what people think we can achieve and how we can do things differently as a union than we are doing now how we can create that better society i get no answers but I think that is because the answer is actually - We cant. I would like to see different - I am British and English and I have no heartfelt need for freedom but if that IS the answer then the only way to affect any sort of change is to vote YES for independence.
I cant say any more about this today - im too tired.
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 18:02
:roll::lol:;)....
Just having a laugh at your expense.
Well I expect it beats racking your brain for answers you clearly don't have, to questions you have been asked and ignored time and time again
For goodness sake equus and corrie what is it with you two - go get a room for heavens sake!
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 18:10
For goodness sake equus and corrie what is it with you two - go get a room for heavens sake!
OK but he's got to pay for it :cool:
It appears I overegged the pudding in my response to equus questions - some research on the subject has shown that the 6th richest country in the world isnt a view held by many experts but was an SNP suggestion based on the OECD figures. Here is a link on the subject which explains it very well.http://fullfact.org/factchecks/scotland_independence_salmond_economy-3239
I have amended the post in question but it looking at this I found some evidence which suggests that despite the UK economy having AAA credit rating we still pay more for our debt than countries who have a lower credit rating but a more bouyant economy. I dont really understand this so Im not going to say much more on it but if anyone else has a better clue feel free lol.
OK but he's got to pay for it :cool:
Oh dear, oh dear !!!
Resorted to giving out red rep now have we? How cool is that? [evil]
What a very sad person you are, I really didn't think you would stoop that low.
Never mind!
C3.................:roll:
I wouldn't want Scotland to stage the Olympics and I am sure most people wouldn't, why put our children and their children into debt for years to come just for 3 weeks of glorified sports days? I read the other day that the Govt are shutting down a few children's heart hospitals, one in Leicester because they can no longer afford to run them but it's ok to cripple the UK with years of debts just because a few peoples ego's need to be inflated, if you need names ok, Coe, Cameron, Johnson, Beckham. Remember these names because in a few years time when the UK is bankrupt these are the people that did it to us.
And instead of asking for answers on Independence on here why don't you e-mail the SNP MSP for Caithness, thats what they are here for!
C3..........[disgust]
I see now what vision you have for Scotland, one that is boring, insular, lacks imagination, and absolutely no international prestige but one that can scrape enough together to keep a childrens hospital open.
Do you have figures to prove that the Olympics have instilled a sense of Britishness into the population of this island?
Hang on, I'll get 'em all to put their hands up.
I see now what vision you have for Scotland, one that is boring, insular, lacks imagination, and absolutely no international prestige but one that can scrape enough together to keep a childrens hospital open.
No Rheg,
My vision is a country that gets it's priorities right and doesn't spend money it hasn't got!......Neither of which is being done in London at the moment!!
And if it was your child that needed that hospital then you wouldn't be saying what you are, quite the reverse I would imagine!
No Rheg,
My vision is a country that gets it's priorities right and doesn't spend money it hasn't got!......Neither of which is being done in London at the moment!!
And if it was your child that needed that hospital then you wouldn't be saying what you are, quite the reverse I would imagine!
Priorities?
My point was not just about Olympics, was it?
Where would your austere Scottishness finish? Funding for science research? Arts funding? Charity tax breaks? etc etc
It is a good job that parents of sick children aren't running the country.
I see now what vision you have for Scotland, one that is boring, insular, lacks imagination, and absolutely no international prestige but one that can scrape enough together to keep a childrens hospital open.
The biggest Childrens Hospital "The Sick Kids Edinburgh" is being funded by mainly charity monies, need I say more
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 19:43
Oh dear, oh dear !!!
Resorted to giving out red rep now have we? How cool is that? [evil]
What a very sad person you are, I really didn't think you would stoop that low.
Never mind!
C3.................:roll:
I can only assume that the last comment went over your head, Squidge said get a room and I said OK but you would have to pay for it, but on the matter of red rep guess who is the one and only person "to stoop that low" and leave me it (way before I even new what it was)..............any idea? bigoted ................racist................ offensive...................narrow minded............................... blinkered ...............hypocritical .....................that's right you've got it its YOU so dry your eyes and run along
equusdriving
29-Jul-12, 19:50
No Rheg,
My vision is a country that gets it's priorities right and doesn't spend money it hasn't got!......
Just remind me how much the new council building in Wick will cost?? £8million+ springs to mind
And if it was your child that needed that hospital then you wouldn't be saying what you are, quite the reverse I would imagine!
That's an interesting point.
A population the size of the UK can afford world class, specialist hospitals such as Great Ormond street, a facility children from all over the UK can use.
What would an independent Scotland be able to provide to replace it?
John Little
29-Jul-12, 21:26
In answer to the OP, I am both British and a wimp... :(
rogermellie
30-Jul-12, 01:32
I wouldn't want Scotland to stage the Olympics and I am sure most people wouldn't, why put our children and their children into debt for years to come just for 3 weeks of glorified sports days?
C3..........[disgust]
the Scottish Government are throwing a few hundred million at the 2014 Commonwealth Games (aka the diddy olympics)
the Scottish Government are throwing a few hundred million at the 2014 Commonwealth Games (aka the diddy olympics)
And, in addition to that, a large amount of money is going to improve the stadium of a private company without return..........
People in glass houses and all that.
That's an interesting point.
A population the size of the UK can afford world class, specialist hospitals such as Great Ormond street, a facility children from all over the UK can use.
What would an independent Scotland be able to provide to replace it?
A good sized children's hospital to cater for the children of Scotland!
C3.................:)
I can only assume that the last comment went over your head, Squidge said get a room and I said OK but you would have to pay for it, but on the matter of red rep guess who is the one and only person "to stoop that low" and leave me it (way before I even new what it was)..............any idea? bigoted ................racist................ offensive...................narrow minded............................... blinkered ...............hypocritical .....................that's right you've got it its YOU so dry your eyes and run along
Lol, you give me red rep for being "Childish" and yet what is more childish than name calling?
Is that what they teach you in English playgrounds?
C3...............[lol][lol]
The biggest Childrens Hospital "The Sick Kids Edinburgh" is being funded by mainly charity monies, need I say more
After Independence it's down to us, the voters, to make sure it is funded by the Health Service and is the best there is.
C3.................:)
oldmarine
30-Jul-12, 03:28
For goodness sake equus and corrie what is it with you two - go get a room for heavens sake!
Ha, ha, ha. Worth a big laugh.
After Independence it's down to us, the voters, to make sure it is funded by the Health Service and is the best there is.C3.................
I was under the illusion, that our present government, was in charge of the Health Service in Scotland.
Im not against money being spent on big sporting events and I hope we do plenty of fun stuff in an Independent Scotland. Im glad Glasgow is hosting the commonwealth games, The Manchester games were considered a great success and improved East Manchester beyond recognition. I would both hope and expect that an Independent Scotland would bid for and win large sporting events. We do however need to develop public and private funding partnerships in order to make these types of events viable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18977974
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/24/london-olympics-learn-manchester-games?newsfeed=true
equusdriving
30-Jul-12, 09:26
that's the real corrie coming out now didn't think it would be long before the usual snide digs came out about English, Incomer etc it must be so hard being a sad little racist bigot on here not being able to come out and say exactly what you mean,and having to resort to trying to squeeze anti-english insults in where you can, but yet again you have avoided answering the questions that have been put to you, by making veiled racist comments as a diversion
and I think all that hatred has addled your brain, check your facts before posting it was YOU WHO LEFT ME RED REP FOR BEING CHILDISH now there are questions waiting to be answered, but we all know you dont do answers or facts for that matter, so put up or shut up
that's the real corrie coming out now didn't think it would be long before the usual snide digs came out about English, Incomer etc it must be so hard being a sad little racist bigot on here not being able to come out and say exactly what you mean,and having to resort to trying to squeeze anti-english insults in where you can, but yet again you have avoided answering the questions that have been put to you, by making veiled racist comments as a diversion
and I think all that hatred has addled your brain, check your facts before posting it was YOU WHO LEFT ME RED REP FOR BEING CHILDISH now there are questions waiting to be answered, but we all know you dont do answers or facts for that matter, so put up or shut up
This message is hidden because equusdriving is on your ignore list (http://forum.caithness.org/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
equusdriving
30-Jul-12, 14:28
This message is hidden because equusdriving is on your ignore list (http://forum.caithness.org/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
aah as I suspected no answers, but at least you have finally SHUT UP
Heres a good article to follow from the BBC and it might answer a few of your questions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18364699
C3.............:)
Heres a good article to follow from the BBC and it might answer a few of your questions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18364699 C3...
Thank you for that..........If you believe it then your more gullible than me.
Did you even read it golach lol ? It gives both sides of the argument and often opposing views in the answers - you cant not believe it all - both sides.... that doesnt make sense.
Heres a good article to follow from the BBC and it might answer a few of your questions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18364699
C3.............:)
I always find it ironic that elements within the BBC can put such a positive spin on independence.
Who's to say the BBC will even brodcast here when we're not part of Britain.
nothing like hijacking a thread to spout venom at each other eh lads? oh and wheres secrets in symmetry's comments....rather lacking i see!. Should be time to give this thread a rest.
Scotland is part of the territory of the EU and Scots are EU citizens - there is no provision for either of these circumstances to change upon independence.
So a vote on independence is not quite a vote on independence. I can see a scenario after Scottish independence where England will get independence from the EU because of the increasing influence of far right tory politics.
The SNP will deny us a vote on continued EU membership.
The SNP will deny us a vote on continued EU membership.
Another bold statement Rheg where you have no links or proof. Why do you post statements that you have just made up in your head?
From looking at that link and from other reading that I have done on this subject. It comes across to me that a lot of the key points have a large basis on assumptions, for which confirmation hasn't been sought or has not been recieved. For me I would need to see a lot more clarity on numerous aspects before I could begin to treat independence as a serious option.
Possibly given the timescale left to run, some of these guesses and assumptions will turn into hard facts.
Another bold statement Rheg where you have no links or proof. Why do you post statements that you have just made up in your head?
My proof is that SNP leadership have continued to claim that they want Scotland as part of the EU and that they have not said that we get a vote on the EU. What more proof do you need? Show me proof that I am wrong.
equusdriving
30-Jul-12, 20:16
Heres a good article to follow from the BBC and it might answer a few of your questions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18364699
C3.............:)
????????????????? I am talking about when you make a sweeping unfounded statement or comment and someone makes a reply that shows it up for what it is or questions you , and you ignore it completely and then go on to do it time and time again, now tell us the one about the 3 bears
My proof is that SNP leadership have continued to claim that they want Scotland as part of the EU and that they have not said that we get a vote on the EU.
Automatic membership of the EU is not guaranteed, and the SNP know it.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/herald-view/shedding-light-on-snps-eu-advice.18134667?_=1c35ab6116cbc4296aef1859eae8e695 aad4ed3d
Spain, a country that holds a veto, has also indicated it will block our membership in the same wasy it has done to Kosovo.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html
My proof is that SNP leadership have continued to claim that they want Scotland as part of the EU and that they have not said that we get a vote on the EU. What more proof do you need? Show me proof that I am wrong.
The SNP leadership have said that the SNP policy is to be a member of the EU but they will need to be voted into government in order to implement this policy AFTER the referendum. The SNP are not the only party and there will be other parties standing who would have NOT being in the EU as part of their manifesto and so you will have the chance to vote on this issue if you choose.
Automatic membership of the EU is not guaranteed, and the SNP know it.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/herald-view/shedding-light-on-snps-eu-advice.18134667?_=1c35ab6116cbc4296aef1859eae8e695 aad4ed3d
Spain, a country that holds a veto, has also indicated it will block our membership in the same wasy it has done to Kosovo.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html
Re the EU link.......I could give a toss....NOT....never been an EU fan, and would much prefer EFTA....but where do you get Automatic membership of the EU is not guaranteed, and the SNP know it. out of that link?
Only EU statement I have ever found re the situation if Scotland leaves the Union states....
Maros Sefcovic, the Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration, said he was unable to rule on a separate Scotland’s membership “given that the terms and result of any future referendum are unknown”. He indicated that the other EU member states would make the final decision but not until the terms of separation have been negotiated by Scottish and UK ministers, a process that could take years. Only when the “nature” of that agreement becomes evident will there be a decision on whether either country retains EU membership and the UK’s opt-out from the euro.
Scotland, the UK et al can come up with all the "legal advice" they like.....the EU hasn't made up its mind. That is the current situation. Logically, since the UK no longer exists as the country which first became a member of the EEC, it would be most likely that both would have to reapply, given their changed circumstances...or neither will. I'd go for the first option, if I had anything to do with the EU, because it would allow re-negotiation of the rUKs position to remove the UK opt outs/concessions.
RE the second link which is from January 2012, btw, and which has been reported nowhere else in the world as far as I have ever found......the up to date situation there is.......
The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, José Manuel García-Margallo, yesterday characterised as "absolutely false" reports in the British media that Spain would veto Scottish membership of the EU. The report had been originally published in the London based Independent, and repeated by a number of other news outlets. Citing unnamed British officials, the Independent reported that Spanish officials had expressed their disquiet over the possibility of Scottish independence to their British counterparts, and suggested that if Scotland voted for independence then Spain would veto Scots membership of the EU.
The report claimed that Spain would exercise its veto in case Scottish independence set a precedent for Catalunya and the Basque Country, where there are strong nationalist movements seeking independence from Spain.
However in a statement at a press conference in Brussels yesterday Mr García-Margallo said that there was no truth at all in the Independent's report.
The Spanish Foreign Minister gave an assurance that "in no instance" had the Spanish government expressed "any disquiet" to the British government over the question of Scottish independence. He stated that the referendum in Scotland is an internal matter for the United Kingdom which would be resolved "in accordance with British constitutional norms, which have nothing to do with Spanish constitutional norms".
Re the EU link.......I could give a toss....NOT....never been an EU fan, and would much prefer EFTA....but where do you get Automatic membership of the EU is not guaranteed, and the SNP know it. out of that link?
"In the case of an independent Scotland, there are three possibilities: both Scotland and the remainder of the UK could continue as members; both parts could be required to re-apply for membership; or Scotland could have to re-apply while the rest of the UK remains a member."
This shows it is not automaticilly guaranteed.
"Alex Salmond has said he wants Scots to be in full possession of the facts before voting in the referendum."
and this indicates the SNP know it.
Only EU statement I have ever found re the situation if Scotland leaves the Union states....
Maros Sefcovic, the Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration, said he was unable to rule on a separate Scotland’s membership “given that the terms and result of any future referendum are unknown”.
Exactly my point. Unknown
Logically, since the UK no longer exists as the country which first became a member of the EEC, it would be most likely that both would have to reapply, given their changed circumstances...or neither will. I'd go for the first option, if I had anything to do with the EU, because it would allow re-negotiation of the rUKs position to remove the UK opt outs/concessions.[/I]
I don't understand that logic at all.
The United Kingdom will still exist, and will have the same government. The fact part of it has broken away does not change that. It is still the UK.
With regards to what "you would do if you had anything to do with the EU" is irrelevant. The EU would collapse without any of its 4 (or 5?) net providers, of which the UK is one.
equusdriving
01-Aug-12, 13:34
Do you have figures to prove that the Olympics have instilled a sense of Britishness into the population of this island?
Try these http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-poll-shows-support-for-uk-split-has-dropped-1-2442950
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/01/scottish-support-independence-falls_n_1727205.html
"In the case of an independent Scotland, there are three possibilities: both Scotland and the remainder of the UK could continue as members; both parts could be required to re-apply for membership; or Scotland could have to re-apply while the rest of the UK remains a member."
This shows it is not automaticilly guaranteed.
"Alex Salmond has said he wants Scots to be in full possession of the facts before voting in the referendum."
and this indicates the SNP know it.
Exactly my point. Unknown
I don't understand that logic at all.
The United Kingdom will still exist, and will have the same government. The fact part of it has broken away does not change that. It is still the UK.
With regards to what "you would do if you had anything to do with the EU" is irrelevant. The EU would collapse without any of its 4 (or 5?) net providers, of which the UK is one.
Re your first comment.....I'd as soon believe the EU cheils than the Herald, tbh. but if you think a Herald journalist knows best, then that is your prerogative.
Re "Alex Salmond has said he wants Scots to be in full possession of the facts before voting in the referendum." and this indicates the SNP know it. I'm sure they do, but how any of that article indicates anything more than that Alex Salmond has sought a legal opinion giving a point of view, or maybe more than one, according to that/those legal person/people's interpretation of an unknown quantity on the basis of nothing at all beats me. I should think that we will have found out what the advice was when it is time to firm up the campaign. This is early days..but I'd guess whatever was said is reasonably interpretable as Alex Salmond has publicised it..much as it is quite likely that the legal advice sought by Westminster on the same issue, and which they refuse to supply under FOI, allows them to say the rUK will stay as the successor state and Scotland will be booted out. Interpretation of available advice from a specific political position is what politicians do.
I do find the Unionist MPs whining much more than a little hypocritical, though, given that....
Speaking in December 2011, a spokesman;said: "Whilst there is a strong public interest in seeing what legal advice has been provided to the UK Government on the implications of EU membership if Scotland were to achieve independence, we have concluded that this is outweighed by a strong public interest in the Government being able to seek free and frank legal advice." Coalition
and
In December 2002, the Labour/Lib Dem run Scottish Executive refused to disclose what legal advice it sought regarding the boundaries of the devolved responsibilities of the Parliament before seeking the agreement of Holyrood that the UK Parliament legislate on devolved matters. Labour's Patricia Ferguson, then Minister for Parliament, replied:; "By long-standing convention, the general policy of the Scottish Executive is that it does not disclose legal advice or whether it has taken legal advice.
"What is it with people who only respond to a few out of context words from a post?
The whole quote you didn't bother using is Maros Sefcovic, the Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration, said he was unable to rule on a separate Scotland’s membership “given that the terms and result of any future referendum are unknown”. He indicated that the other EU member states would make the final decision but not until the terms of separation have been negotiated by Scottish and UK ministers, a process that could take years. Only when the “nature” of that agreement becomes evident will there be a decision on whether either country retains EU membership and the UK’s opt-out from the euro.
Now maybe I read English differently from you.....but I posted that quote because it actually says nobody knows what is guaranteed and what is not..because the EU itself has no flaming idea.....because it isn't even going to think about it until there is something to think about.
Can do you personal opinion other than that by the Herald journalist, if you like......Eamonn Gallagher, former Director General of the European Commission and EC Ambassador to the UN in New York, quoted in the Sunday Herald on 18 February 2007, said: ;"Scotland and the rest of the UK would be equally entitled to continue their existing full membership of the EU."
and
Emile Noel, the first and longest serving Secretary-General of the European Commission said:"Scottish Independence would create two new member states out of one.; They would have equal status with each other and the other states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland."
and
Norman Tebbit....The 1972 treaty of accession was made between the European Community and the United Kingdom. Subsequent revisions of the founding treaty have converted that "EC" into the EU and the subsequent treaties, Maastricht and all, have been endorsed by the United Kingdom. But if Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom the 1707 Treaty, and with it the UK, would be no more.
When I asked a former (Labour) Lord Chancellor if that would mean that the new state of Scotland would need to apply for EU membership, if that was its wish, he said he thought that would be so. Then after a moment's thought he said: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."
And that last quote is also a reply to your The United Kingdom will still exist, and will have the same government. The fact part of it has broken away does not change that. It is still the UK...and also clarifies for you my logical opinion that it would be most likely that both would have to reapply, given their changed circumstances...or neither will.
The UK was the Union of Great Britain and Ireland (from 1801 to 1922) and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland after that, though the name of the Union was not changed to reflect the Independence of the Irish Free State until 1927. To form Great Britain and the UK, first required the 1707 Treaty of Union. The 1707 Union is and was a political construct, and one from which either party can secede.
The effect of Scotland removing itself as a signatory from the Treaty which formed Great Britain, means that the UK, in its turn is changed...and will not exist as it is now. Nothing stopping the rUK calling itself the United Kingdom of England Wales and Northern Ireland, UK for Short, after Scottish Independence...and being governed from Westminster, but without Scottish MPS....but that is not The United Kingdom will still exist, and will have the same government.The fact part of it has broken away does not change that. It is still the UK Because it most definitely does........and it most definitely wouldn't be the UK as it exists now.....as you seem to think.
Re your comment that The EU would collapse without any of its 4 (or 5?) net providers, of which the UK is one..... Would you not logically consider, in that case, that the EU would be reluctant to remove either or both parts of the old UK......because to do that they would be removing the resources it has brought as a collective entity to the EU table? I do rather see, though, a renegotiating of concessions won in the past..something the EU has wanted to do for some time, but been unable to accomplish. Scottish Independence could be their chance.
equusdriving
01-Aug-12, 15:46
Try these http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-poll-shows-support-for-uk-split-has-dropped-1-2442950
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/01/scottish-support-independence-falls_n_1727205.html
.. . .. . . . . . . ..
Try these http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-poll-shows-support-for-uk-split-has-dropped-1-2442950
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/01/scottish-support-independence-falls_n_1727205.html
Don't set a lot of store by YouGov polls, tbh.....or polls generally. Still all to play for going by that one though...compared to the last YouGov poll I could find, both those voting Yes and those voting No have gone down.....and those who no longer know has gone up. Mind you, blowed if I can find the poll the Huff Post is using to come up with their up/down figures. The one I found certainly gives the Yes vote as 33%...but doesn't have the No vote as 53%.....in fact it has it down to 54% from 57% ;) The one I found took place in May..but maybe you can find something more up to date I have missed.
More interested, given that I was commenting on Britishness as a result of the Olympics as opposed to voting intentions in a referendum, in the result of the Scotsman's readers vote......which asks the question, Will the Olympics leave Scots feeling more positive about their Britishness? The result so far is that 32% (323) say yes it will and 68% (692) say it won't. A total poll participation of 1015 people, btw
The time to assume that opininon polls may very well be spot on is the month coming up to the referendum. With over two years to wait and seemingly a new opinion poll every second week I have decided to completely ignore them lol
Re your first comment.....I'd as soon believe the EU cheils than the Herald, tbh. but if you think a Herald journalist knows best, then that is your prerogative.
Re "Alex Salmond has said he wants Scots to be in full possession of the facts before voting in the referendum." and this indicates the SNP know it. I'm sure they do, but how any of that article indicates anything more than that Alex Salmond has sought a legal opinion giving a point of view, or maybe more than one, according to that/those legal person/people's interpretation of an unknown quantity on the basis of nothing at all beats me. I should think that we will have found out what the advice was when it is time to firm up the campaign. This is early days..but I'd guess whatever was said is reasonably interpretable as Alex Salmond has publicised it..much as it is quite likely that the legal advice sought by Westminster on the same issue, and which they refuse to supply under FOI, allows them to say the rUK will stay as the successor state and Scotland will be booted out. Interpretation of available advice from a specific political position is what politicians do.
I do find the Unionist MPs whining much more than a little hypocritical, though, given that....
Speaking in December 2011, a spokesman;said: "Whilst there is a strong public interest in seeing what legal advice has been provided to the UK Government on the implications of EU membership if Scotland were to achieve independence, we have concluded that this is outweighed by a strong public interest in the Government being able to seek free and frank legal advice." Coalition
and
In December 2002, the Labour/Lib Dem run Scottish Executive refused to disclose what legal advice it sought regarding the boundaries of the devolved responsibilities of the Parliament before seeking the agreement of Holyrood that the UK Parliament legislate on devolved matters. Labour's Patricia Ferguson, then Minister for Parliament, replied:; "By long-standing convention, the general policy of the Scottish Executive is that it does not disclose legal advice or whether it has taken legal advice.
"What is it with people who only respond to a few out of context words from a post?
The whole quote you didn't bother using is Maros Sefcovic, the Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration, said he was unable to rule on a separate Scotland’s membership “given that the terms and result of any future referendum are unknown”. He indicated that the other EU member states would make the final decision but not until the terms of separation have been negotiated by Scottish and UK ministers, a process that could take years. Only when the “nature” of that agreement becomes evident will there be a decision on whether either country retains EU membership and the UK’s opt-out from the euro.
Now maybe I read English differently from you.....but I posted that quote because it actually says nobody knows what is guaranteed and what is not..because the EU itself has no flaming idea.....because it isn't even going to think about it until there is something to think about.
Can do you personal opinion other than that by the Herald journalist, if you like......Eamonn Gallagher, former Director General of the European Commission and EC Ambassador to the UN in New York, quoted in the Sunday Herald on 18 February 2007, said: ;"Scotland and the rest of the UK would be equally entitled to continue their existing full membership of the EU."
and
Emile Noel, the first and longest serving Secretary-General of the European Commission said:"Scottish Independence would create two new member states out of one.; They would have equal status with each other and the other states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland."
and
Norman Tebbit....The 1972 treaty of accession was made between the European Community and the United Kingdom. Subsequent revisions of the founding treaty have converted that "EC" into the EU and the subsequent treaties, Maastricht and all, have been endorsed by the United Kingdom. But if Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom the 1707 Treaty, and with it the UK, would be no more.
When I asked a former (Labour) Lord Chancellor if that would mean that the new state of Scotland would need to apply for EU membership, if that was its wish, he said he thought that would be so. Then after a moment's thought he said: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."
And that last quote is also a reply to your The United Kingdom will still exist, and will have the same government. The fact part of it has broken away does not change that. It is still the UK...and also clarifies for you my logical opinion that it would be most likely that both would have to reapply, given their changed circumstances...or neither will.
The UK was the Union of Great Britain and Ireland (from 1801 to 1922) and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland after that, though the name of the Union was not changed to reflect the Independence of the Irish Free State until 1927. To form Great Britain and the UK, first required the 1707 Treaty of Union. The 1707 Union is and was a political construct, and one from which either party can secede.
The effect of Scotland removing itself as a signatory from the Treaty which formed Great Britain, means that the UK, in its turn is changed...and will not exist as it is now. Nothing stopping the rUK calling itself the United Kingdom of England Wales and Northern Ireland, UK for Short, after Scottish Independence...and being governed from Westminster, but without Scottish MPS....but that is not The United Kingdom will still exist, and will have the same government.The fact part of it has broken away does not change that. It is still the UK Because it most definitely does........and it most definitely wouldn't be the UK as it exists now.....as you seem to think.
Re your comment that The EU would collapse without any of its 4 (or 5?) net providers, of which the UK is one..... Would you not logically consider, in that case, that the EU would be reluctant to remove either or both parts of the old UK......because to do that they would be removing the resources it has brought as a collective entity to the EU table? I do rather see, though, a renegotiating of concessions won in the past..something the EU has wanted to do for some time, but been unable to accomplish. Scottish Independence could be their chance.
This is why the debate is not going well. Nobody can be bothered to read such tombs.
Anyway I've had enough. I'm not bothering with these threads anymore it just goes round in circles. Just really, really irritated about the long delay. I know first hand that it is damaging to the future prosperity of Scotland, with investment decisions being put off, who knows if they will ever materialise as businesses and individuals find other opportunities in the meantime. I certainly might. I'm not getting any younger and I can't afford to hang about for another two years :mad:
This is why the debate is not going well. Nobody can be bothered to read such tombs.
Anyway I've had enough. I'm not bothering with these threads anymore it just goes round in circles. Just really, really irritated about the long delay. I know first hand that it is damaging to the future prosperity of Scotland, with investment decisions being put off, who knows if they will ever materialise as businesses and individuals find other opportunities in the meantime. I certainly might. I'm not getting any younger and I can't afford to hang about for another two years :mad:
Next time I post, I'll try to reduce it to a level of short sound bites that those with a short attention span can read. Mea Culpa! Six consecutive words at a time do you?
I'd guess that the "investment decisions being put off" are most likely by companies based in England which get subsidies from the UK, and work under a unified legislative and regulation regime currently. They will be unsure as to whether those will continue in an independent Scotland. I should think they may well be rejigged, but can't see any Scottish Government doing anything drastic enough to disincentivise investment, either inward or internally.
SSE, which has its registered office in Scotland, and says it doesn't intend to move it, is certainly not going to be putting its money into Scotland with the same alacrity in the short term, but whether that really has any more to do with independence or the reduction of windmill subsidies etc by the UK Government is a moot point. It may be down to the thought that the rUK will prefer not to import Scottish electricity and prefer to go elsewhere......on the cutting off your nose to spite your face syndrome.
Doesn't really seem to have harmed inward foreign investment all that much, given http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18517100 and that is without any control of the likes of the rates of corporation tax.
Small businesses, on the other hand, have more to worry about with the ongoing UK economic situation than the effects of independence, it seems to me.
But it is very easy to blame uncertainty and problems on something which is two years away, if that what suits your agenda, rather than cite the handling of the UK economy by the UK Government now, particularly its apparent inability to make the bankers put their hands in their safes and withdraw enough dosh to help small businesses stay afloat.
Again, I'd be surprised if any Scottish Government will deliberately institute policies in order to make life difficult for small businesses. The problems they have are UK driven, and as far as I know, the Scottish Government does as much as it can with its limited resources to help..for example by cutting business rates.
Ok Squidge thank you for your answers, but I, like yourself have tried to gather hard facts and figures, and also only come up with ifs, buts and maybes and I personally require a bit more than that to commit to Independence and as its the pro Independence supporters that want change surely the onus must be on them to prove their case
If you are looking only for certainty, then just stick with the Union. There is certainty that the UK will continue, for the foreseeable future to be one of the most indebted nations on earth if you include household, corporate, government and bank debts. According to the McKinsey Report as referenced here..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15820601 "by the end of March this year [2012], the aggregate indebtedness of the UK - that's the sum of household debts, company debts, government debts and bank debts - had risen to 492% of GDP, or almost five times the value of everything we produce in a single year.
That compares with 481% at the end of 2008". That is a fact. According to Eurostat, UK Government debt at June 2012 is at 85.2% of GDP. Another fact. The Government itself says that, including the financial interventions, Net public debt is 144.5% of GDP and without it, 66.1% of GDP. Even more facts.
However, even facts are dependent on the information provided/included, how it is gathered, collated and interpreted. Take three economists with basically the same facts and they are as liable to come up with three different interpretations of the economy as be in agreement. So, while the above may well not be accurate facts..they are indicative of a rising trend..and it should be borne in mind that the figures include 100% of oil revenues and 100% of the Crown Estates, as well as 100% of Scottish taxation etc.
Facts are only appropriate as long as the background figures on which they are based remains unchanging....when the economy changes, the information gathered to produce the facts change.....and ergo, the original facts are superceded. So basing any decision of such importance on a snapshot of facts at a single moment in time is pointless, it is the trends that count, not today's figures. Think of the facts as an MOT on your car...an MOT only applies to the day it is passed...the fact that your car passed an MOT yesterday won't help if a roadside check finds that your lights are illegal the following afternoon or your windscreen washer is empty.
Scotland has the problem that there are no full economic figures which solely apply to Scotland...which is why the economists in the Scottish Government produce their own extrapolations of the figures provided by the UK to produce their version of GERS on which to base economic forecasts. They do explain the reasoning behind those extrapolations/interpretations. The results are accurately described as estimates, because that is what they are....and then many people say they are not hard facts and figures so mean nothing. They do have the merit, however of comparing like with like, as they are based on and extrapolated from the same UK Public Sector Finance Statistics which are used to produce UK wide statistics.
Therefore, the GERS figures show that In 2010-11, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.3 billion (12.0 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.6 billion (11.2 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, or a deficit of £6.4 billion (4.4 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.
And
In 2010-11, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £97.8 billion (6.6 per cent of GDP).
They also show that in 2010-11, Scotland's estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £18.6 billion (15.6 per cent of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
And
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as 'net borrowing', was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP).
That extrapolation is predicated from the basis that the UK controls the economy, because it does. The UK sets all taxes, dictates all benefits etc to be applied UK-wide...and as a member of the UK with a small element of devolution, but no control over any fiscal policy and no access at all to the oil money which is helping to keep the UK afloat, Scotland has a budget balance around double that of the UK and a fiscal balance which is around 6% greater than the UK as a whole. Not the greatest promotion for 305 years of Union participation...stay with us and just be twice as much worse off than most of the rest of the country.
I am not for a second claiming that the same situation re doing worse is not applicable to English regions outside the preferred UK Government area of London and the South, but I am claiming that with the will and belief in the ability of the Scottish people both to produce politicians who give a toss and their ability get rid of them if they show they have not earned our trust, we are in a position not currently available to the English regions....ie to change our lives for the better.
Of course, while it would be great to have a Crystal Ball and make all decisions from a basis of absolute certainty, that is not an option in politics ...ever...for any country. All that is possible is to make those decisions from a basis of known or reasonably ascertainable facts. Ifs, buts and maybes are the whole stuff of economies and politics...for the UK, for Scotland as a part of the UK and for Scotland as an independent country. If that was not the case, every political decision made by every Government would accomplish what is expected first time..and they patently do not. The only certain thing about life, economies and politics is that there is nothing certain.
Regarding the currency to be used following independence, then in the short term at least, Scotland will certainly use sterling. That would be the most sensible and practical solution. Whether that would be on a formal or informal basis would depend on the negotiations, if a yes vote is the referendum result, as only using sterling on a formal basis requires any agreement between the parties.
As long as interest rates stay low, Scotland would be as well to stick with sterling, but produce contingency plans to be put into place if/when necessary, as I am sure all Scottish political parties will do. We will, of course have to change our Scottish notes into Bank of England ones to sally over the border, but we mostly have to do that now anyway, given the current reluctance to accept Scottish notes, so there would be little change there. The pragmatic approach is to stick with what we know, until we decide it isn't working for us......at which stage we can decide if we have our own currency, want to set up our own central bank, join the Euro or whatever.
For example, a swingeing interest rates rise by the Bank of England to cope with an overheating South of England would do us a lot of no good.....but then it has never done us any good, although we have always had to put up with it and bear the consequences. At least with Independence we would have the fiscal tools available to ameliorate the effect, as long as we use sterling as our currency, something we do not have at the moment within the UK. When the use of sterling starts to cause us problems, then other options can be considered. Personally, I see no great need to make our future currency one of the most important things to consider.....and can't quite understand why there appears to be perceived any problem with continuing to use sterling as long as necessary as long as we have the ability to adjust our fiscal policy to compensate for the more detrimental effects of rUK's monetary policies.
All of the above could perhaps be accomplished by devo-max, while staying in the Union....but what devo-max would not do is remove Trident from Scottish soil, prevent us being drawn into wars on behalf of the USA, give us a voice in the world etc..and I simply don't see any UK Government of any complection ever agreeing to devo-max anyway.....ever. I can, however, see them making much the same sort of promises as they did in the 1970s and not following through. Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it....and UK Parliaments have never shown themselves to follow through with promises, unless they are made to the USA.
Sorry Squidge I do not have the answers, you on the other hand seem to have the ear of the present government, I asked what is going to happen to my State Pension, you have answered with a lot of political babblespeak, saying a lot but not answering the question.
I have no answers, but I will stick with the status quo, I am happy to be a part of the Union, Rule Britannia
Your Scotland, Your Voice, the White Paper published in 2009 says: "On independence, benefits, tax credits and the state pension would continue to be paid as now in an independent Scotland. It would be for future Scottish administrations to deliver improvements to the system designed for Scottish needs."
An SNP spokesman said: "People would get their full pension entitlement from day one of an independent Scotland, that is the government's guarantee.
Your Scotland, Your Voice, the White Paper published in 2009 says: "On independence, benefits, tax credits and the state pension would continue to be paid as now in an independent Scotland. It would be for future Scottish administrations to deliver improvements to the system designed for Scottish needs."
An SNP spokesman said: "People would get their full pension entitlement from day one of an independent Scotland, that is the government's guarantee.
And you believe them? Sorry I dont, I am a definate NO voter.
I am a definate NO voter.
I would never have guessed Golach.....;)
It's a good job my Yes vote cancels out your No vote then?
C3..............:roll:;)
And you believe them? Sorry I dont, I am a definate NO voter.
So why ask the question when you are going to pooh-pooh the answer?
Even Chance
02-Aug-12, 15:01
I would never have guessed Golach.....;)
It's a good job my Yes vote cancels out your No vote then?
C3..............
My Yes will tip it into our favour then! Yeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaa;)
ok thank you and sorry for making you repeat it, but I thought you might have a bit more information, regarding currency, defence, NHS, taxes, borrowing (credit rating), debt, incomings and outgoings etc etc etc as surely these are fundamental to anyone making a proper and sensible decision ...........but then again lol
I'll have a go at defence! But, like so much else in a divorce, a lot will depend on the settlement negotiated with the other party as to division of debts/assets. Usual caveat applies.....figures are only as good as the collection, allocation and interpretation of data.
Comparing the costs of a Scottish Defence Force with Scotland's current contribution to the UK's military machine, we get interesting figures (imo).
In 2008 we were paying, according to GERS, £3.16 Billion, (in 2011, £3.62 billion, but we'll use the 2008 figures as they are less) to which has to be added the £210 million for Trident maintenance and £151 million for overseas military actions. That cumulative total comes to £3.521 billion.
For arguments sake, if we used that as the average figure for each year from 2001 to 2010,in that time.....we paid around £351 billion towards UK defence assets...and to that has to be added the £18 billion from the Special Government Reserve Fund which funds the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the likes of London's sewerage system)to which we input around £1.5 billion annually........Total £366 billion from Scotland. MOD spending in Scotland over that period, taking again the 2008 figure as the average, was approximately £15.5 billion.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, and a UK government adviser worked out a notional cost of an SDF, of 1.45% of GDP, based on that of Denmark and Norway, and he comes up with a figure of £2.2 billion annually. So if Scotland had been independent from 2001 to 2010, instead of just devolved, their defence costs would have been £22 billion.
Just consider how much good the extra £344 billion would have done Scotland and the Scottish people over those years......and how much good an annual spare £2 billion could do us now. A population of 5.25 million could do quite a lot with £2 billion every year......and with the extra injection into the Scottish economy from the difference between £2.2 billion and the £1.57 billion we currently receive from Westminster as our input for playing our part in UK defence. And, into the bargain,a Scottish Defence Force would require equipment and maintenance and would be far more likely to source this from within Scotland unlike the UK moving jobs south.
Additional Union dividends we have received from our defence spending for UK benefit...2000 - 2010 UK MOD personnel reduction was 11.6% Reduction in Scotland over the same period was 27.9%. Scottish SMEs secure 0.83% of MOD contracts - 10 times less than UK population share. Defence spending in Scotland cut by 68% in six years, and still reducing.
Scotland re defence is starting from the base which has left to us few useful working systems because of the ongoing MOD cuts which have disproportionately affected Scotland..so we are looking at having one airbase..RAF Lossiemouth, one Naval base, Faslane and a mobile armed brigade....and building from there. As Alex Salmond said The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the [UK] defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force – so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade."
As it happens, the UK "owns" 59 training areas, barracks, TA/Army cadet centres, munition dumps, RAF bases, naval bases, communication bases etc in Scotland all of which could fall to a Scottish Government, (along with all other UK/Government assets in Scotland, including Scottish Water), as they are well within the competence of our minimum 8.4% population share of all UK assets, and some/all of them could be employed in our building of a defence force. (leaves enough to grab some useful military equipment as well....been having some fun window-shopping. )
We do not require nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft carriers and the like which are predicated on offence. And unless the rUK intends to invade us immediately after we become independent, it is not essential to have a whole military set up primed and ready to grab arms and defend us to the death on the first day after the vote, all we need is to have it ready to go once we ascertain what our share of the UK military assets will be.The whole independence process itself will afford time enough to get in place training facilities, specialist units etc....but I'd expect that any competent Government would have options in mind....and I'd expect that the projections will be published before any vote....and perhaps the intentions going forward would be stated as well.
Whether the Unionist Parties with Scottish branches are that organised, I beg leave to doubt, given their obsession with not having to think about leaving the Union...but in that case, the SNP is likely to be the Government from the 2015 election for the following four years, as they will likely be the only party which has thought about anything much......but by 2019 the Unionist politicians in Scotland might have joined the real world..and even registered as Scottish Political Parties to be included in Scottish elections. (in which case I may very well not vote SNP.)
Will get to the others on your list over time. Takes me a long time to research and write a post.
Thought I would try and put together all the things I have said about the economy and blog it
http://nationalcollective.com/2012/08/02/the-economical-truth/
Thought I would try and put together all the things I have said about the economy and blog it
http://nationalcollective.com/2012/08/02/the-economical-truth/
Absolutely cracking blog, squidge!
And this says it all..... It doesn’t matter whether we use the pound and are therefore tied into the Bank of England’s rules; it doesn’t matter whether the oil runs out or not. In an Independent Scotland whatever money we have will be spent on Scottish Priorities. Surely that is the economic point of Independence – that what we have, we spend on doing the best we can for Scotland’s people, in a way that we are unable to do as part of the Union.
rogermellie
03-Aug-12, 01:29
I'll have a go at defence! But, like so much else in a divorce, a lot will depend on the settlement negotiated with the other party as to division of debts/assets. Usual caveat applies.....figures are only as good as the collection, allocation and interpretation of data.
Comparing the costs of a Scottish Defence Force with Scotland's current contribution to the UK's military machine, we get interesting figures (imo).
In 2008 we were paying, according to GERS, £3.16 Billion, (in 2011, £3.62 billion, but we'll use the 2008 figures as they are less) to which has to be added the £210 million for Trident maintenance and £151 million for overseas military actions. That cumulative total comes to £3.521 billion.
For arguments sake, if we used that as the average figure for each year from 2001 to 2010,in that time.....we paid around £351 billion towards UK defence assets...and to that has to be added the £18 billion from the Special Government Reserve Fund which funds the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the likes of London's sewerage system)to which we input around £1.5 billion annually........Total £366 billion from Scotland. MOD spending in Scotland over that period, taking again the 2008 figure as the average, was approximately £15.5 billion.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, and a UK government adviser worked out a notional cost of an SDF, of 1.45% of GDP, based on that of Denmark and Norway, and he comes up with a figure of £2.2 billion annually. So if Scotland had been independent from 2001 to 2010, instead of just devolved, their defence costs would have been £22 billion.
Just consider how much good the extra £344 billion would have done Scotland and the Scottish people over those years......and how much good an annual spare £2 billion could do us now. A population of 5.25 million could do quite a lot with £2 billion every year......and with the extra injection into the Scottish economy from the difference between £2.2 billion and the £1.57 billion we currently receive from Westminster as our input for playing our part in UK defence. And, into the bargain,a Scottish Defence Force would require equipment and maintenance and would be far more likely to source this from within Scotland unlike the UK moving jobs south.
Additional Union dividends we have received from our defence spending for UK benefit...2000 - 2010 UK MOD personnel reduction was 11.6% Reduction in Scotland over the same period was 27.9%. Scottish SMEs secure 0.83% of MOD contracts - 10 times less than UK population share. Defence spending in Scotland cut by 68% in six years, and still reducing.
Scotland re defence is starting from the base which has left to us few useful working systems because of the ongoing MOD cuts which have disproportionately affected Scotland..so we are looking at having one airbase..RAF Lossiemouth, one Naval base, Faslane and a mobile armed brigade....and building from there. As Alex Salmond said The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the [UK] defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force – so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade."
As it happens, the UK "owns" 59 training areas, barracks, TA/Army cadet centres, munition dumps, RAF bases, naval bases, communication bases etc in Scotland all of which could fall to a Scottish Government, (along with all other UK/Government assets in Scotland, including Scottish Water), as they are well within the competence of our minimum 8.4% population share of all UK assets, and some/all of them could be employed in our building of a defence force. (leaves enough to grab some useful military equipment as well....been having some fun window-shopping. )
We do not require nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft carriers and the like which are predicated on offence. And unless the rUK intends to invade us immediately after we become independent, it is not essential to have a whole military set up primed and ready to grab arms and defend us to the death on the first day after the vote, all we need is to have it ready to go once we ascertain what our share of the UK military assets will be.The whole independence process itself will afford time enough to get in place training facilities, specialist units etc....but I'd expect that any competent Government would have options in mind....and I'd expect that the projections will be published before any vote....and perhaps the intentions going forward would be stated as well.
Whether the Unionist Parties with Scottish branches are that organised, I beg leave to doubt, given their obsession with not having to think about leaving the Union...but in that case, the SNP is likely to be the Government from the 2015 election for the following four years, as they will likely be the only party which has thought about anything much......but by 2019 the Unionist politicians in Scotland might have joined the real world..and even registered as Scottish Political Parties to be included in Scottish elections. (in which case I may very well not vote SNP.)
Will get to the others on your list over time. Takes me a long time to research and write a post.
god almighty but you can talk and talk.
(i like the fact that when someone pulls you up for sleverin so much you blame them for having some sort of attention deficit)
keep it concise and 'fun' then maybe this thread would involve more than 3 posters
Just consider how much good the extra £344 billion would have done Scotland and the Scottish people over those years......and how much good an annual spare £2 billion could do us now. Additional Union dividends we have received from our defence spending for UK benefit...2000 - 2010 UK MOD personnel reduction was 11.6% Reduction in Scotland over the same period was 27.9%. Scottish SMEs secure 0.83% of MOD contracts - 10 times less than UK population share. Defence spending in Scotland cut by 68% in six years, and still reducing.
These figures seem hardly credible. That would be roughly the equivilent of the tax paid by the entire population in one year. Where does it come from? Can't be big business (Scotland doesn't have much and they are all dodging their taxes anyway apparently).
god almighty but you can talk and talk.
(i like the fact that when someone pulls you up for sleverin so much you blame them for having some sort of attention deficit)
keep it concise and 'fun' then maybe this thread would involve more than 3 posters
Its sooooooooooo hard to be concise and fun about the economy though - its a dry and dusty subject.
So Scotland will save £250 million on not having Trident on its shores.
Very good
Then it will lose a load of employment but try to use the savings on trident to have embassies around the world. I think that could cost more than the savings on Trident if there is any.
Swapping jobs for more unnecessary bureaucracy.
So Scotland will save £250 million on not having Trident on its shores.
Very good
Then it will lose a load of employment but try to use the savings on trident to have embassies around the world. I think that could cost more than the savings on Trident if there is any.
Swapping jobs for more unnecessary bureaucracy.
It won't lose as many jobs as you think. Trident doesn't provide as many jobs directly as Westminster would have us believe. The STUC and CND did a report a few years back which compared the costs/benefits of replacing Trident to the cost/benefits of not replacing Trident. They came down on the side of not replacing Trident, and the figures used then would appertain as well to the effects on the Scottish economy of the removal of Trident.
The report said there were 1,536 direct and indirect civilian jobs and Navy personnel servicing and staffing Trident in Scotland. At that time, Scotland paid £153 million annually towards the cost of maintaining Trident, but received only a portion of that back to actually do the maintenance. Without Trident, that £153 million annually could be used to provide alternative employment for more than 1536. It says that the manufacturing and research skills necessary for Trident maintenance were similar to those needed for development and production of the likes of green energy stuff.
Link to report here......http://www.stuc.org.uk/news/364/renewing-trident-will-cost-scotland-jobs
Rather thing self-aggrandising expensive embassies all over the world are just about the last thing we'd be spending the money on......but hey, if that's the best you can do.......carry on.
god almighty but you can talk and talk.
(i like the fact that when someone pulls you up for sleverin so much you blame them for having some sort of attention deficit)
keep it concise and 'fun' then maybe this thread would involve more than 3 posters
Giving figures etc because someone asked for figures. Not easy to do figures in amusing bite size pieces....and keeping it concise and "fun" would mean few figures and everything not figures will immediately get denigrated as "just an opinion".
I admit I am verbose..but in most other places, I do reduce my posts to a maximum of two/three sentences per paragraph to make them easier to follow. Figures which connect to each other do not necessarily lend themselves to doing that.
It won't lose as many jobs as you think. Trident doesn't provide as many jobs directly as Westminster would have us believe. The STUC and CND did a report a few years back which compared the costs/benefits of replacing Trident to the cost/benefits of not replacing Trident. They came down on the side of not replacing Trident, and the figures used then would appertain as well to the effects on the Scottish economy of the removal of Trident.
The report said there were 1,536 direct and indirect civilian jobs and Navy personnel servicing and staffing Trident in Scotland. At that time, Scotland paid £153 million annually towards the cost of maintaining Trident, but received only a portion of that back to actually do the maintenance. Without Trident, that £153 million annually could be used to provide alternative employment for more than 1536. It says that the manufacturing and research skills necessary for Trident maintenance were similar to those needed for development and production of the likes of green energy stuff.
Link to report here......http://www.stuc.org.uk/news/364/renewing-trident-will-cost-scotland-jobs
Rather thing self-aggrandising expensive embassies all over the world are just about the last thing we'd be spending the money on......but hey, if that's the best you can do.......carry on.
I'll do the maths...
I'll accept your figures.
1536 jobs at cost £40,000 each into the local economy is £61 million. Scotland is actually better off overall by £153m-£61m = £92million or just £18per person per year for not having trident.
A typical large wind farm will cost £80 million which will support ~5 jobs on the ground.
So much for the SNP's vision for Scotland, swapping 1536 jobs for 5 and making a saving of barely £20.
These figures seem hardly credible. That would be roughly the equivilent of the tax paid by the entire population in one year. Where does it come from? Can't be big business (Scotland doesn't have much and they are all dodging their taxes anyway apparently).
Which part of them? The cumulative over 10 years and annual amounts Scotland pays/has paid into defence? they are based on GERS figures and can be found there. The money used...that is Scottish taxpayers money.......personal and business taxpayers. Where do you think it comes from?
The Union dividend part? According to the MOD statistics, as often cited by Angus Robertson MP, the under-spend in Scotland increased from £749m in 2002/03 to £1.259bn in 2007-2008, which represents a 68 per cent increase in six years. The cumulative under-spend between defence reviews is in excess of £5.622bn. After the 1997 SDSR Scotland lost 10,500+ service and civilian defence jobs. At the time of the 2010 SDSR there were only 12,190 service-personnel left in Scotland. Nobody has yet placed any doubt on his figures
I'll do the maths...
I'll accept your figures.
1536 jobs at cost £40,000 each into the local economy is £61 million. Scotland is actually better off overall by £153m-£61m = £92million or just £18per person per year for not having trident.
A typical large wind farm will cost £80 million which will support ~5 jobs on the ground.
So much for the SNP's vision for Scotland, swapping 1536 jobs for 5 and making a saving of barely £20.
Bit daft to cut everything down to how much an individual will gain....because we all know that the way the system works, nobody is going to say to you or me, we have saved £18 for you, here you go, put it in your pocket. Mony a mickle maks a muckle...and you can do more with a muckle than a mickle. :roll:
You forgot to include the ongoing spending power of those in work inputting to all the local shoppies etc that the UK Government included in its 4000+ job loss projections..and that it uses the £18 a head to make other input to the local economy and produce less skilled jobs.
Which part of STUC plus Scottish CND = SNP, out of interest? Just starting with an S?
Don't get the idea they are talking about erecting and running more damn windmills, anyway......kinda thought that green energy covers a multitude of sins and the report is talking more about manufacturing and researching other options. Maybe we'd need to import less windmills and save the carbon cost of travel? No?
But why do I think you haven't read the whole thing, anyway. Bearing in mind the complaints about me giving too much information, I refrained from making my first post longer..but you appear not to have read anything bar the bits you have highlighted.
Looks like it is back to putting information at great length on posts again, doesn't it?
I think the cracks in the SNP independence policy are begining to show. More Scots are seeing sense.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-poll-shows-support-for-uk-split-has-dropped-1-2442950
I think the cracks in the SNP independence policy are begining to show. More Scots are seeing sense.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-poll-shows-support-for-uk-split-has-dropped-1-2442950
equus driving has already linked to that to prove that the Olympics have made us all feel more British. Responded to the figures on my reply to that one.
You know the SNPs independence policy? Wasn't aware they had finalised it yet. How privileged are you!
Bit daft to cut everything down to how much an individual will gain....because we all know that the way the system works, nobody is going to say to you or me, we have saved £18 for you, here you go, put it in your pocket. Mony a mickle maks a muckle...and you can do more with a muckle than a mickle. :roll:
You forgot to include the ongoing spending power of those in work inputting to all the local shoppies etc that the UK Government included in its 4000+ job loss projections..and that it uses the £18 a head to make other input to the local economy and produce less skilled jobs.
Which part of STUC plus Scottish CND = SNP, out of interest? Just starting with an S?
Don't get the idea they are talking about erecting and running more damn windmills, anyway......kinda thought that green energy covers a multitude of sins and the report is talking more about manufacturing and researching other options. Maybe we'd need to import less windmills and save the carbon cost of travel? No?
But why do I think you haven't read the whole thing, anyway. Bearing in mind the complaints about me giving too much information, I refrained from making my first post longer..but you appear not to have read anything bar the bits you have highlighted.
Looks like it is back to putting information at great length on posts again, doesn't it?
Seems like if you address the problem of talking a lot and saying very little then that might relieve some of the problems that other poster have with your posts.
As for your attempt to say that wind farms is not the answer but other sources are then that won't be very cost effective.
But I'll say that I would applaud the SNP's energy policies up to now, that is the only thing that keeps me from disregarding Scottish independence all together. I've not made my mind up tbh but the more that we get glossed over facts and more short bread tin version of events from the usual SNP hacks then I'm less likely to vote for independence. It is not realistic.
Despite the outcome of any situation that arises, it just seems to me that the SNP have all the political bases covered in order to promote their ideology. I call that irrational.
equus driving has already linked to that to prove that the Olympics have made us all feel more British. Responded to the figures on my reply to that one.
You know the SNPs independence policy? Wasn't aware they had finalised it yet. How privileged are you!
I can't help getting the feeling that the SNP would really like Scottish athletes to boycott these games as a protest against the Union, but we all know they would be slaughtered in popularity.
I think the cracks in the SNP independence policy are begining to show. More Scots are seeing sense.
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-poll-shows-support-for-uk-split-has-dropped-1-2442950
What do you expect from a Tory Newspaper Golach?
It's a well known fact that they lean towards Tory's and fight to keep the UK together!
C3................:roll:[lol]
You know the SNPs independence policy? Wasn't aware they had finalised it yet.
You'd have thought a party that had been planning independence as their main goal for the last 80 years or so would have had a policy sorted out.........
Claiming something will be better before knowing what 'something' is. Madness.
Some startling statistics
Scotland has a population of 5 million to maintain 34,000 miles of highways, or 147 persons per mile will pick up the tab.
Whilst the UK has 60 million to maintain 245,000 miles of highways, or 244 persons per mile.
If you think our annual pothole problem is already bad then it seems reasonable that if you have less money (unless the SNP put up taxes) to maintain the roads after independence then it will get a whole lot worse after 2016.
No one has asked the Scottish athletes to boycott the olympic games - no one anywhere has expressed anything other than pride in the achievements of Scottish Athletes. the only issue with Players participating in a Great britain team came from the SFA or the SPL and it was to do with Fifa rules I believe and it came about because of Fifa rules NOT the SNP!!!!
As for the SNP having policies for an independent Scotland - i am sure they have had many different and varied policies over the years and that their policies have had to change to meet the society of the time. They will and are I am sure formulating policies for an Independent Scotland which will be discussed at conference and then put out to the general public as and when they are agreed. People seem to think that the SNP is one or two people when it along with other parties is made up of its membership and as such needs to discuss and agree policies with that membership.
In addition it is not just the SNP who need to agree policies - have any of you looked at any of the other parties to see what THEIR vision or policies for an independent Scotland are? There are LOADS of ideas and LOADS of different views out their which makes it exciting and full of possibilities.
No one has asked the Scottish athletes to boycott the olympic games - no one anywhere has expressed anything other than pride in the achievements of Scottish Athletes. the only issue with Players participating in a Great britain team came from the SFA or the SPL and it was to do with Fifa rules I believe and it came about because of Fifa rules NOT the SNP!!!!
FIFA was not objecting to SFA players playing for TeamGB, nobody was objecting except the SFA.
And what exactly did Alex Salmond do to intervene to persuade the SFA to participate in TeamGB?
Absolutely nothing, he sat there quite happy!! In this case it was a lack of actions that spoke louder than words.
Some startling statistics
Scotland has a population of 5 million to maintain 34,000 miles of highways, or 147 persons per mile will pick up the tab.
Whilst the UK has 60 million to maintain 245,000 miles of highways, or 244 persons per mile.
If you think our annual pothole problem is already bad then it seems reasonable that if you have less money (unless the SNP put up taxes) to maintain the roads after independence then it will get a whole lot worse after 2016.
Yes but Scotland will be getting the revenue from road tax instead of it going into the Westminster coffers. At the moment it is not being used to maintain roads but the Scottish Govt can make sure that it is in an Independent Scotland!
C3..............;)
Yes but Scotland will be getting the revenue from road tax instead of it going into the Westminster coffers. At the moment it is not being used to maintain roads but the Scottish Govt can make sure that it is in an Independent Scotland!
C3..............;)
LOL!! That is a poor argument when the revenue of the Vehicle Excise is a fraction of what it takes to maintain the roads (especially in Scotland) and anyway it will probably mean that the SNP will rob Peter to pay Paul.
LOL!! That is a poor argument when the revenue of the Vehicle Excise is a fraction of what it takes to maintain the roads (especially in Scotland) and anyway it will probably mean that the SNP will rob Peter to pay Paul.
And it is a problem especially in Scotland because they have never been maintained properly by successive UK Governments in the days when there was no devolution. More Union dividend? ;)
Isn't that what politics is all about, though....given the amount of taxes gathered are never going to be enough to everything everyone would like.......so priorities are decided....which could be called robbing Peter to pay Paul, if you think that is a useful way to describe it. I'd put it more like the Coalition robbing the disabled to pay the rich, myself.
What we want is to be able to chose for ourselves which Peter we rob and which Paul we pay with our own money.
Which part of them? The cumulative over 10 years and annual amounts Scotland pays/has paid into defence? they are based on GERS figures and can be found there. The money used...that is Scottish taxpayers money.......personal and business taxpayers. Where do you think it comes from?
The Union dividend part? According to the MOD statistics, as often cited by Angus Robertson MP, the under-spend in Scotland increased from £749m in 2002/03 to £1.259bn in 2007-2008, which represents a 68 per cent increase in six years. The cumulative under-spend between defence reviews is in excess of £5.622bn. After the 1997 SDSR Scotland lost 10,500+ service and civilian defence jobs. At the time of the 2010 SDSR there were only 12,190 service-personnel left in Scotland. Nobody has yet placed any doubt on his figures
The 2.2 billion we are apparently better off each year.
LOL!! That is a poor argument when the revenue of the Vehicle Excise is a fraction of what it takes to maintain the roads (especially in Scotland) and anyway it will probably mean that the SNP will rob Peter to pay Paul.And your official figures come from where???
Dont forget though Rheggy, we will be getting the taxes from fuel, something else that disappears in the Westminster coffers at present!!!
C3...............;)
And your official figures come from where???
Dont forget though Rheggy, we will be getting the taxes from fuel, something else that disappears in the Westminster coffers at present!!!
C3...............;)
You are asuming that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK. Facts please and evidence. And do take into account pension payments, benefit payments etc.
I can definity see where golach is comming from, at the moment he knows when he will receive the next pension payment he is entitled to.
And it is a problem especially in Scotland because they have never been maintained properly by successive UK Governments in the days when there was no devolution. More Union dividend? ;)
Isn't that what politics is all about, though....given the amount of taxes gathered are never going to be enough to everything everyone would like.......so priorities are decided....which could be called robbing Peter to pay Paul, if you think that is a useful way to describe it. I'd put it more like the Coalition robbing the disabled to pay the rich, myself.
What we want is to be able to chose for ourselves which Peter we rob and which Paul we pay with our own money.
There are so many Peters and so many Pauls, at some point if there isn't enough money to spread across all areas that need it then something has to give unless taxes have to go up. That is what the SNP aren't advertising.
And your official figures come from where???
Dont forget though Rheggy, we will be getting the taxes from fuel, something else that disappears in the Westminster coffers at present!!!
C3...............;)
UK Government is getting taxes from fuel as well.
Actually it is from the Scottish Government figures online.
I'll give you a task, search for the costs of maintaining the Scottish highway network and compare that with the amount of vehicle excise gathered in Scotland.
If you can prove me wrong then I will readdress my position.
UK Government is getting taxes from fuel as well.
Actually it is from the Scottish Government figures online.
I'll give you a task, search for the costs of maintaining the Scottish highway network and compare that with the amount of vehicle excise gathered in Scotland.
If you can prove me wrong then I will readdress my position.
Ok, I will do that if you can tell me how much an Independent Scotland would would benefit each year from fuel tax, Income tax, Vat and every other tax that the present Westminster govt takes out of Scotland.
C3..........;)
The 2.2 billion we are apparently better off each year.
Which £2.2 billion would that be, The only £2.2 billion I have mentioned was the cost of an SDF. Do you mean the £2 billion or so we'd be saving by not having to help support the UK military machine. We won't get that until we are independent. Sheesh!
Which £2.2 billion would that be, The only £2.2 billion I have mentioned was the cost of an SDF. Do you mean the £2 billion or so we'd be saving by not having to help support the UK military machine. We won't get that until we are independent. Sheesh!
Yep that's the one. Are you saying we contribute 2 billion to the UK armed forces? If so how? Where does that money come from? What is the income in Scotland from the taxpayers? Doesn't add up. There are only 5 and a bit million people in total. Some are juveniles, some retired, some unemployed, some on any number of different benefits. The average wage in Scotland is generally lower that most parts of the UK in fact thanks to the coalition and Nicky boy many in work don't pay Income tax.
Breath, so where does it come from?
What I am driving at is that is £400 per year for every man woman and child in Scotland or 50 times what the Parliament building cost, every year!
equusdriving
03-Aug-12, 22:15
Ok, I will do that if you can tell me how much an Independent Scotland would would benefit each year from fuel tax, Income tax, Vat and every other tax that the present Westminster govt takes out of Scotland.
C3..........;)
and how much does having a higher percentage of unemployed than the rest of the UK, free prescriptions, college fees, free hospital parking, free eye test's, more NHS cost's per head, more doctors, nurses and dentist's per head, more police, firemen and ambulance cost's per head, subsidised ferries for island dwellers, Less Favoured Area Farm subsidy Support Scheme etc etc etc, cost?
Ok - We meet the cost of prescriptions from the revenue Scotland receives and all the things you mention just now Equus. We are paying for them without actually borrowing anything significant because we arent allowed to do so.
There is actually agreement that Scotland more than pays its way and thats been acknowledged across the board. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public . Surely we arent going to go over the too poor argument again - Even David Cameron himself has agreed that Scotland could go it alone and afford to do so and beleive you me - if there was clear evidence that we couldnt then David Cameron would be shouting it as loud as he could
equusdriving
03-Aug-12, 23:02
There is actually agreement that Scotland more than pays its way and thats been acknowledged across the board.
I didn't say that we couldn't pay our way, I was just pointing out that contrary to some of the post's on here its not all one way traffic and were not has hard done by as some people with anti-uk chips like to make out
It is sorry that people that are pro Scottish independence are unwilling to accept the facts, I was hoping that they will acknowledge the shortcomings of their ideology.
secrets in symmetry
03-Aug-12, 23:11
This thread has proven without doubt that the secessionists are wimps, and that they don't know why secessionism would undoubtedly lead to a weakened economy in Scotland.
Since it has been taken so far off topic by the secessionists, I will now close this thread. Please open a new one if you wish to indulge in your self-obsessed programme for failure.
Go on then - you know Secrets you are smart as anything but you are such a troll. You never join in the debate you just snipe from the sidelines. I guess if its not a Raspberry Pi you aren't interested.
What a shame you have nothing of any substance to say and even less humour!
secrets in symmetry
04-Aug-12, 11:23
Hmm, I must have forgotten to close this thread last night lol.
Please start a new one if you wish to discuss fantasies about Scottish secession. One day, I might explain why all your assumptions about the future of secession being the same as the past in the Union are wrong. Until then, you may enjoy your squabbling about the Flat Earth.
Hmm, I must have forgotten to close this thread last night lol.
Please start a new one if you wish to discuss fantasies about Scottish secession. One day, I might explain why all your assumptions about the future of secession being the same as the past in the Union are wrong. Until then, you may enjoy your squabbling about the Flat Earth.
Thing is, we don't want our future as an independent country to be the same as the past in the Union. We want the future to be better than it has been in the Union for as long as I can remember at least.........and there is more chance of that without the Union.
Can you come up with any benefits we get from the Union we cannot get just as well, if not better, as an independent country?
Secrets I thought you were locking this thread - did you change your mind?
Secrets I thought you were locking this thread - did you change your mind?
Given the individual's input to this thread..does he/she have one to change?
Secrets I thought you were locking this thread - did you change your mind?
Perhaps he has lost the key Squidge........along with the plot!!!
C3................;)
And your official figures come from where???
Dont forget though Rheggy, we will be getting the taxes from fuel, something else that disappears in the Westminster coffers at present!!!
C3...............;)
Actually, Scottish vehicles raise £350 million via Vehicle Excise but the cost of maintaining Scottish roads is just shy of £1500 million.
The Scottish government will only gather tax from the sale of oil which takes place with its own borders. The oil which gets exported gets sold at the market price on that day then England will gather her own tax from Scottish oil for her own benefit. I can't see where much benefit for Scotland happens as the Oil companies are British unless Salmond aims to renationalise the oil companies like what happened in Iran??
Actually, Scottish vehicles raise £350 million via Vehicle Excise but the cost of maintaining Scottish roads is just shy of £1500 million.
The Scottish government will only gather tax from the sale of oil which takes place with its own borders. The oil which gets exported gets sold at the market price on that day then England will gather her own tax from Scottish oil for her own benefit. I can't see where much benefit for Scotland happens as the Oil companies are British unless Salmond aims to renationalise the oil companies like what happened in Iran??
What about the VAT and tax on fuel sold to the motorist and companies, that will come to quite a bit I am sure and would go towards maintaining the roads.
C3.............;)
equusdriving
05-Aug-12, 16:36
Well done another GB Gold in the tennis, its amazing how much the pride in competing for Great Britain, spurs competitors on to achieve their greatest results:D
It was fantastic - I was shouting my head off and just delighted. It was fabulous Well done andy murray
Actually, Scottish vehicles raise £350 million via Vehicle Excise but the cost of maintaining Scottish roads is just shy of £1500 million.
The Scottish government will only gather tax from the sale of oil which takes place with its own borders. The oil which gets exported gets sold at the market price on that day then England will gather her own tax from Scottish oil for her own benefit. I can't see where much benefit for Scotland happens as the Oil companies are British unless Salmond aims to renationalise the oil companies like what happened in Iran??
2010-2011 GERS figures say Vehicle Excise Duty is £470 million. Transport Scotland says that it estimates it would initially need to spend £275 million to achieve a ‘steady state’ for its roads, whereby a fixed percentage of the network requires structural maintenance each year. Councils estimate that to maintain roads in their current condition, they would need to spend £45 million more each year for the next ten years on long-term structural maintenance. Doable with that amount of annual Vehicle Excise Tax, don't you think?
There is a tendency to forget that the state of Scotland's roads, until 1999 were a result of UK Government policies (via the Scottish Office) and nothing to do with any decisions by any Scottish Government, which has been struggling to catch up ever since with the results of UK neglect over decades. To be fair, I don't think the English road network is in a lot better shape, though..and they have £5,789 million to play with, and only spend about £2.3 million of that annually on road maintenance and construction.
What makes you think that, if Scotland was able to institute its own fiscal policies re oil and gas exploration etc, the bulk of the companies involved in the North Sea would not decide to choose to fall within Scotland's tax regime rather than that that of rUK, particularly if it was going to continue the UK policy of milking them as a cash cow with PRT and windfall taxes? You will persist in assuming that Scotland becoming independent will change nothing within what is left of the UK at all, or anything within Scotland for the better, and that is patently unrealistic.
Well done another GB Gold in the tennis, its amazing how much the pride in competing for Great Britain, spurs competitors on to achieve their greatest results:D
Congratulations to Andy Murray, certainly..and all the other GB competitors who have won medals. Have to admit I didn't listen to any of his matches any more than I did to his matches at Wimbledon, because a) I don't particularly like tennis, which in my boredom stakes ranks only slightly above cricket....and b) I don't think professional sportsmen should have any place in Olympic Games..or Commonwealth Games, come to that.
Without deliberately trying to denigrate Andy Murray's or anybody else's input to the UK medal tables, given they don't make the rules, (and it is a UK team, not a GB one however the media tries to spin it....or do the likes of Mary Peters no longer count in our Olympics statistics because she is from Northern Ireland?), professional athletes have a multitude of options in this world of "everything has a price" to prove their ability to their own and others' satisfaction without the hijacking of of what was originally meant to be a celebration of the ability of any or all of the general population, out of pure enthusiasm for a sport to excel at that chosen sport, and to take centre stage....rather than what appears to be the current Olympic approved aim to make them worth more as a professional and increase their "appearance money" as "Olympic Champions".
If the current system had pertained in the Hitler Olympic games, would Jesse Jackson ever have been awarded a place in the US team at all?
Real amateurs who don't compete for anything but love of whichever game/activity in which they choose to participate do not have as much option anymore since capitalism took over. How many taking part nowadays are amateurs in the true sense of the word?
The Olympic Charter did once say, although I know not if it still does..."Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will, and mind. Blending Sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example, and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles." Nowhere in there does it say that Olympism means that you have to earn your living by sport, which. imo, does not equate to a balanced whole, but a specifically sports oriented imbalance of real life, predicated on the joy found in income, more than in effort for the sake of effort, and, given the increase in drug induced performances, does not even equate to a good example of anything but the increasing tendency that pursuit of money trumps all universal fundamental ethical principles.
I'd be more inclined to think that this was not as much the result of other factors than simply "pride in competing for Great Britain" (or UK if you really want to do accuracy), if Andy Murray had produced a result better than he had ever produced in the past....but have no problem with those who wish to think that "Britishness" produced an almost exceptional result, although not by any means his best result in 17 head to heads since 2005.
Given that in the past 17 matches at all stages of any competition in which the two have competed against each other, Federer is still one ahead of Murray with regard to head to head matches won.....it is possibly more serendipity that it was Murray's Buggin's turn in this match?
Maybe if he had managed a 2-0 result which is something he has only achieved three times in 17 meetings so far, there may be some justification in saying that a result not achieved since October 2010 was down to " competing for Great Britain", but I do struggle to equate the idea that he has accomplished a slightly better result than he has achieved against Federer since 2005, and the fact that it has happened to coincide with the Olympics this time, is being spun by some as down to "pride in competing for Great Britain"..and not just because he was on better form than Federer in that particular meeting, as he has been in others. Or are you saying that the financial pot at the end of the competitive rainbow has infinitely less significance than a medal.....in which case, which part of turning professional after winning Olympic Gold gives you that impression?
And, believe me, I will still have the same opinion come the Commonwealth Games if professionals take part and prevail, whether they are Scottish professionals or not.
What about the VAT and tax on fuel sold to the motorist and companies, that will come to quite a bit I am sure and would go towards maintaining the roads.
C3.............;)
VAT raised in Scotland in 2010-2011 was, according to GERS, 8,560 million and the tax on fuel was 2,339 million.
Congratulations to Andy Murray, certainly..and all the other GB competitors who have won medals. Have to admit I didn't listen to any of his matches any more than I did to his matches at Wimbledon, because a) I don't particularly like tennis, which in my boredom stakes ranks only slightly above cricket....and b) I don't think professional sportsmen should have any place in Olympic Games..or Commonwealth Games, come to that.
Without deliberately trying to denigrate Andy Murray's or anybody else's input to the UK medal tables, given they don't make the rules, (and it is a UK team, not a GB one however the media tries to spin it....or do the likes of Mary Peters no longer count in our Olympics statistics because she is from Northern Ireland?), professional athletes have a multitude of options in this world of "everything has a price" to prove their ability to their own and others' satisfaction without the hijacking of of what was originally meant to be a celebration of the ability of any or all of the general population, out of pure enthusiasm for a sport to excel at that chosen sport, and to take centre stage....rather than what appears to be the current Olympic approved aim to make them worth more as a professional and increase their "appearance money" as "Olympic Champions".
If the current system had pertained in the Hitler Olympic games, would Jesse Jackson ever have been awarded a place in the US team at all?
Real amateurs who don't compete for anything but love of whichever game/activity in which they choose to participate do not have as much option anymore since capitalism took over. How many taking part nowadays are amateurs in the true sense of the word?
The Olympic Charter did once say, although I know not if it still does..."Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will, and mind. Blending Sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example, and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles." Nowhere in there does it say that Olympism means that you have to earn your living by sport, which. imo, does not equate to a balanced whole, but a specifically sports oriented imbalance of real life, predicated on the joy found in income, more than in effort for the sake of effort, and, given the increase in drug induced performances, does not even equate to a good example of anything but the increasing tendency that pursuit of money trumps all universal fundamental ethical principles.
I'd be more inclined to think that this was not as much the result of other factors than simply "pride in competing for Great Britain" (or UK if you really want to do accuracy), if Andy Murray had produced a result better than he had ever produced in the past....but have no problem with those who wish to think that "Britishness" produced an almost exceptional result, although not by any means his best result in 17 head to heads since 2005.
Given that in the past 17 matches at all stages of any competition in which the two have competed against each other, Federer is still one ahead of Murray with regard to head to head matches won.....it is possibly more serendipity that it was Murray's Buggin's turn in this match?
Maybe if he had managed a 2-0 result which is something he has only achieved three times in 17 meetings so far, there may be some justification in saying that a result not achieved since October 2010 was down to " competing for Great Britain", but I do struggle to equate the idea that he has accomplished a slightly better result than he has achieved against Federer since 2005, and the fact that it has happened to coincide with the Olympics this time, is being spun by some as down to "pride in competing for Great Britain"..and not just because he was on better form than Federer in that particular meeting, as he has been in others. Or are you saying that the financial pot at the end of the competitive rainbow has infinitely less significance than a medal.....in which case, which part of turning professional after winning Olympic Gold gives you that impression?
And, believe me, I will still have the same opinion come the Commonwealth Games if professionals take part and prevail, whether they are Scottish professionals or not.
You're at it again!
I'll sum it up in 3 lines to give you a pointer.
I don't like professionals in the Olympics (reasonable position).
I don't like capitalism. (pretty bliddy pointless opinon)
I don't believe competitors gain any extra from being in their home Olympics (they say they do)
equusdriving
05-Aug-12, 21:29
(and it is a UK team, not a GB one however the media tries to spin it....
what so are you saying its the media who chose to call it team GB, and did they make them put GB on their trackies too :lol:
justification in saying that a result not achieved since October 2010 was down to " competing for Great Britain",
I was actually commenting on the amount of medals won and records we have broken, which I have no doubt has been helped by the pride the "competitors" have in representing GB
although not by any means his best result in 17 head to heads since 2005.
he lost at Wimbledon the last time they played 4 weeks ago and won convincingly this time (the first time at Wimbledon) and described his victory as "the biggest win of my life" and he has relished the whole Olympic experience and he did not just beat Federer, he handed him his heaviest ever defeat at Wimbledon,
piratelassie
06-Aug-12, 00:30
Grow up please.
Tonight's Olympic ceremony celebrated the best of Britain. Did you enjoy it, or are you one of those wimpish Scottish Nationalists that can't compete on a global scale?
I know something about Wee Fat Eck that I suspect no-one else on this forum knows. The man is a total disgrace in my opinion.
With a gold medal round his neck, a Union flag draped over his shoulders and singing God Save the Queen, the 25-year-old Scot presented a nightmare image for Scottish nationalists"
Well done Andy
With a gold medal round his neck, a Union flag draped over his shoulders and singing God Save the Queen, the 25-year-old Scot presented a nightmare image for Scottish nationalists"
Well done Andy
Lol Golach!!!
Me and Wee Eck will have nightmares for years to come from now on!!
Do you not think that Andy would sooner have had a Gold medal round his neck, a Saltire draped around his shoulders and singing his heart out to Flower of Scotland? And for your information he wasn't singing God save the Queen, he was mumbling it and trying to remember the words!!
Wait until Independence and see which country he represents then, it wont be Team GB, I can assure you.
Thanks for the laugh anyway.
C3..............:roll:;)
With a gold medal round his neck, a Union flag draped over his shoulders and singing God Save the Queen, the 25-year-old Scot presented a nightmare image for Scottish nationalists"
Well done Andy
WRONG - not in this house it didnt - a house which includes a rabid scottish nationalist ( my husband) and me. We were delighted. We are delighted when any scottish athlete does well on the world stage - whether they wear a saltire or a union flag. The point is actually Golach that these athletes inspire and enthuse us whatever they are wearing. The people that seem to be making the most of the nationality issue all over the internet are actually those that wish to make a point against the union. The stand up and say "Well done Andy for being so BRITISH and nah nah nah nah nah to you nationalists" What a load of rubbish. Andy Murray is Scottish and British and from Dunblane. We cheer becaue he is on our team and we cheer louder because he is from our country and even louder because he is from our town.
I dont think there is anything wrong with being proud for TeamGB and being proud because he is Scottish. It might be that we would PREFER a scottish team but we dont have one YET.
Lets stop this stupid nonsense and just be pleased that Scots are more than holding their own in a team of four nations.
Will Andy be permitted a vote in this indepencance charade anyway?
He resides in London and he doesnt work here either.
Will Andy be permitted a vote in this indepencance charade anyway?
He resides in London and he doesnt work here either.
Would depend if he still has a vote here, wouldn't it?
secrets in symmetry
22-Aug-12, 10:19
I was away in "Abroad" most of the time this thread was running, and (although I only managed the occasional quick glimpse at the forum) I noticed an enormous (and obvious!) numerical error this post from Oddquine:
I'll have a go at defence! But, like so much else in a divorce, a lot will depend on the settlement negotiated with the other party as to division of debts/assets. Usual caveat applies.....figures are only as good as the collection, allocation and interpretation of data.
Comparing the costs of a Scottish Defence Force with Scotland's current contribution to the UK's military machine, we get interesting figures (imo).
In 2008 we were paying, according to GERS, £3.16 Billion, (in 2011, £3.62 billion, but we'll use the 2008 figures as they are less) to which has to be added the £210 million for Trident maintenance and £151 million for overseas military actions. That cumulative total comes to £3.521 billion.
For arguments sake, if we used that as the average figure for each year from 2001 to 2010,in that time.....we paid around £351 billion towards UK defence assets...and to that has to be added the £18 billion from the Special Government Reserve Fund which funds the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the likes of London's sewerage system)to which we input around £1.5 billion annually........Total £366 billion from Scotland. MOD spending in Scotland over that period, taking again the 2008 figure as the average, was approximately £15.5 billion.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, and a UK government adviser worked out a notional cost of an SDF, of 1.45% of GDP, based on that of Denmark and Norway, and he comes up with a figure of £2.2 billion annually. So if Scotland had been independent from 2001 to 2010, instead of just devolved, their defence costs would have been £22 billion.
Just consider how much good the extra £344 billion would have done Scotland and the Scottish people over those years......and how much good an annual spare £2 billion could do us now. A population of 5.25 million could do quite a lot with £2 billion every year......and with the extra injection into the Scottish economy from the difference between £2.2 billion and the £1.57 billion we currently receive from Westminster as our input for playing our part in UK defence. And, into the bargain,a Scottish Defence Force would require equipment and maintenance and would be far more likely to source this from within Scotland unlike the UK moving jobs south. But I didn't have time to point it out.
Takes me a long time to research and write a post.Even when the figures in your main claim are so obviously very, very, wrong - and you didn't even notice such a stupid mistake? Do you really have so little feel for economic data, or even for numbers?
These figures seem hardly credible. That would be roughly the equivilent of the tax paid by the entire population in one year. Where does it come from? Can't be big business (Scotland doesn't have much and they are all dodging their taxes anyway apparently).Indeed. The figures for Scottish contributions to the MoD over a 10-year period are so obviously wrong that it's hardly credible that Oddquine would not only not notice her error, but that she actually defended her analysis in a later post:
Which part of them? The cumulative over 10 years and annual amounts Scotland pays/has paid into defence? they are based on GERS figures and can be found there. The money used...that is Scottish taxpayers money.......personal and business taxpayers. Where do you think it comes from?
The Union dividend part? According to the MOD statistics, as often cited by Angus Robertson MP, the under-spend in Scotland increased from £749m in 2002/03 to £1.259bn in 2007-2008, which represents a 68 per cent increase in six years. The cumulative under-spend between defence reviews is in excess of £5.622bn. After the 1997 SDSR Scotland lost 10,500+ service and civilian defence jobs. At the time of the 2010 SDSR there were only 12,190 service-personnel left in Scotland. Nobody has yet placed any doubt on his figuresThe "cumulative over 10 years" is so obviously wrong that I spotted it in less than a second. Have you spotted your error yet Oddquine?
A cautionary note: you should never take notice of figures posted in support of (or against) independence unless you have confidence in the poster's ability to check their arithmetic. You need a "feel" for the figures - call it intuition if you like. Taking figures from a report and making such elementary arithmetic errors is one thing, but not noticing that error (because the answer you get is totally ridiculous) - even when it's pointed out publicly - deserves our total derision.
secrets in symmetry
02-Sep-12, 02:16
I expected a response from a Strange Kind of Woman. How long is it now lol?
I expected a response from a Strange Kind of Woman. How long is it now lol?
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?184695-What-is-the-SNP&p=972254#post972254
:roll:
(http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?184695-What-is-the-SNP&p=972254#post972254)
Even when the figures in your main claim are so obviously very, very, wrong - and you didn't even notice such a stupid mistake? Do you really have so little feel for economic data, or even for numbers?
Well spotted.
I find that this thing happens all too often on the org. Typically someone screws up so badly with their 'evidence' but still presents it to promote their case for something in the hope that nobody notices. Then when it is pointed out that they are wrong or have lied then you don't even a hint of an acknowlegement or an apology.
I'm convinced that people just use this forum to promote ideologies and propoganda rather than discussion and searching for the truth.
does that include you rheg?
does that include you rheg?
I don't spread propaganda or push any ideologies. If I can't back up what I say with hard facts then I don't post.
You post your opininon - like we all do.... your opinion that what you are posting is fact. There is often someone else who believes that their opinion is fact too - how are you more right that they are. Are you saying that your opinion is fact but everyone else's is propaganda?
And when your facts are challenged what happens then - do you even consider that someone else's facts might be true and yours might be wrong?
You post your opininon - like we all do.... your opinion that what you are posting is fact. There is often someone else who believes that their opinion is fact too - how are you more right that they are. Are you saying that your opinion is fact but everyone else's is propaganda?
And when your facts are challenged what happens then - do you even consider that someone else's facts might be true and yours might be wrong?
My opinions are based upon facts and it would horrify if my opinion on here were in anyway fallacious. I welcome debate if that debate were based on good reason, facts etc but some of the independence stuff iss just jingoistic nonsense wrapped up to make it semi plausible. None of it has convinced me that my life will be any better after independence.
Its not surprising that is it - No will convince you of anything if you think that you are always right!
Where do you welcome debate if you think that you right and everyone else is wrong. Unless you are magnanimously "enlightening" someone who you think is ignorant and where is the debate in that.....
Its not surprising that is it - No will convince you of anything if you think that you are always right!
Where do you welcome debate if you think that you right and everyone else is wrong. Unless you are magnanimously "enlightening" someone who you think is ignorant and where is the debate in that.....
You are the one who thinks that I think that I am always right, I don't.
billmoseley
02-Sep-12, 18:50
it is very difficult to have a proper debate via a forum like this. i think that our opinions don't come across as we would like them too. i find both of your opinions interesting and enjoy reading what you and very one else has to say i except you opinions but i still keep mine.
Its not surprising that is it - No will convince you of anything if you think that you are always right!
Where do you welcome debate if you think that you right and everyone else is wrong. Unless you are magnanimously "enlightening" someone who you think is ignorant and where is the debate in that.....
Sorry squidge, are you always right? The Nats propoganda that you post just makes me cringe, you seem to think you have all the answers. Now don't return this post back at me asking me for answers, as I do not have them. I just want to stay in the Union, nothing more nothing less
Mea culpa...a b input stead of an m..it wasn't as much my arithmetic........it was more my typing...and not realising I had mistyped...so continued using the figure. :roll: Or it could just have been a way to ascertain if you were all paying attention.(and given it took two weeks to notice my error (deliberate or otherwise)......I'm not inclined to think you all were) :Razz
Though on rereading ducati's post.....he/she picked up on it, but I misinterpreted his response because at that stage I hadn't realised my error.
Whose a bucky lugger being able to spend most of two weeks "Abroad" s-i-s, most of my time from my last post to the one I linked to on this thread was spent in hospital..and I was well impressed with the Caithness General handling of bolshie auld wimen, having tried Dr Gray's and RNI in the past. And who is no better at arithmetic (or typing/reading) than I am, Rheghead?
Now having pointed out my perceived inabilty to multiply by 10, but having said nothing which would equate to discussion of points made, can either you or S-I-S give facts to refute the annual figures quoted..which are more important than the total of money dished out by Scotland over ten years and already lost forever...or the reduction in Scotland's share of defence spending. I'll accept facts to refute anything I say......to quote Angus Robertson "Does it genuinely serve a tactical or economical advantage to spend £1,244 per head on defence in the southwest of England, but only £302 per head in Scotland?"
Since he said thatthere have been more cuts announced and now we have the ridiculous situation that the established strength of Scottish Regiments are going to be around 450 each, while the MOD press and communication officers total around 700 personnel.....and that is after a 10% cut.
In 2011, Liam Fox said "...between 2000 and 2010, the total reduction [in service jobs] was 11.6% but the reduction in Scotland was 27.9%, so over the decade there were bigger reductions made in personnel as a proportion than in other parts of the UK." and.....a few weeks later, he put a figure on the numbers of troops to be stationed in Scotland on return from Germany..saying
"It is impossible to give an exact number, but I would imagine that between 6,500 and 7,000, or something of that order, of the 20,000 personnel we currently have in Germany will be coming back to the multi-role brigades in Scotland. The precise number and lay-down will be subject to the plans that the Army will bring forward in the months and years ahead, assuming of course that we have the agreement of the local authorities and the Scottish Government."
By this day in 2012, despite his imaginings, Kinloss(ex-RAF Nimrod base) is home to what will be 930 Army personnel from Waterbeach, one of them my nephew, btw, and their families.and the MOD website proudly proclaims that will see the number of Service personnel in Scotland maintained.....(at 27.9% less than any other part of the UK)......anything more appears to depend on how well the UK Government decides it is doing in the polls in the run-up to 2014 and how much sop they need to provide for the security blanket aficionados. Given the whole thing is going to run until 2020, plenty sweeteners are available....but won't necessarily arrive.
Not much of one for conspiracy theories......but I'd guess that we won't get much more of anything before the Independence vote. Is it just co-incidental that Bristol gets preference over Glasgow for NATO jobs, despite Glasgow being cheaper (so much for best value) http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/scots-jobs-blow-as-mod-moves-to-shift-nato-posts-to-bristol.18750674 Asset-stripping much? :confused
Wonder why Jim Murphy, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, is not condemning these job losses? He is forever warning us of the dangers of defence job losses if Scotland becomes independent, how does his ...or your.... stronger together theory explain this?
secrets in symmetry
03-Sep-12, 00:04
Well spotted.
I find that this thing happens all too often on the org. Typically someone screws up so badly with their 'evidence' but still presents it to promote their case for something in the hope that nobody notices. Then when it is pointed out that they are wrong or have lied then you don't even a hint of an acknowlegement or an apology.
I'm convinced that people just use this forum to promote ideologies and propoganda rather than discussion and searching for the truth.The amazing thing is that she propagated her resulting nonsense throughout the whole post (and much of the thread), and she didn't notice the error even after it was pointed out to her! How one can possibly trust the judgement of anyone that makes such a stupid error and (more importantly) can't spot it is beyond me.
My suspicion of the SNP's total lack of competence in secessionist economics received a boost recently when I met a large-shoed circus performer who is (or at least claims to be) in charge of some aspects of post-secession economic modelling of the Scottish economy. After he explained their model, I explained what he was doing wrong - and was met by a blank face. This idiot doesn't know any calculus, so he doesn't know what exponential growth (or decline) is. He was little better than the clowns on this forum who spout numbers but have no idea about the simplest mathematics needed to model change in the economy.
I tried to explain exponential behaviour in terms of compound interest. He knew that interest was higher when compounded, but he just couldn't understand why!
Sorry squidge, are you always right? The Nats propoganda that you post just makes me cringe, you seem to think you have all the answers. Now don't return this post back at me asking me for answers, as I do not have them. I just want to stay in the Union, nothing more nothing less
At no time do I think I am always right - i post my opinions. I often say I dont know and I often say that there are NO answers and NO facts just opinions. What I find disappointing is that people dont discuss anything they simply dismiss. I don't know why my answers make you cringe they are simply my opinions and what I believe - at least I try to gove answers and reasons for my opinions - many people dont - they simply sneer and be rude. Golach You are as entitled to be idealogically attached to the union just as someone is idealogically attached to an Independent Scotland. There is no difference in your type of opinion to those of a nationalist persuasion and yet people smugly dismiss their opinion as propoganda and nonsense. ITs just disappointing thats all
What puzzles me is why there is this eternal insistence by Unionists that those seeking Independence have to give definite accurate facts and figures as to the unknown future.....while those preferring to stay in the Union do not have to produce the equivalent facts and figures regarding the UK's unknown future while promoting the continuation of the Union. Does choice not mean having a choice...and not just being faced with possibilities, extrapolated from facts, as offered by the yes campaign........and scaremongering based on cherrypicked information by the Unionists.
Latest Scaremongering #1 on the lines of ."Scotland could not continue using sterling because the "Bank of England" would not adjust monetary policy to suit an independent Scotland"
Now, disregarding the fact that the B of E is minority part-owned by Scotland and has been since the Union, despite the name, why would they need to adjust anything? The B of E is independent of Government. Scotland would have the ability to adjust its own fiscal policy to compensate, in the short term at least, for monetary decisions made by the B of E, even if they are predicated to benefit the South of England (which they should not be if the B of E was genuinely independent.) Presently, Scotland does not have that choice, we have to suffer what the UK government dictates....after independence, we would have options to suit our circumstances.
There are an appreciable number of countries in monetary unions with others,( including those within the EU Zone). I'm not convinced that if that monetary union wasn't going to benefit them in the long run they'd till be involved. I'd expect Scotland to be as pragmatic.
Scaremongering#2 on the lines of the CBI Director-General saying, according to UK media reports of his intended speech "immediate effects [of independence] would be profound, and in the short term costly. When Slovakia separated from the Czech Republic, it cost the country four per cent of its GDP in the following year." But what he doesn't say, according to the pre-released text, is that since independence economic growth in Slovakia has averaged 3.5% each year, compared to 1.9% for Scotland. Their growth rate has been almost double that achieved here. And that extra growth has a direct benefit for ordinary Slovak families - benefits like higher wages, more jobs, higher standards of living.
I recommend reading http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation#continental if you are interested in dispelling Unionist fallacies and myths........it is written in a quite amusing style, even if it raises the blood pressure of Unionists and pro-independence supporters for different reasons.
Scottish voters have no grounds for assuming the balance of risk favours the Union...and Unionists are, so far, not offering anything to make their case..maybe because the only way to do that is with facts and figures, which are, on the Unionist side, conspicuous by their absence.
Last month, Blair Jenkins, chief executive of Yes Scotland, posed the question, on the Yes Scotland website, “How many Scots would vote to join the Union if Scotland was still independent?” given that today they'd be voting for a main parliament hundreds of miles away and their MPs would be in a small minority; the majority of the time, they would have a government they didn't vote for; they would hand over all their revenues to the London Treasury and receive an amount decided by London as pocket money; the biggest nuclear arsenal in Western Europe would be based on the River Clyde, 30 miles from their largest city; an austerity budget would be imposed from London, cutting jobs,threatening public services, penalising the poor and disabled and benefiting the wealthy, instead of Scotland being responsible for raising and spending its own taxes; they'd be joining a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised etc.
If you weren't already part of the Union, would you vote to be part of the Union today?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.