PDA

View Full Version : Your reasons for voting No in the Independence referendum



Oddquine
03-Sep-13, 22:20
This is aimed at the nay-sayers on here....and you know who you are. You all know why those of us who support independence do so, even if you have all made it obvious that you don't agree.......but none of you (bar gollach with his pension paranoia) have ever said why you intend to vote NO.

I don't expect, given your posts on the subject, that your minds can be changed......but I'd really be interested to know why you want to remain in the Union.

golach
03-Sep-13, 22:24
This is aimed at the nay-sayers on here....and you know who you are. You all know why those of us who support independence do so, even if you have all made it obvious that you don't agree.......but none of you (bar gollach with his pension paranoia) have ever said why you intend to vote NO.

I don't expect, given your posts on the subject, that your minds can be changed......but I'd really be interested to know why you want to remain in the Union.

If your going to mention me,..........at least spell my name correctly [disgust]

Alrock
03-Sep-13, 22:25
I think you'll find that fear of the unknown plays a large part, also the misconception that a vote for independence equates to a vote for the SNP & in particular Alex Salmond.

mi16
03-Sep-13, 22:31
This is aimed at the nay-sayers on here....and you know who you are. You all know why those of us who support independence do so, even if you have all made it obvious that you don't agree.......but none of you (bar gollach with his pension paranoia) have ever said why you intend to vote NO.

I don't expect, given your posts on the subject, that your minds can be changed......but I'd really be interested to know why you want to remain in the Union. because I am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

golach
03-Sep-13, 22:35
because I am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Will second that mi16

Kenn
03-Sep-13, 22:40
Simple, I have yet to see any sort of breakdown of how Scotland would be able to fund it's self .

outsidethebox
03-Sep-13, 22:40
because the yes campaign have not yet put forward one good reason to vote yes

equusdriving
03-Sep-13, 23:19
This is aimed at the nay-sayers on here....and you know who you are.as apposed to all the thousands of nay-sayers across Scotland?
You all know why those of us who support independence do sooh do we? would that be because of the draconian bigoted anti-british/anti-english chip on your shoulder?:lol: because you sure haven't given any valid fact based reasons :confused
but none of you (bar gollach with his pension paranoia) have ever said why you intend to vote NO. if you bothered reading the posts you would see, its quite simple really

I don't expect, given your posts on the subject, that your minds can be changedunlike you, my mind could be changed,but it would take solid facts and figures and answers, not the usual fingers crossed, wait and see and it cant be any worse than it is now drivel you lot continuously spout
......but I'd really be interested to know why you want to remain in the Union somehow I dont believe that

cptdodger
03-Sep-13, 23:20
because I am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Well said mi16, and same here. And to be honest Oddquine, that's all you need to know, because it is not us that wants to change anything, it is you and the rest of the people that want independence to prove to us, without any shadow of a doubt why we should change our minds. This Referendum business has caused more harm to this country (Scotland) than anything I have seen in a long time. It has caused so much ill feeling between people, that you should really be asking yourself - is it worth it?

equusdriving
03-Sep-13, 23:35
Well said mi16, and same here. And to be honest Oddquine, that's all you need to know, because it is not us that wants to change anything, it is you and the rest of the people that want independence to prove to us, without any shadow of a doubt why we should change our minds. This Referendum business has caused more harm to this country (Scotland) than anything I have seen in a long time. It has caused so much ill feeling between people, that you should really be asking yourself - is it worth it?well said and spot on

lesley_mac
03-Sep-13, 23:38
if for any unknowen reason we do get independence can you tell me how the queen is still going to be our queen so at the end of the day we arent getting independence its just alex salmond filling his pockets

Rheghead
03-Sep-13, 23:49
The UK has a Voice, an independent Scotland will have a whisper

macadamia
04-Sep-13, 00:42
Reading threatening comments by the Cybernats of limited intelligence along the lines of "we know where you live" in the "Yes Scotland" and "SNP" pages on Facebook is one very solid reason I would not wish to cast my lot with such people, and the kind of demagogic leadership stirring them up (from behind, of course). There is real ugliness here which has more to do with a crude tribalism than with a healthy regard for the future.

Gronnuck
04-Sep-13, 08:47
Well there's an outside chance I might be persuaded if a credible leadership was to emerge but the only people to show their heads thus far are Salmond and Sturgeon. The strident anti-English rhetoric of their followers over the last couple of years does them or their cause no credit. Whatever happens we will have to maintain strong links with our neighbours. Ruth Davidson appears bright and articulate but is conservative and for many Scots her politics is anathema. Johann Lamont comes across as a whinging auld wifie; IMHO a true reflection of the state of Scottish Labour. So where is this charismatic leadership that is going to lead an independent Scotland to a bright new future?
If we’re honest the current crop of MSPs are no better than the grasping, trough feeding numpties we have in Westminster.

Oddquine
04-Sep-13, 10:03
Reading threatening comments by the Cybernats of limited intelligence along the lines of "we know where you live" in the "Yes Scotland" and "SNP" pages on Facebook is one very solid reason I would not wish to cast my lot with such people, and the kind of demagogic leadership stirring them up (from behind, of course). There is real ugliness here which has more to do with a crude tribalism than with a healthy regard for the future.

You can't be reading the same FB pages as I am.....but hey.......there are as many CyberUnionists with as limited intelligence as CyberNats.....but I guess you haven't noticed that any more than I have noticed the CyberNats. The Better Together pages have little on them but negativity, personal attacks on Alex Salmond and on posters who disagree with them, and threats of becoming a terrorist, for example, if the vote is for Independence.

By the way.....I don't believe that any Unionist, whatever he/she says will become a terrorist if Scotland leaves the Union.....any more than I would believe a CyberNat who claimed to "know where I lived" and decide that was a threat. The internet isn't real life, after all.....just words on a page. I used to say way back that I was tempted to head down to London with a gun and shoot Maggie Thatcher to save Scotland......and in those much more sensible days...people just laughed....now they get paranoid!

Elements on both sides would do less damage to their respective causes if they would just think before they typed, but fat chance of that. Such people are a small minority.....but if you want to make excuses for voting NO, then by all means do so....but there is really no need. The debate on the internet is not aimed at changing fixed decisions......but at giving information to the undecided. I have a lot of respect for those who don't make excuses for voting NO, but say simply because I am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, having cousins with that opinion who will be voting NO. Can't understand that pride myself, though.

Out of interest......if the referendum wasn't simply a two horse race, but the devo-max option had been included, who would, from either camp, have voted for that option?

Humerous Vegetable
04-Sep-13, 10:48
No, the point of independence being that the people of the country should be in a position to decide on the powers and direction of their country, and not have those powers delegated to them by another country. We have been just another colony for too long, and devo-max would perpetuate that scenario.
People will will vote with their guts, not their brain and, although I admire your efforts Oddquine, I don't think your reasoned arguements are going to work on a website like this.

squidge
04-Sep-13, 11:00
Well there's an outside chance I might be persuaded if a credible leadership was to emerge but the only people to show their heads thus far are Salmond and Sturgeon. The strident anti-English rhetoric of their followers over the last couple of years ........What strident anti english rhetoric?

Hoida
04-Sep-13, 11:29
because I am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
I agree with mi16 wholeheartedly.

golach
04-Sep-13, 11:34
The OP asked us No voters to state why we are going that route. Why are the yes crowd coming here and trying get us to change our mind.....it will not work with me.

Oddquine
04-Sep-13, 11:50
Well there's an outside chance I might be persuaded if a credible leadership was to emerge but the only people to show their heads thus far are Salmond and Sturgeon. The strident anti-English rhetoric of their followers over the last couple of years does them or their cause no credit. Whatever happens we will have to maintain strong links with our neighbours. Ruth Davidson appears bright and articulate but is conservative and for many Scots her politics is anathema. Johann Lamont comes across as a whinging auld wifie; IMHO a true reflection of the state of Scottish Labour. So where is this charismatic leadership that is going to lead an independent Scotland to a bright new future?
If we’re honest the current crop of MSPs are no better than the grasping, trough feeding numpties we have in Westminster.

But the leadership is going to be Salmond and Sturgeon until 2016...nothing we can do about that....and they have certainly been more effective on their limited budget than the UK Parliament has been while holding the purse-strings, don't you think?

Charisma is what Hitler had......and how great a leader was he? Much better to have competence, commonsense and intelligence..and the ability to string two words together to make sense, imo. Charisma is what the leaders of obscure religious sects and dictators have, and I can't see that as a prerequisite for the leader of a political party.

I'd like to see the Unionist Parties biting the bullet and becoming Scottish Parties able to stand in Scottish elections ahead of any vote, if only because, with a NO vote and the continuation of the status quo...we will then have a set of politicians of all parties with Scotland and the Scottish people as their priority as opposed to what we have now...Unionist Parties taking orders from the Westminster parent...but I can't see it happening until it has to happen, if it does.

I rather like the look of the SDA..and hope they form a political party to contest the 2016 election......they'd probably get my vote. Re the strong links with our neighbours, it takes two to tango......and Westminster doesn't appear to want to join the dance at the moment, given all the "you cannae do that's" we are continually getting.

Re the MSPs being no different to the current MPs in Westminster......you could always take part in the discussion of a constitution...and ensure that there are not the same oppportunities for grasping and trough-feeding in a Scottish Parliament. The Constitutional Commission has included, in their draft Constitution example, a part directly referring to conduct in Public Life. The various websites on a written constitution and what it should (or shouldn't) contain are quite interesting.

rob murray
04-Sep-13, 11:53
You will never know as

a People can lie on their intent
b People need the full facts prior to making an informed decision ( 100% are in agreement we dont have access to the full facts over the key issues ) and wont commit through blind faith
c The decision will be by ballot process hence secret.

After the ballot you will know for definite, so just wait.

squidge
04-Sep-13, 12:11
The OP asked us No voters to state why we are going that route. Why are the yes crowd coming here and trying get us to change our mind.....it will not work with me.Im not trying to get anyone to change their mind. I just asked a question about a subject that interests me.

neilsermk1
04-Sep-13, 12:21
I have yet to see anything which has even the passing resemblance of a convincing arguement for independence.

orkneycadian
04-Sep-13, 14:41
Numerous reasons, but readily summed up by the pro's telling us in answer to our concerns "Of course we don't know what we are going to do come independence, silly, no one does. We have to vote for independence first, then figure it out." It strikes me that once we have voted for, and have become independent, then its a little too late to find out that the books will not balance.

So thats the summary. If you are interested, here are a smattering of issues that, as far as I am aware, have not been addressed. If a phone book sized document titled "Election Communication" covering these has dropped through the letterbox and has been eaten by the dog without my noticing, then apologies.

What will happen to the Postal Service and the USO, assuming it survives that long. What will happen to postal charges for "international" posting
What will happen to nationalised services and any USO's that they have - Whilst appreciating we have Scottish Gas and Electricity companies, but they operate under a national USO. British Telecom and Openreach are, however, distinctly national companies.
What will our defence system be like? Will we have the back up of the UK, or are we "on our own now"
Will national carriers, such as Fedex, TNT and the likes, be able to consider Scotland an International destination, and charge accordingly?
What currency will we have to use? There appears uncertainty that sterling will remain.
Will we be able to become members of the EU
Will we actually want to become members of the EU? (The answer to that one being suitable may soften my resistence to independance)
Will we be able to benefit from the NATO umbrella, should someone want to pick a fight with us?
Will we actually be able to have any say in our government? A recent consultation on the licencing of air rifles returned 87% of consultees in opposition to licencing. The Scottish Government are pressing on with it anyway. Can we consider that to be democracy? Is that the way everything else is going to work when Eck and Nic get the ability to do what they want, without any interference from Westminster, or heaven forbid, the electorate?
What does the financial "business plan" look like? Income streams such as oil revenue should be fairly predictable, and will obviously have a decaying away pattern to them. Meanwhile, on the radio today, we hear that 1/3 of households in Glasgow are officially "workless", and that that is the highest rate of any town in the UK. A business plan, similar to that which an entrepreneur would take to his or her bank manager detailing where our money will come from, and where it will go, over the next 20 or more years, would be helpful.
What an independent Scotland would do to satisfy the desires of the electorate post independence. Will they re-introduce capital punishment if a referendum shows the majority of Scots wish it? Will they put measures in place to ban cold calling and unwanted emails, if the Scottish population wish it? Will they abort plans for average speed cameras on the A9 if the majority of Scots wish it? In short, will the people of Scotland be able to demand, and get, what they want?
Will we be recognising EU Human Rights legislation? Or will we be telling all the thugs, rapists and murderers that "You should have thought about what prison or the death penalty might have been like before committing the crime"?
Will we have a level playing field (or like some of our EU conterparts, dice loaded in our favour) when it comes to fishing and agricultural policies? Or are we going to have to continue to say "How High?" when Brussels says "Jump!", whilst observing other EU counties not bothering to even lift their feet off the ground.
Now, don't get me wrong. Independence is a huge opportunity to sort out a lot that is wrong with our country at the moment. But simply flying a saltire instead of a union jack is not a fix, other than for ego's. If the SNP would tell us what an independent Scotland is really going to be like, then they might be in with half a chance. Leaving us wondering, and telling us all these things will be considered post independence doesn't do it for us.

Somewhat akin to the entrepreneur mentioned above trying to persuade the bank manager give her the money anyway, even though there is no business plan. She can always sort it out later....

equusdriving
04-Sep-13, 15:08
Numerous reasons, but readily summed up by the pro's telling us in answer to our concerns "off course we don't know what we are going to do come independence, silly, no one does. We have to vote for independence first, then figure it out. It strikes me that once we have voted for, and have become independent, then its a little too late to find out that the books will not balance.

So thats the summary. If you are interested, here are a smattering of issues that, as far as I am aware, have not bee addressed. If a phone book sized document titled "Election Communication" covering these has dropped through the letterbox and has been eaten by the dog without my noticing, then apologies.

What will happen to the Postal Service and the USO, assuming it survives that long. What will happen to postal charges for "international" posting
What will happen to nationalised services and any USO's that they have - Whilst appreciating we have Scottish Gas and Electricity companies, but they operate under a national USO. British Telecom and Openreach are, however, distinctly national companies.
What will our defence system be like? Will we have the back up of the UK, or are we "on our own now"
Will National carriers, such as Fedex, TNT and the likes, be able to consider Scotland an International destination, and charge accordingly?
What currency will we have to use? There appears uncertainty that sterling will remain.
Will we be able to become members of the EU
Will we actually want to become members of the EU? (The answer to that one being suitable may soften my resistence to independance)
Will we be able to benefit from the NATO umbrella, should someone want to pick a fight with us?
Will we actually be able to have any say in our government? A recent consultation on the licencing of air rifles returned 87% of consultees in opposition to licencing. The Scottish Government are pressing on with it anyway. Can we consider that to be democracy? Is that the way everything else is going to work when Eck and Nic get the ability to do what they want, without any interference from Westminster, or heaven forbid, the electorate?
What does the financial "business plan" look like? Income streams such as oil revenue should be fairly predictable, and will obviously have a decaying away pattern to it. Meanwhile, on the radio today, we hear that 1/3 of households in Glasgow are officially "workless". A business plan, similar to that that a entrepreneur would take to his or her bank manager detailing where our money will come from, and where it will go, over the next 20 or more years, would be helpful.
What an independent Scotland would do to satisfy the desires of the electorate post independence. Will they re-introduce capital punishment if a referendum shows the majority of Scots wish it? Will they put measures in place to ban cold calling and unwanted emails, if the Scottish population wish it? Will they abort plans for average speed cameras on the A9 if the majority of Scots wish it? In short, will the people of Scotland be able to demand, and get, what they want?
Will we be recognising EU Human Rights legislation? Or will we be telling all the thugs, rapists and murderers that "You should have thought about what prison or the death penalty might have been like before committing the crime"?
Will we have a level playing field (or like some of our EU conterparts, dice loaded in our favour) when it comes to fishing and agricultural policies? Or are we going to have to continue to say "How High?" when Brussels says "Jump!", whilst observing other EU counties not bothering to even lift their feet off the ground.

Now, don't get me wrong. Independence is a huge opportunity to sort out a lot that is wrong with our country at the moment. But flying a saltire instead of a union jack is not a fix, other than for ego's. If the SNP would tell us what an independent Scotland is really going to be like, then they might be in with half a chance. Leaving us wondering, and telling us all these things will be considered post independence doesn't do it for us.

Somewhat akin to the entrepreneur mention above trying to give her the money anyway, even though there is no business plan. She can always sort it out later....

very well put

Humerous Vegetable
04-Sep-13, 15:27
This would be the NATO umbrella currently protecting innocent Syrian civilians, would it?

Kenn
04-Sep-13, 16:47
Hitler had charisma ! I've read some strange statements but that has to be one of the weirdest.

outsidethebox
04-Sep-13, 16:57
Hitler had charisma ! I've read some strange statements but that has to be one of the weirdest.

apparently one of the most charismatic people of his time, how else do you think he got so many people to support him in the first place?

Just because he became a delussional psychopathic murdering racist scumbag does not mean that he could not have charisma.

Big Gaz
04-Sep-13, 18:39
I'm still not decided myself, every time i see a reason to vote yes, a possible reason against it crops up so at the moment i'm hovering around the no side by about 40/60. My only major concern for the moment is that of a case of most people just blindly voting yes just to get rid of the English and the Tories and we do get independence. Don't get me wrong though, I do like the idea of an independent Scotland but there are many issues i still haven't seen addressed yet and they worry me enough to consider voting no

orkneycadian
04-Sep-13, 19:13
This would be the NATO umbrella currently protecting innocent Syrian civilians, would it?

A couple of points;

1. Syria is not a member of NATO, or even an alliance partner
2. NATO is an alliance of member states who have signed up to a collective defence arrangement.

Technically then, NATO's only real interest in Syria, would be if there was a threat of attack, or to the national security of one of its members, or of citizens of a member state. I agree however that in the past some of the definitions have been less than clear cut, and its hard to see where the member state boundaries stop, and being the "heavies" for the UN starts.

At this point in time, the UN have not yet published their findings, so its all hypothesis at the moment anyway, and fodder for another thread on here!

ducati
04-Sep-13, 19:15
I'm still not decided myself, every time i see a reason to vote yes, a possible reason against it crops up so at the moment i'm hovering around the no side by about 40/60. My only major concern for the moment is that of a case of most people just blindly voting yes just to get rid of the English and the Tories and we do get independence. Don't get me wrong though, I do like the idea of an independent Scotland but there are many issues i still haven't seen addressed yet and they worry me enough to consider voting no

Sorry Big Gaz, you won't be getting rid of the English. [lol]

orkneycadian
04-Sep-13, 19:20
Back on topic.....

I am also uncertain that any "business plan" that might be forthcoming will show the hidden costs that are not met by the Scottish Government. For example, things like hikes in postal charges, driving licence applications, personal tax rates and the likes. Things that will hit the Scot in the street in the pocket, but will not necessarily show up on the Governments accounts.

Big Gaz
04-Sep-13, 19:21
Sorry Big Gaz, you won't be getting rid of the English. [lol]

Dang!! [lol]

ducati
04-Sep-13, 19:22
One of my many reasons for voting no are the attitudes of people like oddquinn.

billmoseley
04-Sep-13, 19:30
One of my many reasons for voting no are the attitudes of people like oddquinn. a very good point. i was opened minded at first but the way some of the yes campaigners have tried to bully people makes me just want to dig my heels in

Big Gaz
04-Sep-13, 19:47
One of my many reasons for voting no are the attitudes of people like oddquinn.

I am not paying attention to any of the drivel on here, it will take a lot more than the caithness.org whimper squad to sway my decision for a yes or no vote. I want the facts, both for and against, plainly laid out and in laymans terms with none of the bovine excretion scaremongering. Not too much to ask is it? After all, if independence does happen and it all goes pear-shaped, there's only one nation (and a load of orgers) to blame!

Oddquine
04-Sep-13, 20:30
One of my many reasons for voting no are the attitudes of people like oddquinn.

So what is it about my attitude which makes you lie through your teeth? I read here a long time before I came back and posted again in May 2011......and you have never appeared to be in any way open to being anything but pro-Union/Conservative and one of those who could be almost guaranteed to vote NO in the referendum.....so given I was reading you well before I posted on here again...how come I'm being blamed for YOUR decisions? Don't you have the courage of your own convictions?

My attitude is that if pro-Unionists insult and denigrate...as you have always done, to a greater or lesser extent...and as you have done in the quoted post, you can expect the same back......though I think I make a much better fist of being polite than you manage most of the time.

Tangerine-Dream
04-Sep-13, 21:11
Alex Salmond is a nob end and that Nicola Sturgeon mouthpiece is as common as muck...... that's my reason for saying NO. What we SHOULD be discussing is a way to get this (once great) union united again....... breaking it into pieces is doing nobody any favours apart from fat little men like Alex Salmond who will "personally" prosper.... the rest of the Scottish population won't know what's hit them once our English "friends" are no longer subsidising everything........ Free prescriptions today, I wonder how much they will be "if" Mr. Salmond gets the "power" he is seeking? Scottish oil?........ How's he going to tell the rest of the world (who are extracting it) to get lost? Believe it or not, the oil has got sod all to do with men in kilts...... the big boys are in there extracting it and they aren't going to hand it over to Alex Salmond...... Whisky and sheep, yep, that will really make Scotland a Global force to be reckoned with. If I see that Nicola Sturgeon's face on the TV one more time I think I'll throw it out of the window..... as common as muck! Give me her Royal Majesty any day over that little Glasgow bauchle. I won't be voting "NO" I'll be SHOUTING "NO!"..... if enough knuckleheads vote "YES" and these clowns get into "power" I'll be moving out of Scotland pronto........ Bulgaria would be a more attractive proposition, maybe even Syria.

Anyhoo.... that's MY reason for voting no.

Tangerine-Dream
04-Sep-13, 21:15
BTW if I receive an "infraction" for calling Alex Salmond a "nob end" I will be right onto the European commission for human rights ;)

Big Gaz
04-Sep-13, 21:21
Aye, i guess theres the other side of the coin for all the NO voters too. Such as "Will you stay in Scotland or move out if it gets independence?" there's so many pros and cons, it's difficult to even find a starting point!

Tangerine-Dream
04-Sep-13, 21:24
I just have to share this before I retire for the night, with a pint of whisky and a leg of lamb....... I was over at a concert in Glasgow a couple of years ago and a guy had "SNP" tattooed on his forehead...... I asked him why he had Dickhead tattooed onto his forehead...... he was like "eh?" I asked him if he had ever looked in the mirror.......... "PNS" ;)

I'll get my coat.........

ducati
04-Sep-13, 21:58
So what is it about my attitude which makes you lie through your teeth? I read here a long time before I came back and posted again in May 2011......and you have never appeared to be in any way open to being anything but pro-Union/Conservative and one of those who could be almost guaranteed to vote NO in the referendum.....so given I was reading you well before I posted on here again...how come I'm being blamed for YOUR decisions? Don't you have the courage of your own convictions?

My attitude is that if pro-Unionists insult and denigrate...as you have always done, to a greater or lesser extent...and as you have done in the quoted post, you can expect the same back......though I think I make a much better fist of being polite than you manage most of the time.

Brugger off then (just to trade insults to keep you happy) :D

Oddquine
04-Sep-13, 23:07
My response to your post is going to be in bits over a few days...sorry about that, but I do take a long time to write a post! I'll try and snip the quotes to include mostly that parts to which I am responding.


Numerous reasons, but readily summed up by the pro's telling us in answer to our concerns "Of course we don't know what we are going to do come independence, silly, no one does. We have to vote for independence first, then figure it out." It strikes me that once we have voted for, and have become independent, then its a little too late to find out that the books will not balance.

To an extent, that is the whole point,orkneycadian. We do know pretty much what the UK's economy is going to be like even after the next election.because we have been told that Nulabour will pretty much do more of the same as is already flagged up. We, however won't know exactly what that fact will mean to our standard of living in the UK until we get the figures, which the Government will hope will do as they expect..and if it doesn't...well they will just U-turn.as they have more than once in this administration.

Come Independence, if by that you mean directly after the vote..everything will carry on pretty much as it is now until 2016, because we will undoubtedly spend much of the time before then dividing up the family cash, bank accounts,assets, debts etc. Like all divorces,if amicable, it should be reasonably easy..but if not, there will have to be recourse to law, which will make it last longer. Come official Independence in 2016 we will know the distribution of assets and debts, and whatever relations we will have with international actors....and maybe by then we and the rest of the UK will even be talking to each other nicely(it can happen after a divorce,)........and we will surely have a few more political parties to set up what Thatcher and Regan would likely have called a competitive market in manifestos. ....and we will always have the panic U-turn to fall back on in a real brainfart!

However, we do know pretty much what we input to the UK coffers..and we do know that the " nobody will invest in Scotland because of the referendum uncertainty" has been shown to be wrong (because businesses will invest wherever they think there is a profit to be made)..and we do know that the pessimistic forecasts by the UK Government on the future of oil is nothing like the forecasts of the oil companies who are still investing in the North Sea. And into the bargain we do know that even Westminster has given in and said there is no reason we couldn't be a successful Independent country..at least I assume that is what various members of the Government meant, when, despite producing a White Paper that said we ceased to exist (were extinguished)as a nation in 1707, they commented as in squidge's post here..http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?211120-Nor-Scot&p=1045494#post1045494 Are they confused much?


Now, don't get me wrong. Independence is a huge opportunity to sort out a lot that is wrong with our country at the moment. But simply flying a saltire instead of a union jack is not a fix, other than for ego's. If the SNP would tell us what an independent Scotland is really going to be like, then they might be in with half a chance. Leaving us wondering, and telling us all these things will be considered post independence doesn't do it for us.

Somewhat akin to the entrepreneur mentioned above trying to persuade the bank manager give her the money anyway, even though there is no business plan. She can always sort it out later....

What Scotland is really going to be like after Independence in 2016 is not up to the SNP necessarily...and that is something a lot of people don't seem to have yet quite grasped. The ONLY way the SNP is going to be the Scottish Government in 2016 is if there is nobody else with a better vision/manifesto which meets the aspirations of more people.....and that isn't up to me or you....but up to the political parties who want to be involved...just as, let's be honest, Labour/LibDem and Tory don't ask me or you directly what we'd like to see in a manifesto for UK elections..if we aren't a paid up and active member of their party so acceptable in a "Focus Group" (which I have always thought was just a group to focus on the best way to meet the party's aspirations...and to hell with the general population.though I am admittedly cynical). Before 2016 we should know pretty much what our income is liable to be, with just as much accuracy as the UK Government currently manages to forecast theirs (given they are still increasing our borrowing)..and will know how much of the UK debt we will inherit..so we can budget for the future.

The SNP is going to come up with White Papers on pretty much all of the stuff which worries people...and on a written constitution so we don't end up, as in the UK, with legislation being decided on the hoof by Judges in the Supreme Court....BUT nothing put in place by the SNP before 2016 is set in stone after 2016. The SNP, after all..despite what some think, is only writing the introduction to a story we must write ourselves...if we have the courage. However much the pro-Union side insist that Alex Salmond is the devil incarnate.....he is where he is and is doing what he is doing because we gave him permission to do it by being Scottish enough to like the fact that the SNP is more in tune with the way most Scots think than the Unionist Parties who held sway in the Scottish Parliament from 1999 to 2007.

I'm not daft...I don't think it is going to be plain sailing into Utopia over calm seas, as some appear to believe....but I do think that we can do well....though maybe not in my lifetime (which ain't going to be decades!) But then when was anything really worth having not worth working to achieve (bar a lottery win)? I will be voting for my grand-children's and my great grand-daughter's futures...and if I personally don't benefit by more than being a Scot, even a more impoverished Scot, in an independent Scotland, in a fair society striving to reduce poverty and inequality, with a good relationship with our neighbours over the border to the south..then I will be happy.

Thing is a business plan is akin to an MOT certificate......an MOT certificate only means anything until you leave the garage and a brake light blows half a mile down the road......a business plan is an aspiration based on the currently known circumstances....and should be a moveable feast to cope with changing circumstances. I'd guess that no entrepreneur worth his/her salt would contemplate trying to get a loan without a business plan.....and no bank manager worth his/her salt would look at the plan and expect the business to move from a to b to c as written down.......but the bank manager would have enough faith in the idea behind the plan to approve a loan, perhaps. That is pretty much what the SNP will be doing from now until September next year....setting out a business plan on the known information.....and hoping that the Scottish voter has as much faith in Scotland and the Scots as they have.

The in-between bits I'll come back to later, if someone doesn't beat me to it.....as they are specific questions so a response to them needs facts and I don't have them at my fingertips.

Alice in Blunderland
05-Sep-13, 07:11
I am not sure yet how I will vote. it would be nice if both sides could just stick to displaying facts not going off on a tangent with accusations and mud slinging. This is a total turn off to anyone wanting to make an informed decision. Both camps are guilty of swinging the truth to suit but that's politicians in general these days.

squidge
05-Sep-13, 08:22
Doesnt take long for tangerine dream to reveal the true colour of his particular dream. Alice, a local debate might be a good place to start. A real life face to face thing with real people who are voting not politicians. Reasonable articulate people.

cptdodger
05-Sep-13, 10:23
Well said mi16, and same here. And to be honest Oddquine, that's all you need to know, because it is not us that wants to change anything, it is you and the rest of the people that want independence to prove to us, without any shadow of a doubt why we should change our minds. This Referendum business has caused more harm to this country (Scotland) than anything I have seen in a long time. It has caused so much ill feeling between people, that you should really be asking yourself - is it worth it?


I rest my case. And with still over a year to go until the Referendum, it is just going to get worse.

weezer 316
05-Sep-13, 12:11
I havent posted here in a while, but here is why.

Common Language
Shared history
Common culture
UK is powerful, Scotland is not
Larger economy, less dependent on one large volatile commodity, broader shoulders and all that
Complete and utter lack of clarity over what and Independent Scotland would look like. I wont chuck my future away on a point of principle
Huge, potentially utterly crippling blackhole in Scotland budget that I havent heard an argument about how we will deal with
Already have control over most things (NHS, Schools, law etc)
EU membership????
Division is the past, coming togetehr is the future.


If the Yes campaign were to lay out who we could for example become denmark then Id vote yes in a haertbeat, but such has been the complete failure of the Yes campaign its hard to see how they can restore credibility now.

Most people my age agree. Grown up with poeple and services coming from all over the world, we dont see "Scottishness" as even being a thing really. Its a bit like religion, its all in your head.

Oddquine
05-Sep-13, 14:56
I rest my case. And with still over a year to go until the Referendum, it is just going to get worse.

However informing the undecideds and those who would have voted for devo-max, if it had been allowed to be on offer is where the difference in numbers between a yes or a no vote and success or failure for one or the other side lies, cptdodger.

Many pro-Unionists appear to think that if they do nothing but scaremonger, lie, misrepresent, and from time to time insult, while pooh-poohing information directly taken from Government figures and facts, because they are not interpreted in favour of the Union, the majority of undecided people will on the day, vote for the devil they know...and it will be no change.

You saw how well a negative, vituperative campaign against the SNP by the Labour Party worked in the 2011 Scottish elections.....are all of you who will definitely vote NO next year, prepared to assume the same type of result won't happen again this time round?

The difference on here between the two POVs is glaring......the pro-Independents among us are trying to have a debate to inform the voters and clear up misconceptions as to fact, as best as we can ahead of the White Papers to come.....and the pro-Unionists are stifling that debate, just as they do elsewhere on the internet.

equusdriving
05-Sep-13, 15:39
the pro-Independents among us are trying to have a debate to inform the voters and clear up misconceptions as to fact, as best as we can ahead of the White Papers to come.....

yes and now tell us the one about the three bears:lol:

rob murray
05-Sep-13, 16:19
WHy ask....reasons for yes / no are personal, as will be the democratic ballot ( personal confidential vote ) thats why people ignore pollsters standing outside election stations....whats it got to do with any body...so as Kenny Dalglish puts it, maybes aye....maybes no....just wait and see ! As for me, maybe aye maybe no !!!!

Humerous Vegetable
05-Sep-13, 16:30
A couple of points;

1. Syria is not a member of NATO, or even an alliance partner
2. NATO is an alliance of member states who have signed up to a collective defence arrangement.

Technically then, NATO's only real interest in Syria, would be if there was a threat of attack, or to the national security of one of its members, or of citizens of a member state. I agree however that in the past some of the definitions have been less than clear cut, and its hard to see where the member state boundaries stop, and being the "heavies" for the UN starts.

At this point in time, the UN have not yet published their findings, so its all hypothesis at the moment anyway, and fodder for another thread on here!

Nor, I think, is Afghanistan or Libya but it didn't stop them bypassing that consideration and imposing their presence when they were told to by the US. How much oil does Scotland have to possess before we get the benefit of your NATO umbrella?

outsidethebox
05-Sep-13, 16:39
However informing the undecideds and those who would have voted for devo-max, if it had been allowed to be on offer is where the difference in numbers between a yes or a no vote and success or failure for one or the other side lies, cptdodger.

Many pro-Unionists appear to think that if they do nothing but scaremonger, lie, misrepresent, and from time to time insult, while pooh-poohing information directly taken from Government figures and facts, because they are not interpreted in favour of the Union, the majority of undecided people will on the day, vote for the devil they know...and it will be no change.

You saw how well a negative, vituperative campaign against the SNP by the Labour Party worked in the 2011 Scottish elections.....are all of you who will definitely vote NO next year, prepared to assume the same type of result won't happen again this time round?

The difference on here between the two POVs is glaring......the pro-Independents among us are trying to have a debate to inform the voters and clear up misconceptions as to fact, as best as we can ahead of the White Papers to come.....and the pro-Unionists are stifling that debate, just as they do elsewhere on the internet.

The SNP wanted to include the Devo-max option to cloud the issue, and to try and squeeze a yes vote for something which was not what they actually wanted. It would have made a fair referendum impossible. They as a party stand for "Nationalism" the clue is in the name :-)

If they wanted further powers for the Scottish Parliament, and not independence then they should have engaged with all parties and demanded those powers from Westminster. They did not wish to do that, and indeed where quite obstructive of the Scotland Bill which gave greatly increased powers to Holyrood. So their spurious devo-max charade was kicked into touch, and the people living in Scotland are now quite rightly being given a straight choice between remaining part of the union, and becoming independent.

It would be good if the SNP therefore gave some honest and compelling reasons to the electorate to allow them to make an informed decision as to which way to vote. So far we havehad plenty of smoke and mirrors, we have had bluster and lies, we have had ridiculous claims about how the world is going to bend over backwards to give wee 'eck all that he wants, and that nothing is going to stand in the way of his grand plans. Unfortunately the truth and reality are very different to the pretty pictures they are trying to paint.

So if the SNP want to change the status quo they need to start treating the people of Scotland as grown ups, stop simply promising them everything they think people might want and start telling us what they would like to see an Independent Scotland look like.

The only way in which the unionist parties (and incidentally the federalist parties) are currently stifling debate is by showing up all the grand plans as so much hot air and downright lies.

If, and that is a big if that I cannot see happening, they start to treat people with courtesy, with honesty, with integrity then, and only the will they have any chance of persuading people to follow their grand plan.

equusdriving
05-Sep-13, 16:45
The SNP wanted to include the Devo-max option to cloud the issue, and to try and squeeze a yes vote for something which was not what they actually wanted. It would have made a fair referendum impossible. They as a party stand for "Nationalism" the clue is in the name :-)

If they wanted further powers for the Scottish Parliament, and not independence then they should have engaged with all parties and demanded those powers from Westminster. They did not wish to do that, and indeed where quite obstructive of the Scotland Bill which gave greatly increased powers to Holyrood. So their spurious devo-max charade was kicked into touch, and the people living in Scotland are now quite rightly being given a straight choice between remaining part of the union, and becoming independent.

It would be good if the SNP therefore gave some honest and compelling reasons to the electorate to allow them to make an informed decision as to which way to vote. So far we havehad plenty of smoke and mirrors, we have had bluster and lies, we have had ridiculous claims about how the world is going to bend over backwards to give wee 'eck all that he wants, and that nothing is going to stand in the way of his grand plans. Unfortunately the truth and reality are very different to the pretty pictures they are trying to paint.

So if the SNP want to change the status quo they need to start treating the people of Scotland as grown ups, stop simply promising them everything they think people might want and start telling us what they would like to see an Independent Scotland look like.

The only way in which the unionist parties (and incidentally the federalist parties) are currently stifling debate is by showing up all the grand plans as so much hot air and downright lies.

If, and that is a big if that I cannot see happening, they start to treat people with courtesy, with honesty, with integrity then, and only the will they have any chance of persuading people to follow their grand plan.

hear hear, well said

outsidethebox
05-Sep-13, 16:50
I should perhaps add that if they tell me that they would like us to become something very like Sweden / Denmark in terms of well funded socially cohesive and inclusive societies, with the very high tax bills that go with them then I could be seriously tempted to vote yes. But I would want serious details, not just a vague promise.

cptdodger
05-Sep-13, 17:08
Many pro-Unionists appear to think that if they do nothing but scaremonger, lie, misrepresent, and from time to time insult, while pooh-poohing information directly taken from Government figures and facts, because they are not interpreted in favour of the Union, the majority of undecided people will on the day, vote for the devil they know...and it will be no change.


I have never done that. You asked for "reasons" as to why we are voting no, then that turned that into "excuses" What exactly are we supposed to be excusing ourselves for, we have done nothing wrong, apart from having a different opinion from you it seems. You wo'nt even accept the reasons you have been given, yes I am proud to be British, and I do not care who knows that. If you are not, that's fine, forgive me for saying this, but it's a big world out there, go and find somewhere else you can change and be proud of. Just do'nt ask the question then belittle people , because it is not the answers you want to hear.

ducati
05-Sep-13, 17:17
I can not imagine a yes vote. What I worry about is the number of disgruntled, disapointed and very angry yes campaigners after the no vote. I am angry at the whole idea of the referendum. It was never going to be anything but utterly devisive. It will take a long time for Scotland to get past this I fear.

Oddquine
05-Sep-13, 20:38
I have never done that. You asked for "reasons" as to why we are voting no, then that turned that into "excuses" What exactly are we supposed to be excusing ourselves for, we have done nothing wrong, apart from having a different opinion from you it seems. You wo'nt even accept the reasons you have been given, yes I am proud to be British, and I do not care who knows that. If you are not, that's fine, forgive me for saying this, but it's a big world out there, go and find somewhere else you can change and be proud of. Just do'nt ask the question then belittle people , because it is not the answers you want to hear.

I haven't said you did....you do kinda need to quote the whole of a connected post to comment on one cherry-picked part of it! I was responding to your I rest my case. And with still over a year to go until the Referendum, it is just going to get worse. I was simply explaining that many Unionists are among those who are making it worse! And nowhere did I specifically target you.....although I have no problem if you want to consider yourself one of those I describe.

luskentyre
05-Sep-13, 21:26
This is aimed at the nay-sayers on here....and you know who you are. You all know why those of us who support independence do so, even if you have all made it obvious that you don't agree.......but none of you (bar gollach with his pension paranoia) have ever said why you intend to vote NO.

I don't expect, given your posts on the subject, that your minds can be changed......but I'd really be interested to know why you want to remain in the Union.

Aside from all the logistical hurdles which no one seems able to answer, I'll vote "no" simply because there are more than enough barriers and differences between us without adding more.

Oddquine - I don't expect, given your posts on the subject, that your mind can be changed either......

outsidethebox
05-Sep-13, 21:35
Hey Oddquine given that I have been courteous enough to answer your question how about addressing the points I made... (I'll not hold my breath waiting)

mi16
05-Sep-13, 22:07
We should've had a vote on if we wanted a referendum

Oddquine
05-Sep-13, 23:28
We should've had a vote on if we wanted a referendum

We did............it was an integral part of the SNP manifesto for 2011. Just because you didn't notice it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.! Sheesh!

ducati
06-Sep-13, 07:36
We did............it was an integral part of the SNP manifesto for 2011. Just because you didn't notice it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.! Sheesh!

No, I don't think it was a vote on a referendum. It was a vote on what a cobblers the Labour Gov. had made of things.

squidge
06-Sep-13, 08:29
Did you not notice the SNP commitment to a referendum then Ducati?

mi16
06-Sep-13, 08:50
We did............it was an integral part of the SNP manifesto for 2011. Just because you didn't notice it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.! Sheesh!Oh I knew it was there and for that (and many other) reasons, I put my x elsewhere.What % of votes did SNP gain in 2011?What % of votes is required to gain independence?

ducati
06-Sep-13, 08:53
Did you not notice the SNP commitment to a referendum then Ducati?

No, but I didn't vote for 'em either.

Oddquine
06-Sep-13, 09:29
Oh I knew it was there and for that (and many other) reasons, I put my x elsewhere.What % of votes did SNP gain in 2011?What % of votes is required to gain independence?

If that is the case...why pretend it was something that was not flagged up ahead and you were unaware of the intention? Or are you so used to manifestos by UK parties not being worth the paper on which they are written?

mi16
06-Sep-13, 10:08
Where did I say that I was unaware of their intentions?

_Ju_
06-Sep-13, 21:40
No because we need a bigger voice not a smaller one.

golach
06-Sep-13, 22:19
No because we need a bigger voice not a smaller one.

good sound reasoning Ju, and simply stated. :)

Rheghead
08-Sep-13, 20:49
One reason for voting No is that the SNP will cease to exist if Independence happens. The SNP bring something fresh to the political scene. Their MSPs are a mixture of either side side of the left/right political spectrum and that is benefitting to Scotland.

The SNP work together just fine now but on independence they'll cross the floor to a political group where they'll feel more comfortable and we'll get the adversarial politics that is more common at Westminster.

Oddquine
09-Sep-13, 11:14
No because we need a bigger voice not a smaller one.

We don't have a voice..how can it get smaller?!

golach
09-Sep-13, 13:30
We don't have a voice..how can it get smaller?!

There are 52 Scottish Members of Parliament at the present moment, and 6 of them are nationalists how is that not a voice?

Oddquine
09-Sep-13, 21:13
There are 52 Scottish Members of Parliament at the present moment, and 6 of them are nationalists how is that not a voice?

No.....get it right... there are 46 members of UK political parties and just 6 members of the UK parliament who care more for Scotland than the UK...so that isn't a voice.....it is an illustration of a crap electoral system.

The FPTP set-up to to limit democracy is not, by definition, democracy :roll:. However a "Union" in which an amalgamation of the MPs of NI, Wales and Scotland can only defeat a Bill in the House with the help of the English MPs. That is not a Union, it is a colonisation. Nobody but England can decide UK policies....and they don't tend to consider the effect of London-centric policies on the UK peripheries...not just Scotland, but NI, Wales and the regions in the North of England as well. A Federal system is democracy in a Union. An English Parliament changing its name in 1707, but not its control of that new "Union" Parliament is not....amply illustrated by the fact that it is UK Westminster which votes on English only Bills.......because who needs English devolution when you are in charge of the whole shebang? I honestly can't understand how nobody can see that..I've been aware of the fact of England deciding for the Uk since my first year in Secondary school in Moray about fifty+ years ago.

In the last century, there have been many attempts to achieve at least Home Rule (but all have been defeated by the English MP majority starting within five years of the Treaty signing by the bought and paid for Scottish Parliament members). In an era today in which petitions to the UK parliament have to be at least considered if they have a relatively few compared to population signatories.(think 100,000).....the Scottish Convention with two MILLION signatories was ignored by the UK Parliament after WWII.....much as every mass protest has been ever since(going into Iraq is just one example).

Let's not play silly twonks, golach....the UK Government does what the UK Government thinks they can get away with, with the help of those who are British first..and they appear to think that what they can get away with is setting up the likes of McCalman to deliberate for yonks about how to go forward re Scotland and have everything they produce ignored. It's called fudging the issue to gain time to work out how they can get off with a lot less (as in the Scotland Act 2012..a sticking plaster which doesn't remotely cover the wound.).

Where was Scotland's voice when Ted Heath handed over our fishing waters to be raped by the EU? Where was Scotland's voice when Bliar decided to steal 6000 square miles of Scottish waters? Where was Scotland's voice when a UK Parliament imposed the poll-tax on us in contravention of the Union Treaty? Where was Scotland's voice when the bedroom tax was imposed? Where was Scotland's voice when we hurtled into Iraq hanging onto to the US coat-tails? When, and I'd appreciate some facts, has Scotland EVER had a voice since 1707 listened to by anyone? And what effect will Scotland's voice have if we vote NO in the "promised" EU referendum....and England votes to come out of the EU.....but we don't?

Just asking!

golach
09-Sep-13, 22:13
Just asking!

Ochone Ochone, your anti English bigotry is showing. I notice you make no mention, that without the help of our brothers down south,during the 2 World Wars we would be speaking German now. At least we Unionists do not support the IRA as your Nats and Eck does.

cptdodger
09-Sep-13, 22:49
They support the IRA, is that right ?

golach
09-Sep-13, 22:52
They support the IRA, is that right ?

Well Eck does
http://www.britainfirst.org/campaigns/alex-salmond-and-the-79-group/

Kenn
09-Sep-13, 22:54
There are roughly 10 people south of the border for every one that lives in Scotland and the the political system is one MP per so many people/ area so it's not rocket science to realise that Scotland would always be a small voice, just basic mathematics.

Oddquine
09-Sep-13, 22:58
Ochone Ochone, your anti English bigotry is showing. I notice you make no mention, that without the help of our brothers down south,during the 2 World Wars we would be speaking German now. At least we Unionists do not support the IRA as your Nats and Eck does.

I'm not anti-English....but I am definitely anti-rule by a dominant (of all nationalities) population in England via their votes in an undemocratic voting system......and their predominance of representatives in what is laughingly called a "Union" Parliament..or do you think that everybody living and voting in England is English? You sound kinda like them Americans and Israelis who think that if folk don't like the way their Government acts, they are anti-every single person living in the country. Did think we had more sense than that....but obviously not. :roll:

Excuse me...but what has WWII got to do with anything at all?

To quote you At least we Unionists do not support the IRA as your Nats and Eck does. Why do you so often talk such crap, golach? Got links to prove we pro-independence supporters, and Alex Salmond support the IRA? I'd be interested to read your links.

Your complete irrationality re the SNP is showing,.... I think.

cptdodger
09-Sep-13, 23:05
To quote you At least we Unionists do not support the IRA as your Nats and Eck does. Why do you so often talk such crap, golach? Got links to prove we pro-independence supporters, and Alex Salmond support the IRA? I'd be interested to read your links.


There you go, the link supplied by Golach - http://www.britainfirst.org/campaign...-the-79-group/ (http://www.britainfirst.org/campaigns/alex-salmond-and-the-79-group/)

Keyser_soze
10-Sep-13, 00:37
I do not think those in power in Scotland are capable of running a raffle never mind a country, SNP are a shower of idiots ,

They make it up as they go along, basically fat shrek cod eyed cretin & odd bod got lucky by being elected & in my opinion they never dreamt in their wildest dreams theyd be in power so they are totally lacking in policies as they obviously didnt think they ever get in.

its happened & they have changed Scotland beyond ridiculous, for eg A gaelic sign in caithness costing stupid amounts while Kids in Ceyac in Wick have their days cut from 5 to 3 days a week ?? Special needs kids have a right to be educated too Gaelic signs are an unwanted waste of time here.

The licencing laws are ridiculous also, cant buy a drink from an off licence before 11 or after 10pm , the alkys get round this by stockpiling whereas occassional drinkers are penalised, cheers Alec , nugget

Independence, ?? whos gona pay for it ? the oil is running out ,

Alrock
10-Sep-13, 01:15
Well Eck does
http://www.britainfirst.org/campaigns/alex-salmond-and-the-79-group/

WOW!!! Been a while since I've read such vitriolic language, so much hatred there...

From http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vitriolic


We've seen some examples in recent political campaigns, and the results are always embarrassing. Avoid using vitriolic language whenever possible, and you will keep your friends — and your dignity.

RagnarRocks
10-Sep-13, 07:29
With just about everyone realistically disenfranchised from modern day politics unless actively working for a party or pressure group I'd say the average person whether they be born in England,Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland has little or no say in our country. We are forced to listen to the daily drivel of what these people want from there own little perspectives and Alex Salmond being no better or worse than Milliband, Clegg or Cameron. To say a Scotsman has less say than an Englishman in day to day politics is risible. Non of us has any real say as non of the parties stick to their manifesto pledges we just vote so when it comes to independence I see no real reason to separate the union was formed back in 1707 by to all intents and purposes a Scotsman so I'd be happier just letting it be instead of all the name calling and tub thumbing by socialists who want to improve my world. I've been to China, Russia, Cuba and a can honestly say they really aren't better off infact worse off so the hard left doesn't appeal to me one bit. The far right is no better although not as easy to find on a country basis I struggle to think of a fascist state but would accept there may be one. The only countries I see running reasonably are the relatively democratic moderate ones. So my reason for voting No would be to stop the lunatics running the asylum .

Alrock
10-Sep-13, 07:53
....So my reason for voting No would be to stop the lunatics running the asylum .

Hate to tell you this but the lunatics are already running the asylum...

RagnarRocks
10-Sep-13, 09:19
Hate to tell you this but the lunatics are already running the asylum...True enough but not the ones wearing the snug fitting jackets and with the cushioned wallpaper in their rooms :0))

golach
10-Sep-13, 10:22
Excuse me...but what has WWII got to do with anything at all?

This is what the SNP were up to during WWII

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1329626/Scots-tried-to-set-up-Nazi-alliance.html

Oddquine
10-Sep-13, 11:46
Well Eck does
http://www.britainfirst.org/campaigns/alex-salmond-and-the-79-group/

ROFLMAO! The Unionists are scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation now. Only you and your cohorts could assume that meant that we (and I was an active SNP member in those days) supported IRA terrorism.....and this is thirty odd years on anyway. :roll:

Why am I not a bit surprised that you read the really racist Britain First which is basically a reinvented BNP, going by those in charge of it?

Humerous Vegetable
10-Sep-13, 12:20
This is what the SNP were up to during WWII

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1329626/Scots-tried-to-set-up-Nazi-alliance.html

My father, who was a Nationalist, fought and was wounded in the second world war. My grandfather, who was not a Nationalist, but supported the Liberal party when it used to be a home-rule party, was wounded at Gallipoli in the Ist world war. Your rather stupid sweeping assumptions suggest that the only battles you ever fought in are here online, under an assumed identity. You do yourself no favours.