By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Is it me or are we (as in British government) just going through the motions in pushing the no campaign. It's as if we want to lose but can't come out and say as much so not much effort has been put in to trying to win. You've got to be pretty crap to lose out to Alex Salmond but there's a real chance that might now happen.
0
Scottish independence on 21:34 - Sep 7 with 2442 views
Scottish independence on 17:32 - Sep 7 by 49thseason
If the swivel-eyed jocks are nuts enough to vote yes I will p1ss myself laughing.
We are well past peak oil in the North Sea and they will need to spend 120 Billion paying off their share of the UK debt or have whatever currency they choose (assuming its not the pound) rated below junk if they default. If they want to join the EU they will have to join the Euro zone as every new EU country now has to- So good luck with that when no one wants to lend you money (just like Greece). The place will be below third world in 5 years if they vote Yes and all the runny-nosed 16 year olds who think it will be fun to poke the old enemy (the Tories) in the eye will be looking to emigrate.
Meanwhile in England Milliband and Cameron will beout of jobs and exiting the EU will be top of the agenda if the vote is Yes.
Rumour has it Danczuk may be a UKIP candidate at the next election www. http://order-order.com/
If UKIP can get a decent candidate in Heywood for a by-election in November Rochdale might become a very Purple town!
Danczuk and his wife will probably start a new party called VUNIP.
The lies about both a currency union and EU membership have come predominately from the No politicians. I made it my business to inform myself from non-political sources on the whole subject.
On the EU the No campaign has lied consistently, aided and abetted by a pro-union media. David Cameron, among others, has constantly stated that Scotland would have to join a queue. Lie.
There is no queue system. The only thing that matters is 'does a country meet the criteria?' As Honorary Director General of the European Commission Graham Avery said quite clearly before a Holyrood Parliamentery committee, Scotland clearly meets the criteria. He also described the comments of those such as Spaniard Barroso on the difficulties Scotland would have as being 'absurd'.
His view was shared by Dr Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre, Seonaid Douglas-Scott, Professor of European Law and Huma Rights at Oxford University, and Sir David Edward (a Unionist no less) who is a former European Court Judge.
All these people believe Scotland would be quickly admitted, both legally, and in terms of common sense and the interests of both Europe and the rUK.
As for the currency, Salmond has taken his advice from Joseph Stiglist and Sir James Mirless (both Nobel prizewinning economists and among the finest minds economically on the planet) and Andrew Hughes Hallett. These guys have all worked as consultants at various times for the World Bank, European Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
As for Better Together, English economist Fred Harrison and American economist Michael Hudson have both shown very clearly that the real subsidy junkie of the UK is Greater London and the south-east, especially when unidentified public expenditure is taken into account.
This includes infrastructure and the placement of huge-spending government departments such as the MOD. These figures are not included in treasury figures. When unidentified public expenditure is taken into account, the disproportionate spending on Greater London and the south-east is massive, and much to the detriment of, not just Scotland, but the North and Midlands of England.
With an increasingly elitist House of Commons, and an archaic second chamber of unelected Lords and Bishops, both in thrall of the City of London, I don't see that changing.
Scottish independence on 21:03 - Sep 8 by fitzochris
The lies about both a currency union and EU membership have come predominately from the No politicians. I made it my business to inform myself from non-political sources on the whole subject.
On the EU the No campaign has lied consistently, aided and abetted by a pro-union media. David Cameron, among others, has constantly stated that Scotland would have to join a queue. Lie.
There is no queue system. The only thing that matters is 'does a country meet the criteria?' As Honorary Director General of the European Commission Graham Avery said quite clearly before a Holyrood Parliamentery committee, Scotland clearly meets the criteria. He also described the comments of those such as Spaniard Barroso on the difficulties Scotland would have as being 'absurd'.
His view was shared by Dr Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre, Seonaid Douglas-Scott, Professor of European Law and Huma Rights at Oxford University, and Sir David Edward (a Unionist no less) who is a former European Court Judge.
All these people believe Scotland would be quickly admitted, both legally, and in terms of common sense and the interests of both Europe and the rUK.
As for the currency, Salmond has taken his advice from Joseph Stiglist and Sir James Mirless (both Nobel prizewinning economists and among the finest minds economically on the planet) and Andrew Hughes Hallett. These guys have all worked as consultants at various times for the World Bank, European Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
As for Better Together, English economist Fred Harrison and American economist Michael Hudson have both shown very clearly that the real subsidy junkie of the UK is Greater London and the south-east, especially when unidentified public expenditure is taken into account.
This includes infrastructure and the placement of huge-spending government departments such as the MOD. These figures are not included in treasury figures. When unidentified public expenditure is taken into account, the disproportionate spending on Greater London and the south-east is massive, and much to the detriment of, not just Scotland, but the North and Midlands of England.
With an increasingly elitist House of Commons, and an archaic second chamber of unelected Lords and Bishops, both in thrall of the City of London, I don't see that changing.
And I'm still fookin quit from this forum.
Welcome back, pal. But don't forget all those problems with transport during the Commonwealth Games.
Scottish independence on 21:03 - Sep 8 by fitzochris
The lies about both a currency union and EU membership have come predominately from the No politicians. I made it my business to inform myself from non-political sources on the whole subject.
On the EU the No campaign has lied consistently, aided and abetted by a pro-union media. David Cameron, among others, has constantly stated that Scotland would have to join a queue. Lie.
There is no queue system. The only thing that matters is 'does a country meet the criteria?' As Honorary Director General of the European Commission Graham Avery said quite clearly before a Holyrood Parliamentery committee, Scotland clearly meets the criteria. He also described the comments of those such as Spaniard Barroso on the difficulties Scotland would have as being 'absurd'.
His view was shared by Dr Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre, Seonaid Douglas-Scott, Professor of European Law and Huma Rights at Oxford University, and Sir David Edward (a Unionist no less) who is a former European Court Judge.
All these people believe Scotland would be quickly admitted, both legally, and in terms of common sense and the interests of both Europe and the rUK.
As for the currency, Salmond has taken his advice from Joseph Stiglist and Sir James Mirless (both Nobel prizewinning economists and among the finest minds economically on the planet) and Andrew Hughes Hallett. These guys have all worked as consultants at various times for the World Bank, European Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
As for Better Together, English economist Fred Harrison and American economist Michael Hudson have both shown very clearly that the real subsidy junkie of the UK is Greater London and the south-east, especially when unidentified public expenditure is taken into account.
This includes infrastructure and the placement of huge-spending government departments such as the MOD. These figures are not included in treasury figures. When unidentified public expenditure is taken into account, the disproportionate spending on Greater London and the south-east is massive, and much to the detriment of, not just Scotland, but the North and Midlands of England.
With an increasingly elitist House of Commons, and an archaic second chamber of unelected Lords and Bishops, both in thrall of the City of London, I don't see that changing.
And I'm still fookin quit from this forum.
Here's a question though.
How come approximately half of eligible voters want to stay in the union?
What's holding them back from choosing to vote Yes, given the widely held perception that the No campaign has been dilatory at best?
How come approximately half of eligible voters want to stay in the union?
What's holding them back from choosing to vote Yes, given the widely held perception that the No campaign has been dilatory at best?
It is, in my opinion, the job of those advocating change to put up the most persuasive argument. I don't believe the Yes campaign has managed that. I had to research most of what I posted there myself.
The status quo (not the band) is the safe option and most people want to feel safe. There is, of course, a lot of pro-union sentiment for less savoury reasons, rooted in the Old Firm divide, but that is a deeper problem that won't go away whether or not Scotland becomes independent.
Scottish independence on 21:56 - Sep 8 by fitzochris
It is, in my opinion, the job of those advocating change to put up the most persuasive argument. I don't believe the Yes campaign has managed that. I had to research most of what I posted there myself.
The status quo (not the band) is the safe option and most people want to feel safe. There is, of course, a lot of pro-union sentiment for less savoury reasons, rooted in the Old Firm divide, but that is a deeper problem that won't go away whether or not Scotland becomes independent.
Is the fear of the possible financial implications of independence putting many off voting yes?
0
Scottish independence on 22:00 - Sep 8 with 1901 views
Is the fear of the possible financial implications of independence putting many off voting yes?
Yes, but the pro No media hasn't helped. If you look for yourself, anyone can find what I did. People are not being spoonfed the answers they need, sadly.
Scottish independence on 21:56 - Sep 8 by fitzochris
It is, in my opinion, the job of those advocating change to put up the most persuasive argument. I don't believe the Yes campaign has managed that. I had to research most of what I posted there myself.
The status quo (not the band) is the safe option and most people want to feel safe. There is, of course, a lot of pro-union sentiment for less savoury reasons, rooted in the Old Firm divide, but that is a deeper problem that won't go away whether or not Scotland becomes independent.
That's a perspective I hadn't considered (about the Old Firm divide) but I guess the final decision to vote either way comes down to emotional reasons as much as economic logic.
The Yes/No votes will probably be a couple of percentage points apart, in which case I'm fully expecting the Salmond camp to claim a moral victory if they lose, and push for a new vote at the earliest opportunity.
That's a perspective I hadn't considered (about the Old Firm divide) but I guess the final decision to vote either way comes down to emotional reasons as much as economic logic.
The Yes/No votes will probably be a couple of percentage points apart, in which case I'm fully expecting the Salmond camp to claim a moral victory if they lose, and push for a new vote at the earliest opportunity.
Indeed. I don't feel one iota Scottish, but I live there, my wife is a Scottish and my children were born there. I felt morally obliged to look at what was the best option when I vote. A Yes vote seems to be it.
The problem with Salmond is that he wants his form of indepence. Not the indepence that is on offer.
Yep and, sadly, if there is a Yes vote, he'll be at the negotiating table. However, he'll be bulleted not long after and the SNP will fragment. What happens then will be up to the people.
Scottish independence on 22:06 - Sep 8 by fitzochris
Indeed. I don't feel one iota Scottish, but I live there, my wife is a Scottish and my children were born there. I felt morally obliged to look at what was the best option when I vote. A Yes vote seems to be it.
That is the problem with a referendum. Most people do not want to explore the arguments and make a reasoned judgement. They just go off soundbytes.
0
Scottish independence on 22:13 - Sep 8 with 1844 views
Given how close it's looking at being, is it right to have such a groundbreaking decision based purely on whoever gets the majority? You could even have it coming down to a few hundred votes as the difference, and you could be left with 49.5% of the country voting against independence, with no way back. I'd have thought to go for independence, a 2/3 split should be needed (and for the record, I've no preference).
Bookies still offering odds on 2-1 on a Yes vote, and 4-11 on No. Bookies are rarely wrong.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
