Scottish Independence Referendum

124

Comments

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,354
    nathancom wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    pinarello001 wrote:
    The very fact that the Tories seem to be using fear rhetoric and not tangible facts and figures suggest that Scotland maybe better off and England worse off.

    I think the English are willing to take the risk. :wink:
    the English will probably just invade 5 years later anyway for something to do.
    Nah, where's the challenge in that? It'd be nearly as one sided as an England v Scotland footy match :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,307
    I am starting to feel really sorry for those with a vote.

    How are they supposed to make an informed decision when fed by intentional misrepresentation?

    "He wrote on Twitter: "UK Treasury press release on Scotland costs of government badly misrepresents LSE research.

    "Appears to take minimum Whitehall reorganisation cost of £15m and multiply by 180 agencies to get £2.7bn. Overstates maybe 12 times?"

    Later, he tweeted: "Could they be this crude? Phone call from Treasury guy later confirms: Yes, they had been.""

    http://news.sky.com/story/1270290/scots ... epresented

    What chance do they have between that and Alex Salmond's wet dream?

    Further, it shows how our Government treats us all. Scary on multiple levels. Even more worrying is that it just proves my cynical fears. Can we trust any politician? Rhetorical question.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,301
    With the rising cost of living, what is £2k a year actually worth?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Anyone with a vote, please follow Big Eck. He is the Messiah and the only one not scaremongering or bullying. :wink:
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    I suspect that when the Nats sat around and made up the "£2K better off" figure, they made a strategic mistake - nobody is actually going to believe that. They would have got more advantage by plucking a more believable figure out of the atmosphere.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    bompington wrote:
    I suspect that when the Nats sat around and made up the "£2K better off" figure, they made a strategic mistake - nobody is actually going to believe that. They would have got more advantage by plucking a more believable figure out of the atmosphere.

    Why should they start coming up with believable facts now?
    They haven't bothered thus far.
  • bdu98252
    bdu98252 Posts: 171
    If scotland is independant labour will effectively lose 50 odd seats and the tories would be in power for decades. I can see why labour are keen on the union but whats in it for cameron.

    1. Pride of a prime minister not losing land and influence
    2. He wishes close elections and working with the lib dems
    3. There is money in scotland that he does not wish to lose as scotland is a net contributor.
    4. Hevdoes not want a neghbouring country to be in competition for business and therefore tax revenue.

    Any other reasons anyone can think off.
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,336
    maybe he just thinks the united kingdom is better together than apart
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,301
    sungod wrote:
    maybe he just thinks the united kingdom is better together than apart

    You missed the smiley icon, it's over there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    bdu98252 wrote:
    If scotland is independant labour will effectively lose 50 odd seats and the tories would be in power for decades. I can see why labour are keen on the union but whats in it for cameron.

    It probably won't work like that. People end up voting for change whoever is in power. The Tory marginals, after too much time of Conservative power will shift left as disillusioned Torys don't bother to vote and Labour supporters increase turnout.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • florerider
    florerider Posts: 1,112
    bdu98252 wrote:
    If scotland is independant labour will effectively lose 50 odd seats and the tories would be in power for decades. I can see why labour are keen on the union but whats in it for cameron.

    1. Pride of a prime minister not losing land and influence
    2. He wishes close elections and working with the lib dems
    3. There is money in scotland that he does not wish to lose as scotland is a net contributor.
    4. Hevdoes not want a neghbouring country to be in competition for business and therefore tax revenue.

    Any other reasons anyone can think off.

    How about leaving the legacy of being the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party that that broke up the Union?

    How about seeing oil revenues stripped form ReUK such that ReUK is no longer a G6 or G7 nation?

    He squashed the option for a devo-max voting option, the most likely alternate to a vote for independence, and is about to realise the consequences of not thinking it through.

    Don't assume the electorate will reward him for letting Scotland go by returning the Tories. After all a lot of them are Scots living down south already.

    When he takes us out of the EU he will need somewhere to put all the couple of million or so returning oldies from France, Spain and Portugal that need somewhere to live after losing right of residency there. He won't be able to send all the east Europeans home because we will be even more dependent on them to provide social care for the increased number of elderly people in the population, something the indiginous unemployed seem incapable of doing.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    bdu98252 wrote:
    If scotland is independant labour will effectively lose 50 odd seats and the tories would be in power for decades. I can see why labour are keen on the union but whats in it for cameron.

    He probably knows that it's not true.
  • The Mechanic
    The Mechanic Posts: 1,277
    I had a bit of a thought this morning. If Scotland gets independence, they will allow Scottish citizens to retain their UK citizenship as well as have Scottish citizenship. (dual nationality). The UK already allow dual nationality. This means that, even if Scotland does not join the EU straight away, all its citizen can retain EU citizenship anyway, just by retaining their UK passport. Simples.
    I have only two things to say to that; Bo***cks
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    johnfinch wrote:
    bdu98252 wrote:
    If scotland is independant labour will effectively lose 50 odd seats and the tories would be in power for decades. I can see why labour are keen on the union but whats in it for cameron.

    He probably knows that it's not true.

    Interesting; so Labour would still have won all three elections they did win and still with workable majorities.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote20 ... ngland.stm

    In 2005 in England the Tories polled 35.7% to Labour's 35.4% but still came away with 92 fewer seats. :cry:
    Such is the bias towards Labour in the voting system.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,301
    Ballysmate wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

    In 2005 in England the Tories polled 35.7% to Labour's 35.4% but still came away with 92 fewer seats. :cry:
    Such is the bias towards Labour in the voting system.

    Good.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    Bloody Hell Obama. Are you trying to earn your Nobel peace prize finally?
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Ballysmate wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

    In 2005 in England the Tories polled 35.7% to Labour's 35.4% but still came away with 92 fewer seats. :cry:
    Such is the bias towards Labour in the voting system.

    Shame the Tories and the conservative press all opposed the PR system then, isn't it? :lol::lol::lol:
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    johnfinch wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

    In 2005 in England the Tories polled 35.7% to Labour's 35.4% but still came away with 92 fewer seats. :cry:
    Such is the bias towards Labour in the voting system.

    Shame the Tories and the conservative press all opposed the PR system then, isn't it? :lol::lol::lol:

    My comment was directed more towards the Nats who are constantly moaning that they don't get the government that they voted for, and not arguing for the introduction of PR.
    Very right on message mentioning 'the conservative press' :wink:
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    Scotland wont vote for independence when they realize they will have to pay import tax on a bottle of Buckfast
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Very right on message mentioning 'the conservative press' :wink:

    :? :? :?

    It's just the truth. The Times, Mail, Telegraph, Express all ran massive anti-PR campaigns. IIRC, the Guardian was the only newspaper that backed PR. Personally I voted for PR, and if the Tories get 35.7% of the vote, that's the number of seats they should get.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,307
    Here is a press report that words things rather differently to the normal from either side.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nly-option
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,301
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Here is a press report that words things rather differently to the normal from either side.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nly-option

    The word 'Guardian' is in the link. Unfortunately, many on here won't bother reading it because of that and they will argue till they are blue in the face about a balanced point of view.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Here is a press report that words things rather differently to the normal from either side.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nly-option
    Not really. It's just another "everything I hate about Britain" moan which doesn't really explain why Scotland is intrinsically free from the same problems.
    There have been quite a few "I'm a unionist but..." stories in the press, it always reminds me of "I'm not a racist but...."
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    This is hilarious http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/scottish-nationalists-who-reacted-really-badly-to-jk-rowl
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    nathancom wrote:
    This is hilarious http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/scottish-nationalists-who-reacted-really-badly-to-jk-rowl
    Pretty much business as usual. But as we all know ('cos we keep getting told), it's the "no" campaign that's the negative one...
  • meagain
    meagain Posts: 2,331
    I wouldn't worry about any of it. Unlikely that there will be a yes vote and even if there were it is pretty clear that MoD has no intention of allowing it actually to happen. Numerous statements to effect that "there are no contingency plans....because it won't happen...." The costs to UK defence policy would be unsustainable - see e.g. Lords Committee hearings:
    The Secretary of State for Defence said on 4 July 2012:

    "The UK Government position is clear: Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and the UK benefits from having Scotland within it. The UK Government are not making plans for independence as we are confident that people in Scotland will continue to support Scotland remaining within the UK in any referendum.....

    "No work has been undertaken to estimate the cost of replicating the facilities at Faslane and Coulport at another site in the UK. It is clear from first principles, however, that the cost of relocating such facilities from Scotland would be extremely high.... Minister of State for the Armed Forces also told the Scottish Affairs Committee of the House of Commons that replicating the Clyde facilities elsewhere in the UK would "cost a gargantuan sum of money" dwarfing the £3.5bn spent on upgrading the Clyde base.[148]
    The Secretary of State for Defence, writing later to reaffirm his unwillingness to give us oral evidence, added: "Any alternative solution would come at huge cost … Any replication of … facilities would cost at least that much and probably more [than the recent £3.5 bn investment programme at HMNB Clyde in 2011-12]."

    Withdrawing/not redeploying troops e.g. Afghanistan may not be a coincidence...
    d.j.
    "Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."
  • secretsam
    secretsam Posts: 5,120
    @meagain

    Oh no, are we going to invade another pointless country that no-one really cares about over some oil????
    It's just a hill. Get over it.
  • bearfraser
    bearfraser Posts: 435
    "Wee Eck" and his circus would like us all to live in a land of milk and honey with Unicorns providing the transport . And to who pays for his un-costed dreams ??????????.(See his white paper) We would all have to suffer increases in Tax to fund his dreams of giving every one "Free" child care , a working wage( I know it should be paid if we can afford it , but what about the degradation of everyone else's relative wage) , an increase in pensions , Free this and that , Buck fast on draught - free for all (even though we would probably have to pay an import duty for it). The North Sea Oil Industry is a fantastic source declining money , but should have been set up as an "Oil Fund" >30 years ago. And how can you be Independent if you are still part of the Bank of England and the pound let alone being part of the largest state in the world ,the EUSSR.
    PS-Yes I am proud to be Scottish
  • meagain
    meagain Posts: 2,331
    SecretSam wrote:
    @meagain

    Oh no, are we going to invade another pointless country that no-one really cares about over some oil????

    THIS one is far more important than just oil. It is sovereignty. The six counties have been a huge net cost to the UK, with neither financial nor significant strategic off set, but there has never been any serious consideration to simply cutting them adrift. The Royals would be beyond furious and neither forgive nor forget any politicos that gave away part of their Kingdom. HM and Prinny own - yes own - all of UK - and Scotland is one of their favourite bits!
    d.j.
    "Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."

Categories