Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
What car does Alex Salmomd drive?
A tartan one.On a more serious note, in the last few days I`ve seen more and more blatant exaggerated lies and propaganda masquerading as Yes adverts recently. They are becoming more absurd by the day. It`s went from if we vote yes we`ll be the 12th richest country in the world to the 6th. Today I read it was the eighth (with free stuff).
The vote can`t come soon enough.
Calvib said:
Although I generally don't like to generalise (see what I did there?), I see there being three types of people who enter the independence debate.
1. Those who base their decision on history - the Braveheart type nationalists and the 'just because' unionists (Orange Order supporters etc). Both sides are in this camp.
2. The dangerous ones. The folk that think they are cleverer than they are and can answer this question with contemporary data (that is always cherry picked). Both sides are in this camp.
3. The genuinely enlightened ones. Those that see through the subjective posturing and time-specific projections of the implications of independence (using data that will be irrelevant upon independence). The ones who realise that independence completely changes the baseline for projections but see the massive potential for what could be achieved. These people will only vote yes. The genuinely clever ones.
What a weaponsgrade bellend. "The genuinely enlightened". "The genuinely clever ones". Cock.1. Those who base their decision on history - the Braveheart type nationalists and the 'just because' unionists (Orange Order supporters etc). Both sides are in this camp.
2. The dangerous ones. The folk that think they are cleverer than they are and can answer this question with contemporary data (that is always cherry picked). Both sides are in this camp.
3. The genuinely enlightened ones. Those that see through the subjective posturing and time-specific projections of the implications of independence (using data that will be irrelevant upon independence). The ones who realise that independence completely changes the baseline for projections but see the massive potential for what could be achieved. These people will only vote yes. The genuinely clever ones.
Let's try group 4.
4. Those of a limited understanding of anything apart from stupid sloganeering, facebook economics and naive expectations. Plus also a strangely inflated view of their own righteousness.
Welshbeef said:
Is calvinB stupid/moron or a troll?
Try to think of him in a good light.Despite the overwhelming evidence - and the growing list of persons of note ( World Leaders, Respected economists, Captains of Industry, Leaders of Scottish Trade and Tourist Associations ) - he genuinely believes that Scottish Independence is going to be a much better place to live and work.
We have a billion or so of people who believe that some cloud fairy created the world in 7 days some 4000 years ago.
It doesn't matter what evidence you put in front of them - their viewpoint won't change.
I would just say he is blindly devoted to the cause.
Guam said:
Kangaroo eating Fosters swigging know nothing thinks the brethren shouldn't be Freeeeeee! Someone send him some face paint and a copy of that Australian Documentary Braveheart so he gets the message 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726501/Wo...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726501/Wo...
He's just joining the likes of Obama in telling Scots that voting Yes would be barmy!
Welshbeef said:
Is calvinB stupid/moron or a troll?
The problem for me is that even if he is just a troll, there are many others do actually blindly believe the kind of s
t that he's writing.Not only that but they are allowed to vote, and will do with such confidence, to almost certainly make a good portion of the rest of my life measurably worse... at least if I remain here.
They seem to see a vote for no as some sort of treasonous act, yet for most like me I expect it's often just the wish for all of this to go away and that we are happy how things are and didn't ask for this nonsense to occur.
S13_Alan said:
Welshbeef said:
Is calvinB stupid/moron or a troll?
The problem for me is that even if he is just a troll, there are many others do actually blindly believe the kind of st that he's writing.Hence facts and figures are ignored or abused to suit the faith. CalvinB, Fluff, PCV etc are good followers of their faith!
I got really fed up reading st on Facebook and accidentally started an ultimately pointless fight about this and I'm being told I'm wrong about everything, so a second opinion would be nice.
Here's my original rather under researched rant and his reply to bits of it (sorry for the formatting, I don't know how to get it in a nice format). Now I'm fairly sure certain bits of his reply are nonsense but I don't have any of the evidence at hand.
The part about the EU, and about the way Scotland in financed don't add up as far as I can recall? Last part surrounding lies from the no side, any help would be good!
Only asking because it's managed to get a fair audience and I feel not replying would be doing a disservice to the cause and want to be correct.
t on Facebook and accidentally started an ultimately pointless fight about this and I'm being told I'm wrong about everything, so a second opinion would be nice.Here's my original rather under researched rant and his reply to bits of it (sorry for the formatting, I don't know how to get it in a nice format). Now I'm fairly sure certain bits of his reply are nonsense but I don't have any of the evidence at hand.
The part about the EU, and about the way Scotland in financed don't add up as far as I can recall? Last part surrounding lies from the no side, any help would be good!
Only asking because it's managed to get a fair audience and I feel not replying would be doing a disservice to the cause and want to be correct.
Me said:
Oh ffs. The whole basis for the yes campaign, and most of their supporters, appears to be that we are oppressed victims. Have you not heard the droning on and whining about it?
That somehow we are held back, disadvantaged, massively poorer as a result of being part of the UK, which in my view (and I suspect you'll find most peoples outside of the blinkered "it's all Thatchers fault' victim club) is utter nonsense. The whole thing has all of the hallmarks of a theistic argument, where those disagreeing are derided for it in way that suggests we are somehow traitors.
While I'm not opposed to the idea that Scotland were to be independent, even those supporting it should be asking far more of the SNP an their (lack of) planning when such monumental risk is involved. Or even it appears that they, and their leader, display at times even a basic understanding of such things as financial markets and how banks, currency or international law works.
At the moment it appears to be the no less risky than asking the chuckle brothers and the cast of rainbow to oversee the negotiations which form the foundations of this venture. A fat man who's best skill is dodging important questions while shouting scaremongering, and saying oh it'll all be ok because I said so, does not a trustworthy person make.
Ship building, oh definitely will continue, unless you ask someone who works for BAE. Whiskey, no bother, unless you ask them. Oil, sure, tax them more, they'll put up with it, it's OUR oil. Free everything? Sure, we will all pay more tax for that. Financial sector and banking, it's ok, Salmond said so. All those business deals worth millions which have already been cancelled or put on hold, must be just scaremongering. EU, oh they'll let us straight in despite that just not being how it works. Freedom!!!!... but want to join the EU too, isn't that a bit odd, giving all that power to 'unelected' people? Comparisons to scandanavian countries, that's totally comparable of course!
Defence contracts, let's hope UK just break international law and award them to us, cause Salmond will get them told. It's our currency too... fking lol, they haven't answered anything about that. We don't get who we vote for... well fk me sideways, you likely won't after a yes vote either given the statistics (and how few people actually voted for the SNP to being this charade)! Oh yeah, and Scotland totally generates way more than it makes. That's why they've already admitted that they can't finance everything.
I just don't get it, it's blindingly obvious that most people have done no research or reading on their own.
This is very important and the risk is enormous, and although it's very unlikely to happen, I'll gladly jump ship and watch things unfolding from the south of England sometime post yes vote. Traitor? No. Sensible, yes.
PS. Votes from SNP as far as I know were instrumental in events leading up to Thatcher getting in power. Ironically, as we all know that votes from Scottish MPs mean nothing and never have an effect, and obviously this is fabricated - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../The-history-the-SNP...
That somehow we are held back, disadvantaged, massively poorer as a result of being part of the UK, which in my view (and I suspect you'll find most peoples outside of the blinkered "it's all Thatchers fault' victim club) is utter nonsense. The whole thing has all of the hallmarks of a theistic argument, where those disagreeing are derided for it in way that suggests we are somehow traitors.
While I'm not opposed to the idea that Scotland were to be independent, even those supporting it should be asking far more of the SNP an their (lack of) planning when such monumental risk is involved. Or even it appears that they, and their leader, display at times even a basic understanding of such things as financial markets and how banks, currency or international law works.
At the moment it appears to be the no less risky than asking the chuckle brothers and the cast of rainbow to oversee the negotiations which form the foundations of this venture. A fat man who's best skill is dodging important questions while shouting scaremongering, and saying oh it'll all be ok because I said so, does not a trustworthy person make.
Ship building, oh definitely will continue, unless you ask someone who works for BAE. Whiskey, no bother, unless you ask them. Oil, sure, tax them more, they'll put up with it, it's OUR oil. Free everything? Sure, we will all pay more tax for that. Financial sector and banking, it's ok, Salmond said so. All those business deals worth millions which have already been cancelled or put on hold, must be just scaremongering. EU, oh they'll let us straight in despite that just not being how it works. Freedom!!!!... but want to join the EU too, isn't that a bit odd, giving all that power to 'unelected' people? Comparisons to scandanavian countries, that's totally comparable of course!
Defence contracts, let's hope UK just break international law and award them to us, cause Salmond will get them told. It's our currency too... f
king lol, they haven't answered anything about that. We don't get who we vote for... well fk me sideways, you likely won't after a yes vote either given the statistics (and how few people actually voted for the SNP to being this charade)! Oh yeah, and Scotland totally generates way more than it makes. That's why they've already admitted that they can't finance everything.I just don't get it, it's blindingly obvious that most people have done no research or reading on their own.
This is very important and the risk is enormous, and although it's very unlikely to happen, I'll gladly jump ship and watch things unfolding from the south of England sometime post yes vote. Traitor? No. Sensible, yes.
PS. Votes from SNP as far as I know were instrumental in events leading up to Thatcher getting in power. Ironically, as we all know that votes from Scottish MPs mean nothing and never have an effect, and obviously this is fabricated - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../The-history-the-SNP...
he said said:
"That somehow we are held back, disadvantaged, massively poorer as a result of being part of the UK, which in my view (and I suspect you'll find most peoples outside of the blinkered "it's all Thatchers fault' victim club) is utter nonsense."
I think we hear a lot about Thatcher and the Tories because Scotland overwhelmingly voted Labour during their period in government. Having less than 10% of MPs means we only get the government we vote for when the rest of the UK votes the same way. This is the basic, fundamental point of independence, that Scotland, as a country should govern itself.
“...even those supporting it should be asking far more of the SNP an their (lack of) planning when such monumental risk is involved. Or even it appears that they, and their leader, display at times even a basic understanding of such things as financial markets and how banks, currency or international law works."
Not my leader. It’s not about who runs the country, but how it’s run. I’m not a particular fan of Salmond or the SNP. This is not about political policy. Whoever runs an independent Scotland will govern according to the policies the are elected on (that’s the idea, at least…). We’re not voting on these kinds of details on 18 September.
"Ship building, oh definitely will continue, unless you ask someone who works for BAE. Whiskey, no bother, unless you ask them. Oil, sure, tax them more, they'll put up with it, it's OUR oil. Free everything? Sure, we will all pay more tax for that. Financial sector and banking, it's ok, Salmond said so. All those business deals worth millions which have already been cancelled or put on hold, must be just scaremongering. EU, oh they'll let us straight in despite that just not being how it works. Freedom!!!!... but want to join the EU too, isn't that a bit odd, giving all that power to 'unelected' people? Comparisons to scandanavian countries, that's totally comparable of course!"
Let us in? They’d have to kick us out first, and they haven’t said that will happen. In fact, as I’m sure you know, there’s no precedent for the situation after independence. It seems unlikely that the EU would want to remove 5 million of it’s own citizens, extensive fishing grounds and something like 60% of it’s oil production. The UK government could have clarified the situation by asking them, but chose not to. The Scottish government doesn’t have to power to, in case you’re wondering.
"Defence contracts, let's hope UK just break international law and award them to us, cause Salmond will get them told."[/b]
According to EU procurement rules, rUK would have to consider Scotland a threat in order to be able to refuse a defence contract here.
"We don't get who we vote for... well fk me sideways, you likely won't after a yes vote either given the statistics (and how few people actually voted for the SNP to begin this charade)!"
The SNP got in because they got the got more votes than any other party.
"Oh yeah, and Scotland totally generates way more than it makes. That's why they've already admitted that they can't finance everything."
Have they? Scotland isn’t subsidised, therefore it pays it’s way, therefore we can at least maintain what we have now.
"PS. Votes from SNP as far as I know were instrumental in events leading up to Thatcher getting in power. Ironically, as we all know that votes from Scottish MPs mean nothing and never have an effect, and obviously this is fabricated -http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../The-history-the-SNP-is…"
The UK at the time was bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the IMF. You either stick with the party who got you into that mess, or you give another one a shot.
The No campaign and UK government play on people’s fears re the economic side of things. They’ve been caught covering things up (the McCrone Report) and massaging the figures (see “bizarrely inaccurate” overestimation of the supposed costs of setting up new government departments) plenty of times. It is in their interests to create doubts in people’s minds about independence, hence their self-applied nickname. The Financial Times puts Scotland 14th in the world in terms of GDP per head. Standard and Poors says we would qualify for “the highest credit rating”. Whatever the exact economic situation we’re an advanced fully developed country. If we can’t afford it, very few can.
I think we hear a lot about Thatcher and the Tories because Scotland overwhelmingly voted Labour during their period in government. Having less than 10% of MPs means we only get the government we vote for when the rest of the UK votes the same way. This is the basic, fundamental point of independence, that Scotland, as a country should govern itself.
“...even those supporting it should be asking far more of the SNP an their (lack of) planning when such monumental risk is involved. Or even it appears that they, and their leader, display at times even a basic understanding of such things as financial markets and how banks, currency or international law works."
Not my leader. It’s not about who runs the country, but how it’s run. I’m not a particular fan of Salmond or the SNP. This is not about political policy. Whoever runs an independent Scotland will govern according to the policies the are elected on (that’s the idea, at least…). We’re not voting on these kinds of details on 18 September.
"Ship building, oh definitely will continue, unless you ask someone who works for BAE. Whiskey, no bother, unless you ask them. Oil, sure, tax them more, they'll put up with it, it's OUR oil. Free everything? Sure, we will all pay more tax for that. Financial sector and banking, it's ok, Salmond said so. All those business deals worth millions which have already been cancelled or put on hold, must be just scaremongering. EU, oh they'll let us straight in despite that just not being how it works. Freedom!!!!... but want to join the EU too, isn't that a bit odd, giving all that power to 'unelected' people? Comparisons to scandanavian countries, that's totally comparable of course!"
Let us in? They’d have to kick us out first, and they haven’t said that will happen. In fact, as I’m sure you know, there’s no precedent for the situation after independence. It seems unlikely that the EU would want to remove 5 million of it’s own citizens, extensive fishing grounds and something like 60% of it’s oil production. The UK government could have clarified the situation by asking them, but chose not to. The Scottish government doesn’t have to power to, in case you’re wondering.
"Defence contracts, let's hope UK just break international law and award them to us, cause Salmond will get them told."[/b]
According to EU procurement rules, rUK would have to consider Scotland a threat in order to be able to refuse a defence contract here.
"We don't get who we vote for... well f
k me sideways, you likely won't after a yes vote either given the statistics (and how few people actually voted for the SNP to begin this charade)!"The SNP got in because they got the got more votes than any other party.
"Oh yeah, and Scotland totally generates way more than it makes. That's why they've already admitted that they can't finance everything."
Have they? Scotland isn’t subsidised, therefore it pays it’s way, therefore we can at least maintain what we have now.
"PS. Votes from SNP as far as I know were instrumental in events leading up to Thatcher getting in power. Ironically, as we all know that votes from Scottish MPs mean nothing and never have an effect, and obviously this is fabricated -http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../The-history-the-SNP-is…"
The UK at the time was bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the IMF. You either stick with the party who got you into that mess, or you give another one a shot.
The No campaign and UK government play on people’s fears re the economic side of things. They’ve been caught covering things up (the McCrone Report) and massaging the figures (see “bizarrely inaccurate” overestimation of the supposed costs of setting up new government departments) plenty of times. It is in their interests to create doubts in people’s minds about independence, hence their self-applied nickname. The Financial Times puts Scotland 14th in the world in terms of GDP per head. Standard and Poors says we would qualify for “the highest credit rating”. Whatever the exact economic situation we’re an advanced fully developed country. If we can’t afford it, very few can.
Edited by S13_Alan on Sunday 17th August 00:36
S13_Alan said:
"Ship building, oh definitely will continue, unless you ask someone who works for BAE. Whiskey, no bother, unless you ask them. Oil, sure, tax them more, they'll put up with it, it's OUR oil. Free everything? Sure, we will all pay more tax for that. Financial sector and banking, it's ok, Salmond said so. All those business deals worth millions which have already been cancelled or put on hold, must be just scaremongering. EU, oh they'll let us straight in despite that just not being how it works. Freedom!!!!... but want to join the EU too, isn't that a bit odd, giving all that power to 'unelected' people? Comparisons to scandanavian countries, that's totally comparable of course!"
Let us in? They’d have to kick us out first, and they haven’t said that will happen. In fact, as I’m sure you know, there’s no precedent for the situation after independence. It seems unlikely that the EU would want to remove 5 million of it’s own citizens, extensive fishing grounds and something like 60% of it’s oil production. The UK government could have clarified the situation by asking them, but chose not to. The Scottish government doesn’t have to power to, in case you’re wondering.
They don't have to kick Scotland out, it will have walked out of the EU. The situation has been clarified. Scotland would be a new entrant. It has then been clarified further by saying that nobody in the accession queue (which Scotland has not even joined yet) will gain membership in the next 5 years. The EU does not have citizens in the literal sense. It odes not raise taxes directly and it does not issue citizenship or passports etc. It will not miss 5 Million Scots. 5 million Scots walking out will not matter one iota to the EU. What benefit or relevance to the EU does Scottish oil production have? absolutely nothing. The fishing grounds are a vastly overstated issue. The Spanish will just fish there anyway & there is nothing the Scots will be able to d about it.Let us in? They’d have to kick us out first, and they haven’t said that will happen. In fact, as I’m sure you know, there’s no precedent for the situation after independence. It seems unlikely that the EU would want to remove 5 million of it’s own citizens, extensive fishing grounds and something like 60% of it’s oil production. The UK government could have clarified the situation by asking them, but chose not to. The Scottish government doesn’t have to power to, in case you’re wondering.
S13_Alan said:
"Defence contracts, let's hope UK just break international law and award them to us, cause Salmond will get them told."[/b]
According to EU procurement rules, rUK would have to consider Scotland a threat in order to be able to refuse a defence contract here.
The rUK will not even consider giving these contracts to Scotland over rUK yards, why would it? It has no obligation to give iScotland anything.According to EU procurement rules, rUK would have to consider Scotland a threat in order to be able to refuse a defence contract here.
S13_Alan said:
"Oh yeah, and Scotland totally generates way more than it makes. That's why they've already admitted that they can't finance everything."
Have they? Scotland isn’t subsidised, therefore it pays it’s way, therefore we can at least maintain what we have now.
No it doesn't pay its way (but then none of the UK does). Scotland runs at a deficit (by the SG's own figures). The cost of funding that deficit post independence will be eye-watering outside of a currency union therefore it will NOT be able to maintain current spending levels.Have they? Scotland isn’t subsidised, therefore it pays it’s way, therefore we can at least maintain what we have now.
S13_Alan said:
The No campaign and UK government play on people’s fears re the economic side of things. They’ve been caught covering things up (the McCrone Report) and massaging the figures (see “bizarrely inaccurate” overestimation of the supposed costs of setting up new government departments) plenty of times. It is in their interests to create doubts in people’s minds about independence, hence their self-applied nickname. The Financial Times puts Scotland 14th in the world in terms of GDP per head. Standard and Poors says we would qualify for “the highest credit rating”. Whatever the exact economic situation we’re an advanced fully developed country. If we can’t afford it, very few can.
The McCrone report is ancient, out of date bksThe SG estimated cost of setting up a county at £250M is laughable. The figures quoted by Westminster were subsequently deemed reasonable. Personally I would say 2Bn was very optimistic. Westminster has spent many times more than that just on computer systems in some departments. Scottish independence will represent a motherlode of unrivalled proportions for armies of lawyers, accountants and consultants - and that's just in the public sector. The private sector will also incur significant costs in these areas.
None of the maths or economics of independence add up , that much is clear. If the Scots still want to go for it then that's their lookout - just don't expect the rest of us to pay for it, under-write it, bail them out or treat them in any way favourably afterwards.
Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 17th August 00:58
S13_Alan said:
Stuff
So there is no way the SNP can ask the Eu about membership of the EUmmmm
Step 1
Ask your "mate" about UKIP
Wait for ranting left wing b
ksStep 2
As about the scottish UKIP MEP
Wait for even bigger rant
Step 3
Post this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g1pyyLJskg
you work is done
And you can point him to the Scottish Government's own website which makes it very clear.
SNP:
It's right that we can use Article 48 and not Article 49, isn't it? Because that's what we've told everyone and we must be right.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
[I particularly like the hectoring tone and the assumption that the EU will fall into line]
EU:
No you will have to use Article 49 and apply like anyone else.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
SNP:
But we are already EU citizens, so that doesn't apply to us, yae ken?
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
[That same tone again]
EU:
You are voting to leave the EU when you vote to leave the UK, so yes it does.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
SNP:
It's right that we can use Article 48 and not Article 49, isn't it? Because that's what we've told everyone and we must be right.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
[I particularly like the hectoring tone and the assumption that the EU will fall into line]
EU:
No you will have to use Article 49 and apply like anyone else.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
SNP:
But we are already EU citizens, so that doesn't apply to us, yae ken?
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
[That same tone again]
EU:
You are voting to leave the EU when you vote to leave the UK, so yes it does.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandEx...
he said said:
"Defence contracts, let's hope UK just break international law and award them to us, cause Salmond will get them told."[/b]
According to EU procurement rules, rUK would have to consider Scotland a threat in order to be able to refuse a defence contract here.
He's missed the point there - it's not about refusing contracts. The UK can either:According to EU procurement rules, rUK would have to consider Scotland a threat in order to be able to refuse a defence contract here.
Award the contract to a UK compay.
Put the bid out to tender across Europe.
He needs to consider if:
a) The UK government could be seen to spend massive amounts of cash outside the UK on something we can build ourselves, and
b) If Scotland is likely to be the cheapest/best bidder when competing against the rest of Europe, in the unlikely event that (a) seems acceptable politically.
The oil will be the subject of negotiation.
The precedents say population split of existing finds and 100% of new finds.
The UN seems keen to hold to this principle in order to prevent civil wars, the breakdown of societies and the fracturing of poor countries where one region discovers mineral wealth.
The Nats say what's ours is ours and we also want 10% of what's yours. As with most things the Nats say, it is wrong.
They might achieve 100% of the oil but they will probably have to give up something else to get it.
The precedents say population split of existing finds and 100% of new finds.
The UN seems keen to hold to this principle in order to prevent civil wars, the breakdown of societies and the fracturing of poor countries where one region discovers mineral wealth.
The Nats say what's ours is ours and we also want 10% of what's yours. As with most things the Nats say, it is wrong.
They might achieve 100% of the oil but they will probably have to give up something else to get it.
ofcorsa said:
I've tried to keep up here but I may have missed it.
Has the oil situation been clarified? will Scotland keep all current oil revenue or will be it be new finds only?
Scotland cannot keep what it does not own. The oil belongs to the UK currently and licences to extract it have already been given and well as significant investment as it isn't cheap extracting the black stuff. What the UK currently receives is a tax on the oil, this is what Salmond is after.Has the oil situation been clarified? will Scotland keep all current oil revenue or will be it be new finds only?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff