Who is bogging off after the YES vote?

[deadslow]

HenryJM said:

If you want another Salmond example have a look at the saga of the 'trews' which they tried once again to hide, then lied about before deciding (18 months later) to reimburse the taxpayer once a newspaper got involved.

There are others...

Maybe you're too young to remember the last full fat Tory government. John Major was openly embarrassed at the number of MPs and government ministers taking bribes. Brown envelopes everywhere.

[HenryJM]

deadslow said:

HenryJM said:

If you want another Salmond example have a look at the saga of the 'trews' which they tried once again to hide, then lied about before deciding (18 months later) to reimburse the taxpayer once a newspaper got involved.

There are others...

Maybe you're too young to remember the last full fat Tory government. John Major was openly embarrassed at the number of MPs and government ministers taking bribes. Brown envelopes everywhere.

I can remember Edward Heath let alone John Major. There were two issues during the Major government - Neil Hamilton with cash for questions and Jonathan Aitken. The Aitken one was being jailed for perjury so not really connected.

So there was Neil Hamilton - any others that you can think of or are you just making it up?

The expenses and other scandals of note were in the 2000's under Labour - you know, the Labour party that had 56 out of 72 Scottish MPs against the Conservatives score of zero.

[deadslow]

HenryJM said:

I can remember Edward Heath let alone John Major. There were two issues during the Major government - Neil Hamilton with cash for questions and Jonathan Aitken. The Aitken one was being jailed for perjury so not really connected.

So there was Neil Hamilton - any others that you can think of or are you just making it up?

The expenses and other scandals of note were in the 2000's under Labour - you know, the Labour party that had 56 out of 72 Scottish MPs against the Conservatives score of zero.

Crikey, if nothing was wrong, then Major surely squandered a ton of cash setting up the Nolan Inquiry.

[xr287]

Why is there such negativity, approaching independence from an angle that looks at Scotland as a small country that will be weak and struggling should it separate from a rich and powerful UK?

The reality of it is Scotland has a similar population to Denmark and Norway.

Denmark and Norway both have:
A higher GDP per capita than the UK according to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the United Nations.
A higher ranking than the UK in the United Nations Human Development Index (life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life).
Their own currency and central bank.
An approach that encourages investment in domestic companies to prepare for the time when oil production is much lower and/or no longer economic to produce.

Denmark has much less oil reserves than Scotland would have and Norway has more.

[mph1977]

xr287 said:

Why is there such negativity, approaching independence from an angle that looks at Scotland as a small country that will be weak and struggling should it separate from a rich and powerful UK?

The reality of it is Scotland has a similar population to Denmark and Norway.

Denmark and Norway both have:
A higher GDP per capita than the UK according to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the United Nations.
A higher ranking than the UK in the United Nations Human Development Index (life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life).
Their own currency and central bank.
An approach that encourages investment in domestic companies to prepare for the time when oil production is much lower and/or no longer economic to produce.

Denmark has much less oil reserves than Scotland would have and Norway has more.

and could, if it were actually achievable, have similar figures to those quoted ... instead of being the sick man of europe requiring money to be pumped in from the rest of the UK ...

the yes campaign is all about woad painted mel gibson wannabers running round yelling 'freedom'

[HenryJM]

deadslow said:

HenryJM said:

I can remember Edward Heath let alone John Major. There were two issues during the Major government - Neil Hamilton with cash for questions and Jonathan Aitken. The Aitken one was being jailed for perjury so not really connected.

So there was Neil Hamilton - any others that you can think of or are you just making it up?

The expenses and other scandals of note were in the 2000's under Labour - you know, the Labour party that had 56 out of 72 Scottish MPs against the Conservatives score of zero.

Crikey, if nothing was wrong, then Major surely squandered a ton of cash setting up the Nolan Inquiry.

That was as a result of cash for questions and Neil Hamilton, as already mentioned. I said - can you think of any others?

[deadslow]

HenryJM said:

That was as a result of cash for questions and Neil Hamilton, as already mentioned. I said - can you think of any others?

Truth be told I can't be bothered. These Scottish-hater threads are very aggressive

The point which you fail to get is that all politicians of all colours and at all points in history and liars/cheats/say anything etc Salmond is no better or worse. The personal qualities of individual politicians on either side is an irrelevance when placed alongside the immensity of the decision facing the Scottish nation.

[HenryJM]

deadslow said:

Truth be told I can't be bothered. These Scottish-hater threads are very aggressive

The point which you fail to get is that all politicians of all colours and at all points in history and liars/cheats/say anything etc Salmond is no better or worse. The personal qualities of individual politicians on either side is an irrelevance when placed alongside the immensity of the decision facing the Scottish nation.

Well the major difference is that when someone does something wrong at Westminster they are forced out, there's a well documented history of it. But at Holyrood it seems that everyone from the First Minister down can lie as much as they want, and nobody bats an eyelid.

Then to top it all they then label Westminster as being some corrupt entity that they would be escaping from to the wholesome perfection of Holyrood.

It's crazy, but the gullible yes camp seems capable of absorbing a constant stream of lies without seeing anything wrong with it.

[rossybee]

gofasterrosssco said:

rossybee said:

gwm said:

rossybee said:

You've pretty much summed up my views (apart from the Dublin bit, nice place that it is)

Ditto. But alas some are greedy and/ or suffer from the grass is always greener mentality.

Yep - my current wife is leaning towards Yes, must sort that

Indeed. I note you said 'current'..

There's always that option

[hidetheelephants]

HenryJM said:

deadslow said:

Truth be told I can't be bothered. These Scottish-hater threads are very aggressive

The point which you fail to get is that all politicians of all colours and at all points in history and liars/cheats/say anything etc Salmond is no better or worse. The personal qualities of individual politicians on either side is an irrelevance when placed alongside the immensity of the decision facing the Scottish nation.

Well the major difference is that when someone does something wrong at Westminster they are forced out, there's a well documented history of it. But at Holyrood it seems that everyone from the First Minister down can lie as much as they want, and nobody bats an eyelid.

Then to top it all they then label Westminster as being some corrupt entity that they would be escaping from to the wholesome perfection of Holyrood.

It's crazy, but the gullible yes camp seems capable of absorbing a constant stream of lies without seeing anything wrong with it.

Eh? Henry McLeish told a little fib and ended up out of his job as first minister, David McLetchie had to resign after being found fiddling cab fares, so I can't see how Holyrood is in any way an easy place to get away with fiddling anything. Westminster still has absurdly lax expenses and you still have MPs renting dodgy flats, it's just they rent off each other rather than from themselves. It's all above board though, so that's alright.

[simoid]

martinr007 said:

10 out of 10 to Junior Baiano for paying attention at the front of the class, that's what happen if you log in with your phone or laptop At least Henry now knows I'm not pcdriver!

Rollin, I'd no deceitful intentions but if that's what you think about nats fair enough, says more about you generalising people that it does me. I signed up with another name as I'd prefer to keep cars and politics apart. Imagine turning up to a car meet only to find the guy you're speaking to is the same keyboard warrior that's been telling you STFU, you've had you're vote now fk off etc on line (I don't mean you).

As I said earlier some people are willing to actually discuss the referendum (I think I've made the right decision but would like to hear why folk are voting no), but others dismiss yes voters as knuckle draggers, plebs, people of low intelligence, scroungers etc etc, it's pathetic. I'd like to think if everyone was having this discussion at say a car meet there be a bit more sensible debate and a lot less of the bravado.

I've seen a few other comments saying that if you don't like the current system and want to change it then that in itself is undemocratic. So does this mean that anyone who votes for Labour is undemocratic as they don't support the Tories?

I'll discuss the referendum and tell you why I'm voting no:

1. I don't believe we can achieve anything positive in terms of change from extra powers of independence.
2. The plan for independence is a complete and utter lot of ste. Unfunded, unfounded, unjustifiable ste.
3. There are many benefits to the UK single market that people don't even begin to consider that will be lost - you mentioned keeping cars and independence separate, but they aren't. If you're in Scotland just now, and you want to buy a car from Berwick or Carlisle in 2 years' time, you'll need to import it for a start!

[martinr007]

simoid said:

I'll discuss the referendum and tell you why I'm voting no:

1. I don't believe we can achieve anything positive in terms of change from extra powers of independence.
2. The plan for independence is a complete and utter lot of ste. Unfunded, unfounded, unjustifiable ste.
3. There are many benefits to the UK single market that people don't even begin to consider that will be lost - you mentioned keeping cars and independence separate, but they aren't. If you're in Scotland just now, and you want to buy a car from Berwick or Carlisle in 2 years' time, you'll need to import it for a start!

Hi Simoid,

This is the reason I posted on here as the pro-indy sites say we can afford independence, the anti-independence sites say we can't. Who's right? Obviously either camp are going to claim the others figures are wrong, however, the big thing I always keep coming back to is the McCrone report and how successive Westminster governments kept the true potential of the oil revenues secret. To me that's one of the biggest political frauds in modern day politics and one reason why I struggle to believe figures touted by the no camp. They've done it before to suit their own interests and they'll do it again.

As to your reasons
1. I don't believe we can achieve anything positive in terms of change from extra powers of independence.
- That's only your opinion but fair enough, I can't argue with that.
2. The plan for independence is a complete and utter lot of ste. Unfunded, unfounded, unjustifiable ste. - Obviously there's going to be more points than we have pages to discuss here but can you at least expand a little? - You say the plan is unfunded yet various sites state that Scottish tax receipts per person have been higher than the rest of the UK for the last 33 years (official data from Government Expenditure and Revenue Reports).
3. There are many benefits to the UK single market that people don't even begin to consider that will be lost - you mentioned keeping cars and independence separate, but they aren't. If you're in Scotland just now, and you want to buy a car from Berwick or Carlisle in 2 years' time, you'll need to import it for a start. Fair enough but surely importing a 2nd hand car is just a case of getting it re-registered and taxed? It would mean a couple of more forms than you already have when buying a car but not a huge expense. Plus, am I right in saying you would only pay VAT if it were a new car? If it were a new car then would there be any difference buying from a Carlisle or Edinburgh dealership? If no difference you would just buy from your home country dealership?

[HenryJM]

hidetheelephants said:

Eh? Henry McLeish told a little fib and ended up out of his job as first minister, David McLetchie had to resign after being found fiddling cab fares,

You are quoting a man who resigned because of his conduct at Westminster where he was found to be sub-letting his Westminster office and not declaring it and a man who resigned as leader of the Scottish Conservatives who found that they didn't approve of his expenses. Of course he continued as an MSP unaffected.

So neither are examples of conduct at Holyrood being properly investigated and dealt with.

[ViperPict]

Around Aberdeenshire:

'No' signs in the fields of rich landowners

'Yes' signs in the windows and gardens of private property.

Sort of sums up the problem of the union.

[HenryJM]

ViperPict said:

Around Aberdeenshire:

'No' signs in the fields of rich landowners

'Yes' signs in the windows and gardens of private property.

Sort of sums up the problem of the union.

It does, but perhaps not in the way you might be thinking.

[jamieduff1981]

ViperPict said:

Around Aberdeenshire:

'No' signs in the fields of rich landowners

'Yes' signs in the windows and gardens of private property.

Sort of sums up the problem of the union.

You mean 'No signs in the fields of farmers'.

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

Around Aberdeenshire:

'No' signs in the fields of rich landowners

'Yes' signs in the windows and gardens of private property.

Sort of sums up the problem of the union.

It does, but perhaps not in the way you might be thinking.

How will you be voting in the referendum?

I think the no posters in fields/ side of road etc are counterproductive to the no camp. No-one will decide to vote no based on them. But they do give off this arrogant (and false) impression that a few individuals are stating that the region in which they are situated is 'no territory'. AKA toffs trying to lord it up over the 'plebs'. We Scots are a contrary bunch after all...

[ViperPict]

HenryJM said:

ViperPict said:

Around Aberdeenshire:

'No' signs in the fields of rich landowners

'Yes' signs in the windows and gardens of private property.

Sort of sums up the problem of the union.

It does, but perhaps not in the way you might be thinking.

How will you be voting in the referendum?

I think the no posters in fields/ side of road etc are counterproductive to the no camp. No-one will decide to vote no based on them. But they do give off this arrogant (and false) impression that a few individuals are stating that the region in which they are situated is 'no territory'. AKA toffs trying to lord it up over the 'plebs'. We Scots are a contrary bunch after all...

[Gaspode]

ViperPict said:

How will you be voting in the referendum?

I think the no posters in fields/ side of road etc are counterproductive to the no camp. No-one will decide to vote no based on them. But they do give off this arrogant (and false) impression that a few individuals are stating that the region in which they are situated is 'no territory'. AKA toffs trying to lord it up over the 'plebs'. We Scots are a contrary bunch after all...

How will you be voting in the referendum?

I think the yes posters in windows/gardens etc are counterproductive to the yes camp. No-one will decide to vote yes based on them. But they do give off this arrogant (and false) impression that a few individuals are stating that the region in which they are situated is 'yes territory'. AKA lefty wannabe braveheart 'revolutionaries' trying to intimidate sensible folk. We Scots are a contrary bunch after all...

[ViperPict]

Gaspode said:

ViperPict said:

How will you be voting in the referendum?

I think the no posters in fields/ side of road etc are counterproductive to the no camp. No-one will decide to vote no based on them. But they do give off this arrogant (and false) impression that a few individuals are stating that the region in which they are situated is 'no territory'. AKA toffs trying to lord it up over the 'plebs'. We Scots are a contrary bunch after all...

How will you be voting in the referendum?

I think the yes posters in windows/gardens etc are counterproductive to the yes camp. No-one will decide to vote yes based on them. But they do give off this arrogant (and false) impression that a few individuals are stating that the region in which they are situated is 'yes territory'. AKA lefty wannabe braveheart 'revolutionaries' trying to intimidate sensible folk. We Scots are a contrary bunch after all...

In as much as their property is yes territory, then I agree. However, claiming no ownership over a large swathe of the area is rather different. Don't think I've seen one no poster in the window of a private property...