Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
KENZ said:
Remember what we are voting for here. It's not the SNP it's not AS. It's Scottish independence. The unionists want to focus on all the bad things the SNP stand for and are pretty much ridiculing AS at every opportunity. At the end of the day the SNP may deliver independence but that's not to say they will get a majority in the next election.
Indeed! And, if you really don't like the SNP, the greatest chance to get rid of them is to vote YES. They will not survive as they are in an independent Scotland.But it is clearly a deliberate ploy of the no campaign to turn the issue into one of AS. By turning him into the embodiment of the independence movement they obfuscate from the real issues. Quite clever really (although ridiculously transparent now when you see everyone in the no side mention AS rather than the YES campaign).
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!
Everyone entitled to their opinion.
Will you be voting no then?
The last time Scotland tried to "play with the big boys" -- in banking, with RBS and BOS -- it nearly bankrupted the entire planet. Scotland is just not skilled or mature enough economically to survive and thrive on its own. Best to leave it to the real players in London to run things.
lamboman100 said:
The last time Scotland tried to "play with the big boys" -- in banking, with RBS and BOS -- it nearly bankrupted the entire planet. Scotland is just not skilled or mature enough economically to survive and thrive on its own. Best to leave it to the real players in London to run things.
Amateur trolling!ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!Everyone entitled to their opinion.
Will you be voting no then?
ked up...get over it.Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!Everyone entitled to their opinion.
Will you be voting no then?
ked up...get over it.ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!Everyone entitled to their opinion.
Will you be voting no then?
ked up...get over it.
""I don't have a problem with people wanting to be independent. What I do have a problem with is trying to persuade people into supporting that on the basis of a mistruth. Were Scotland to vote Yes on the basis of that mistruth that would be an error of historical proportions.
"And not just for Scotland but for the SNP.
"Because when the chickens come home to roost in five, 10 or 15 years' time, Alex Salmond isn't going to have a statue in George Square as the father of the nation. He's going to be reviled in history for actively misleading people."
Not all Yes supporters are culpable, though. He reckons some are merely "delusional".
"I'm reminded of Ally MacLeod," he goes on, referring to the Scotland football team manager in 1978 when half the country thought we'd win the World Cup. "There's a lovely, attractive optimism in the Scottish psyche. It's given us the confidence to travel to the furthest corners of the world.
"The other side of that, though, is that there are bits of it which can become delusional."
And not just delusional, immature too. "The tone of public discourse on independence in many places is vicious and juvenile."
Lefty said:
The SNP presume that the country can thrive on the income from oil, farming, finance, whisky and ship-building. 5 industries that generally don't want independence? Don't you think it's possible that the industries know more about their industries than blinkered glory-seeking politicians? Doesn't that strike you as staggering arrogance or staggering ignorance?
Here's an example of where the oil industry isn't anti independence. Quotes from EnQuest's Chief Exec - "EnQuest also engages with the Scottish Government and welcomes statements that, in the event of there being an independent Scotland, the Scottish Government plans a stable and predictable fiscal and regulatory regime."
"EnQuest believes that in some important respects the current system is out of date and no longer ‘fit for purpose’. It provides existing operators little incentive to accommodate third parties through their infrastructure and, without action, UK North Sea oil production will decline prematurely."
You can look up the full statements in their 2013 annual report. Point being they dislike the UK government's approach to oil and gas which doesn't work and is harming the industry whereas the Scottish governments proposed approach will result in more production and more investment.
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!Everyone entitled to their opinion.
Will you be voting no then?
ked up...get over it.""I don't have a problem with people wanting to be independent. What I do have a problem with is trying to persuade people into supporting that on the basis of a mistruth. Were Scotland to vote Yes on the basis of that mistruth that would be an error of historical proportions.
"And not just for Scotland but for the SNP.
"Because when the chickens come home to roost in five, 10 or 15 years' time, Alex Salmond isn't going to have a statue in George Square as the father of the nation. He's going to be reviled in history for actively misleading people."
Not all Yes supporters are culpable, though. He reckons some are merely "delusional".
"I'm reminded of Ally MacLeod," he goes on, referring to the Scotland football team manager in 1978 when half the country thought we'd win the World Cup. "There's a lovely, attractive optimism in the Scottish psyche. It's given us the confidence to travel to the furthest corners of the world.
"The other side of that, though, is that there are bits of it which can become delusional."
And not just delusional, immature too. "The tone of public discourse on independence in many places is vicious and juvenile."
Even if there is a no vote (not nearly as much of a 'slam dunk' as some here suggest!), you'll still have at least 40% (probably more) of the Scottish population who have said that they fundamentally are sufficiently discontented with the union that they are willing to take the major step of saying goodbye.
That is not a 'fringe minority' but a broad representation of the entire Scottish population. And the outcome of a no vote is not the same as getting a party in power that you did not vote for in a GE. The reason for, effectively, a vote of no confidence in Westminster is much more profound than that.
The UK government will have a duty to reduce that ~40-50% to what could be considered a 'fringe minority' (<10%) - the only way being through more devolved powers. But there is such a long way to go between ~40-50% and under 10% that the level of additional powers required to realise this massive shift in attitude will be independence by any other name. Face it, one way or another, the union is in it's death throws.
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!Everyone entitled to their opinion.
Will you be voting no then?
ked up...get over it.""I don't have a problem with people wanting to be independent. What I do have a problem with is trying to persuade people into supporting that on the basis of a mistruth. Were Scotland to vote Yes on the basis of that mistruth that would be an error of historical proportions.
"And not just for Scotland but for the SNP.
"Because when the chickens come home to roost in five, 10 or 15 years' time, Alex Salmond isn't going to have a statue in George Square as the father of the nation. He's going to be reviled in history for actively misleading people."
Not all Yes supporters are culpable, though. He reckons some are merely "delusional".
"I'm reminded of Ally MacLeod," he goes on, referring to the Scotland football team manager in 1978 when half the country thought we'd win the World Cup. "There's a lovely, attractive optimism in the Scottish psyche. It's given us the confidence to travel to the furthest corners of the world.
"The other side of that, though, is that there are bits of it which can become delusional."
And not just delusional, immature too. "The tone of public discourse on independence in many places is vicious and juvenile."
"I believe the no vote is largely based on the privileged wanting to maintain their privilege. Gambling with the lives of the less privileged."
Nasty little (I'm alright Jack) class warrior aren't you.
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
The reason you take that position is because you're an arrogant, full o' sMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
t nat. I'm sure you've got a list of things you'll blame when the no vote is declared. Just be happy with the fact that you and the rest of Salmond's disciples think yourselves cleverer, more upstanding and fairer than the majority that will sink your pathetically planned campaign. Oh and be happy that you are the very type of person that has lost the campaign...Congratulations!Everyone entitled to their opinion.
Will you be voting no then?
ked up...get over it.""I don't have a problem with people wanting to be independent. What I do have a problem with is trying to persuade people into supporting that on the basis of a mistruth. Were Scotland to vote Yes on the basis of that mistruth that would be an error of historical proportions.
"And not just for Scotland but for the SNP.
"Because when the chickens come home to roost in five, 10 or 15 years' time, Alex Salmond isn't going to have a statue in George Square as the father of the nation. He's going to be reviled in history for actively misleading people."
Not all Yes supporters are culpable, though. He reckons some are merely "delusional".
"I'm reminded of Ally MacLeod," he goes on, referring to the Scotland football team manager in 1978 when half the country thought we'd win the World Cup. "There's a lovely, attractive optimism in the Scottish psyche. It's given us the confidence to travel to the furthest corners of the world.
"The other side of that, though, is that there are bits of it which can become delusional."
And not just delusional, immature too. "The tone of public discourse on independence in many places is vicious and juvenile."
"I believe the no vote is largely based on the privileged wanting to maintain their privilege. Gambling with the lives of the less privileged."
Nasty little (I'm alright Jack) class warrior aren't you.
Usual unionist illogical nonsense.
ViperPict said:
Even if there is a no vote (not nearly as much of a 'slam dunk' as some here suggest!), you'll still have at least 40% (probably more) of the Scottish population who have said that they fundamentally are sufficiently discontented with the union that they are willing to take the major step of saying goodbye.
That is not a 'fringe minority' but a broad representation of the entire Scottish population. And the outcome of a no vote is not the same as getting a party in power that you did not vote for in a GE. The reason for, effectively, a vote of no confidence in Westminster is much more profound than that.
The UK government will have a duty to reduce that ~40-50% to what could be considered a 'fringe minority' (<10%) - the only way being through more devolved powers. But there is such a long way to go between ~40-50% and under 10% that the level of additional powers required to realise this massive shift in attitude will be independence by any other name. Face it, one way or another, the union is in it's death throws.
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
Your views represent a tiny minority of UK population. More people in Scotland support bringing back the death penalty than independence, does the UK government "have a duty" to let Scotland do that too?That is not a 'fringe minority' but a broad representation of the entire Scottish population. And the outcome of a no vote is not the same as getting a party in power that you did not vote for in a GE. The reason for, effectively, a vote of no confidence in Westminster is much more profound than that.
The UK government will have a duty to reduce that ~40-50% to what could be considered a 'fringe minority' (<10%) - the only way being through more devolved powers. But there is such a long way to go between ~40-50% and under 10% that the level of additional powers required to realise this massive shift in attitude will be independence by any other name. Face it, one way or another, the union is in it's death throws.
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
Oh and a nice paragraph from Project McFear at the end...well done.
Rollin said:
ViperPict said:
Even if there is a no vote (not nearly as much of a 'slam dunk' as some here suggest!), you'll still have at least 40% (probably more) of the Scottish population who have said that they fundamentally are sufficiently discontented with the union that they are willing to take the major step of saying goodbye.
That is not a 'fringe minority' but a broad representation of the entire Scottish population. And the outcome of a no vote is not the same as getting a party in power that you did not vote for in a GE. The reason for, effectively, a vote of no confidence in Westminster is much more profound than that.
The UK government will have a duty to reduce that ~40-50% to what could be considered a 'fringe minority' (<10%) - the only way being through more devolved powers. But there is such a long way to go between ~40-50% and under 10% that the level of additional powers required to realise this massive shift in attitude will be independence by any other name. Face it, one way or another, the union is in it's death throws.
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
Your views represent a tiny minority of UK population. More people in Scotland support bringing back the death penalty than independence, does the UK government "have a duty" to let Scotland do that too?That is not a 'fringe minority' but a broad representation of the entire Scottish population. And the outcome of a no vote is not the same as getting a party in power that you did not vote for in a GE. The reason for, effectively, a vote of no confidence in Westminster is much more profound than that.
The UK government will have a duty to reduce that ~40-50% to what could be considered a 'fringe minority' (<10%) - the only way being through more devolved powers. But there is such a long way to go between ~40-50% and under 10% that the level of additional powers required to realise this massive shift in attitude will be independence by any other name. Face it, one way or another, the union is in it's death throws.
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
And we are not talking about a policy change here, we are talking about a large proportion of the population who have become so disenfranchised with the union that they want a one-way ticket out. Different league. Insufficient additional extra powers after a no vote and we'll be right back here within a decade.
KENZ said:
northnoble said:
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Gaspode said:
ViperPict said:
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...
Given the treatment we have seen of No posters, I think I understand why...All non-violent forms of expression in the debate are valid though.
holes in the ranks. From verbal abuse to vandalism. The ends are assumed to justify the means. The Yes campaigners are happy to gamble my life as I know it in every sense but there is no way I'd mark myself out as a target to Yes bandits.There has also been significant verbal abuse and vandalism from unionists - it is not restricted to one side of the debate but is a fringe minority in both.
I take exception to someone assuming I must have been handed my lifestyle.
The Yes voters who aren't voting for Salmond but are voting for Scotland (i.e. voting for lots of free stuff) can ram it up their backsides. Is it my fault that Yes voters are unhappy with how their lives have turned out? Is it my duty to hand out all my income to them? I'd move to North Korea if I wanted to be a communist.
It absolutely astounds me that the Yessers have the ability to dismiss the words of pretty much everyone in any position of influence. Yes voters genuinely have no clue what weight the view point of someone they've never heard of but happens to hold some crucial position with the EU or NATO or even some country we trade with has. Yes voters seem to have the unique ability to dismiss all of these influential external stakeholders' views as "scaremongering". It's worse than that. There are thousands of jobs earmarked to go in the event of a Yes vote - Faslane being a prime example. It's a case of "More free stuff for the people and f
k anyone who actually managed to get themselves a career already".Bottom line, to be a successful country we need a GDP that pays for those that are unable to contribute equally. So how do we do this? According to the Yes propaganda that fell through my door last week we are going to rely on 1,500 billion of Oil revenue. But wait a minute, do we have a Scottish National Oil company.....No. Do we even have a UK National Oil Company.....No! For those of you who don't know, the biggest UK producer is Chinese owned! How long do you think they will keep investing in the North Sea if the tax regime (incl investment capex offset) changes to make up for the inevitable shortfall in revenue post a Yes vote?
Secondly, how many high tax payers do you think will actually stay in Scotland if the tax regime changes dramatically from that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? My guess, not many. So then what.......??? Higher average tax, lower pensions....the list goes on!
Until someone can produce some real facts.....the risk is simply too high in my opinion.....but that's all it is, my personal opinion!
Scottish Government establishes Scotoil who then obtain a stake in each license how exactly? By force?
Option A:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - the oil money - hand it over. If you don't like it, we'll go all Libya on you with our non-existant armed forces"
Option B:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - here's £XXX borrowed from Wonga.com for our 20% stake - they're the only people who will lend to us since we have no currency of our own and defaulted on our share of UK debt"
You do realise that the fundamental principle behind Statoil is that they get a % stake in every license as and when they are awarded to private sector owner/operators? Every NCS license is owned in part by Statoil. Not necessarily operated - but owned.
For your envisaged Scotoil, you need a mechanism to retrieve ownership from the organisations the licenses were sold to.
Can I just point out that the current levels of overtaxation of the oil and gas industry have impacted exploration? To be specific, the industry is struggling along with massive maintenance costs whilst the development side of the market in the UKCS is dying a death. Taxation needs to be reduced to make the UKCS an attractive place to invest or else it's just going to close down. Scotland will not be able to milk anything else out of that industry - but that doesn't mean it's worthless - quite the contrary. Even just surviving it's keeping tens of thousands of people all across the UK gainfully employed in the tax-paying private sector where they then spend their earnings on other things within the UK such as cars, resturants etc etc.
It's not the cash-cow the SNP (or most of the public who also know nothing about it) think it is.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Monday 25th August 07:22
ViperPict said:
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
Those SCUM in wastemonster HATE us and they will stop at nothing to destroy scotlandThey are evil evil evil b
dsTotal SCUM
They are all evil
etc etc and so on
HOWEVER
The entire independence case put forward by the nationalists is
Westminster loves us and will give us everything we want
ViperPict said:
I never said anyone had to give up their privilege. I said that the no vote is influenced by those who (perhaps understandably) want to maintain their's (see the difference?).
My position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
Minimal risk to anyoneMy position is that there is minimal risk to anyone's standard of living in terms of voting yes and a considerable advantage to many less fortunate.
Okay
Explain how the shipyards on the Clyde will continue with shipbuilding orders from westminster
And i've had a sudden realization
You think you are poor and oppressed
Edited by McWigglebum4th on Monday 25th August 08:12
KENZ said:
Remember what we are voting for here. It's not the SNP it's not AS. It's Scottish independence. The unionists want to focus on all the bad things the SNP stand for and are pretty much ridiculing AS at every opportunity. At the end of the day the SNP may deliver independence but that's not to say they will get a majority in the next election.
Agreed. Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff