Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
fluffnik said:
jith said:
jamieduff1981 said:
It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.
This, in two sentences, sums up what is entirely wrong with the mentality of the average voter in Britain. It is also the single best reason to get rid of the Westminster mentality.
We need to distinguish between price, value and cost.
The first sewers weren't built by bleeding heart socialists, they were built by wealthy people who didn't want to die of cholera and who understood the difference.
The only question that needs answering is "Is Scotland uniquely incapable of running its own affairs?"
The Yes supporters are good at rhetoric but nobody can explain to me in objective terms why a smaller population casting aside facilities we pay a share of in favour of paying to have all those mundane facilities for our exclusive use is better in any objective way.
You're right that people need to consider value and not just price. I couldn't agree more. I'll level the same advice at the Yes supporters though. We can all disagree on the price. Yes thinks it's a small price and No think it's multiple times larger. There's definately a monetary price to be paid though - we can all agree that there is a price.
The fundamental issue is that the Yes campaigners value what they think they'll gain and do not value what will be lost. The No voters do not value what the Yes voters want but will lament what is lost.
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.
£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
Amazing how poor countries manage to have embassies.£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
You're not thinking big enough.
Everything can be achieved with positive and creative thinking.
That requires competence in identifying what actually needs to be achieved, establishing realistic cost estimates to achieve that and then funding the projects to completion.
You'll also find I'm thinking bigger than most of the Yesers. I'm thinking of everything, not just waving a Saltire around and having a massive celebration party. I'm actually thinking beyond that and to what we would actually require as a nation just to function. I'm even thinking beyond that. I'm thinking of how much it'll cost to establish, not just run that infrastructure which presently doesn't exist and I'm thinking of how those costs marry up with what we as a nation could afford to fund. I'm also considering influential external stakeholders and what risks they pose to "our" plans - something the Yes campaign just dismisses as scaremongering.
So, I'll say it again. I'm thinking big enough to have a mental risk register of threats to the economic "vision" set out in the Whitepaper as long as your arm. I recognise many, many ways for this to cost me as an individual a lot more for a worse standard of living and even at best, I see absolutely no benefit to me as an individual for being independant.
Do you know what being Scottish rather than British means to me beyond an economic level? I'll tell you - Nothing. It means nothing. I don't give a flying f*** what nationality I get called. I don't care about national pride. It's valueless to me. It doesn't exist.
I don't care where major decisions are made. Some of those which affect me as an individual are already devolved. Others could be made in Edinburgh but sat in Edinburgh the only decisions that could affect me are how much tax I have to pay. An Edinburgh government will, I assert, have a higher operating cost per head of population than a UK government and will be in no position to grant me lower taxation.
It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.
There are no real meaningful benefits to be gained for me, but much to lose.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48
Pooh said:
drangular said:
That would only be the outcome if the Scottish people, collectively, were completely incapable of making the right decisions in all the right areas. What Devolution has demonstrated is that the opposite is true.
Really!!There have been plenty if idiotic decisions such as free prescriptions for people who can afford to pay for them resulting in less money for the NHS, banning fracking and nuclear power, the disaster that is the curriculum for excellence etc etc, can you please provide us with some examples of sensible ones.
A major factor in my decision to vote no is that the Scottish Parliament is a total joke.
Fracking - f
king madness. Short term gain and fk the future generations. Everything that's wrong with our economics in the UK these days. Short-term thinking morons who are just in it for personal gain to their bank balance.Scottish Parliament, by any reasonable person's assessment, has been highly successful and very popular.
jith said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Wrong. Everything can be achieved with money.
It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.
This, in two sentences, sums up what is entirely wrong with the mentality of the average voter in Britain. It is also the single best reason to get rid of the Westminster mentality.It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48
If it wasn't for the fact she is dead, I would have thought Thatcher wrote that post.
Bloody sad and pathetic
J
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.
£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
Amazing how poor countries manage to have embassies.£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
You're not thinking big enough.
Everything can be achieved with positive and creative thinking.
That requires competence in identifying what actually needs to be achieved, establishing realistic cost estimates to achieve that and then funding the projects to completion.
You'll also find I'm thinking bigger than most of the Yesers. I'm thinking of everything, not just waving a Saltire around and having a massive celebration party. I'm actually thinking beyond that and to what we would actually require as a nation just to function. I'm even thinking beyond that. I'm thinking of how much it'll cost to establish, not just run that infrastructure which presently doesn't exist and I'm thinking of how those costs marry up with what we as a nation could afford to fund. I'm also considering influential external stakeholders and what risks they pose to "our" plans - something the Yes campaign just dismisses as scaremongering.
So, I'll say it again. I'm thinking big enough to have a mental risk register of threats to the economic "vision" set out in the Whitepaper as long as your arm. I recognise many, many ways for this to cost me as an individual a lot more for a worse standard of living and even at best, I see absolutely no benefit to me as an individual for being independant.
Do you know what being Scottish rather than British means to me beyond an economic level? I'll tell you - Nothing. It means nothing. I don't give a flying f*** what nationality I get called. I don't care about national pride. It's valueless to me. It doesn't exist.
I don't care where major decisions are made. Some of those which affect me as an individual are already devolved. Others could be made in Edinburgh but sat in Edinburgh the only decisions that could affect me are how much tax I have to pay. An Edinburgh government will, I assert, have a higher operating cost per head of population than a UK government and will be in no position to grant me lower taxation.
It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.
There are no real meaningful benefits to be gained for me, but much to lose.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
Scottish Parliament, by any reasonable person's assessment, has been highly successful and very popular.
It's a bloody laughing stock you mean...
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.
£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
Amazing how poor countries manage to have embassies.£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
You're not thinking big enough.
Everything can be achieved with positive and creative thinking.
That requires competence in identifying what actually needs to be achieved, establishing realistic cost estimates to achieve that and then funding the projects to completion.
You'll also find I'm thinking bigger than most of the Yesers. I'm thinking of everything, not just waving a Saltire around and having a massive celebration party. I'm actually thinking beyond that and to what we would actually require as a nation just to function. I'm even thinking beyond that. I'm thinking of how much it'll cost to establish, not just run that infrastructure which presently doesn't exist and I'm thinking of how those costs marry up with what we as a nation could afford to fund. I'm also considering influential external stakeholders and what risks they pose to "our" plans - something the Yes campaign just dismisses as scaremongering.
So, I'll say it again. I'm thinking big enough to have a mental risk register of threats to the economic "vision" set out in the Whitepaper as long as your arm. I recognise many, many ways for this to cost me as an individual a lot more for a worse standard of living and even at best, I see absolutely no benefit to me as an individual for being independant.
Do you know what being Scottish rather than British means to me beyond an economic level? I'll tell you - Nothing. It means nothing. I don't give a flying f*** what nationality I get called. I don't care about national pride. It's valueless to me. It doesn't exist.
I don't care where major decisions are made. Some of those which affect me as an individual are already devolved. Others could be made in Edinburgh but sat in Edinburgh the only decisions that could affect me are how much tax I have to pay. An Edinburgh government will, I assert, have a higher operating cost per head of population than a UK government and will be in no position to grant me lower taxation.
It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.
There are no real meaningful benefits to be gained for me, but much to lose.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48
kspeak, that's all...ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
I'll use the Whitepaper's figure on embassy set-up again by way of example. 10% stake in the UK's £1.5billion overseas assets = £150million.
£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
Amazing how poor countries manage to have embassies.£150million for a new government to set up an international presence where required.
£150,000,000. Really? Really?
You're not thinking big enough.
Everything can be achieved with positive and creative thinking.
That requires competence in identifying what actually needs to be achieved, establishing realistic cost estimates to achieve that and then funding the projects to completion.
You'll also find I'm thinking bigger than most of the Yesers. I'm thinking of everything, not just waving a Saltire around and having a massive celebration party. I'm actually thinking beyond that and to what we would actually require as a nation just to function. I'm even thinking beyond that. I'm thinking of how much it'll cost to establish, not just run that infrastructure which presently doesn't exist and I'm thinking of how those costs marry up with what we as a nation could afford to fund. I'm also considering influential external stakeholders and what risks they pose to "our" plans - something the Yes campaign just dismisses as scaremongering.
So, I'll say it again. I'm thinking big enough to have a mental risk register of threats to the economic "vision" set out in the Whitepaper as long as your arm. I recognise many, many ways for this to cost me as an individual a lot more for a worse standard of living and even at best, I see absolutely no benefit to me as an individual for being independant.
Do you know what being Scottish rather than British means to me beyond an economic level? I'll tell you - Nothing. It means nothing. I don't give a flying f*** what nationality I get called. I don't care about national pride. It's valueless to me. It doesn't exist.
I don't care where major decisions are made. Some of those which affect me as an individual are already devolved. Others could be made in Edinburgh but sat in Edinburgh the only decisions that could affect me are how much tax I have to pay. An Edinburgh government will, I assert, have a higher operating cost per head of population than a UK government and will be in no position to grant me lower taxation.
It will cost me more and I'll get less for my money. I couldn't care less about how it affects anyone outside of my family and closest friends.
There are no real meaningful benefits to be gained for me, but much to lose.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 18th April 11:48
kspeak, that's all...gofasterrosssco said:
drangular said:
Here's what the polls are showing in terms of the campaign.
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/dramatic...
And here is a site that collates and sometimes comments on the media reporting of the campaign.
http://www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014
And here is a site that provides thoughtful comment and analysis on the campaign.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/
These are pro-indy sites but are useful for those who want to see a different perspective to the usual MSM anti-independence drivel.
There are many more. If it's information people want then it's out there. You just have to take the time to look.
You are getting confused between 'information' and (well presented biased) 'opinion'.http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/dramatic...
And here is a site that collates and sometimes comments on the media reporting of the campaign.
http://www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014
And here is a site that provides thoughtful comment and analysis on the campaign.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/
These are pro-indy sites but are useful for those who want to see a different perspective to the usual MSM anti-independence drivel.
There are many more. If it's information people want then it's out there. You just have to take the time to look.
If you want to base things on independant expert opinion (quite validly) then fine, but there will always be disagreement between experts on even well understood subjects. In my opinion though, the majority of unbiased expert opinion does not really support the case for independance. It does not say it is not feasible (nobody sensible does), but rationally questions the purpose of the whole process (as a function of benefits / drawbacks) without the overly nationalistic sentiments.
There's change for the better, and then there's change for the sake of it, which only serves to make people "feel" they are moving forward when really they've just shuffled the pack and come out with a similar hand. The interesting thing is that people equate a No vote with happyness and contentment with the political and economic status quo, but I believe that is absolutely not the case.
This concept of Scotland being a much fairer and more just place is lovely, and very desirable, but (with me being a cynical bar steward) from where does this come from? Because there will be less of us? More democratic accountablity (which we already have)? And these aren't just the political vote winning tactics used by both political and / or nationist parties?
We have just as much opportunity for practical change within the UK (but without the histrionics), than on independance based on half-baked vote-winning policies...
Edited by gofasterrosssco on Friday 18th April 13:16
ViperPict said:
jamieduff1981 said:
ViperPict said:
Scottish Parliament, by any reasonable person's assessment, has been highly successful and very popular.
It's a bloody laughing stock you mean...Can you accept that by setting up our own CAA, DVLA, Treasury, DfT, DECC, HSE etc etc etc that the public sector bill SHALL be higher per head of population than it is to operate those standing functions but shared amongst 10 times as many people? If so, great - we're getting somewhere. If not, you're simple.
I'm hoping that you do accept that it will cost us a lot of money to set up on our own - and you're about to justify to me the benefit to Bob the hypothetical disabled man currently on disability allowance of me or you paying more tax just to operate our own institutions rather than share existing ones with rUK. I'd like you to explain to me how my increase in taxation to provide the same functions we already get cheap access to at greater expense nets more money in Bob's pocket.
I don't accept that anyone will be better off - except perhaps in providing more positions for civil servants which will benefit those individuals if not already employed. Everyone else just gets to pay more for the same thing, but without sharing David Cameron memes on Facebook but a Scottish First Minister's face instead.
All that is assuming best case scenario and that our economy doesn't just implode as the major employers pull out, we can't access good finance for national debt and the backside falls out of the property market meaning nobody currently mortgaged can move out, or keep up with the increased interest rates and have no money or credit rating to buy any retail or service industry stuff which supports most of the private sector in Scotland.
Recognising all of that, I can't out vote all of you Yes men. I can't solve world hunger and even giving my entire income away in tax it will make no meaningful difference to everyone else - so I can only do my best for my wife and children. Although nobody wants to admit it - I strongly suspect that's fundamentally what motivates anyone in real life who isn't still a student looking for a cause to support.
drangular said:
gofasterrosssco said:
drangular said:
Here's what the polls are showing in terms of the campaign.
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/dramatic...
And here is a site that collates and sometimes comments on the media reporting of the campaign.
http://www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014
And here is a site that provides thoughtful comment and analysis on the campaign.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/
These are pro-indy sites but are useful for those who want to see a different perspective to the usual MSM anti-independence drivel.
There are many more. If it's information people want then it's out there. You just have to take the time to look.
You are getting confused between 'information' and (well presented biased) 'opinion'.http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/dramatic...
And here is a site that collates and sometimes comments on the media reporting of the campaign.
http://www.scoop.it/t/referendum-2014
And here is a site that provides thoughtful comment and analysis on the campaign.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/
These are pro-indy sites but are useful for those who want to see a different perspective to the usual MSM anti-independence drivel.
There are many more. If it's information people want then it's out there. You just have to take the time to look.
If you want to base things on independant expert opinion (quite validly) then fine, but there will always be disagreement between experts on even well understood subjects. In my opinion though, the majority of unbiased expert opinion does not really support the case for independance. It does not say it is not feasible (nobody sensible does), but rationally questions the purpose of the whole process (as a function of benefits / drawbacks) without the overly nationalistic sentiments.
There's change for the better, and then there's change for the sake of it, which only serves to make people "feel" they are moving forward when really they've just shuffled the pack and come out with a similar hand. The interesting thing is that people equate a No vote with happyness and contentment with the political and economic status quo, but I believe that is absolutely not the case.
This concept of Scotland being a much fairer and more just place is lovely, and very desirable, but (with me being a cynical bar steward) from where does this come from? Because there will be less of us? More democratic accountablity (which we already have)? And these aren't just the political vote winning tactics used by both political and / or nationist parties?
We have just as much opportunity for practical change within the UK (but without the histrionics), than on independance based on half-baked vote-winning policies...
Edited by gofasterrosssco on Friday 18th April 13:16
The issues with a feeling of no representation in Westminster are valid, but they're the same ones that anyone north of Watford feels. Nevertheless, the City of London's finance activities do pour a lot of cash in to the UK's economy. All together, the fairly diverse UK economic activities do grant us a deal of immunity from fluctations in individual markets.
Oil-only nations such as the OPEC nations created OPEC primarily to try to control the market value of the only sellable commodity they have. We've got a couple more tricks but we'd be much more sensitive than we currently are to oil price changes.
Someone a page or two ago cited Glasgow's life expectancy as a reason to go independant. I'd suggest that it demonstrates why Glasgow cannot afford to pay their own way as their ratio of tax payers to NHS users is way off what it would need to be. There's only Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow capable of making any real contribution to a Scottish economy. Frankly, I don't think the former two can afford to prop up Glasgow's health expenditure and the reason that Glaswegians are cared for as well as they are is because there are many more financial contributors to the UK treasury that we can afford to prop up places like Glasgow as far as the NHS is concerned.
jamieduff1981 said:
We're not making any progress here. You still haven't explained to me why I should be paying even more just to achieve the same thing.
Can you accept that by setting up our own CAA, DVLA, Treasury, DfT, DECC, HSE etc etc etc that the public sector bill SHALL be higher per head of population than it is to operate those standing functions but shared amongst 10 times as many people? If so, great - we're getting somewhere. If not, you're simple.
I'm hoping that you do accept that it will cost us a lot of money to set up on our own - and you're about to justify to me the benefit to Bob the hypothetical disabled man currently on disability allowance of me or you paying more tax just to operate our own institutions rather than share existing ones with rUK. I'd like you to explain to me how my increase in taxation to provide the same functions we already get cheap access to at greater expense nets more money in Bob's pocket.
I don't accept that anyone will be better off - except perhaps in providing more positions for civil servants which will benefit those individuals if not already employed. Everyone else just gets to pay more for the same thing, but without sharing David Cameron memes on Facebook but a Scottish First Minister's face instead.
All that is assuming best case scenario and that our economy doesn't just implode as the major employers pull out, we can't access good finance for national debt and the backside falls out of the property market meaning nobody currently mortgaged can move out, or keep up with the increased interest rates and have no money or credit rating to buy any retail or service industry stuff which supports most of the private sector in Scotland.
Recognising all of that, I can't out vote all of you Yes men. I can't solve world hunger and even giving my entire income away in tax it will make no meaningful difference to everyone else - so I can only do my best for my wife and children. Although nobody wants to admit it - I strongly suspect that's fundamentally what motivates anyone in real life who isn't still a student looking for a cause to support.
There is another way of looking at it. As per the Edinburgh Agreement each side will respect the result and work to implement the will of the Scottish people. If it is Yes then the Scottish Govt. will negotiate with the UK Govt. on the transition to independence. This will be done in good faith because we are all democrats and reasonable people. Any reasonable prospectus for setting up an independent Scotland would expect to include the division of assets and liabilities in a fair and equitable way. There will be negotiations around what this might mean for all of the standing, shared institutions and functions of the state and the things we take for granted, some of which are mentioned above. The White Paper sets out how these institutions and services could be shared, divided up, bought in on an agency basis etc. All of which would be done, I assume, on the basis of there being a smooth transition, no disruption and no discernable change in the costs to citizens. Scotland has approx. 10% of the UK population. So 10% of the assets, either in physical or monetary form, would, by right, be transferred to the control of the new Scottish Government following the first elections in 2016. Undoubtedly there would be costs, however, all of the infrastructure is in place already and the Scottish tax base will not change. Scottish tax payers currently pay more into the UK than Scotland gets back in the form of public spending (see GERS figures)so any additional costs might reasonably be covered by the surplus tax take actually being spent in Scotland. We would of course not have the huge cost of Trident and any other nuclear weapons, or the wasteful Westmiinster tier of government to pay for, to name but two current burdens on the tax payer. One less tier of Government is a good thing isn't it? (BTW there will be a currency union because it is the reasonable and sensible thing to do in everyone's interests). So the industries will not leave, the housing market will not crash, taxes will not rise (or fall) (unless the majority of Scots vote for policies that require this - our choice), Scotland will transition into being an independent member of the EU and NATO, and the sky will not fall in. On the balance of probability don't you think this is far more likely to happen?Can you accept that by setting up our own CAA, DVLA, Treasury, DfT, DECC, HSE etc etc etc that the public sector bill SHALL be higher per head of population than it is to operate those standing functions but shared amongst 10 times as many people? If so, great - we're getting somewhere. If not, you're simple.
I'm hoping that you do accept that it will cost us a lot of money to set up on our own - and you're about to justify to me the benefit to Bob the hypothetical disabled man currently on disability allowance of me or you paying more tax just to operate our own institutions rather than share existing ones with rUK. I'd like you to explain to me how my increase in taxation to provide the same functions we already get cheap access to at greater expense nets more money in Bob's pocket.
I don't accept that anyone will be better off - except perhaps in providing more positions for civil servants which will benefit those individuals if not already employed. Everyone else just gets to pay more for the same thing, but without sharing David Cameron memes on Facebook but a Scottish First Minister's face instead.
All that is assuming best case scenario and that our economy doesn't just implode as the major employers pull out, we can't access good finance for national debt and the backside falls out of the property market meaning nobody currently mortgaged can move out, or keep up with the increased interest rates and have no money or credit rating to buy any retail or service industry stuff which supports most of the private sector in Scotland.
Recognising all of that, I can't out vote all of you Yes men. I can't solve world hunger and even giving my entire income away in tax it will make no meaningful difference to everyone else - so I can only do my best for my wife and children. Although nobody wants to admit it - I strongly suspect that's fundamentally what motivates anyone in real life who isn't still a student looking for a cause to support.
jamieduff1981 said:
fluffnik said:
The only question that needs answering is "Is Scotland uniquely incapable of running its own affairs?"
Please justify to me the value in the average person paying more to get the same? Where is the value in spending again to copy UK institutions in Edinburgh?It would be madness to reimplement HMRC when we could have a properly progressive tax system like the Germans.
We don't need a military to project power we need a coast-guard, maritime air patrol and civil defence force, much closer to the Icelandic model than the massively expensive UK one which can't even provide our minimal requirements.
The whole point of independence is to do things differently.
jamieduff1981 said:
The fundamental issue is that the Yes campaigners value what they think they'll gain and do not value what will be lost. The No voters do not value what the Yes voters want but will lament what is lost.
Apart from the obscenity that is Trident I cannot see that there is anything to lose.jamieduff1981 said:
Please justify to me the value in the average person paying more to get the same? Where is the value in spending again to copy UK institutions in Edinburgh?
Isn't simply duplicating it all displaying a terminal lack of ambition? To take just one example, why would Scotland want to copy the DVLA? It's st and most of the functions it provides could be supplied for a fraction of the price in other ways; most of the money is going to pay a mass of civil servants who administer an absurd series of functions which exist only to create work.Pooh said:
drangular said:
That would only be the outcome if the Scottish people, collectively, were completely incapable of making the right decisions in all the right areas. What Devolution has demonstrated is that the opposite is true.
Really!!There have been plenty if idiotic decisions such as free prescriptions for people who can afford to pay for them resulting in less money for the NHS, banning fracking and nuclear power, the disaster that is the curriculum for excellence etc etc, can you please provide us with some examples of sensible ones.
A major factor in my decision to vote no is that the Scottish Parliament is a total joke.
ViperPict said:
Means testing for prescriptions would be more expensive.
Rubbish, the system was already in place, it cost £57 million in the first year and given that charges would have increased the figure is likely to be higher now ViperPict said:
Fracking - fking madness. Short term gain and fk the future generations. Everything that's wrong with our economics in the UK these days. Short-term thinking morons who are just in it for personal gain to their bank balance.
More rubbish, I am a geologist and used to be a Frack Supervisor, fracking has been going on in the UK both on and offshore for years, it is no more hazardous than any other oil drilling activity. king madness. Short term gain and fk the future generations. Everything that's wrong with our economics in the UK these days. Short-term thinking morons who are just in it for personal gain to their bank balance.I will gain no more from fracking than anybody else including you.(I have no involvement in fracking these days)
ViperPict said:
Scottish Parliament, by any reasonable person's assessment, has been highly successful and very popular.
Your assessment does not seem to be reasonable.Can you give me any examples of sensible policies?
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff