Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
Dryce said:
ViperPict said:
And the fact remains that the SG has very high approval with the electorate. That is the bottom line of it's success in a democracy.
It hasn't exactly been tested on anything major. It doesn't set tax rates. And currently there's always Westminster to blame.ViperPict said:
simoid said:
ViperPict said:
Because there are actually as much people on this thread supporting independence as against it?
Back on topic, the threats to leave if there is a yes vote are, in the main, just that I think.
The sane would at least see how the negotiations go post-yes vote.
No, the "sane" thing to do is to continuously evaluate the best course of action and make decisions when required.Back on topic, the threats to leave if there is a yes vote are, in the main, just that I think.
The sane would at least see how the negotiations go post-yes vote.
If you don't think the negotiations can go well, what's the point in hanging around treading water?
You think it looks good because you want an independent Scotland at any costs, I care about the costs.
drangular said:
So many misconceptions and skewed and biased assumptions in one post... it's difficult to know where to start.
1. Why would the Queen not wish to be head of state? She is of Canada, Australia, NZ etc.
2. It would be up to the people of Scotland to decide who the HoS is.
3. One of the leading credit agencies has stated categorically that there is no reason why IScot couldn't have a triple A credit rating. (i can't find the quote at present but can if required)
4. Why is the currency union not going to happen when it's the best option for everyone, in the event of YES.?
5. The NHS is most at risk from the actions of the UK govt.
6. The share of the debt is a concern. However whether we are in the UK or independent the problem still has to be addressed. I'd rather it was the Scottish people deciding how to address it than the current or any prospective Conservative/Labour UK govt.
7. I could go on but won't.
1/2. The monarchy is close to a non-issue for me, and most I think.1. Why would the Queen not wish to be head of state? She is of Canada, Australia, NZ etc.
2. It would be up to the people of Scotland to decide who the HoS is.
3. One of the leading credit agencies has stated categorically that there is no reason why IScot couldn't have a triple A credit rating. (i can't find the quote at present but can if required)
4. Why is the currency union not going to happen when it's the best option for everyone, in the event of YES.?
5. The NHS is most at risk from the actions of the UK govt.
6. The share of the debt is a concern. However whether we are in the UK or independent the problem still has to be addressed. I'd rather it was the Scottish people deciding how to address it than the current or any prospective Conservative/Labour UK govt.
7. I could go on but won't.
3. Find the quote, please, and post it here. Read the article, digest what they published. You might find that it included caveats about deficit and debt reduction.
4. Scotland cannot force an independent UK into a currency union. The UK politicians don't want one, the public don't want one. The "best for everyone" is a ruse created by the SNP to muddy the waters - and anyway, if you want a currency union and Westminster to set your budgets, you get this by voting no.
5. The NHS is entirely controlled by Scots for Scots in Scotland at present. Westminster is f
k all to do with it.6. I agree the debt is a problem. Debt is a problem that is not helped by uncertainty, a new government, serious political and economic change, etc.
7. I could go on, about how brilliant devolution is and how much we have in Scotland at present that you yes voters are happy to risk, with little or no appreciation of the risks and costs as well as possible pros.
Edited by simoid on Saturday 19th April 12:46
simoid said:
ViperPict said:
simoid said:
ViperPict said:
Because there are actually as much people on this thread supporting independence as against it?
Back on topic, the threats to leave if there is a yes vote are, in the main, just that I think.
The sane would at least see how the negotiations go post-yes vote.
No, the "sane" thing to do is to continuously evaluate the best course of action and make decisions when required.Back on topic, the threats to leave if there is a yes vote are, in the main, just that I think.
The sane would at least see how the negotiations go post-yes vote.
If you don't think the negotiations can go well, what's the point in hanging around treading water?
You think it looks good because you want an independent Scotland at any costs, I care about the costs.
Tell me, where is the unequivocal information on any of the key aspects that will dictate what an independent Scotland will be like? We have to wait until AFTER the yes vote to know any of the detail. Prior to that you are plucking information out of thin air to base, apparently, the important decision to stay or go on.
simoid said:
<snip>
4. Scotland cannot force an independent UK into a currency union. The UK politicians don't want one, the public don't want one. The "best for everyone" is a ruse created by the SNP to muddy the waters - and anyway, if you want a currency union and Westminster to set your budgets, you get this by voting no.
5. The NHS is entirely controlled by Scots for Scots in Scotland at present. Westminster is fk all to do with it.
<snip>
4 - comes doen the assumptions Salmond is pushing that the RUK will allow Scotland to pick and choose things 4. Scotland cannot force an independent UK into a currency union. The UK politicians don't want one, the public don't want one. The "best for everyone" is a ruse created by the SNP to muddy the waters - and anyway, if you want a currency union and Westminster to set your budgets, you get this by voting no.
5. The NHS is entirely controlled by Scots for Scots in Scotland at present. Westminster is f
k all to do with it.<snip>
Edited by simoid on Saturday 19th April 12:46
5. which is why NHSScotland has it's own structures and logo etc
also what makes Salmond think that the HM Forces are going to him any personnel , materiel and estate ?
and if they did how exactly is he going support his single Squadron of Typhoons except as a client of one of the other operators acting as a client of Eurofighter ...
remind me what 'fighter' aircraft do Eire and NZ operate ?
simoid said:
1/2. The monarchy is close to a non-issue for me, and most I think.
3. Find the quote, please, and post it here. Read the article, digest what they published. You might find that it included caveats about deficit and debt reduction.
4. Scotland cannot force an independent UK into a currency union. The UK politicians don't want one, the public don't want one. The "best for everyone" is a ruse created by the SNP to muddy the waters - and anyway, if you want a currency union and Westminster to set your budgets, you get this by voting no.
5. The NHS is entirely controlled by Scots for Scots in Scotland at present. Westminster is fk all to do with it.
6. I agree the debt is a problem. Debt is a problem that is not helped by uncertainty, a new government, serious political and economic change, etc.
7. I could go on, about how brilliant devolution is and how much we have in Scotland at present that you yes voters are happy to risk, with little or no appreciation of the risks and costs as well as possible pros.
1/2 I didn't raise the issue. Jarvie did. I agree it's a non-issue.3. Find the quote, please, and post it here. Read the article, digest what they published. You might find that it included caveats about deficit and debt reduction.
4. Scotland cannot force an independent UK into a currency union. The UK politicians don't want one, the public don't want one. The "best for everyone" is a ruse created by the SNP to muddy the waters - and anyway, if you want a currency union and Westminster to set your budgets, you get this by voting no.
5. The NHS is entirely controlled by Scots for Scots in Scotland at present. Westminster is f
k all to do with it.6. I agree the debt is a problem. Debt is a problem that is not helped by uncertainty, a new government, serious political and economic change, etc.
7. I could go on, about how brilliant devolution is and how much we have in Scotland at present that you yes voters are happy to risk, with little or no appreciation of the risks and costs as well as possible pros.
Edited by simoid on Saturday 19th April 12:46
3. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/88...
4. It's all about the post-YES negotiations. I would predict that big business in rUK would insist the rUK govt. agreed to a currency union given the additional costs to them of any other option.
5. Funding of the NHS is entirely controlled by Westminster. "The UK Parliament sets the overall budget available to the NHS in England. It also allocates a block grant to each devolved national government to spend on local needs. Each government may choose how much of its block grant to spend on its health care system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Servi...
6. Most of the current 'uncertainty' is down to the nature of the campaign,, as referred to in my first post. It is in the pro-union parties interests to exaggerate the uncertainty, even to the point of blocking access to information or legal opinion (eg. the UK govts. refusal to officially ask the EU Commission for a view on I-Scotland's membership) and skewing what little information is out there to the negative end of the probability scale. The currency union issue is also one where the UK Govt's tactic is to increase uncertainty (albeit by ostensibly providing 'certainty') in order to frighten people into voting NO. It's high risk because , in the event of a YES vote, won't they all look silly and lacking in credibility! I accept it is in the interest of the YES campaign to emphasise the positives and try to reassure, after all it's a big scary thing, change, for most people. (Too scary for some obviously.) As I've said before, if the vote is YES then everything will change, the campaigning will be over and everyone will get down to making it work. This is not fanciful, this is the way democracies work. I'm not so sure the same will be the case after a NO vote given the threats coming from some quarters. http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendu...
7. You should read some of the stuff that the anti-devolution campaigners, most of whom are now anti-independence campaigners, said prior to the 1979 and 1997 votes. Exactly the same stuff is being said now as it was then. None of it came true after devolution in 1999. So, they've cried wolf before, why should any one believe them now.
Edited by drangular on Saturday 19th April 16:22
Edited by drangular on Saturday 19th April 16:23
drangular said:
So many misconceptions and skewed and biased assumptions in one post... it's difficult to know where to start.
1. Why would the Queen not wish to be head of state? She is of Canada, Australia, NZ etc.
2. It would be up to the people of Scotland to decide who the HoS is.
The one advantage of keeping HMtQ is to avoid having a president - I'm not exactly enamoured by the French, US, or Irish examples.1. Why would the Queen not wish to be head of state? She is of Canada, Australia, NZ etc.
2. It would be up to the people of Scotland to decide who the HoS is.
drangular said:
3. One of the leading credit agencies has stated categorically that there is no reason why IScot couldn't have a triple A credit rating. (i can't find the quote at present but can if required)
This is meaningless - the credit ratign would be what the credit rating would be. There are no gaurantees. Saying it could be a AAA is no more valid than saying it would be BBB.The fundamental though is that the Scotland would have no history and would also be subservient to a third party currency.
So it wold be vulnerable.
drangular said:
4. Why is the currency union not going to happen when it's the best option for everyone, in the event of YES.?
It's the only option. Which is why the yes proponents are oing such a sell on it. But it's potehtially a step backwards. There is a bizarre misconception that somehow Scotalmnd would have a voice in policies relating to Sterling. This is simply never going to happen. No sane UK government would allow it. So going with the pound means losing what little influence we have with our own currency.Basically an independent Scotland ends up with this critical dependency on a third party currency.
The original 'plan A' of using the Euro was a rather more sensible aspiration.
drangular said:
5. The NHS is most at risk from the actions of the UK govt.
It's only at risk from the actions of the Scottish government.drangular said:
6. The share of the debt is a concern. However whether we are in the UK or independent the problem still has to be addressed. I'd rather it was the Scottish people deciding how to address it than the current or any prospective Conservative/Labour UK govt.
Perfect setup for a future perfect storm. A new country with massive debt and without its own currency.What was that about a triple-A rating?
drangular said:
7. I could go on but won't.
Yup. So could I. ViperPict said:
Tell me, where is the unequivocal information on any of the key aspects that will dictate what an independent Scotland will be like? We have to wait until AFTER the yes vote to know any of the detail. Prior to that you are plucking information out of thin air to base, apparently, the important decision to stay or go on.
This is a bizarre proposition.So a car salesamn tells you that there's no point in trying a car before you purchase and won't tell you the specification or the price - he just says "give me a blank check - you'll love it".
I recall one poster in this discussion saying that, as far as he was aware, there was very little interest in this issue.
Not so according to these guys.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archive...
"This really does suggest that the people of Scotland, where I am at the moment, are taking a huge interest in September’s vote. Their future is at stake"
Some are predicting an 85% turnout. That would be almost unprecedented in modern times. Only 60% voted in the 1997 ref.
Those who don't like the idea of independence need to start getting involved. Who knows, once they start discussing the issues they might see the benefits and opportunities and think of voting yes!
Not so according to these guys.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archive...
"This really does suggest that the people of Scotland, where I am at the moment, are taking a huge interest in September’s vote. Their future is at stake"
Some are predicting an 85% turnout. That would be almost unprecedented in modern times. Only 60% voted in the 1997 ref.
Those who don't like the idea of independence need to start getting involved. Who knows, once they start discussing the issues they might see the benefits and opportunities and think of voting yes!
drangular said:
4. It's all about the post-YES negotiations. I would predict that big business in rUK would insist the rUK govt. agreed to a currency union given the additional costs to them of any other option.
This is a very odd assumption.Most 'big business' in UK won't care about Scotland. The problem will be what businesses in Scotland need and want.
The UK cannot stop Scotland using the £. Scotland could use the Rimimbi, Malaysian Ringgit, US dollar, As dollar, Canadian dollar. Oh yes, and the Euro.
You just have to use it.
The problem is the lack of fiscal flexibility and the exposure to the fiscal policies of another country.
Dryce said:
This is a very odd assumption.
Most 'big business' in UK won't care about Scotland. The problem will be what businesses in Scotland need and want.
The UK cannot stop Scotland using the £. Scotland could use the Rimimbi, Malaysian Ringgit, US dollar, As dollar, Canadian dollar. Oh yes, and the Euro.
You just have to use it.
The problem is the lack of fiscal flexibility and the exposure to the fiscal policies of another country.
Scotland is, and would still be post independence, rUK businesses 2nd biggest market so I think they will care a lot. The option that will cause least disruption and minimal additional costs will be the one that most would see as the most sensible. "Cross border trade" of course would all be within the EU trade rules and laws, so no change there either.Most 'big business' in UK won't care about Scotland. The problem will be what businesses in Scotland need and want.
The UK cannot stop Scotland using the £. Scotland could use the Rimimbi, Malaysian Ringgit, US dollar, As dollar, Canadian dollar. Oh yes, and the Euro.
You just have to use it.
The problem is the lack of fiscal flexibility and the exposure to the fiscal policies of another country.
One of the main problems of currency unions is where the members have seriously divergent economies. Hence the Euro crisis.
The economies of rUK and i-Scotland would be virtually identical , at least initially. Any currency Union agreement would seek to ensure continued non-divergence on the things that are critical to stable economies.
All of the countries in the EU have ceded some degree of sovereignty when it comes to a whole host of things.. Those that are in the Euro ceded a lot. It's what you do when there is a bigger picture prize to be won. The same could be said of other 'unions' like the UN or NATO. Or on a smaller scale when you join any club, and you agree to abide by the rules, you give up some 'free will'. Presumably because you consider the benefits outweigh the costs.
Independence does not mean 'separation', or 'isolation' or any of the other pejorative words used by the No campaign. In an interdependent world all sorts of 'unions' are required. There are well over 200 independent countries in the world. Why would Scotland, uniquely, be incapable of being a successful sovereign state.?
There is a useful piece on currency union and other options on, what looks like, a reasonably objective site.
http://www.mondaq.com/x/293760/Fiscal+Monetary+Pol...
As I've said before. It will all be down to the post-YES vote negotiations.
an independent sctoland which removes itself from the UK will be 'seperated' , this is not a Czech-Slovakian 'Divorce' this is a small part cedeing ...
There is no assurance it will remain part of the EU , and if it has to apply to join there are no guarantees it will be accepted given that France, Spain and others have concerns aobut parts of their nations wanting to secede.
Remaining in a currency union / 'The Sterling Area ' means the scots at best will have the same level of financal indepdencnce as the Channel Islands etc. and at worst will be a client state like some failed state that abandoned it;s own currency and uses that of a larger more stable near neighbour or the USD.
There is no assurance that all the things ( actual physical things whether real estate or artefactual materiel) Salmond assumes that the UKG will give the Scottish government will be given and I doubt there will be enforced transfers of military and civil service personnel employed by the UK Government - and for the Scots in HMF they will have the choice of remaining in a first class first world military or joining a tin pot militia ( look how many RoI and 'new commonwealth' recruits HMAF have )...
There is no assurance it will remain part of the EU , and if it has to apply to join there are no guarantees it will be accepted given that France, Spain and others have concerns aobut parts of their nations wanting to secede.
Remaining in a currency union / 'The Sterling Area ' means the scots at best will have the same level of financal indepdencnce as the Channel Islands etc. and at worst will be a client state like some failed state that abandoned it;s own currency and uses that of a larger more stable near neighbour or the USD.
There is no assurance that all the things ( actual physical things whether real estate or artefactual materiel) Salmond assumes that the UKG will give the Scottish government will be given and I doubt there will be enforced transfers of military and civil service personnel employed by the UK Government - and for the Scots in HMF they will have the choice of remaining in a first class first world military or joining a tin pot militia ( look how many RoI and 'new commonwealth' recruits HMAF have )...
If Scotland votes yes, I'll not 'bog off' as I am English and live near the borders. I'll probably be 'bogging in' to have a laugh and see if there are any buy to let bargains once the Jock/Sterling rate collapses. I'll call it voyeurism but in reality I'll be asset stripping.
Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
drangular said:
Scotland is, and would still be post independence, rUK businesses 2nd biggest market so I think they will care a lot.
It will be Scotland's biggest market.So who's in the weaker negotiating position ?
Moreover if Scotland is outside EU then thre will be EU tarriffs to deal with - and there will be customs.
People forget how easy intra-EU trade has become in the last 20 years since internal customs effectively ceased. Much more significant - particularly for small businesses - than currency union.
drangular said:
The economies of rUK and i-Scotland would be virtually identical , at least initially. Any currency Union agreement would seek to ensure continued non-divergence on the things that are critical to stable economies.
Fantasy land. UK would be driven by London. Proportionaetly even more so if Scotland separates. Scotland would be disproportionately subservient to energy pricing.drangular said:
All of the countries in the EU have ceded some degree of sovereignty when it comes to a whole host of things.. Those that are in the Euro ceded a lot. It's what you do when there is a bigger picture prize to be won. The same could be said of other 'unions' like the UN or NATO. Or on a smaller scale when you join any club, and you agree to abide by the rules, you give up some 'free will'. Presumably because you consider the benefits outweigh the costs.
This sounds awfully like being part of the UK ....drangular said:
Independence does not mean 'separation', or 'isolation' or any of the other pejorative words used by the No campaign.
drangular said:
In an interdependent world all sorts of 'unions' are required. There are well over 200 independent countries in the world. Why would Scotland, uniquely, be incapable of being a successful sovereign state.?
drangular said:
There is a useful piece on currency union and other options on, what looks like, a reasonably objective site.
http://www.mondaq.com/x/293760/Fiscal+Monetary+Pol...
That's based on Carney's statements PRIOR to Westminster uniting and saying they wouldn't go for a currency union.http://www.mondaq.com/x/293760/Fiscal+Monetary+Pol...
So it's a bit behind reality.
drangular said:
As I've said before. It will all be down to the post-YES vote negotiations.
Back to the usual vague - "trust us - we'll sort out all the details - it'll be OK" response that apparently solves everything for those who don't have the real answers.Edited by Dryce on Saturday 19th April 19:34
Dryce said:
ViperPict said:
Tell me, where is the unequivocal information on any of the key aspects that will dictate what an independent Scotland will be like? We have to wait until AFTER the yes vote to know any of the detail. Prior to that you are plucking information out of thin air to base, apparently, the important decision to stay or go on.
This is a bizarre proposition.So a car salesamn tells you that there's no point in trying a car before you purchase and won't tell you the specification or the price - he just says "give me a blank check - you'll love it".
NailedOn said:
If Scotland votes yes, I'll not 'bog off' as I am English and live near the borders. I'll probably be 'bogging in' to have a laugh and see if there are any buy to let bargains once the Jock/Sterling rate collapses. I'll call it voyeurism but in reality I'll be asset stripping.
Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
It's this sort of BS that is encouraging the YES vote. The idea that the UK is something to aspire to! It's a decaying mess.Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
And you understand nothing re. the relationship and history between Mexico and the US! Despite it being a nonsensical comparison with Scotland and rUK, why not Canada rather than Mexico?! Rubbish.
ViperPict said:
Ridiculous analogy! A car maker will provide you with the spec of a prospective car and there will be reviews of it. There will be no 'spec' for an independent Scotland until after a YES vote.
Maybe what's needed are some star rated prospective voter reviews of conjectural post referendum scenarios?ViperPict said:
NailedOn said:
If Scotland votes yes, I'll not 'bog off' as I am English and live near the borders. I'll probably be 'bogging in' to have a laugh and see if there are any buy to let bargains once the Jock/Sterling rate collapses. I'll call it voyeurism but in reality I'll be asset stripping.
Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
It's this sort of BS that is encouraging the YES vote. The idea that the UK is something to aspire to! It's a decaying mess.Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
And you understand nothing re. the relationship and history between Mexico and the US! Despite it being a nonsensical comparison with Scotland and rUK, why not Canada rather than Mexico?! Rubbish.
You and your ding dong province are well suited!
NailedOn said:
ViperPict said:
NailedOn said:
If Scotland votes yes, I'll not 'bog off' as I am English and live near the borders. I'll probably be 'bogging in' to have a laugh and see if there are any buy to let bargains once the Jock/Sterling rate collapses. I'll call it voyeurism but in reality I'll be asset stripping.
Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
It's this sort of BS that is encouraging the YES vote. The idea that the UK is something to aspire to! It's a decaying mess.Give it 5 years and the Scots will be so spit poor they'll be gagging for us to spend hard currency up there.
You can forget currency union as the rest of us won't share the Queen's shilling with a bunch of folks who just gave us the finger.
Look at the relationship between the US and Mexico, then you know what to expect. The Yanks own everything worth having in Mexico that is not owned, and mismanaged, by the state.
Go ahead if you want. Get a boner watching Braveheart. You'll be back to wattle and daub and right at home!
But don't be goaded into voting yes.
Yes will make us English even richer. But you Scots don't need wealth because you'll be free!
And you understand nothing re. the relationship and history between Mexico and the US! Despite it being a nonsensical comparison with Scotland and rUK, why not Canada rather than Mexico?! Rubbish.
You and your ding dong province are well suited!
ViperPict said:
And BOOM, there's the nonsense rhetoric!
Tell me, where is the unequivocal information on any of the key aspects that will dictate what an independent Scotland will be like? We have to wait until AFTER the yes vote to know any of the detail. Prior to that you are plucking information out of thin air to base, apparently, the important decision to stay or go on.
I know lots of things about what happens if we leave the UK.Tell me, where is the unequivocal information on any of the key aspects that will dictate what an independent Scotland will be like? We have to wait until AFTER the yes vote to know any of the detail. Prior to that you are plucking information out of thin air to base, apparently, the important decision to stay or go on.
One of them is that there is a border between us and a market of 58m people that wasn't there before.
Another is that it'll cost a significant amount of initial investment.
And now you're telling me I need to vote yes to find out if there are any benefits at all?
Why should I vote yes when I know there are definite downsides, and nebulous "vote yes and maybe find out" upsides?
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff