Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[Neonblau]

toppstuff said:

For the love of God, just answer the bloody questions. This is like debating with a gibbon.

C'mon toppstuff, a bit harsh on the gibbons.

[Siscar]

Edinburger said:

And they had many years of happy marriage.

Now they have grown older and they each have some different interests. They still love each other but they aren't in love.

The prince's business has gone bust and he has fallen on hard times. The poor girl had a lucky massive inheritence and sorted her life out, and she now puts the bread on the table. The prince is really worried that she has filed for divorce, as he may not survive financially and also the prince will be a far less significant dignitry without her as she will take a third of his land too.

But oddly, to save his marriage the prince hasn't told the poor (now rich) girl why he should stay with her. Instead he has told her how lonely and sad her single life will be and her inheritance won't last long and she'll soon a poor girl again.

It is quite bizarre that anyone thinks that is an apt analogy. Do you really believe that rUK is poor and Scotland is rich? Do you really believe that rUK will be worse off without Scotland?

It is this stuff that is so amazing about all of this, there is stuff that is all about emotion and feelings but this is more in the hard, cold fact territory and yet people who otherwise seem to have some intelligence and ability seem utterly incapable of understanding.

If you are willing to take all the risks, if you are willing to pay the price of being independent, then good luck to you. But this illusion that you will be economically better off that way is just amazing. There's not an economist of note who doesn't see massive problems ahead for an independent Scotland and yet you keep the head in the clouds and the dream in your heart and just ignore it all.

Amazing.

[donutsina911]

Edinburger said:

NoNeed said:

Scotland was the poor girl that married the prince.

And they had many years of happy marriage.

Now they have grown older and they each have some different interests. They still love each other but they aren't in love.

The prince's business has gone bust and he has fallen on hard times. The poor girl had a lucky massive inheritence and sorted her life out, and she now puts the bread on the table. The prince is really worried that she has filed for divorce, as he may not survive financially and also the prince will be a far less significant dignitry without her as she will take a third of his land too.

But oddly, to save his marriage the prince hasn't told the poor (now rich) girl why he should stay with her. Instead he has told her how lonely and sad her single life will be and her inheritance won't last long and she'll soon a poor girl again.

Are you on crack?

It's like a family of four who've gone through good times and bad together. As with any family there are different interests, but ultimately there's a bond and practical ties that are more important than whether the parents like Jazz not RnB or the daughter prefers Corrie over Eastenders.

In this family, the growing son has finished school, an education paid for by sacrifices that the whole family has made over time. The son's gone to a polytechnic and now thinks he's a bit smart, even though he still depends on his parents for much of his day to day living. Like guaranteeing his student tenancy agreement, paying for his life insurance premium and covering his monthly car loan. Anyway, his long lost second Cousin has died and he believes he's due a windfall inheritance, although he's no idea of the numbers or when he'll get it. Not concerned with this minutiae, he's told his family he's moving on without them. He'd still like to be friends, but constant sniping about how badly they've brought him up leaves a sour taste all round.

The parents see the folly of his ways, but respect his decision to choose either way. They ask him questions - the serious questions that matter, but get no sense from him. How much will he inherit? Will it cover his cost of living expenses? What will he do when it runs out? Will he honour his debt? If he really does want out, how will he be viewed by his new found friends? He's drunk on his inheritance and instead of worrying about all of this, he's partying at the prospect of being Billy millions. And he's told his parents that unless they promise to bail him out if it all goes pear shaped, he's not going to pay back his car loan. Nice chap.

Anyway, back to your fairytale...


The prince's business has gone bust and he has fallen on hard times. How on earth have you come to the conclusion that rUK has gone bust?

The poor girl had a lucky massive inheritence and sorted her life out, and she now puts the bread on the table. And more importantly, in what world do you think Scotland puts bread on the UK's table?

The prince is really worried that she has filed for divorce, as he may not survive financially and also the prince will be a far less significant dignitry without her as she will take a third of his land too. Care to explain how the rUK may not survive without Scotland?

But oddly, to save his marriage the prince hasn't told the poor (now rich) girl why he should stay with her. Instead he has told her how lonely and sad her single life will be and her inheritance won't last long and she'll soon a poor girl again. This is utter, utter nonsense. In fact, it's quite the opposite of the truth. The case for Better Together has told you everything you need to know on currency/defence/Europe / etc - these are positions of clarity. What is 'odd' is that the Yes campaign have given us a book of fairytales with no substance. And as demonstrated by you and others on this thread, singularly avoided answering any of the questions that actually matter. How you can pretend otherwise is startling.

I think gibbons was quite apt.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

And they had many years of happy marriage.

Now they have grown older and they each have some different interests. They still love each other but they aren't in love.

The prince's business has gone bust and he has fallen on hard times. The poor girl had a lucky massive inheritence and sorted her life out, and she now puts the bread on the table. The prince is really worried that she has filed for divorce, as he may not survive financially and also the prince will be a far less significant dignitry without her as she will take a third of his land too.

But oddly, to save his marriage the prince hasn't told the poor (now rich) girl why he should stay with her. Instead he has told her how lonely and sad her single life will be and her inheritance won't last long and she'll soon a poor girl again.

Others have pointed out how stupid this analogy is, but you should also realise even if it were true it destroys many of the SNP arguments. In your above dream scenario, the 'poor girl' wouldn't need a currency union, nor help to get in the EU, nor any frigate contracts. But strangely Alex seems to think his poor girl will get that and more, and whats more how dare the prince suggest otherwise!

Stupidity and racism. Sums it up for me.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

And they had many years of happy marriage.

Now they have grown older and they each have some different interests. They still love each other but they aren't in love.

The prince's business has gone bust and he has fallen on hard times. The poor girl had a lucky massive inheritence and sorted her life out, and she now puts the bread on the table. The prince is really worried that she has filed for divorce, as he may not survive financially and also the prince will be a far less significant dignitry without her as she will take a third of his land too.

But oddly, to save his marriage the prince hasn't told the poor (now rich) girl why he should stay with her. Instead he has told her how lonely and sad her single life will be and her inheritance won't last long and she'll soon a poor girl again.

Utter, utter, certifiable nonsense.

You still bleat on about no positive reasons to vote no despite all we've educated you on, and the content of the better together campaign?

You must have your head so far up yours and Salmond's backsides you're wearing his lungs as a hat.

Dontcha just love the banter?

I thought someone would follow this on with a trip to marriage guidance, the poor girl being given more control over her own life and financial affairs, and a fairer household with a marriage of equal partnership.

Hey ho. The sense of humour transplant was clearly done. Let's just revert to calling the Scots "racist", shall we?

I found it neither funny nor accurate.

Were you joking? Stick a smiley in in future

He irony would be that many yes voters mistakenly see things as you posted, believing things like "Scotland gives more money to Westminster than it receives to spend".

[Troubleatmill]

Good article in the Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/h...

[confused_buyer]

Troubleatmill said:

Good article in the Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/h...

I can't believe there is anyone in Scotland, unless they are a genuine, complete, idiot, can possible think that a UK Government is going to give orders to a foreign shipyard at the expense of England, Wales or NI.

Does no one in Scotland think that the odd English MP might have a thing or two to say about this?

It isn't a threat, being nasty of anything else it is simply bleeding obvious that no UK Government is going to do such a thing anymore than they give orders to RoI or France now.

[nikaiyo2]

Edinburger said:

And they had many years of happy marriage.

Now they have grown older and they each have some different interests. They still love each other but they aren't in love.

The prince's business has gone bust and he has fallen on hard times. The poor girl had a lucky massive inheritence and sorted her life out, and she now puts the bread on the table. The prince is really worried that she has filed for divorce, as he may not survive financially and also the prince will be a far less significant dignitry without her as she will take a third of his land too.

But oddly, to save his marriage the prince hasn't told the poor (now rich) girl why he should stay with her. Instead he has told her how lonely and sad her single life will be and her inheritance won't last long and she'll soon a poor girl again.

Or Princess was chased by Prince for many years, but prince has little luck, Princess gets scalded on her face so decides prince is her best option. Prince funds the surgery to put her face back together then as soon as that is finished she decides she wants a divorce.

Prince has a very large business that has had a few difficult years, but the princess cant see that instead of getting her shopping from Fortnums on his credit card, she should stick to paying cash in Waitrose.

Princess has a tiny (compared to the Princes) income of her own, that despite her protestations is in fact dependent entirely on the will of another. The other can and will reduce the value of this income at a stroke, without concern for the princess. Not only is the value of her income dependent on others, but she must walk to pick it up, this is getting less easy as she gets older.
So the price carries on as before, but his business has lost 10% of its revenue. The princess goes it alone knowing that 75%+ of her income comes from the prince she is divorcing.
She has conveniently forgot that for the entire marriage just about she has been the net recipient.
She may take her 1/3 of the crown jewels but hey, they might be very pretty but for the most part they are costume, the real jems of true value are left with the prince.

Maybe the prince desperately wanted the marriage to last, but when she is telling lies to her friends should he just accept them? Then again after hearing her complaints he might just think, you know what... Let her go.

[Alpacaman]

Troubleatmill said:

Good article in the Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/h...

And have you read some of the comments at the bottom? More nationalists blaming the rest of the UK for the problems in Scotland, and they still don't seem to understand who their biggest customers are, or that these customers might start getting a little annoyed at the constant comments about how terrible they are. Would any company treat their best customer like that and expect them to keep returning?

[MintyChris]

Edinburger said:

Let's just revert to calling the Scots "racist", shall we?

Please don't bring me into this. Id prefer you don't refer to Scot's and instead you say us or more specifically yes voters.

I'm a Scot, I'm a No voter and I hate what you ignorant backward fools are doing to my country and the UK.

[blinkythefish]

MintyChris said:

Edinburger said:

Let's just revert to calling the Scots "racist", shall we?

Please don't bring me into this. Id prefer you don't refer to Scot's and instead you say us or more specifically yes voters.

I'm a Scot, I'm a No voter and I hate what you ignorant backward fools are doing to my country and the UK.

On a similar note, I too am a Scot, I'm a No voter and I hate what you ignorant backward fools are doing to my country and the UK.

[NoNeed]

Trollburger said:

NoNeed said:

Scotland was the poor girl that married the prince.

And they had many years of happy marriage.

Now they have grown older and they each have some different interests. They still love each other but they aren't in love.

The prince's business has gone bust and he has fallen on hard times. The poor girl had a lucky massive inheritence and sorted her life out, and she now puts the bread on the table. The prince is really worried that she has filed for divorce, as he may not survive financially and also the prince will be a far less significant dignitry without her as she will take a third of his land too.

But oddly, to save his marriage the prince hasn't told the poor (now rich) girl why he should stay with her. Instead he has told her how lonely and sad her single life will be and her inheritance won't last long and she'll soon a poor girl again.

She also want half of everything from the marriage, currency, monarchy and armed forces and the like, yet does she want to leave half of her inheritance, does she want half of the liabilities?

Nah, typical gold digging bh.


If scotland insists on the division of mutual assets what propottion of oil is it proposing that the Uk recieves?

Edited by NoNeed on Thursday 17th April 15:45

[Zod]

I'm late to this thread, so forgive me if this has already been discussed, but what happens to next year's General Election if the Scots vote for Braveheartland?

Independence wouldn't come into effect until after the GE, so in theory, the Scottish Westminster constituencies would be part of the election and the elected MPs would sit in Parliament until independence. If Labour had a majority that depended on its Scottish MPs, then there woudl be a change of government upon independence coming into effect.

[McWigglebum4th]

blinkythefish said:

MintyChris said:

Edinburger said:

Let's just revert to calling the Scots "racist", shall we?

Please don't bring me into this. Id prefer you don't refer to Scot's and instead you say us or more specifically yes voters.

I'm a Scot, I'm a No voter and I hate what you ignorant backward fools are doing to my country and the UK.

On a similar note, I too am a Scot, I'm a No voter and I hate what you ignorant backward fools are doing to my country and the UK.

And do note that the YES campaingers like edinburgher do not represent me as a scot

and I'm a No voter and I hate what you ignorant backward fools are doing to my country, my reputation and the UK

[HD Adam]

I'm starting to feel sorry for the No voters all being tarred with the same brush.

I have quite a few Scots mates & colleagues and just like not every England footie supporter is a BNP type racist hooligan or every white South African is an apartheid supporter, not every Scot is an English hating, blue face painted tt.

Just some of them

[A.J.M]

Without quoting the others.

I will once again, state I'm Scottish, a NO voter and would rather not be tarred with the brush of the YES crowd and their poorly thought out plans, spiteful arguements and general unpleasantness.

I have no issues with my fellow Englishmen, bar those who built my last Landrover. That lot deserve to be brutally bummed by angry badgers for that car.

The rest of you are good though.

[Troubleatmill]

Currency Union:
Fabulous for Scotland. ( Someone else is Guarantor - just like those Amigo loans on the telly ).
Worrying for RUK. ( You just signed up to bail out a country whose spending could be a bit on the lairy side )


Warships:
Fabulous for Scotland. Look... we export warships now!
Not an option for the RUK. (60 million of us might want to have a say on which country gets the work. How about our own? We pay for it... keep the money in RUK )

Shared Defence
Fabulous for Scotland.
Disasterous for RUK. The article linked earlier in this thread is a fascinating read. If you haven't read it. You should.

People can move freely about
Fabulous for Scotland. Can do all the stuff you do now
Lousy for England. With Scotland wanting mass immigration, undersirables getting to England would be a much easier route than hanging about Sangatte and trying to cling on to a truck on a high speed train


Regardless of your politics and whether you are YES or NO.
There is no way RUK is going to entertain any of the above.

Anyone disagree?

[Siscar]

Troubleatmill said:

Regardless of your politics and whether you are YES or NO.
There is no way RUK is going to entertain any of the above.

Anyone disagree?

Not at all, putting it another way:

You think you would be in a currency union - you wouldn't.
You think you would transfer easily to Scottish membership of the EU - you wouldn't.
You think you would continue to build vessels for the Royal Navy - you wouldn't.
You think you would retain all those jobs in the finance industry - you wouldn't.

You think you would retain a lot of the benefits of being part of the UK - you wouldn't.

[Troubleatmill]

Siscar said:

Troubleatmill said:

Regardless of your politics and whether you are YES or NO.
There is no way RUK is going to entertain any of the above.

Anyone disagree?

Not at all, putting it another way:

You think you would be in a currency union - you wouldn't.
You think you would transfer easily to Scottish membership of the EU - you wouldn't.
You think you would continue to build vessels for the Royal Navy - you wouldn't.
You think you would retain all those jobs in the finance industry - you wouldn't.

You think you would retain a lot of the benefits of being part of the UK - you wouldn't.

So why to certain members of our community find this too hard to understand?

[Borghetto]

A number of no voting Scots have voiced their dismay at being tarred with the SNP brush and they have me sympathies. A lot of the posts on this forum seem to attack Scotland and the Scots generally and I am sure most of us do not want to inflict ANY damage on them. We have been countrymen for centuries and whilst we've not always been in accord, I for one have always seen these disagreements as being family squabbles. What Salmond and his supporters are achieving is creating a rift between us. We had decades of animosity towards Ireland and I fear the same will happen with an independent Scotland.

London and the South East have succeeded not by pillaging from Scotland, but by being a good place for the World to invest and it should continue to thrive whether Scotland stays or goes. The SNP wingers keep on calling everybody in this neck of the woods gamblers and wide boys and whilst we have our fair share of them, mostly those who succeed do so by being well educated and working damn hard. Last weeks Economist had an interesting article titled "To The Rescue" in which they state the fastest growth industry in the UK is business services (includes consultants, accountants, call centres). Their exports are up 21% since the recovery began. A lot of these better paid jobs will be centred in London/SE, ditto Thames Valley "Silicon Valley". So this Scots myth that this part of the world is filled with bankers is way wide of the mark. Can Scotland succeed in the medium term - yes of course; but not if governed by the lying fantasists of the SNP.