Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[McWigglebum4th]

Edinburger said:

My point was about the posters here who have tried to silence those with different views by reporting to Mods and asking for banning orders.

Victim card again

Or it could be frustration at your inability to answer a question.


You s in team yes have stirred up more venom and hate then I ever thought existed in Scotland

I am shocked at how much I hate yes fanboys

[Axionknight]

Edinburger said:

LOL

Now, about this house deal...?

Back off man, I'll pay him 13%.

On a more serious note, are there any SNP MSP's who aren't backing independence and have actively said so, or are rumoured to support No, but are just keeping quiet - or are they all on the Yes bandwagon? Genuinely interested to find out.

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

It looks like the bloke in red at 03:37 has just posted this on another forum:-


[i]
For clarity, I apologise for nothing for heckling Murphy. The expenses-troughing MP decided he would shout at us with a megaphone. We rebutted his lies, loudly. Got a problem with that, shrinking violets?
Heard of Freedom of Speech? Works both ways, losers.
The Unionists control the TV, the press and the media where their lies and insinuations go unchallenged. Their arrogance leads them to think they can turn up and deliver the same lies in person. This is not the case.
One thing a Unionist cannot stand is a level playing field. I wonder why?

Oh and the egg? Flung by an undercover polis or other spook - certainly someone with a very fancy earpiece. We have photos to prove it.
Wait and see.. some junior spook is about to be reassigned.

An egg, FFS... How dreadfully English.. If any of these crowds had a problem with Shouty Jim they would have nutted him, no flung an egg. Context, darling, it's about context....

When was the last time an egg was used in Scottish politics? We leave that sort of effette tttery to our southern neighbours.

Is this the extent of your case for NO? We are all dreadfully nasty people? We dare to argue our case with passion and we know a lying chancer when we see one? Pathetic.

YES will win, and win well, on the 18th despite all your dirty tricks before during and after the count.

I will be back to remind you of this and rub your faces right in it. Frequently.

Meantime look up cognitive dissonance and long-term depression - conditions many of you already suffer from or are about to.

PS It really IS the End of Empire. Game Over for UK.
Much to the delight of most of the watching world.
[/i]

So there you are - MI5 did the egging.

Wow. Just, wow.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Yup

[Edinburger]

Axionknight said:

Back off man, I'll pay him 13%.

On a more serious note, are there any SNP MSP's who aren't backing independence and have actively said so, or are rumoured to support No, but are just keeping quiet - or are they all on the Yes bandwagon? Genuinely interested to find out.

Good point. I'm not sure but would like to know.

Re. house I'll go 15%.

What say you Wiggles?

[Edinburger]

McWigglebum4th said:

Victim card again

Or it could be frustration at your inability to answer a question.


You s in team yes have stirred up more venom and hate then I ever thought existed in Scotland

I am shocked at how much I hate yes fanboys

Nice try for a diversion

[simoid]

Axionknight said:

Back off man, I'll pay him 13%.

On a more serious note, are there any SNP MSP's who aren't backing independence and have actively said so, or are rumoured to support No, but are just keeping quiet - or are they all on the Yes bandwagon? Genuinely interested to find out.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of SNP MSPs who aren't that fussed about independence, and just joined the party as they knew they'd be likely to get a seat in the current political environment.

That is the short sighted, short termist nature of the party after all.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

We get back in the devolved settlement plus our allocated share of UK spend less than we send to the Treasury and that has been the case for 33 years.

Evidence to support claim?

[barryrs]

Edinburger said:

Nice try for a diversion

Just cos you have had more practice; show off.

[NoNeed]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

We get back in the devolved settlement plus our allocated share of UK spend less than we send to the Treasury and that has been the case for 33 years.

Evidence to support claim?

I think he has been asked for that before and failed so I wouldn't build your hopes up. I am sure it has also been pointed out to him that the union has been going for nearly ten times his sample period.

[simoid]

NoNeed said:

I think he has been asked for that before and failed so I wouldn't build your hopes up. I am sure it has also been pointed out to him that the union has been going for nearly ten times his sample period.

Not got any hope at all. Means I won't be disappointed :-)

[Carl_Spackler]

Edinburger said:

Wow. Just, wow.

They have been about for years though, treated as the joke they are.

Absolutely, 20 years ago -

http://youtu.be/zaJPOVGlEPs

[jimKRFC]

I've stumbled into a FB with a friend and he's going on about the extra 100,000 kids in poverty. I'm sure it's been gone over here but can't find the rebuttal, can anyone with better recall/google-fu point me in the right direction?

Cheers!

[Patrick Bateman]

Has this been posted at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIQ8VVn8AJA

Apparently it's not possible to vote no and be a decent person.

[davepoth]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

We get back in the devolved settlement plus our allocated share of UK spend less than we send to the Treasury and that has been the case for 33 years.

Evidence to support claim?

Oh, the numbers are there. Take the geographic share of the oil into account and it does shake out that way.

Of course, as the others have said, 33 years (and probably a maximum of another 70 going forward, if we're being generous) of being a net contributor to the union does not cancel out the 200 years in which Scotland was a net receiver from the union.

If you use the population share of the oil, then Scotland remains a net beneficiary of the union for all of the years.

[simoid]

jimKRFC said:

I've stumbled into a FB with a friend and he's going on about the extra 100,000 kids in poverty. I'm sure it's been gone over here but can't find the rebuttal, can anyone with better recall/google-fu point me in the right direction?

Cheers!

1. Poverty stats are ridiculous. If the 100 top earners left Scotland, this would reduce the child poverty rate because it's based on average salaries (their emigration would reduce the average, so fewer kids' families would be on <60% of median earnings).

2. Leaving the UK doesn't help child poverty, especially when we don't know what currency we'll be using, how much our government will have to borrow to pay for independence, etc.

3. Child poverty isn't a problem exclusive to Scotland, it's UK-wide and beyond. We're all trying to tackle it and there's no reason that splitting up the UK helps. In our country at present we have... a growing economy, lowering tax rates for the poorest earners, free education for all up to degree level (jeopardised by leaving the UK and the SNP plans to charge the English etc) don't help.

4. Cost of living - VAT increase on children's clothes if we leave the UK and join the EU, increasing supermarket bills in Scotland due to higher logistics costs, energy bills up due to lose of subsidies from UK bill payers (scotland receives 30% of renewables subsidies).

[AstonZagato]

Also the SG already has the levers to deal with this - extra taxation powers and control of social policies. They choose not to use them.

[Garvin]

Patrick Bateman said:

Has this been posted at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIQ8VVn8AJA

Apparently it's not possible to vote no and be a decent person.

Pathetic isn't it. Here we have some excuse for a rational being being nothing but than anti rUK, probably anti English, not for one minute understanding, even if what he spouts is true, the role senior Scottish politicians played in it. His yes vote appears to be on morale grounds alone and is willing to risk plunging iScotland into a financial crisis and doesn't care. I dare say he hasn't made that clear to his audience!

[simoid]

davepoth said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

We get back in the devolved settlement plus our allocated share of UK spend less than we send to the Treasury and that has been the case for 33 years.

Evidence to support claim?

Oh, the numbers are there. Take the geographic share of the oil into account and it does shake out that way.

Of course, as the others have said, 33 years (and probably a maximum of another 70 going forward, if we're being generous) of being a net contributor to the union does not cancel out the 200 years in which Scotland was a net receiver from the union.

If you use the population share of the oil, then Scotland remains a net beneficiary of the union for all of the years.

"1.16 Between 1980-81 and 2011-12, Scotland is estimated to have run a cumulative net fiscal deficit of £49 billion."

That's from the Scottish government http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00418420.... so I can't imagine they're using population share of oil?

And one can add £12bn to that deficit from 2012-13.

[davepoth]

simoid said:

davepoth said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

We get back in the devolved settlement plus our allocated share of UK spend less than we send to the Treasury and that has been the case for 33 years.

Evidence to support claim?

Oh, the numbers are there. Take the geographic share of the oil into account and it does shake out that way.

Of course, as the others have said, 33 years (and probably a maximum of another 70 going forward, if we're being generous) of being a net contributor to the union does not cancel out the 200 years in which Scotland was a net receiver from the union.

If you use the population share of the oil, then Scotland remains a net beneficiary of the union for all of the years.

"1.16 Between 1980-81 and 2011-12, Scotland is estimated to have run a cumulative net fiscal deficit of £49 billion."

That's from the Scottish government http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00418420.... so I can't imagine they're using population share of oil?

And one can add £12bn to that deficit from 2012-13.

That isn't the same numbers that 'Burger was referring to - there's the unallocated share of UK spend as well which the number from Scotland.gov.uk includes but 'Burger didn't. But that's not really too much of an issue; the point is that for just over 10% of the life of the union Scotland might have been better off outside the union. For the remaining 90% of the time it's an absolute slam-dunk, cast-iron, copper-bottomed, gold-plated, belt-and-braces certainty that Scotland was better off as part of the union.