Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Strocky]

Rollin said:

Strocky said:

Well considering Alan Chochrane hasn't sued Private Eye.......

And it was a £20k bonus for a 60/40 margin

As you where, beef head

Why would he sue?

If someone posted false allegations with potential bribery ramifications, I'd be on the phone to my lawyer, wouldn't you?

[Rollin]

Strocky said:

Rollin said:

Strocky said:

Well considering Alan Chochrane hasn't sued Private Eye.......

And it was a £20k bonus for a 60/40 margin

As you where, beef head

Why would he sue?

If someone posted false allegations with potential bribery ramifications, I'd be on the phone to my lawyer, wouldn't you?

A bonus for doing a job is not a bribe. He openly admitted he would have taken it if it had been offered so what's the problem?
It seems he laughed it off instead of whining to his lawyer.

[barryrs]

Strocky said:

Speaking to The Drum, Cochrane said that he had no knowledge of the alleged payment but "would take it with open arms" if it was on offer.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/17/scottish-da...

Oh dear seems the Unionist in question is pig THICK & a greedy grasping

Why an editor of the Telegraph would be on millions only you would know, did you convert that into Roubles?

Edited by Strocky on Sunday 28th December 21:37

The Drum ???????

I can't find a legitimate source in the mainstream media only pro independence blogs.

Also what's wrong with the bonus payment, we know newspapers are far from impartial.

Edited by barryrs on Sunday 28th December 21:58

[Borghetto]

Strocky said:

If someone posted false allegations with potential bribery ramifications, I'd be on the phone to my lawyer, wouldn't you?

I don't think legal aid covers libel/slander actions.

[///ajd]

barryrs said:

Also what's wrong with the bonus payment, we know newspapers are far from impartial.

Is it true a Sunday Herald editor was offered a £60k bung to support a Yes vote?
And payment was to come from some charity named after someones mum?
Sounds preposterous....

PS good banter on the "independence but sharing all the good stuff" wiggle, the white paper really was the omnishambles of lame.

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 28th December 23:23

[Strocky]

///ajd said:

barryrs said:

Also what's wrong with the bonus payment, we know newspapers are far from impartial.

Is it true a Sunday Herald editor was offered a £60k bung to support a Yes vote?
And payment was to come from some charity named after someones mum?
Sounds preposterous....

PS good banter on the "independence but sharing all the good stuff" wiggle, the white paper really was the omnishambles of lame.

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 28th December 23:23

I hope you've got better lawyers than Private Eye

[mcdjl]

Strocky said:

I hope you've got better lawyers than Private Eye

Pressure Vs. Arckle

[Strocky]

Rollin said:

Strocky said:

Rollin said:

So what year would you have started the oil fund?

So you don't understand the graph you posted?

What year would you have started the oil fund?

In the first year, if it's good enough for the Selfridges towel folder to create a fracking fund for the North whilst running a deficit then..............

[Funk]

Strocky, what's it like to be so deluded? I mean, are you actually aware that you're so incredibly wrong and carrying on regardless or do you genuinely think you're right? None of your posts stands up to any form of scrutiny (or simple fact checking) yet you continue with blind dogma in the face of overwhelming logic and fact.

I'm fascinated to know, I really am.

[Rick_1138]

What a massive bell end:

http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/film/alan-cummin...

[Funk]

Rick_1138 said:

What a massive bell end:

http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/film/alan-cummin...

Indeed, another one who loves it so much he left.

It always annoys me that 'famous' people get given a soapbox but they're no better placed to comment than Joe McBloggs. In fact, many of them live in such a bubble completely detached from reality that their musings should carry less weight, not more.

[Troubleatmill]

Man who does not live in Scotland,
or work in Scotland,
or would pay any form on tax in iScotland,
or be affected in any way by the success or failure of Government
- gets wheeled out by SNP to encourage electorate to vote for Independence.

Marvellous.

At least it wasn't Sean Connery.

[McWigglebum4th]

Troubleatmill said:

Man who does not live in Scotland,
or work in Scotland,
or would pay any form on tax in iScotland,
or be affected in any way by the success or failure of Government
- gets wheeled out by SNP to encourage electorate to vote for Independence.

Marvellous.

At least it wasn't Sean Connery.

Where as those in exactly the same situation who preferred scotland to stay in the UK have been told to fk off out of scotlands business and have got death threats on twitter


Watch topgear last night?

Saw the rock throwing idiots in Argentinian?

Exactly the same folk here in Scotland

[anonymous-user]

Troubleatmill said:

At least it wasn't Sean Connery.

Or Brian Cox
Or Andy Murray
etc.

[Funk]

McWigglebum4th said:

Troubleatmill said:

Man who does not live in Scotland,
or work in Scotland,
or would pay any form on tax in iScotland,
or be affected in any way by the success or failure of Government
- gets wheeled out by SNP to encourage electorate to vote for Independence.

Marvellous.

At least it wasn't Sean Connery.

Where as those in exactly the same situation who preferred scotland to stay in the UK have been told to fk off out of scotlands business and have got death threats on twitter


Watch topgear last night?

Saw the rock throwing idiots in Argentinian?

Exactly the same folk here in Scotland

That's because, as per the article I linked to a few posts up, Nats have decided they're 'right' and as such 'dissenters' can be written out of the picture as not being 'true Scots'.

There's some fascinating psychology at play which is why I asked Strocky whether he knows he's wrong but fights anyway or whether he's genuinely drunk the Kool Aid and believes what he's saying.

The irony is that the true Scots are the ones who recognised what's best for Scotland and voted in its best interests - namely to stay in the union.

The current oil price alone would've nuked Scotland's budgets even before it was fully independent (and as per your post earlier, the phrase 'fully independent' should be taken with a pinch of salt!).

[Troubleatmill]

Oh crap! Another accusation on BBC bias against Salmond.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/30363...










"What’s so great about Lewis Hamilton? He can drive a car? I convinced 1.6 million people that we could force a foreign country to let us use their currency. Now, that’s an achievement.”

[Sway]

Strocky said:

Rollin said:

Strocky said:

Rollin said:

So what year would you have started the oil fund?

So you don't understand the graph you posted?

What year would you have started the oil fund?

In the first year, if it's good enough for the Selfridges towel folder to create a fracking fund for the North whilst running a deficit then..............

So the proposed local allocation of a portion of tax revenue is the same as the Norwegian style oil fund that nats were harping on about creating?


You know, the one where instead of licensing private companies, they have a state oil company, and all profits go into to fund. As opposed to selling off licenses, taxing the profits, then giving a percentage to local authorities.

The fracking local tax allocation seems remarkably similar to the end result of the Barnett Formula...

[Strocky]

Funk said:

Strocky, what's it like to be so deluded? I mean, are you actually aware that you're so incredibly wrong and carrying on regardless or do you genuinely think you're right? None of your posts stands up to any form of scrutiny (or simple fact checking) yet you continue with blind dogma in the face of overwhelming logic and fact.

I'm fascinated to know, I really am.

I've already said I'd be happy to pay extra tax for a fairer society, nowhere in the white paper does it state that the budget would be set on $113 dollars a barrel, it simply worked of the average over the past 3 years, not based the price on the last 3 weeks

IF oil stays at it's current rate for the next few years then yes, budget cuts or taxes would have to be raised, that's a logical fact, however it's hypothetical, we're still part of the UK

However all of the revenue raised in an iS would only be generated/spent in Scotland, we wouldn't be paying a disproportionate amount on Defence (£1.9Bn shortfall over 2007/12) including scrapping Trident (£3.7Bn per year), not spending £20-£100Bn on Tridents replacement & UK infrastructure spend (£12bn in, £1bn out)

Scotland would also get all of its VAT & Whisky revenues accounted for directly not "lost" in the UK balance sheet

If your argument is that small country like Scotland with vast resources and industrious people couldn't be successfully independent and anyone that thinks that is deluded then I'm sorry I'd say you where the delusional one

The irony is the SNP social policies (deliberate SNP strategy) economically helps the middle classes just as much as the working class, however it was the middle classes that on the whole said NO

If your counter argument is but but sharing and pooling of resources, then sorry, it doesn't wash

Why do you think Scotland couldn't be successfully independent?

Edited by Strocky on Monday 29th December 12:22

[anonymous-user]

Strocky said:

I've already said I'd be happy to pay extra tax for a fairer society

YOU might be, but YOU don't speak for the rest of the 37%. Just like YOU don't speak for the people of Scotland. Who voted "No", in case you forgot?

[Troubleatmill]

Strocky said:

If your argument is that small country like Scotland with vast resources and industrious people couldn't be successfully independent and anyone that thinks that is deluded then I'm sorry I'd say you where the delusional one
.....
Why don't you think Scotland couldn't be successfully independent?

All that Jim Sweeney bloke needed to do was put his compelling case in writing - and everyone would be convinced.
For some very odd reason he didn't.

And what maths was published (leaked) - was borrow borrow borrow for 4 years... then cut pensions and benefits, cut defence ( from the original iScotland defence budget )

If Scotland's finance minister cannot make a compelling case .... then you have a good idea as to why he chose not to.



Edit: I cannot think of a "Yes" person who would be in a better position to do this. Can you?