Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Strocky]

Rollin said:

Does it include the much reduced contribution from "Scottish oil" ? What plans have the nats got for making up the shortfall in revenue to Westminster since the oil price drop?

I assume it's only "Scottish oil" until the price drops.

If you read the article, you would see that it does, next!!

[Strocky]

AstonZagato said:

Strocky said:

AstonZagato said:

arp1 said:

And explain to me how westminister is NOT a cosy old boys club?

Ever heard of Bernadette Delvin, arp?

21 when elected and female. About as far from the establishment as it is possible to get. And that was back in the 60s.

How about a Scottish MP? Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts). 25 when elected. And that was in the last election.

Even the Tories are doing it. Chloe Smith, 27 when elected.

When did they start directly influencing policy at national level?

Women? Oh I'd say in 1979

Look a squirrel!

"Sway" specifically mentioned an Irish Republican MP and a yet to be born fetus to make the point that Westminster isn't a cosy boys club and despite his straw man argument twisting in the wind, you conveniently tried to ignore who he actually referenced

Even your attempt at face saving and mention of Thatcher is the usual Unionist logical leap of using a small subjective fact and trying to extrapolate into it being the absolute reality of the argument to the detriment of the counter argument

And they say Nats are deluded

Wrong user quoted and made a James Hunt of it Edited by Strocky on Wednesday 11th March 15:10

Edited by Strocky on Wednesday 11th March 15:10

Edited by Strocky on Wednesday 11th March 15:11

[Welshbeef]

MintyScot said:

Received a letter through the post the other day about the new Scottish powers. Its a very obvious attempt to repair the damage done by the miss information from the yes camp. Clearly states key points about NHS, education and laws etc. Hopefully this will clear up some points for the 45'ers.

Also has this been discussed yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31831857

Article about the latest GERS report again showing Scotland with its continued deficit and greater per person public spending...

Yes saw this too - and the Sturgeon response is interesting. A basic question was put to her and she went off in attack mode... Me think she do protest too much .


The thing is that's 2013/14 data .... Wait until you see 2014/15 data with the 4 months of the year impact of oil price falls then 2015/16 will be eye opening.


Lastly she states that Scotland has contributed more than it has received into the UK over the last 34 years back to back.
I don't understand that comment - UK is in deficit, Gers for 2013/14 & 2012/13 (I've not seen previous years so honestly don't know would be good to see) Scotland too is in Deficit 8-9% each year the gap being funded by lending from the UK BOE. So its factually incorrect Scotland hasn't had 34 years back to back at best it would be 32 years back to back and if incl 2014/15 likely to be at best 31 years.

Could someone clarify this as in confused dot com

[andymadmak]

Welshbeef said:

Lastly she states that Scotland has contributed more than it has received into the UK over the last 34 years back to back.
I don't understand that comment - UK is in deficit, Gers for 2013/14 & 2012/13 (I've not seen previous years so honestly don't know would be good to see) Scotland too is in Deficit 8-9% each year the gap being funded by lending from the UK BOE. So its factually incorrect Scotland hasn't had 34 years back to back at best it would be 32 years back to back and if incl 2014/15 likely to be at best 31 years.

Could someone clarify this as in confused dot com

That is the most distressing thing for the rUK. Even if what she was asserting were to be true (and it is not) the point would be "so what if Scotland has chucked more into the collective kitty for the past 32 years?" We have other parts of our country (UK) that need help - places like Wales and NI and parts of the South West. Are the Scots really saying "blow you taff, I'm alright" ?

The whole idea of UK is that its wealth redistribution on a national scale. You don't hear the south east coming up with this kind of selfish "we have paid in lots for the last 30 years" arguments do you!!!!!!!
And during those times when Scotland was taking from UK pot way more than it paid in, did rUK at that point say, "nah, sod ya, we won't help cos you don't pay in enough!!!" ?

Breathtaking selfishness from the Nats again - and then they wonder why whole swathes of rUK now look upon the Scots with a jaundiced eye.

[fluffnik]

Edinburger said:

I have never heard anyone suggest that Scotland should have the same number of MPs as England.

That's a ridiculous idea, little better than the current set-up!

...I have however occasionally suggested that as one of the two partners in the Union, being as it is a union of equals, that Scotland should elect exactly half the seats at Westminster.

I may not have been entirely serious, some have even suggested that I was being provocative.

[HenryJM]

fluffnik said:

I may not have been entirely serious, some have even suggested that I was being provocative.

Hardly how anyone else would take it though. Just another sad symbol of some twisted thinking to many.

[McWigglebum4th]

arp1 said:

Wiggles, when did I ever say what you assumed i meant? And explain to me how westminister is NOT a cosy old boys club?

Look you dumb little class warrior

I have NEVER said it isn't

What I have said constantly is that the YES vote was never about independence or helping the poor it was about class war against the English elite.

By constantly trying to get me to tell you how Westminster isn't an old boys club is to take aim at your foot and to keep firing constantly.

[arp1]

That's one interpretation of a yes vote, but not the only one

[Rollin]

Strocky said:

Rollin said:

Does it include the much reduced contribution from "Scottish oil" ? What plans have the nats got for making up the shortfall in revenue to Westminster since the oil price drop?

I assume it's only "Scottish oil" until the price drops.

If you read the article, you would see that it does, next!!

I did read it. GERS figures are for 2013/14. When did the oil price start dropping?

I'll give you a clue.




So what is the nationalist plan for making up the shortfall in revenue to Westminster from "Scottish oil"? Surely it's only FAIR.

You're good at moaning about where your money is supposedly spent, but what happens when it's the other way round?

Just shows what a selfish, whining bunch you nationalists are.

[McWigglebum4th]

arp1 said:

That's one interpretation of a yes vote, but not the only one

So what did you vote yes for?

Lower taxes
Higher spending
Independence
Fairness whatever the fk fairness actually is?

[AstonZagato]

Strocky said:

AstonZagato said:

Strocky said:

AstonZagato said:

arp1 said:

And explain to me how westminister is NOT a cosy old boys club?

Ever heard of Bernadette Delvin, arp?

21 when elected and female. About as far from the establishment as it is possible to get. And that was back in the 60s.

How about a Scottish MP? Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts). 25 when elected. And that was in the last election.

Even the Tories are doing it. Chloe Smith, 27 when elected.

When did they start directly influencing policy at national level?

Women? Oh I'd say in 1979

Look a squirrel!

"Sway" specifically mentioned an Irish Republican MP and a yet to be born fetus to make the point that Westminster isn't a cosy boys club and despite his straw man argument twisting in the wind, you conveniently tried to ignore who he actually referenced

Even your attempt at face saving and mention of Thatcher is the usual Unionist logical leap of using a small subjective fact and trying to extrapolate into it being the absolute reality of the argument to the detriment of the counter argument

And they say Nats are deluded

Wrong user quoted and made a James Hunt of it Edited by Strocky on Wednesday 11th March 15:10

Edited by Strocky on Wednesday 11th March 15:10

Edited by Strocky on Wednesday 11th March 15:11

Fail all round. Editing, quoting, comprehension. Good work. Not.

Arp suggested that it was an oldboys club. I (not Sway) gave some examples of youngwomen (the antithesis of old boys) who had been elected to parliament, starting with the youngest ever - who happened to be as non-establishment as it is possible to be.

So, after a list of young women, you ask me when they influenced national policy. Since I have only listed three random young female MPs (the youngest ever, a Scot and a recent Tory), then your question must be when young women influenced national policy because otherwise it is a daft, non-sequitur question (as phrased).

I gave the most obvious example of a young woman (first elected as an MP aged 29) who has indisputably changed national policy. She also happens to be a Nat bogeywoman nut that is beside the point.

[Edinburger]

Welshbeef said:

Yes saw this too - and the Sturgeon response is interesting. A basic question was put to her and she went off in attack mode... Me think she do protest too much .


The thing is that's 2013/14 data .... Wait until you see 2014/15 data with the 4 months of the year impact of oil price falls then 2015/16 will be eye opening.


Lastly she states that Scotland has contributed more than it has received into the UK over the last 34 years back to back.
I don't understand that comment - UK is in deficit, Gers for 2013/14 & 2012/13 (I've not seen previous years so honestly don't know would be good to see) Scotland too is in Deficit 8-9% each year the gap being funded by lending from the UK BOE. So its factually incorrect Scotland hasn't had 34 years back to back at best it would be 32 years back to back and if incl 2014/15 likely to be at best 31 years.

Could someone clarify this as in confused dot com

Thought you were skiing, Beefy?

It's no surprise that no one has mentioned the Claim that in 2013/14, people in Scotland paid £400 more in tax than the UK as a whole but they also received £1,200 more in spending.

Of course, we know that's a guesstimate. My taxes aren't included in that.

[Edinburger]

Who the hell calls their child Indy or Freedom?

I can hear the cry from a Glaswegian tenement - "Freedom, yer tea's oot!".

Dear oh dear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31833261

[McWigglebum4th]

Edinburger said:

Who the hell calls their child Indy or Freedom?

I can hear the cry from a Glaswegian tenement - "Freedom, yer tea's oot!".

Dear oh dear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31833261

If i had posted that you would say i am taking the piss


Nationalists

The hardcore are fking mental

[Edinburger]

McWigglebum4th said:

If i had posted that you would say i am taking the piss


Nationalists

The hardcore are fking mental

It has a ring to it - Indy McWiggle.



Honestly, what a shame for the kids.

[AstonZagato]

Edinburger said:

Of course, we know that's a guesstimate. My taxes aren't included in that.

You don't know that. You suspect that they are not.

[Edinburger]

AstonZagato said:

You don't know that. You suspect that they are not.

True I guess but the City of London tax office is a give away.

[Sway]

Edinburger said:

AstonZagato said:

You don't know that. You suspect that they are not.

True I guess but the City of London tax office is a give away.

Mine was Edinburgh for a decent length of time, I live on the South Coast.

I assume that it's not just based on income tax administered by each office, they do after all know where you've stated your address to be.

[Edinburger]

Sway said:

Mine was Edinburgh for a decent length of time, I live on the South Coast.

I assume that it's not just based on income tax administered by each office, they do after all know where you've stated your address to be.

I beleive your tax office is defined by your employers address.

[Welshbeef]

Edinburger said:

Thought you were skiing, Beefy?

It's no surprise that no one has mentioned the Claim that in 2013/14, people in Scotland paid £400 more in tax than the UK as a whole but they also received £1,200 more in spending.

Of course, we know that's a guesstimate. My taxes aren't included in that.

Yep - still have tinternet .


So why do the Pro Yes votes believe it without question when its so highly unlikely to be true / essentially impossible to be true. The thing is they seem without question to accept anything SNP state and take it as fact & if challenged then they get super defensive and somehow end up giving war and piece on a totally unrelated question. Then they are asking the questioner a question.... Odd.