The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

BACKTRACK ALERT

That is not what you said.

You are entitled to your opinion. As soon as you work out what it is, try and string a cohesive sentence together and express it.

Until such times, maybe a wee lie down in a dark corner will help.

Oh it is what I said Ken and you'll discover that if you read the various posts around the one you quoted.

[Stuart Dickson]

He doesnt believe that food banks are real either.

Unlike you I don't deny the evidence that is clear to all. I know there are food banks. There's been plenty of TV programmes showing them. On the other hand you don't appear capable of admitting that the Yes Campaigns idea of what an Independent Scotland looks like hasn't been properly financed, and that this will either mean much higher levels of taxes or massive cuts across all areas of the Scottish budget. Unless of course Alex Salmonds predictions of sky rocketing oil prices comes to pass meaning that energy costs will rise, the cost of petrol will rise, and the cost of food will rise all well ahead of inflation.

[beyond our ken]

Oh it is what I said Ken and you'll discover that if you read the various posts around the one you quoted.

Oh i see, it is not the point that you made at that time-it is a different, some would say arbitrarily selected point from a yet-to-be- determined post made sometime in the past. Maybe that post was about the same subject, maybe not, but it was in that thread (I think). I see now.

No amount of smileys can cover your embarassment on this one. Grind along now sonny-the grown ups are talking

[Stuart Dickson]

Oh i see, it is not the point that you made at that time-it is a different, some would say arbitrarily selected point from a yet-to-be- determined post made sometime in the past. Maybe that post was about the same subject, maybe not, but it was in that thread (I think). I see now.

No amount of smileys can cover your embarassment on this one. Grind along now sonny-the grown ups are talking

Oh FFS.

I had spent the previous two days talking about the Scottish Budget deficit and about Alex Salmonds fundamental mistake of basing the White Paper and all of Scotlands financial projections on a value of Brent Crude that we have seldom seen in history and how he did so against the advice of his own laureates. Then in the post you've quoted I went on to make reference to fuel poverty pointing out that that the whole premise of an Independent Scotland was based on an absolute need for increased fuel costs leading to more fuel poverty.

Now clearly all of that is fact. I can't help you with your lack of comprehension over the issue but I have noted that you are still doing this silly thing that all nationalists appear to do when they can't deny the evidence provided, where instead of talking about the point raised they seek to grab onto something, anything to deflect away from the point they don't like. It doesn't do you or the Yes Campaign any credit at all Ken. Those who aren't entrenched will see clearly that Scottish Independence is nothing more than a financial apocalypse. Every Scot, even the poor, even the disabled, even the uneducated and illiterate like yourself, will always be better off in a United Kingdom.

[Stuart Dickson]

No it doesn't,

Are you really Fletcher Reede in disguise.

Yes it does.

[Denbud]

Oh FFS.

I had spent the previous two days talking about the Scottish Budget deficit and about Alex Salmonds fundamental mistake of basing the White Paper and all of Scotlands financial projections on a value of Brent Crude that we have seldom seen in history and how he did so against the advice of his own laureates. Then in the post you've quoted I went on to make reference to fuel poverty pointing out that that the whole premise of an Independent Scotland was based on an absolute need for increased fuel costs leading to more fuel poverty.

Now clearly all of that is fact. I can't help you with your lack of comprehension over the issue but I have noted that you are still doing this silly thing that all nationalists appear to do when they can't deny the evidence provided, where instead of talking about the point raised they seek to grab onto something, anything to deflect away from the point they don't like. It doesn't do you or the Yes Campaign any credit at all Ken. Those who aren't entrenched will see clearly that Scottish Independence is nothing more than a financial apocalypse. Every Scot, even the poor, even the disabled, even the uneducated and illiterate like yourself, will always be better off in a United Kingdom.

Poor show calling beyond our ken uneducated and illiterate. I would assume the fact he can type words of more than one sylibal would prove the opposite.

With regards to the price of brent crude I would assume that the price is only going to continue to rise and may indeed settle at an average figure above the $113 per barrel after all its not so long ago that prices were averaging $50 and as the world continue to evolve and there is more demand for oil prices will increase. This wont help fuel poverty in the uk. however the scottish governments continued push on renewables may one day provide cheaper fuel than the more conventional methods. I know that you are going to say nuclear, coal and gas or whatever is more economical than wind and wave at present that is correct. in the future I dont believe it will be even with the extraction of gases in lancashire it will all eventually increase in price and cost more to extract.

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

And I cannot imagine the massive paradigm shift that guarantees...

1. that Government of the Scots by the Scots will be any different. (The wee baldy guy did speak rationally but if a Tartan Nirvana didnae materialise, he would no doubt be arguing for an Independent Dundee.)

2. That a wee Nation of 5m could operate in a vacuum despite being locked by the arse to a big ruthless, now-unsympathetic neighbour that didn't subscribe to the same values.

I would also agree with you that much more energy should be directed towards tax evaders and avoiders, rather than go after benefits cheats, but in Pretendypence you'll be keeping the Monarchy - you will still be subjects of the Queen, not citizens of a Free State. So, talking of Benefit cheats, you'd still be operating under the same strict, forelock-tugging hierarchical system that keeps us all in our place. Or attempts to.

I was one of the lucky slum-dwellers who got a free education, a good apprenticeship and my ticket out - that is getting increasingly uncommon these days. God save the Queen in a Pretendypendent Scotland.

Bluto I really do think that by continually raising the issue of the monarchy, it's indicative of the barreness of your argument. The Queen is only a technical side show.

Nationalism didn't emerge in a void. One aspect of our economic history shows that substantial emigration out of Scotland during the 19th and 20th centuries was due to economic motives - lack of opportunity, unemployment etc. If you were to ask people at the time why they were planning to move, the answer is one we've all heard before, 'There's nothing for us here.'

Bluto, you'd be one of those people. I don't think the standard of living you achieved down south could have been equaled up here as easily.

To rectify this outflow may well be attained through independence. At least we couldn't do worse.

[bluto]

Bluto I really do think that by continually raising the issue of the monarchy, it's indicative of the barreness of your argument. The Queen is only a technical side show.

Nationalism didn't emerge in a void. One aspect of our economic history shows that substantial emigration out of Scotland during the 19th and 20th centuries was due to economic motives - lack of opportunity, unemployment etc. If you were to ask people at the time why they were planning to move, the answer is one we've all heard before, 'There's nothing for us here.'

Bluto, you'd be one of those people. I don't think the standard of living you achieved down south could have been equaled up here as easily.

To rectify this outflow may well be attained through independence. At least we couldn't do worse.

There are over 130 turgid pages on this thread, I have attempted to discuss other things on here. It has been hard. People wanted me to just stop offering my opinion because they didn't like it, and some have now given up because I am apparently 'condescending'.

Here is another contribution to the 'turge'...

My emigration was because I wanted to move to London. I was working in the best rewarded part of the car industry in Scotland - the best paying industry, at the time. I was very well remunerated for my efforts. I had no need to go anywhere. There was sufficient for me, there.

And yet... still... like a huge swathe of Londoners, I chose to be an economic migrant. We have over 300 'official languages' in use in London - so you can see that people are attracted to this great city from everywhere - and they will continue to be so.

Same with Scots - I genuinely can't see the outflow of Scotland's population ceasing any time soon, with or without a YES vote.

It's not just the obvious attractions of this great, exciting city and the challenges it might throw at someone with a bit of drive... it's a Scottish culture thing, I think. The Highlands were depopulated by the Clearances and the demand for labour by the Industrialising Lowlands; the Empire was administered (and populated) by Scots through that same drive - and the Clearances, again. Scots want to see more of the big world and be part of it.

I have little doubt that I could have achieved a similar 'standard' of living in Scotland but I wanted to live in London. I was unable to be paid any more in Scotland by Scottish employers because I already was so highly paid. In London there are more people, so bigger markets, more sectors of employment and much, much more opportunity, diversity, excitement. I had a wider choice of employers when I came down - and I chose a company that I knew would give me even further opportunity to work and travel abroad, offers those benefits. Even now, London exerts that draw.

I know you are late to this thread, and so will probably not have bothered to read it all, but this has been a constant thread running through my contributions to the debate - but YES men haven't wanted to hear it.

After a YES vote, London will still be here. I agree that due to London's disproportionate sucking in of all the the best and brightest, all the investment, all the attention all the glamour dislocates the governance of the UK and causes less attention to be devoted to the regions.

For me, THAT is a problem that will not go away and is THE problem that anyone who cares enough needs to address.

To keep the monarchy, try to keep the pound, to add layers of government without really being able to break free from the burden of Scotland's biggest market, the rest of the Uk, especially London, is a bold move.

This is a capitalist world. I'd love to see Scotland being able to implement half the dreams it has. I detest a system that invented the bedroom tax. Re the 'fuel poverty' aspirations... when I was a teenager I read a broadsheet which on the same page had an article about old people dying of the cold in Scotland, with, further down that same page an article about closing down Nuclear Power stations because they were unprofitable. There was no irony intended. I would happily live in a land (and hopefully contribute towards its success) that really addressed such issues. Keeping the monarchy shows Pretendypence as being half-hearted, ill thought-out and vote-winning opportunism.

So to address your final sentence, I do believe that with such a half-hearted attempt at independence you really would do a lot worse.

Edited March 28, 2014 by bluto

[Stuart Dickson]

Poor show calling beyond our ken uneducated and illiterate. I would assume the fact he can type words of more than one sylibal would prove the opposite.

With regards to the price of brent crude I would assume that the price is only going to continue to rise and may indeed settle at an average figure above the $113 per barrel after all its not so long ago that prices were averaging $50 and as the world continue to evolve and there is more demand for oil prices will increase. This wont help fuel poverty in the uk. however the scottish governments continued push on renewables may one day provide cheaper fuel than the more conventional methods. I know that you are going to say nuclear, coal and gas or whatever is more economical than wind and wave at present that is correct. in the future I dont believe it will be even with the extraction of gases in lancashire it will all eventually increase in price and cost more to extract.

Well the $113 figure was Salmonds prediction for LAST YEAR hence the huge budget deficit Salmond keeps maintaining that the fact that the price wasn't reached can be offset against increased production and that might well be true but he's got no control over that. Only the oil companies will decide at what rate and when extraction is economically viable and if they extract too much oil when they can only achieve low values they devalue the worth of the oil fields.

The timing of separation seems more than a little bizarre though. If the Nationalist charge is that the Rest Of the UK has drained Scotland of all it's oil revenue when the going was really good, why would you split just as England has discovered it has vast, easy to extract, gas resources in Lancashire.

You also have to look at the Nationalist argument about how they would have copied Norway and had an oil fund set aside. If Nationalist's had been as bad as the current Scottish Government at predicting the value of Brent Crude and continued to spend in the way it does now, never mind in the way that it keeps pledging, not only would there not have been a fund - which may have helped bail out the two Scottish banks during the banking crisis - the Scottish economy would still have been heavily in debt and running in deficit.

As for renewable energy, Oaksoft claimed on here that it was imperative that Scotland become a world leader in this market and he used to claim that the massive Scottish Government investment in this uneconomical method of electricity generation would pay off in jobs. Yet this week we say Siemens shunned Scotland and set up their UK manufacturing operation in Hull creating - according to the news reports - 1,000 new jobs. Surely this too is an absolute disaster for the Scottish Government and it once again shows that the uncertainty of the upcoming referendum is putting businesses off investing in our workforce.

[bluto]

Another interesting contribution - from Alasdair Gray:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26787265

[saintargyll]

Well the $113 figure was Salmonds prediction for LAST YEAR hence the huge budget deficit Salmond keeps maintaining that the fact that the price wasn't reached can be offset against increased production and that might well be true but he's got no control over that. Only the oil companies will decide at what rate and when extraction is economically viable and if they extract too much oil when they can only achieve low values they devalue the worth of the oil fields.

The timing of separation seems more than a little bizarre though. If the Nationalist charge is that the Rest Of the UK has drained Scotland of all it's oil revenue when the going was really good, why would you split just as England has discovered it has vast, easy to extract, gas resources in Lancashire.

You also have to look at the Nationalist argument about how they would have copied Norway and had an oil fund set aside. If Nationalist's had been as bad as the current Scottish Government at predicting the value of Brent Crude and continued to spend in the way it does now, never mind in the way that it keeps pledging, not only would there not have been a fund - which may have helped bail out the two Scottish banks during the banking crisis - the Scottish economy would still have been heavily in debt and running in deficit.

As for renewable energy, Oaksoft claimed on here that it was imperative that Scotland become a world leader in this market and he used to claim that the massive Scottish Government investment in this uneconomical method of electricity generation would pay off in jobs. Yet this week we say Siemens shunned Scotland and set up their UK manufacturing operation in Hull creating - according to the news reports - 1,000 new jobs. Surely this too is an absolute disaster for the Scottish Government and it once again shows that the uncertainty of the upcoming referendum is putting businesses off investing in our workforce.

Why?

for years we have been leaders in business investment because foreign investors trusted the scottish workforce

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

There are over 130 turgid pages on this thread, I have attempted to discuss other things on here. It has been hard. People wanted me to just stop offering my opinion because they didn't like it, and some have now given up because I am apparently 'condescending'.

Here is another contribution to the 'turge'...

My emigration was because I wanted to move to London. I was working in the best rewarded part of the car industry in Scotland - the best paying industry, at the time. I was very well remunerated for my efforts. I had no need to go anywhere. There was sufficient for me, there.

And yet... still... like a huge swathe of Londoners, I chose to be an economic migrant. We have over 300 'official languages' in use in London - so you can see that people are attracted to this great city from everywhere - and they will continue to be so.

Same with Scots - I genuinely can't see the outflow of Scotland's population ceasing any time soon, with or without a YES vote.

It's not just the obvious attractions of this great, exciting city and the challenges it might throw at someone with a bit of drive... it's a Scottish culture thing, I think. The Highlands were depopulated by the Clearances and the demand for labour by the Industrialising Lowlands; the Empire was administered (and populated) by Scots through that same drive - and the Clearances, again. Scots want to see more of the big world and be part of it.

I have little doubt that I could have achieved a similar 'standard' of living in Scotland but I wanted to live in London. I was unable to be paid any more in Scotland by Scottish employers because I already was so highly paid. In London there are more people, so bigger markets, more sectors of employment and much, much more opportunity, diversity, excitement. I had a wider choice of employers when I came down - and I chose a company that I knew would give me even further opportunity to work and travel abroad, offers those benefits. Even now, London exerts that draw.

I know you are late to this thread, and so will probably not have bothered to read it all, but this has been a constant thread running through my contributions to the debate - but YES men haven't wanted to hear it.

After a YES vote, London will still be here. I agree that due to London's disproportionate sucking in of all the the best and brightest, all the investment, all the attention all the glamour dislocates the governance of the UK and causes less attention to be devoted to the regions.

For me, THAT is a problem that will not go away and is THE problem that anyone who cares enough needs to address.

To keep the monarchy, try to keep the pound, to add layers of government without really being able to break free from the burden of Scotland's biggest market, the rest of the Uk, especially London, is a bold move.

This is a capitalist world. I'd love to see Scotland being able to implement half the dreams it has. I detest a system that invented the bedroom tax. Re the 'fuel poverty' aspirations... when I was a teenager I read a broadsheet which on the same page had an article about old people dying of the cold in Scotland, with, further down that same page an article about closing down Nuclear Power stations because they were unprofitable. There was no irony intended. I would happily live in a land (and hopefully contribute towards its success) that really addressed such issues. Keeping the monarchy shows Pretendypence as being half-hearted, ill thought-out and vote-winning opportunism.

So to address your final sentence, I do believe that with such a half-hearted attempt at independence you really would do a lot worse.

I knew there was a danger in going over issues which had been discussed ad infinitum - forgive me! But...like me there will be continually new viewers to the thread and ideally it shouldn't be a discourse between the few as it often appears to be.

Your reaction to my raising the possible reason for your moving south was probably conditioned by what's been discussed prior, given the length you gave to it in your reply. I meet lots of people who work in the SE and the vast majority do so to further their careers and/or make more money, NOT for the quality of life which they tend to despise. OK, but you have to acknowledge that the rise of the independence movement is really a result of the failure of succeeding governments to address the problems up here (or how the Labour Party sold out and moved rightwards). How else do you explain it? There is dissatisfaction in Scotland deal with it! Can't? Won't? Let's give it a go ourselves for a change.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Desperately Seeking Susans

[FTOF]

Stick me on IGNORE.

I'm a throbber of the highest order.

I think FTOF was being condescending.

Nah.

More like contumelious.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Probably for decades...

Ronald, however....?

Auto correcting text on the phone. Technology is a wonderful thing...

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Oh FFS

1. Did you not notice that the RBS and Bank Of Scotland needed bailed out? So that's that one blown out the water.

2. Proof?

3. Even John Swinney doesn't deny that Scotland owes its share of the UK National Debt.

Can you not find links to these "official figures" - like I have done - to back up your arguments Tony? Quoting articles off Nationalist websites is like having a German quote sections of Mein Kampf.

Any explanation forthcoming Dicko?

Still no explanation?

You managed to quote and reply to all the other posts of mine around this one

[groucho]

They must be running scared ... keep the faith the Yes campaign is growing stronger by the day ... This is just the beginning .

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound?CMP=twt_gu

[oaksoft]

They must be running scared ... keep the faith the Yes campaign is growing stronger by the day ... This is just the beginning .

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound?CMP=twt_gu

Well I think we can put this completely unnecessary currency union bluffing to bed once and for all.

What an absolute waste of time.

Osborne caused panic amongst a number of businesses over this for absolutely no reason.

What a bunch of idiots the lot of them.

THIS is why Labour need to stop parroting what the Tories are saying.

Some members on this forum might want to try it for themselves.

Try thinking for yourselves folks instead of simply repeating what you read in the papers.

Only an absolute idiot would think the UK wouldn't go for a currency union.

[beyond our ken]

This is where i re-joined thedebate

and the labour/tory/libdems are all fighting to take the credit when a power company announces it is to

• cut 500 jobs
• pull out of billions of investment projects focussed on energy security, the day after one of them was crowing about an anouncement to open a wind-turbine factory
• remove the prospect of tens of thousands of new jobs in the process

This is what you get with a London centric Britain-half witted idealogues pandering to the city. Honestly, the rest of Britain needs to dump London pronto. Good place to visit-shit place to run a country from.

to which you replied

...and here's another Nat who thinks a fairer society is one where fuel poverty is rife.....

What we need is to get fracking as soon as possible on a huge scale down in Lancashire. Never mind the green lobby - lets get cheaper energy for all.

and i responded to that. To think i would drag my brain around all of your bollocks to try and understand your warped position is incredible arrogance, or more backtracking.

Whatever

[beyond our ken]

Oh FFS.

I had spent the previous two days talking about the Scottish Budget deficit and about Alex Salmonds fundamental mistake of basing the White Paper and all of Scotlands financial projections on a value of Brent Crude that we have seldom seen in history and how he did so against the advice of his own laureates. Then in the post you've quoted I went on to make reference to fuel poverty pointing out that that the whole premise of an Independent Scotland was based on an absolute need for increased fuel costs leading to more fuel poverty.

Now clearly all of that is fact. I can't help you with your lack of comprehension over the issue but I have noted that you are still doing this silly thing that all nationalists appear to do when they can't deny the evidence provided, where instead of talking about the point raised they seek to grab onto something, anything to deflect away from the point they don't like. It doesn't do you or the Yes Campaign any credit at all Ken. Those who aren't entrenched will see clearly that Scottish Independence is nothing more than a financial apocalypse. Every Scot, even the poor, even the disabled, even the uneducated and illiterate like yourself, will always be better off in a United Kingdom.

I'll be happy to show you my qualifications in person,you at thegame next week?

[FTOF]

Their lies are finally catching up with them and their true divided nature is there for all to see.

Better together? Aye right!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/pro-union-campaign-in-crisis-after-minister-admits-currency-union-ban-was-a-bluff.23823233

[bluto]

Clutching at straws, Yes-people.

One un-named source does not make a summer... er...

What most interests me is the suggested trade-off. You keep the nuclear bases.

And the Queen.

Divide and conquer - how easy can it be?

[FTOF]

One un-named source does not make a summer... er...

It does however seems to have sparked a blame war amongst the quite obviously divided Better "Together" camp and has plenty of the big guns wetting their knickers in public.

Highly amusing and yet another example of a BT gaffe which could prove to be significant in influencing undecided voters.

Edited March 30, 2014 by FTOF

[saintargyll]

It does however seems to have sparked a blame war amongst the quite obviously divided Better "Together" camp and has plenty of the big guns wetting their knickers in public.

Highly amusing and yet another example of a BT gaffe which could prove to be significant in influencing undecided voters.

I had to laugh at a quote from Nick Clegg

"We want to be great Britain,not little England"

how to really endear the welsh and Northern Irish

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Clutching at straws, Yes-people.

One un-named source does not make a summer... er...

What most interests me is the suggested trade-off. You keep the nuclear bases.

And the Queen.

Divide and conquer - how easy can it be?

The un-named source is described as a Tory minister which is at least a wee heatwave if not quite a summer

That is indeed an interesting trade-off and unfortunately rather typical of the attitude from better together at westminster. Never mind negotiating a settlement, here's the deal, we know whats best for you etc.

Wondering how the voters are now meant to believe anything that comes from the no campaign in light of this latest example of speaking with forked tongue?

BTW your obsession with lizzie is getting to the stage where you'll be drinking in castle street, not the bull inn next time you visit

[Stuart Dickson]

I'll be happy to show you my qualifications in person,you at thegame next week?

Not unless you want to pay my admission....