Bud Bundy Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Yep I know who he is. A FORMER oil boss as well as a former banker, former whisky boss and a former boss of fisheries. A bit of a jack of all trades. However far be it for me to rubbish his credentials, or his motives for taking a different line to current bosses in ALL of these industries. However since you are giving him so much credence how about current oil bosses? Will you listen to them with their impressive CV's? Bob Dudley at BP and Ben van Beurden of Shell have both spoken out against Independence. Two guys who know their business inside out. Two real experts in their field. Or do you only choose the opinion of experts who's views seem to back up your prejudices. Pishy fae Wishay spouting his his usual conservative and unionist shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Yep I know who he is. A FORMER oil boss as well as a former banker, former whisky boss and a former boss of fisheries. A bit of a jack of all trades. However far be it for me to rubbish his credentials, or his motives for taking a different line to current bosses in ALL of these industries. However since you are giving him so much credence how about current oil bosses? Will you listen to them with their impressive CV's? Bob Dudley at BP and Ben van Beurden of Shell have both spoken out against Independence. Two guys who know their business inside out. Two real experts in their field. Or do you only choose the opinion of experts who's views seem to back up your prejudices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chookie Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 There is absolutely no way that the Scottish Parliament will have it's powers reduced, that's shameless scaremongering with no basis in fact whatsoever. UKIP will be lucky to win one seat at the next general election. Why do you pick Denmark and Sweden? Why not Ireland? Thats a far more recent and more relevant example of a country going it alone, a country which has got itself in a right state. No one is saying we couldn't do it alone, of course we could. Why should we though? Why not stay in the union? Shameless scaremongering? From a certain point of view telling people Scotland will get more power in the event of a no vote is without basis and could lead to ruination.(i also stated that I and possible only me, believes that Scotland will lose power in a no vote, no scaremongering, just a thought that I shared, shameless scaremongering would be me on TV spouting to the whole country what I believe) I picked Denmark and Sweden as I know that the people from these countries want a bond with Scotland and are waiting for it. Call it an oil bond, call it what you want but they see something in Scotland that some scots can't. What not stay in the union? Why stay in the union? We are being strangled and put into debt when we could be in the black with an oil fund for the future and a way of de-creating the underclass the conservatives created. To encourage people to work for their country and themselves (pipe dream?). That won't happen with the union in place. We should because we have the chance, and we should because we can. What if England decided to declare themselves independent from wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. How would that go? Ukip? Who knows, their support is rising and folk who want a change are looking at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chookie Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 what evil? I vote conservative every time. I don't want labour in power! Good for you. At least you have a belief to hold yourself up to. Personally I can't see why, but that's why there are different political parties, football teams and religions etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 True, but Newsnet is one of the websites often quoted by Natsi's on here. They appear to have pointed out that Westminster is corrupt - using the paedophile scandal as a current example of how corrupt. But you know this already dont you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 There's a great Facebook page that has been set up to show just how desperate the Nationalists have become. Today someone sent a box of rocks through the post to the Better Together office. Written inside it said "Better Together my arse". On another unofficial Yes page there's a call to arms by Nationalists in the event of a No vote. "We have to fight with guns and bombs". Whilst another desperate Natsi has called for all No voters to be put on top of a bonfire and burned. Newsnet Scotland is even quoted after they tried to link Better Together with Rolf Harris. Another charmer thinks all No voters should be beheaded. And apparently voting No means we're "English loving scum and traitors" who will be brought to account after a Yes vote. On the field of Bannockburn as well there's a picture that the national press appears to have missed where the Union Flag was burned. And another Nationalist who took issue with Andrew Neil posting a picture of the fire at the Glasgow fire claiming it was a National tragedy for the UK - apparently it was only a tragedy for Scotland. The collection is extensive and it shows the mentality of those who we would be putting in power in the event of a Yes vote. And yet some on here, in denial, still deny the Nazi comparisons. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nationalists-Say-The-Stupidest-Things/515333345152432 Dickson is a barefaced liar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 It doesn't kill the EU debate. It's not even anything new on what I already posted many moons ago on this thread. Again to repeat - in theory if all of the existing 28 Member States are happy for Scotland to be brought in, it would / could be as simple and straightforward as noted in the article above. If even one of the 28 doesn't agree (I personally don't see why they would object, but I'm not going to second guess the international political agenda of other European countries), then it is impossible / illegal for Scotland to be brought in any other way than via the full application process, as the main treaties of the EU cannot legally be amended to increase membership without unanimous agreement. Again, to repeat, I don't see why another country would object, but in theory they could, and there is literally nothing we could do about it - it's completely out of our hands. Edited to add - don't shoot the messenger BTW - I'm not posting anything political or opinion based, this is purely factual information. What would happen though in the intervening years while this was being sorted out? There is no protocol for expelling EU citizens and if memory serves when Germany unified (I know its not the same but its the only event even close) the "new" Germans citizens were absorbed while the paperwork was sorted out way into the future (or was it ever sorted?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Bundy Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Dickson is a barefaced liar Mon, net You will be telling us the Earth is square ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Hey Dicko: Now we know where you got your avatar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Bundy Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Hey Dicko: Now we know where you got your avatar! Possibly to detract from the runt of the litter ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1431143.ece Beat me to it Salmonbuddie Beat you both This is interesting on a few levels:- http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1431143.ece The author is an ex head of Scottish enterprise, former advisor to Sec of State for Scotland and also a board member of Reform Scotland - this is linked to a right wing westminster think tank. So not any connections to the SNP, however a peer and establishment figure. Yet, his article blows holes in the treasury figures and OBR forecasts and highlights how UK gov depts can have predictions for oil prices 3 and 4 years away around 33% out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Yep I know who he is. A FORMER oil boss as well as a former banker, former whisky boss and a former boss of fisheries. A bit of a jack of all trades. However far be it for me to rubbish his credentials, or his motives for taking a different line to current bosses in ALL of these industries. However since you are giving him so much credence how about current oil bosses? Will you listen to them with their impressive CV's? Bob Dudley at BP and Ben van Beurden of Shell have both spoken out against Independence. Two guys who know their business inside out. Two real experts in their field. Or do you only choose the opinion of experts who's views seem to back up your prejudices. He's a director of Reform Scotland who are in favour of retaining the union and he's ripping apart the uk gov figures for the made up shite that they are. This is the most important credential and what tmakes the story so relevent. But of course, you knew that didnt you and instead sought to play the man and smear him instead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) What would happen though in the intervening years while this was being sorted out? There is no protocol for expelling EU citizens and if memory serves when Germany unified (I know its not the same but its the only event even close) the "new" Germans citizens were absorbed while the paperwork was sorted out way into the future (or was it ever sorted?) It's tricky, and I don't really understand why when the Treaty of Lisbon was being drafted (and the defunct constitution before it) they didn't have the foresight to think that nations may split but both want to retain membership; I mean surely it's not that unlikely to happen?!?The main problem is that although there isn't a precedent for it, there are absolutely strict rules when it comes to the numbers of Commissioners, members of the Council, European Council, European Parliament, Court of Auditors, Judges of the CJEU etc being increased i.e. for that to happen it requires a treaty amendment, and for that to happen there needs to be unanimity, without that unanimity, any change to the treaties would breach international law. In other words, tricky as it would be to revoke EU citizenship from millions of people, there would be no other alternative IF (and I genuinely think it's a very remote possibility) any existing State refused to sign a treaty amendment. Revocation in that incredibly unlikely scenario would likely follow the same procedure as a voluntary State withdrawal from the EU, for which there has been a set of procedures in place since 2009. This would include basically a phased withdrawal agreement over around a 2-3 year period. That withdrawal wouldn't necessarily lead to a loss of all EU rights for Scottish nationals though as there are other linked bodies (such as the EEA, EFTA etc) that Scotland could remain within. Edited July 7, 2014 by zurich_allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) He's a director of Reform Scotland who are in favour of retaining the union and he's ripping apart the uk gov figures for the made up shite that they are. This is the most important credential and what tmakes the story so relevent. But of course, you knew that didnt you and instead sought to play the man and smear him instead... No I didn't try to play the man or smear him. I simply pointed out that two more eminent oil industry experts - more CURRENT oil industry experts - have come out strongly AGAINST Independence. If I wanted to smear your Professor I would have highlighted the fact that he was a director of a Trust that was liquidated in 2011 having lost it's investors a huge pile of money and I would have pointed out that he was baw deep in the shambolic escalating costs of the building of the Scottish Parliament, and he's also been a strong advocate of the Edinburgh Tram system from the start. Projects where he got his sums wrong. However I didn't do that cause what would be the point. The man has an opinion and he's got a right to put forward his logic and we should listen to it and chose to give the man credence, or not as the case may be. After all we all make mistakes and occasionally back the wrong horse. Natsi's will grasp at anyone who gives them a glimmer of hope - only two weeks ago it was Professor Dunleavy who work was picked apart bit by bit by a friend and colleague of his who simply pointed out that he would be doing well to set up a new country for £200m when New Zealand spent £600m on a far less complex computer system than Scotland would need, to handle taxation alone. It transpired, of course, that Dunleavy agreed with his friends estimation of the costs but that he didn't believe that it should be termed as a "start up cost" and argued that where they disagreed was on terminology. That's nice, except a cost is a cost and someone still has to pick up the bill no matter what it's called Edited July 8, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Still ignoring the STV story, I see. No change there, then.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Someone's been reading z_a's posts, I think http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28197298 Edited July 8, 2014 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I thought this was a fairly decent programme which I watched last night. Won't turn anyone's opinion but I found some of what the economists were saying interesting. You get the jist of whilst both sides are having the 'my dick is bigger than yours' debate on the economy, Scotland would pretty much be the same economically in 20 years independence or not. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b049b89z/scotland-for-richer-or-poorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 The refarendam debate from Portree Sky tonight 9pm BBC2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 The refarendam debate from Portree Sky tonight 9pm BBC2 Or Brazil v Germany on the other channel? Hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 No I didn't try to play the man or smear him. I simply pointed out that two more eminent oil industry experts - more CURRENT oil industry experts - have come out strongly AGAINST Independence. If I wanted to smear your Professor I would have highlighted the fact that he was a director of a Trust that was liquidated in 2011 having lost it's investors a huge pile of money and I would have pointed out that he was baw deep in the shambolic escalating costs of the building of the Scottish Parliament, and he's also been a strong advocate of the Edinburgh Tram system from the start. Projects where he got his sums wrong. However I didn't do that cause what would be the point. The man has an opinion and he's got a right to put forward his logic and we should listen to it and chose to give the man credence, or not as the case may be. After all we all make mistakes and occasionally back the wrong horse. Natsi's will grasp at anyone who gives them a glimmer of hope - only two weeks ago it was Professor Dunleavy who work was picked apart bit by bit by a friend and colleague of his who simply pointed out that he would be doing well to set up a new country for £200m when New Zealand spent £600m on a far less complex computer system than Scotland would need, to handle taxation alone. It transpired, of course, that Dunleavy agreed with his friends estimation of the costs but that he didn't believe that it should be termed as a "start up cost" and argued that where they disagreed was on terminology. That's nice, except a cost is a cost and someone still has to pick up the bill no matter what it's called If that is the case then surely you would agree that an independent scotland would have a great opportunity to set up cost-efficient systems that could save us a fortune over the wasteful IT projects that Westminster has overseen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) He's right, a cost is a cost. Now, how much will we save by dropping Trident, HS2 (&3), refurbishment of HoP, new Thames Estuary bridge for London. Enough to cover the start-up costs with a bit left over maybe? Edited July 8, 2014 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 There is absolutely no way that the Scottish Parliament will have it's powers reduced, that's shameless scaremongering with no basis in fact whatsoever. UKIP will be lucky to win one seat at the next general election. Why do you pick Denmark and Sweden? Why not Ireland? Thats a far more recent and more relevant example of a country going it alone, a country which has got itself in a right state. No one is saying we couldn't do it alone, of course we could. Why should we though? Why not stay in the union? You may be right that the powers of the Scottish Parliament will be reduced after a No vote, but there is no guarantee of this and certainly no guarantee of significantly increased powers. This piece from yesterday's Herald seems to me to confirm this. Agenda:martin sime Monday 7 July 2014 A lot of water has passed under the bridge since our politicians ruled out the so-called second question on more powers for Scotland. At the time we were told yes/no to independence was the only viable question which could produce an unequivocal answer. Some politicians even went so far as to say they had no mandate to ask voters about anything else. The credentials of people supporting a second question were also attacked. Only now are the real reasons for this becoming apparent. It was always the case a second question would have muddied the waters when both sides wanted the certainty of victory or defeat. Even if the rest of us don't feel the same way, independence and Unionism have become tribal rallying points for party politics in Scotland. More devolution crosses those battle lines and confuses the ideological point of it all. The single question was a victory for party rather than public interest. An option of more devolution would also have required some urgent collaboration across party lines in order to agree on a scheme to put to voters. As we see now this is fraught with difficulty. There is little the three Better Together parties agree on about more powers. There are even some major disagreements within parties, especially Labour. Any forced consensus and common ground would undermine the need for separate campaigning positions in the UK General Election, only eight months after the referendum. A second question would have been inconvenient to our politicians because they would have been forced to work together and agree. The party strategists thought it much better to have different versions of what happens next after a No vote. So now there will be competing visions vying for support at the General Election. But of course this throws the whole game up in the air. What if no party gains a majority in May 2015? What if, as is often the case, the choices Scotland makes are different to who wins power? Will more devolution get lost if there is a Coalition? Any strategy for the future of devolution which is built upon voting for a political party at a UK election is fraught with uncertainty. Maybe that suits the people with no genuine interest in moving things on. Donald Dewar famously claimed devolution is a process, not an event. Some 15 years on this has proved truer than even he could have realised. Government is a complex and messy business with powers being forever mixed up and moved across the various layers of authority from local government right through to Europe. Devolution has matured slowly and the Scottish Parliament has acquired some new competences alongside a growing confidence. But there is an obvious distinction between minor adjustments, including almost all of the Calman proposals, and the big issues which everyone has an interest in. In that context, options for a second question were actually quite easy to agree. The public had a pretty clear view welfare and the economy should be devolved and better integrated with health, education and the environment. Even most of our politicians feel it would be a good thing if the Scottish Parliament raised most or all of the money it spends. On the other hand, there was little appetite for a more-powers option that included foreign affairs and defence. But it is not to be. We probably shouldn't wonder why involvement in politics is in decline when faced with such fundamental examples of putting party advantage ahead of what people want. A postscript to this unhappy tale might be to reflect it should always be the public who should decide which powers to invest in which political structures. We might even have regular referendums about such things. It is then for the politicians we elect to use these powers. Those who are currently messing with the future of devolution and who have conspired to deny us an option of choice in the referendum have got things the wrong way round. The future of Scotland is too important to be left to our politicians. If there is ever a next time we will need to do it better than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Or Brazil v Germany on the other channel? Hmmmm 2014 and you can't recode a TV channel mmm ? Edited July 8, 2014 by Isle Of Bute Saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 2014 and you can't recode a TV channel mmm ? Nope! "Recording" on the other hand..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Mon BC ! 1.4 Trillion of debt, That these corrupt Unionist politicians have ladled the UK with, because of their friend's the Bankers. ? You are indeed A Big fearty, Who cuddles up on the belief that You are doing a job that help's the poorest members of our society ? I, remember Supplementary Benefit, Income support, and the changes to the Benefit's System made by the various corrupt London. Based politicians. ! Now answer the question with regards to the welfare state that existed in this corrupt union ? You BC, have more than most of the 820,000 people who are living in Poverty, In this small country called Scotland ! Benefit sanctions, And foodbanks are the norm in this day and age,Yet you could not give a f**k as long as You have your Job,and various property's owned and rented by You ? Do you Let any of these Property's to benefit claimants, And doe's Pishy fae Wishay, Wipe your arse ? This was your question bud - "Tell me this,Who would you class as the undeserving Poor or the deserving Poor - out of the official figures of 820,000 people living in Poverty in a small country like our own ?" to which i answered i dont believe anyone deserves to be in poverty, as for the above bit in bold ? havent a clue what your asking here. my job IS all about helping people - people who are unable to work due to sickness or disability - these people are in poverty because they are not paid much in benefits, i dont set the benefit rates, but if i'm not there to help them make a claim then they wont have the guidance i give which helps make sure their claim is as complete as it can be,thereby being processed and in payment quicker, do you want me to quit my job and let somebody else do it ? yes i do let all my property to benefit claimants and i would not let dicko anywhere near my erchie Edited July 8, 2014 by buddiecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.