salmonbuddie Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Didn't realise the EU was as old as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 If Scotland votes no we carry on in one of the world's most successful political unions just as we have done for the most successful and most financially rewarding period in Scottish history - the last 300 years And therein lies the problem! IF Scotland were to vote NO, yes, we would carry on in the political union, but what would be the benefit of ANY Westminster government giving ANYTHING to the Scots? They wouldn't need them & the threat of independence would disappear for many years - we would be royally shafted to the benefit of South England! It makes sense for them to do so! ie: if it wasn't for the "threat" of independence the Clyde shipyards would have been condemned last week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 There was me thinking that being the chairman of the co-op bank, although having no experience in banking whatsoever! might have contributed to that guy Flowers cocking it up big time.... But apparently it's got nothing to do with having no experience or understanding of running a bank? He and the bank failed because he votes labour..! But how comes Lord Sugar, J.K. Rowling etc managed to be so successful..? I'm sure Dicko has a truck load of piss por theories to explain that for us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) And therein lies the problem! IF Scotland were to vote NO, yes, we would carry on in the political union, but what would be the benefit of ANY Westminster government giving ANYTHING to the Scots? They wouldn't need them & the threat of independence would disappear for many years - we would be royally shafted to the benefit of South England! It makes sense for them to do so! ie: if it wasn't for the "threat" of independence the Clyde shipyards would have been condemned last week! And yet the No campaign is accused of being negative.... Over one page of posts we have Independence supporters telling us that Scotland is worth trillions because of the oil in the North Sea - then on the next page you've claimed that if Scotland remains in the Union it's got no value to Westminster and that Scotland need Westminster to "give" to it. The fact is we are valuable to each other. Scotland has oil, even if production has fallen by 66% since 2000, England has discovered large gas reserves off the coast of Lancashire that could be more valuable than North Sea Oil ever was. Scotland has an important whisky industry which exports well, and England has one of the biggest and most important stock exchanges in the world. When Scotland votes no - as it should - the threat of Independence won't go away. I wish it would but it won't. Alex Salmond will have to resign - thank f**k - but the SNP will still be a force in Scottish politics. Things will just carry on as they are doing right now. Edited November 20, 2013 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 There was me thinking that being the chairman of the co-op bank, although having no experience in banking whatsoever! might have contributed to that guy Flowers cocking it up big time.... But apparently it's got nothing to do with having no experience or understanding of running a bank? He and the bank failed because he votes labour..! But how comes Lord Sugar, J.K. Rowling etc managed to be so successful..? I'm sure Dicko has a truck load of piss por theories to explain that for us You mean Alan Sugar? The big Maggie Thatcher fan? The one who described Gordon Browns Labour Party as "Not New Labour, it's old fashioned Tory"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) You mean Alan Sugar? The big Maggie Thatcher fan? The one who described Gordon Browns Labour Party as "Not New Labour, it's old fashioned Tory"? Thats him Lord Sugar Billionaire Labour supporter (and Labour Peer).... just donated £51k to Ed Milliband... glad you at last see sense and agree your blanket theories are all pish Edited November 20, 2013 by somner9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 And yet the No campaign is accused of being negative.... Over one page of posts we have Independence supporters telling us that Scotland is worth trillions because of the oil in the North Sea - then on the next page you've claimed that if Scotland remains in the Union it's got no value to Westminster and that Scotland need Westminster to "give" to it. The fact is we are valuable to each other. Scotland has oil, even if production has fallen by 66% since 2000, England has discovered large gas reserves off the coast of Lancashire that could be more valuable than North Sea Oil ever was. Scotland has an important whisky industry which exports well, and England has one of the biggest and most important stock exchanges in the world. When Scotland votes no - as it should - the threat of Independence won't go away. I wish it would but it won't. Alex Salmond will have to resign - thank f**k - but the SNP will still be a force in Scottish politics. Things will just carry on as they are doing right now. Who says the oil is "running out"? Is it "volatile" - of course it is, simply because NO-ONE knows how much is there! So, the word "volatile" can be used correctly, just not necessarilly in a negative form. "England has one of the biggest and most important stock exchanges in the world." It does indeed - what does THAT matter? - It could as easily be in Largs! This may help clarify some things: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-gingerbread-robbery/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Thats him Lord Sugar Billionaire Labour supporter (and Labour Peer).... just donated £51k to Ed Milliband... glad you at last see sense and agree your blanket theories are all pish He switched allegiance in 1997. The quote I gave came from Gordon Browns election campaign when he backed Brown for being an old fashioned Tory. Oh and if you want to explore your take further Sugar made most of his money from businesses he set up prior to 1997. The ones started since then have been pretty pish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Who says the oil is "running out"? Is it "volatile" - of course it is, simply because NO-ONE knows how much is there! So, the word "volatile" can be used correctly, just not necessarilly in a negative form. "England has one of the biggest and most important stock exchanges in the world." It does indeed - what does THAT matter? - It could as easily be in Largs! This may help clarify some things: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-great-gingerbread-robbery/ I have never said that the oil is running out. It is a fact that production figures from the North Sea are down 66% on where we were in 2000. That's not to say that there is no oil - just that oil companies will invest in oil fields where cheap oil is available first. As for the importance of the stock exchange, it is a major revenue provider for the whole of the UK. It boosts our GDP, and provides a ready made market for private investment into UK business. It is hugely relevant. It could just as easily be in Largs, but it isn't and Largs will never be a major player in the international money markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Did you bother to READ the article I linked? London SOOKS all the wealth from all over UK then claims it is all generated in London. In short, would Tesco / Ladbrokes / Vodafone etc all shut their doors the day after a YES vote? So, how does the London Stock Exchange "provide revenue" for us here in this day & age of cyber-conomies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Who says the oil is "running out"? Is it "volatile" - of course it is, simply because NO-ONE knows how much is there! So, the word "volatile" can be used correctly, just not necessarilly in a negative form. It is a NON-renewable resource and so by definition it has to run out because we're using it faster than it is being replaced. Don't play into his hands here. Oil will run out whether we are part of the UK or independent. It's a complete red herring. The only important thing is our reliance on it for our economy as an independent nation. We would be no more dependent on oil than the UK is now. As I say, a complete red herring. We are trying to get around that by creating more renewable resources and will succeed although in the short term there is an extra expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 that was my point! Gramatically - noone can object to the use of the word volatile. However Stud has failed to say why we are reliant on London because it inhales most of the wealth from all over this island. Re-read the article I linked (A bit heavyish for most, I know, but it is in straightforward language) Still waiting to hear a reason why we would be better with a NO vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 He switched allegiance in 1997. The quote I gave came from Gordon Browns election campaign when he backed Brown for being an old fashioned Tory. Oh and if you want to explore your take further Sugar made most of his money from businesses he set up prior to 1997. The ones started since then have been pretty pish. And you switched allegiance when....? Jeez Dicko it's near impossible to take the pish out of you when you keep giving it away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 that was my point! Gramatically - noone can object to the use of the word volatile. However Stud has failed to say why we are reliant on London because it inhales most of the wealth from all over this island. Re-read the article I linked (A bit heavyish for most, I know, but it is in straightforward language) Still waiting to hear a reason why we would be better with a NO vote! I can't think of a single good reason for continuing to allow another country to control the majority of what we do. I'm trying but I just don't see it. I can however see a future for a United Kingdom where the members are all completely independent countries (where they indicate the wish to be so) all working together as they are now. What I can't see is why that United Kingdom needs to have some countries subservient to the biggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I can't think of a single good reason for continuing to allow another country to control the majority of what we do. I'm trying but I just don't see it. I can however see a future for a United Kingdom where the members are all completely independent countries (where they indicate the wish to be so) all working together as they are now. What I can't see is why that United Kingdom needs to have some countries subservient to the biggest. Erm....yeah Oaksoft - so why are the SNP so keen to hand control to Brussels and to Angela Merkel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepaisleypanda Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) Erm....yeah Oaksoft - so why are the SNP so keen to hand control to Brussels and to Angela Merkel? By that logic it is no Different to London / Cameron! Edited November 21, 2013 by thepaisleypanda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 By that logic it is no Different to London / Cameron! No it's not really is it? So what Scottish Independence boils down to is do we want to be governed and have our monetary policies by a parliament where we are well represented, where we speak the same language and where our people have risen to take many of the top jobs in office. Or do we want to be governed and have our monetary policies set by a parliament where we have very little representation, where we've never held any of the top jobs and where most of the time no-one would be able to follow the debates on live TV because of the wide range of languages being spoken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Erm....yeah Oaksoft - so why are the SNP so keen to hand control to Brussels and to Angela Merkel? You are comparing Europe to Westminster? This is such ignorant pish that's it's not worthy of a response. Come back to me when the EU can force a member country to host nuclear weapons, force them to engage in illegal wars and can dictate welfare benefits etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Erm....yeah Oaksoft - so why are the SNP so keen to hand control to Brussels and to Angela Merkel? Let's turn that on it's head. Erm....yeah, StuD - so why are most of Better Together so keen on removing control from Brussels and Angela Merkel? Surely we're Better Together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Let's turn that on it's head. Erm....yeah, StuD - so why are most of Better Together so keen on removing control from Brussels and Angela Merkel? Surely we're Better Together? Better Together are nationalists - not Scottish nationalists, but British nationalists. In their view nationalism is racist and wrong, apart from British nationalism which is a cut above, a better form of it. Simply the best type of nationalism if you will. We used to have an empire you know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Better Together are nationalists - not Scottish nationalists, but British nationalists. In their view nationalism is racist and wrong, apart from British nationalism which is a cut above, a better form of it. Simply the best type of nationalism if you will. We used to have an empire you know... Interesting interview with Billy Bragg here http://m.euractiv.com/details.php?aid=531794 where he goes into the difference between Scottish and English nationalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Interesting interview with Billy Bragg here http://m.euractiv.com/details.php?aid=531794 where he goes into the difference between Scottish and English nationalism. Oh FFS. "Interesting" and "Billy Bragg" really don't go together. It's only two years ago he was renouncing his socialist past, his fighting and singing for the miners and claiming he was now a Liberal Democrat voter. The man has desperately been trying to find so way to make his life relevant again and quite frankly I can't see the point of asking him his opinion on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Puts him right up your street then, doesn't it? Surely he agrees with the sentiment of your op? Or did you read the interview and realise that the points he was making about the differences in the two types of nationalism are valid and completely at odds with the shite you posit on here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Puts him right up your street then, doesn't it? Surely he agrees with the sentiment of your op? Or did you read the interview and realise that the points he was making about the differences in the two types of nationalism are valid and completely at odds with the shite you posit on here? I wouldn't waste a moment of my time reading or watching a thing that fanny says. I've got so much contempt for Bragg that I'd rather read the pish you write instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 I wouldn't waste a moment of my time reading or watching a thing that fanny says. I've got so much contempt for Bragg that I'd rather read the pish you write instead. And this from the cretin who bandies about the term "Natsi" about others willy-nilly, you couldn't make it up. If any schoolchildren in the 22nd century are looking for historical examples of 21st century narrow-mindedness, here you are kids, fill your boots 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.