Scottish Independence discussion area

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Where gov spending is higher than the tax take? Free this, free that etc..

Do you think Scotland is subsided by the rest of the UK

dubscottie

doovdela wrote: »

It be hard to know which way the voting outcome will go I say could be a close vote. I think it be a great thing for Scotland to be independent but who knows being part of the current government might be not be such a bad thing.

I agree. If I was still in Scotland I would be voting NO.

On the other hand, a small bit of me wants a Yes vote so I can watch them fail.

dundalkfc10

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Didn't realise the bookies vote :pac:

If it was as close as the pols suggest, They wouldnt be

Put 4 euro on No and get 5 euro back
Put 4 euro on Yes and get 18 euro back

HazDanz

dubscottie wrote: »

I agree. If I was still in Scotland I would be voting NO.

On the other hand, a small bit of me wants a Yes vote so I can watch them fail.

Why would you want them to fail? Super country Scotland and I would wish them the best with a Yes outcome. If anyone should cheer on a peaceful and successful independence from GB it should be ROI.

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Do you think Scotland is subsided by the rest of the UK

Yes.. When Scotland has to pay for everything such as defence, admin, Health services, agriculture. etc etc, you will realise how mush the rest of the UK contributes to each other.

Remember there is lots of red tape in the UK. Scotland would have set up 100's of departments in 2 years. Everything from Air Crash Investigation to Food Inspectors.

100 of solicitors and lawyers to draft laws so these departments can function.

It all costs money. Quangos..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9761966/Scottish-quangos-spend-113-million-on-PR-overseas-travel-consultants-and-hospitality.html

Tell me where is the money going to come from? Not the Oil..

Fratton Fred

Muahahaha wrote: »

So saying big fcuking deal is the best you can do? Despite the overwhelming evidence of the vast majority of the last 54 Prime Ministers going to Oxbridge proving my point beyond doubt. You've lost the argument how and all you can say is "So what"

And I'm fully aware of how Oxford operates, my sister has a degree from there as does a mate. But tell me this, if British scoety is structured equally why have none other the other 170 odd British universities ever educated a future Prime Minister. Edinburgh has two which is pretty pathetic in some 300 odd years. The rest of the UK universities have none, not one PM has ever been educated in the many excellent universities across the UK. Why is that, are we seriously to believe that there are no smart and capable people in the rest of the UK? Or is it more likely that the very structures of society are set up to benefit one particular class and even if you're smart and capable the system will ensure that you don't get ahead, or at least not as ahead as what the upper classes are. Thats the way things are in the UK, any of my english friends would privately talk about how they've come up against class cleavages. These are the phenomena that happen when you delibritely structure a society unequally, it can never be any other way.

Finally I noticed how you didnt address my point about how you said that the Queen is only a symbolic influence over the parliament, when that is far from the truth. I hope you at least have some understanding of her role in British politics because if you think it is only symbolic then you're well wide of the mark.

I said big ****ing deal, because that's all your post deserved to be honest.

I notice the way you started on originally about Oxford, but then widened it to include Cambridge so you can try and create stats that confirm your own view.

Anyone can go to Oxbridge, as you have confirmed. So why, therefore, can't anyone become prime minister, after all three of the last seven didn't go there and two of them didn't go to university at all.

Oh, Liz's role in politics is just that. Symbolic.

Donkey Oaty

The rest of the UK universities have none, not one PM has ever been educated in the many excellent universities across the UK.

John Major didn't go to any university, which proves that they still have some entry standards.

dubscottie

HazDanz wrote: »

Why would you want them to fail? Super country Scotland and I would wish them the best with a Yes outcome. If anyone should cheer on a peaceful and successful independence from GB it should be ROI.

I know I am Scottish..

The ROI and Scotland can not be compared. Too many differences.

And Scotland was not occupied.. It asked to join in a union.

Why have all the questions about the EU etc stopped? It is now banks, etc

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Yes..

So, in your view, Scotland should continue to be a strain on the UK and go Cap in Hand?

namloc1980

dubscottie wrote: »

Yes.. When Scotland has to pay for everything such as defence, admin, Health services, agriculture. etc etc, you will realise how mush the rest of the UK contributes to each other.

Remember there is lots of red tape in the UK. Scotland would have set up 100's of departments in 2 years. Everything from Air Crash Investigation to Food Inspectors.

100 of solicitors and lawyers to draft laws so these departments can function.

It all costs money. Quangos..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9761966/Scottish-quangos-spend-113-million-on-PR-overseas-travel-consultants-and-hospitality.html

Tell me where is the money going to come from? Not the Oil..

Scotland has a fully functioning government today with civil service etc. Are there challenges...of course, are these insurmountable obstacles that the no campaign keep bleating on about...of course not.

eire4

dubscottie wrote: »

I know I am Scottish..

The ROI and Scotland can not be compared. Too many differences.

And Scotland was not occupied.. It asked to join in a union.

Why have all the questions about the EU etc stopped? It is now banks, etc

"asked" to join in a union. Wow thats a pretty concise and interesting wording to use.

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So, in your view, Scotland should continue to be a strain on the UK and go Cap in Hand?

Is this a different move now by the yes campaign? "We don't want to be strain on the rest of the UK"

Anyway Scotland can't be a strain on the UK as it is part of the UK.

FloatingVoter

On a more serious note....Scotland's most famous resident has moved south for tax purposes.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/weird-news/loch-ness-monster-creature-photographed-4204870

dubscottie

eire4 wrote: »

"asked" to join in a union. Wow thats a pretty concise and interesting wording to use.

1707.. Scotland cap in hand. Wilkipeda it. But of course Scotland was "occupied" by the English..:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Is this a different move now by the yes campaign? "We don't want to be strain on the rest of the UK"

Anyway Scotland can't be a strain on the UK as it is part of the UK.

You admitted that you think Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK and you would vote No therefore it is reasonable to suggest you want Scotland to continue to be subsidised therefore a strain on the rest of the UK.

Fratton Fred

eire4 wrote: »

"asked" to join in a union. Wow thats a pretty concise and interesting wording to use.

How would you describe it then?

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You admitted that you think Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK and you would vote No therefore it is reasonable to suggest you want Scotland to continue to be subsidised therefore a strain on the rest of the UK.

You are the one saying Scotland is a strain on the UK economy..

Economies of scale come into it.

Everything that is done (i.e defence etc) in Westminster, will have to be duplicated in Scotland if there is a yes vote.

That cost money. How are you going to get this money? Not from the EU as you won't be members.

Banks won't lend as you will have no credit rating..

I know Tax!

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

You are the one saying Scotland is a strain on the UK economy..

Far from it, Scotland pays her way in the Union

Everything that is done (i.e defence etc) in Westminster, will have to be duplicated in Scotland if there is a yes vote.

Like spending £billions on WMD?

eeepaulo

dubscottie wrote: »

That cost money. How are you going to get this money? Not from the EU as you won't be members.

Banks won't lend as you will have no credit rating..

If there is a breakup it will be an amicable breakup, maybe scotland can take enough of the current tax take, maybe ruk would extend a line of credit to the new scotland, maybe underwrite a new currency, maybe they would go straight to the bond markets, if it happens, ruk has to help make it succeed.

Muahahaha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I said big ****ing deal, because that's all your post deserved to be honest.

I notice the way you started on originally about Oxford, but then widened it to include Cambridge so you can try and create stats that confirm your own view.

Anyone can go to Oxbridge, as you have confirmed. So why, therefore, can't anyone become prime minister, after all three of the last seven didn't go there and two of them didn't go to university at all.

Oh, Liz's role in politics is just that. Symbolic.

lol from a guy who thinks the Queen has only a symbolic role in British politics and didnt know that she has been the most influential figure of ALL of British politics over the last 50 years. You need to stop believing what Sky News tell you, the Queen is a very important political actor in British politics,she always has been and just because the establishment and media sell you the line that she is purely symbolic doesnt mean you have to swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker like you have done.

If, as you say, the Queen is only symbolic then do tell me what the hell her and Thatcher spent the best part of 10 years arguing about? If you think the Queen remains neutral on her views of governance during her regualr meetings with Prime Ministers then that is extraordinarily naive and shows you have a lack of understanding of how British politics actually works when you scratch beneath the surface.

And if you look back on the thread I listed the triangle of Eton-Oxford and Cambridge being responsible for the vast majority of all PMs and in that I'm 100% correct, unless you want to go arguing with historical fact :rolleyes:

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Far from it, Scotland pays her way in the Union





Like spending £billions on WMD?

The Nuclear weapons have given Scotland jobs for decades. And you want rid?

Never answered my question about EU membership yet..

The UK is an EU member. Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the EU.

In the same way a husband/wife are members of a golf club. Membership is in his name.

She leaves him. Has to apply for membership in her own name.

Everytime this comes up.. Scaremongering! Why can't the Yes crowd just answer the question. And the other questions that go unanswered?

You don't have an answer..

Donkey Oaty

If you think the Queen remains neutral on her views of gobernance during her regualr meetings with Prime Ministers then that is extraordinarily naive and shows you have a lack of understanding of how British politics works

I don't know what FF thinks about this, but I'm certain that the elected PM's couldn't give a **** what she thinks one way or another, for the simple reason that she will never make her thoughts known publically, and in that sense her personal influence is zero.

The flunkeys and hangers-on, though are an entirely different matter - as is Charles.

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

The Nuclear weapons have given Scotland jobs for decades. And you want rid?

Absolutely, there are far better ways of creating jobs for much less money even ignoring the morality of spending money on WMD

Never answered my question about EU membership yet..

The UK is an EU member. Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the EU.

Scotland leaving the union with England/Wales does not definitely mean Scotland leaving the EU

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well your posts appear to contradict that statement

A couple of statements today that you may have missed in the furore over some banks moving their HQ

'The powers of independence can revitalise Scottish shipbuilding

Ferguson-Ship-Yard-500950Jim McColl, the new owner of Ferguson’s Shipbuilders, has announced that he aims to employ 300 people through a £8 million investment.'

'Financial giant backs independent Scotland’s economy to succeed


Martin Gilbert, Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management (including Scottish Widows Investment Partnership), has backed the economy of an independent Scotland to be a success. The entrepreneur, who co-founded the company in 1983, said last night to the BBC that “An independent Scotland would be a great success.”'

That's a pretty small investment for that many jobs. Particularly in a heavy industry.

eeepaulo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I don't know what FF thinks about this, but I'm certain that the elected PM's couldn't give a **** what she thinks one way or another, for the simple reason that she will never make her thoughts known publically, and in that sense her personal influence is zero.

She has a nice wave though, thats the important thing in a figurehead

Donkey Oaty

eeepaulo wrote: »

She has a nice wave though, thats the important thing in a figurehead

And a hat for every occasion - Michael D Higgins take note.

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scotland leaving the union with England/Wales does not definitely mean Scotland leaving the EU

Sorry it does.. But Alex Salmond says it will be OK.. Sure he is going to tell the UK what to do, The EU what to do (Scotland can become a member over night), and the UN what to do (in the case of territorial waters)..

jonnny68

The amount of scaremongering by the pathetic "better together" campaign is embarrassing and just goes to show how much they fear that (hopefully) people do the right thing

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Sorry it does..

I did not realise the European Commission have given a legal stance on it, can you point towards that legal stance?

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I did not realise the European Commission have given a legal stance on it, can you point towards that legal stance?

Point me to the legal stance that says Scotland will get automatic EU membership if it goes on its own..:rolleyes:

The Yes says it will be no problem.. Still to see the proof though!

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

No, they have not said that - what you said is the classic scare tactic that is reported in the media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM

http://www.rbs.com/news/2014/09/statement-in-response-to-press-speculation-on-re-domicile.html

Now, when you watch the video above, look at the BBC news and see how they edit it - that will tell you their spin

Here is the BBC edited version - spot the difference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enrdDaf3uss

Fratton Fred

jonnny68 wrote: »

The amount of scaremongering by the pathetic "better together" campaign is embarrassing and just goes to show how much they fear that (hopefully) people do the right thing

Alex Salmond: "if we leave the union we will all be rich, everything will be free, taxes will be lower and everyone will have a job"
No campaign: err, no, you have no realistic economic plans and your numbers just don't add up"
Alex Salmond: " SCAREMONGERING"

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Point me to the legal stance that says Scotland will get automatic EU membership if it goes on its own..:rolleyes:

You were the one that claimed Scotland would be chucked out of the EU, are you now saying there is no legal stance for this?

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Alex Salmond: "if we leave the union we will all be rich, everything will be free, taxes will be lower and everyone will have a job"
No campaign: err, no, you have no realistic economic plans and your numbers just don't add up"
Alex Salmond: " SCAREMONGERING"

I think the people in Scotland can spot scare mongering. Look at this very thread a while ago where some even took the scare mongerer bait

bilston

What the hell is wrong with UK PMs going to Oxbridge?

Some of the smartest in the world, never mind the UK go to Oxford and Cambridge and Prime Minsters are meant to be smart people.

The Pheasant2

bilston wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with UK PMs going to Oxbridge?

Some of the smartest in the world, never mind the UK go to Oxford and Cambridge and Prime Minsters are meant to be smart people.

Bitta the ol' reverse snobbery I s'pose

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think the people in Scotland can spot scare mongering. Look at this very thread a while ago where some even took the scare mongerer bait

Again with the "scaremongering"! FFS What if Scotland goes tits up? will you be running back to Ireland?

Are you able to answer any question or reply to a comment without mentioning "scaremongering"????

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Again with the "scaremongering"! FFS What if Scotland goes tits up? will you be running back to Ireland?

No, I have lived here for 21 years

Will you be running back to Scotland if it does not go tits up?

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You were the one that claimed Scotland would be chucked out of the EU, are you now saying there is no legal stance for this?

Scotland have never been in the EU

England, Northern Ireland and Wales as a union havent either, can they keep the uk name?

Im not sure how this will work, neither is anyone else, again, its a subject that has not been raised, let alone discussed.

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

No, I have lived here for 21 years

Will you be running back to Scotland if it does not go tits up?

No.. Happy in Ireland thanks. Scotland went tits up in 1997 anyway!

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

Scotland have never been in the EU

True

England, Northern Ireland and Wales as a union havent either

True

Im not sure how this will work, neither is anyone else, again, its a subject that has not been raised, let alone discussed.

True although that does not seem to stop the 'Independent Scotland will not be in the EU' posts

MRnotlob606

Apparently 10% percent of business's in Scotland would relocate to the south of the border if Scotland were to vote Yes.

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

No.. Happy in Ireland thanks. Scotland went tits up in 1997 anyway!

Not sure why you have such a vendetta against Scotland then, did a Scottish girl knock you back?

So Scotland went tits up within the UK - and you want to keep it that way?

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

True



True



True although that does not seem to stop the 'Independent Scotland will not be in the EU' posts

Agree, but scotland had the chance to know all of this stuff, a bloodless seperation where we can get all the cards on the table, instead we get politics (both sides)

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

True



True



True although that does not seem to stop the 'Independent Scotland will not be in the EU' posts

Mostly because an independent Scotland will not be in the EU.

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

True



True



True although that does not seem to stop the 'Independent Scotland will not be in the EU' posts

Mostly because an independent Scotland will not be in the EU.

eeepaulo

My biggest worry isnt whether the vote is yes or no,

its whether ordinary people who live work and fear in these various countries will be served.

And certainly there has been no real substance from anyone about the ramifications,

If there is a yes vote, then there needs to be 2 years of positivity.

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

Agree, but scotland had the chance to know all of this stuff, a bloodless seperation where we can get all the cards on the table, instead we get politics (both sides)

Not true, the Scottish Government asked the European Commission for the legal position. The EC said they cannot give that to the SG and they could only give it to the UK Government. The SG asked the UK Government to ask the EC for the legal position. The UK Government refused. So rather than clarity, we get speculation

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not true, the Scottish Government asked the European Commission for the legal position. The EC said they cannot give that to the SG and they could only give it to the UK Government. The SG asked the UK Government to ask the EC for the legal position. The UK Government refused. So rather than clarity, we get speculation

What you get is uncertainty. And uncertainty kills it.
It will fall on a range of issues. The emotional bally hoo takes it a certain distance but heads eventually rule and heads will make it a clear no.

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not sure why you have such a vendetta against Scotland then, did a Scottish girl knock you back?

So Scotland went tits up within the UK - and you want to keep it that way?

I would vote no so I have a vendetta???

I don't like the path that Scotland took with devolution. I moved here cause of love and I was lucky work wise.

I have seen my home town destroyed and turned into a ****hole by the scottish parliament. My Auntie was supposed to retire but still has to work as the Scottish government said she could only get half her pension.

I have had friends crippled by having to travel 25 miles to get an out patient appointment in a hospital when one was closed 4 miles up the road.

I have had friends told to "**** off home" in the last few weeks cause they are from England (or sound English)

So you can understand why I don't want things to go further.