Hub

AETC => Hubbub => Topic started by: fuctifano on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 09:22 AM

Title: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: fuctifano on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 09:22 AM
I voted to delete the topic ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 09:27 AM
I had to look up what Soar Alba meant. I'm fed up with getting bombarded with 'Yes' campaign stuff on my Facebook page, I certainly don't want to see it here.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: fuctifano on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 09:45 AM
I had to look up what Soar Alba meant. I'm fed up with getting bombarded with 'Yes' campaign stuff on my Facebook page, I certainly don't want to see it here.

Me too. that's why I brought it up ;)

VOTE F'OFF
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 09:51 AM
I don't know what it means either but I can guess.
  I can understand why independence is such an appealing idea because every time Cameron or one of his cronies opens their mouth I feel more disenfranchised myself. However I am fed up with the idea being put about by some quarters that because I'm English I can't possibly share Scottish values of socialism and putting people first, etc, etc.  Its divisive bullshit.
I voted delete topic too :)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Kimmers on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 10:15 AM
I don't have a say either way since I'm newly immigrated.  ::)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 10:26 AM
I don't know what it means either but I can guess.
  I can understand why independence is such an appealing idea because every time Cameron or one of his cronies opens their mouth I feel more disenfranchised myself. However I am fed up with the idea being put about by some quarters that because I'm English I can't possibly share Scottish values of socialism and putting people first, etc, etc.  Its divisive bullshit.
I voted delete topic too :)

Never thought I'd post on this topic...

Jackie, I bought a book years ago (about 100 pages long) by the writer Alasdair Gray (of Lanark fame) called 'Why Scots should rule Scotland'. To be honest, I don't remember much regarding the arguments put forth except that he begins the book by defining what a Scot is, for the purposes of his discussion, and the short version is if you are resident in Scotland (by birth or emigration) and living and paying tax, then it doesn't matter where you were born - you get a say in the future of the country. It's not a foolproof idea, but it's a good starting point. I'm sick to death of people like Sir Sean of Connery, Earl of Marbella constantly harping n about it when he's probably lived in Scotland for about a quarter of his life, and that was probably the first quarter. The Big Yin isn't much better either!

I got the YES campaign paper through the letterbox the other day and had a look at it. Some of the 'arguments' are so thin it's unbelievable. I'm not against the idea of independence but I have yet to see a serious argument that we could afford to do it. As far as I am concerned, it's like buying a house. You might like the house but can you afford to buy it? Can you afford to maintain it? Can you afford to run it? I've yet to see a solid financial argument that supports independence. The sooner people remember it's not an emotional decision the better, it's a business decision.

Can we get Lord Sugar to interrogate Salmond and Sturgeon? (something fishy there), what about Dragon's Den? It's all very well the YES campaign criticising the Better Together lot (Not Much Better campaign would be more accurate) but I think the onus is on the YES campaign as they are seeking to change the status quo.

Good grief, there's a real chance that this time the turkey's will vote for Christmas! Gobble Gobble!

Right, enough of that nonsense, back to the important stuff - it's now February, don't forget to send your SAE to kwaing for the next 'zine, I'll be sending mine away today.
Cheers,

DiD





Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 10:45 AM
I don't know what it means either but I can guess.
  I can understand why independence is such an appealing idea because every time Cameron or one of his cronies opens their mouth I feel more disenfranchised myself. However I am fed up with the idea being put about by some quarters that because I'm English I can't possibly share Scottish values of socialism and putting people first, etc, etc.  Its divisive bullshit.
I voted delete topic too :)

Never thought I'd post on this topic...

Jackie, I bought a book years ago (about 100 pages long) by the writer Alasdair Gray (of Lanark fame) called 'Why Scots should rule Scotland'. To be honest, I don't remember much regarding the arguments put forth except that he begins the book by defining what a Scot is, for the purposes of his discussion, and the short version is if you are resident in Scotland (by birth or emigration) and living and paying tax, then it doesn't matter where you were born - you get a say in the future of the country. It's not a foolproof idea, but it's a good starting point. I'm sick to death of people like Sir Sean of Connery, Earl of Marbella constantly harping n about it when he's probably lived in Scotland for about a quarter of his life, and that was probably the first quarter. The Big Yin isn't much better either!

I got the YES campaign paper through the letterbox the other day and had a look at it. Some of the 'arguments' are so thin it's unbelievable. I'm not against the idea of independence but I have yet to see a serious argument that we could afford to do it. As far as I am concerned, it's like buying a house. You might like the house but can you afford to buy it? Can you afford to maintain it? Can you afford to run it? I've yet to see a solid financial argument that supports independence. The sooner people remember it's not an emotional decision the better, it's a business decision.

Can we get Lord Sugar to interrogate Salmond and Sturgeon? (something fishy there), what about Dragon's Den? It's all very well the YES campaign criticising the Better Together lot (Not Much Better campaign would be more accurate) but I think the onus is on the YES campaign as they are seeking to change the status quo.

Good grief, there's a real chance that this time the turkey's will vote for Christmas! Gobble Gobble!

Right, enough of that nonsense, back to the important stuff - it's now February, don't forget to send your SAE to kwaing for the next 'zine, I'll be sending mine away today.
Cheers,

DiD

The biggest issue I have is that the 'policies' in the White Paper, get rid of Trident, repeal the Bedroom Tax etc. are SNP party policies. When I tell my Yes voting mates that I don't want to have Salmond as PM any more than I want Cameron, they tell me that there will be an election that the SNP might not win. In that case will the Labour government or Labour/Tory coalition carry out the white paper policies? I haven't seen Labour coming out against Trident and suspect Miliband wouldn't let them. Too many unanswered questions.

Cheers for the 'Zine' reminder I'll get onto it today as well.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: lolsmit on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 10:46 AM
I had to look up what Soar Alba meant. I'm fed up with getting bombarded with 'Yes' campaign stuff on my Facebook page, I certainly don't want to see it here.
Isn't this down to how one "uses" facebook?  I don't get bombarded with "yes" or "better together" campaign stuff (or anything come to that) on facebook?!

I voted as I don't think this poll is brought to us via the 'yes', or any other, campaign.

And, DiD, well said.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 10:48 AM
I had to look up what Soar Alba meant. I'm fed up with getting bombarded with 'Yes' campaign stuff on my Facebook page, I certainly don't want to see it here.
Isn't this down to how one "uses" facebook?  I don't get bombarded with "yes" or "better together" campaign stuff (or anything come to that) on facebook?!

I voted as I don't think this poll is brought to us via the 'yes', or any other, campaign.

And, DiD, well said.

To not get bombarded I'd need to unfriend the friends who do the bombarding and other than their Yes onslaught they are worth keeping in touch with. I just scroll past it now.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 11:16 AM


The biggest issue I have is that the 'policies' in the White Paper, get rid of Trident, repeal the Bedroom Tax etc. are SNP party policies. When I tell my Yes voting mates that I don't want to have Salmond as PM any more than I want Cameron, they tell me that there will be an election that the SNP might not win. In that case will the Labour government or Labour/Tory coalition carry out the white paper policies? I haven't seen Labour coming out against Trident and suspect Miliband wouldn't let them. Too many unanswered questions.

Cheers for the 'Zine' reminder I'll get onto it today as well.

It's easy to shoot fish when they are swimming around in the barrel.

The white paper has to be the policies of the government, currently in situ, as they are bringing forward the proposal.  That is not to say they will be a reality but rather try to paint a picture, one possible alternative of a starting point for self governance.

Without a tangible alternative document to compare it against, a no vote is a real step into the unknown.  What will things look like if we say no?  At least the white paper presents one side of the argument we are yet to see what the other side looks like, and it is unlikely that we will see it.  It is difficult to argue the cause when the opposition put up nothing and cast continuous aspersions against everything you say.

The question at the end of the day is whether or not the people who inhabit Scotland believe that with the right infrastructure they could govern their own destiny, peaks and troughs.  DiD said it is like business, correct, do we believe that we have the confidence to be entrepreneurs or are going to forever be the workforce of the management?

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 11:40 AM
The sooner people remember it's not an emotional decision the better, it's a business decision.
I'm equally uncomfortable with the debate surrounding the referendum being a "business" decision as opposed to an emotional one, to be frank. Yes, economics are an important part of many peoples' consideration but, fundamentally, it should be a decision about governance - the economics comes later.

If the Yes campaign were to lay on the table that a Yes vote will cost, say, between 5p and 10p in the pound, but here's a list of things that you then get to make a decision on - welfare, defence, taxation, energy - that would be a basis for people to judge whether the kind of things that they want Scotland to have control over are worth the hassle. But they won't, because all the No campaign have ever come up with is variations on the "that willnae work, by the way" argument, which plays well with those sections of the media that the Yes campaign don't want to piss off.

The No campaign have brought nothing to the table, but the Yes campaign have been weak in setting out the philosophical argument, which will result in the Yes campaign struggling to win over the "mibbes aye, mibbes naw" majority. It's no wonder that Salmond wants Cameron to join the debate - that's their best (only) hope of victory!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 11:47 AM
The sooner people remember it's not an emotional decision the better, it's a business decision.
I'm equally uncomfortable with the debate surrounding the referendum being a "business" decision as opposed to an emotional one, to be frank. Yes, economics are an important part of many peoples' consideration but, fundamentally, it should be a decision about governance - the economics comes later.

If the Yes campaign were to lay on the table that a Yes vote will cost, say, between 5p and 10p in the pound, but here's a list of things that you then get to make a decision on - welfare, defence, taxation, energy - that would be a basis for people to judge whether the kind of things that they want Scotland to have control over are worth the hassle. But they won't, because all the No campaign have ever come up with is variations on the "that willnae work, by the way" argument, which plays well with those sections of the media that the Yes campaign don't want to piss off.

The No campaign have brought nothing to the table, but the Yes campaign have been weak in setting out the philosophical argument, which will result in the Yes campaign struggling to win over the "mibbes aye, mibbes naw" majority. It's no wonder that Salmond wants Cameron to join the debate - that's their best (only) hope of victory!

Get your own post. 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 11:51 AM

It's no wonder that Salmond wants Cameron to join the debate - that's their best (only) hope of victory!

The bookies cut the odds on a Yes vote from 9/2 to 100/30 last week, which is a fairly significant drop.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 11:59 AM
It's no wonder that Salmond wants Cameron to join the debate - that's their best (only) hope of victory!

The bookies cut the odds on a Yes vote from 9/2 to 100/30 last week, which is a fairly significant drop.
100/30 in a 2-horse race - the odds would need to come in much further than that for me to start thinking about EU membership or currency unions at anything beyond a passing level...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 12:05 PM
It's no wonder that Salmond wants Cameron to join the debate - that's their best (only) hope of victory!

The bookies cut the odds on a Yes vote from 9/2 to 100/30 last week, which is a fairly significant drop.
100/30 in a 2-horse race - the odds would need to come in much further than that for me to start thinking about EU membership or currency unions at anything beyond a passing level...

The trend is that the odds are shortening is what I'm saying. 100/30 is about the same odds that Stan Wavrinka was to beat Nadal in the Aussie Open Final or what Stephen Gallacher was to in Dubai going into the back 9 on Sunday.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 12:12 PM
It's no wonder that Salmond wants Cameron to join the debate - that's their best (only) hope of victory!

The bookies cut the odds on a Yes vote from 9/2 to 100/30 last week, which is a fairly significant drop.
100/30 in a 2-horse race - the odds would need to come in much further than that for me to start thinking about EU membership or currency unions at anything beyond a passing level...

The trend is that the odds are shortening is what I'm saying. 100/30 is about the same odds that Stan Wavrinka was to beat Nadal in the Aussie Open Final or what Stephen Gallacher was to in Dubai going into the back 9 on Sunday.
Those odds have been fluctuating over the last few months, though. According to Betfair, the odds on Yes have drifted over the last week.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 12:21 PM
no means no
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Scotpaulabear on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 15:24 PM
The white paper has to be the policies of the government, currently in situ, as they are bringing forward the proposal.  That is not to say they will be a reality but rather try to paint a picture, one possible alternative of a starting point for self governance.

Without a tangible alternative document to compare it against, a no vote is a real step into the unknown.  What will things look like if we say no?  At least the white paper presents one side of the argument we are yet to see what the other side looks like, and it is unlikely that we will see it.  It is difficult to argue the cause when the opposition put up nothing and cast continuous aspersions against everything you say.

The question at the end of the day is whether or not the people who inhabit Scotland believe that with the right infrastructure they could govern their own destiny, peaks and troughs.  DiD said it is like business, correct, do we believe that we have the confidence to be entrepreneurs or are going to forever be the workforce of the management?

I like the way you put it Deegers.  I'm not so good with explaining this without getting tongue tied!

(and thanks for not defriending me Czefski - I'm trying to keep it down to a dull roar on my page LOL)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 15:37 PM
The question at the end of the day is whether we are grown up enough to start running our own country.  It's not a business decision.  No-one any longer tries to pretend that Scotland can't afford independence except the liars and scaremongers of which there are many.  I include the Labour Party in that bunch, together with practically all the press.

Look at the Better Together campaigners and tell me with a straight face that they are trustworthy people.

We can take control of our own futures, or we can let down our country again through apathy and stupidity.

Tir nan og!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 16:27 PM
The question at the end of the day is whether we are grown up enough to start running our own country.  It's not a business decision.  No-one any longer tries to pretend that Scotland can't afford independence except the liars and scaremongers of which there are many.  I include the Labour Party in that bunch, together with practically all the press.

Look at the Better Together campaigners and tell me with a straight face that they are trustworthy people.

We can take control of our own futures, or we can let down our country again through apathy and stupidity.

Tir nan og!


Franz, can I ask some questions then as someone who is not against the concept, but has yet to be persuaded? For me it is a business decision because I am part of that section of the population that bends over that wee bit further every year to take one for the team, fiscally speaking. My concern is that in an independent Scotland this'll get worse. Historically, politicians don't want to p*ss off the wealthy, stay well away away from people claiming benefits and thrash, what we often refer to as, the middle class (hate that term). If it affects my financial status it is a business decision.

So, on that basis, can you show me the figures? Annual spends and how the money will be generated in an independent Scotland to cover it? Persuade me that it is affordable.

Whether the Better Together campaign are trustworthy or not is neither here nor there - Salmond and Co are no different. I could care less about the personalities. The current administration have a fair few chinks in their armour too, and areas where they have been accused of being liberal with the facts. No, I don't know how true any of the accusations are, but I'm fairly sure all parties are as bad as each other. Although I always vote, I have never subscribed to a party in my life. My voting is influenced by issues, not parties and the same applies with independence.

If we don't vote for independence it doesn't mean we're apathetic or stupid, it just means we don't want it.

What's the relevance of Tir nan og?

I'm happy to take this offline if people are fed up, but I'm genuinely interested in the argument for independence because I am undecided, but, as I said previously I feel the onus is on the YES campaign to convince me that I should vote to change the status quo. I've been to some places that are fully independent but, trust me, you wouldn't ever want to live there because independence is all they have.



Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 17:18 PM

The whole thing strikes me as a whole lot of ego on Salmonds part. I think he fancies going down in the history books as some sort of William Wallace. I wouldn't be against independence if there was some sort of concrete argument for it but it all seems a bit wishy washy to me. The apparent Apathy from the UK government is either a master stroke or a dangerous game to play. I hope it's the former.
We're probably all fucked either way, there's nothing left to believe in.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 17:19 PM
Hi Demon,

I don't think the finances are going to get worse at all.   Independence would mean a rebalancing of the economy, which at the moment is pretty much run for the benefit of London.   It's boom town.  It staggers from one massive project to the next sucking in capital and depriving the rest of the UK.  Think Olympics, Crossrail Project, HS2  Rail (which they pretend is for the benefit of Northern England, but will just suck more resource into London) just to begin with.  We are clearly not all in it together.  A couple of recent emergent small facts:

This from the BBC News:
Central government spending on arts and culture in the capital amounted to £69 per resident in 2012-13, compared with £4.60 per person elsewhere in England.

This From The Spectator:
the per capita state spending on transport infrastructure comes out at: south-west £215, north-east £246, Yorkshire and Humberside £303, north-west £839, London £4895.

This is one of my biggest problems with the UK and it will never change.   I like London, I like Londoners, but they should do their thing and we should do ours.  I feel very sorry for the North of England, but we at least have the opportunity to break with this obscene glorification of London. 

If you don't want Independence, then you are doing your country no favours.  We have been told we are a charity case for decades, what does that do for our self esteem?  Apart from the fact it's a lie.   The civil service lied to us for years about the amount of oil, always downplaying it hugely, under Labour, and under the Bastards both, and they are still doing it, constantly referring to Peak Oil having passed.

Things like Trident too, are things we should have no part of. And I don't just mean the huge cost.

Tir na nog I mentioned as a joke but it means Land of Youth and maybe we should think more about their future.  Look at the colossal waste of resources keeping so many of them unemployed, and the morale sapping horror of their reality.  I would like to think independence would reanimate and re-energise this country.  We might have to work a bit harder but that is no bad thing.  I'm afraid I cant furnish you with figures on Scotlands output, but even The Financial Times admits its a goer.

We may well be punished for a while for having the nerve to leave the UK, but we will definitely be punished if we stay.  Death by a thousand cuts.

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 17:27 PM

The whole thing strikes me as a whole lot of ego on Salmonds part. I think he fancies going down in the history books as some sort of William Wallace. I wouldn't be against independence if there was some sort of concrete argument for it but it all seems a bit wishy washy to me. The apparent Apathy from the UK government is either a master stroke or a dangerous game to play. I hope it's the former.
We're probably all fucked either way, there's nothing left to believe in.

Hi Filthy,
You sound a bit defeatist.  Time to accentuate the positive, and not be one of the 'I kent his faither' naysayers.   We have more than we need of that in this country.  We have nowt to fear but fear itself.  300 years of union, time for a wee change.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 17:41 PM

The whole thing strikes me as a whole lot of ego on Salmonds part. I think he fancies going down in the history books as some sort of William Wallace. I wouldn't be against independence if there was some sort of concrete argument for it but it all seems a bit wishy washy to me. The apparent Apathy from the UK government is either a master stroke or a dangerous game to play. I hope it's the former.
We're probably all fucked either way, there's nothing left to believe in.

Hi Filthy,
You sound a bit defeatist.  Time to accentuate the positive, and not be one of the 'I kent his faither' naysayers.   We have more than we need of that in this country.  We have nowt to fear but fear itself.  300 years of union, time for a wee change.

Maybe I am, however 300 years of Union, time for a wee change isn't a conclusive enough argument for me I'm afraid. Shrinking the current model down is all that will happen in my limited opinion (uk becomes Scotland, the central belt becomes London etc). There does need to be a change but I'm not convinced this is the answer to all our woes. Russell Brand had it right when he spoke to Paxman who'd have thunk it huh.

I'm off to work.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 17:48 PM
yeah, i'm sure the c10wns that 0verspent 0n a j0ke 0f a [n0w crumb1ing] par1iament bui1ding by a fact0r 0f 10, n0t t0 menti0n the fiasc0 that is the edinburgh tram system, have 1earned h0w t0 run a c0untry's finances

keeping sc0t1and in the uni0n is d0ing the wh01e 0f the uk a fav0ur

 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 17:54 PM

1. So, on that basis, can you show me the figures? Annual spends and how the money will be generated in an independent Scotland to cover it? Persuade me that it is affordable.

2. If we don't vote for independence it doesn't mean we're apathetic or stupid, it just means we don't want it.


1. Until such time as the two sides agree a carve up this is impossible to provide.  I am sure the yes campaign would like to give the numbers but with the no campaigns repeated refrain of no negotiation, it is impossible to do and to easy for everyone to shoot them down.

2. No it doesn't it just means that the half of the argument that has been laid out has nothing to compare and contrast against.

For debates sake, let's forecast that some of the economic doomsayers are right, Osbourne has screwed it up and the UK Ltd. goes bust and borrowing increases, the Tories get another term and win a vote to pull the UK out of Europe whilst all of the jobs and remaining industry gravitates ever Southward to London and the surrounding counties.

Faced with that proposition what would you vote then?  Yes or no?

The better together campaign needs to do more to justify a no vote than just continually shoot down everything the yes campaign say.  If the vote goes no and all manner of shit happens, afterwards, well is it not better to seize an opportunity to do something proactive than sit and moan about things afterwards?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 17:57 PM
yeah, i'm sure the c10wns that 0verspent 0n a j0ke 0f a [n0w crumb1ing] par1iament bui1ding by a fact0r 0f 10, n0t t0 menti0n the fiasc0 that is the edinburgh tram system, have 1earned h0w t0 run a c0untry's finances

keeping sc0t1and in the uni0n is d0ing the wh01e 0f the uk a fav0ur

That would be Labour wouldn't it, the same clowns that spent all the money in the treasury and sold off the gold as they had eliminated boom and bust!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: R on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 18:10 PM
Being south of the border but with family in Scotland it's been quite interesting seeing the coverage here vs the coverage you've had in Scotland.

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 18:15 PM
yeah, i'm sure the c10wns that 0verspent 0n a j0ke 0f a [n0w crumb1ing] par1iament bui1ding by a fact0r 0f 10, n0t t0 menti0n the fiasc0 that is the edinburgh tram system, have 1earned h0w t0 run a c0untry's finances

keeping sc0t1and in the uni0n is d0ing the wh01e 0f the uk a fav0ur
Deegers is right.  It was labour, but these things happen under any government, then you can vote them out at the following election and get a new bunch of cunts to have another fiasco, but at least it would be our fiasco with independence.   It would introduce an element of responsibility and put an end to moaning about the London government, no bad thing.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 18:27 PM
Being English and living in England I obviously don't get to vote about this but the 'them and us'( ie Scots versus English as opposed to ordinary people v the twats in control) feeling being encouraged in some quarters does frighten and dismay me.   Obviously that's not a reason not to hold a vote but its scary all the same.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 18:33 PM
Being English and living in England I obviously don't get to vote about this but the 'them and us'( ie Scots versus English as opposed to ordinary people v the twats in control) feeling being encouraged in some quarters does frighten and dismay me.   Obviously that's not a reason not to hold a vote but its scary all the same.
That is something we have to take real pains to avoid. It's not a them-and-us, it's just that this country needs to stand on it's own feet to save itself from slowly decaying.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 18:33 PM
sorry, that wasn't my full argument, i just got f#cked off with my digital keyboard ...

if you're campaigning for a change, and can't come up with a single valid argument for that change (other than change itself), then the only task for the opposition is to keep demanding to see the figures and to guard the status quo.

there is no unified scotland, there is no line runs from north of carlisle to north of berwick-upon-tweed, and until there's a radical change in politics to vote "yes" for in an independent scotland, i'd rather side with all those across the uk who don't lean on nationalism to drive home their lack of any other argument.

this is a tiny island we live on, scotland acts as a counterbalance with the north of england against the south, and the danger is that when it goes tits up we'll sign up to an even worse deal to get back in.

this is all about money, and those that stand to pocket from it will try and drive it forward. let's make decisions for the land we leave behind us, and not for the sake of greed. let's remove the question of oil by voting for shetland's independence, then see who wants to break from the uk.

sorry for the north of england? let's see how long that patronising stance lasts when we're all clamouring to move there.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:05 PM
I thought doing it  in order to take responsibility for our own future was a very valid argument. 

Independence in my book is a chance to escape from excessive British Nationalism.  Falklands, Iraq, nuclear subs, Jonathan Ross, etc etc. 

It's been tits up too long. 

It's not about money,  although it makes sense to spend your own and not complain about it when you have handed it to someone else to spend for you - usually badly.

When it comes to being patronised, we must be some kind of record holders.   Why is it patronising to feel sorry for a part of the UK that gets a really bad deal?

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:10 PM
I thought doing it  in order to take responsibility for our own future was a very valid argument. 

Independence in my book is a chance to escape from excessive British Nationalism. Falklands, Iraq, nuclear subs, Jonathan Ross, etc etc. 

It's been tits up too long. 

It's not about money,  although it makes sense to spend your own and not complain about it when you have handed it to someone else to spend for you - usually badly.

When it comes to being patronised, we must be some kind of record holders.   Why is it patronising to feel sorry for a part of the UK that gets a really bad deal?

Aye but we have to keep Cumbernauld, Lulu, George Galloway and River City. Swings and roundabouts.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:17 PM
Hi Demon,

I don't think the finances are going to get worse at all.   Independence would mean a rebalancing of the economy, which at the moment is pretty much run for the benefit of London.   It's boom town.  It staggers from one massive project to the next sucking in capital and depriving the rest of the UK.  Think Olympics, Crossrail Project, HS2  Rail (which they pretend is for the benefit of Northern England, but will just suck more resource into London) just to begin with.  We are clearly not all in it together.  A couple of recent emergent small facts:

This from the BBC News:
Central government spending on arts and culture in the capital amounted to £69 per resident in 2012-13, compared with £4.60 per person elsewhere in England.

This From The Spectator:
the per capita state spending on transport infrastructure comes out at: south-west £215, north-east £246, Yorkshire and Humberside £303, north-west £839, London £4895.

This is one of my biggest problems with the UK and it will never change.   I like London, I like Londoners, but they should do their thing and we should do ours.  I feel very sorry for the North of England, but we at least have the opportunity to break with this obscene glorification of London. 

If you don't want Independence, then you are doing your country no favours.  We have been told we are a charity case for decades, what does that do for our self esteem?  Apart from the fact it's a lie.   The civil service lied to us for years about the amount of oil, always downplaying it hugely, under Labour, and under the Bastards both, and they are still doing it, constantly referring to Peak Oil having passed.

Things like Trident too, are things we should have no part of. And I don't just mean the huge cost.

Tir na nog I mentioned as a joke but it means Land of Youth and maybe we should think more about their future.  Look at the colossal waste of resources keeping so many of them unemployed, and the morale sapping horror of their reality.  I would like to think independence would reanimate and re-energise this country.  We might have to work a bit harder but that is no bad thing.  I'm afraid I cant furnish you with figures on Scotlands output, but even The Financial Times admits its a goer.

We may well be punished for a while for having the nerve to leave the UK, but we will definitely be punished if we stay.  Death by a thousand cuts.

Thanks for your response - interesting reading. To be honest, I'd actually ordered a hard copy of the White Paper so I can give it some serious consideration, but it's still not arrived. Can't read much more than a page electronically.

I still remain to be persuaded. My personal view is there are faults with any system but there's so much uncertainty about independence that it's a huge risk that I'm not sure I want to take. Europe is not a shoe-in by any means. All the YES campaign can promise is that they'll negotiate. The mutterings from Europe seem to indicate that there would be no special treatment or fast track for us.

How do the prospects look without the oil revenue cause that's not a cert either.

Oh well, we'll see later in the year.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:17 PM
OK fair enough.  The game's up.  It's No then
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:19 PM
I thought doing it  in order to take responsibility for our own future was a very valid argument. 

Independence in my book is a chance to escape from excessive British Nationalism. Falklands, Iraq, nuclear subs, Jonathan Ross, etc etc. 

It's been tits up too long. 

It's not about money,  although it makes sense to spend your own and not complain about it when you have handed it to someone else to spend for you - usually badly.

When it comes to being patronised, we must be some kind of record holders.   Why is it patronising to feel sorry for a part of the UK that gets a really bad deal?

Aye but we have to keep Cumbernauld, Lulu, George Galloway and River City. Swings and roundabouts.
Whoops, forgot the quote.

OK fair enough.  The game's up.  It's No then
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:21 PM
I have to say that I am with Franz here, I would hope that the nation would prosper and flourish, money be available to have a better healthcare system, support the arts and sport but to achieve these things they have to be within our control.

I'd rather have a shot at trying to build that legacy for the future generations than the current situation.  But it will of course require effort and hard work, and be filled with ups and downs but that is something I can get behind.

I don't think that Scotland counterbalances anything Kenny, we have moved on and the opportunity is now there is do it differently, re-nationalise, safeguard the industries, rebuild what the last 40 years of successive Westminster governments tore down and decimated. 

It is the North of England that will ultimately suffer in all of this.  Maybes the clamour will be to move per the border, Northwards? 

Who knows! 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 19:26 PM
Nobody can counterbalance the City of London and the financial bozos. Pass the champagne.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Uncle Ellwyn on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 21:23 PM
I have no business posting on this subject, being born and raised in the states, BUT I can give you my reasons for being disgruntled with my politicians in the USA.

Whether or not you can take anything from this and apply it to your situation is another thing altogether.  Here is what I’ve learned from the past six decades.

I live in one of the most hated countries in the world because the leaders of both political parties here are in bed with the military/banking/industrial complex.  The power in Washington resides in the power structure that lives in DC and controls both parties, regardless of which one is ‘supposed’ to be in power. The military, the lobbyists, the bankers and the huge corporation leaders have controlled the situation to where a politician can say anything while campaigning but will always be powerless to change the gravy train that rolls along faster and faster towards this country’s destruction.

I’m amazed how the opposing political parties constantly flip flop their positions in their bad pol/good pol games, all the while hiding their similarities.  What do you think - which party is better for civil rights for minorities?  Which party is more pro- big business?  Which party wants a larger military? This has flip-flopped at least three times in the past century.  The answer is neither – or both. 
The true answer depends on which stance better serves a particular party in getting more power, and has little or nothing to do with helping anyone. 
 
For example, a group of conservative republicans are arguing for a $12 minimum wage with the SUPPORT of some huge companies like Walmart.  Do you think they’ll make any progress against the party leaders?  Heck no.  And the liberals will publicly argue for increases while fighting in private to keep the minimum wage increases as low as possible.  It is so frustrating for me because we need to get the min. wage increased and everyone is for it and yet almost nothing gets done.

AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.  Do you see my point? 

1)    In general, the smaller the government - the better it works.
2)   The closer you are to your representatives – the  better they will represent you.
3)   Local decisions should be handled locally.  The national government should be limited to deal ing only with nationwide or international affairs.
4)   Power corrupts.  The more power that politicians acquire - the more corrupt they become.
5)   Bureaucracies tend to grow until they strangle the state.
6)   The media can more easily influence national politics than locally.

My county commissioners do a pretty good job.  When they screw up, as everyone does, their party leaders aren’t able to spin the issues to mislead the public, and they get removed from office.
These commissioners are elected on their own merits.  They are paid peanuts and have few perks and can usually be described as public servants. The voters tend to know these people personally and don’t have to rely on publicity campaigns to decide how they will serve.

On the state level it starts to go downhill.  You may  know your district representative but the others are just names. 
By the time you get to the national level I can guarantee you that nothing gets done because the rule in Washington is ‘don’t rock the boat’.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 22:45 PM
I have to say that I am with Franz here, I would hope that the nation would prosper and flourish, money be available to have a better healthcare system, support the arts and sport but to achieve these things they have to be within our control.

I'd rather have a shot at trying to build that legacy for the future generations than the current situation.  But it will of course require effort and hard work, and be filled with ups and downs but that is something I can get behind.

I don't think that Scotland counterbalances anything Kenny, we have moved on and the opportunity is now there is do it differently, re-nationalise, safeguard the industries, rebuild what the last 40 years of successive Westminster governments tore down and decimated. 

It is the North of England that will ultimately suffer in all of this.  Maybes the clamour will be to move per the border, Northwards? 

Who knows!
Why is it the North of England who will ultimately suffer?  speaking as a Geordie who has lived in the East Midlands for 25 years -  geographically 2 hours from London and therefore in the South but not benefitting from any of the advantages that supposedly come from that?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 22:59 PM
Jackie wrote:
"Why is it the North of England who will ultimately suffer?  speaking as a Geordie who has lived in the East Midlands for 25 years -  geographically 2 hours from London and therefore in the South but not benefitting from any of the advantages that supposedly come from that?"

I think the North of England already suffers. The further you are from the centre of power, the more marginalised you are.  Here in Scotland we at least have a bit of freedom with devolution to make a difference, but we have always been able to wield a bit of influence in London because of the spectre of independence if they dont pay some attention.  The North of England doesnt have that benefit.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 23:13 PM
Someone said earlier that they don't care about the personalities involved, I'm obviously a lot shallower than that as I hate Fat Eck with every bone in my body. His fawning to Trump and allowing him to run roughshod over the Menie Estate and the Scottish citizens who lived there in order to cosy up with big business was a disgrace which the bit him in the arse when Trump proved to be a bit more streetwise. Then sticking his nose into the Union Terrace Gardens debate, which is a local issue and not within his remit as First Minister, in order to try and keep Sir Ian Wood and the Oil companies on side with the Yes campaign was a shocking misuse of his power. Salmond and Cameron are two sides of a hideous coin as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 23:20 PM
A vote for independence is just that.  It's not a vote for Eck personally.  If there was a real Scottish Labour Party, they might well see him off in the elections which would be called after gaining independence.  Or whoever. Lord Sutch?

Anyway, the Scottish Parliament has just voted for gay marriage.    Well done them, but get your wellies and your brollies oot.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 04, 2014, 23:56 PM
best thread in an age  8)


but i'm not convinced - the money boys rule, and it'll be easier pickings once we've got less clout. the cost of borrowing will rise, and donald trump is just the thin end of the wedge. how much of scotland does scotland actually own? how likely is it that those in power are going to sell off whatever's left as a short term way to balance the books, extend our "be a nation again" celebrations as nothing changes around us, just gets more expensive and more shoddy?

and all this pish about using independence to get the green party in or whatever ... we could've been voting green party or whatever all along. a new scottish labour party then? new scottish tory? think it'll be anything other than the usual suspects squabbling for crumbs?

what was that flyer that fell through the door? "independence will be better for scotland and the people of scotland" from the mouth of some tv actor? such a winning argument. let me think long and hard now ... got it ... "independence won't be any better for scotland and maybe a whole lot worse for the people of scotland".

eh? that oughta do it  ;D
 


 

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 00:51 AM
best thread in an age  8)


but i'm not convinced - the money boys rule, and it'll be easier pickings once we've got less clout. the cost of borrowing will rise, and donald trump is just the thin end of the wedge. how much of scotland does scotland actually own? how likely is it that those in power are going to sell off whatever's left as a short term way to balance the books, extend our "be a nation again" celebrations as nothing changes around us, just gets more expensive and more shoddy?

and all this pish about using independence to get the green party in or whatever ... we could've been voting green party or whatever all along. a new scottish labour party then? new scottish tory? think it'll be anything other than the usual suspects squabbling for crumbs?

what was that flyer that fell through the door? "independence will be better for scotland and the people of scotland" from the mouth of some tv actor? such a winning argument. let me think long and hard now ... got it ... "independence won't be any better for scotland and maybe a whole lot worse for the people of scotland".

eh? that oughta do it  ;D
 
Have you been eating unusually high levels of red meat today? Get off that Fence... grrrrrr!  ;D

 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: baldpar on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 07:36 AM
I'm leaning towards a No vote at the moment. I'm not convinced Scotland can afford to go it alone.

There was an interesting programme on BBC2 Scotland last night. Five Million Ways To Be Scottish. Stuart Cosgrove presented it and it was looking at what role identity will play in the referendum. Worth watching on the IPlayer.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 08:20 AM
Jackie wrote:
"Why is it the North of England who will ultimately suffer?  speaking as a Geordie who has lived in the East Midlands for 25 years -  geographically 2 hours from London and therefore in the South but not benefitting from any of the advantages that supposedly come from that?"

I think the North of England already suffers. The further you are from the centre of power, the more marginalised you are.  Here in Scotland we at least have a bit of freedom with devolution to make a difference, but we have always been able to wield a bit of influence in London because of the spectre of independence if they dont pay some attention.  The North of England doesnt have that benefit.

Nope still don't get it.  In the London Borough of Ealing 50% of people have to claim benefits to be able to afford to pay their astronomical rent.  Clearly being near the centre of power isn't doing them any good and the same can be said of thousands and thousands of other people in all parts of the UK.  I think the North of England (and indeed all of England) would suffer from a Yes vote in that there are those on both sides of Hadrians Wall who would seek to use it to divide us in a lot of misplaced nationalistic bullshit.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 08:21 AM
sorry I meant Enfield not Ealing!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 08:58 AM
I have to say that I am with Franz here, I would hope that the nation would prosper and flourish, money be available to have a better healthcare system, support the arts and sport but to achieve these things they have to be within our control.

I'd rather have a shot at trying to build that legacy for the future generations than the current situation.  But it will of course require effort and hard work, and be filled with ups and downs but that is something I can get behind.

I don't think that Scotland counterbalances anything Kenny, we have moved on and the opportunity is now there is do it differently, re-nationalise, safeguard the industries, rebuild what the last 40 years of successive Westminster governments tore down and decimated. 

It is the North of England that will ultimately suffer in all of this.  Maybes the clamour will be to move per the border, Northwards? 

Who knows!
Why is it the North of England who will ultimately suffer?  speaking as a Geordie who has lived in the East Midlands for 25 years -  geographically 2 hours from London and therefore in the South but not benefitting from any of the advantages that supposedly come from that?

For me it is pretty obvious, the North of England, and it is now debatable as to where we draw the line as I would propose it is much further South than it used to be considered, is caught between two poles which as pulling in different directions.  You have Scotland in the North and London in the South. 

Scotland will either vote for independence or we will get devo max, both of which will ultimately increase the "independence" of Scotland as a country and hopefully bolster the industrial and economic environment (a not inconsiderable task I might add as we will of course have to learn to play together nicely in our brave new world).

London, is becoming a new mega city, it is not unfeasible to suggest that if HS2 goes ahead, then Birmingham will be a new suburb of London.  Once they extend the airport capacity in London also, then it is a no brainer.  If the UK government were truly serious about all things being equal, then either Manchester or Glasgow airports would be extended to form a second UK Hub rather than just focus on London.

Businesses in England are already starting to move South, in my sector, everyone is relocating to Cambridge or Oxford to create biotechnology "hubs"and with it sites and facilities are closing and folk are being offered the opportunity to relocate or lose their jobs.

These two poles/attractors will stretch the middle ground as time passes and the ultimate consequence of this, in my mind, is that what we term North England has to be significantly impacted.  There will be some pockets around the likes of Newcastle and Manchester but I struggle to see how the current trend can be reversed.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 09:14 AM
Jackie wrote:
"Why is it the North of England who will ultimately suffer?  speaking as a Geordie who has lived in the East Midlands for 25 years -  geographically 2 hours from London and therefore in the South but not benefitting from any of the advantages that supposedly come from that?"

I think the North of England already suffers. The further you are from the centre of power, the more marginalised you are.  Here in Scotland we at least have a bit of freedom with devolution to make a difference, but we have always been able to wield a bit of influence in London because of the spectre of independence if they dont pay some attention.  The North of England doesnt have that benefit.

Nope still don't get it.  In the London Borough of Ealing 50% of people have to claim benefits to be able to afford to pay their astronomical rent.  Clearly being near the centre of power isn't doing them any good and the same can be said of thousands and thousands of other people in all parts of the UK.  I think the North of England (and indeed all of England) would suffer from a Yes vote in that there are those on both sides of Hadrians Wall who would seek to use it to divide us in a lot of misplaced nationalistic bullshit.

My point still stands. The fact that there are lots of poor people in London only emphasises the fact of Londons malaise.  Such extreme wealth beside poverty.
London is fucked long term.  The city is heaving with imported east european labour while London's own black population have huge rates of unemployment.  What is that all about?  When they finally realise it cant continue the fun will start.   The tories say let the market fix it,  Labour presided over it and did nothing for years.  Dysfunctional you might say.  It's a massive ponzi scheme sucking in more and more.   Repent! repent!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 09:36 AM
The whole thing strikes me as a whole lot of ego on Salmonds part. I think he fancies going down in the history books as some sort of William Wallace.
Sorry, I need to pick up on this point.

Salmond's a complete dick at times, and prone to self-aggrandising; equally, he's comfortably the best "parliamentarian" in Scotland, and regularly wipes the floor with opponents in debates. So, different strokes and all that.

What it's unfair to suggest is that the Independence Referendum is some sort of vanity project. Salmond leads a party whose main manifesto aim is independence. This party won a majority in the Scottish parliament, so a referendum was inevitable during that period of government, no matter who was the leader of the SNP at the time.

If Salmond HADN'T called a Referendum, his party's entire raison d'etre would have been fundamentally undermined.

And now back to the studio.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 09:42 AM
yeah, i'm sure the c10wns that 0verspent 0n a j0ke 0f a [n0w crumb1ing] par1iament bui1ding by a fact0r 0f 10, n0t t0 menti0n the fiasc0 that is the edinburgh tram system, have 1earned h0w t0 run a c0untry's finances

keeping sc0t1and in the uni0n is d0ing the wh01e 0f the uk a fav0ur
Deegers is right.  It was labour, but these things happen under any government, then you can vote them out at the following election and get a new bunch of cunts to have another fiasco, but at least it would be our fiasco with independence.   It would introduce an element of responsibility and put an end to moaning about the London government, no bad thing.
Point of information - the tram project was instigated by the (Labour-run) Edinburgh City Council - the Scottish Government only stepped in once the Council had realised that they'd got themselves in so far over their heads with the contract that they risked bankrupting the City.

And now, back to the studio.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: lolsmit on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 09:59 AM

And now, back to the studio.
Wonderful use of the comma there, funky.  ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Kimmers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:23 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:28 AM
You seem a bit impressionable yourself.  Have you been reading the daily mail again?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:31 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.
No taxation without representation.

Just sayin'.

(Anyway, research has shown that 16 and 17 year olds are more likely to vote No).
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:35 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.

Seriously?  It's not about the money, it's about the right of the next generation to determine their future, one way or the other. 

Can you please list the emotive tactics, on both sides, the pendulum swings both ways I believe.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Kimmers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:40 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.
No taxation without representation.

Just sayin'.

Oh cool, so that means I get a vote? 'Cause I'm sure as hell payin' taxes...  ::)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:41 AM
Straight to the man in London.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:42 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.

Seriously?  It's not about the money, it's about the right of the next generation to determine their future, one way or the other. 

Can you please list the emotive tactics, on both sides, the pendulum swings both ways I believe.

To be fair, whilst I fully agree with votes for those aged 16+, the SNP did drop the ball by extending the vote only in the Referendum - moral victory would have been assured had the vote been awarded in all Scottish Parliamentary elections. So, only giving this vote in the Referendum could be interpreted as an emotive tactic.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Kimmers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:44 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.

Seriously?  It's not about the money, it's about the right of the next generation to determine their future, one way or the other. 

Can you please list the emotive tactics, on both sides, the pendulum swings both ways I believe.

To be fair, whilst I fully agree with votes for those aged 16+, the SNP did drop the ball by extending the vote only in the Referendum - moral victory would have been assured had the vote been awarded in all Scottish Parliamentary elections. So, only giving this vote in the Referendum could be interpreted as an emotive tactic.
That was the way I read it. Sorry for being so obtuse.  ::)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:47 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.
No taxation without representation.

Just sayin'.

Oh cool, so that means I get a vote? 'Cause I'm sure as hell payin' taxes...  ::)
Yeah, I agree there are some odd anomalies in which non-citizens get to vote - Canadians good/Yanks bad, for instance, seems quite bizarre.

You could always try electoral fraud to have a say.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:49 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.

Seriously?  It's not about the money, it's about the right of the next generation to determine their future, one way or the other. 

Can you please list the emotive tactics, on both sides, the pendulum swings both ways I believe.

To be fair, whilst I fully agree with votes for those aged 16+, the SNP did drop the ball by extending the vote only in the Referendum - moral victory would have been assured had the vote been awarded in all Scottish Parliamentary elections. So, only giving this vote in the Referendum could be interpreted as an emotive tactic.
That was the way I read it. Sorry for being so obtuse.  ::)
I don't think anyone was deliberatly being trianglist. At least, no right-angled people were...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:50 AM
As this is going to impact on the whole of the UK (particularly the north, however its defined) perhaps we should all get a vote.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:51 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.

Seriously?  It's not about the money, it's about the right of the next generation to determine their future, one way or the other. 

Can you please list the emotive tactics, on both sides, the pendulum swings both ways I believe.

To be fair, whilst I fully agree with votes for those aged 16+, the SNP did drop the ball by extending the vote only in the Referendum - moral victory would have been assured had the vote been awarded in all Scottish Parliamentary elections. So, only giving this vote in the Referendum could be interpreted as an emotive tactic.
That was the way I read it. Sorry for being so obtuse.  ::)

But the extension wasn't possible under the confines of the bill.  It was specific to the referendum.

Thats not to say they under an independent Scotland, with its own constitution, things couldn't be altered.  I don't know whether including all votes in Scotland to 16+ is a reserved matter, one would suggest that currently it probably is.

The emotive tactics are far more rife in the no campaign than in the yes campaign but I will wait the list with interest Kimmers.   ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:54 AM
Ok I'm not going to mention London again.  I'm reporting myself to the moderator too.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:55 AM
As this is going to impact on the whole of the UK (particularly the north, however its defined) perhaps we should all get a vote.
are you conceding that point then?

You should take up your right to vote with Dave the Rave, he seems to thing it's only a Scottish thing so he doesn't need to get involved...... ::). 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 10:55 AM
Ok I'm not going to mention London again.  I'm reporting myself to the moderator too.

Go on, you know you want to.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Kimmers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:01 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.
No taxation without representation.

Just sayin'.

Oh cool, so that means I get a vote? 'Cause I'm sure as hell payin' taxes...  ::)
Yeah, I agree there are some odd anomalies in which non-citizens get to vote - Canadians good/Yanks bad, for instance, seems quite bizarre.

You could always try electoral fraud to have a say.
Despite my personal faults or vices, I'd never consider it. I've gotten used to immigration biases, but I always do things by the books.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:01 AM
They wouldnt let Fed Ex use Prestwick as their european hub ( those folks in L------).  They said it didnt have the five freedoms.   
Thats like when they stole the land from the native americans and said they didnt have the title deeds.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:03 AM
I don't know whether including all votes in Scotland to 16+ is a reserved matter, one would suggest that currently it probably is.
2 different Bills would need to be amended, and they'd have no chance of amending the Bill related to UK elections, but I still found it surprising that the SNP haven't even commenced discussions on devolved elections as a safety net in case No wins - we could well have a chunk of 16 year olds voting in the Referendum that won't be able to vote at the next Scottish elections in 2016.

Bonkers, and the Government have done nothing to try and redress this..
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:04 AM
Thats like when they stole the land from the native americans and said they didnt have the title deeds.
John Brown is STILL looking for those, I hear...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:12 AM
Personally, I question any gov/ political move that lowers the age to increase the amount impressionable younger people (and let's face it, who is most educated on financial matters at that age?), and then emotive tactics are employed behind the campaigning.

Just sayin'.
No taxation without representation.

Just sayin'.

Oh cool, so that means I get a vote? 'Cause I'm sure as hell payin' taxes...  ::)
Yeah, I agree there are some odd anomalies in which non-citizens get to vote - Canadians good/Yanks bad, for instance, seems quite bizarre.

You could always try electoral fraud to have a say.
Despite my personal faults or vices, I'd never consider it. I've gotten used to immigration biases, but I always do things by the books.
I was joking.

A bit.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:21 AM
so, if we discard the convenient and highly dubious dragging in of the 16+ vote so's they can vote "yes" for now (then shut up again for a whiley), and my own personal request that the referendum be postponed until 2046 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the battle of culloden thereby proving just how united scotland can be in times of strife, can we please just look at this in wider terms?

with world events as they are, i'd rather be in a gang of nearer 70 million than just 7, and given that politicians are puppets to higher masters, where is the shift away from being net consumers and borrowers to sustainability and then on towards being net exporters/lenders? nowhere that's where.

let's use our new found optimism for running a country (of which there's little left to run) and instead join with our like-minded intelligent thinkers south and west of the border to make the place far tidier and cleaner than we found it.

life's hard enough without kicking in with a decade of chaos and without any solutions to the problems that affect us all. what's the rush? let's see the figures.

once we've had some proper insight into what exactly will happen, only then will i vote on whether fife remains part of scotland or not.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:25 AM
and on that note, let's sort out our local woes first, leave the big stuff to those posh dudes in london
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:31 AM
As this is going to impact on the whole of the UK (particularly the north, however its defined) perhaps we should all get a vote.
are you conceding that point then?

You should take up your right to vote with Dave the Rave, he seems to thing it's only a Scottish thing so he doesn't need to get involved...... ::).
No I suppose I was quoting you but not very clearly I admit :)
I think we can all agree that Dave the Rave is a twat.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:34 AM
Never mind all that independence nonsense, what are we having for lunch?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:35 AM
I think we can all agree that Dave the Bridge is a twat.

Harsh
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:36 AM
although actually I do think this will impact on the whole of the UK - in the 'them and us' nationalistic way I mentioned earlier.
Anyway I've just remembered I voted to delete this topic :)
What we all having for lunch?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:37 AM

Salmond's a complete dick at times, and prone to self-aggrandising; equally, he's comfortably the best "parliamentarian" in Scotland, and regularly wipes the floor with opponents in debates.


I'd like to see a debate between Salmond and Galloway, that would be a heavyweight fight, (figuratively and literally), worth watching.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:38 AM
Never mind all that independence nonsense, what are we having for lunch?
You got there while I was typing :)
soup
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:39 AM
3 bird seeds and an aspirin.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:54 AM
Salmond's a complete dick at times, and prone to self-aggrandising; equally, he's comfortably the best "parliamentarian" in Scotland, and regularly wipes the floor with opponents in debates.


I'd like to see a debate between Salmond and Galloway, that would be a heavyweight fight, (figuratively and literally), worth watching.
Cage match!!!

I see Galloway managed to piss of both the hard left AND the Scottish Defence League the other night. The man's a prick, but he's clearly doing something right...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 11:55 AM
veggie haggis, neeps, champit tatties, some shortbread and a wee tot o' malibu & pineaippul
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 12:04 PM
Salmond's a complete dick at times, and prone to self-aggrandising; equally, he's comfortably the best "parliamentarian" in Scotland, and regularly wipes the floor with opponents in debates.


I'd like to see a debate between Salmond and Galloway, that would be a heavyweight fight, (figuratively and literally), worth watching.
Cage match!!!

I see Galloway managed to piss of both the hard left AND the Scottish Defence League the other night. The man's a prick, but he's clearly doing something right...

I disagree, I think he's an opportunist, but not a prick. I don't agree with everything he says but there's definitely some wheat there if you're happy to uncover it from the chaff.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 12:06 PM
Serious question, can anyone on the no side please paint a vision of what the no vote will look like afterwards, including the numbers please.

To quote kwaing;

life's hard enough without kicking in with a decade of chaos and without any solutions to the problems that affect us all. what's the rush? let's see the figures ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 12:14 PM
Serious question, can anyone on the no side please paint a vision of what the no vote will look like afterwards
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Music/Pix/pictures/2013/4/1/1364823763229/Status-Quo-010.jpg)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 12:15 PM
yeah, dinosaurs.   Great stuff funky
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 12:34 PM
Apparently the SNP have already been test the set for the SBC News:

(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/odsnKKz2-dU/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: JoJo Tipps on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 12:47 PM
so, if we discard the convenient and highly dubious dragging in of the 16+ vote so's they can vote "yes" for now (then shut up again for a whiley), and my own personal request that the referendum be postponed until 2046 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the battle of culloden thereby proving just how united scotland can be in times of strife, can we please just look at this in wider terms?

with world events as they are, i'd rather be in a gang of nearer 70 million than just 7, and given that politicians are puppets to higher masters, where is the shift away from being net consumers and borrowers to sustainability and then on towards being net exporters/lenders? nowhere that's where.

let's use our new found optimism for running a country (of which there's little left to run) and instead join with our like-minded intelligent thinkers south and west of the border to make the place far tidier and cleaner than we found it.

life's hard enough without kicking in with a decade of chaos and without any solutions to the problems that affect us all. what's the rush? let's see the figures.

once we've had some proper insight into what exactly will happen, only then will i vote on whether fife remains part of scotland or not.

I suppose if we all felt like this, there would be no Fence Records?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 12:53 PM
so, if we discard the convenient and highly dubious dragging in of the 16+ vote so's they can vote "yes" for now (then shut up again for a whiley), and my own personal request that the referendum be postponed until 2046 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the battle of culloden thereby proving just how united scotland can be in times of strife, can we please just look at this in wider terms?

with world events as they are, i'd rather be in a gang of nearer 70 million than just 7, and given that politicians are puppets to higher masters, where is the shift away from being net consumers and borrowers to sustainability and then on towards being net exporters/lenders? nowhere that's where.

let's use our new found optimism for running a country (of which there's little left to run) and instead join with our like-minded intelligent thinkers south and west of the border to make the place far tidier and cleaner than we found it.

life's hard enough without kicking in with a decade of chaos and without any solutions to the problems that affect us all. what's the rush? let's see the figures.

once we've had some proper insight into what exactly will happen, only then will i vote on whether fife remains part of scotland or not.

I suppose if we all felt like this, there would be no Fence Records?

 what on earth is that supposed to mean??
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 13:09 PM
-- actually whatever you meant it was crass uncalled for and totally unrelated to the thread.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: JoJo Tipps on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 14:02 PM
so, if we discard the convenient and highly dubious dragging in of the 16+ vote so's they can vote "yes" for now (then shut up again for a whiley), and my own personal request that the referendum be postponed until 2046 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the battle of culloden thereby proving just how united scotland can be in times of strife, can we please just look at this in wider terms?

with world events as they are, i'd rather be in a gang of nearer 70 million than just 7, and given that politicians are puppets to higher masters, where is the shift away from being net consumers and borrowers to sustainability and then on towards being net exporters/lenders? nowhere that's where.

let's use our new found optimism for running a country (of which there's little left to run) and instead join with our like-minded intelligent thinkers south and west of the border to make the place far tidier and cleaner than we found it.

life's hard enough without kicking in with a decade of chaos and without any solutions to the problems that affect us all. what's the rush? let's see the figures.

once we've had some proper insight into what exactly will happen, only then will i vote on whether fife remains part of scotland or not.

I suppose if we all felt like this, there would be no Fence Records?

 what on earth is that supposed to mean??

It's a comparison between being part of a major music record label and having little freedom and input into your art and setting up an independent record label and having total freedom (like Fence Records).
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 14:12 PM
I'm not sure whether I'm pro-Independence, but I'm certainly pro-Independents.





Except Apple - they suck.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 15:10 PM
I'm not sure whether I'm pro-Independence, but I'm certainly pro-Independents.





Except Apple - they suck.

?!? The record label or the computer company? Pray tell?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 15:27 PM
I'm not sure whether I'm pro-Independence, but I'm certainly pro-Independents.





Except Apple - they suck.

?!? The record label or the computer company? Pray tell?

(http://www.digital-digest.com/~blutach/UseSearch/arnie.jpg)
(http://lawyerist.com/lawyerist/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/delete-key111.jpg)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 15:50 PM
I'm not sure whether I'm pro-Independence, but I'm certainly pro-Independents.





Except Apple - they suck.

?!? The record label or the computer company? Pray tell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_record_label
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: baldpar on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 16:18 PM
so, if we discard the convenient and highly dubious dragging in of the 16+ vote so's they can vote "yes" for now (then shut up again for a whiley), and my own personal request that the referendum be postponed until 2046 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the battle of culloden thereby proving just how united scotland can be in times of strife, can we please just look at this in wider terms?

with world events as they are, i'd rather be in a gang of nearer 70 million than just 7, and given that politicians are puppets to higher masters, where is the shift away from being net consumers and borrowers to sustainability and then on towards being net exporters/lenders? nowhere that's where.

let's use our new found optimism for running a country (of which there's little left to run) and instead join with our like-minded intelligent thinkers south and west of the border to make the place far tidier and cleaner than we found it.

life's hard enough without kicking in with a decade of chaos and without any solutions to the problems that affect us all. what's the rush? let's see the figures.

once we've had some proper insight into what exactly will happen, only then will i vote on whether fife remains part of scotland or not.

Who will vote for President Kwaing, The People's Socialist Democratic Reupublic of Fife ?  ;D ;D
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 16:24 PM
President Kwaing said " what's the rush? let's see the figures."

be nice to have self determination before the planet spins off it's axis.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 17:03 PM
so, if we discard the convenient and highly dubious dragging in of the 16+ vote so's they can vote "yes" for now (then shut up again for a whiley), and my own personal request that the referendum be postponed until 2046 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the battle of culloden thereby proving just how united scotland can be in times of strife, can we please just look at this in wider terms?

with world events as they are, i'd rather be in a gang of nearer 70 million than just 7, and given that politicians are puppets to higher masters, where is the shift away from being net consumers and borrowers to sustainability and then on towards being net exporters/lenders? nowhere that's where.

let's use our new found optimism for running a country (of which there's little left to run) and instead join with our like-minded intelligent thinkers south and west of the border to make the place far tidier and cleaner than we found it.

life's hard enough without kicking in with a decade of chaos and without any solutions to the problems that affect us all. what's the rush? let's see the figures.

once we've had some proper insight into what exactly will happen, only then will i vote on whether fife remains part of scotland or not.

Who will vote for President Kwaing, The People's Socialist Democratic Reupublic of Fife ?  ;D ;D

VIVA EL PRESIDENTE, KING CASTRO!!

Stand up the patrol boats to monitor the Firth of Forth and the North Sea for any castaways from the big smoke. How far can this go? I think I hear my kids downstairs declaring independence for the area around the TV... who cares, I've got the CDs, vinyl, hi-fi and my guitars. The naff CDs will all be extradited back to the appropriate family members... damn CDs, come in here, taking all my shelf space..go home!

Time for  a lie down I think.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 19:01 PM
The whole thing strikes me as a whole lot of ego on Salmonds part. I think he fancies going down in the history books as some sort of William Wallace.
Sorry, I need to pick up on this point.

Salmond's a complete dick at times, and prone to self-aggrandising; equally, he's comfortably the best "parliamentarian" in Scotland, and regularly wipes the floor with opponents in debates. So, different strokes and all that.

What it's unfair to suggest is that the Independence Referendum is some sort of vanity project. Salmond leads a party whose main manifesto aim is independence. This party won a majority in the Scottish parliament, so a referendum was inevitable during that period of government, no matter who was the leader of the SNP at the time.

If Salmond HADN'T called a Referendum, his party's entire raison d'etre would have been fundamentally undermined.

And now back to the studio.

You make some good points Funky none that I disagree with, I just didn't touch on them. He is an excellent debater and orator. This is a big part of the reason Cameron won't get into a debate with him as Salmond would do well out of it IMO. Vanity isn't the sole reason for this vote as you say it's his parties main selling point. I just think there's a big part of him that's in love with the idea of having his face on our Mc£10 notes.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 19:46 PM
Saw the ceo (american dude) of BP on telly last night saying how we should vote against independence.   It would be a bad thing because BP would have to duplicate their head office function.  In other words they would have to open a second main office in Scotland, the country where they earn fortunes from north sea oil.

It would be a shame if they had to open another head office up here after the trouble they went to in moving the HQ of the British National Oil Corporation from Glasgow to London after they bought the whole shebang from the government.

Its just like the whisky industry really.   Produced in Scotland but all the real spending is in London.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: fuctifano on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 20:08 PM
how much of scotland does scotland actually own?
 

sadly, that's what it comes down to. I wouldn't vote for any of these muppets because not one of them can be trusted. they've already sold the jerseys. and they will do it again and again. I wouldn't lend any of them a fiver never mind indulge them with any kind of 'power'.
so I'm not voting for anything ever again. I know some folk think that's crazy or wrong and they may have a point. but I just can't believe any of them.
aye or naw I really don't see that much changing. it's just going to be soulless cnts telling lies. same old same old.

pissed aff?
nah, quite happy actually :D
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: fuctifano on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 20:09 PM
best thread in an age  8)


 

cannae beat a bit o shit stirrin' ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 21:07 PM
figures after the "no" vote? well, we're living with those figures right now, and i only imagine they'll go up as with the rest of the uk. pensions are fecked, insurances and n.i. will go up, fuel costs will rise, the nhs will stumble forward, the tories might last another 4 years meaning a bigger swing back to labour who will no doubt carry on as the tories are doing, each of them selling off whatever's left to sell while we all wait on the next bit of technology.

does anyone really think that in an independent scotland we'll suddenly be rid of the professional politicians and the big business that steers them? will the rules change so much that it'll be far easier to start up a radical political party and change people's mindsets to be willing to work harder and yet do with less?

i have asked this of the "yes" camp many times:- what exactly will be better in an independent scotland?

[i don't know quite understand the "no fence records" point, but yes, without domino in london then 679/warners in london, there's quite a few on here that never would have found fence.]
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 21:17 PM
Kwaing said   "i have asked this of the "yes" camp many times:- what exactly will be better in an independent scotland?"

How about none of our tax spent on trident?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 21:43 PM
Kwaing said   "i have asked this of the "yes" camp many times:- what exactly will be better in an independent scotland?"

How about none of our tax spent on trident?

Is it a cross party policy that we'll get rid of Trident? What happens if NATO tells us we can't get rid? What's the timescale for getting rid? Won't they have to find somewhere else to put them first?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 22:30 PM
Its SNP policy, I suppose they would have to persuade the rest, although the warmongering labour party might be problematic.

The sub base would have to be relocated.   Then they would have to poison some other hillsides with the missile storage silos.  They're in Glen Fruin at the minute, I believe.
I dont think Nato could insist.   What are they going to do? Bomb us?   Yeah, maybe.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:18 PM
ach, that old thing doesn't work anyway ... it froze trying to install windows 8
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:21 PM
Its a sinclair spectrum that runs it
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:24 PM
dash - it could actually be a converted sinclair c5
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:28 PM
that would certainly be a cheaper option for the delivery vehicle
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:30 PM
you need to check your pms ...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:33 PM
??? pms.

Are we still talking about Trident or whit? 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:38 PM
Actually the above is not wot I wrote.  I wrote "???pms"

clearly 3 questionmarks at the start of a reply make a wee smiley thing appear.   I would never intentionally write one of those we buggers.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:41 PM
my messages
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 05, 2014, 23:47 PM
I looked up pms on google in case it was one o' them trendy acronyms. and it is.   pre menstrual syndrome.   I'm going to check it right away.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 08:56 AM
figures after the "no" vote? well, we're living with those figures right now, and i only imagine they'll go up as with the rest of the uk. pensions are fecked, insurances and n.i. will go up, fuel costs will rise, the nhs will stumble forward, the tories might last another 4 years meaning a bigger swing back to labour who will no doubt carry on as the tories are doing, each of them selling off whatever's left to sell while we all wait on the next bit of technology.

does anyone really think that in an independent scotland we'll suddenly be rid of the professional politicians and the big business that steers them? will the rules change so much that it'll be far easier to start up a radical political party and change people's mindsets to be willing to work harder and yet do with less?

i have asked this of the "yes" camp many times:- what exactly will be better in an independent scotland?
Y'see, THIS is the bit that leaves me hovering over the "Yes" button.

Scotland is fundamentally a left-leaning nation, and an indepenedent Scotland would see the Tories being no more than a fringe party, polling 10-15%.

Arguably, this would allow Scottish Labour, no longer shackled to policies designed to win votes in the south of England, to move away from the centre and try and regain the leftist ground that the SNP have deliberately focused on (and the reason why they won a majority in Holyrood - something, remember, that the electoral process was designed to rule out). It would also allow Labour politicos to retain the "talent" that inevitably gets sucked into Westminster - Salmond would no longer be able to rule the roost in the way he has done over the last decade.

Yes, there would be a price to pay for this (but sadly we don't know how much). And, yes, it's difficult to trust a politician, no matter what colour of rosette they wear. But the scenario above is something that gives me some form of hope.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 10:04 AM
Anyone seen this?:

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8692-electoral-commission-rules-out-monitoring-of-indy-campaign-literature

Scandalous. Both sides of the Yes and No debate should be very scathing about this decision. But I suspect campaign teams on both sides will now consider it open season, which will just make things all the more confusing for the Don't Knows.

 >:(
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Scotpaulabear on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 10:39 AM
Anyone seen this?:

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8692-electoral-commission-rules-out-monitoring-of-indy-campaign-literature

Scandalous. Both sides of the Yes and No debate should be very scathing about this decision. But I suspect campaign teams on both sides will now consider it open season, which will just make things all the more confusing for the Don't Knows.

 >:(

That is absolutely ridiculous!!  >:(
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 10:55 AM
The No campaign will become rabidly more dishonest as the referendum nears.   The Yes campaign will have to content themselves with a bit of exaggeration - as they are essentially a transparent organisation, they have to more or less play fair.  The no campaign have all sorts of shady groups who will say and do what's required to maintain the status quo.  This includes the constant planting of scare stories, the threats of job losses and financial pain, the appeals to not end this wonderful historical relationship (wonderful for Westminster certainly), and the clandestine supply of No cardigans to selected opinion formers by MI5
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: tumshie on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 11:13 AM
An English man speaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbuTckpcDI

Warning: more swearing in 10 minutes than 3 hours of Wolf of Wall Street.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 11:21 AM
That's superb Tumshie.    I demand that the SNP use it as their next party political broadcast
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 11:23 AM
makes the whole episode a bigger farce than it already is.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 11:25 AM
An English man speaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbuTckpcDI

Warning: more swearing in 10 minutes than 3 hours of Wolf of Wall Street.
;D Brilliant.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 11:31 AM
An English man speaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbuTckpcDI

Warning: more swearing in 10 minutes than 3 hours of Wolf of Wall Street.

I believe in his day job he's the London Times ballet correspondent
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 14:39 PM
i thought i recognised him - i once took the guided tour of the strepsils factory in nuneaton*, he was sitting in the boss's chair covering his junk with a map of ross-shire.

*it might not've been nuneaton
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 14:57 PM
*probably it was fudsville
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 15:09 PM
An English man speaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbuTckpcDI

Warning: more swearing in 10 minutes than 3 hours of Wolf of Wall Street.

Love it when his voice cracks - he's the Jimi Hendrix of public speakers, complete with feedback.  8) got my shades on just like chunkymark!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 15:59 PM
Monarchism, that is happen able!

Best rant ever.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Fri, Feb 07, 2014, 17:05 PM
More than a rant, honest emotion.   It looks like the guy pulled his car to the side of the road when he heard about camerons speech.

Everything he said is true. 
Or am I biased?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 18:41 PM
Killing time before my flight gets cancelled, I noted that Gideon Osbourne has said a currency union won't work for Scotland, Isn't this good news for the Yes campaign? Won't not be fiscally linked to the rest of the UK make us more independent?

Confused of Edzell
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 21:01 PM
Would that be G Osborne who also likes to say we're all in it together?

Well if he says it, it must be true.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Wed, Feb 12, 2014, 23:30 PM

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/independent-scotland-will-not-be-allowed-to-use-british-oxygen-2014021283498
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: a.heathen on Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 08:31 AM
I am stockpiling my scottish poonds as they are going to be worth more once Osborne isn't in charge of them.

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 09:25 AM
I'll be quite happy to see the back of the pound - I'm hoping we opt for the Drachma, as I've got a pile of coins left over from when Greece joined the Euro.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 11:24 AM
french francs, auld alliance 'n' that
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 17:30 PM
It's official.  If we walk out on the UK they are going to stick a huge barbed pole with a hedgehog on the top, up our rear end.  Hoots mon.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 17:43 PM
It's official.  If we walk out on the UK they are going to stick a huge barbed pole with a hedgehog on the top, up our rear end.  Hoots mon.
Sounds pretty much like daily life under a Tory government anyway...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 18:04 PM
yeah, for all you poor folk.




                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                 just kidding
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 00:22 AM
We're not getting to play with the pound anymore but they keep the oil and we keep the  missiles.  Thats about right isnt it?

What about Balls and Alexander today?  Are there any labour or libdem supporters out there who are unashamed?  Danny Alexander, who is he?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: r.a. on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 08:27 AM
Its just a line on a map, guys. Don't let the man get you in a tizz about it.

Yours,

A Simpleton

Ps - you guys should totally ditch us and get into bed with the Scandinavians. Better infrastructure, the least corrupt governments on earth and the cutest ladyfriends. What's not to like? They even have black people now.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 09:43 AM
Danny Alexander, who is he?
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101015151248/muppet/images/0/05/Beaker.jpg)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Scotpaulabear on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 11:29 AM
Danny Alexander, who is he?
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101015151248/muppet/images/0/05/Beaker.jpg)

Winner of today's 'Made Me Laugh Out Loud in the Office' award  :D
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 11:54 AM
Killing time before my flight gets cancelled, I noted that Gideon Osbourne has said a currency union won't work for Scotland, Isn't this good news for the Yes campaign? Won't not be fiscally linked to the rest of the UK make us more independent?

Confused of Edzell

thats what I thought??  I've no doubt the motives for the announcement from the odeous Osbourne are not good ones, but if it is the case that the remainder of the UK can say no to a currency union isn't it better that everyone knows that? 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: thebot on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 12:10 PM
It's a lot of work to set up a currency though.  Not an insurmountable job, but it would be much easier to stick with the pound.  Then again, we are in the modern world and if Bitcoin can get recognised as a currency now this shouldn't be anything we can't handle, otherwise we shouldn't be going independent.

I think this is a bad move by Osbourne though.  With us being a nation of grumpy, contrary bastards this will only push more people on to yes, if only out of stubbornness.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: lolsmit on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 12:12 PM
Killing time before my flight gets cancelled, I noted that Gideon Osbourne has said a currency union won't work for Scotland, Isn't this good news for the Yes campaign? Won't not be fiscally linked to the rest of the UK make us more independent?

Confused of Edzell
thats what I thought??  I've no doubt the motives for the announcement from the odeous Osbourne are not good ones, but if it is the case that the remainder of the UK can say no to a currency union isn't it better that everyone knows that?
It's barely a currency union now, I usually get funny looks when using Scottish bank notes in England and have had a number of near misses for notes being taken, in the Midlands particularly.  One woman laughed and handed a new-style Bank of Scotland £20 note back to me as she thought it was "toy" money.  A tout once balked at my £20 note outside Rock City recently...you know things are really bad when touts won't take your money.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 12:23 PM
Killing time before my flight gets cancelled, I noted that Gideon Osbourne has said a currency union won't work for Scotland, Isn't this good news for the Yes campaign? Won't not be fiscally linked to the rest of the UK make us more independent?

Confused of Edzell
thats what I thought??  I've no doubt the motives for the announcement from the odeous Osbourne are not good ones, but if it is the case that the remainder of the UK can say no to a currency union isn't it better that everyone knows that?
It's barely a currency union now, I usually get funny looks when using Scottish bank notes in England and have had a number of near misses for notes being taken, in the Midlands particularly.  One woman laughed and handed a new-style Bank of Scotland £20 note back to me as she thought it was "toy" money.  A tout once balked at my £20 note outside Rock City recently...you know things are really bad when touts won't take your money.
We live in the Midlands and regularly come back from a trip to the East Neuk with Scottish bank notes (well maybe 1 anyway!).  People do check them but that's because they don't see them very often and in the case of very young staff its likely the first time.  Once they've checked what they are its always fine.  You can't blame them. although years ago my friend who came down from Edinburgh for the week-end took it as a personal insult like she'd hand knitted them herself or something.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 13:17 PM
People don't take enough advantage of the differences in notes - when I used to live in England, I'd fold up RBS £1 notes and hand them over to taxi drivers, etc, as they looked remarkably like Bank of England fivers if people weren't paying attention.

If someone spotted the difference, I'd just grumble about the continued use of £1 notes in Scotland when everywhere else was using £1 coins, and paid up.

Saved me a fortune over the years...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: lolsmit on Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 13:24 PM
Killing time before my flight gets cancelled, I noted that Gideon Osbourne has said a currency union won't work for Scotland, Isn't this good news for the Yes campaign? Won't not be fiscally linked to the rest of the UK make us more independent?

Confused of Edzell
thats what I thought??  I've no doubt the motives for the announcement from the odeous Osbourne are not good ones, but if it is the case that the remainder of the UK can say no to a currency union isn't it better that everyone knows that?
It's barely a currency union now, I usually get funny looks when using Scottish bank notes in England and have had a number of near misses for notes being taken, in the Midlands particularly.  One woman laughed and handed a new-style Bank of Scotland £20 note back to me as she thought it was "toy" money.  A tout once balked at my £20 note outside Rock City recently...you know things are really bad when touts won't take your money.
We live in the Midlands and regularly come back from a trip to the East Neuk with Scottish bank notes (well maybe 1 anyway!).  People do check them but that's because they don't see them very often and in the case of very young staff its likely the first time.  Once they've checked what they are its always fine.  You can't blame them. although years ago my friend who came down from Edinburgh for the week-end took it as a personal insult like she'd hand knitted them herself or something.
Sounds like a weak case from the defence there, I'm with your Edinburger friend  ;D

I wouldn't get all upitty about it but, I'd liken it to having a card declined, which is never pleasant and even a tad embarrasing.  The insinuation is that you are trying to pass counterfeit notes and there's a degree of ignorance on the part of the recipient (but, then people like funky come along, trying to take advantage and giving the rest of us a bad name  :P)

Anyway, brilliant idea, I'll be voting for the new Scottish currency being hand-knitted  ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 19:10 PM
People don't take enough advantage of the differences in notes - when I used to live in England, I'd fold up RBS £1 notes and hand them over to taxi drivers, etc, as they looked remarkably like Bank of England fivers if people weren't paying attention.

If someone spotted the difference, I'd just grumble about the continued use of £1 notes in Scotland when everywhere else was using £1 coins, and paid up.

Saved me a fortune over the years...
;D and there rests the case for staff in pubs, etc in England checking over Scottish notes!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 19:12 PM
I'm bored with the 'debate' now - can't they just move to the vote -- and can everyone in the UK vote too please?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: a.heathen on Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 19:41 PM
The rest of us get our vote after Scotland win their vote.
Next May.

By which time I expect at least one party to be hoovering up disappointed referendumites with a promise or more/less freedom from The English. Labour if NO wins, UKIP if YES wins.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 19:42 PM
The rest of us get our vote after Scotland win their vote.
Next May.

By which time I expect at least one party to be hoovering up disappointed referendumites with a promise or more/less freedom from The English. Labour if NO wins, UKIP if YES wins.
That's a different vote.  I'd like to see more interest from The English in THIS vote.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 21:19 PM
The forces of darkness are winding up their machine.  Osborne last week and now Barosso wheeled out to drop his shillingsworth into the mix.  A  buggins-turn, here today gone tomorrow, timeserving penpusher of the most oleaginously unpleasant bearing.   How long are we going to put up with being told our place by people like these.
If I was one of the folk with a 'no' cardigan, I'd be looking at it very sideyways.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 22:40 PM
I imagine the hope is this will push you all into a yes vote. Seems to be working.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: lolsmit on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 10:01 AM
This very poll (above) was already showing an emphatic victory for the "Yes" camp, it's only a matter of time before Salmond is claiming more of the high ground and quoting the hub poll as a true reflection of the referendum outcome.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 10:07 AM
This very poll (above) was already showing an emphatic victory for the "Yes" camp, it's only a matter of time before Salmond is claiming more of the high ground and quoting the hub poll as a true reflection of the referendum outcome.
:) my fear is the Tories actually want you to vote Yes although I admit that attempting to goad you all into it might be too clever a tactic for them.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:31 AM
i'm looking at the "no" cardigan full on, in fact, i've stitched another one right on there. double "no". your "yes" campaign is on shaky, shaky ground, and another of your "well researched promises for scotland" has been scotched.

now the "yes" campaign can do what it does best i suppose - oh woe is our nation trodden underfoot by those in westminster. rise and be a nation again/send proud edward homewards.

ha - the somerset levels have a stronger case for independence ya dafties  ;D
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:35 AM
i'm looking at the "no" cardigan full on, in fact, i've stitched another one right on there. double "no". your "yes" campaign is on shaky, shaky ground, and another of your "well researched promises for scotland" has been scotched.

now the "yes" campaign can do what it does best i suppose - oh woe is our nation trodden underfoot by those in westminster. rise and be a nation again/send proud edward homewards.

ha - the somerset levels have a stronger case for independence ya dafties  ;D

and no i don't mean to demean those flooded out either by having a poke  :-[
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:36 AM
i was only [italics, bold text] having a poke at the yessirs
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:39 AM
roll out the stocks for the world two-er ... that reminds me, i've got two-er tickets and programmes (!) to collect from the printers (logs out)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:42 AM
There must be other English folk on this board with a view?  Come on people this is important for us all.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:43 AM
roll out the stocks for the world two-er ... that reminds me, i've got two-er tickets and programmes (!) to collect from the printers (logs out)
now that is good news.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:56 AM
roll out the stocks for the world two-er ... that reminds me, i've got two-er tickets and programmes (!) to collect from the printers (logs out)

Don't trip over the step at the printers and bugger your ankle again.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 12:07 PM
ha - the somerset levels have a stronger case for independence ya dafties  ;D
Twinned with Atlantis?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: a.heathen on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 12:59 PM
There must be other English folk on this board with a view?  Come on people this is important for us all.
Because I am in favour of a federally joined British Isles
I think it is the wrong question being asked, but I don't think I have a say in the decision as it is currently worded.

It's not like the English invaded and subjugated the  Scottish nation four years ago.
Not like Leckers thinks.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: lolsmit on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 13:00 PM
There must be other English folk on this board with a view?  Come on people this is important for us all.
Ooh, dangerous ground.  If Salmond really wants an independent Scotland he should let the English decide our fate (just like any other day of the week  :P).  I reckon the majority would be happy to see the back of us.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 14:25 PM

"now the "yes" campaign can do what it does best i suppose - oh woe is our nation trodden underfoot by those in westminster. rise and be a nation again/send proud edward homewards."


I know plenty of people who want independance but none of them would be singing that claptrap.  I dont want to send anyone homewards, I just dont want to be run from London by a bunch of extremely metropolitan biased people.

Anyway, lets all join together for a round of our new song..... 'we are scum, we are scum,  come and walk all over us, we are just silly credulous scum..'.da de da
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Leckers on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 14:54 PM
There must be other English folk on this board with a view?  Come on people this is important for us all.
Because I am in favour of a federally joined British Isles
I think it is the wrong question being asked, but I don't think I have a say in the decision as it is currently worded.

It's not like the English invaded and subjugated the  Scottish nation four hundred years ago.
Not like Leckers thinks.


I'm, quite rightly some would say,
staying out of this little debate.
everyone who knows me knows
my opinions on the state of the
union.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:06 PM
It is shameful that none of this helps in a rational debate nor in giving the people the information that they require to decide. 

The unfortunate aspect of it all being that the No campaign do not have to declare any position until after the vote is cast  and can flip flop at will to whatever best suits at the relevant time.  As for Europe, the old East Germany was given membership, from outside the EU, within three months of unification.  It would seem that had the borders been rescinded and we all became one country, then jobs a good un!  Rules for some and rules for others

Also, are we not already in a currency union within the UK and the fact that we print our own money not mean that we have a currency of our own which is branded Sterling but which is oddly enough not accepted in certain quarters down South?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:11 PM
There must be other English folk on this board with a view?  Come on people this is important for us all.
Ooh, dangerous ground.  If Salmond really wants an independent Scotland he should let the English decide our fate (just like any other day of the week  :P).  I reckon the majority would be happy to see the back of us.
I don't think the English should decide your fate -- of course I don't but I do think we should have a view -- this is a very small island and I think this is very divisive and that the politicians are loving it.  Divide and Rule and all that.
I wouldn't be at all happy to see the back of you.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:19 PM
No doubt you already have a view, you're entitled to it, but you cant expect the rest of the uk to have a vote on this surely?  It would just be more of the same, where the big country decides and the rest of us have to lump it. Would you want the uk  to vote us down so we have to stay in the union?  A uk vote would be tantamount to the English deciding.

Anyway, you wont be seeing the back of us.  You'll be allowed in for holidays and that.  As long as you can prove your descended from Jock Tamson.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:22 PM
No doubt you already have a view, you're entitled to it, but you cant expect the rest of the uk to have a vote on this surely?  It would just be more of the same, where the big country decides and the rest of us have to lump it. Would you want the uk  to vote us down so we have to stay in the union?  A uk vote would be tantamount to the English deciding.

Anyway, you wont be seeing the back of us.  You'll be allowed in for holidays and that.  As long as you can prove your descended from Jock Tamson.
Clearly a vote is not practical for the reasons you point out but I do think we should have a view about it.  I would like you to stay because I think we are stronger together - that's it.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:37 PM
If I were English I'd certainly have a few questions that I'd want answers to such as, If Scotland pay more into the Union than we get out and we are keeping all the oil revenues then how will this shortfall be met in what's left of the UK, higher taxes? What are you going to do with Trident when we dump them on your doorstep?

I'm watching an argument on facebook at the moment between a staunch No voter and a staunch Yes voter, both calling each other idiots for having contrary views. The intolerance of both sides to accept that people might have a different opinion from them is staggering. The chances of either changing the others mind is less than zero, I can't see why thet are wasting their energy. Also the thought that either side thinks that constantly filling my life with quotes from actors on why I should vote one way or the became very tiresome about 6 months ago.  I can't wait until the whole thing is over.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:46 PM
But the rest of the UK DOES have a voice - the issue has been debated in both the Commons and the Lords. The latter, inparticular, was hilarious - loads of grandees from all political parties except those in favour of independence.

None of the main party leaders actually WANT to engage in a debate in case they end up with egg on their face - Cameron's "rally" a couple of weeks ago was an embarrassment, particularly as he's stated that he won't debate Salmond head-to-head. Farage would probably have a go, but I think he's a bit scared of coming back to Scotland after his last trip...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:47 PM
The thing about arguing is that you rarely change someones mind, but you may leave them with a slightly different point of view.  In this case, I think the non yes voters need a bit of reasoned argument.  Here it is, we've tried it the other way.  It's shite.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 15:55 PM
If I were English I'd certainly have a few questions that I'd want answers to such as, If Scotland pay more into the Union than we get out and we are keeping all the oil revenues then how will this shortfall be met in what's left of the UK, higher taxes? What are you going to do with Trident when we dump them on your doorstep?


They'll do what they always do.  Starve the poor, the unemployed and the elderly.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 16:09 PM
But the rest of the UK DOES have a voice - the issue has been debated in both the Commons and the Lords. The latter, inparticular, was hilarious - loads of grandees from all political parties except those in favour of independence.

None of the main party leaders actually WANT to engage in a debate in case they end up with egg on their face - Cameron's "rally" a couple of weeks ago was an embarrassment, particularly as he's stated that he won't debate Salmond head-to-head. Farage would probably have a go, but I think he's a bit scared of coming back to Scotland after his last trip...
I didn't say we had no voice - I said I thought we should express a view and not sit back as if the whole thing was happening in a country not our own.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 16:14 PM
--- and by 'we' I don't mean politicians.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: rambling_idiot on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 17:09 PM
If I were English I'd certainly have a few questions that I'd want answers to such as, If Scotland pay more into the Union than we get out and we are keeping all the oil revenues then how will this shortfall be met in what's left of the UK, higher taxes? What are you going to do with Trident when we dump them on your doorstep?


They'll do what they always do.  Starve the poor, the unemployed and the elderly.

And then blame it all on immigrants.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 17:29 PM
Losh! This has turned in to quite the thread - the thread that wouldn't die, if you will.

What it needs for completeness is, perhaps, some learned interjection for Sir Stephen of Fry.

I think there should be two questions in the referendum:

1. Do you think Scotland should be independent? YES!!

2. What, right now?  Aah, well... <cough>...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 17:35 PM
Theres a class struggle going on in this country and in most of the 'developed' world, but it's not the usual kind where the workers demand and fight for more of a fair share.  This time it's the reverse.  The rich and powerful are rolling back all the gains made by the lower orders in the sixties and the seventies, as they stick it to them with astonishing aggression.  This means exporting their jobs to low wage economies, and throwing loads of them on the dole, as well as screwing the unions clearly.

The rich have not had it so good in yonks, executive pay rises outstripping everyone else's, whopping bonuses etc.  That'll be  why they're ordering the water cannons in for London.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Uncle Ellwyn on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 18:00 PM
how much of scotland does scotland actually own?
 

sadly, that's what it comes down to. I wouldn't vote for any of these muppets because not one of them can be trusted. they've already sold the jerseys. and they will do it again and again. I wouldn't lend any of them a fiver never mind indulge them with any kind of 'power'.
so I'm not voting for anything ever again. I know some folk think that's crazy or wrong and they may have a point. but I just can't believe any of them.
aye or naw I really don't see that much changing. it's just going to be soulless cnts telling lies. same old same old.

pissed aff?
nah, quite happy actually :D

You've nailed it.  That's exactly how I feel.

Except for the last line.   :(

Maybe that's why Heathen gave me an  >:( face.    ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 20:00 PM
Theres a class struggle going on in this country and in most of the 'developed' world, but it's not the usual kind where the workers demand and fight for more of a fair share.  This time it's the reverse.  The rich and powerful are rolling back all the gains made by the lower orders in the sixties and the seventies, as they stick it to them with astonishing aggression.  This means exporting their jobs to low wage economies, and throwing loads of them on the dole, as well as screwing the unions clearly.

The rich have not had it so good in yonks, executive pay rises outstripping everyone else's, whopping bonuses etc.  That'll be  why they're ordering the water cannons in for London.

In that case can I be rich please.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 20:30 PM
Me too!   

Can I get a shot of your water cannon?  Look, there's a bunch of poor folk,
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 22:02 PM
Theres a class struggle going on in this country and in most of the 'developed' world, but it's not the usual kind where the workers demand and fight for more of a fair share.  This time it's the reverse.  The rich and powerful are rolling back all the gains made by the lower orders in the sixties and the seventies, as they stick it to them with astonishing aggression.  This means exporting their jobs to low wage economies, and throwing loads of them on the dole, as well as screwing the unions clearly.

The rich have not had it so good in yonks, executive pay rises outstripping everyone else's, whopping bonuses etc.  That'll be  why they're ordering the water cannons in for London.
I don't disagree at all.  I just think that splitting it into a North/South divide is far too simplistic and more than anything else I feel that the only ones with anything to gain from all of this are once again the rich and powerful.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 23:36 PM
Most of the rich are in London and the home counties and they have their government dancing ever more to the tory right wing tunes. When the other bunch are in, very little changes.   During the Blair Brown years, after their landslide victory, they did nothing radical at all.

It's not great to split it into a north south thing I agree, but that's how it is. It is a north south thing.  Or a north/london thing.  We are too remote.

A common epithet I heard often during my years in London was 'thick northerner', and they werent talking about the scots. We were something else I suppose, but they othered everybody. Irish were stupid, scottish were mean etc.

 I want out from under their incompetence and selfishness.  Our own incompetents up here will do a perfectly satisfactory job of fucking things up, and that makes a lot more sense to me.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 06:36 AM

 I want out from under their incompetence and selfishness.  Our own incompetents up here will do a perfectly satisfactory job of fucking things up, and that makes a lot more sense to me.

So change for changes sake then. Where do I sign?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: a.heathen on Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 11:38 AM
Has anyone said "you daft racist" yet?
Stop oppressing us by saying what "the English" in that London are like. Or else we'll get our Tory overlords to torch all your wind farms. That kind of in-fighting is just what  plays into their hands.
Divide and rule.

Yours sincerely,
Her Majesty, Queen of the North.

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 11:47 AM
Has anyone said "you daft racist" yet?
Stop oppressing us by saying what "the English" in that London are like. Or else we'll get our Tory overlords to torch all your wind farms. That kind of in-fighting is just what  plays into their hands.
Divide and rule.

Yours sincerely,
Her Majesty, Queen of the North.



I'm not oppressing anybody.  There are complete wonkers everywhere, it's just that the ones in London are running things, and largely for their own benefit.  I include most of the scottish mps in that. The've just  found that strolling the westminster corridors of power is seductive, which it is.
I like the english fine, I just dont want to be ruled by them.  They are like the french and the americans.  They look after themselves and their national interest.  That's not a criticism, it's human nature.  It just doesnt suit us.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 11:58 AM
Has anyone said "you daft racist" yet?
Stop oppressing us by saying what "the English" in that London are like. Or else we'll get our Tory overlords to torch all your wind farms. That kind of in-fighting is just what  plays into their hands.
Divide and rule.

Yours sincerely,
Her Majesty, Queen of the North.

you can't say that, ye daft monarchist.

(http://numero57.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/cameron-poster1.jpg)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 13:05 PM
Cameron could wipe out the UK debt by renting out his forehead as a billboard.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 15:16 PM
(http://owenedelsten.co.uk/files/cammy2.jpg)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: ravedamage on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, 21:38 PM
This is a long thread…haven browsed, so I'll just fire in...

Did anybody see that John Barrowman Immortal Memory shite from January?

This guff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0)

Well, it upset me. Quite a bit. Fecking rent-a-gob….

So, to paraphrase Eric Morecambe, I have made John Barrowman say all the wrong words but in the right order:

http://youtu.be/47tEImGm_eM (http://youtu.be/47tEImGm_eM)

 ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, 23:00 PM
The voice of moral authority and street cred speaks.

Well I wont be going to any more of his christmas pantos
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 11:26 AM
Gordon Brown is starting a roadshow to promote a vision he has no mandate to deliver unless labour get re-elected at the next general election.

How does that work then?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 13:20 PM
It's as bad as the SNP pronouncing a vision they have no mandate to deliver unless they get re-elected.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 13:52 PM
No it's not, the Scottish people elected a party who in their manifesto promised a referendum on independence.  The power to hold this was mandated through the Edinburgh act. 

Irrespective of whether the SNP are re-elected or not, the referendum is whether Scotland should be independent not on whether the SNP vision of what they would do should be the reality.  The SNP have by virtue of their manifesto pledge become required to present their post referendum manifesto for pubic consumption and debate. 

None of the other "Scottish" parties have as yet done and it would be good if they did, from either perspective.

 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 14:34 PM
I was merely suggesting that a lot of what the white paper included will only come to fruition under an SNP government, it's not a x-party consensus document. Is it at all possible that Gordon Brown is acting as a representative of Scottish Labour to deliver their post manifesto referendum for public consumption and debate, which is something you appear to want to see? Just playing devil's advocate.  I'm not following it closely enough, I've got a team in one cup final and the semi final of another and Withered Hand's album is out today, and Yallae Deuks in a few weeks, then there's Mull so I've got many thing more important to me to focus on. 

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 15:06 PM
I was debating this with funky in the pub on Saturday before we went to see the mighty MOGWAI. 

The true debate has actually been lost in the mix, if we want to (pro’s and cons), do we have the wherewithal to manage our own affairs?  Because of the process and the media and the rest of the circus, we have everyone else debating against the SNP vision without putting forward and alternatives, either way.

If we vote yes, then it will be very interesting to see what the manifestos of the other parties will look like but of course at the present time we have the hand of Westminster up their backs, so until the die is cast we will never see the true picture.

I want to see what the Scottish parties are truly saying not what they are being told to say by someone else.  I can't undersatnd why they are not using MSP's rather than MP's to front their campaigns.  Scottish MP's have no impact on Westminster decisions, very strange!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 15:21 PM
I was debating this with funky in the pub on Saturday before we went to see the mighty MOGWAI. 

The true debate has actually been lost in the mix, if we want to (pro’s and cons), do we have the wherewithal to manage our own affairs?  Because of the process and the media and the rest of the circus, we have everyone else debating against the SNP vision without putting forward and alternatives, either way.

If we vote yes, then it will be very interesting to see what the manifestos of the other parties will look like but of course at the present time we have the hand of Westminster up their backs, so until the die is cast we will never see the true picture.

I want to see what the Scottish parties are truly saying not what they are being told to say by someone else.  I can't undersatnd why they are not using MSP's rather than MP's to front their campaigns.  Scottish MP's have no impact on Westminster decisions, very strange!

Could this be attributed to the standard of MP we have in Scotland? If the party leaders are the best we've got then god help us. Not that the standard in London is any better.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 15:37 PM
i've an a1ternative

we use 0ur "unified" sc0ttish v0ice t0 get behind a new p01itica1 party - based in sc0t1and 0r 0therwise - that 0ffers pr0gressive p01itica1 ideas f0r the wh01e 0f the uk, and, g0d f0rbid, maybe even run the entire 0perati0n fr0m the n0rth end 0f this tiny is1and 0f 0urs s0 that we might make a rea1 difference

where is that party? n0w's the time, great thinkers, t0 bring it int0 being instead 0f making things yet m0re c0mp1icated f0r everyb0dy in the uk

i'd rather that than the same 01d, same 01d run by any 0f the current sc0ttish p01iticians, independence minded 0r n0t

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 15:49 PM
the more broony campaigns for a No, the happier I will be.  He cuckoo.    Two weeks of him and the yes faction will put on 10%.

regarding a new unified party, well that is a real positive prospect - but only after a yes vote.   Otherwise all the vested interests will still be there, pursuing their own narrow agenda and preventing progress.   I think to move on, the rug needs to be pulled from under their feet. So I dont think it can happen on a UK wide basis.    But think of the energising effect a yes vote would have on the rest of the UK.   Those people who think the uk would be tory forever without scottish labour mps are wrong.  The whole set-up would rebalance, to regain  equilibrium.



Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: baldpar on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 16:07 PM
i've an a1ternative

we use 0ur "unified" sc0ttish v0ice t0 get behind a new p01itica1 party - based in sc0t1and 0r 0therwise - that 0ffers pr0gressive p01itica1 ideas f0r the wh01e 0f the uk, and, g0d f0rbid, maybe even run the entire 0perati0n fr0m the n0rth end 0f this tiny is1and 0f 0urs s0 that we might make a rea1 difference

where is that party? n0w's the time, great thinkers, t0 bring it int0 being instead 0f making things yet m0re c0mp1icated f0r everyb0dy in the uk

i'd rather that than the same 01d, same 01d run by any 0f the current sc0ttish p01iticians, independence minded 0r n0t

This. That is all.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 17:50 PM
I was debating this with funky in the pub on Saturday before we went to see the mighty MOGWAI. 
You considered that a debate?

It was just me getting a bit shouty, really...
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 19:00 PM
the more broony campaigns for a No, the happier I will be.  He cuckoo.    Two weeks of him and the yes faction will put on 10%.

regarding a new unified party, well that is a real positive prospect - but only after a yes vote.   Otherwise all the vested interests will still be there, pursuing their own narrow agenda and preventing progress.   I think to move on, the rug needs to be pulled from under their feet. So I dont think it can happen on a UK wide basis.    But think of the energising effect a yes vote would have on the rest of the UK.   Those people who think the uk would be tory forever without scottish labour mps are wrong.  The whole set-up would rebalance, to regain  equilibrium.
If there was a yes vote it may well be that the rest of the UK would not remain tory forever.  However I am becoming more and more convinced that a big part of the rebalance would be "who gives a shit about Scotland they abandoned us".  Have I mentioned before that I think its divisive and that I want Scotland to remain part of the UK so we can bring change together!!?
What I see now is divide and rule.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 19:06 PM
I was debating this with funky in the pub on Saturday before we went to see the mighty MOGWAI. 
You considered that a debate?

It was just me getting a bit shouty, really...

By your standards, it was as close as we will ever get.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 19:22 PM

If there was a yes vote it may well be that the rest of the UK would not remain tory forever.  However I am becoming more and more convinced that a big part of the rebalance would be "who gives a shit about Scotland they abandoned us".  Have I mentioned before that I think its divisive and that I want Scotland to remain part of the UK so we can bring change together!!?
What I see now is divide and rule.

If there is a yes vote, people in the rest of the UK, (or 'the rump UK' has a certain ring to it) will soon stop feeling that way as they realise what is important is their own domain.   I have no doubt that some people will feel spiteful towards us for leaving, but these will be the same people who feel spiteful towards us already, and will feel spiteful towards us if we stay.

What's important for us is to free ourselves of the deadening weight of westminster politics.  And another 300 years of prime ministers question time.

Did I mention the military-industrial-city of london complex?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 20:13 PM

If there was a yes vote it may well be that the rest of the UK would not remain tory forever.  However I am becoming more and more convinced that a big part of the rebalance would be "who gives a shit about Scotland they abandoned us".  Have I mentioned before that I think its divisive and that I want Scotland to remain part of the UK so we can bring change together!!?
What I see now is divide and rule.

If there is a yes vote, people in the rest of the UK, (or 'the rump UK' has a certain ring to it) will soon stop feeling that way as they realise what is important is their own domain.   I have no doubt that some people will feel spiteful towards us for leaving, but these will be the same people who feel spiteful towards us already, and will feel spiteful towards us if we stay.

What's important for us is to free ourselves of the deadening weight of westminster politics.  And another 300 years of prime ministers question time.

Did I mention the military-industrial-city of london complex?
I live here - it isn't the same people.  Its divide and rule.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 20:40 PM
If a majority of people in this country vote for independence, that's not divide and rule.   It's just us saying no to business as usual from Westminster in the only way we can.   Divide and rule is what the no campaign are currently engaging in, with their fearmongering and threat making.  I hope we tell them to fuck off in no uncertain terms.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 20:48 PM
Sorry but I don't understand your implication that it is divide and rule.

I understand divide and rule to be a strategy by which the implementer is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.

Scotland has neither more power than the UK nor is it seeking to break up larger concentrations of power, it is about being our own sovereign state and making our own decisions.  The majority of Scots have no interest in being a part of the G8, 10 or 20.

Whilst economics is the main media driven debate, I am confident that Scots are equally concerned about social justice, the environment and creating and sustaining a society for the next generation. 

I appreciate Kwaings one party sentiment but the journey has to start somewhere.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 21:33 PM
Has anyone said "you daft racist" yet?
Stop oppressing us by saying what "the English" in that London are like. Or else we'll get our Tory overlords to torch all your wind farms. That kind of in-fighting is just what  plays into their hands.
Divide and rule.

Yours sincerely,
Her Majesty, Queen of the North.
see above
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 21:48 PM
I dont really know what point you're making here.  I have never mentioned "the english" and I'm not talking about the english.  I'm talking about westminster, and as I previously said, that includes the useless bunch of self serving scottish mps in that number.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 21:55 PM
I dont really know what point you're making here.  I have never mentioned "the english" and I'm not talking about the english.  I'm talking about westminster, and as I previously said, that includes the useless bunch of self serving scottish mps in that number.

I can only assume that it means Scottish independence is some sort of Tory masterstroke to divide and conquer!

 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Mon, Mar 10, 2014, 23:24 PM
For those of you who may not have heard of the McCrone Report (from Wikipedia, but common knowledge):

"The McCrone report was a UK Government dossier on the economic viability of an independent Scotland, written in 1974 by Professor Gavin McCrone, a leading civil service economist, for the Conservative UK government. By the time it was completed the Labour Party had returned to power. The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be "embarrassing", making the country "as rich as Switzerland."[1] It also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe "with the exception of the Norwegian kronor"[1] The report went on to advise UK government ministers on the various methods they could use to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".
The incoming Labour administration classified the document as secret over fears it could give a further boost to the SNP's policy of Scottish independence.[2][3][4]"



I'm mentioning this as it's indicative of the shit the london government gets up to where scotland is concerned.  They underplay and suppress the positive and overplay with enthusiasm the negative.    They do this with the cooperation and willingness of the civil service. 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: rambling_idiot on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 10:28 AM
This is nae bad.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/03/10/dismantling-the-british-state/

Much better than anything in The Guardian.

They seem affa resentful of Scottish independence.

Stupid, bloody English.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 12:14 PM
steady on there, you cant say that.  It's not the English, it's their media.   As Chomsky says the purpose of the press is to deliver an audience to it's advertisers.  That applies to the guardian just like the rest of them.

Anyway, interesting article which will be rubbished as it comes from tariq ali, but I dont find much there to disagree with.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Leckers on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 12:25 PM
you do know all this has
nothing to do with being
'scottish' or 'english', don't
you? this is about them
and us.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 13:26 PM
Looks like the No campaign have caught Yes off-guard again by the "pledges" for increased devolved power asap after a no vote.

Of course, these pledges mean the square root of hee-haw when they uttered by 1) a Lib-Dem, for whom pledges mean absolutely nothing (right, Nick?) and 2) a has-been with no authority to make promises of any kind, particularly when he proposes economic models.

Anyone who believes that these pledges are in any way deliverable are naive in the extreme, and if Labour and the Lib-Dems actually believed their own message, they'd have supported the SNP in trying to get the "increased powers" option included on the ballot paper.

Basically, vote Yes or No based on the specific options of yes or no, not because there MIGHT* be some other options on the table later.










*(won't)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 16:05 PM
you do know all this has
nothing to do with being
'scottish' or 'english', don't
you? this is about them
and us.
that's what I was meaning by divide and rule I suppose.  I totally understand why you want distance from Westminster I just want us all to stick together that's all.
Yours a stupid bloody English person
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: rambling_idiot on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 16:42 PM
you do know all this has
nothing to do with being
'scottish' or 'english', don't
you? this is about them
and us.

Hearts and Hibs?

 ;)

Of course I know it's nothing to do with being 'scottish' or 'english', but there does seem to be a hell of a lot of resentment from folk in England. The right I can understand, but the amount of hostility on the English left has really surprised me.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 16:51 PM
Who are the english left?   Not the labour party for sure.  They're somewhere to the right of alf garnett.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: rambling_idiot on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 17:06 PM
Here's anither gid read;
http://allofusfirst.org/

The independence referendum seems to have really revitalised Scottish politics.

Well, some of it.

Labour seem stuck in some kind of horrible loop.

Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 17:10 PM
Who are the english left?   Not the labour party for sure.  They're somewhere to the right of alf garnett.
Well there's something we can both agree on  :)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: funky_nomad on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 17:52 PM
Who are the english left?   Not the labour party for sure.  They're somewhere to the right of alf garnett.
Well there's something we can both agree on  :)
I've long said that a Yes vote might actually be a good thing for Labour - freed of the centrist shackles, Scottish Labour would be able to try and reclaim the left-centre from SNP (and would stand a good chance of doing so as disenfranchised Labour voters would probably drift back given half a chance), which would in turn result in Labour activists in England looking north for ideas to steal - voila, a Labour party going back to the position it should be in rather than the "Tories with red rosettes" that make up the current lot.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 18:22 PM
yeah or maybe once freed of the very slightly more left leaning presence of the scottish labour mps, they could lurch further rightward to reoccupy their natural habitat of thatcherite philosophy espoused by blair.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 18:29 PM
kind of obvious that I can't stand the labour party.  Bunch of careerist zealots grubbing about in the trough, 4-legs-good-two-legs-bad style..  Can't stand the tories either.  Ponces, thieves and robbers.  Or the lib dems. Pompous farts.   Ever since lord sutch moved on theres no-one.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: czefski on Tue, Mar 11, 2014, 19:20 PM
kind of obvious that I can't stand the labour party.  Bunch of careerist zealots grubbing about in the trough, 4-legs-good-two-legs-bad style..  Can't stand the tories either.  Ponces, thieves and robbers.  Or the lib dems. Pompous farts.   Ever since lord sutch moved on theres no-one.

I don't like any of them either and would add the SNP to this list, poking their nose into business that is none of their concern in Aberdeen for their own agendas, UTG, Trump's golf course etc.  a city that gets the lowest funding per head of any city in Scotland.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 18:40 PM
I see boris johnson had bob crow bumped off.    The tories will stop at nothing.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: fuctifano on Fri, May 16, 2014, 22:30 PM
Is it ok to vote YES just to piss of Gary Barlow or whoever runs the country these days?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Fri, May 16, 2014, 22:47 PM
that sounds like a pretty valid reason. Based on deep philosphical consideration and a mature political worldview.

Who is running the country anyway?  Not cameron and kleg anyway, they're just the front of house boys.

I think it's the covent garden soup company, aka megacorp.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 14:04 PM
This caught my eye in the news today.

Downing Street to fly Saltire

Posted at 13:34

Downing Street will raise the Saltire flag this afternoon, ahead of a visit by the prime minister to Scotland tomorrow.

Why would you do that?  I reckon the "visit" by the three pro-unionist party leaders, I actually thought we had three pro-unionist party leaders in the Scottish versions of the parties but what would I know, both undermines them and confuses the No vote.

 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Leckers on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 14:28 PM
how anyone could be bribed by the
latest 'no' campaign tactics is beyond
me. they are scumbags to a man, and
treating you like dicks. nice one. now
we have mass murderers and economic
halfwits telling us to vote for more powers
by voting for less powers. good luck with
the union after all this - you'll feckin well
need it.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 15:08 PM
This caught my eye in the news today.

Downing Street to fly Saltire

Posted at 13:34

Downing Street will raise the Saltire flag this afternoon, ahead of a visit by the prime minister to Scotland tomorrow.

Why would you do that?  I reckon the "visit" by the three pro-unionist party leaders, I actually thought we had three pro-unionist party leaders in the Scottish versions of the parties but what would I know, both undermines them and confuses the No vote.

Patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel.   That's why they would do it.  Wrap themselves in the flag when there's nothing else left.

As for the threesome coming up for some lovebombing followed by some dire threats,  I await some detail on their spurious offers.  Oh and  will they be out doing that wee twirly dance at the back of the parade with their Orange Lodge fellow-no-campaigners at the weekend?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: fuctifano on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 15:10 PM
how anyone could be bribed by the
latest 'no' campaign tactics is beyond
me. they are scumbags to a man, and
treating you like dicks. nice one. now
we have mass murderers and economic
halfwits telling us to vote for more powers
by voting for less powers. good luck with
the union after all this - you'll feckin well
need it.

I'm trying to see this from both sides as much as I can but it's getting tougher to do that. Usually I would have said something very like the above and I've tried really hard not to. However, any argument I have heard from bt is lame to say the least. I wouldn't go as far as saying insulting but.....y'know.

I'm still not even sure i'll vote. There's a moon hop on the same night so i'll be voting with my dancing feet.

If anyone wants to try to convince me we are better together I'm honestly all ears....But please don't mention currency, pensions, or national security. all red herrings as far as im concerned. :)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 15:29 PM
how about johann lamonts latest idea that A vote for no is a vote for Yes.      Would that swing it for you?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Leckers on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 15:43 PM
how anyone could be bribed by the
latest 'no' campaign tactics is beyond
me. they are scumbags to a man, and
treating you like dicks. nice one. now
we have mass murderers and economic
halfwits telling us to vote for more powers
by voting for less powers. good luck with
the union after all this - you'll feckin well
need it.

I'm still not even sure i'll vote.

that is even worse than voting yes.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 16:01 PM
how anyone could be bribed by the
latest 'no' campaign tactics is beyond
me. they are scumbags to a man, and
treating you like dicks. nice one. now
we have mass murderers and economic
halfwits telling us to vote for more powers
by voting for less powers. good luck with
the union after all this - you'll feckin well
need it.

I'm still not even sure i'll vote.

that is even worse than voting yes.

(http://kensten.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/flip-flop.jpg)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: fuctifano on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 16:13 PM
how about johann lamonts latest idea that A vote for no is a vote for Yes.      Would that swing it for you?

i wouldn't want her car keys if that's what you're asking.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 16:55 PM
Nice to have the approval of our friends in the south:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/dTYuCvuQmrw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Toucann on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 20:15 PM
My vote has now been officially cast and is in!  YES it's a postal vote - so to the 3 who come a visiting tomorrow - too late boys!! you have no chance in swaying my vote.   ;D
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: DemonInDisguise on Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 21:42 PM
Forget taking sides, I don't want to get in to all that again but, regardless of where your sympathies lie you have to admit that the 'not yes' campaign are messing this up in spades.

It's almost as if they didn't take this seriously and now that they've realised what might happen they're all panicking and they've all grabbed a bucket and started bailing but there's no co-ordination.

Alistair D's career has to be over after this. As for Cameron, if Yes wins he's next out of the boat. What's interesting to me is that we've gone from insults, 'how dare they...' and 'ungrateful oiks' last week to 'we love you', 'your flag is cool', 'don't leave us' this week. I fear it's too little too late.

I've shared some of my feelings about the whole exercise elsewhere on this forum, and I'm still undecided, I don't see how anyone can fail to be amazed at the mess and self-destruction of Better Together. Whilst Alex Salmond has run a pretty good campaign, I think it's fair to say that BT did their best to shed any chance they had. The rhetoric coming out of England, and indeed Wales (!?!) about sticking it to Scotland if they vote No has, I think, also been responsible for some moderate 'No's changing to Yes.

I don't think I'll finally decide till I'm in the wee booth with the pen hovering over the ballot paper...

This, the Apple Watch and the iPhone 6... what an age we live in!!!!  :o 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 00:38 AM

On the face of it Better Together seem to be making a rip roaring James Hunt of it. I still can't bring myself to vote for something that essentially boils down to a good idea, vote now and we'll confirm what your voting for sometime after. That said, whatever the result it appears that the ramifications from it will rumble on for a long time because either way we're going to have 50% of the population pissed off. I'm fair vexed with it all now.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 00:44 AM
We've got three westminster leaders coming up today.  One gave us the bedroom tax and cut taxes for the very wealthy.  One reneged on his party's promise not to introduce university tuition fees, by helping to introduce university tuition fees. The other one has not yet been in power, but it seems to me he has all the attributes. He's weak, he's a career politician with no life experience outside the bubble and of course he was Special Advisor to the disaster that was Gordon Brown.

They're coming up to waft their fragrant southern lovesong over us.  We love you, we love you, please don't go…

… but the clear subliminal message will be "London Good, Edinburgh Bad, London  Good, Edinburgh Bad".   They will sing their song in that accent that people from Scotland were, in the recent past, often expected to emulate if they wanted to get anywhere in the upper strata of life. It's the accent of credibility, and they will use it to credibly suggest that they will always do a better job than we ever could. Over pensions  (which have been hugely devalued), over jobs (nearly 5 million unemployed), over the economy (austerity in full blast, but not for the wealthy), over the dangers of having oil and gas (which they will try and pump out asap now) and over health (life expectancy average in Glasgow lowest in UK by 6 years).  No doubt they'll have a few more ideas to throw into the mix.  Some people will believe them.  It's a sad thought that this referendum could be won by the No campaign on the strength of the votes from the over 65 age group, the only demographic age group in favour of voting No, because they have succumbed to the fibs about pensions from the No campaign.  However I don't think that's going to happen.  I think the UK is done for and it's high time.  And the no camp tell us it will be forever, which is probably good news.

It was Boris Johnson who said  "I'm making the argument to the Treasury that a pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde. "
He said it but I suspect it's what they all think. 

It's London for the Power and the Glory,  Scotland for your fecking holidays.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Jackie on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 10:16 AM
I will be very glad when this is done with however it goes.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 20:33 PM
Just had a tea time debate with my old man, who the Lord love him is a closet Tory.

Wish I'd know this before tea,

Quote from:  William Hague during PMQ's in Westminster
The offer by the three main party leaders of further devolved powers for Scotland if it votes No in next week's independence referendum is "akin to a statement in a general election campaign", he said.

The Commons Leader added that it was a statement of what David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband intend to do after the September 18 referendum.

Mr Hague was responding to Tory Christopher Chope (Christchurch) who pointed out that it had been Government policy since 2012 not to offer so called "devo max" in the event of a No vote.

Standing in for the Prime Minister at his weekly question session, Mr Hague told the Commons: "It has been the policy of the Government for some time to be open to further devolution and I gave examples of what we have done in Wales, for instance, during the lifetime of this Government.

"The statements by the party leaders made on this in the last few days are statements by party leaders in a campaign, not a statement of Government policy today but a statement of commitment from the three main political parties, akin to statements by party leaders in a general election campaign of what they intend to do afterwards.

"It's on that basis they have made those statements."

Mr Chope had asked him: "Since 2012 my right honourable friend and I have been supporting the policy of the Government not to offer so called 'devo max' as a consolation prize in the event of a No vote in the Scottish referendum.

"If this is no longer the policy of the Government when and why did it change?

"And what opportunity has there been for this House to express its view?"

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/11/12/1289592932983/Nick-Clegg-holds-up-the-p-006.jpg)

There are no firm promises in this on either side.

Change cannot be affected by any one individual or party, and if you are thinking/waiting on that then you are a mug, but if 50% of the people get behind the concept of change then it can ignite a nation to make that change.

If you want to walk on water folks, you firstly have to get out of the boat.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 21:16 PM
I know that a lot of you are very keen to read more stuff on Independence, so without further ado, here's George Monbiot in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Deegers on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 21:33 PM
I know that a lot of you are very keen to read more stuff on Independence, so without further ado, here's George Monbiot in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

indeed but show some love to the pidge as well.

 ;)
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 22:39 PM
I know that a lot of you are very keen to read more stuff on Independence, so without further ado, here's George Monbiot in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

I naively hope that the debate has galvanised the entire UK enough to begin to sew the seeds of change in the aftermath of this. A long shot and a long road, albeit together.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 22:44 PM

indeed but show some love to the pidge as well.

 ;)

what are his voting intentions? ;)


by the way, does anyone know this guy:

https://id.theguardian.com/profile/kingcreosote/public
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Captain Geeko on Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 23:05 PM

by the way, does anyone know this guy:

https://id.theguardian.com/profile/kingcreosote/public (https://id.theguardian.com/profile/kingcreosote/public)


 :o  ? someone's in for a shock!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Uncle Ellwyn on Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 01:50 AM
I know that a lot of you are very keen to read more stuff on Independence, so without further ado, here's George Monbiot in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 18:49 PM
I was at a Yes campaign rally today in Buchanan St (Glasgow) There were thousands of people, great atmosphere and very good natured.  On the BBC I have just seen the news which said there was a "sizable" better-together rally in town, then showed Reid and Murphy of the labour party and a few no types.  Then a list of all the latest threats. Didnt show the Yes rally at all.   There were plenty of TV cameras there.  BBC is part of the conspiracy with the bankers and various other Downing Street cronies.  This is not paranoia, they are doing this regularly.  The UK doesn't like to be chucked.  They are promising us nuclear winter if we vote yes.  If we get it, I think they will slash and burn on the way out.   This is the only conclusion I can come to in view of what they are doing.   There is a march on the BBC hq in Glasgow tomorrow, the lying bastards. 
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 02:19 AM
Slightly off topic, but equally gripping - has anyone noticed an odd chemical smell to the milk now that Muller have bought up Wiseman Dairies?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Dubster on Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 08:08 AM
Slightly off topic, but equally gripping - has anyone noticed an odd chemical smell to the milk now that Muller have bought up Wiseman Dairies?
even more off topic, do you remember Miss Wiseman from Madras? She was part of the Wiseman Dairies dynasty.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 17:51 PM
Better the union "dead and buried" than Scotland.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 19:05 PM
Better the union "dead and buried" than Scotland.

Hurray,  Vote Zombie are back!
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: rambling_idiot on Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 23:08 PM
With a few days to go until the end of the empire i am preparing my party snacks as I type. As KC would say - don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Seriously though - I am utterly non-plussed by my fellow countryfolks that are on the better together side - you were going to be voting for the status quo but your beloved politicians from westminster have well and truly pissed on your chips. The Union is dead and buried what ever the outcome of Thursdays vote no matter what the result.  Those wanting change are not going to shuffle off back to their wee boxes. 97% of those eligible to vote are now registered - keep your fingers crossed we get a full turn out.

Gaun yersel, Vic.

See you on the other side,

thepissartistformerlyknownasbuck.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 05:13 AM
Slightly off topic, but equally gripping - has anyone noticed an odd chemical smell to the milk now that Muller have bought up Wiseman Dairies?
even more off topic, do you remember Miss Wiseman from Madras? She was part of the Wiseman Dairies dynasty.

even, even more off topic, i fell out of a moving wisemans milk van when i was 15 and fractured my skull.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Dubster on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 07:48 AM
Slightly off topic, but equally gripping - has anyone noticed an odd chemical smell to the milk now that Muller have bought up Wiseman Dairies?
even more off topic, do you remember Miss Wiseman from Madras? She was part of the Wiseman Dairies dynasty.

even, even more off topic, i fell out of a moving wisemans milk van when i was 15 and fractured my skull.
:o were you hitching a lift?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: FilthySwan on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 08:19 AM

I was a milk boy part time whilst at school.

I took a header out the side door at about 15-20mph whilst singing along to Space covering The Animals 'We've Gotta Get Outta This Place'. True story that.  :D
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: lolsmit on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 10:36 AM
I was a milk boy part time whilst at school.

I took a header out the side door at about 15-20mph whilst singing along to Space covering The Animals 'We've Gotta Get Outta This Place'. True story that.  :D
That explains a lot  ;)

Mine was the flat-bed truck era, where you rode along on a step at the rear-end of the truck.  Initiation at the end of your first shift (approx. 4.30am) was to be grabbed by the chest and lowered to a couple of inches from the road as the truck sped back to the farm with the empties* at 30-40mph.  Thankfully, escaped skull fractures and other such injuries from this practise.  Do still have a scar on my heid from when a crate jammed on the end of the truck as I jumped off with, as was the norm, the truck still moving and got clunked by 5 or 6 of the twelve bottles that smashed on the ground...that went down well with the neighbours at 3am.

*For younger readers, these were the days of glass milk bottles, which were returned, washed and re-used
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 12:03 PM
Better the union "dead and buried" than Scotland.

Hurray,  Vote Zombie are back!

Been busy, saving up, converting any savings to yen, eyeing up France, that sort of thing - if it all goes tits up on friday, maybe you can rent my gaff as your holiday home?
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: kwaing on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 12:11 PM
wink
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: Leckers on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 12:27 PM
i've been doing the
same, but it's holland
for me.
Title: Re: och i the naw (maybes)
Post by: franzkafka on Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 17:27 PM
Better the union "dead and buried" than Scotland.

Hurray,  Vote Zombie are back!

Been busy, saving up, converting any savings to yen, eyeing up France, that sort of thing - if it all goes tits up on friday, maybe you can rent my gaff as your holiday home?

Funny enough, looking for somewhere for the bunfight.  Have they screwed your roof back on yet?  Would consider tent space.

But dinnae worry.  It's not going to go tits up ;)

Just popping out now to intimidate some No voters before teatime