Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
25 Jun 14
17:42
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
Fear mongering rumours abound? Water metering in England. But water still free up in Bonnie Scotland. Fresh water in abundance ripe for the taking. Once They are cemented in the union next year they have plans to take their water as well as their oil. Selling off to bottled water concerns. All around the world drought is setting in. Water resources are the new Oil markets.
Show More
Immigration puts greater demand on water supplies.
Another fact that the nation haters never mention.
Another fact that the nation haters never mention.
Yes, we will be poorer without Scotland, in more ways than one
I hope for a no vote
I think our leaders have long since given up governing this country for the benefit of anyone who lives here
they think anybody who lives anywhere else is better
I hope for a no vote
I think our leaders have long since given up governing this country for the benefit of anyone who lives here
they think anybody who lives anywhere else is better
Yes, we will be poorer without Scotland, in more ways than one
I hope for a no vote
No need to hope imo. The betting on here tells me so. Far too many Scots being sucked in by the wee fat dictator.
An egomaniac if ever there was one.
I hope for a no vote
No need to hope imo. The betting on here tells me so. Far too many Scots being sucked in by the wee fat dictator.
An egomaniac if ever there was one.
FFS stewarty it´s a vote on independence not a vote for the SNP. I thought you would know better.
If anything it could be argued that as a party mainly associated with a single issue, once that is achieved their life will become harder.
Too many eejits being taken in by the blatant lies and scaremongering of the bitter togethers. FFS when Cameron, Osborne, the Pope, Obama, Baroso all agree to tell us to vote no it just has to in our interests to vote yes.
If anything it could be argued that as a party mainly associated with a single issue, once that is achieved their life will become harder.
Too many eejits being taken in by the blatant lies and scaremongering of the bitter togethers. FFS when Cameron, Osborne, the Pope, Obama, Baroso all agree to tell us to vote no it just has to in our interests to vote yes.
"FFS stewarty it´s a vote on independence not a vote for the SNP. I thought you would know better."
Utter BS. The entire white paper for independence is simply a taxpayer funded SNP manifesto, they'll be the ones "negotiating" the separation (if they are capable of it without throwing childish tantrums which I doubt). It's very much about what the tubby porky telling egomaniac and his followers want. And how anyone can call the OPPONENTS of the SNP liars given the lies they the SNP tell virtually every day .. well ..
Shattering the lies of fanatics isn't "Scaremongering" it's just a reality check, something the SNP aren't in touch with.
Utter BS. The entire white paper for independence is simply a taxpayer funded SNP manifesto, they'll be the ones "negotiating" the separation (if they are capable of it without throwing childish tantrums which I doubt). It's very much about what the tubby porky telling egomaniac and his followers want. And how anyone can call the OPPONENTS of the SNP liars given the lies they the SNP tell virtually every day .. well ..
Shattering the lies of fanatics isn't "Scaremongering" it's just a reality check, something the SNP aren't in touch with.
@tiptheodds The only lies have come from wee fishy. Remember the legal advice he told us he had taken.
There is no chance of a yes vote and Scots will vote 2 to 1 for the Union. Better together.
There is no chance of a yes vote and Scots will vote 2 to 1 for the Union. Better together.
I hope so, England need Scotland
for a Scottish point of view I don't know?
the big disadvantage, they would become a smaller country, would that benefit them
it is not my decision
for a Scottish point of view I don't know?
the big disadvantage, they would become a smaller country, would that benefit them
it is not my decision
If I was Scottish, I would vote yes, I do see advantages in them becoming independent
on the energy front
on the energy front
stewartyb complaining about Alex while being ruled by bloodhound jowelled rebekak coulson loving Dave!!!...worra complete imbecile!!
Such a lot of this is economic
If Scotland is a drag on England, then England would be better without them
we may be able to put more money into our own country, I don't know?????????
We have to control our population anyway, that is our biggest issue, we cannot carry on as we are
we are risking real hardship in the future
If Scotland is a drag on England, then England would be better without them
we may be able to put more money into our own country, I don't know?????????
We have to control our population anyway, that is our biggest issue, we cannot carry on as we are
we are risking real hardship in the future
ebul Between what we get from the Barnett Formula and what we contribute through taxation and income from the oil resources I can assure you that Scotland is not a drag on the rest of the Union.
Note that I say rest of the Union and have not fallen into the trap that you have of seeing the UK as another description for England. This is about Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This arrogance is restricted to the English btw but I still think that despite this we are BETTER TOGETHER.
Note that I say rest of the Union and have not fallen into the trap that you have of seeing the UK as another description for England. This is about Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This arrogance is restricted to the English btw but I still think that despite this we are BETTER TOGETHER.
the same ground gets covered over and over. I'd vote no but would vote yes if the same pish didn't get said over and over on the subject.
Scotland's GDP is higher than all regions of England apart from the South East, so median-wise it's somewhere around the middle. The "better off" part IMO, is neither here nor there, but the legal headaches and economic differences (which currency, in or out EU etc) make me a no voter.
IIRC England is already somewhat reliant on Scottish Water, water is pumped upstream at the numerous hydro facilities across Scotland to demand with the peak use when feckers put their kettles on after Coronation Street and Eastenders.
Scotland's GDP is higher than all regions of England apart from the South East, so median-wise it's somewhere around the middle. The "better off" part IMO, is neither here nor there, but the legal headaches and economic differences (which currency, in or out EU etc) make me a no voter.
IIRC England is already somewhat reliant on Scottish Water, water is pumped upstream at the numerous hydro facilities across Scotland to demand with the peak use when feckers put their kettles on after Coronation Street and Eastenders.
just for the record ebulgery Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer, paying some 13% more in tax than it receives from London. Without Scotland England would be in even worse shape than it is now, and especially so if you don´t live in the south east.
Then reading the reading the last three posts
I come to the conclusion that we in England, Wales and N.Ireland better pray for a no vote
But of course we have no say, it is up to the Scots themselves????
I come to the conclusion that we in England, Wales and N.Ireland better pray for a no vote
But of course we have no say, it is up to the Scots themselves????
erse, I don´t know why you think that " the legal headaches and economic differences (which currency, in or out EU etc)" are enough to make you vote no.
By ´legal headaches´ I take it you mean how separation will be negotiated and nothing to do with our already separate legal systems? Things like how Trident and other nuclear facilities will be removed; how nuclear waste from the south will have to be dumped elsewhere; how Scotland will no longer have to pay for massively expensive infrastructure projects like the HSRL which won´t reach Scotland.; how the military will be divided up and how Scottish forces will no longer have to send forces to fight America´s wars in the middle east. I should have thought these negotiations would make any Scot proud...
As for Scotland not being able to use sterling, don´t be misled by London lies. Scotland already owns a proportion of the UK central bank, the Bank of England, and as such has the right to use the pound. If Scotland was prevented from doing so Scotland would be able to take its share of BoE reserves, and as a net contributor to the British economy leaving sterling would destabilise the currency which would definitely not be allowed to happen.
By ´legal headaches´ I take it you mean how separation will be negotiated and nothing to do with our already separate legal systems? Things like how Trident and other nuclear facilities will be removed; how nuclear waste from the south will have to be dumped elsewhere; how Scotland will no longer have to pay for massively expensive infrastructure projects like the HSRL which won´t reach Scotland.; how the military will be divided up and how Scottish forces will no longer have to send forces to fight America´s wars in the middle east. I should have thought these negotiations would make any Scot proud...
As for Scotland not being able to use sterling, don´t be misled by London lies. Scotland already owns a proportion of the UK central bank, the Bank of England, and as such has the right to use the pound. If Scotland was prevented from doing so Scotland would be able to take its share of BoE reserves, and as a net contributor to the British economy leaving sterling would destabilise the currency which would definitely not be allowed to happen.
If you are Scottish erse2, then of course it is your decision
I am only looking at it from the position of those that aren't
Aside from the nationalist issue, those that want a Scotland free of the U.K.
or perhaps a defence one
surely all the remaining argument must be an economic one?
I am only looking at it from the position of those that aren't
Aside from the nationalist issue, those that want a Scotland free of the U.K.
or perhaps a defence one
surely all the remaining argument must be an economic one?
England needs to address its own water problems regardless of what Scotland does ,think Barnes Wallace had planes for a water grid system throughout most of Eng , so water could be shifted to where it was needed ,could also be used to help at times of flooding if the correct pumps were in place ,2 years ago there was the prospect of a hosepipe ban after a very dry winter and spring ,this all changed and it turned into a very wet year .The profits being made from water is obscene and they should not be allowed to ignore the need to build more storage ,all that water just running off and then following year its a hosepipe ban with water extraction from rivers ect ,its not on they need to plan ahead something this country seems incapable of ,its just profit ,take ,take take .How you let water meters be installed shows how soft you lot are ,soon the gov will have you jumping through fire hoops ,show a bit of backbone ffs .They will never get away with selling off Scottish Water .Its too important to be trusted to some fat cats who are only interested in profit .
ect ,its not on they need to plan ahead something this country seems incapable of ,its just profit ,take ,take take
sadly I agree
We do little for the benefit of everybody
We do little for any long term benefit
If it was me, I would never have even offered Scotland a referendum. unless I was certain they would voet no
They are too important to the U.K.....they would not be going anywhere
sadly I agree
We do little for the benefit of everybody
We do little for any long term benefit
If it was me, I would never have even offered Scotland a referendum. unless I was certain they would voet no
They are too important to the U.K.....they would not be going anywhere
"just for the record ebulgery Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer, paying some 13% more in tax than it receives from London. Without Scotland England would be in even worse shape than it is now, and especially so if you don´t live in the south east."
Complete rubbish!!! Scotland runs a deficit. Even the SNP wouldn't even say the above as it's so palpably incorrect. Please cite an independent source for this figure. And don't just cherry pick one year out of the last 30 like the SNP would do or paste a link to some lying nutcase who runs an unverified indepdendence blog. Go on, source your 13% surplus figure from a reputable source. And do NOT try the SNPs sneaky trick of comparing relative tax intakes NOT income take versus expenditure.
Scotland runs a deficit, this is well established fact, which is why even their own advisors are saying either there would need to be spending cuts or a hike in taxes to cover it. Because, that's right, there's a deficit.
---
ebulGery 25 Jun 14 23:20
"Then reading the reading the last three posts"
ebulGery, this is the internet, and you've apparently just met cybernats, so what you will be reading is highly likely to be untruths mixed with baseless assertion. Have large pinches of salt to hand
Complete rubbish!!! Scotland runs a deficit. Even the SNP wouldn't even say the above as it's so palpably incorrect. Please cite an independent source for this figure. And don't just cherry pick one year out of the last 30 like the SNP would do or paste a link to some lying nutcase who runs an unverified indepdendence blog. Go on, source your 13% surplus figure from a reputable source. And do NOT try the SNPs sneaky trick of comparing relative tax intakes NOT income take versus expenditure.
Scotland runs a deficit, this is well established fact, which is why even their own advisors are saying either there would need to be spending cuts or a hike in taxes to cover it. Because, that's right, there's a deficit.
---
ebulGery 25 Jun 14 23:20
"Then reading the reading the last three posts"
ebulGery, this is the internet, and you've apparently just met cybernats, so what you will be reading is highly likely to be untruths mixed with baseless assertion. Have large pinches of salt to hand
TiptheOdds, I'm familiar with the points you've raised, fair points. Yes, a separate legal system but there will still be a 10 figure sum to pay... I'm lost for examples but there is definitely a huge amount of red tape to sift through.
I think George Galloway's argument for no is also quite convincing. An independent England/Wales with a perpetual Tory government will be lowering taxes and it'd be a race to the bottom with Scotland to compete for business. I can't see Scotland being any less socialist than it is now, so it seems those two things don't go together.
I think George Galloway's argument for no is also quite convincing. An independent England/Wales with a perpetual Tory government will be lowering taxes and it'd be a race to the bottom with Scotland to compete for business. I can't see Scotland being any less socialist than it is now, so it seems those two things don't go together.
ebulGery, this is the internet, and you've apparently just met cybernats, so what you will be reading is highly likely to be untruths mixed with baseless assertion. Have large pinches of salt to hand Plain
I could not disagree with you just checking
But the problem I find, is that Government and Media do not tell us the truth.
Also economics is a bit too hard for most of us to understand, unless it is simplified for us
But nowhere is this done in an impartial way.
My gut instinct tells me we cannot lose Scotland.
I like the Scots and I think their values are better than our English ones, especially nowadays,
although we are not that different.
Looking at Scotland they have plenty of resources, particularly on the energy side, I don't think we can afford to lose them
As I said previously I would not even have offered them a referendum myself, if I had any say in it, too risky
ps
Interesting argument there from George Galloway, the competition between us, would do neither of us any good.
I will have a look..but again will this be an impartial view?
I could not disagree with you just checking
But the problem I find, is that Government and Media do not tell us the truth.
Also economics is a bit too hard for most of us to understand, unless it is simplified for us
But nowhere is this done in an impartial way.
My gut instinct tells me we cannot lose Scotland.
I like the Scots and I think their values are better than our English ones, especially nowadays,
although we are not that different.
Looking at Scotland they have plenty of resources, particularly on the energy side, I don't think we can afford to lose them
As I said previously I would not even have offered them a referendum myself, if I had any say in it, too risky
ps
Interesting argument there from George Galloway, the competition between us, would do neither of us any good.
I will have a look..but again will this be an impartial view?
vote yes..send all the currant buns and their mini bun rivals down to ingerlund where dave and the eton boys can stuff them up the gary while their beloved german queen remains a parasitic waste of cash...how many seats does dave have in bonnie jockland?
sofiakenny The voice of the yes campaign. He fits in well.
aye hes still up to his baws in pete on Drumossie moor
According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR): "Scotland receives no net subsidy".
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
According to a BBC report (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-24866266):
If oil revenues are included in GDP figures, Scotland is shown to generate more per head of population than the UK as a whole. For Scotland, it is £26,424 per head compared with £22,336 per head for the UK. Public expenditure per capita in Scotland is higher than the UK average. In 2011, Scotland's public spending per head was £12,300 and for the UK it was £11,000.
(Increased public spending in Scotland is necessary because of Scotland´s less concentrated population - Scotland has a land mass 60% of England but with only 10% of the population.)
erse, you may be right that the tories in England will reduce mainly corporate taxes (as if they can really be reduced any further) but they will also be reducing public spending, workers wages and rights, and living standards for the vast majority, as well as privatising the NHS. Do you really want to live in that kind of country?
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
According to a BBC report (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-24866266):
If oil revenues are included in GDP figures, Scotland is shown to generate more per head of population than the UK as a whole. For Scotland, it is £26,424 per head compared with £22,336 per head for the UK. Public expenditure per capita in Scotland is higher than the UK average. In 2011, Scotland's public spending per head was £12,300 and for the UK it was £11,000.
(Increased public spending in Scotland is necessary because of Scotland´s less concentrated population - Scotland has a land mass 60% of England but with only 10% of the population.)
erse, you may be right that the tories in England will reduce mainly corporate taxes (as if they can really be reduced any further) but they will also be reducing public spending, workers wages and rights, and living standards for the vast majority, as well as privatising the NHS. Do you really want to live in that kind of country?
Let it all out sopfiakenny.
Throwing insults at the opposition, another trait of the yes campaigners
One last thing - it's they're not their. hth.
Throwing insults at the opposition, another trait of the yes campaigners
One last thing - it's they're not their. hth.
stewartyb complaining about Alex while being ruled by bloodhound jowelled rebekak coulson loving Dave!!!...worra complete imbecile!!Laugh
Oh the irony. This coming from a retard who has nothing better to do than lick @rses on the Man Utd thread. Even getting his tongue tattooed wouldn't get rid of the remaining brown spots.
Oh the irony. This coming from a retard who has nothing better to do than lick @rses on the Man Utd thread. Even getting his tongue tattooed wouldn't get rid of the remaining brown spots.
stewarty..why dont you just leave us Scots alone and go and live in England?
you seem the sort that sing songs about being up to your knees in something.
I am sure there are some human sevco fans..i just havent found any yet.
you seem the sort that sing songs about being up to your knees in something.
I am sure there are some human sevco fans..i just havent found any yet.
you seem the sort that sing songs about being up to your knees in something
Too scared to elaborate sofia? Just as well as we both know it would be a lifetime ban for yourself.
Too scared to elaborate sofia? Just as well as we both know it would be a lifetime ban for yourself.
I would have been delighted if you said you had never sung that song and found it reprehensible....however......
I can assure you I have never sung that filth. I may be a Rangers fan, but I draw the line at bigotry.
Is this independence vote just another Old Firm derby?
glad to see you dont condone the behaviour of Rangers ex vice-chairman Donald Findlay.
sumo I am a sheep....we have no time for either of the two "big" weegie teams.
Do you live in Aberdeen sofia? (I don't want your address btw)
@sofiakenny Why did you feel the need to bring that cr4p into the argument? You seem a very angry person.
The wealthy city. Everyone knows what Aberdeen are up to. Break up the union, then break up Scotland, then break up north east Scotland... We know your game
angry moi??
I dont like my country being ruled by a party that can hardly win a seat here
especially as their leader is a duplicitous meally mouthed ex Etonian tw%T
do you really think Dave and his chums give a jot about you?
I dont like my country being ruled by a party that can hardly win a seat here
especially as their leader is a duplicitous meally mouthed ex Etonian tw%T
do you really think Dave and his chums give a jot about you?
why's sofia turned this into a football agruement? t1t
@inner city sumo
We'd be really fecked if the Shetlanders declared independence and took the oil with them.
We'd be really fecked if the Shetlanders declared independence and took the oil with them.
oh great now another currant bun has turned up(mini variety)
sofia, I also reside in Aberdeen although I'm a cross breed ....Hamilton/Aberdeen.
May I ask which district you reside in? (I'm based in Rosemount)
May I ask which district you reside in? (I'm based in Rosemount)
a bitter don, who'd a thought it. cant blame him i suppose, aberdeen is a horrible place.
How dare you insult our beautiful city ya daft jambo..to be fair embra is nice as well.
people of Aberdeen will not be gambling on wee ecks pub fantasy imo
Queens road? Not that far away from me and even nearer to Ms stew who resides in Forest Avenue.
I sometimes venture up your way for a pint or two, mainly the Albyn and the Dutch Mill.
I sometimes venture up your way for a pint or two, mainly the Albyn and the Dutch Mill.
The Dutch is fine..not a fan of the Albyn...grab a granny types
Last time I was in Aberdeen we drank in a pub on Union st. It was like going back in time. Really old fashioned and they were into swing music. Do you know the pub guys. We stayed in a hotel up a side steeet opposite it. I cant remember the name of the hotel either but it had a bakers which opened for the late night revellers. They do a lovely pie
If were going for a meal it's usually the Atholl Hotel. Quality.
Sorry the bakers wasn't in the hotel but opposite it. Had a queue about 50 yards long at two in the morning.
I can only think of the Bells hotel akabula. Although it's not a hotel now to the best of my knowledge. That would be where you drank I may add, not where you stayed.
That would be Ross the bakers. Had many a pie out of there many a time when boozy, so I can't comment on the quality of their produce.
The hotel was modern and of a really good standard. It was my retiring doo paid for by the company I worked for. Although most of my work colleagues were from Glasgow we decided on Aberdeen. Why Aberdeen? I can't remember the reason as only one of the party was from there.
I can only think of the Copthorne hotel akabula. Quality, but very expensive.
I think it is my duty to report that the night life in Aberdeen is rank compared to Glasgow. Especially a good pub crawl in the Main St Cambuslang. 
Rose street in Edinburgh takes some beating for a pub crawl.
I've done that trip on a few occasions after the racing. Hangover guaranteed.
the hotel opposite Ross the bakers is Holiday Inn Express.
One thing always puzzles me about Scottish Independence. Will they make religious bigotry an offence, or keep it as part of the curriculum?
the hotel opposite Ross the bakers is Holiday Inn Express
Correct sofia, but I was under the impression that akabula was speaking more of an upper class joint.
Correct sofia, but I was under the impression that akabula was speaking more of an upper class joint.
So TipThe odds, after going on about "London Lies" you posted this whopper of a lie:
"just for the record ebulgery Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer, paying some 13% more in tax than it receives from London. Without Scotland England would be in even worse shape than it is now, and especially so if you don´t live in the south east."
When asked to cite a source for this draw dropping fib, what did you produce? That it's 13%? 10%? 1.3%? 0.13%? No, you couldn't find a SINGLE source to back up your astounding lie that Scotland subsidises England, and best you could do is some research from some think tank nobody has heard of that from 2012 that basically says that it's not running a BIGGER deficit, it's treading water with the rest of the UK in deficit. So lets be generous and take this research as accurate, taking this best case example, that's very much not a "net contributor"
"paying more than 13%". As per usual this was just a complete pile of rubbish spouted by the "Yes" side and when taken to task, they can't even begin to back their assertions up.
I'll help you will I? Scotland ran a whopping DEFICIT of £12 billion in the year 2012-13.
That's INCLUDING oil, and worse per capita than the rest of the UK.
(many many sources on that, BBC/many newspapers, it's the official Scot Gov figures))
As these figures are pretty horrible for the SNP they instead try to mislead people by not comparing income/expenditure but instead relative incomes. It's a dishonest trick relying on people not understanding the maths. That's why I said specifically "Go on, source your 13% surplus figure from a reputable source. **And do NOT try the SNPs sneaky trick of comparing relative tax intakes NOT income take versus expenditure.**"
So what do you? You clearly can't produce any figures showing net contribution as they don't exist, so you try the sneaky trick and try "comparing relative tax intakes NOT income take versus expenditure" even though you had pre warning I was onto that game!!!
When you look at this thread, the fantasy economics, lies from the yes side, assertions, cries of scaremongering, and the anti posh and anti tory ranting, it's really a snapshot of the nationalist campaign, and how sad petty dishonest and baseless it is.
"just for the record ebulgery Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer, paying some 13% more in tax than it receives from London. Without Scotland England would be in even worse shape than it is now, and especially so if you don´t live in the south east."
When asked to cite a source for this draw dropping fib, what did you produce? That it's 13%? 10%? 1.3%? 0.13%? No, you couldn't find a SINGLE source to back up your astounding lie that Scotland subsidises England, and best you could do is some research from some think tank nobody has heard of that from 2012 that basically says that it's not running a BIGGER deficit, it's treading water with the rest of the UK in deficit. So lets be generous and take this research as accurate, taking this best case example, that's very much not a "net contributor"
"paying more than 13%". As per usual this was just a complete pile of rubbish spouted by the "Yes" side and when taken to task, they can't even begin to back their assertions up.
I'll help you will I? Scotland ran a whopping DEFICIT of £12 billion in the year 2012-13.
That's INCLUDING oil, and worse per capita than the rest of the UK.
(many many sources on that, BBC/many newspapers, it's the official Scot Gov figures))
As these figures are pretty horrible for the SNP they instead try to mislead people by not comparing income/expenditure but instead relative incomes. It's a dishonest trick relying on people not understanding the maths. That's why I said specifically "Go on, source your 13% surplus figure from a reputable source. **And do NOT try the SNPs sneaky trick of comparing relative tax intakes NOT income take versus expenditure.**"
So what do you? You clearly can't produce any figures showing net contribution as they don't exist, so you try the sneaky trick and try "comparing relative tax intakes NOT income take versus expenditure" even though you had pre warning I was onto that game!!!
When you look at this thread, the fantasy economics, lies from the yes side, assertions, cries of scaremongering, and the anti posh and anti tory ranting, it's really a snapshot of the nationalist campaign, and how sad petty dishonest and baseless it is.
Good post Just Checking. As for ebulgery, he usually ignores posts that proves him wrong.
Apologies, that should read Tip The Odds, but they're as bad as each other imo.
As for Salmond, well, I've already said what I think of him but I forgot to add what a cynical ******** he is dictating a sudden move of the goalposts allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote. I know of no other dictator who has done this. What a cretin of a man. Thankfully he doesn't get the support he dreams of.
I can't believe how the Yes campaign can have the cheek to call other people liars etc with the things they come out out.
Example just last week: There is NO WAY that ANY UK party will go into an election building the UKs limited number of hi tech warships in a Scotland that's just told the UK to b*gge*r-off, while in England, a country feeling rejected, yards are standing idle or are even closed. Unless the party WANTS to lose, it is clearly political suicide. Yet this is, as usual, just said to be "scaremongering" and the Scottish shipyards won't lose the work. What are these people on? THE WORK WILL BE LOST.
It's such a obvious lie! Separation at any cost, no lie too big. These nutcases don't care about job losses in the thousands that they know themselves would happen, it's all a price worth paying for the bravehearts.
Example just last week: There is NO WAY that ANY UK party will go into an election building the UKs limited number of hi tech warships in a Scotland that's just told the UK to b*gge*r-off, while in England, a country feeling rejected, yards are standing idle or are even closed. Unless the party WANTS to lose, it is clearly political suicide. Yet this is, as usual, just said to be "scaremongering" and the Scottish shipyards won't lose the work. What are these people on? THE WORK WILL BE LOST.
It's such a obvious lie! Separation at any cost, no lie too big. These nutcases don't care about job losses in the thousands that they know themselves would happen, it's all a price worth paying for the bravehearts.
You only have to watch Annabelle Ewing trying to put words into David Mundell's mouth at todays meeting of the Welfare Reform Committee.
Trying to score political points over children and the use of food banks. The SNP have no shame.
Trying to score political points over children and the use of food banks. The SNP have no shame.
When Scotland gets Independence the Labour voters who switched to the SNP will switch back to the Scottish Labour Party and the Tories will never ever have a say in Scottish government and Scotland, a socialist country, will forever have a socialist government. It`s our English friends in the North that I feel sorry for, when they are condemned to Tory rule for the rest of their lifes. Wee Alex will never be Scottish president. Hopefully, former labour stalwart and political genius Denis Canavan, who recommends a YES vote, will come out of retirement and lead us into the future.
Dennis Canavan. Do you think it's that bad that we have to rely on a 71 year old and what Labour Party would we have the one that kicked him out or a new one?
Pure fantasy as the Better Together campaign will win the day.
Pure fantasy as the Better Together campaign will win the day.
^^^^ Don't forget to cast your vote, meaningless as it is..
Will do stewarty, every vote is meaningful.
Ask yourselves a question, Why does Cameron and the Tories, who despise the Scots and are un-electable here, beg us to stay in the Union?
Ask yourselves a question, Why does Cameron and the Tories, who despise the Scots and are un-electable here, beg us to stay in the Union?
Just checking, you might shout louder and deriding more vociferously like the rest of the bitter togethers, but it doesn´t make your argument any more convincing. London´s lies are not much different from your own:
1. The 13% figure I originally stated was the figure quoted by the Scottish Government, which stated that Scotland, with 8.3% of the UK population, contributed 9.4% of tax revenues. Since these figures came from Holyrood I didn´t waste time referring to them.
2. Instead I quoted a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, an organisation that advises 25 of the top 100 FTSE companies and is widely quoted in such anti-nationalist organs as The Economist, Telegraph and Daily mail, so hardly "some think tank nobody has heard of". In their report, which you obviously didn´t bother to read, they said not that "it's not running a BIGGER deficit, it's treading water with the rest of the UK in deficit", as you say, but that "Scotland receives no net subsidy" , something very different.
3. I also quoted a report on the economics of independence from the BBC - yet another organisation to nail its colours to the unionist cause - that gave pretty clear figures that again showed NO deficit, but you conveniently ignored that one.
When it comes down to tax revenues/spending it all depends on what figures you are willing to believe. You accuse the Scottish government of manipulating the figures - though quite why anyone would want to lie about it if it would mean governing a bankcrupt nation I don´t know - so I gave you figures from groups biased to the yes cause.
At the end of the day it doesn´t really matter about the economics since the main reasons why I support independence are political and social. I hate the Tories and all they stand for; I hated Blair and how he misled people; and I hate anybody who espouses neo-conservative free market economic policies. As if they have actually been proved to be the best for the majority of people anywhere on the planet. I have never voted SNP in my life but I believe that no matter what happens after independence Scotland will still be a better place to live, and will have a better future, than it will be if we have to endure another generation of tory (or NL) rule from London.
1. The 13% figure I originally stated was the figure quoted by the Scottish Government, which stated that Scotland, with 8.3% of the UK population, contributed 9.4% of tax revenues. Since these figures came from Holyrood I didn´t waste time referring to them.
2. Instead I quoted a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, an organisation that advises 25 of the top 100 FTSE companies and is widely quoted in such anti-nationalist organs as The Economist, Telegraph and Daily mail, so hardly "some think tank nobody has heard of". In their report, which you obviously didn´t bother to read, they said not that "it's not running a BIGGER deficit, it's treading water with the rest of the UK in deficit", as you say, but that "Scotland receives no net subsidy" , something very different.
3. I also quoted a report on the economics of independence from the BBC - yet another organisation to nail its colours to the unionist cause - that gave pretty clear figures that again showed NO deficit, but you conveniently ignored that one.
When it comes down to tax revenues/spending it all depends on what figures you are willing to believe. You accuse the Scottish government of manipulating the figures - though quite why anyone would want to lie about it if it would mean governing a bankcrupt nation I don´t know - so I gave you figures from groups biased to the yes cause.
At the end of the day it doesn´t really matter about the economics since the main reasons why I support independence are political and social. I hate the Tories and all they stand for; I hated Blair and how he misled people; and I hate anybody who espouses neo-conservative free market economic policies. As if they have actually been proved to be the best for the majority of people anywhere on the planet. I have never voted SNP in my life but I believe that no matter what happens after independence Scotland will still be a better place to live, and will have a better future, than it will be if we have to endure another generation of tory (or NL) rule from London.
TTO: This is like both sad and funny, you don't even understand the basics here yet throw figures around and just keep digging a deeper hole.
"1. The 13% figure I originally stated was the figure quoted by the Scottish Government, which stated that Scotland, with 8.3% of the UK population, contributed 9.4% of tax revenues. Since these figures came from Holyrood I didn´t waste time referring to them."
THIS DOES NOT NOT MEAN SCOTLAND IS A NET CONTRIBUTOR. A NET CONTRIBUTOR IS SOMEONE/SOMETHING WHO PAYS IN MORE THAN THEY TAKE OUT, AND RUNS AN EFFECTIVE **SURPLUS**. Can you not really understand this?? You CANNOT compare income without reference to expenditure and say there is a positive contribution to the total pot, this is just the most BASIC accountancy! To take just the incomes and say this means there is a net contribution is so clueless I can only think you work in the SNP finance team
.
I'll repeat again what you said
"just for the record ebulgery Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer, paying some 13% more in tax than it receives from London."
Yet you try and PROVE this nonsense by giving "figures" that take no account whatsoever, zero, nada, of what it receives from the UK. Do you not see the little flaw there? You even used the word received in the first instance but now are trying to pretend you don't need to bother about that half of the equation as you can't find any figures anywhere that don't show a negative balance. Unsurprisingly due to the existance of the negative balance.
I'll skip explaining the rest as you plainly don't have a clue. But I will also note you just flat ignore the official figures out there by qualified accountants that clearly showed in absolute crystal clear terms the £12 billion deficit 2012-2013, as they are obviously inconvient to your fantasy economics, and it's just denial denial attack denial.
"1. The 13% figure I originally stated was the figure quoted by the Scottish Government, which stated that Scotland, with 8.3% of the UK population, contributed 9.4% of tax revenues. Since these figures came from Holyrood I didn´t waste time referring to them."
THIS DOES NOT NOT MEAN SCOTLAND IS A NET CONTRIBUTOR. A NET CONTRIBUTOR IS SOMEONE/SOMETHING WHO PAYS IN MORE THAN THEY TAKE OUT, AND RUNS AN EFFECTIVE **SURPLUS**. Can you not really understand this?? You CANNOT compare income without reference to expenditure and say there is a positive contribution to the total pot, this is just the most BASIC accountancy! To take just the incomes and say this means there is a net contribution is so clueless I can only think you work in the SNP finance team
.I'll repeat again what you said
"just for the record ebulgery Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer, paying some 13% more in tax than it receives from London."
Yet you try and PROVE this nonsense by giving "figures" that take no account whatsoever, zero, nada, of what it receives from the UK. Do you not see the little flaw there? You even used the word received in the first instance but now are trying to pretend you don't need to bother about that half of the equation as you can't find any figures anywhere that don't show a negative balance. Unsurprisingly due to the existance of the negative balance.
I'll skip explaining the rest as you plainly don't have a clue. But I will also note you just flat ignore the official figures out there by qualified accountants that clearly showed in absolute crystal clear terms the £12 billion deficit 2012-2013, as they are obviously inconvient to your fantasy economics, and it's just denial denial attack denial.
kenny, they make VQ look like a National hero in Norway
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539