It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Scotland said "Yes" to Independence - Quite interesting interpretation of Referendum

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Starts quite weird, but then tells some very curious stuff about the result of the referendum and what it means through some solid info and statistics.

radicalbuzz.com...

"...Exhilarated Scots are celebrating independence.

What??!?!

They said “No”??? That’s the official result? In all papers and whatnot? I must be crazy?

…….

No, my good chap. I am not crazy. Neither are you. It’s just that one of us is much better informed about the Scottish Referendum, and the facts surrounding it. And the facts about the Scottish Referendum tell that Scots went with a resounding, thundering Yes vote.

How?!??

Quite simple :"




posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: unity100

That just about sums it up.

2nd



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: unity100

That just about sums it up.

2nd


So you agree that the referendum changed a lot then? even in british politics? and scots are practically independent in 10-15 years?



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Yeah, this is the typical negativity of the "yes" camp. Anyone who stated anything that may go against the "yes" side was pilloried and accused of scaremongering. The "yes" camp wanted no debate or questioning of their fantastic plans to deliver gold to everyone.

Luckily the Scottish saw through the deceit. Only now we have these votes being slighted as unpatriotic, brainwashed and stupid. In fact, Scots are non of the above and were able to make a balanced decision.

Shame for the "yes" camp.

Regards



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Yeah, this is the typical negativity of the "yes" camp. Anyone who stated anything that may go against the "yes" side was pilloried and accused of scaremongering. The "yes" camp wanted no debate or questioning of their fantastic plans to deliver gold to everyone.


looking at the referenced cases in that article, how are you able to even say this. the piece tells about all the cases of blanket scaremongering, with actual news and incidents.


originally posted by: paraphi
Luckily the Scottish saw through the deceit. Only now we have these votes being slighted as unpatriotic, brainwashed and stupid. In fact, Scots are non of the above and were able to make a balanced decision.

Shame for the "yes" camp.

Regards


you say 'deceit'. do you mean westminster saying they wont privatize nhs despite they have ALREADY been privatizing it? or their lies about the extra devolved powers?

you seem to have a quite weird understanding of 'balanced'.
edit on 21-9-2014 by unity100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: unity100

Any article that states that "Scotland is in the middle of Europe" needs slapping around the head several times.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: unity100

Any article that states that "Scotland is in the middle of Europe" needs slapping around the head several times.



huh?

i dont think what the article says GEOGRAPHICAL center.

it seems that it pertains to the potential of some country attacking scotland. which is really absurd and stupid. for in that regard its really in the middle of scotland.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: unity100

Hey don't get carried away, it was just a quip, with a hint of irony.

I don't know how the future will play out but I have already expressed a similar viewpoint.

One thing that concerns me is the division within Scotland itself if independence was ever voted for.


Regards Midicon.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: unity100

Hey don't get carried away, it was just a quip, with a hint of irony.

I don't know how the future will play out but I have already expressed a similar viewpoint.

One thing that concerns me is the division within Scotland itself if independence was ever voted for.


Regards Midicon.



yes that's one of the things that caught my attention as well.

i dont think the naysayers would have been this peaceful (as the yes camp) if they lost. the least they would get estranged. that will be something that must be handled by the scottish independence movement before independence.

this referendum has been QUITE good in that regard, i think. it had been a dry run. not only all the arguments and crap that westminster can throw on scotland has been seen, but also what social impact independence can have.

a good analysis of these could make scotland's independence much smoother when the time comes.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: unity100

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: unity100

Any article that states that "Scotland is in the middle of Europe" needs slapping around the head several times.



huh?

i dont think what the article says GEOGRAPHICAL center.

it seems that it pertains to the potential of some country attacking scotland. which is really absurd and stupid. for in that regard its really in the middle of scotland.


It says "in the middle of Europe" very clearly and the implication is also clear. Some of the sources are very dubious too, eg The Sun newspaper which is toilet paper, and the SNP website which is hardly balanced itself. Other points do hold water, but the blog itself is pretty much tripe IMO.

If Scotland were to be independent then it's fair to suggest that England's northern borders would be weaker. It ain't necessarily so, but there is a strong argument there given the massive amount of Coast line Scotland would have to guard while also paying for all their social programmes and a newly established Northern English land border.

Eta: please excuse the various errors in grammar etc, I'm on someone else's touchscreen and it's twisting my melons, man.
edit on 21-9-2014 by skalla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Yeah, this is the typical negativity of the "yes" camp. Anyone who stated anything that may go against the "yes" side was pilloried and accused of scaremongering. The "yes" camp wanted no debate or questioning of their fantastic plans to deliver gold to everyone.

Luckily the Scottish saw through the deceit. Only now we have these votes being slighted as unpatriotic, brainwashed and stupid. In fact, Scots are non of the above and were able to make a balanced decision.

Shame for the "yes" camp.

Regards


I totally agree. I voted No not because I was scared. I voted No to stay a part of something bigger. To remain in the Union and be part of the UK.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Yeah, this is the typical negativity of the "yes" camp. Anyone who stated anything that may go against the "yes" side was pilloried and accused of scaremongering. The "yes" camp wanted no debate or questioning of their fantastic plans to deliver gold to everyone.

Luckily the Scottish saw through the deceit. Only now we have these votes being slighted as unpatriotic, brainwashed and stupid. In fact, Scots are non of the above and were able to make a balanced decision.

Shame for the "yes" camp.

Regards


Who says there wasn't scaremongering by the "no" camp?



That's quite obvious. But why exactly do people want "independence"? The main problem is that we are always the last in the queue when it comes to getting advancements in transport or communications. Whether it's been digital telephone networks, ISDN, broadband supplied by British Telecom or cable networks.

There is competition between London, the North of England, rural areas as well as Scotland. Each realizes that they can keep their population a well as attract newcomers to the area if they offer the latest tech. Naturally, it's always a case of London first, then everyone else. Living and working in the Scottish countryside would be a dream for most Scottish startups, but the major obstacle is high-speed internet:

Unfortunately, with BT, it takes about two decades to completely upgrade the national networks.

www.pcpro.co.uk...

www.ft.com...

www.superfast-openreach.co.uk...

This applies to transportation as well. Wherever the decision makers are located, that's the first areas that get upgraded.

www.transportscotland.gov.uk...

www.ft.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: unity100

Quite the article!

S&F

Yes, I agree completely. It is a hideous example of controlling a population through intimidation and outright lies.

Some members here have stated that if anything else happens now, that is is just sour grapes from the losers.

I don't think it is.

It should be illegal for those in any position of trust to lie to the people, but lie they do.

And then, the wonder why people get mad.

P



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I think the article dodges the point in some ways, the need is to remember the differential in the votes, arguably a 50/50 vote, even/or allowing for a bit of gerrymandering Et Al.. The thing is, Westminster is shook to the core, Cameron Knows it, everyone now knows that the Westminster regime is buggered. There is no way that the economics of the UK can be so self-centred in London anymore. It didn't used to be like that, the industrial North, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all contributed to the UK wealth wise and otherwise, Maggie sold the crown jewels a long time ago and made the whole of the UK a bunch of pen-pushers in the main, Cameron is just a pathetic remnant of that era. Perhaps now the clever voting by the Scots, the real wealth of the UK as a whole can return, it's called doing something.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: skalla

originally posted by: unity100

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: unity100

Any article that states that "Scotland is in the middle of Europe" needs slapping around the head several times.



huh?

i dont think what the article says GEOGRAPHICAL center.

it seems that it pertains to the potential of some country attacking scotland. which is really absurd and stupid. for in that regard its really in the middle of scotland.


It says "in the middle of Europe" very clearly and the implication is also clear.


you dont make sense at all.


originally posted by: skallaSome of the sources are very dubious too, eg The Sun newspaper which is toilet paper, and the SNP website which is hardly balanced itself. Other points do hold water, but the blog itself is pretty much tripe IMO.


you pick 2 references, you call dubious....... the other 10+ references go unaddressed.

leaving aside the fact that all of the news that were referenced there were made news by multiple media outlets all at the same time and anyone who actually followed the referendum would know that.

SNP website, by the way? Whats 'unbalanced' about statistics......


originally posted by: skalla
If Scotland were to be independent then it's fair to suggest that England's northern borders would be weaker. It ain't necessarily so, but there is a strong argument there given the massive amount of Coast line Scotland would have to guard while also paying for all their social programmes and a newly established Northern English land border.


surely, a massive invasion by japanese or russians ...... or maybe even aliens * gasp * would be in order....



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Help!!!! Ill-informed Yank here...

I read the thread and the article but still I am lost.

Did Scotland successfully vote for independence? If not, what good came out of it? Why would someone vote "no"?

Sorry



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: unity100
you say 'deceit'. do you mean westminster saying they wont privatize nhs despite they have ALREADY been privatizing it?


Show me policy on the privatisation of the NHS, given that the vast majority of GPs have been private operators since before the NHS was formed.

Regards



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

Awright AB. Scotland is still a part of the Union, we voted against Independence. I will give you my reason's on why i voted NO for what it's worth.

I did not trust the SNP to deliver on their promises, they where caught lying about Oil, NHS, Currency, EU. For me nothing would have changed for the better. For example the SNP said we would keep Sterling, well what's the point? We would still be under the control of the Central banks! Real Independence could not occur under these circumstances. I decided that it would be better to stay within the UK community and together we can fight the Westminster System. Strength in numbers. I also felt that Salmond (SNP) would eventually try and change our currency to the Euro where as i cannot ever see the people of the UK together ever accepting the Euro as currency.

I never trusted Alex Salmond from the first day i set eyes on him and his friendship with Rupert Murdoch just confirmed my suspicions about the guy.

www.theguardian.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

This guy was ready to lead us all a merry dance.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: unity100

originally posted by: skalla

originally posted by: unity100

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: unity100

Any article that states that "Scotland is in the middle of Europe" needs slapping around the head several times.



huh?

i dont think what the article says GEOGRAPHICAL center.

it seems that it pertains to the potential of some country attacking scotland. which is really absurd and stupid. for in that regard its really in the middle of scotland.


It says "in the middle of Europe" very clearly and the implication is also clear.


you dont make sense at all.


and you say




huh?

i dont think what the article says GEOGRAPHICAL center.

it seems that it pertains to the potential of some country attacking scotland. which is really absurd and stupid. for in that regard its really in the middle of scotland.


so Scotland is in the middle of Scotland. Who doesn't make sense?

the article states:




Imagine that they tell you that someone would come and attack your country – which is in the middle of Europe – if you voted for independence.


Which implies that a geographical location "in the middle of Europe" makes it less susceptible to invasion. Scotland is clearly in Northern Europe. Please attempt to argue otherwise.


originally posted by: skallaSome of the sources are very dubious too, eg The Sun newspaper which is toilet paper, and the SNP website which is hardly balanced itself. Other points do hold water, but the blog itself is pretty much tripe IMO.



you pick 2 references, you call dubious....... the other 10+ references go unaddressed.



If i quoted the Tory party in favour of a no vote i would be rightly accused of bias. Goes both ways and the SNP have as much bias as the Tories. The Sun is of course a rag and i'll happily attack it, you fail to acknowledge that i say other points in the blog do infact hold water but then you show confirmation bias. For the record i'm half Scottish and from a Gaelic speaking family, i would have been fine with a yes vote ( though i would miss the Union as it stood) and would have qualified for a Scottish Passport i assume, seeing as i qualify to compete for Scotland in footie, athletics etc.



leaving aside the fact that all of the news that were referenced there were made news by multiple media outlets all at the same time and anyone who actually followed the referendum would know that.

SNP website, by the way? Whats 'unbalanced' about statistics......


There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Also 87.3% of all statistics are made up and can be made to fit most outcomes in isolation as the various contradictory positions in this referendum, all backed up by statistics went to show.


originally posted by: skalla
If Scotland were to be independent then it's fair to suggest that England's northern borders would be weaker. It ain't necessarily so, but there is a strong argument there given the massive amount of Coast line Scotland would have to guard while also paying for all their social programmes and a newly established Northern English land border.



surely, a massive invasion by japanese or russians ...... or maybe even aliens * gasp * would be in order....




Yes, you are right. England has never been subject to terrorist attacks so why would they wish to limit the opportunities for people to smuggle arms, explosives, restricted individuals and such into the country. We also welcome the opportunity for more illegal immigrants to skip over into Northumbria in addition to our southern ports, and would love to see more heroin imported from places such as Oban and Aberdeen.

You really did not think this through.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
This is not finished, Not by a long shot...
Those who voted no are looking like idiots now as Westminster back tracks on it's so called "Pledge" it didn't even take them 24 hours to do so....No New powers for Scotland...45% of us could see it coming, remember", we had seen and heard it all before...55% walked right into the trap...Well done and enjoy your new powers = to the sum of Nothing.



new topics




 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join