Deputy Leader of UK calls Scots Extremists

reply to post by selfharmonise


self edit

There will be two camps:
optimists and pessimist each will find reason to convince themselves theirs is the best option.
The snp have to fight all the British media/broadcasters and 4 political unionist party s as well as being brainwashed for the last 40 years that an independent Scotland will fail.
It is to the snps credit they have got as far as this.
The snp Scottish government have done more in 3 years than labour have in Scotland in 50.

reply to post by clanger


There certainly will be two camps....but I don’t simply want to find reasons to convince, or dissuade me, one way or another. I want cold hard facts presented to me by our dear leaders.

Okay – Salmond is setting the date for autum 2014 – that’ll give him every opportunity to research the various concerns people have and give us that information long before we have to vote on this matter.

The BBC article posted by Freeborn earlier today on this thread was authored by the beeb’s Scottish business and economy editor. It makes clear that no-one yet knows what the economic impact will be for Scotland or the UK as a whole. The English analyst I heard on a Radio 4 show earlier this week laid out the subsidy situation and stated that, all things considered, the level of subsidy per capita over the entire UK was roughly the same.

There are reasons for the Westminster unionist parties shouting in chorus against Scottish independence – and it’s certainly not benevolence or concern for the welfare of the Scottish electorate that motivates them. I want to know what they’re really so worried about. If we are a boil on the UK’s bum why not get shot of us at the first given opportunity?

There’s also a reason why Alex Salmond is the face of the Scottish government – the rest of them are third rate self interested careerists. Those of us who have had the pleasure of meeting some of them find the thought of giving them actual responsibility brings a large lump to the throat. At least Salmond can hold his own in a debate....and is from an accountancy background rather than a legal one (like too many of our mp’s). How good will he be at massaging the stats?

This will be the most important vote that the Scots will make in living memory. We need to make informed choices which are not based on romantic notions.

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by clanger

 

There certainly will be two camps....but I don’t simply want to find reasons to convince, or dissuade me, one way or another. I want cold hard facts presented to me by our dear leaders.

Okay – Salmond is setting the date for autum 2014 – that’ll give him every opportunity to research the various concerns people have and give us that information long before we have to vote on this matter.

The BBC article posted by Freeborn earlier today on this thread was authored by the beeb’s Scottish business and economy editor. It makes clear that no-one yet knows what the economic impact will be for Scotland or the UK as a whole. The English analyst I heard on a Radio 4 show earlier this week laid out the subsidy situation and stated that, all things considered, the level of subsidy per capita over the entire UK was roughly the same.

There are reasons for the Westminster unionist parties shouting in chorus against Scottish independence – and it’s certainly not benevolence or concern for the welfare of the Scottish electorate that motivates them. I want to know what they’re really so worried about. If we are a boil on the UK’s bum why not get shot of us at the first given opportunity?

There’s also a reason why Alex Salmond is the face of the Scottish government – the rest of them are third rate self interested careerists. Those of us who have had the pleasure of meeting some of them find the thought of giving them actual responsibility brings a large lump to the throat. At least Salmond can hold his own in a debate....and is from an accountancy background rather than a legal one (like too many of our mp’s). How good will he be at massaging the stats?

This will be the most important vote that the Scots will make in living memory. We need to make informed choices which are not based on romantic notions.

edit on 15-1-2012 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

I agree with everything you have said,my only concern is that the various media/unionist mps will continue to spout out anything plucked from anywhere to make sure there is a no vote.
Two days ago Osbourn was saying we couldn't use Stirling,today M Moore is saying we can if we like because they couldn't stop us from using sterling.
They also said it would be illegal to hold a referendum without Westminster approval,now they say we can.
They will lie cheat or steal to make sure there is a no vote,expect the Americans at the behest of Westminster to come up with something as well,its in their interests as well,they need to park their nuke subs up here as well....

Denial of independence to Scotland So sad,Britain destabilises other nations in name of freedom and democracy and suppresses the scot nationalists and wages mass murder on Northern Ireland. )

So disgusting.

reply to post by mkgandhas

So disgusting

The most disgusting thing in this whole thread is you and the evil bigotry and blatant lies that you spout.

You have yet to make any constructive contribution to any thread I have seen you post in.

Scotland’s Finances: All At Sea

By Rob Davies and Hugo Duncan
Daily Mail
January 13th 2012

"The disaster that overtook the bank (RBS) was made in Edinburgh not London," Alistair Darling said yesterday

Scotland’s First Minister makes a bold claim: "Scotland has now been in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole for each of the past five years." Controversial, certainly. And it comes at an acutely sensitive time as the 300-year-old union between England and Scotland is under intense scrutiny. Salmond’s assessment is based on Scottish government figures and Holyrood’s estimate of its modest share of the £66bn bailout of Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland-owner HBOS via Lloyds.

But follow the logic of former chancellor Alistair Darling and the sums add up rather differently. "The disaster that overtook the bank (RBS) was made in Edinburgh not London," he said yesterday. Operating under the assumption of an independent Scotland, English taxpayers would have left their cousins north of the border to shoulder the entire cost of rescuing RBS. For an economy worth £140bn, the cost would have made Iceland look like a pleasure cruise. In the words of chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, it would have dwarfed the entire Scottish budget. But wrangling over who should pick up the tab for the banks is moot when looked at in the long term.

Government Expenditure and Review Scotland (GERS), which assesses the public purse north of the border, says the UK Treasury spent about £54bn on Scotland in 2008/09 and received only £43.5bn in revenue. The counter-argument of Scottish nationalists is that this deficit would be wiped out by oil revenues. Figures from 2008/09 show that — based on the fact that 91pc of North Sea oil lies in Scottish waters — Scotland would have been due £11.7bn, transforming the funding deficit with Westminster into a surplus. But look at other years. In 2007/08, North Sea revenues brought in just £7.4bn, while 2009/10 yielded an even more modest £6.5bn, both of which would have left Scotland with a sizeable shortfall.

Professor Alex Kemp of the University of Aberdeen Business School, whose own report forms the basis of Scotland’s claim to around 90pc of oil revenues, sounds a note of caution. He said: It wouldn’t be a good idea to be overly reliant on oil revenues. They are in a long-term downward trend and oil prices are very volatile." In other words, Scotland could base a year’s spending on high oil prices only to find a commodity slump dismantling those plans at a stroke. Scotland’s hypothetical share of petro-pounds would have raked in an average £6.7bn in the past decade. To replace that income, Alex Salmond will have to find investments that deliver spectacular rates of return each and every year. This may not be a problem for Salmond, with his extensive background in finance. After all, he used to work for RBS.

www.loansafe.org...

RUTH SUNDERLAND: Scotching economic myths

By Ruth Sunderland
13th January 2012
Daily Mail

Given that Scotland’s biggest export of recent years has been neither oil, nor whisky, nor cosy knitwear but toxic banking, this is a question that deserves some thought. The UK’s banking crisis originates largely in Scotland, not the City.

No-one who has paid even the most cursory attention to the catastrophe afflicting the eurozone could fail to have noticed that the core problem is members share a single currency, but still make their own political decisions on spending and taxation.

Economists describe it as monetary union without fiscal union – and as we can see all too plainly, it doesn’t work. If Scotland opts for independence, however, that is the position in which it will find itself.

Holyrood will either have to join the euro, which would seem madness, or stay with the pound.

Bold claim: 'Scotland has now been in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole for each of the past five years,' said former RBS man Alex Salmond

The first City Editor I worked for as a young financial journalist once played an April Fool joke with a story about a shock fall in the value of the Scottish pound against sterling. It might not be so funny if the Republic of Caledonia actually comes into being.

If Scotland remains in a monetary union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but without fiscal or political union, it risks putting itself in the same situation as peripheral nations in the eurozone.

At the moment, Scotland’s economy and national interests are taken into account in the setting of interest rates. Nationalists may argue that those interests are not considered nearly enough. But under independence, there would be no onus whatever on the Bank of England’s rate-setting committee to pay any mind to the needs of the economy north of the border.

Alex Salmond is adamant that an independent Scotland would not assume the liabilities run up by the failed Scottish banks, RBS and HBOS.

It seems odd that Salmond is content to leave these once flagship national banks under the control of a foreign power. And even if he gets away with this lapse in patriotism, it leaves open the question of who would be the lender of last resort for Scotland if future bankers come along in the mould of (Scottish) Sir Fred Goodwin or Bank of Scotland’s Peter Cummings.

Given that Scotland’s biggest export of recent years has been neither oil, nor whisky, nor cosy knitwear but toxic banking, this is a question that deserves some thought. The UK’s banking crisis originates largely in Scotland, not the City – even Northern Rock, headquartered in Newcastle, is only just the other side of Hadrian’s Wall.

Scotland would also have to fund its own public sector spending. Relying on North Sea oil revenues to do this is a risky strategy, as they are volatile and dwindling.

Contrary to popular belief, there is still plenty of oil and gas beneath the waves, but the glory days are over. It is increasingly difficult and expensive to extract and dependence on revenues from this source would leave a Holyrood government at the mercy of oil prices on international markets.

There has been a lot of talk about introducing a lower rate of corporation tax in Scotland, as the Irish Republic has done, in order to attract international businesses.

A low and stable company tax regime is certainly desirable – George Osborne has made moves to take the UK system in that direction and to iron out anomalies that have driven some companies abroad. But bargain-basement corporate tax rates can also lead to a race to the bottom and the impoverishment of exchequers.

Ireland has seen companies set up virtual headquarters there as part of a global strategy of tax flight, with little benefit to the real economy in terms of job creation.

Not that Scotland doesn’t need to attract all the business investment it can get. It has a dearth of large home-grown companies and an independent Edinburgh share index would struggle to find blue-chip companies.

The likes of Standard Life, Scottish & Southern Energy, Cairn and Aggreko, are still in the FTSE 100 index, but a line of others, including Scottish & Newcastle, Scottish Power and Bank of Scotland have succumbed to foreign predators.

Independence may be a fine principle, but a costly one.


dailymail.co.uk

Scottish independence would be good for the Tories in England and bad for Labour. That's because Labour often have to rely on Scottish votes to get into power as they often get less votes and less seats than the Tories in England in General Elections. Labour only won the 2005 General Election due to the votes it got in Scotland because it finished behind the Tories in England. If Scotland had gained independence before 2005 the UK (England, Wales, NI) would have elected a Tory government in 2005. If Scotland leaves the Union the Tories will win more General Elections.

A new poll has also shown that the English are more in favour of Scottish indepence than the Scots are and that more people in England are in favour of Scottish indepence than against it, whereas the opposite is true in Scotland. According to a poll in The Sunday Telegraph, 43% of English voters are in favour of Scotland leaving the union, with 32% against. In Scotland, 40% backed independence, with 43% against.

news.sky.com...

Official: More English than Scots want independence for Scotland

There is more support in England for Scotland leaving the United Kingdom than there is north of the border, according to a poll for The Mail on Sunday.

Scots do not want the English to meddle in whether they end their 300-year union with England, but English voters are much keener to have a say in the matter.

And the main worry of Scots appears to be that cutting their ties with England and Wales will leave them with less cash.

It is the first comprehensive opinion poll in Scotland and England since Prime Minister David Cameron decided to throw down the gauntlet to Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

Two surveys, conducted separately in England and Scotland by polling firm Survation, show that Mr Salmond’s plan to offer an alternative of ‘devo max’ – grabbing more power from Westminster for Scotland, but staying in the UK – could backfire.

When asked David Cameron’s preferred straight ‘Yes or No’ question on whether Scotland should be independent, a total of 26 per cent of Scots favour breaking away, with 46 in favour of staying in the UK. However, when the same question is put alongside the ‘devo max’ option as an alternative, there is a different result.



In that case support for independence falls to 23 among Scots, with backing for staying put in the UK rising to 52. It suggests that the ‘devo max’ alternative threatens Mr Salmond’s dream of becoming the first leader of a new independent Scotland.

When independence for Scots is put to English voters in a straight ‘Yes or No’ question, 40 per cent say ‘No’ with 29 per cent saying ‘Yes’ – three points higher than the result in Scotland.

The gulf in opinion north and south of the border is most stark over the question of whether the referendum should be UK-wide. Nearly seven out of ten Scots say the English should mind their own business. But 38 per cent of people in England want a vote in the referendum, with the same number against.

The poll also suggests the English are less worried about Scotland abandoning links with England than are the Scots.

When voters in Scotland are asked what should happen if there is a small majority for ‘independence’ but even greater backing for ‘devo max,’ more than half say Scotland should not break away. When the same question is put to English voters, they are content to say goodbye to Scotland.

More than four in ten Scots fear independence will leave them worse off financially. Fewer than one in four say they will gain. The collapse of the euro has done little to swell enthusiasm for Mr Salmond’s nationalist cause. A massive 79 per cent of Scots do not want to join the euro; 49 per cent don’t even want to join the EU, with only 32 in favour, if they leave the UK.

An early poll in 2013 – rather that 2014, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, as planned by Salmond – is endorsed by a small margin in Scotland, and overwhelmingly in England and Wales.

Survation interviewed 1,001 people in Scotland and 1,019 in England and Wales between Thursday and Saturday.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by YeshuaPiso

 

Also with regards to the Americans having all the launch codes.

You do know codes can be changed yes.

The only person who can give the order to launch British nukes is the British Prime Minister. It is a myth that only the Americans can do so.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by blueorder

 

United we stand divided we fall. We are a small Island. We need to stick together. I can understand the sentiment behind wanting Independence, it certainly doesn't help when the Eton and Oxford Tory toffs start sticking their noses in. It only gives the Scotts more determination to leave the Union

I would rather have someone with a good education running this country than someone who was educated at a bad comprehensive.

Originally posted by Ezappa
So if Scotland gets independence all the Scottish people who work in England will need to go through border checks just to get to work on a daily basis and vice versa. Family's who live just across the border from each other will be pissed with the border control just to visit friends and family at the weekend.
Scottish people who work in England will get the same crap as the other EU migrants get for taking English jobs and vice versa. You wont have a Navy or Air Force. Your Armed Forces will be loyal to England as they have fought for King and country for so long. No Nato membership. no UN membership. What about the Shetland islands they may want to stay part of England or claim Independence from Scotland. Scotland will also be behind other smaller nations for membership of the EU, the list goes on and on and can not be good. It will be a very sad day for both England and Scotland if it ever happens.

I am from England and I believe everyone in UK should get to vote on Scottish independence. After all Scotland has never been another country to us but part of our own.

edit on 15/1/12 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/1/12 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)

What the SNP don't tell the Scottish people is that an independent Scotland will suddenly find itself outside the EU. If it then decided that it wants back into the EU it may have to wait for a few years. And then, if it does re-join the EU it would have to join the stricken and doomed Euro, despite the fact that 79% of the Scottish people don 't want to join it.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Ezappa

 

So what u gonna nuke England lol lol #ing rofl.

We will move all them out long before you get independence. seems like you scots want to start a fight already.
typical.

I don't think Christina said anything about 'nuking' anyone and seems to me like you are the one trying to pick a fight.

And why on earth should England, Wales and Northern Ireland vote on Scottish independance?
You do understand the concept of self-determination don't you?

As much as I hope they vote against independance it is up to the Scots, and the Scots alone, to decide their own future.

It's only fair to let the English have a say on Scottish-only issues. After all, Scottish MPs are able to have a say on English-only issues despite the fact that English MPs are not allowed a say on Scottish-only issues.

What the SNP don't tell the Scottish people is that an independent Scotland will suddenly find itself outside the EU. If it then decided that it wants back into the EU it may have to wait for a few years. And then, if it does re-join the EU it would have to join the stricken and doomed Euro, despite the fact that 79% of the Scottish people don 't want to join it.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003

Yes the British Trident missiles made in USA.

British Trident missiles are built at The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) near the village of Aldermaston in Berkshire, England.

Originally posted by clanger

What the SNP don't tell the Scottish people is that an independent Scotland will suddenly find itself outside the EU. If it then decided that it wants back into the EU it may have to wait for a few years. And then, if it does re-join the EU it would have to join the stricken and doomed Euro, despite the fact that 79% of the Scottish people don 't want to join it.

edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick

Tripe.....if you wish to spout propaganda think on this
it is the united kingdom of Great Britain and N Ireland that is currently in the common market.
No Scotland =No Great Britain=No united leaves three country s England Wales and N Ireland none of which are in the EU.
So if Scotland is outside Europe so are the rest... ] extra DIV

Tripe.....if you wish to spout propaganda think on this
it is the united kingdom of Great Britain and N Ireland that is currently in the common market.
No Scotland =No Great Britain=No united leaves three country s England Wales and N Ireland none of which are in the EU.
So if Scotland is outside Europe so are the rest...

An independent Scotland, being a brand new sovereign state, will find itself outside the EU. If it rejoined the EU it will then have to join the euro. That means that the SNP are either lying to the Scottish people when they say that an independent Scotland will keep the pound or they are ignorant of EU laws. An independent Scotland will either have to stay outside the EU so that it doesn't have to join the euro or it will have to re-join the EU and then join the euro despite the fact that the majority of Scots don't want to join the euro.

The remaining nations in the UK - England, Wales and Northern Ireland - will not consitute a new sovereign state and will remain in the EU.

This is similar to when the Irish Free State left the Union in 1922. It suddenly found itself outside of the League of Nations and had to apply to re-join. The remaining UK - England, Scotland, Wales, NI - remained a member.

Originally posted by Sicksicksick

Tripe.....if you wish to spout propaganda think on this
it is the united kingdom of Great Britain and N Ireland that is currently in the common market.
No Scotland =No Great Britain=No united leaves three country s England Wales and N Ireland none of which are in the EU.
So if Scotland is outside Europe so are the rest...

An independent Scotland, being a brand new sovereign state, will find itself outside the EU. If it rejoined the EU it will then have to join the Euro. That means that the SNP are either lying to the Scottish people when they say that an independent Scotland will keep the pound or they are ignorant of EU laws.

The remaining nations in the UK - England, Wales and Northern Ireland - will not consitute a new sovereign state and will remain in the EU.

The three countrys left will also be a brand new state

This is similar to when the Irish Free State left the Union in 1922. It suddenly found itself outside of the League of Nations and had to apply to re-join. The remaining UK - England, Scotland, Wales, NI - remained a member.

edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

What?
the remaining country's will not be Britain?will not be a united kingdom
Britain is Scotland and England.
There is no remaining United Kingdom of Great Britain?
Wales is a principality of England and N Ireland is a province hence no welsh flag on the union jack.



The 3 countrys left will also be a brand new state

Originally posted by clanger

What?
the remaining country's will not be Britain?will not be a united kingdom
Britain is Scotland and England.
There is no remaining United Kingdom of Great Britain?
Wales is a principality of England and N Ireland is a province hence no welsh flag on the union jack.

edit on 15-1-2012 by clanger because: (no reason given)

I'm sure that, if Scotland gained independence, the Union between England, Wales and Northern Ireland will still be recognised by the EU and the UN as the same state that Scotland was a part of. It'd still be the United Kingdom: "The United Kingdom of England & Wales and Northern Ireland." Scotland, though, will be an entirely new sovereign state.

But whether or not the remaining UK will have to leave the EU is immaterial. That doesn't affect the Scots in an independent Scotland. What will affect the Scots in an independent Scotland is their country having to join the euro if it re-joined the EU.

Funnily enough, though, this is not something that Salmond has told the Scots and so most of them are oblivious to that fact.

What?
the remaining country's will not be Britain?will not be a united kingdom
Britain is Scotland and England.
There is no remaining United Kingdom of Great Britain?
Wales is a principality of England and N Ireland is a province hence no welsh flag on the union jack.



The 3 countrys left will also be a brand new state


This is indeed the case - ask any Constitutional lawyer or politics professor - and has been established in this thread earlier.

The current EU member is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Scotland becomes independent that political entity/state ceases to exist.

There is a case to be made for the Rest of the UK (whatever it eventually calls itself) being considered the successor state but a scenario where the EU does not allow Scotland to continue membership should it want to is just not going to happen.

What remains of the current state cannot, however, call itself 'United Kingdom' as this specifically refers to the union of Scotland and England - neither Wales or Northern Ireland were Kingdoms.