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.

 

A Question to the Scot's Here on ATS? ....

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by clanger
 



Yes "CHOICE" is the word and there is nothing to prevent anyone from retiring

at 40yrs or younger if they wish providing they have worked hard enough

to accumulate a 'pension pot' that will allow them to do so.


One thing in life that cannot be disputed is you cannot take out more than is put in.


Funny how people like Phillip Green, Richard Branson, Mick Jagger, Duncan Banatyre,

Tony Blair, etc..etc... Who CAN afford to retire early never seem to consider

doing so!!




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 

Thank you for straightening that one out....happened something like this....
bible-translation.net...

Sorry, I have no idea how to post pics on here


Rainbows
Jane



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
It shocks me here at the complete ignorance of most of the posters on here who lap up the rhetoric spewed by the better together campaign and agendas of the English driven media.

To sit there and say Scotland would become 3rd world or can't make it on their own is ridiculous. We have consecutively punched above our weight in this union, brought in more tax per head and used less resources per head.

This country is a glorious country, with plentiful resources, and a strong history of success. This is an opportunity to make the decisions that affect our home, from our own country and not via the "London" perspective.

Scotland will get its independence and i will be very pleased when its realised that it will bring opportunity for reformation, opportunity for our children and opportunity to take steps towards a more diverse country.

There is only 1 reason why the unionists want Scotland to stay in the UK and its not because "they want the yes voters to make the right choice, or prevent them from making the wrong choice". That is a face brought on by the unionists. The only reason is because it will have resounding effects on the English economy and the lost revenue will be felt far and wide in London and the rest of the SE.

Every Scot on here should be voting yes, it is a once in a life time opportunity. Just look at all the other comparable countries to Scotland out there...are they struggling? Norway, Den,ark, Finland, Sweden, Holland, Belgium...

The weak oppose change, the brave favour it and take it in their stride. The UK is on a spiral to death. Why would anyone want to be part of that roller coaster?

As for joining Europe...i will be glad if we don't. 87% of Brits want out of it anyways so that argument is NULL. The British pound, is English and Scottish so we are entitled to use it, even though i hope we don't and set up our own currency.

Independence will bring opportunity to re-instigate heavy industry that was taken away from us and take Scotland back to the top echelons of construction in Europe. Add this to our Energy, Renewables, Exports and Finance industries and it makes sense that Scotland CAN and WILL make it.

Man - Up!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

eletheia
reply to post by clanger
 



Yes "CHOICE" is the word and there is nothing to prevent anyone from retiring

at 40yrs or younger if they wish providing they have worked hard enough

to accumulate a 'pension pot' that will allow them to do so.


One thing in life that cannot be disputed is you cannot take out more than is put in.


Funny how people like Phillip Green, Richard Branson, Mick Jagger, Duncan Banatyre,

Tony Blair, etc..etc... Who CAN afford to retire early never seem to consider

doing so!!



I dont suppose they will be on zero hour contracts and struggling to pay their gas.elec bills.As for putting away extra for you to retire at whatever age you want ,the majority of people are living week to week and as they pay their taxs which i expect most of your quoted millionaires dont are entiled to be able to retire at a reasonable age.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

angryhulk


I nearly stopped reading your post after.."Windfarms are ruining the countryside"...Aye...those Windfarms get up to all sorts whist we slummber....Stupid comment award headed your way.


So the windfarms are a good thing then? Immense resources are diverted from investments in health, education and infrastructure (much need investments) so satisfy the apetite for these turbines.

Over 50,000 people have formally objected to windfarms, local authority planners say they have no more room for them and NGO's are making complaints about the continued destruction of ladscapes yet the scottish governent ignores them all.

Yes this is only one issue that you may or may not agree on, but most certainly an issue that needs to be raised.

Going back to his comment on the war. Yes, it is a conspiracy. Thats a fact.

No need to be so aggressive in your response by the way. However I do understand if you are a supporter of the SNP and your head is lodged firmly up your @%#.



over 50,00 children will be Homeless this Christmas, and by that i mean they will be in a Hotel or Hostel....why...Because of Westminster. so who gives a # about people objections to windmills....it's not Scotland;s Priority.
People A starving and On the streets of Scotland Because of Westminster's decisions... That's Not the Scotland i want my children to see.....
Change is Needed and if we cant get rid of a Unwanted, Unelected Government by the Ballot Box "because everyone Below the Watford gap is more important than the rest of the UK", then we will do this OUR way.,,,@Remember...Most countries had to use the Bullet and the Bomb to gain Independence from the Westminster...We didn't, we will do this Fair and square and hold our heads High in the process.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


It's also interesting to note that there was considerable opposition to The Union within England where many 'ordinary' English feared that the new union would pose a risk to the civil liberties enjoyed in England which were in stark contrast to the more absolute monarchist role James had in his role as King Of Scotland. The union of the crowns resulted in Scotland being governed by a constitutional monarchy and established the rule of Parliament and it's authority over the crown. Scottish representatives had as much a say in parliamentary proceedings as their English counterparts and were no longer subject to the whims of the monarchy and the ruling 'nobility' etc.
edit on 26/11/13 by Freeborn because: spelling



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Every point you make is completely valid and in a perfect world i would have the same view on the subject but...

I don't have faith that the current leaders in Scottish politics would be effective on an international stage and that is a real concern considering the positive opportunities you mentioned..



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by clanger
 





I don't believe any of those names I mentioned were born into money they worked

for what they have and employ many people. My point is they don't have that mind

set of counting the days till they retire. However back on topic ...



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
The Referendum White Paper seems a bit mad to me, I haven't looked through properly yet but Scotland seems to be cherry picking what they like.

Salmond says Scots will be £600 better off and the treasury analysis, claims independence would cost the average Scot £1,000 in tax. Given Salmonds other lies i'm more favored so assume the treasury figure is closer.

Also given the fact the treasury always underestimate these things with almost every budget being higher then originally thought i'd take an educated guess and say that £1000 per head is actually a lot worse.

Seems mad to me to split a 300 year union, that in comparison, has been active far longer then USA has even been a country

Were stronger together.
edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

angryhulk
Just a thought while we entertain this forum, fit why is naebdy spikin scottish? 'lols'

Cause yer the oanly wan frae Aeberdeen..fit like.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

tdk84
The Referendum White Paper seems a bit mad to me, I haven't looked through properly yet but Scotland seems to be cherry picking what they like.

Salmond says Scots will be £600 better off and the treasury analysis, claims independence would cost the average Scot £1,000 in tax. Given Salmonds other lies i'm more favored so assume the treasury figure is closer.

Also given the fact the treasury always underestimate these things with almost every budget being higher then originally thought i'd take an educated guess and say that £1000 per head is actually a lot worse.

Seems mad to me to split a 300 year union, that in comparison, has been active far longer then USA has even been a country

Were stronger together.
edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

Alex Salmond Lies..??? Name them......go on. Name them..... lets hear his lies.
I give you a few Lies...

1..you will need a passport to enter Scotland...Now who said that..??
2....you wont be able to keep the pound...Now who said that...??
3... The oil is all but finished....Now who said that...??
4... You wont be able to be part of the European Union...Now who said that...
5.. Porridge will treble in price....now who said that..??


The list goes on from project fear...
It may be a Bumpy ride for a few Years, but it's a price worth paying in the long run.


London is Bricking it...BIG TIME.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


I agree that there is no reason to assume Scotland will become something akin to a Third World nation if it votes for independence, it's a quite ridiculous assertion.
But the question is will it be better independent than it would be remaining in some way within the UK.
Obviously that is open to many different opinions and viewpoints - all I hope is that Scotland bases its vote on facts rather than emotion.

Personally I don't care one hoot about any possible loss of revenue if Scotland votes for independence I just firmly believe that we have a better chance of bringing about effective and positive change if we stand together.
And if I'm being honest I've got to say I also fear for England's future in the event of an independent Scotland - I have no doubt many areas will continue to prosper etc but I fear that under a more or less guaranteed Conservative government for the foresseable future it would only result in the further alienation and marginalisation of North East England and the deprevations that would go along with that.

I can't agree with your assessment of Sterling - it's the UK's currency, as Scotland would no longer be a part of that Union it would no longer be entitled to use it. If Scotland wanted to continue doing so I would expect that would come at a price, such is the way of the world.
And no-one has attempted to answer why an independent nation would want to use a currency they had no control or influence over whatsoever. Scotlands financial security etc would still be wholly dependant on a now foreign owned currency - that is not independence as far as I can see.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
This backs up the thought that financially, its bad news.

www.theguardian.com...



Not surprisingly, both sides in the argument have argued that their way is the more prosperous way. It is tempting, though not necessarily correct, to argue that each side is saying what you would expect them to say and that therefore the two positions cancel one another out. But the conclusions of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which were published in Edinburgh, cannot be so lightly dismissed. The institute has constructed an enviable reputation for objectivity. Chancellors of the exchequer tremble at its verdicts. So should Alex Salmond and the yes campaign.

The IFS paper on Fiscal Sustainability of an Independent Scotland does not argue that an independent Scotland would be unsustainable. Mr Salmond will seize on that. Some of its individual conclusions will also please the nationalists. For instance, the institute confirms, assuming a geographic share of North Sea revenues, that Scots contribute more per head than the people of the UK as a whole to the UK Treasury.

All this is overshadowed, however, by the finding that, even in the most optimistic scenario, demographic pressures mean an independent Scotland will face a fiscal gap more than twice that of the UK. Even with high post-independence migration, high productivity growth, high North Sea revenues and sustained low interest rates, an independent Scotland would still need to raise income tax by eight points, raise VAT by seven points or cut non-welfare public spending by 8% in order to keep its debt under control. If the optimistic assumptions were not fulfilled, the scale of tax rises or spending cuts would have to be even higher. Either way, an independent Scotland would face tougher choices than Scotland would face in the UK.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Freeborn
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


I agree that there is no reason to assume Scotland will become something akin to a Third World nation if it votes for independence, it's a quite ridiculous assertion.
But the question is will it be better independent than it would be remaining in some way within the UK.
Obviously that is open to many different opinions and viewpoints - all I hope is that Scotland bases its vote on facts rather than emotion.

Personally I don't care one hoot about any possible loss of revenue if Scotland votes for independence I just firmly believe that we have a better chance of bringing about effective and positive change if we stand together.
And if I'm being honest I've got to say I also fear for England's future in the event of an independent Scotland - I have no doubt many areas will continue to prosper etc but I fear that under a more or less guaranteed Conservative government for the foresseable future it would only result in the further alienation and marginalisation of North East England and the deprevations that would go along with that.

I can't agree with your assessment of Sterling - it's the UK's currency, as Scotland would no longer be a part of that Union it would no longer be entitled to use it. If Scotland wanted to continue doing so I would expect that would come at a price, such is the way of the world.
And no-one has attempted to answer why an independent nation would want to use a currency they had no control or influence over whatsoever. Scotlands financial security etc would still be wholly dependant on a now foreign owned currency - that is not independence as far as I can see.


Re the pound "everal colonies and dominions adopted the pound as their own currency. These included Australia, Barbados,[27] British West Africa, Cyprus, Fiji, the Irish Free State, Jamaica, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. Some of these retained parity with sterling throughout their existence (e.g. the South African pound), whilst others deviated from parity after the end of the gold standard (e.g. the Australian pound). These currencies and others tied to sterling constituted the Sterling Area." en.wikipedia.org... Scotland would use the pound until it decided to use its own after a few years finding its feet or useing the euro whichever the Scottish people decided to do. As i have previously said .Negotiations: uk you cant use the pound=scot ok buy your oil from saudi and see 50p on a litre and your prices and inlation rise.uk just joking. the end
edit on 26-11-2013 by clanger because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Soloprotocol

tdk84
The Referendum White Paper seems a bit mad to me, I haven't looked through properly yet but Scotland seems to be cherry picking what they like.

Salmond says Scots will be £600 better off and the treasury analysis, claims independence would cost the average Scot £1,000 in tax. Given Salmonds other lies i'm more favored so assume the treasury figure is closer.

Also given the fact the treasury always underestimate these things with almost every budget being higher then originally thought i'd take an educated guess and say that £1000 per head is actually a lot worse.

Seems mad to me to split a 300 year union, that in comparison, has been active far longer then USA has even been a country

Were stronger together.
edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

Alex Salmond Lies..??? Name them......go on. Name them..... lets hear his lies.
I give you a few Lies...

1..you will need a passport to enter Scotland...Now who said that..??
2....you wont be able to keep the pound...Now who said that...??
3... The oil is all but finished....Now who said that...??
4... You wont be able to be part of the European Union...Now who said that...
5.. Porridge will treble in price....now who said that..??


The list goes on from project fear...
It may be a Bumpy ride for a few Years, but it's a price worth paying in the long run.


London is Bricking it...BIG TIME.


Emotional...

but I was talking about things like the legal advice on EU membership, what was it £20,000 on non-existent legal advice? There was all that school visit stuff recently too, the list goes on...

Whats more important is the IFS paper on Fiscal Sustainability of an Independent Scotland. There reputation for objectivity speaks for itself.

Salmond lies... or hes deluded.
edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

tdk84
This backs up the thought that financially, its bad news.

www.theguardian.com...



Not surprisingly, both sides in the argument have argued that their way is the more prosperous way. It is tempting, though not necessarily correct, to argue that each side is saying what you would expect them to say and that therefore the two positions cancel one another out. But the conclusions of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which were published in Edinburgh, cannot be so lightly dismissed. The institute has constructed an enviable reputation for objectivity. Chancellors of the exchequer tremble at its verdicts. So should Alex Salmond and the yes campaign.

The IFS paper on Fiscal Sustainability of an Independent Scotland does not argue that an independent Scotland would be unsustainable. Mr Salmond will seize on that. Some of its individual conclusions will also please the nationalists. For instance, the institute confirms, assuming a geographic share of North Sea revenues, that Scots contribute more per head than the people of the UK as a whole to the UK Treasury.

All this is overshadowed, however, by the finding that, even in the most optimistic scenario, demographic pressures mean an independent Scotland will face a fiscal gap more than twice that of the UK. Even with high post-independence migration, high productivity growth, high North Sea revenues and sustained low interest rates, an independent Scotland would still need to raise income tax by eight points, raise VAT by seven points or cut non-welfare public spending by 8% in order to keep its debt under control. If the optimistic assumptions were not fulfilled, the scale of tax rises or spending cuts would have to be even higher. Either way, an independent Scotland would face tougher choices than Scotland would face in the UK.

Ahhhh...The Guardian another London Based media outlet........ we will cut our cloth accordingly...I'll take Higher Taxes so my children have a better future, nae worries man.......Forward!!!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

tdk84

Soloprotocol

tdk84
The Referendum White Paper seems a bit mad to me, I haven't looked through properly yet but Scotland seems to be cherry picking what they like.

Salmond says Scots will be £600 better off and the treasury analysis, claims independence would cost the average Scot £1,000 in tax. Given Salmonds other lies i'm more favored so assume the treasury figure is closer.

Also given the fact the treasury always underestimate these things with almost every budget being higher then originally thought i'd take an educated guess and say that £1000 per head is actually a lot worse.

Seems mad to me to split a 300 year union, that in comparison, has been active far longer then USA has even been a country

Were stronger together.
edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

Alex Salmond Lies..??? Name them......go on. Name them..... lets hear his lies.
I give you a few Lies...

1..you will need a passport to enter Scotland...Now who said that..??
2....you wont be able to keep the pound...Now who said that...??
3... The oil is all but finished....Now who said that...??
4... You wont be able to be part of the European Union...Now who said that...
5.. Porridge will treble in price....now who said that..??


The list goes on from project fear...
It may be a Bumpy ride for a few Years, but it's a price worth paying in the long run.


London is Bricking it...BIG TIME.


Emotional...

but I was talking about things like the legal advice on EU membership, what was it £20,000 on non-existent legal advice? There was all that school visit stuff recently too, the list goes on...

Whats more important is the IFS paper on Fiscal Sustainability of an Independent Scotland. There reputation for objectivity speaks for itself.


IFS is based in London and made their assumptions Scotland would follow the uk path.
If london has £100 pound as does Scotland depending how you spend it/ save it can have two different outcomes.THAT is the reason we will get independence.
edit on 26-11-2013 by clanger because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 



you didnt read it did you... the reports got nothing to do with the guardian, the report was done by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. They have an amazing reputation.

Read it from the horses mouth if you like.

www.ifs.org.uk...

*edt* They are based in London but either way they have a reputation for objectivity.

edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

tdk84
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 



you didnt read it did you... the reports got nothing to do with the guardian, the report was done by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. They have an amazing reputation.

Read it from the horses mouth if you like.

www.ifs.org.uk...

*edt* They are based in London but either way they have a reputation for objectivity.

edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

Yes i did read it....why should i trust it is the question.....do you really believe at this point these so called "Independent" objective study groups cant be bought.....what people dont realise is that Scotland has had enough of Little England, and by that i mean "London"., enough of the BS and Corruption, Enough of watching London as a sole benefactor of Scotland's Natural resource and intellectual wealth...Name something we havn't invented in Scotland...Name a science we dont lead in....

We will do fine. we will prosper as a free and independent Nation...it may be a struggle, but rome wasn't built in a day and we have some heavy crappola to get rid of, not to mention the shame of allowing ourselves to be tainted by London and all that goes with that piece of baggage.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
in that case scotland clearly needs some kind of 3rd party fiscal study. Scotland needs to see the facts not dive in on emotions, not this he said, she said.

Your denying these reports,so will other members of the Scottish public. You need to get them from a trusted source who will take things objectively.

Bit like how Salmond should of done on his EU advice.
edit on 26-11-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join