2NaFish Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Finally, someone has put together a news piece that is not only unbiased but thoroughly informative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkqLn_Aj9Rw&feature=player_embedded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Excellent first post 18scotty74, I hope you return with more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Devoid of ideas, long-since-run-out-of-steam, uninspired and uninspiring, and a dinosaur that fails to realise that its time is over and evolution has moved on... You're a big fan, right? Bravo Sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big D Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Its not about football its about blood. I have a connection with several generations of my family who live down south and in Scotland. They are all proud of all their British roots and would all be repelling invaders to any part of these Isles as they have in the past. Britain is a mellting pot and blood I's more important than geography. IMO I love that JAG. Perhaps the black pudding makers of Sornoway with their protected grographical status may disagree. Seriously, is the tactic you are being briefed by Westminster to concentrate on Aunties in Aldershot and cousins in Chelmsford? Have a look at the border between Scotland and England(or the Alps, Pyrennies, Danube etc.). Sometimes the creation of a social entity that is politicised to become a nation is mainly, initially, about geography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 One of the more balanced pieces I've seen: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-britain-scotland-future-idUSTRE80B12W20120112 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Devoid of ideas, long-since-run-out-of-steam, uninspired and uninspiring, and a dinosaur that fails to realise that its time is over and evolution has moved on... You're a big fan, right? You class bringing an antiquated language back into mainstream that has absolutely no use in modern life ?modernising?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You class bringing an antiquated language back into mainstream that has absolutely no use in modern life ?modernising?? What's that got to do with the Independence Referendum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Could pro-independence supporters suggest some policies or scenarios post independence which will benefit Scotland - which are unavailable under the current setup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big D Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Could pro-independence supporters suggest some policies or scenarios post independence which will benefit Scotland - which are unavailable under the current setup? The obvious one is the halving of our defence spending. Presently we are paying about 3% of our GDP to the U.K. defence (sic) fund. Normal similarly sized European countries average about 1.5% of GDP. The billions freed by this scenario would then be available to spend on infrastructure designed to sustain economic growth, or indeed anything the Scots deem is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The obvious one is the halving of our defence spending. Presently we are paying about 3% of our GDP to the U.K. defence (sic) fund. Normal similarly sized European countries average about 1.5% of GDP. The billions freed by this scenario would then be available to spend on infrastructure designed to sustain economic growth, or indeed anything the Scots deem is appropriate. That is available in UK terms too. Voters just need to vote for it. Also you are assuming that future Scots would want to have less defence spending rather than more defence spending! As for releasing funds for infrastructure, Scots have in the last couple of years voted to spend c. 3% of a year's block grant on half a tram line and the daft Borders Railway, each of which will have a benefit/cost ratio below 1x. Why would Scots make better decisions following independence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Reekin' Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You class bringing an antiquated language back into mainstream that has absolutely no use in modern life ?modernising?? What, Latin...?!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A well reasoned point. If i may reply though, and get a little meta-semantic, semantics is the meaning of words. Lamentably, the words you used didnt mean the thing you, possibly, meant. Therefore, what you said was wrong. You might've meant something else, but what you said was wrong. Pointing out that the words you use not being of importance, whilst also being incorrect, does not absolve you of the responsibility of actually being correct in the ill-conceived sweeping statements you made. For someone who would happily denounce nationalists as living in some Braveheart-esque, romantic past, you seem to be happy to play fast and loose with a very emotional and fictitious past. So, in summary. What you said was wrong. Simply saying "the words aren't important" doesnt cut it as i'm afraid they do. Ok. with you penchant for precision. Provide evidence that to support your Braveheart - esque accusation and your direct quote from anything I've posted. I dont denounce nationalists I respect their views but think they are wrong. Your direct quote is just made up. Words are important though and your words are self evidently drivel IMO in a childish attempt to subvert a Unionist arguement. Let the people decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Amazing post from 2na. There's nothing better than when someone replies and destroys another person's post on here and the other person can only come back with "That's a load of pish". Evidence that he destroyed my arguement please- or is it just opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Let the people decide Alrighty then. Now now 2na, you haven't adequately covered War of the Worlds or indeed Invasion of the Body Snatchers stuff from 2na I agree with your points throughout.... Amazing post from 2na. There's nothing better than when someone replies and destroys another person's post on here and the other person can only come back with "That's a load of pish". Democracy in action. Maybe knock this one on the head JAG. There's nothing to add to this particular debate, you said something that simply doesnt reflect reality. It has no bearing on any independence referendum though as its simply history and that's not what this should be about. Quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'm not a fan of Salmond but to have reached this point makes him the outstanding Scottish politician of his era. Astonishing really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Alrighty then. Democracy in action. Maybe knock this one on the head JAG. There's nothing to add to this particular debate, you said something that simply doesnt reflect reality. It has no bearing on any independence referendum though as its simply history and that's not what this should be about. Quite the opposite. Thats 4 people and two of the comments are ambiguous. Now lets get back to you justifying the allegations you made against me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I love that JAG. Perhaps the black pudding makers of Sornoway with their protected grographical status may disagree. Seriously, is the tactic you are being briefed by Westminster to concentrate on Aunties in Aldershot and cousins in Chelmsford? Have a look at the border between Scotland and England(or the Alps, Pyrennies, Danube etc.). Sometimes the creation of a social entity that is politicised to become a nation is mainly, initially, about geography. I'm briefed by nobody. Are you? Your last sentence seems to is puzzling to me and most modern nations haave evolved from the amalgamation of smaller nations would you not agree? And I said blood was more important than geography and I believe kith and kin are a more salient factors than your wee bit hill and glen in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
south morocco Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Just supposing a yes vote goes through, how much money will it cost to transfer the dvla ,hmrc,nhs ,passport agency,police and all emergency services to an independent scottish state,/new country? ,does anyone have an idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Just supposing a yes vote goes through, how much money will it cost to transfer the dvla ,hmrc,nhs ,passport agency,police and all emergency services to an independent scottish state,/new country? ,does anyone have an idea? A lot of them are scottish based and controlled anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
south morocco Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A lot of them are scottish based and controlled anyway. In a way ,thats irrelevant,its how much beauracracy is involved is what i meant , sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Thats 4 people and two of the comments are ambiguous. Now lets get back to you justifying the allegations you made against me. I withdraw the allegations. You probably dont subscribe to any braveheart-esque view of nationalists. Happy now? I should hope not, seeing as that was a complete non-entity of a point and something i was happy to concede. Frankly, i was happy to let the whole thing go as you've been getting butt****ed for the last page or so, but if you really won't let it go then we can keep going. Remind me why planned but not enacted invasions count as evidence of our forefathers repelling invasions? And how a town in belgium constitutes Britain? Seeing as i was good enough to retract my point, you'll do me the courtesy of explaining them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The future before us... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiIiXjjEcjE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I withdraw the allegations. You probably dont subscribe to any braveheart-esque view of nationalists. Happy now? I should hope not, seeing as that was a complete non-entity of a point and something i was happy to concede. Frankly, i was happy to let the whole thing go as you've been getting butt****ed for the last page or so, but if you really won't let it go then we can keep going. Remind me why planned but not enacted invasions count as evidence of our forefathers repelling invasions? And how a town in belgium constitutes Britain? Seeing as i was good enough to retract my point, you'll do me the courtesy of explaining them. What about retracting the made up quote. ? I consider the Battle of Britain to be phase 1 of the invasion of Britain insofar as the Nazis intended and to suggest otherwise is drivel. As is suggesting that attacking a clear and present invasion threat on foreign soil is not an attack on invaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big D Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 That is available in UK terms too. Voters just need to vote for it. Also you are assuming that future Scots would want to have less defence spending rather than more defence spending! As for releasing funds for infrastructure, Scots have in the last couple of years voted to spend c. 3% of a year's block grant on half a tram line and the daft Borders Railway, each of which will have a benefit/cost ratio below 1x. Why would Scots make better decisions following independence? Coco. Behave. We all know who forced the trams on Edinburgh. I am assuming that since Scots have no intention of starting imperialistic wars, we have no reason to increase defence spending. The figures I am using include the obscenity of USA controlled WMDs in Scottish bases, sanctioned by, well who do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 The future before us... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiIiXjjEcjE Regardless of which side of the debate anyone is on, this video is fantastic. Their sense of humour is brilliant, I particularly like the Thatcher callander - crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 What about retracting the made up quote. ? I consider the Battle of Britain to be phase 1 of the invasion of Britain insofar as the Nazis intended and to suggest otherwise is drivel. As is suggesting that attacking a clear and present invasion threat on foreign soil is not an attack on invaders. Sure, i retract that too. I dont't care whether you consider the battle of britain to be phase 1 of anything. Hitler and nazi high command didnt, so your thoughts dont really come in to it. Like i said, it was an attack not an invasion For you second point, once again, unless they invade, they're not invaders. Just 'bad guys'. They would have become invaders had they invaded. And thats the crucial point you seem to miss out. People who actually invade = Invaders People who don't actually invade = Not Invaders I can't make it any more simple than that. Unless you can show that they did in fact invade (which, to recap, would make them invaders) then we can go with the idea that they're not invaders (which to recap, is due to the fact that they didnt invade). Let me tell you how this goes. I make points using logic involving analogy, facts and highlighting fallacy. You then retort by saying 'i'm wrong and talking balderdash/poppycock/drivel" because you're not actually capable of making a point in this debate because you're wrong. I deconstruct your misguided ramblings and we continue from there. I was bored of this quite a while ago, so unless you feel like brining something new to this, i'm going to walk away. It's also be a shame to derail what will be a long running thread with what to everyone else appears to be a very cut and dried topic. This has turned in to a longer post than i had hoped, and you may have missed the key point People who actually invade = Invaders People who don't actually invade = Not Invaders I'll leave you with that thought. But feel free to look back over my other posts to see a multitude of other reasons as to quite exactly why your wrong on a few levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Sure, i retract that too. I dont't care whether you consider the battle of britain to be phase 1 of anything. Hitler and nazi high command didnt, so your thoughts dont really come in to it. Like i said, it was an attack not an invasion For you second point, once again, unless they invade, they're not invaders. Just 'bad guys'. They would have become invaders had they invaded. And thats the crucial point you seem to miss out. People who actually invade = Invaders People who don't actually invade = Not Invaders I can't make it any more simple than that. Unless you can show that they did in fact invade (which, to recap, would make them invaders) then we can go with the idea that they're not invaders (which to recap, is due to the fact that they didnt invade). Let me tell you how this goes. I make points using logic involving analogy, facts and highlighting fallacy. You then retort by saying 'i'm wrong and talking balderdash/poppycock/drivel" because you're not actually capable of making a point in this debate because you're wrong. I deconstruct your misguided ramblings and we continue from there. I was bored of this quite a while ago, so unless you feel like brining something new to this, i'm going to walk away. It's also be a shame to derail what will be a long running thread with what to everyone else appears to be a very cut and dried topic. This has turned in to a longer post than i had hoped, and you may have missed the key point People who actually invade = Invaders People who don't actually invade = Not Invaders I'll leave you with that thought. But feel free to look back over my other posts to see a multitude of other reasons as to quite exactly why your wrong on a few levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Coco. Behave. We all know who forced the trams on Edinburgh. I am assuming that since Scots have no intention of starting imperialistic wars, we have no reason to increase defence spending. The figures I am using include the obscenity of USA controlled WMDs in Scottish bases, sanctioned by, well who do you think? The point is that these potential savings are available in the current setup too. Unless you are saying that Scots are intrinsically more thrifty or programmed to spend less on defence. There are of course Scots who have sanctioned and started the imperialistic wars - such as Gordon Brown - and have determined that vast amounts are spent on defence facilities in Scotland - such as Gordon Brown. What you are saying is that Scots are better at budget allocations than people from the UK. The trams and the Borders railways are an indication that is not necessarily the case. Any other independence supporters wish to suggest policies or scenarios which are available to an independent Scotland which are not available to the UK in the current setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Sure, i retract that too. I dont't care whether you consider the battle of britain to be phase 1 of anything. Hitler and nazi high command didnt, so your thoughts dont really come in to it. Like i said, it was an attack not an invasion For you second point, once again, unless they invade, they're not invaders. Just 'bad guys'. They would have become invaders had they invaded. And thats the crucial point you seem to miss out. People who actually invade = Invaders People who don't actually invade = Not Invaders I can't make it any more simple than that. Unless you can show that they did in fact invade (which, to recap, would make them invaders) then we can go with the idea that they're not invaders (which to recap, is due to the fact that they didnt invade). Let me tell you how this goes. I make points using logic involving analogy, facts and highlighting fallacy. You then retort by saying 'i'm wrong and talking balderdash/poppycock/drivel" because you're not actually capable of making a point in this debate because you're wrong. I deconstruct your misguided ramblings and we continue from there. I was bored of this quite a while ago, so unless you feel like brining something new to this, i'm going to walk away. It's also be a shame to derail what will be a long running thread with what to everyone else appears to be a very cut and dried topic. This has turned in to a longer post than i had hoped, and you may have missed the key point People who actually invade = Invaders People who don't actually invade = Not Invaders I'll leave you with that thought. But feel free to look back over my other posts to see a multitude of other reasons as to quite exactly why your wrong on a few levels. Its a bit rich being accused of ramblings by s by someone who has admiiited making things up And BTW where the Channel Islands not invaded ? And I hope folks remember that you have admiiited making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maltese jambo Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It would mean that the folk that moan about "being ruled by the English" will moan about being ruled by Brussels instead. Just makes me cringe when people use that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 The point is that these potential savings are available in the current setup too. Unless you are saying that Scots are intrinsically more thrifty or programmed to spend less on defence. There are of course Scots who have sanctioned and started the imperialistic wars - such as Gordon Brown - and have determined that vast amounts are spent on defence facilities in Scotland - such as Gordon Brown. What you are saying is that Scots are better at budget allocations than people from the UK. The trams and the Borders railways are an indication that is not necessarily the case. Any other independence supporters wish to suggest policies or scenarios which are available to an independent Scotland which are not available to the UK in the current setup. I think you'd surely recognise that it is highly unlikely the UK government would ever sanction scrapping Trident/it's replacement or massively reducing defence spending - to do so would risk losing their permanent security seat at the UN and/or upsetting the 'special relationship" with the US. Just because Gordon Brown was briefly a Scottish born UK Prime Minister does not make him better placed to go for unilateral disarmament and/or massive defence cuts , particularly as it would not serve the UK nor was it, at that time, his party's policy. An independent Scotland would not have the same considerations, reasons and risks to disarming and reducing defence spending as the UK does, and can consider the needs of, and act in the best interests of the county and according to the wishes of the people and/or the policy of the party in power post independence. I'd anticipate that most people would support a cut in defence spending and having a no nukes policy, with the savings being put to better use elsewhere. This is NOT because Scots are intrinsically better at budgeting, more that our needs, our views and our wishes can be better reflected in an independent country, rather than at present where they are swamped and over-ridden by the wishes of their larger neighbour and/or the needs of the United Kingdom. It's a clear example of one of the positives and driving reasons for independence, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Just makes me cringe when people use that argument. It's true though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Just makes me cringe when people use that argument. Just another victim card played by the SNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Back on topic. How will Peebles fair in an independent Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Regarding the issue of EU membership:- http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4106-rump-uk-would-have-to-renegotiate-eu-membership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Regarding the issue of EU membership:- http://www.newsnetsc...e-eu-membership S'funny...I was hypothesising this earlier this morning and now you come up with that article. The best of it is Cameron's relationship with the Eu and how he may just be hoist by his own petard. Very, very funny!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Good article on the Beeb too. No hysteria, just a discussion of the potential ramifications. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Regarding the issue of EU membership:- http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4106-rump-uk-would-have-to-renegotiate-eu-membership Fascinating article - was also wondering about this. Interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Regarding the issue of EU membership:- http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4106-rump-uk-would-have-to-renegotiate-eu-membership Is that a news piece or op ed? I would say though that if Europe played silly beggars with the rest of the UK that there is every possibility Cameron would pull out entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarissa Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I'm sure the figures are in the public domain somewhere, however due to the huge public expenditure on things like infrastructure projects, civil service etc etc in the south east trying to glean useful information just based on public spend in relation to GDP will be difficult. The Barnett formula takes this spending in the South East into account and gives Scotland an huge boost, if you don't beleive the difference it makes just go for a tour around the north of England where they get buttons from the Government. They are like a third world country compaired to us. The series of annual reports can be found on the Scottish Government - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS Just remember to take the ones before 2007 with a pinch of salt - they were introduced by the Thatcher government - and mahe sure you ask the awkward question, e.g. the Foreign Office spends hundreds of millions on its 7,000 civil service jobs in the UK. How many of these well paid and influntial jobs are in Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarissa Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Given that Bavaria's major political party, the CSU, is in government with the ruling CDU then that looks unlikely. By the way, are you advocating a return to Pangea? Pangea was OK, but not a patch on Rodinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Is that a news piece or op ed? I would say though that if Europe played silly beggars with the rest of the UK that there is every possibility Cameron would pull out entirely. Europe or Clegg? If the former though, Clegg would have to dump the coalition and then I presume a GE would follow unless Cameron wanted to go it as a minority Gov? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Europe or Clegg? If the former though, Clegg would have to dump the coalition and then I presume a GE would follow unless Cameron wanted to go it as a minority Gov? Hypothetically, it would depend on the timing of everything. A GE is due in 2015. Would Scottish independence be formalised by then? Would EU negotiations have taken place? All very hypothetical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.