JamboX2 Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Fair points raised. The intent is good. But the actual law on paper was pretty weak. The UK government has a seperate plan here. It'd be good to see where it goes. But its not a black and white picture on a lot of this. Some motions or bills in Parliament, at Holyrood and at Westminster, have complexities and repercussions which may or may not be in line with party policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 She is just trying to grab Muslim votes. No problem with that, except she will lose more votes than she gains. Silly Nippy. Why do you think it'll lose her votes? (I hope so, of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 That's right, all muslims are rape obsessed, marriage forcing, incest loving female genital mutilators. Obviously. And we nationalists are the inward-looking ones aye? All muslims no. Islam, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Why do you think it'll lose her votes? (I hope so, of course). I agree too. She is alienating every single person who is not a minority. She simply is not grasping major mainstream issues or dealing with the majority of this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Do you see how contradictory that is? You're effectively saying that they are through association. No I am not. And infact not one person on this thread said "all Muslims are like that". You just took it as an opportunity to prove that 'look at me, I am not racist and I am fully progressive" by trying to show us up for being so. Which is what you were trying to do. The Hijab is Islamic. Not all Muslims wear it so does not represent them. It represents the vile oppressive, barbaric religion that is Islam. Therefore, by that repulsive little piece of work Krankie wearing it she is showing that she supports the vileness that Islam represents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I'd find your attitude admirable if it didn't reek of double standards. You'll attack Sturgeon for wearing a Hijab to show support to what is at times an oppressed minority in the UK. But Cameron et al. meeting with Islamic countries, entertaining them and hosting them in order to sell billion pounds of weapons to enable the mass-murder of civilians is perfectly acceptable? The oppressed minority are Moslem women. Wearing head cover in UK is a choice but not elsewhere in the world. It is a classic symbol of female oppression in certain parts of the world. Moslem men will applaud Nippy. But many women won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 You didn't make reference to a minority. Your post was a sweeping generalization on the misconception of Islam. I was in Leeds for three years, most Islamic females I knew choose to wear the Hijab. Many others didn't. I don't agree that women should be forced to wear anything by anyone, but please don't indicate that all women especially within the UK, are forced to wear a hijab. Would you equally find the following link repulsive? Or is it another case of SNPBAD? http://www.expressandstar.com/wpmvc/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/32006602.jpg I'll upload the photo as it seems some posters are somehow sneaking past the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Thanks, I couldn't upload it on the iPad. Tapatalk App [emoji106] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Well, personally, I'd be slightly more angry at watching my government sell arms which results in the deaths of 1000's than seeing the first minister showing solidarity with a minority group in Scotland. She was not showing solidarity with Moslem women. Neither was May. Quite the opposite in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 She was not showing solidarity with Moslem women. Neither was May. Quite the opposite in fact. Sturgeon should be tearing up 1000's of years of culture and installing a good old WASP system in the Muslim community? It's the Brit Nat way [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I'll upload the photo as it seems some posters are somehow sneaking past the link. Just to keep this on display. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Our great leader. Hiya pal. Care to comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Sturgeon should be tearing up 1000's of years of culture and installing a good old WASP system in the Muslim community? It's the Brit Nat way [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] She is not a Moslem. But if she believes wearing of headscarf is required then she needs to do it always, not just for photo opportunities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 She is not a Moslem. But if she believes wearing of headscarf is required then she needs to do it always, not just for photo opportunities Just maybe she is respecting their religion? I had to wear a turban when working inside the Sikh temple down Leith once. Shoes off to when on the red carpet. Had an amazing free curry afterwards with some of the members and a good laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Just maybe she is respecting their religion? I had to wear a turban when working inside the Sikh temple down Leith once. Shoes off to when on the red carpet. Had an amazing free curry afterwards with some of the members and a good laugh. Ok maybe she got a free curry out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Ok maybe she got a free curry out of it. You're looking very foolish on this thread. I'd quit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Religious and cultural respect is a one way street and that is what I take issue with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Snake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Hiya pal. Care to comment? Comment on what? Both leaders have failed on the topic of Islam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Why do you think it'll lose her votes? (I hope so, of course). She might lose votes within the Muslim community, because the Ahmadiyya Mosque and community she visited yesterday is reviled and persecuted by many fellow Muslims as being a heretical sect within Islam. Many Muslim's will be a tad bit upset that Nicola Sturgeon has showed support for what many Muslim's see as blasphemers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38196904 "The launch of their 'True Islam' campaign is an important educational tool to increase awareness and understanding of the religion. By doing so, it will help combat the fears and prejudices that foster hatred." The above sentence, well IMO will go down like a lead brick with many Muslim's. Naive in the extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 She is not a Moslem. But if she believes wearing of headscarf is required then she needs to do it always, not just for photo opportunities Can't just be respectful? I take my shoes off at my mates, doesn't mean I need to walk around in my socks all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 So this thread has went from bottled water to a debate on Islam? Only JKB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 So this thread has went from bottled water to a debate on Islam? Only JKB. Canae beat it eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Just maybe she is respecting their religion? I had to wear a turban when working inside the Sikh temple down Leith once. Shoes off to when on the red carpet. Had an amazing free curry afterwards with some of the members and a good laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Oh yes they will. And so will Scottish people. People want their money to be secure. In UK Bank balances are underwritten by Govt and Banks themselves are baled out by UK taxpayers (RBS for example). In other words if a Bank ones bust, which nowadays is possible, the Govt will intervene to protect customers. In Indy, it is extremely unlikely, in fact nonsense, to think the Scottish Govt will provide the same level of support if a Scottish Bank gets in trouble. So for security, it is obvious UK customers will stay with a Bank that is underwritten by UK Govt. I disagree. If banks are to function properly they will be governed by their own reserves . This imo would lead to scottish banks being a better bet as they would not take the risks that have led us to bail outs from governments. This also answers questions on currency . Scottish indy economy can use any it likes. And why should banks be protected from failure. There is problems with going independent of course but scaremongering about a banking crisis is a false flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I disagree. If banks are to function properly they will be governed by their own reserves . This imo would lead to scottish banks being a better bet as they would not take the risks that have led us to bail outs from governments. This also answers questions on currency . Scottish indy economy can use any it likes. And why should banks be protected from failure. There is problems with going independent of course but scaremongering about a banking crisis is a false flag. Why would Scottish banks not take risks sorry? Every single one of them have to this date. Is this the old we are morally superior argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 You're looking very foolish on this thread. I'd quit. The first decent post you've ever made. Onwards and upwards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Why would Scottish banks not take risks sorry? Every single one of them have to this date. Is this the old we are morally superior argument? No, I suspect it means that within an independent Scotland, the banking industry would not have as much of a gung ho attitude personified by the casino capitalism in The City of London, pre 2008. Nothing to do with moral superiority, but rather priorities in a different business environment. Personally, I'd nationalise all of the banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 No, I suspect it means that within an independent Scotland, the banking industry would not have as much of a gung ho attitude personified by the casino capitalism in The City of London, pre 2008. Nothing to do with moral superiority, but rather priorities in a different business environment. Personally, I'd nationalise all of the banks. Again, why? to suggest this shows arrogance. Mostly every country was up to it and is still very capable of it. As for nationalising, of course this is up to you to want this but the majority do not. No-one was complaining in the 80s when the family silver was sold off as they were lapping up cheap shares etc. I assume you want more building socieities too? Bearing in mind the privatisation of these were forced on no-one - it was agreed and everyone profited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Again, why? to suggest this shows arrogance. Mostly every country was up to it and is still very capable of it. As for nationalising, of course this is up to you to want this but the majority do not. No-one was complaining in the 80s when the family silver was sold off as they were lapping up cheap shares etc. I assume you want more building socieities too? Bearing in mind the privatisation of these were forced on no-one - it was agreed and everyone profited. Part of history is looking back and realising that we (the collective) just made a James Hunt of it. I bet the Scottish slave traders were happy to take the profits from the sweat off the backs of the slaves back in the day. doesnt make it right now. I would nationalise the banks as well. They are not accountable to anyone but their shareholders who do not care one jot about anything other than their dividends. Although, I have no idea what that lot has to do with bottled water! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Why would Scottish banks not take risks sorry? Every single one of them have to this date. Is this the old we are morally superior argument? In the same way as panamas banks were unaffected by the recent banking crisis. Who incidentally use the dollar as their currency. Im sure you will be able to research this. Thats the whole crux of EU membership as finance is global and increasingly standardised. The EU actually inhibits Scotlands/uk abilty to deal in this and in fact will be nothing more than some kind of middle man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Technically, large percentages of our banks are nationalised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Again, why? to suggest this shows arrogance. Mostly every country was up to it and is still very capable of it. As for nationalising, of course this is up to you to want this but the majority do not. No-one was complaining in the 80s when the family silver was sold off as they were lapping up cheap shares etc. I assume you want more building socieities too? Bearing in mind the privatisation of these were forced on no-one - it was agreed and everyone profited. To suggest what? That an independent Scotland would be a different business environment from the UK? To suggest this is arrogant? Really? Plenty folk were complaining when the family silver was sold off in the 80's. Imagine you owned something, then next day you were told it was being sold and that you could own something that you already owned, if you coughed up some dough. Not so sure how much the average bod had to invest in such a thing, but there you go. I don't disagree that most people wouldn't want the banking industry nationalised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 To suggest what? That an independent Scotland would be a different business environment from the UK? To suggest this is arrogant? Really? Plenty folk were complaining when the family silver was sold off in the 80's. Imagine you owned something, then next day you were told it was being sold and that you could own something that you already owned, if you coughed up some dough. Not so sure how much the average bod had to invest in such a thing, but there you go. I don't disagree that most people wouldn't want the banking industry nationalised. You are suggesting it would be a better environment Boris - let's not kid ourselves. And that is the exact definition of arrogance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 The nationalising of banks is exactly what an independent scotland does not want. If we are to flourish as independent then banks should stand alone. Its nothing to do with a national superiority but following examples of sound banking perhaps with regulation that prohibits high risk . Scotland is a desirable place to do business and has expertise. Scaremongering with imagined facts can be easily argued against. The currency and financial side is not the problem for independence. Its the political shift thats a problem. Because we cannot afford the same levels of public finance until we build the wealth. That wont sit well . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 (edited) The nationalising of banks is exactly what an independent scotland does not want. If we are to flourish as independent then banks should stand alone. Its nothing to do with a national superiority but following examples of sound banking perhaps with regulation that prohibits high risk . Scotland is a desirable place to do business and has expertise. Scaremongering with imagined facts can be easily argued against. The currency and financial side is not the problem for independence. Its the political shift thats a problem. Because we cannot afford the same levels of public finance until we build the wealth. That wont sit well . But our banks can't stand alone. RBS failed a recent stress test quite miserably (the only UK bank to do so). Does this not concern you? Our biggest company and it can't stand alone. It would need propped up (potentially) by a government that would be inheriting a huge financial black hole as it is. Edited December 5, 2016 by i8hibsh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 But our banks can't stand alone. RBS failed a recent stress test quite miserably (the only UK bank to do so). Does this not concern you? Our biggest company and it can't stand alone. It would need propped up (potentially) by a government that would be inheriting a huge financial black hole as it is.It only has Scotland in is name. Something like 7% of its business is north of the border. The French had to bail out Belgian banks etc etc. The government in the country which held its biggest liabilities footed the bill. We're told in the event of Indy they'd relocate to England anyway but in no way whatsoever would Scotland be on the hook for its debts because it has Scotland in its name and a plaque on a wall in Edinburgh, that's not how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 You are suggesting it would be a better environment Boris - let's not kid ourselves. And that is the exact definition of arrogance. Suggesting something would be better is not the exact definition of arrogance. Is it arrogant to suggest you'll have a better night out in Edinburgh than Pyongyang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 It only has Scotland in is name. Something like 7% of its business is north of the border. The French had to bail out Belgian banks etc etc. The government in the country which held its biggest liabilities footed the bill. We're told in the event of Indy they'd relocate to England anyway but in no way whatsoever would Scotland be on the hook for its debts because it has Scotland in its name and a plaque on a wall in Edinburgh, that's not how it works. But most of our companies only have Scotland in it's name JD. It is the way of the world now. Most of our Whisky companies are owned by non Scottish companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Suggesting something would be better is not the exact definition of arrogance. Is it arrogant to suggest you'll have a better night out in Edinburgh than Pyongyang? Why would it be better? There is no evidence of it as it has not happened. To suggest it would be better is arrogant. If I fancy a bird who has a bloke, I would say to her - be with me it will be better. Of course, this would be arrogance on my part and there is nothing to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 But our banks can't stand alone. RBS failed a recent stress test quite miserably (the only UK bank to do so). Does this not concern you? Our biggest company and it can't stand alone. It would need propped up (potentially) by a government that would be inheriting a huge financial black hole as it is. I dont think it should be propped up. Not by the public purse. At the moment the banking sector is teetering in far bigger economies than Scotlands. Imo Scottish finances would be and could be better of long term in independent Scotland. Have a look into countries like panama who use a foreign currency and whose banks were unaffected by the recent crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 But most of our companies only have Scotland in it's name JD. It is the way of the world now. Most of our Whisky companies are owned by non Scottish companies.Suppose the same could be said for most of British companies. Do we have anything left we haven't sold off for private profit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 But most of our companies only have Scotland in it's name JD. It is the way of the world now. Most of our Whisky companies are owned by non Scottish companies. You have answered your own argument. Globalisation is already upon us and the need for union in a fiscal sense is obsolete. Which leaves us with political union. We are already devolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Suppose the same could be said for most of British companies. Do we have anything left we haven't sold off for private profit? Sadly not it seems. I guess it works both ways tho and we have lots of investment overseas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 You are suggesting it would be a better environment Boris - let's not kid ourselves. And that is the exact definition of arrogance. Arrogance is suggesting a better environment? New one on me, Chief. I never said it would be better, merely saying that the environment would be different and as such any business would adapt to it as they saw fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Why would it be better? There is no evidence of it as it has not happened. To suggest it would be better is arrogant. If I fancy a bird who has a bloke, I would say to her - be with me it will be better. Of course, this would be arrogance on my part and there is nothing to back it up. What if you are right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Why would it be better? There is no evidence of it as it has not happened. To suggest it would be better is arrogant. If I fancy a bird who has a bloke, I would say to her - be with me it will be better. Of course, this would be arrogance on my part and there is nothing to back it up. If you fancied a bird whose bloke needed bailed out by a sugar daddy and you were self sufficient and level on good looks and had the same size tadger........ The banks wouldn't be better run because they are scottish but because theyd have to be with no safety net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 All the negativity, all the derision, all the hate only emanates from one side. Thats incorrect dont care which side you're on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 All the negativity, all the derision, all the hate only emanates from one side. Yes, but they can't help it, they are still trying to get to grips with the rejection of their cause on Sept 18, 2014. Denial is a powerful defence mechanism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 All the negativity, all the derision, all the hate only emanates from one side. Deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 No, I suspect it means that within an independent Scotland, the banking industry would not have as much of a gung ho attitude personified by the casino capitalism in The City of London, pre 2008. Nothing to do with moral superiority, but rather priorities in a different business environment. Personally, I'd nationalise all of the banks. Mmmm. Don't buy it. Look to Iceland and Ireland and their banks. Look to ABM Amro and its balance sheet. They were small nations with big banks and a big bank of a small nation. For your argument to hold water you woukd need to argue that an Independent Scotland would have shirked a western move towards economic liberalism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Given her politicians of that day, and her people, consented to this via the ballot box and in policy terms I suggest your view is a pipe dream. However, smaller more locally focused banks are were the Scottish banks are heading. Never again will they be global leaders in their sectors. The hit they took and their bad debts are preventing that from being a realistic thing any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.