Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

kabayiri wrote: »

Look. Let's be clear on this. Nicola may be a good politician and a person of sound principles.

But, she is a long way from representing me. And why should she? She does not have the interests of my region at heart.

In fact she wants a stronger Scotland competing for jobs and work with my region (as part of the rest of the Union).

I hear what you're saying. Nicola makes no secret the she wants Scotland to be an independent country but whilst we are a part of the UK she also makes it clear she wants to be an alternative voice speaking out to hopefully benefit all UK citizens.

Her popularity has soared since the debate on Thursday so it appears the rest of the UK now see what we have known for quite some time.

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So out of curiosity, is there any level of cuts or financial pain Scotland would have to make that wouldn't be worth it?

Or are you an indy at any price sort of person?

What if it turned out oil continues to decline, and an independent review of Scottish finances, conducted by a panel of experts the nationalists could trust, concludes Scotland really would have to endure Greek levels of public sector/benefits cuts?

Still a price worth paying?

Hamish, I'm not going to go all around the world debating this again. It was never indy at any cost to me. Your going to tell me right now we'd be facing billions of pounds shortfall and something would need to give.

I'll say again, it has never been proven to me Scotland does not hold her own. No document appears to exist that details exactly where Scotland's revenues go. You dismissed any idea that Ivan Mckee's figures may be correct. Generali described his take as 'interesting' but it went no further. You believe your figures and I believe mine.

I'm not saying the oil revenues falling isn't problematic the economics of independence wasn't the only issue for me.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I hear what you're saying. Nicola makes no secret the she wants Scotland to be an independent country but whilst we are a part of the UK she also makes it clear she wants to be an alternative voice speaking out to hopefully benefit all UK citizens.

Her popularity has soared since the debate on Thursday so it appears the rest of the UK now see what we have known for quite some time.

yes indeed, many support endless borrowing without thought for the consequences

being a dishonest person, Nicola doesn't actually say she wants to borrow more and more without limit but says she wants to reduce austerity; people with a few brain cells know what this means.

Of course from the SNP point of view, there is little to lose as she fully expects to default on all debts 'when' Scotland becomes independence leaving all the silly people in the rest of the UK to pay the Scottish bills.

Interesting to reflect that Nicola and Farage were probably the winners of the 'debate' : couldn't think of a nicer pair.

.string.

That's funny ... us here solving anything!

We are here to discuss are we not!

Back to the point.

When you have a change to a way of life it always has an impact. Sometimes anticipated, sometimes not. It is not the same as a lack of change.

The result of the Referendum did not put an end to the independence movement and had the result have been Yes, the same would have been true of the Unionist sentiment. Maybe the sentiment would become a Movement, maybe not.

So what would Scottish society become - all sweet and fluffy? Divided? Fragile? Depleted?

The Independence movement has been so obsessed with the need to persuade others that all will be rosy on independence, that I suspect the reality of a huge change like that has not been appreciated.

Leanne - I hope that clarified my question; it occurred to me when you effectively wrote " Independence and damn the consequences", so I wondered if any of your lot had given thought to the Human consequences. It would not be such a question if there were a pro Indy 90/10 split but it could be 50+1/50, and that's quite another story.

NICHOLAS_2

elantan wrote: »

I do not believe and never have suggested that every non Scot hates the Scots ... But to pretend there are no people for whom their hatred of the people of Scotland is palpable is somewhat dismissive and blinded to the reality of the situation, incidentally I do also believe there are some Scot's that wrongly hate non Scots also.....

I ain't campaigning on either behalf of SNP or the Yes movement ... Just in case you wondered

I too would vote for independence in a heart beat,

It was somewhat debatable as to whether or not Scotland could be an independent country, although it was mostly considered that you would have struggled.

It is no longer debatable, your whole plan was built on oil, of which has become almost worthless. If there is another referendum in Scotland on scottish independence it will be over a century away so you may as well just forget about it.

You know, there are still people around the world and in Germany that sympathise with Nazism and hold on to fond memories of Hitler and think that there will one day be a return of the Reich.

I am not for one minute comparing SNP voters to Nazis, but i think the sentiments are very similar, Scottish people have deluded themselves a little into thinking that if they talk about something over and over again and again that it may come to fruition.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Hamish, I'm not going to go all around the world debating this again. It was never indy at any cost to me. Your going to tell me right now we'd be facing billions of pounds shortfall and something would need to give.

I'll say again, it has never been proven to me Scotland does not hold her own. No document appears to exist that details exactly where Scotland's revenues go. You dismissed any idea that Ivan Mckee's figures may be correct. Generali described his take as 'interesting' but it went no further. You believe your figures and I believe mine.

I'm not saying the oil revenues falling isn't problematic the economics of independence wasn't the only issue for me.

Which is lovely and all but you've sidestepped the question.

I'll ask again.

Is there any level of cuts or financial pain Scotland would have to make that wouldn't be worth it?

Or are you an indy at any price sort of person?

What if it turned out oil continues to decline, and an independent review of Scottish finances, conducted by a panel of experts the nationalists could trust, concludes Scotland really would have to endure Greek levels of public sector/benefits cuts?

Still a price worth paying?

elantan

.string. wrote: »

That's funny ... us here solving anything!

We are here to discuss are we not!

Back to the point.

When you have a change to a way of life it always has an impact. Sometimes anticipated, sometimes not. It is not the same as a lack of change.

The result of the Referendum did not put an end to the independence movement and had the result have been Yes, the same would have been true of the Unionist sentiment. Maybe the sentiment would become a Movement, maybe not.

So what would Scottish society become - all sweet and fluffy? Divided? Fragile? Depleted?

The Independence movement has been so obsessed with the need to persuade others that all will be rosy on independence, that I suspect the reality of a huge change like that has not been appreciated.

Leanne - I hope that clarified my question; it occurred to me when you effectively wrote " Independence and damn the consequences", so I wondered if any of your lot had given thought to the Human consequences. It would not be such a question if there were a pro Indy 90/10 split but it could be 50+1/50, and that's quite another story.

I have to ask where on earth do you get your information from? I ask this as i was involved in the campaign ( were you?) and whilst I cant pretend to know everyone from the YES side ( there were far too many of us to know) everyone i do know... without exception thought that independence would be hard bloody work, we all thought we would be worse off finacially for between 5-10 years, we all expected it to cost us, we all knew that when we got independence we then had to start building the country into a place we wanted to live.

No one imagined a world of milk and honey, not one of us did it for us, we all did it for the future of our families and our neighbours families ....

how involved exactly where you with the indy ref? are you speaking as an outsider? someone that watched it on TV and read about it in the papers? or were you out campaigning for a vote ( either yes or no) ? cause to say that " The Independence movement has been so obsessed with the need to persuade others that all will be rosy on independence, that I suspect the reality of a huge change like that has not been appreciated." indicates to me you know very little of the reality that went on last year in this country

elantan

NICHOLAS wrote: »

It was somewhat debatable as to whether or not Scotland could be an independent country, although it was mostly considered that you would have struggled.

It is no longer debatable, your whole plan was built on oil, of which has become almost worthless. If there is another referendum in Scotland on scottish independence it will be over a century away so you may as well just forget about it.

You know, there are still people around the world and in Germany that sympathise with Nazism and hold on to fond memories of Hitler and think that there will one day be a return of the Reich.

I am not for one minute comparing SNP voters to Nazis, but i think the sentiments are very similar, Scottish people have deluded themselves a little into thinking that if they talk about something over and over again and again that it may come to fruition.

I certainly didnt plan on any oil .... wouldve happily given the stuff to charity, and i am delighted that it is doing so badly, I hope it stays low for a while ... although i must say i doubt it ... I will say this ... it wont be 100 years till the next referendum but nice try and keep thinking that way if it please you

and if you are not comparing the SNP to Nazi's then why use the term ?

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

That's funny ... us here solving anything!

We are here to discuss are we not!

Back to the point.

When you have a change to a way of life it always has an impact. Sometimes anticipated, sometimes not. It is not the same as a lack of change.

The result of the Referendum did not put an end to the independence movement and had the result have been Yes, the same would have been true of the Unionist sentiment. Maybe the sentiment would become a Movement, maybe not.

So what would Scottish society become - all sweet and fluffy? Divided? Fragile? Depleted?

The Independence movement has been so obsessed with the need to persuade others that all will be rosy on independence, that I suspect the reality of a huge change like that has not been appreciated.

Leanne - I hope that clarified my question; it occurred to me when you effectively wrote " Independence and damn the consequences", so I wondered if any of your lot had given thought to the Human consequences. It would not be such a question if there were a pro Indy 90/10 split but it could be 50+1/50, and that's quite another story.

I'm more than happy to discuss, otherwise I wouldn't engage in this thread.

Look string, you are a staunch unionist. Your signature tells me that :)and that's fine with me, my brother is just like you! But, I am not. I voted Yes for change. To break away from a political union that I don't believe works for Scotland or most of the UK for that matter. I wanted a fairer society, inequality to decrease not increase. There are literally dozens of reasons that led me to Yes. I strongly disagree with the path we are on politically. Is it wrong to want more people in society to have a better life? ( cue Hamish saying we'd all be worse off) If that makes our society more fragile then frankly I'm baffled..... Anyway, I'm going over old ground and it's settled now......

I also think scots would step up to the plate and work damn hard to make independence work well. So many are disenfranchised and disillusioned and I feel independence would have energised my nation.


Can we get back to Nicola now ;-)

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is lovely and all but you've sidestepped the question.

I'll ask again.

Is there any level of cuts or financial pain Scotland would have to make that wouldn't be worth it?

Or are you an indy at any price sort of person?

What if it turned out oil continues to decline, and an independent review of Scottish finances, conducted by a panel of experts the nationalists could trust, concludes Scotland really would have to endure Greek levels of public sector/benefits cuts?

Still a price worth paying?

Show me a detailed document explaining how much Scotland puts into the pot and how much she takes out and I'll answer you. Deal?