The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

mayonnaise

Conrad wrote: »

Too right, and just wait for another 2 years of comparative low growth thanks to SNP socialism, the Scots will lose patience as they see the UK as a whole putting on decent growth.


Incidentally Venezuela was in the BBC News last night - that socialist nirvana has over 400% inflation and society reduced to total collapse, but as ever British lefties are telling me this is another case of 'the wrong type of socialism', lol.

I'm concerned NO are looking like winning due to mass scare tactics, so lets just take a moment to remind ourselves as to why Scotland would be a sure footed independent nation;


Scotland has just 8.3% of the UK population.
But they do have:

32% of the land area
61% of the sea area
90% of the fresh water
65% of the natural gas production
96.5% of the crude oil production
47% of the open cast coal production
81% of the untapped coal reserves
62% of the timber production
46% of the total forest area
92% of the hydro electric production
40% of the wind wave and solar energy production
60% of the fish landings
30% of the beef herd
20% of the sheep herd
9% of the dairy herd
10% of the pig herd
15% if the cereal holdings
20% of the potato holdings, and
100% of the Scotch Whisky industry.
They also have a:
£17 billion construction industry
£13 billion food and drink industry
£10 billion business services industry
£9.3 billion chemical services industry
£9.3 billion tourism industry
£7 billion financial services industry
£5 billion aero-service industry
£4.5 billion whisky exports industry
£3.1 billion life sciences industry, and
£350 million pounds worth of textile exports.
Scotland also has 25% of Europe's wave and wind energy potential.
And finally £1.5 trillion worth of oil and gas reserves.
All that from just 8.3% of the population!

Remember who posted this?
Oh, it was you.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66480498&postcount=10314

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Jog on.

I can see you do not understand statistics or percentages.

I have accepted under the guidelines that England are under represented, yet you cannot see how this affects your percentages

You are unable to consider the facts I put across and consider how it affects your manipulation of the statistics.

My signature was created for another but it appears that it aptly applies you you.

I think I will take what was your position earlier.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The End.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I can see you do not understand statistics or percentages.

I have accepted under the guidelines that England are under represented, yet you cannot see how this affects your percentages

You are unable to consider the facts I put across and consider how it affects your manipulation of the statistics.

My signature was created for another but it appears that it aptly applies you you.

I think I will take what was your position earlier.

Because you're talking about the percentages under the context of the guidelines, assuming that the guidelines are the indisputable truth regarding how many MP's Scotland should have. You're wrong, they're not.

You think I don't understand statistics or percentages, again, you're wrong it's part of my job, you can join sss555s' club in that regard.

You think Scotland isn't over represented in terms of population share or eligible vote, again you're wrong, as demonstrated.

So I politely suggest you don't pick fights you cannot win. Happy to debate the truth but when you're going to ignore reality we're going to have problems.

The guidelines have been changed as a result of the 2013 review to reduce the number of overall MP's and as a result reduce the representation of Scottish voters in Westminster, some redress but not enough as I've demonstrated multiple times.

You dug a hole you cannot get out of, not me.

mollycat

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I am pretty well off, but I do fear for the future of my children and grand-children that does consider whether self determination will be a better long term solution for Scotland and the people who reside there.

The biggest problem with Indy Ref 1, was were advised the only way to remain within Europe is to remain within the UK.
This puts a major component in the decision at fault and probably a just cause to consider the question again.

The question asked was "Should Scotland be an Independent country"?

If people made different assumptions about what may/may not happen in the political arena following the vote that is their fault; not the fault of the majority who voted NO.

Conrads video is spot on....the most participants are saying what most people are saying here...no indyref2!

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Because you're talking about the percentages under the context of the guidelines, assuming that the guidelines are the indisputable truth regarding how many MP's Scotland should have. You're wrong, they're not.

You think I don't understand statistics or percentages, again, you're wrong it's part of my job, you can join sss555s' club in that regard.

You think Scotland isn't over represented in terms of population share or eligible vote, again you're wrong, as demonstrated.

So I politely suggest you don't pick fights you cannot win. Happy to debate the truth but when you're going to ignore reality we're going to have problems.

The guidelines have been changed as a result of the 2013 review to reduce the number of overall MP's and as a result reduce the representation of Scottish voters in Westminster, some redress but not enough as I've demonstrated multiple times.

You dug a hole you cannot get out of, not me.

As I said before, see my signature.
I'm out of this debate as you clearly are unable to understand or accept the percentage skew as a result of under representation of English MP's

IveSeenTheLight

mollycat wrote: »

The question asked was "Should Scotland be an Independent country"?

If people made different assumptions about what may/may not happen in the political arena following the vote that is their fault; not the fault of the majority who voted NO.

Conrads video is spot on....the most participants are saying what most people are saying here...no indyref2!

That was the question.

With regards to assumptions, it was the better together campaign that said the only way to remain in Europe was to vote to stay as part of the UK.

That assumption and statement was clearly false

I'll have a look at Conrads video later tonight

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As I said before, see my signature.
I'm out of this debate as you clearly are unable to understand or accept the percentage skew as a result of under representation of English MP's

You're talking !!!!.

lol

Good thing you're bowing out because there is no skew because of under representation of English MP's. First of all it would be English voters, secondly that's if they were increasing the number of MP's not reducing them and thirdly if the guidelines were set in stone which they're not, and if you're looking at it by population or eligible vote, you're wrong so so so wrong.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You're talking !!!!.

lol

Good thing you're bowing out because there is no skew because of under representation of English MP's. First of all it would be English voters, secondly that's if they were increasing the number of MP's not reducing them and thirdly if the guidelines were set in stone which they're not, and if you're looking at it by population or eligible vote, you're wrong so so so wrong.

Please see my below signature

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Please see my below signature

The feminist claptrap?

Shakethedisease

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As I said before, see my signature.
I'm out of this debate as you clearly are unable to understand or accept the percentage skew as a result of under representation of English MP's

I hope you're not out altogether ? It's great seeing you back and posting again. You've been missed.