RISE NOW AND BE A NATION AGAIN !

As Wully said many pages ago, if it was real independence like Norway he'd vote..............

This is a vote between being dominated by England as the major part of the UK or by Germany/France as the major power wielders in the EU. We're better off with the status quo although it 's probably too late to retain that and some changes will probably be imposed after the vote.

It would still be good to have some hard facts about just what Scotland contributes to the UK PLC and what it gets back! Facts that seem not to be forthcoming from either side at a parliamentary level. I was going to say reliable source but with governments that may be an oxymoron.
 
Don't panic Cooperman. Common sense will prevail in the end and the majority will vote to stay in the UK. This is all that is on offer at the moment and we aint buying.

Just sticking with the effect on the rest of the UK for a moment...

If Scotland votes Yes, independence does not kick in until 2016 - so - Scotland will still be voting in the 2015 UK election :rolleyes:

In 2015, the UK will vote in a new Government. As new governments are not bound by previous governments, who's to say they will go with the outcome of the 2014 Scottish vote :nenau

Again if Scotland votes Yes, the run up to the 2015 UK elections will be interesting in terms of the view being taken by each UK party on the negotiations for the break away by Scotland. If it looks as though Salmond is trying to have his oat cake and eat it, it will be popular for UK parties to campaign on a tough line with Salmond before the planned 2016 break up. Not good news for the new Scotland :nenau
 
If the vote for independence goes in Scotland’s favour, Scotland wouldn't be eligible to vote in the 2015 general elections of Wales, NI and England, and as it would be the Scottish peoples decision to leave the union and nothing to do with the rest of the UK, the rUK government could not rescind that decision.
We as a nation may be currently governed my Westminster, but contrary to popular belief they do not and never will own us.
 
"So back to Scotland.

It now has the opportunity to enact the same legislation, taxation and regulation that other top ten countries on that list employ, following, say, the blueprint of Singapore. It already has a rich tradition in trade, finance and banking"


Scotland currently can enact its own legislation so long as it is in line with EU rules. Independence will not change that. Taxation will have to comply with whatever group we are in monetary union with and no central bank will allow a tax regimen that gives a competitive advantage to one member of the group over the others. Regulation of business will be similarly confined by EU rules. Scotland does not have the wriggle room that the author of the article implies it would need. He admits there would be a tough period of adjustment. How tough and how long? I have already said that I am voting for my financial well being not the generations that come after me so its still a No.
 
What a load of baloney in the press and politicians on both sides, my no still stands. The more this goes on the more I know I'm right. Spoken to the other Scots side of the family and the vote with them is still no this evening. Cameron, wee Eck, and the rest I've had enough. I'm switching off independence especially with the news tonight over EU corruption. But what's new in the political world. Perhaps we should go back to tribes maybe the '' seal people ''see The Eagle. Bye
 
Biased Broadcasting Corporations

Silence and white noise across Scotland today as the BBC news in Scotland, STV, BBC Radio Scotland, Scotland Tonight have a news black-out of the Financial Times article that reveals the truth of Scotland's finances. We pay more than we get back, we would start of as an Independent wealthy country for the next 50 plus years. Scots pay £600 per head more each per head that we receive back from Westminster. Strange then juxtaposed next to another Financial Times article from December 8th, which suggested that voting Yes Scots would pay higher food costs. As you can see on the images I cropped from the BBC website, they screamed that non scare story across their network of TV and Radio. Yet Today they have fallen silent on information that Scots should expect from a supposed 'impartial' state broadcaster, but nothing....silence!

So the West of Scotland's one year Scientific study into the BBC and STV independence broadcast output called 'Fairness in the first year' which concluded that both BBC and STV were massively anti-independence and pro-No and Westminster campaign.
can be found here>>> http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/FairnessInTheFirstYear.pdf<<<

2-3rd February Financial Times reports the truth of Scotland's finances>>>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide1<<<

3rd February>>> BBC Scotland+STV+Scotland Tonight+Newsnight Scotland and Radio Scotland (Good Morning Scotland) Collaborate to ignore the Financial Times story that should be headline news in Scotland. This is to undermine and to keep the People of Scotland ignorant of the true wealth of their country and from gaining the vital information they need to make an informed choice on whether they vote Yes or NO in this years referendum.

8th December Financial times food scare article (non story)>>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/064cc436-5e7e-11e3-8621-00144feabdc0.html<<

9th Decmeber BBC food scare non story amplified & lifted from Financial Times article.>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25299332<<

9th December Business for Scotland reports the realities of the independence food Scare stories nonsense>>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/064cc436-5e7e-11e3-8621-00144feabdc0.html<<
 

Attachments

  • 1798694_424296744340408_457686897_n.jpg
    1798694_424296744340408_457686897_n.jpg
    118.8 KB · Views: 104
Toddy I thought you were finally posting an original opinion!! But alas no. Only another cut and paste. https://www.facebook.com/YesMeetings/posts/399287743550624. Are you allowed to pick what to cut and paste on here each day or are you told what you have to enlighten us about so as to make sure all the Yes men are "on message"??? I am going to be a bit busy this week so perhaps we could have Wednesday, Thursday and Friday's offering all in one go rather than having it drip fed into the thread.

The Yes campaign is dying the death of 1000 cuts (and pastes) because with each one I see I am more convinced that a future under El Supremo Eck would be a disaster.
 
Where are the politicians that will take us out of the UK and the EU? Where are the politicians that propose a truly independent Scotland with it's own currency entering into a common market agreement with the EU and other independent nations remaining in Europe? If the figures stack up surely there must be some within the political ranks with the courage to promote it?

Quite apart from our manufactured whisky, food products and to a lesser extent textiles, the oil and gas reserves, the potential to export clean hydro energy there would appear to be a possibility that Edinburgh could become an alternative fiscal centre to London. Much of the success of London is due to the time zone that it operates within, spanning the trading hours of Japan/Taiwan/China in the east and New York in the west. Edinburgh enjoys that same benefit of course with the advantage that you can easily commute from a rural environment should you choose without the horrors of the London commute. Of course Glasgow would be an even better location.:toungincheek

Is the fact that this version of independence is not being offered evidence that nobody believes that it's possible?
 
Must share this with you....

Derek Bateman's blog.
4th February 2014
Double Bluff
Of all the strengths at the disposal of the Yes campaign one of the most muscular and effective is the selfish and ill-informed posturing of Tory English backbenchers. These are individuals, virtually all male, whose braying and crowing against rebellious Scots is a counter-effective agent in the cause of Union. In fact, collectively they sound like people who are secretly against Union just as they are more openly against the EU and they find it impossible to stop themselves from damaging their own country and their own party.

They have a self-righteous, indignant tone that implies this is their country, their currency, their assets, their rights. And, furthermore, if you Scots carry on, you’ll be punished. Like a landowner maddened by ramblers, they seem to say: “Get off of my land…”

It’s long been clear that the Union is a Good Thing for England’s political representatives – so long as it works to their advantage. This means in broad terms that they have the upper hand, get to dictate, allocate and restrict according to their own perceived national need. This is the England in which Scotland, Wales and Ireland (N) are the lucky passengers, permitted to share the journey sitting in the cheap seats. Therefore the national (UK) resources are England’s essentially and are disbursed to the deserving but the quid pro quo is in return a sense of gratitude, albeit unspoken, and an acknowledgment that none of this would be possible without the nod of approval from the patient English nation. They have allowed the Barnett Formula to strip them of much needed resources in other to featherbed the Scots, mostly done to quell Northern nationalistic tendencies, and now that the ingratitude has reached epic proportions and threatens the existence of the very state itself, it is time to remind them who is boss and what price they will pay.

Thus Mark Field (City of London) and Peter Bone (Northamptonshire) have decided that after a Yes vote the Barnett Formula should cease immediately and not continue while negotiations go on. “It should not exist now”, says Bone. “It would be doubly absurd if it were to continue after they had voted for independence”. You get the drift. In effect, we will cut off their money supply and let them stew. Then we’ll demand a referendum to decide if “we” will allow them to share “our” currency. And I thought narrow nationalism was confined to the Scots…

This is part of the much wider media view which frames Scottish self-determination as an attack on England. It is only if you believe you are giving charity to someone – that you have done your best for them – that you are offended when they want to get on without you. In this they are heavily backed by both the British government whose legal advice is that it all belongs to them and Scotland ceased to exist 300 years ago and generations of compliant, self-serving Unionist MPs not one of whom ever stood up in the Commons and declared: My country is not subsidised. No matter how many humiliations were piled on Scotland by eye-bulging Tory backwoodsmen, not one brave Scot had the guts to represent his or her country and put them in their place. It suited their real agenda – of downing the SNP and keeping the Union at any cost – and what was Scotland’s dignity when compared to the party’s advantage?

It still goes on. I can’t find a single one of Scotland’s Unionist MPs replying to those arguing for the end of the funding arrangement. Is that because they agree it must end but it would be too honest to tell the Scots? This is the Union at work.

The great unspoken irony of course is that independence is precisely the process by which English taxpayers get out of any funding arrangement with the Scots. The message of the nationalists is exactly the opposite of what the right-wing zealots target as Scotland’s case…it is to raise all the money for Scotland here in Scotland. Logically, wouldn’t you think they should be quietly saying this could be a good thing instead of wailing and whinging about Scottish budgets in an orgy of beggar-my-neighbour? In truth, I suspect they enjoy this catfight. It gives them a platform and resounds with their voters. When else do you hear these Captain Manwearings except when someone has to be put in their place…immigrants, muslims, benefits cheats, Brussels or Scots? And yet Labour has no reply, just silence…the Union at work.

I think the intervention of the English Neanderthals does our cause good. I think the Scots get it…they’re not wanted by this section of England and they want no part of them either. They are saying what you suspect secretly Cameron’s whole tribe also think but for diplomatic reasons has to keep hidden. It is an unforeseen consequence of the referendum that both sides are now being seen in their true colours. One side, demonised by our own media, wants to stand on its own feet, raise its own taxes and spend more humanely while rebuilding a mature relationship with our closest neighbour: the other, unquestioningly backed by the media, is funded by a tiny wealthy elite, wants to keep us dependent while cutting our budgets and demands to control while routinely insulting us.

There is no political campaign which doesn’t contain an element of grievance, be it injustice, suppression, inequality or cultural resentment. These Tory die-hards (have they had a complaint about their remarks from Ruth Davidson?) feed those feelings and damage the very thing they profess to support, the UK.

Similarly the relentless stream of Unionism as absolute font of power, far from intimidating the Scots as it is intended to do, is becoming so tedious, repetitive, unreasonable and irritating that is counter productive. This week the opinion of a Glasgow University Professor who is committed to support of the Union and of this government told us we had little real stake in the assets of our own country. Only those fixed assets actually in Scotland and the finances were available to Scots, claimed Professor Adam Tomkins, the new darling of the Union-obsessed media. I say so because he has ready access to the newspapers and broadcasters where he goes largely unchallenged although on my own programme he could barely contain himself in frustration that anyone should counter his arguments. Like many in academia he his clearly convinced of his own omnipotence and uses it to give total support to the British. He told Newsnight that the Scottish government had no powers to hold a referendum and should do as London suggested and accept the offer of legal underpinning. He backs their legal advice that the rUK will be successor state and will retain everything it has, a highly debateable assertion disputed by, among others, Professor David Shaeffer, and I, believe, by the EU’s own lawyers. Tomkins of course is entitled to his view and to express it but I read all his words with scepticism as to me he sounds more like a campaigner than a balanced academic. He proclaims his love of Britain and deep desire for it to continue. Did I mention that he is advising Ruth Davidson on her devolution commission?

I think the onslaught of Unionist aggression implying that Scotland has no real stake in the UK is a black arts secret weapon that is wearing down the soft Unionist support. How long before more and more of us reach the same conclusion – if that’s all they think of me, why would I stay? If all they can do is belittle me, why would I stay? If all they do is frighten me, why would I stay?



Incidentally, I think there will be no referendum on currency sharing because the political elite will know from big business that it is a no-brainer. And I back a review of Barnett if there is a NO. Public spending shows for a start that far too much money goes to London (more per head than Scotland) and that not enough reaches the Midlands and the North of England. But I don’t trust the politicians to do it. If distribution of resources is to be reformed, let’s have a non-political body to do it and as soon as the truth is revealed, that Scotland pays in more than comes back, and therefore should be compensated, perhaps the English Nationalist knuckle-draggers will put a bone through their nose.
 
BP side with the No's

I guess BP will play a significant role in an independent Scotland's future :nenau

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26028481

The response from the Yes'ers

With independence, the continued use of sterling has the overwhelming support of the people of Scotland and the public in the rest of the UK.

Says who :confused:

When has the UK said it will support an independent Scotland using the £?
 
...It's a bit like a divorce

one of the couple may make their own decsion on what they thinks best for them and that's a decsion that only they can make (lets call that a YES/NO vote for the Scotts only)

however assuming that decsion is 'YES I want to go' they then need to realise that all those affected then have a right to input on the subject and the terms of the agreement will need to be in the intrests of all parties.

Who fancies filling in the 'Form E' :-)
 
Toddy, I thought that was a great deal of words for you.............then of course as ever it was someone elses.....no change there.

Shinyface
 
Give the guy a wee break eh
It,s been long established practice in many areas of life and politics to quote others and,,,
Others statements in support of your own viewpoint
I have found some of his published quotes to be quite informative
 


Back
Top Bottom