RISE NOW AND BE A NATION AGAIN !
- Thread starter ~Stef~
- Start date
morty
Registered user
Does that include perverting the course of justice & shagging all and sundry??? & getting his wife & friends to lie for him?? he’s an arsehole aswell.
AberdeenAngus
Registered user
Except when he's lying, of course.
You certainly get what you see with Tommy.
A self serving Ubercunt that makes 99% of other politicians look like decent human beings. What an achievement
A self serving Ubercunt that makes 99% of other politicians look like decent human beings. What an achievement
wully
Registered user
That's what I'd like, especially the free of the EU bit, why the fuck everyone is worried about an independent Scotland not being in the euro mess is beyond me. We comply to all their standards so it will be easy to continue to trade with them and as all the uk ever agreed to was a common market, we should be fine.
A few months ago I would have voted no, now I'm not at all sure. If we are independent at least we will get to vote for whatever pack of lying scum bags we want instead of us getting stuck with England's choice of lying scum bags.
If we want change, and I'm pretty certain everyone does, then voting yes is the only way we'll get it.
Fuck knows what will happen then but it can't be worse than a bunch of crooks in London dictating what we get.
Interesting times ahead for sure.
Toddy
Registered user
Toddy
Registered user
Deleted account 210516001
Registered user
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 1
Wully you have no chance of ditching the EU if you vote for an independent Scotland. The party in power at least until they have bankrupted us will be SNP or Scottish Labour and they are both besotted with the EU and will never agree to leave all their socialist pals in Brussels. The surest way of getting out of the EU is by voting in a UKIP government but they are too untried in relation to the rest of their policies to risk this. The next surest way I am afraid is to vote for a UK Tory government and then vote in their referendum to pull out of the EU. They are the only other party that will let you have your say on this. I don't have a problem doing this but for most non Tory voters you have to weigh up just how much you hate the EU. Do you hate them enough to swallow your pride and vote once for a Tory government to have your say on the EU. That is something only you can figure out.
What is certain however is if you vote for an independent Scotland you are 99% certain to be in the EU and as a new entrant Scotland will have to negotiate their own terms which will be nothing like as generous as the current UK government gets in terms of opt out of parts of the treaty and budget rebate. Scotland will have to sign up to all parts of the treaty including adopting the Euro at whatever exchange rate it stands against the pound at the date it is adopted. We would also have to adopt all the free movement of labour that currently exists in the EU. There would be no chance of keeping out the polish plumbers or the Romanian lorry drivers. In the event that the rest of the UK left the EU they would not want to risk Scotland being a gateway for immigrants that they would otherwise like to exclude so some form of border controls at the English border would be required.
So what do you want most? Independent Scotland or get out of the EU? You cannot have both. If you vote No there is a chance of a Tory UK government who are committed to giving us an in or out vote on our EU membership. If you vote Yes you are voting to stay in the EU. A Scotland tied to Brussels is not independent. Its like getting a divorce then moving in next door to your ex and having your ex mother in law telling you where you can work and who you can have round to visit.
Toddy
Registered user
The Gaurdian 17th January
An independent Scotland could win special concessions on joining the EU, the UK government has said, but it warns that would mean long and complex talks to win a deal with every member state.
In a softening of its stance on Scottish membership of the EU, a Foreign Office study being released on Friday by William Hague, the foreign secretary, will confirm that Holyrood could still keep sterling and the UK's existing opt-outs on borders and social policy.
An independent Scotland could win special concessions on joining the EU, the UK government has said, but it warns that would mean long and complex talks to win a deal with every member state.
In a softening of its stance on Scottish membership of the EU, a Foreign Office study being released on Friday by William Hague, the foreign secretary, will confirm that Holyrood could still keep sterling and the UK's existing opt-outs on borders and social policy.
YES!!
As far as Westminster is concerned, it doesn't matter how we vote in Scotland, it will not make a blind bit of difference, we have been so completely disenfranchised.
I will be voting Yes, in common with many others, to see independence, democracy and fair representation, for the people of Scotland.
Yes supporters come from all parties with all political views, for and against Europe.
As far as Westminster is concerned, it doesn't matter how we vote in Scotland, it will not make a blind bit of difference, we have been so completely disenfranchised.
I will be voting Yes, in common with many others, to see independence, democracy and fair representation, for the people of Scotland.
Yes supporters come from all parties with all political views, for and against Europe.
Deleted account 210516001
Registered user
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 1
Could is not the same as will and I doubt if the SNP will want the opt outs on borders and social policy because these are too right wing for their liking.
We won't get independence whatever the outcome.
If it goes "No" we'll remain in the UK either in or out of the EU. If it's in the EU long term it will be a Federal States of Europe. At least we'll hopefully have a bit more clout as part of the UK.
If it goes "Yes" we'll likely have a less favourable deal as part of the EU and be one of the smallest countries in a Federal States of Europe with little influence or say in how the Europe is run.
If I thought that there was a snowball's chance in hell of an independent Scotland having a government that put the success of business at the forefront of it's policies and Scotland being rejected by the EU I'd be voting "Yes" but there isn't even a remote chance on either count.
There needs to be a balancing of wealth distribution but wealth is created by commerce so that has to come first. The Conservatives understand that but fail to implement it with a decent social conscience. If Tommy Shenanigan's figure of the worlds richest 85 people having more wealth than the world's poorest 50% of the population, about 3½ billion, that really is utterly obscene.
Toddy
Registered user
Support for Independence grows in England and Wales
http://nationalcollective.com/2014/...independence-grows-among-progressive-england/
http://nationalcollective.com/2014/...independence-grows-among-progressive-england/
Deleted account Cooperman
Registered user
BBC Documentary
Scotland's top 10 battlegrounds on BBC 2 Tues evening.
The top 3 from it's survey are economy, pensions and welfare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26102076
Scotland's top 10 battlegrounds on BBC 2 Tues evening.
The top 3 from it's survey are economy, pensions and welfare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26102076
Toddy
Registered user
Toddy
Registered user
Trident can't be moved to Plymouth, it's too dangerous...
The Guardian 4th January.
Britain's nuclear-armed submarines cannot be moved from Scotland to the Devonport naval base in Plymouth because they do not have safety clearances to dock there.
The disclosure has huge implications for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) if Scotland votes for independence and a new government demands the withdrawal of the nuclear fleet.
The MoD has revealed that the safety arrangements for Devonport do not permit the presence of submarines carrying Trident nuclear warheads. The MoD's safety experts are not considering changing that.
The problem is that the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk. The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth and would not meet the official criteria for what is acceptable, according to a new report.
The Scottish government, run by the Scottish National party, has said it would eject nuclear weapons from the Faslane submarine base on the Clyde as soon as possible after Scotland became independent. A referendum on independence is due to be held in the autumn of 2014.
Experts and politicians have repeatedly suggested that the Vanguard-class submarines that carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles could be relocated to Devonport. In evidence to a House of Lords committee in December the former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, said "they could go there".
But a response under freedom of information law from the MoD indicates that will not be possible. The "safety case" it has drawn up for regulators to demonstrate Devonport can be operated without undue risk rules out nuclear-armed submarines.
"Neither the Devonport naval base nor the Devonport dockyard, which is owned and operated by Babcock, safety case permit the berthing of an armed Vanguard class submarine," the MoD said.
It also disclosed that its internal safety watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, "has not provided any advice on the feasibility of docking of an armed Vanguard class submarine in Devonport dockyard".
The MoD was responding to questions from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (SCND), which wants to get rid of Trident altogether.
"This shows that it is wrong to suggest that Trident can just move to Devonport if it is thrown out of Scotland," said the campaign's co-ordinator, John Ainslie.
A new report by SCND applies the MoD's criteria for accidents at Faslane to Devonport. It concludes that Devonport would never be an officially acceptable location for Trident submarines because of the much greater population that would be put at risk.
There are about 166,000 people living within five kilometres of the Devonport base, compared with about 5,200 within that distance of Faslane. In assessing the dangers of a major accident at Faslane's shiplift in 2000, the MoD concluded that the "societal contamination" that could result meant that "the risks are close to the tolerability criterion level".
If a similar accident happened at Devonport, the MoD's tolerability criteria would be massively exceeded, the SCND report says. If there was a light wind blowing from the south-west, it estimates that 800 people would be killed by leaking plutonium.
If the weather was calm, the report says that as many as 11,000 people could die from radiation poisoning. There would also be additional casualties from the blast, which could break windows across a quarter of Plymouth.
The MoD's worst-case accident scenario assumes that all the conventional explosives in the eight Trident missiles carried by a single submarine detonate. It then assumes that all the plutonium in the missiles' 40 nuclear warheads is dispersed, amounting to perhaps 160kg.
"A missile accident at Devonport, in the centre of Plymouth, could result in thousands of deaths," said Ainslie. "In addition, a large proportion of the city would be abandoned for hundreds of years."
The MoD stressed that the UK government was making no plans for independence, as it was confident that Scotland would not vote to leave the UK.
"We are therefore not making plans to move the nuclear deterrent from HM Naval Base Clyde, which supports 6,700 jobs, and where all of our submarines will be based from 2017," said an MoD spokesman.
"The government is committed to maintaining a continuous submarine-based nuclear deterrent and has begun the work of replacing our existing submarines."
The Guardian 4th January.
Britain's nuclear-armed submarines cannot be moved from Scotland to the Devonport naval base in Plymouth because they do not have safety clearances to dock there.
The disclosure has huge implications for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) if Scotland votes for independence and a new government demands the withdrawal of the nuclear fleet.
The MoD has revealed that the safety arrangements for Devonport do not permit the presence of submarines carrying Trident nuclear warheads. The MoD's safety experts are not considering changing that.
The problem is that the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk. The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth and would not meet the official criteria for what is acceptable, according to a new report.
The Scottish government, run by the Scottish National party, has said it would eject nuclear weapons from the Faslane submarine base on the Clyde as soon as possible after Scotland became independent. A referendum on independence is due to be held in the autumn of 2014.
Experts and politicians have repeatedly suggested that the Vanguard-class submarines that carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles could be relocated to Devonport. In evidence to a House of Lords committee in December the former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, said "they could go there".
But a response under freedom of information law from the MoD indicates that will not be possible. The "safety case" it has drawn up for regulators to demonstrate Devonport can be operated without undue risk rules out nuclear-armed submarines.
"Neither the Devonport naval base nor the Devonport dockyard, which is owned and operated by Babcock, safety case permit the berthing of an armed Vanguard class submarine," the MoD said.
It also disclosed that its internal safety watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, "has not provided any advice on the feasibility of docking of an armed Vanguard class submarine in Devonport dockyard".
The MoD was responding to questions from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (SCND), which wants to get rid of Trident altogether.
"This shows that it is wrong to suggest that Trident can just move to Devonport if it is thrown out of Scotland," said the campaign's co-ordinator, John Ainslie.
A new report by SCND applies the MoD's criteria for accidents at Faslane to Devonport. It concludes that Devonport would never be an officially acceptable location for Trident submarines because of the much greater population that would be put at risk.
There are about 166,000 people living within five kilometres of the Devonport base, compared with about 5,200 within that distance of Faslane. In assessing the dangers of a major accident at Faslane's shiplift in 2000, the MoD concluded that the "societal contamination" that could result meant that "the risks are close to the tolerability criterion level".
If a similar accident happened at Devonport, the MoD's tolerability criteria would be massively exceeded, the SCND report says. If there was a light wind blowing from the south-west, it estimates that 800 people would be killed by leaking plutonium.
If the weather was calm, the report says that as many as 11,000 people could die from radiation poisoning. There would also be additional casualties from the blast, which could break windows across a quarter of Plymouth.
The MoD's worst-case accident scenario assumes that all the conventional explosives in the eight Trident missiles carried by a single submarine detonate. It then assumes that all the plutonium in the missiles' 40 nuclear warheads is dispersed, amounting to perhaps 160kg.
"A missile accident at Devonport, in the centre of Plymouth, could result in thousands of deaths," said Ainslie. "In addition, a large proportion of the city would be abandoned for hundreds of years."
The MoD stressed that the UK government was making no plans for independence, as it was confident that Scotland would not vote to leave the UK.
"We are therefore not making plans to move the nuclear deterrent from HM Naval Base Clyde, which supports 6,700 jobs, and where all of our submarines will be based from 2017," said an MoD spokesman.
"The government is committed to maintaining a continuous submarine-based nuclear deterrent and has begun the work of replacing our existing submarines."
Attachments
Deleted account 210516001
Registered user
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 1
This won't swing it for the Yes campaign I am afraid. Defence is only 8th on the list of concerns of Scottish voters. Nuclear submarines are already based and refueled at Devonport so what is needed is a facility to mate the warheads to the missiles and load them on the submarine. There are options for this away from Devonport which would meet the safety concerns. Also the whole submarine fleet and missiles could be based in the USA. They based their subs in the Holy Loch for long enough. As an absolute last resort Faslane could be designated a sovereign base and therefore still part of the UK after a yes vote. This would provide a handy source of income for the Scottish government while still allowing them to claim that all nukes had been removed from Scottish soil.
Chucking out the submarines would be really inconvenient for the UK but if it was going to mean the collapse of the UK's nuclear force and inevitably the loss of their place at the UN top table the MOD and UK government are managing to remain remarkably calm about it. You can bet they have a plan. Perhaps they are planning a nuclear missile store on the south bank of the Solway just to put two fingers up to fat Eck.
Find a report to cut and paste that says the percentage of gross domestic product which will be spent by government and local authorities will be limited to 35% by law in an independent Scotland and you will convert me to a Yes voter. Otherwise stop wearing out the Ctrl+C and V keys on your keyboard. You don't want to have to buy a new keyboard for the sake of three keys when the rest have had such little use.
Chucking out the submarines would be really inconvenient for the UK but if it was going to mean the collapse of the UK's nuclear force and inevitably the loss of their place at the UN top table the MOD and UK government are managing to remain remarkably calm about it. You can bet they have a plan. Perhaps they are planning a nuclear missile store on the south bank of the Solway just to put two fingers up to fat Eck.
Find a report to cut and paste that says the percentage of gross domestic product which will be spent by government and local authorities will be limited to 35% by law in an independent Scotland and you will convert me to a Yes voter. Otherwise stop wearing out the Ctrl+C and V keys on your keyboard. You don't want to have to buy a new keyboard for the sake of three keys when the rest have had such little use.
Deleted account Cooperman
Registered user
morty
Registered user
i’ve never read so much shite in all my life,toddy you need to get a life,no in fact give me one original thought thats your own.whats the big deal with trident?until you’ve had boots in the sand or shared the same save your pathetic click & pastes for real issues, not shit thats going to do nothing except put folk out of work. theres nukes all over the country that most don’t even know about & are transported without you even knowing & its been that way for decades.
What are you going to replace the BBC with
Scotland & Highlands Independent Television
So - what exactly are you saying?
"you're Scottish - you're not allowed to watch BBC if you are independant!"
We'll watch what the hell we like - thanks!
I'd love to watch Hammie Hamster in - "Tales From The Riverbank"................
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xgUeWec-Aew" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But it looks like you've not got too many riverbanks left .............
Al
Similar threads
