Yes or no. Scottish residents only please

yes, no or undecided


  • Total voters
    133
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whilst on the subject of money. Have a look at this

Yes, I know you all hate cut/pasting, but some things are better in the words of the authors.

I was under the impression that the UK government and treasury who baled-out the banks. I can't verify the authenticity of this, but you can google it and have a look for yourselves.

Audit of US Federal Reserves.

What was revealed in the audit was startling:

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world's banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve (July 21st, 2011):
 
Sorry sorry sorry

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YmAF4EaNIUI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was fun making this
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YmAF4EaNIUI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was fun making this


Class Den :D :clap
 
A good effort Den and very funny...:D

You still can't have the pound sterling when you leave though ;)
 
So sorry that our democratic right - is causing your nose to curl up.................... :rolleyes: (I wish I could edit the clip of Father Jack apologising to Bishop Brennan)
.....
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oYOZ3IzRaf4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:D
 
The Queen is in Glasgow where she bumps into Alex Salmond.

HM: “How nice to see you Mr Salmond”.

AS: “Nice to see you Ma’am. Now, what are we going to call Scotland when we win Independence?
How about calling it a Kingdom, and then I’ll be a King”?

HM: “No, we don’t like that idea Mr Salmond”.

AS: “Empire, and I'll be Emperor”?

HM: “No. I don’t think so Mr Salmond”.

AS: “OK, so how about calling it a Principality, and then I’ll be a Prince”?

HM: “No, Mr Salmond. May I suggest that we call it a Country?
 
Yes, I know you all hate cut/pasting, but some things are better in the words of the authors.

I was under the impression that the UK government and treasury who baled-out the banks. I can't verify the authenticity of this, but you can google it and have a look for yourselves.

Audit of US Federal Reserves.

What was revealed in the audit was startling:

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world's banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve (July 21st, 2011):


The fed hasn't 'loaned' anyone anything really. It has just created a load more debt that has no interest payment and will never be repaid. The Bank of England, bank of Japan, bank of China etc have also been 'printing' and sending their binary numbers around the financial system because the system has lent more money (issued debt) then it has physical assets to cover the liabilities. No one knows how it will pan out but creating new 'money' like this has always ended in hyper inflation previously: Weirmar, Zimbabwe etc.
At the end of the day a country's wealth is all the physical assets and future earnings. It's currency is just IOUs based on its assets and future earnings. Which is why independent countries need their own currency and the ability to honour it's own IOUs. Hence an 'independent' Scotland must have its own currency along with everything that entails like a central bank to stand behind Scotland's banks. Just saying "the £ is ours as much as anyone else's" is child like. In fact this whole referendum thing is child like.
Of course the Scots have it in them to be Independent but what is on offer at the moment has nothing to do with Independence, it merely wants to break up the UK and then see what happens.
 
If, we're 'Better Together' then why aren't we better off then ?

Fear not, you'll soon be better off when you've fecked off to be a republic. :D

That is of course if you all grow some and get on with it instead of all this boring bluster.....:beerjug:
 
Genuine question - what will happen if there is a decisive 'No' from the electorate? Will that be an end to the matter?
 
I think you can guarantee that Westminster will make any future independence chance - impossible.

(Until oil runs out ..........)

Al
 
Genuine question - what will happen if there is a decisive 'No' from the electorate? Will that be an end to the matter?

Unfortunately Mike, it will be a never healing open wound (I pinched that term off someone). Dirty washing has been aired in public, and judging by some of the vitriol coming from a lot of your countrymen during the run-up to this referendum. So much previously hidden prejudice.
I think it will make a fair portion of Scots seriously anti English.

I'll explain. Dya know the Americans commonly held impression of the Rednecks from the Deep South, an Ignorant, simple lot who speak funny. Dressed in dungarees, driving old pick-ups and eating nothing but fried chicken.
Well, thats the sort of impression you seem to have of us. Change the pick-up for an Astra, and the dungarees for a track suit, the chicken for a haggis, and that's us.

It was a bit of banter before. Few folk actually 'disliked' you in the real sense of the word. Wanting England to get beaten by any opposing side is a direct result of hearing about 1966 since .... 1966! Thatcher and her cronies certainly didn't help relations, and finding out that the amount of revenue from oil had been deliberately kept secret in order to keep us toeing the line adds insult to injury. I could go on.

The Scottish people have as a result of this campaign, become seriously politically educated and aware. Now ordinary granny's know the GDP of countries and tax revenues etc.
People in the pubs discuss politics and talk statistics and figures amongst each other!

As Ive said before, I am genuinely worried about the fall-out if there is a 'no' vote.
 
But if your electorate has been given the opportunity to choose, and their choice is different from yours, can you (you=yes voters) live with the outcome of the democratic process, do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom