Jump to content

Independence - how would you vote?


Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"They certainly wouldn't have a fraction of the opportunities they currently have for overseas deployment and training, nor the diversity of experience or access to the quality of kit and equipment with which they currently operate."

I'm just going to leave that hanging there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They certainly wouldn't have a fraction of the opportunities they currently have for overseas deployment and training, nor the diversity of experience or access to the quality of kit and equipment with which they currently operate."

I'm just going to leave that hanging there.

This is probably true to be honest. Don't see that as a controversial quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying, in a nutshell, is that you have to be a total c**t and a complete w****r to want to be a politician.

And I agree with this completely. Career politicians should be banned. Stand for office twice and then f**k off forever. And do it for free.

"The desire to be a politician should ban you for life for ever being one"

- Billy Connolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably true to be honest. Don't see that as a controversial quote.

Dont think it is controversial either, but then nor do i see it as a negative. The 'opportunity' to go to Iraq or Afghanistan or god knows where else in the future is not one i would relish. i also think the access to kit might raise a few hackles amongst serving soldiers.

Having said all that i'm not a soldier and could be talking shite - they might love it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont think it is controversial either, but then nor do i see it as a negative. The 'opportunity' to go to Iraq or Afghanistan or god knows where else in the future is not one i would relish.

I assume he's talking about the navy, not the army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They certainly wouldn't have a fraction of the opportunities they currently have for overseas deployment and training, nor the diversity of experience or access to the quality of kit and equipment with which they currently operate."

I'm just going to leave that hanging there.

Yes, because other nations with small defence forces - the RoI, Iceland - arm their soldiers with bows and arrows and broadswords, and expect their sailors to row coracles and long boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because other nations with small defence forces - the RoI, Iceland - arm their soldiers with bows and arrows and broadswords, and expect their sailors to row coracles and long boats.

Clicky

no mention of bows and arrows there

Link to comment
Share on other sites



T0: FINANCE / POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTS

NEW BUDGET FIGURES SHOW SCOTLAND’S FINANCES STRONGER BY £824 PER PERSON

"BIG BOOST TO CONFIDENCE AND A 'YES' VOTE"

The Scottish National Party welcomed the publication of the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report for 011/12 – which shows that Scotland is financially stronger than the UK as a whole to the tune of £4.4 billion, or £824 per person. In 2011/12, Scotland generated 9.9 per cent of UK tax revenues with 8.4 per cent of the population – in return for 9.3 per cent of pending.

Finance committee convener SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said:

“These are a powerful set of figures, which prove beyond any and all doubt that Scotland more than pays her way. The reality is that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK – not the other way round - and also has better finances than other developed economies.

“The report shows that Scotland’s finances are stronger than the UK’s as a whole to the tune of £4.4 billion – or £824 for every man, woman and child.

“While the No campaign tries to talk Scotland down – and bizarrely argues that having access to billions of pounds of oil tax revenues is somehow a bad thing for Scotland but a good thing for Westminster – these figures give a big boost to confidence in Scotland, and to a 'Yes' vote in the referendum.

“Instead of Westminster wasting billions on unwanted Trident nuclear weapons, an independent Scotland with access to our nation’s wealth of resources can and will build a strong economy and fair society.”

I could do a lot with £824, ta muchly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Scotland got it's independence,and would then probably follow in the same Euro template as the

other EU countries.

Would Scotland follow the Germans,Benelux's and the Czechs by legalizing prostitution and having

brothels in all major cites like they do.

I was just thinking that it might decrease the rate of domestic abuse,rapes and more importantly

create jobs :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the MoD, the home of "this fighter, no THIS fighter, no THIS fighter", is accusing the SNP of having incoherent plans?

And to clarify again, the MoD, the people who bigged up troop numbers returning so loudly a year ago, and who trumpeted the extra 600 as a good thing, are now saying that this is in fact a BAD thing? WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the MoD, the home of "this fighter, no THIS fighter, no THIS fighter", is accusing the SNP of having incoherent plans?

And to clarify again, the MoD, the people who bigged up troop numbers returning so loudly a year ago, and who trumpeted the extra 600 as a good thing, are now saying that this is in fact a BAD thing? WTF?

YOu know, the more I see of the British establishment's attitude to this whole business, particularly the BBC's effective suppression of the GERS report at the expense of the Swinney bashing, the more I realise just how utterly twisted and pointless the political and press machine is down here. It's a total shambles. When I was still very much a Unionist, my arguments were based on shared history and commonality of identity, at least in the case of the majority. THe sad facts are that the only people that the status quo suits are those in the South East - Scotland is just lucky enough to be able to break away and thrive if it so chooses. PLease spare a thought for the North of England - those poor sods are going to have an even worse deal when SCotland leaves, because the true extent of Scottish cash in will become apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the MoD, the home of "this fighter, no THIS fighter, no THIS fighter", is accusing the SNP of having incoherent plans?

And to clarify again, the MoD, the people who bigged up troop numbers returning so loudly a year ago, and who trumpeted the extra 600 as a good thing, are now saying that this is in fact a BAD thing? WTF?

YOu know, the more I see of the British establishment's attitude to this whole business, particularly the BBC's effective suppression of the GERS report at the expense of the Swinney bashing, the more I realise just how utterly twisted and pointless the political and press machine is down here. It's a total shambles. When I was still very much a Unionist, my arguments were based on shared history and commonality of identity, at least in the case of the majority. THe sad facts are that the only people that the status quo suits are those in the South East - Scotland is just lucky enough to be able to break away and thrive if it so chooses. PLease spare a thought for the North of England - those poor sods are going to have an even worse deal when SCotland leaves, because the true extent of Scottish cash in will become apparent.

I speak to a girl that works for the NHS in Newcastle. She would join us in a heartbeat if it meant getting away from Westminster, she feels more in tune with Scotland than with the Home Counties.... She has also said that her views are not that uncommon in the NE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOu know, the more I see of the British establishment's attitude to this whole business, particularly the BBC's effective suppression of the GERS report at the expense of the Swinney bashing, the more I realise just how utterly twisted and pointless the political and press machine is down here. It's a total shambles. When I was still very much a Unionist, my arguments were based on shared history and commonality of identity, at least in the case of the majority. THe sad facts are that the only people that the status quo suits are those in the South East - Scotland is just lucky enough to be able to break away and thrive if it so chooses. PLease spare a thought for the North of England - those poor sods are going to have an even worse deal when SCotland leaves, because the true extent of Scottish cash in will become apparent.

You just know that in a few days/weeks/months, the same media and Unionists will be demanding facts and figures and accusing the Yes campaign of not presenting any facts. I genuinely struggle to see what more the Yes Campaign can do to get their message across. The Sun seems to be hovering towards neutral, but that is pretty much the only one. The BBC in particular is actively involved in trying to suppress information.

I don't know if you were one of them, but back when I was in a minority on here, I used to get mocked when I accused the BBC of being biased and having an agenda. And that was back when the BBC allowed SOME blog comments on their Scottish blogs.

Edited to add, maybe we could negotiate Northumbria in the independence settlement! After all, they seem to have redrawn our nautical boundaries, so why not our land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, the MoD, the home of "this fighter, no THIS fighter, no THIS fighter", is accusing the SNP of having incoherent plans?

And to clarify again, the MoD, the people who bigged up troop numbers returning so loudly a year ago, and who trumpeted the extra 600 as a good thing, are now saying that this is in fact a BAD thing? WTF?

The MoD, where they have not a single calculator amongst them, where there hasn't been a single joined up strategy for defence of the relam since, f**k, maybe World War 2 at a push, but then they were hardly all that competent then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just know that in a few days/weeks/months, the same media and Unionists will be demanding facts and figures and accusing the Yes campaign of not presenting any facts. I genuinely struggle to see what more the Yes Campaign can do to get their message across. The Sun seems to be hovering towards neutral, but that is pretty much the only one. The BBC in particular is actively involved in trying to suppress information.

I don't know if you were one of them, but back when I was in a minority on here, I used to get mocked when I accused the BBC of being biased and having an agenda. And that was back when the BBC allowed SOME blog comments on their Scottish blogs.

Edited to add, maybe we could negotiate Northumbria in the independence settlement! After all, they seem to have redrawn our nautical boundaries, so why not our land?

It's going to get worse, but I think that's a good thing in the longrun. Assuming the Yes vote continues to strengthen, even slightly, it's going to be a matter of time until the smear tactics become counterproductive. For what it's worth, I doubt if the vote will be Yes, but it'll be close enough to make the status quo unsustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I doubt if the vote will be Yes, but it'll be close enough to make the status quo unsustainable.

That's close to how I think about it, though I still think the vote can be won.

What we should keep in mind is all the positive things that are being achieved simply through the debate itself. A lot of people are having their eyes opened who had them shut tight not too long ago.

It's now pretty much conceded by all thinking persons (though it took a lot of straining and grunting, and they'll pull any contortion necessary to avoid saying it publically) that Scotland could easily be a self-sustaining independent country. It has the money, more than enough of it. A year ago we were still getting told we would become a third-world country. The subsidy myth, which'll still be regularly trotted out, should now rankle with anybody who's looked at the facts, not just Nats.

Most unionists have already, albeit accidentally, conceded that the status quo is unfit for purpose. If it was fine as it is now then they wouldn't spend so much time bumping thur gums about Devo Max and further powers. It's now them who are arguing for further powers for Holyrood, and setting up working groups and committees to bring it about, even if they are only doing it out of abject fear of independence. That saves us a bit of work, and it also means that in reality the status quo is already gone.

Plenty of folk are starting to see through the BBC, including many non -Yes voters. That should've happened a long time ago, but it's a welcome change anyway, and what has been seen cannot be unseen.

The Union survives by not being examined or thought about in any detail. When people are made to look at it and think about what it is and whom it serves... it weakens it. Unavoidably. Same thing happens with the monarchy, or religion, or even Scientology (not that I'm comparing the Union to that, it's just an example).

Anyways, we were never ever meant to reach this point. And here we are.

BTW, the UK Government is refusing to release the latest version of the National Register of Assets. :lol:

Not sure whether it's to stop us calculating our share, or if they just don't want anyone to know how much public property they've already flogged off at bargain-bin prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the UK Government is refusing to release the latest version of the National Register of Assets. :lol:

Not sure whether it's to stop us calculating our share, or if they just don't want anyone to know how much public property they've already flogged off at bargain-bin prices.

I noticed that! :lol:

I wonder what spin will be put on that, or whether it will just be ignored completely. In the light of all of these things, I just don't understand how anyone can accuse the Yes campaign of not making information available and of not focusing on the issues. On every single issue, it is the No camp and the British government who are refusing to make facts available (see this, credit rating, EU membership, and many other things).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...