K.T Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I just had a look at BBC news24 at work to see if there were any discussions or if they had highlighted any points from the white paper. To my dismay there is absolutely no mention of it at all! Considering they spoke of nothing but Thatcher for 2 weeks straight after she died I would have thought they could've at least had half a day covering this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 The White Paper answered no questions. Its not lived up to the hype. Well, actually, it did answer No questions by answering no questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcat1990 Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Has the white paper been published online anywhere in full. I want to vote Yes but I still need reassurances regarding currency and employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Because the paper has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and doesn't address the fundamental issues in any reasonable manner. The press conference merely highlighted the major flaws. Read it in an hour and a half when most people can't even seem to download it. Remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 The White Paper answered no questions. Its not lived up to the hype. Well, actually, it did answer No questions by answering no questions. You haven't read it you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Let's start with currency. 100% reliant on the UK accepting a currency union on Salmond's terms. No real acknowledgement of the risk involved and no alternative. That is one hell of a big hole. Could you point to the precise wording of the document that concerns you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 The last time a leading Scot promised us something and got the country into a frenzy and gave us all hope was Ally MacLeod in 1978. The rest is history. Shurely Tony Blair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Complete and utter bollocks. How so? Did Darling not say that? (He did). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Barry and the pundit reacting exactly as expected. A couple of shitebags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Div Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Has the white paper been published online anywhere in full. I want to vote Yes but I still need reassurances regarding currency and employment. You can download it from the pinned topic at the very top of the independence forum right here on P&B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 The Pundit. : lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Yes for me, time to have Scotlands future in Scotlands hands. Simple, as, that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groaninjock Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Only reason I'm here and willing to dip my toe into the debate on here now is that it's being divvied up into threads that can be followed, so won't as easily get lost in petty squabling. For the record, my general stance is "no is my starting point, but please convince me otherwise". As I believe everyone should be. If we're not substantially worse off, then it'll be a yes from me. It's beginning to look more and more like a yes from me. The reason I use the word substantially is that for me, it's firstly all about if it makes financial sense then secondly if it doesn't, but we're not substantially worse off, then I would take this as our best ever opportunity of government reform and that Scots deciding Scottish matters would be the best way forward. So, I'm still a no (I obviously haven't read the entire report), but I'm getting nearer a yes. Pretty much sums up my viewpoint. If the Yes campaign can explain to me how my family and I will be better, or not substantially worse, off in an independent Scotland, that would be a good start. But at the moment, my head is saying that the costs involved in separation are going to be astronomical, and that separation can only be funded through taxing the working population dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 the pundit reacting exactly as expected. A couple of shitebags. What did you expect me to say?.. "That's me a Yes voter now!"???? But your reaction to my reaction is exactly as expected. Are you able to debate anyone you don't agree with without attacking them? Very telling indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groaninjock Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 So Shutting Dungavel, scrapping Trident, protecting welfare, re-nationalising Royal Mail on the white paper today Over to you Westminster, what can you offer Scotland? That's another thing I don't get - surely any decisions to scrap trident, shut Dungavel, renationalise Royal Mail would be made by whichever party formed the first post-independence government. The way Salmond and Sturgeon talk - and I believe they are included in the white paper - these things are a foregone conclusion. So are they assuming that if Scotland votes yes, that they will automatically be voted in as the first government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Pretty much sums up my viewpoint. If the Yes campaign can explain to me how my family and I will be better, or not substantially worse, off in an independent Scotland, that would be a good start. But at the moment, my head is saying that the costs involved in separation are going to be astronomical, and that separation can only be funded through taxing the working population dry. What are the astronomical costs? Scotland generates more revenue proportionally than the UK. Take that revenue, spend it in the best interests of sustaining and growing Scotland, stop spending it on not particularly high-speed high-speed rail, WMDs and tax-cuts to the megarich. Can anyone explain to me how we would become worse-off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 What did you expect me to say?.. "That's me a Yes voter now!"???? But your reaction to my reaction is exactly as expected. Are you able to debate anyone you don't agree with without attacking them? Very telling indeed. To be fair youre at the wind up, how many times in that last thread have people tried to debate ( discuss matters and say pros and cons of each side ) with you and youve just replied shouting bully etc? You dont actually debate anything, you come on and have a go at everything people have to say and tell them they're wrong and then when your provided with back ups to what they say by them and you dont reply and they ask for your opinion you just start up with the bully cries again, absolute WUM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 What did you expect me to say?.. "That's me a Yes voter now!"???? But your reaction to my reaction is exactly as expected. Are you able to debate anyone you don't agree with without attacking them? Very telling indeed. It has been proven many times on the big thread that you don't do debating, many have tried. You are at deegas levels of credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groaninjock Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 What are the astronomical costs? Scotland generates more revenue proportionally than the UK. Take that revenue, spend it in the best interests of sustaining and growing Scotland, stop spending it on not particularly high-speed high-speed rail, WMDs and tax-cuts to the megarich. Can anyone explain to me how we would become worse-off? It's not the day-to-day running costs I mean, but the costs of setting up Scottish equivalents of: The UK Borders and Customs service, and Scottish passports The DVLA and Scottish driving licences The Post Office Inland Revenue A national broadcaster (not necessarily a requirement) Armed forces And the costs involved in brokering our shares of debt, oil, shared infrastructure and so on. Presumably all of that is going to require a small army of lawyers and experts on endless consultations. In tabloidese football speak - is there a massive 'warchest' to cover those costs, or are we going to see taxes rise to cover the costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggie_Murray7 Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Does the paper put forwards a suggestion for the union flag should Scotland say yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.