Scots Independence Referendum

[doulikefish]

Where's the contradiction?

the word bribe springs too mind

[Sudafed]

you should read a bit

Paid to Vote Yes? Year 1707, Act of Union The following men are listed as being paid for their vote by the English. The year 1707, why the vote, the “Act of Union” It seems politicians have not changed much in the last 300 years.

1 ~ Lord Anstruther, Sir William Anstruther was paid 300 pounds to vote “yes” on The Act of Union 1707. He voted yes. The 300 pounds received is today worth around 42,000 pounds.

2 ~ The Duke of Athol, James Murry was allegedly paid 1,000 pounds to vote yes for The Act of Union in 1707, but today’s listings show he voted “NO”.

3 ~ Earl of Balcarres – Cohn Lindsay is said to have been paid 500 pounds for his vote “yes” in 1707, vote on The Act of Union. This would be worth about 70,000 pounds in today’s money. He did vote yes.

4 ~ Lord Banff – George Ogilvy was paid to vote yes on The Act of the Union. He did vote yes.

5 ~ Mr. John Campbell was paid 200 pounds to vote yes. This amount today is worth about 30,000 pounds. He voted yes.

6 ~ Patrick Coultrain Provost of Wigton was paid 25 pounds. Roughly 4,000 pounds today to vote yes. Not sure of his vote.

7 ~ Lord Cesnock now Polwarth received 50 pounds, today this would be about 7,000 pounds. Not sure of his vote.

8 ~ The Earl of Cromarty – Sir George MacKenzie is said to have been paid 300 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He voted “yes”. The 300 pounds would be worth roughly 42,000 pounds today.

9 ~ Major Cunningham of Eckatt allegedly received 100 pounds, today worth around 14,000 pounds for his “yes” vote. Not sure of his vote, yes or no.

10 ~ The Earl of Dunmoor, William Murray is said to have been paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote “yes”. 200 pounds today is worth about 28,000 pounds.

11 ~ The Earl of Eglington, Alexander Seton Montgomerie is reputed to have been paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.

12 ~ The Lord Elibank, Alexander Murray is said to have been paid 50 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes. To that 50 pounds would be worth about 7500 pounds.

13 ~ The Earl of Findlator, James Ogilvy was supposed to have been paid 100 pounds or about 14,000 pounds in today’s money to vote yes on The Act of Union. He voted yes.

14 ~ Lord Forbes, William Forbes is reputed to have been paid 50 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.

15 ~ The Earl of Forfar, Archibald Douglas said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.

16 ~ Lord Fraser, Charles Fraser said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes. That 100 pounds would be worth about 14,000 pounds today.

17 ~ The Earl of Glencaird, William Cunningham is said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union, but it is shown he voted NO.

18 ~ Lord Preston Hall, reputedly paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote to The Act of Union. Not sure of his vote, but the 200 pounds would be worth about 28,000 pounds today.

19 ~ The Earl of Kintore, Sir John Keith was allegedly paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes.

20 ~ The Earl of Marchmont, Patrick Hume is said to have been paid 1,104 pounds for his “yes” vote. Today this would be around 154,000 pounds. He did vote yes to the union.

21 ~ Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, said to have been paid 100 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes for The Act of Union.

22 ~ The Duke of Montrose, James Graham, reputedly paid 200 pounds to vote yes on The Act of Union. He did vote yes.

23 ~ John Muir, Provost of Ayr, was to receive 100 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. He did vote yes.

24 ~` Lord Ormiston, John Cockburn, reputedly paid 200 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes.

25 ~ The Duke of Roxburgh, John Ker was said to have been paid 500 pounds for his “yes” vote on The Act of Union. This would be worth around 70,000 pounds today. He did vote yes.

26 ~ The Earl of Seafield, James Ogilvy, said to have been paid 490 pounds for his “yes” vote. He voted yes.

27 ~ Sir William Sharp, reportedly paid 300 pounds for a “yes” vote on The Act of Union. This would be worth about 42,000 pounds today. Not sure how he voted, but a John Sharp of Hoddam voted NO.

28 ~ Mr. Stewart of Castle Stewart, this was William Stewart, was to be paid 300 pounds for his “yes” vote. He did vote yes to the union. The 300 pounds is worth about 42,000 pounds in today’s money.

29 ~ Marquis of Tweedale, John Hay, reputedly paid 1,000 pounds for his “yes” vote to the Union. He did vote yes to The Act of Union. The 1,000 pounds would be worth about 140,000 pounds today.

30 ~ Mr. Alexander Wedderburn was to receive 75 pounds for his “yes” votes. Not sure if he voted yes or no. 75 pounds today would be worth around 11,000 pounds.

31 ~ The Duke of Queenberry, James Douglas, reportedly was to receive 12, 325 pounds. This would be worth about 2,000,000 pounds today.

"In a poorly attended Scottish parliament, a vote was taken to agree on the commissioners who would discuss and negotiate the union proposal. By April 1706 discussions began, and by July were finalised with little complication. The terms of the union were published and were greeted with roars of distrust and protest, but by then it was too late....Once the union was signed there was no way out and indeed in 1713 the issue of separate nations was raised but when put to the vote was outnumbered by the English votes, which were greater than the total number of Scottish votes in the House of Commons. So long as English MP's wanted the union the handful of Scottish votes could never break the deal."

[Ad Lib]

It wasn't. But it didn't help matters. A different fiscal policy in an independent Scotland may have delayed, alleviated or worsened matters. How the hell do you know?

Sure, it didn't help matters, but fiscal policy hasn't freed other countries from the burden of the banking collapse. What is to suggest that Scottish Fiscal policy would have been radically different?

But all these other countries are doomed if they have a population smaller than 60 million?

Don't be stupid. What I'm saying is that Britain is better equipped to deal with a major economic crisis than Scotland on its own.

Many, but not all. Lets hypothesise again. Lets say we had an independent Scotland, and have done for some time. Lets just say that we DID follow the exact same course of history, and somehow arrived in exactly the same place. Who came up with the financial solution? Gordon Brown! And which part of England is Gordon Brown from? So in a hypothetical scenario, the originator of the bail out plan is from Scotland, and if that solution wasn't possible, something else would have been attempted.

Ridiculous argument? Yes. Any more ridiculous than the argument of yourself and H_B? No.

Hypothesising is pointless. If Attilla the currant bun had raped and savaged all the world's communities, he would have a lot of kids and the world would be in anarchy. So what?

Scotland, if independent, would not have been immune from the banking troubles the world faces, almost regardless of how different their fiscal policy was (because it wouldn't have been more radical than any of the other banking intensive economies). There is not a wide scope of solutions to the problem, and it is highly unlikely that Scotland would have many options open to them to save their banks, and the most obvious one (which most are pursuing) would be nigh on impossible.

Okay, people like to use Iceland as a comparison. How about Norway? How are their banks doing?

There are considerable doubts as to whether Iceland can sustain the nationalisation of their Banks. There are questions as to whether they have the borrowing power or the resources to keep it up, doubts which are much less prevalent surrounding the UK deal.

Norway is not a Banking intensive country (as far as I'm aware). To this end, their economy would be less heavily hit by a banking collapse. Banking is arguably, by far, Scotland's biggest industry, and if it were to collapse, thousands of jobs would go, hundreds of Scottish companies would be chased by creditors as the clean-up operation ensued, and we'd have even more companies going to the wall.

[Ad Lib]

the word bribe springs too mind

How does that contradict the fact that it was ratified by the Scottish Parliament (hence there was a vote)?

It doesn't.

[xbl]

Hypothesising is pointless. If Attilla the currant bun had raped and savaged all the world's communities, he would have a lot of kids and the world would be in anarchy. So what?

I like the way you dismissed hypothesising, right in a middle of a post doing nothing but.

[Ad Lib]

I like the way you dismissed hypothesising, right in a middle of a post doing nothing but.

I meant to say Hypothesising about the past.

[vikingTON]

Hypothesising is pointless. If Attilla the currant bun had raped and savaged all the world's communities, he would have a lot of kids and the world would be in anarchy. So what?

He only had about 15,000 established warriors - realistic hypotheses only please.

[Ad Lib]

He only had about 15,000 established warriors - realistic hypotheses only please.

[Paco]

you should read a bit

Paid to Vote Yes? Year 1707, Act of Union The following men are listed as being paid for their vote by the English. The year 1707, why the vote, the "Act of Union" It seems politicians have not changed much in the last 300 years.

Blah blah... allegedly, supposedly, might have, mibbes ayes mibbes naw, blah blah

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? It happened three hundred years ago, and I doubt these people wrote down details of their bribes, seeing as they apparently didn't even keep records of who voted which way.

[roy]

are people aware that the ones that like to sit on the fence and not vote yes for scottish independence the danger that russia now that they have blown the airplane out the air could fast lane be there next target for the russians if this isn't a good another reason to get rid of the nuclear weapons vote yes to get rid of trident

[chomp my root]

are people aware that the ones that like to sit on the fence and not vote yes for scottish independence the danger that russia now that they have blown the airplane out the air could fast lane be there next target for the russians if this isn't a good another reason to get rid of the nuclear weapons vote yes to get rid of trident

You know it was a conventional surface to air missile that allegedly shot down the plane don't you ? Shameless and daft reason to push the YES argument.

[1320Lichtie]

Ad_Lib showing his real colours on here.

Doh

[Mr Bairn]

are people aware that the ones that like to sit on the fence and not vote yes for scottish independence the danger that russia now that they have blown the airplane out the air could fast lane be there next target for the russians if this isn't a good another reason to get rid of the nuclear weapons vote yes to get rid of trident

Getting rid or trident would actually be a strategically poor decision, you hippy cvnt. Do one.

[1320Lichtie]

Getting rid or trident would actually be a strategically poor decision, you hippy cvnt. Do one.

How would getting rid of a nuclear weapon that costs a fucking fortune be a poor decision, you're on the wind up with the hippy c**t pish defo

[Enigma]

How times change, eh?

[Mr Bairn]

How would getting rid of a nuclear weapon that costs a fucking fortune be a poor decision, you're on the wind up with the hippy c**t pish defo

Give it a rest I just really, really hate hippies and think that national security is always a price worth stumping up for.

[1320Lichtie]

Give it a rest I just really, really hate hippies and think that national security is always a price worth stumping up for.

Sound like Cartman in that 1st bit.

And do you really think that if anyone wanted to attack the UK that the submarine would stop them?

[forever_blue]

ah just what pie and bovril needed , an independence debate thread.....

[Mr Bairn]

Sound like Cartman in that 1st bit.

And do you really think that if anyone wanted to attack the UK that the submarine would stop them?

No but we could retaliate and kill them all

[Gordon EF]

Getting rid or trident would actually be a strategically poor decision, you hippy cvnt. Do one.

i'd usually disagree with that but since you used the word "strategically" I get the impression you're a really smart person so I'll agree with you.