Jump to content

Scottish Independence Referendum 2


Henry

Should Scotland be an independent country?  

273 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Scotland be an independent country?

    • Yes
      197
    • No
      76


Recommended Posts


And this years Oscar for the best child actor goes to.....

 

Greece is in the EU and as a result of their failure to follow European fiscal policy the people are reduced to scranning the bins in order to eat. President Macron of France on the other hand has just run a coach and horses through EU economic policy and no action is taken against the Frogs whatsoever. The lesson being that if Scotland joins the EU any idea we have of running an independent economic policy will be crushed like a cockroach under a jackboot. I totally agree with the majority of members on here that Scotland is more than capable of fighting our corner in the world, but for fuck sake it just does not make sense to leave one unfair political union only to throw ourselves on the mercy of another. If we don't have the balls to take control of our own destiny in the big bad world we deserve all we get.

I'm confused Old Manny.

 

You say you voted No last time. Yet the best chance of leaving the EU, which you seem to hate so much, was by voting Yes. How come?

 

It seems, to me at least, that this EU stuff is just something you're saying to justify staying in the unequal union Scotland is in as part of the UK. If the EU wasn't in the equation, you'd merely come up with something else.

Link to comment

Not agreeing with Clydeside, but my bullshit detector is going off.

 

The whole process takes 2 to 5 years yes, but post-pubescent refers to the period after the onset of puberty (10 to 16 depending on when puberty starts).  The period after that is a young adult and then adult.

Pretty much every reference ever made in literature, or indeed medicine has an upper limit of 15 or so.  Only a spazzy would call a 17-year-old a post-pubescent teenager.

 

The Kafflicks like their child molesting (which is different from and in many ways worse than paedophilia) but to suggest that post-pubescent refers to people over the age of 16 is nonsense.

 

edit....this does not mean I am suggesting that fucking kids between the age of 10 and 16 is acceptable..

 

The reference I read stated post-pubescence as being the period after puberty. CS was trying to conflate the terms post-pubescent and sexually mature, and taking your point on post-pubescent meaning the period after the onset of puberty, that does not equal sexually mature.

 

To be honest it doesn't really matter and this arguing about definitions is exactly the tactic that Catholics use to deflect from the abuse of children. I've been pretty careful not to call it paedophilia and refer to it as child abuse for this reason. CS wants this to be about homosexuals touching kids because gays are obviously perverts, as opposed to his church having a policy of protecting child rapists.

Link to comment

Makes more sense than the pish old manny is spouting. Greeks were work shy lazy cunts who never paid taxes and retired at about 55 on generous pensions. The EU was dumb as fuck lending them heaps of cash but they made no effort to invest it properly. They got what they deserved. Feel sorry for some of the general populace but most were tax dodging cunts.

 

Plenty small countries get on just fine with the EU....

 

 

Racist

Link to comment

I'm confused Old Manny.

 

You say you voted No last time. Yet the best chance of leaving the EU, which you seem to hate so much, was by voting Yes. How come?

 

It seems, to me at least, that this EU stuff is just something you're saying to justify staying in the unequal union Scotland is in as part of the UK. If the EU wasn't in the equation, you'd merely come up with something else.

No, I voted for independence last time round Parkie, but like most people I got a huge wake up call when the oil price dived from roughly a hundred quid a barrel to around thirty. That is why I think Sturgeon must do three things in order to win over the Scottish people. Firstly, she must take oil revenues out of the equation when calculating the Scottish GDP as there is too much volatility in the oil market to forecast profits with any certainty. That way any future revenue generated is a bonus. Secondly, she must not bind us to the EU's fiscal and political policy, but instead make the best deal she can where trade can carry on unhindered and we are allowed to open up our markets to the rest of the world. Surely that is not beyond the wit of Holyrood. Finally, she must spell out the risks as well as the opportunities to the electorate of going our own way and cost her plans as accurately as is humanly possible in the circumstances. For a nation whose people invented everything that has been worth inventing in the world the challenge of real independence is one we can rise to. 

Link to comment

 

 

What a mindset you have, to suggest that having tangible global influence and power is nothing special. FFS.

 

 

What good does the UK having military power and political influence abroad do for the average Scot? It's nothing but vanity. I'd rather we got the governments we voted for rather than the governments the English voted for. You sound like an old school 'Queen and Country' type imperialist.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment

No, I voted for independence last time round Parkie, but like most people I got a huge wake up call when the oil price dived from roughly a hundred quid a barrel to around thirty. That is why I think Sturgeon must do three things in order to win over the Scottish people. Firstly, she must take oil revenues out of the equation when calculating the Scottish GDP as there is too much volatility in the oil market to forecast profits with any certainty. That way any future revenue generated is a bonus. Secondly, she must not bind us to the EU's fiscal and political policy, but instead make the best deal she can where trade can carry on unhindered and we are allowed to open up our markets to the rest of the world. Surely that is not beyond the wit of Holyrood. Finally, she must spell out the risks as well as the opportunities to the electorate of going our own way and cost her plans as accurately as is humanly possible in the circumstances. For a nation whose people invented everything that has been worth inventing in the world the challenge of real independence is one we can rise to. 

 

So what things go up and down

 

That is just an excuse and everyone on here knows it as the oil price still dropped whether we were part of the uk or not (next you will be sprouting the uk broad shoulders crap)

Also what are all the other independent countries that don't have oil doing

 

So let us get this straight you voted for independence but because the price of oil went down you have changed your mind

did you not know oil was volatile? how would you vote now as oil is very high again?

Link to comment

So what things go up and down

 

That is just an excuse and everyone on here knows it as the oil price still dropped whether we were part of the uk or not (next you will be sprouting the uk broad shoulders crap)

Also what are all the other independent countries that don't have oil doing

 

So let us get this straight you voted for independence but because the price of oil went down you have changed your mind

did you not know oil was volatile? how would you vote now as oil is very high again?

Wouldn't call $52.29 a barrel (today's price) very high compared with the $100 dollar mark it was in June 2014. Even you can't deny a huge part of the SNP's drive for independence was calculated on the high price of oil, but we don't hear them talking about it so much now. That is why any future campaign should concentrate on our manufactures, food and drink industry, wind and wave technology and tourism. I don't see anything controversial in that. Please stop speculating on what I will say in future as that is a futile exercise and usually way off the mark. Now toddle off back to your Wings over Scotland website like a good little fellow.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment

Wouldn't call $52.29 a barrel (today's price) very high compared with the $100 dollar mark it was in June 2014. Even you can't deny a huge part of the SNP's drive for independence was calculated on the high price of oil, but we don't hear them talking about it so much now. That is why any future campaign should concentrate on our manufactures, food and drink industry, wind and wave technology and tourism. I don't see anything controversial in that. Please stop speculating on what I will say in future as that is a futile exercise and usually way off the mark. Now toddle off back to your Wings over Scotland website like a good little fellow.

 

Yes the price of oil has went down but it has went down under the Union and anyway 100% of $52.29 is way better than zero % of $100

so presumably based on this you wont be voting for the union

 

 

There we have it old mannie based his independence vote on the price of a volatile commodity what a zoomer

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Yes the price of oil has went down but it has went down under the Union and anyway 100% of $52.29 is way better than zero % of $100

so presumably based on this you wont be voting for the union

 

 

There we have it old mannie based his independence vote on the price of a volatile commodity what a zoomer

:)

 

A zoomer who knows that we only can collect the tax on a barrel of oil and not 100% of its value as you have stated wrongly. The companies who extract the oil and their shareholders would not take kindly to that I wouldn't imagine. Your nae affa bright are you?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment

:)

 

A zoomer who knows that we only can collect the tax on a barrel of oil and not 100% of its value as you have stated wrongly. The companies who extract the oil and their shareholders would not take kindly to that I wouldn't imagine. Your nae affa bright are you?

you know fine i meant 100% of the tax rate but as you have no other argument i suppose you did your best.

Link to comment

Yes the price of oil has went down but it has went down under the Union and anyway 100% of $52.29 is way better than zero % of $100

so presumably based on this you wont be voting for the union

 

 

There we have it old mannie based his independence vote on the price of a volatile commodity what a zoomer

Correct it a volatile commodity, so why base a massive part of your campaign on the revenue from it?

Link to comment

Correct it a volatile commodity, so why base a massive part of your campaign on the revenue from it?

 

No idea you might want to ask a member of the SNP but looks like a mistake to me?

I would just go with what other countries have gone with ie we want to be independent and work out the finances later

 

no other country that has gone independent has had to cost every penny this is just another unionist excuse to use to belittle and campaign for indy

Link to comment

No, I voted for independence last time round Parkie, but like most people I got a huge wake up call when the oil price dived from roughly a hundred quid a barrel to around thirty. That is why I think Sturgeon must do three things in order to win over the Scottish people. Firstly, she must take oil revenues out of the equation when calculating the Scottish GDP as there is too much volatility in the oil market to forecast profits with any certainty. That way any future revenue generated is a bonus. Secondly, she must not bind us to the EU's fiscal and political policy, but instead make the best deal she can where trade can carry on unhindered and we are allowed to open up our markets to the rest of the world. Surely that is not beyond the wit of Holyrood. Finally, she must spell out the risks as well as the opportunities to the electorate of going our own way and cost her plans as accurately as is humanly possible in the circumstances. For a nation whose people invented everything that has been worth inventing in the world the challenge of real independence is one we can rise to.

You’d have to be a moron to disagree with that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

What about a belief in self determination?

 

You’ve no ambition for young Mario then

 

I get the self determination argument but it doesn't add up to still wanting to stay in the EU, why want to leave our biggest trading partner but stay in the EU, it just doesn't make any sense, it should be independence or stay in the Union. It's such a fucked up debate, the nats want to be a free Country but still be ruled from Brussels, so weird.

 

Devolution has been an expensive mistake imo, nothing is better, just another layer of leeches to feed from the tax payer. Let's go for independence but with the union, be free of the EU shackles.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment

Was oil that big of a factor for the Yes campaign? I don’t think so, it was just used as the cherry on top, and not everything hanging on it like some people are making out.

 

Anyhow, Scotland could survive comfortably on food & drink exports and tourism alone.

 

It was always treated as a bonus and not the basis for an independent Scotland's economy.  That won't stop fuds continually trotting out the "oil is runnin oot" shite though.

Link to comment

Yes the price of oil has went down but it has went down under the Union and anyway 100% of $52.29 is way better than zero % of $100

so presumably based on this you wont be voting for the union

 

 

There we have it old mannie based his independence vote on the price of a volatile commodity what a zoomer

 

 

Oil companies extracting it for free in an independent Scotland like?  That's nice of them.

 

 

Cheek to call others a zoomer

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment

Hahaha

I THINK I want independence but with the income tax disparity I'm not so sure

To fucking say "let's go independent and work out if we can afford it later" is fucking lunacy

But there is no doubt that we can afford it. That is not up for debate, even David Cameron conceded that point.

 

The debate centred around whether we would be better or worse off. The point I guess is that many would be happy at the possibility of being a bit worse off in return for being in control.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment

As a Scot married to an Irishwoman and living in Ireland, I just want to clarify a few things, regarding the Irish comparisons some have alluded to;

 

Yes, it is true that Ireland (particularly Dublin) is, like for like, much more expensive to live in. However, wages are massive there compared to most of the UK, save the SE bubble. By way of comparison, I'll use the example of skilled workers; an Electrician or Plumber may earn £15-18 an hour in an average part of the UK. In Eire, neither trade gets out of bed for less than 30 Euros (approx. £27) an hour.

 

Some (particularly Britnats and Huns in Bigotsville in the North) point to the fact they don't have NHS and have to pay for health insurance and GP visits, but taxes are competitive (VAT has two rates for labour and goods, set at 13.5% and 22%) which, in addition to low corporate tax attracting inward investment, helps businesses across the board.

 

All in all, Eire has, despite its many flaws, thrived as a result of independence and I know of no Irish person (Bob Geldof is a Belgian Jew and caviar Communist scumbag, so doesn't count) who would ever ask to go back to Westminster rule. Ever.

 

I also point out that if the Irish comparison must be made, you should factor the contrast with the North - at partition just under a century ago, six of the nine counties of Ulster that became Northern Ireland were the industrial heartlands of the island and a significant manufacturing and textiles powerhouse (Belfast built the Titanic and Olympia and was known as Linenopolis). The Republic had beer and biscuits (Jacobs and Guinness) and an agricultural sector that lagged behind the North.

 

For decades now, the shoe has been on the other foot and since the Republic threw off the tyranny of the corrupt church, has long since left behind a North that is, along with Wales, the poorest state in Northern Europe.

 

So, I'd have to say, while Unionists like to cherry pick the Irish question to make a case for the Union, it is actually a DREADFUL example to cite, as it highlights not only the benefits of Dublin home rule, it highlights the fact two of the UK's four members are the poorest States in Northern Europe and with no realistic possibility of that improving under London rule

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...