Another Belter From The Religion Of...
News1 min ago
The Gloves Are Well And Truly Off
66 Answers
http://
So Salmond wants to walk away without Scotlands share of the debt. Allow him to do so I say, in return there are not ties whatsoever with Scotland, Scottish in the UK will need a visa and borders will be locked down tight. To be honest I believe it is the best way for both countries.
The vote is so close that even if the Yes vote wins, the No will not go away which will be disastrous for Scotland and the UK as a whole.
All Scottish, please vote Yes to Independence and lets thrash out the separation asap so we can all get on with our lives for the better.
The ICM/Guardian exit poll had a thumping win for the First Minister so here's hoping the Scottish do see sense and leave the UK.
So Salmond wants to walk away without Scotlands share of the debt. Allow him to do so I say, in return there are not ties whatsoever with Scotland, Scottish in the UK will need a visa and borders will be locked down tight. To be honest I believe it is the best way for both countries.
The vote is so close that even if the Yes vote wins, the No will not go away which will be disastrous for Scotland and the UK as a whole.
All Scottish, please vote Yes to Independence and lets thrash out the separation asap so we can all get on with our lives for the better.
The ICM/Guardian exit poll had a thumping win for the First Minister so here's hoping the Scottish do see sense and leave the UK.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, I'm with you, youngmaf.
As I've said in response to earlier questions, an immediate break, no need for Scots to vote in the 2015 General Election, no use of the pound for them (well, at least no input to its value and no backing from the Bank of England - if they want to buy English fivers and tenners, fine, face value +10%), border controls with immediate effect, EU membership rescinded with immediate effect, Etc. A complete and immediate break with no faffing about with "transitional arrangements" (for which read money from England flowing to Scotland).
The trouble is, none of that will happen even if they vote "Yes" and the faffing about will endure for a decade and for much of that time the Scots will still be sending MPs to Westminster who will still be voting on matters that concern only England.
As I've said in response to earlier questions, an immediate break, no need for Scots to vote in the 2015 General Election, no use of the pound for them (well, at least no input to its value and no backing from the Bank of England - if they want to buy English fivers and tenners, fine, face value +10%), border controls with immediate effect, EU membership rescinded with immediate effect, Etc. A complete and immediate break with no faffing about with "transitional arrangements" (for which read money from England flowing to Scotland).
The trouble is, none of that will happen even if they vote "Yes" and the faffing about will endure for a decade and for much of that time the Scots will still be sending MPs to Westminster who will still be voting on matters that concern only England.
For pity's sake, a so-called 'quickie' divorce - clearly between just two people - generally takes four to six months to arrange, even if the pair are utterly at one as regards how money, property, family etc will be allocated.
Yet, here we have the idiotic notion that two entire 'countries', in effect, can achieve the same happy ending overnight!
Given that there is manifestly no way that can be achieved, it is equally manifest that there can be no conceivable grounds for disenfranchising the residents of Scotland at the 2015 general election. Why? Well, because, until the separation is concluded, these people will be legislated for by the Westminster parliament.
On the basis of "No legislation without representation" - a similar motto worked for the rebels in the United States - the Scottish people would have a perfect right to have nothing to do with any laws Westminster produced during the interim period.
As for "immediate border controls", Westminster doesn't even have any border controls against Bulgarians, Poles or any other European nation right now!
Let's never forget, either, that there is a group of 26 Englishmen who vote on matters affecting Scotland at present...the Anglican bishops; that's nearly half the number of Scotland's MPs who supposedly affect votes affecting England. Sauce for the goose and so on, eh?
Yet, here we have the idiotic notion that two entire 'countries', in effect, can achieve the same happy ending overnight!
Given that there is manifestly no way that can be achieved, it is equally manifest that there can be no conceivable grounds for disenfranchising the residents of Scotland at the 2015 general election. Why? Well, because, until the separation is concluded, these people will be legislated for by the Westminster parliament.
On the basis of "No legislation without representation" - a similar motto worked for the rebels in the United States - the Scottish people would have a perfect right to have nothing to do with any laws Westminster produced during the interim period.
As for "immediate border controls", Westminster doesn't even have any border controls against Bulgarians, Poles or any other European nation right now!
Let's never forget, either, that there is a group of 26 Englishmen who vote on matters affecting Scotland at present...the Anglican bishops; that's nearly half the number of Scotland's MPs who supposedly affect votes affecting England. Sauce for the goose and so on, eh?
1. The Polls have the 'No' vote miles ahead. A least 12 points difference.
2. If they did vote "Yes' the separation would take years.
3. The ROTUK will be weaker without Scotland.
4. Very generous of you to absolve them of their part of the National Debt, but it would be a very bad deal for ROTUK.
5. I am wondering if your enthusiasm for Independence is at all influenced by the consequent loss of Labour seats at Westminster and a guaranteed permanant Tory Government that would result?
2. If they did vote "Yes' the separation would take years.
3. The ROTUK will be weaker without Scotland.
4. Very generous of you to absolve them of their part of the National Debt, but it would be a very bad deal for ROTUK.
5. I am wondering if your enthusiasm for Independence is at all influenced by the consequent loss of Labour seats at Westminster and a guaranteed permanant Tory Government that would result?
I'm glad Canary asked that question. As Clarkson is fond of saying: -
"I've been looking on the internet and I found this…"
http://
Such gems as
--
Q: Has the taxpayer been sufficiently paid for providing the support?
The income generated by fees and interest is less than would be expected from a normal market investment and has not compensated the taxpayer for the degree of risk accepted by taxpayers in providing the support. Once the opportunity cost and risks are factored in, the schemes have represented a transfer of at least £5 billion from taxpayers to the financial sector. This does not include the cost of holding the shares which have not paid a dividend or seen a capital gain. Further details are set out in Figure 8 of the C&AG’s Report on HM Treasury’s 2012-13 Resource Accounts.
--
A snip at £83.33 each, versus the "inconceivable" costs of letting the affected banks go down the pan, taking chunks of the financial sector with them.
I regard the business world as a sort of ecosystem. The collapse of a mighty tree makes space for many saplings. Likewise with a major bank and the competition between the startups is good for customer choice. Personally, provided customer deposits were guaranteed, I'd have been happier to see the collapse play out and shock the surviving banks into underpinning themselves more securely.
"I've been looking on the internet and I found this…"
http://
Such gems as
--
Q: Has the taxpayer been sufficiently paid for providing the support?
The income generated by fees and interest is less than would be expected from a normal market investment and has not compensated the taxpayer for the degree of risk accepted by taxpayers in providing the support. Once the opportunity cost and risks are factored in, the schemes have represented a transfer of at least £5 billion from taxpayers to the financial sector. This does not include the cost of holding the shares which have not paid a dividend or seen a capital gain. Further details are set out in Figure 8 of the C&AG’s Report on HM Treasury’s 2012-13 Resource Accounts.
--
A snip at £83.33 each, versus the "inconceivable" costs of letting the affected banks go down the pan, taking chunks of the financial sector with them.
I regard the business world as a sort of ecosystem. The collapse of a mighty tree makes space for many saplings. Likewise with a major bank and the competition between the startups is good for customer choice. Personally, provided customer deposits were guaranteed, I'd have been happier to see the collapse play out and shock the surviving banks into underpinning themselves more securely.
@Gromit
re hypothetical perpetual Tory government:
Maybe this is our cue to review electoral boundaries? If constituencies were shaped so as to balance the town versus country populations and make typical winning majorities small, that would incentivise good voter turnout - no more "sure thing" seats.
re hypothetical perpetual Tory government:
Maybe this is our cue to review electoral boundaries? If constituencies were shaped so as to balance the town versus country populations and make typical winning majorities small, that would incentivise good voter turnout - no more "sure thing" seats.
The thing is, in all seriousness the border is an issue. An independent Scotland would not be in the EU, they'd have to apply and it's by no means certain they'd get in straight away. In the interim there would be an unguarded border to the EU. We and the EU would have to consider that. However all this is probably acedemic as the No vote seems to be winning easily. I just hope we can get this distraction out of the way and get on with it but I have a terrible feeling they'll do an EU and keep having a referendum until they brow beat the correct answer out of Scotland.
Many many other countries manage it, dont be so defeatist.
Will they be fast-tracked into EU, yes maybe but hopefully just as we leave it!
No, my desire to see a separate Scotland has not got anything to do with the Tory/labour seats, it is purely long term financial. As has been shown by many on AB this the seat thing is something of a fallacy when it comes to the winner.
Will they be fast-tracked into EU, yes maybe but hopefully just as we leave it!
No, my desire to see a separate Scotland has not got anything to do with the Tory/labour seats, it is purely long term financial. As has been shown by many on AB this the seat thing is something of a fallacy when it comes to the winner.
@Tora
some wag referred to that state of affairs as "having a Neverendum"
:-D
//
Not sure how Salmond thinks he can just walk away from their share of the national debt, odd one that.
//
UKPLC still owns 83% of 'his' bank. So he's not getting that back (if we ever get to sell the shares off at a profit...). So stuff him.
some wag referred to that state of affairs as "having a Neverendum"
:-D
//
Not sure how Salmond thinks he can just walk away from their share of the national debt, odd one that.
//
UKPLC still owns 83% of 'his' bank. So he's not getting that back (if we ever get to sell the shares off at a profit...). So stuff him.
Salmond is an evil, dangerous little man and he has plenty gullible followers. I am Scottish and this referendum could be disastrous for the ENTIRE UK. If Fat Eck wants independence then he must accept TOTAL independence and ALL that entails. No cherry picking the bits he wants to have and the bits to leave out. He is a self centred politician (aren't they all?).Time we had some totally UNBIASED views from the rest of the world' leaders and economists. The oil ain't gonna last forever Eck!. Give it a decade or so and it will all be gone. Then what eh? I hope all my fellow Scots and other voters living in Scotland will vote a resounding NOOOOO. You'll never be forgiven if it's a bigoted, ignorant yes vote.
TTT, if members of a 'union' have to allocate shares of joint debts, then they must also allocate shares of joint assets. The Bank of England, for example - first mooted by a Scotsman! - is such a joint asset, it is not something which only the Rump of the UK 'owns'. As Alex Salmond says, "It's our pound, too!"
You've spoken before about the Scottish electorate amounting to only 8% of the population of the UK...OK, in the event of a 'Yes' vote, they should obviously take 8% of whatever's in the BoE vaults. I should think the tower housing Big Ben would be around 8% of the Palace of Westminster, the British parliament building, so that should perhaps be moved to Edinburgh. There are lots of such jointly-owned assets.
You've spoken before about the Scottish electorate amounting to only 8% of the population of the UK...OK, in the event of a 'Yes' vote, they should obviously take 8% of whatever's in the BoE vaults. I should think the tower housing Big Ben would be around 8% of the Palace of Westminster, the British parliament building, so that should perhaps be moved to Edinburgh. There are lots of such jointly-owned assets.
Latest Posts
So South Kora Goes To The Dogs...?
News3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.