Hi there, Guest! Login Register


Poll: Do you agree Scotland should be an independent Country ?
Yes
No
Unsure
[Show Results]
 
Note: This is a public poll; other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Independence ? Aye or Naw ?
#61
(11-01-2013, 08:15 PM)StrathyStaggie Wrote: Using Kofi Annan's "logic", intervention in the Balkans was illegal. Oops.

Ultimately, with the evidence available at the time - alongside Resolution 1441 and the jus ad bellum principle of international law - it was entirely legal. Illegitimate maybe but not illegal.

Everyone Knows that "Resolution 1441" was a Joke.

After Dinner at Birkhall in Aberdeenshire Mid. February whilst the UN inspectors were still looking for "WoMD" a certain gentleman said " And what do you think of the War" I almost choked on my Port.

We knew there was none, but he was convinced that they were there, and still finds it hard to admit that a big Staggie was right.

Problem was certain people wanted war to test their latest weapons and finish the job that Dad had left unfinished.

We the people had no say but have had to pay the price
You can take the People out of the Highlands but not the Highlands out of the People
 
Reply
#62
(11-01-2013, 11:43 PM)Applecross Staggie Wrote:
(11-01-2013, 08:15 PM)StrathyStaggie Wrote: Using Kofi Annan's "logic", intervention in the Balkans was illegal. Oops.

Ultimately, with the evidence available at the time - alongside Resolution 1441 and the jus ad bellum principle of international law - it was entirely legal. Illegitimate maybe but not illegal.

Everyone Knows that "Resolution 1441" was a Joke.

After Dinner at Birkhall in Aberdeenshire Mid. February whilst the UN inspectors were still looking for "WoMD" a certain gentleman said " And what do you think of the War" I almost choked on my Port.

We knew there was none, but he was convinced that they were there, and still finds it hard to admit that a big Staggie was right.

Problem was certain people wanted war to test their latest weapons and finish the job that Dad had left unfinished.

We the people had no say but have had to pay the price

Everyone looking for votes declares themselves anti-war now, but to play devil's advocate here; who's to say Scotland wouldn't have got involved anyway? Did big, bad England lead us into war that every Scottish MP voted against?
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
#63
(11-02-2013, 08:27 AM)Spain Wrote:
(11-01-2013, 11:43 PM)Applecross Staggie Wrote: Everyone Knows that "Resolution 1441" was a Joke.

After Dinner at Birkhall in Aberdeenshire Mid. February whilst the UN inspectors were still looking for "WoMD" a certain gentleman said " And what do you think of the War" I almost choked on my Port.

We knew there was none, but he was convinced that they were there, and still finds it hard to admit that a big Staggie was right.

Problem was certain people wanted war to test their latest weapons and finish the job that Dad had left unfinished.

We the people had no say but have had to pay the price

Everyone looking for votes declares themselves anti-war now, but to play devil's advocate here; who's to say Scotland wouldn't have got involved anyway? Did big, bad England lead us into war that every Scottish MP voted against?

For someone who is siting on the fence you seem to be pretty much against independence, why not just come out and say it?
 
Reply
#64
(11-02-2013, 07:14 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: For someone who is siting on the fence you seem to be pretty much against independence, why not just come out and say it?

It's pretty standard that anyone that questions the "yes" stance is instantly adjudged to be against it, when it's not necessarily the case.

I'm not against independence at all. I do however disagree with stupid arguments being made the cornerstone of the campaign when they're largely irrelevant. Whether I like Salmond or Cameron or not, whether we wrongly went to war or not, the trident issue, they aren't really relevant to the final decision. The decision has to be based on a proper Scotland PLC business plan.

A country is essentially a business, where the residents are both the shareholders and the clients, and the government is the board of directors. Vote's by BoD's or Shareholder's should always be in favour of a status quo unless evidence and projections accurately predict benefit in change. It's really that simple. A fair and representative business plan that show why we'd be better off, or I'll stay a no, as everyone else should. It's naive to base a decision on anything else and the facts just simply aren't there yet to back up the decision.

As I've said however, I'm a "no" until convinced otherwise, as everyone should be. I love my country and I think of myself as Scottish as opposed to British, but I will never ever let that colour my decisions.

It's a shame I'm forced to be so defensive in what should be a serious debate.
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
#65
(11-02-2013, 09:14 PM)Spain Wrote: I'm not against independence at all. I do however disagree with stupid arguments being made the cornerstone of the campaign when they're largely irrelevant. Whether I like Salmond or Cameron or not, whether we wrongly went to war or not, the trident issue, they aren't really relevant to the final decision. The decision has to be based on a proper Scotland PLC business plan.

A country is essentially a business, where the residents are both the shareholders and the clients, and the government is the board of directors. Vote's by BoD's or Shareholder's should always be in favour of a status quo unless evidence and projections accurately predict benefit in change. It's really that simple. A fair and representative business plan that show why we'd be better off, or I'll stay a no, as everyone else should. It's naive to base a decision on anything else and the facts just simply aren't there yet to back up the decision.

As I've said however, I'm a "no" until convinced otherwise, as everyone should be. I love my country and I think of myself as Scottish as opposed to British, but I will never ever let that colour my decisions.

It's a shame I'm forced to be so defensive in what should be a serious debate.

Top post.
 
Reply
#66
Well said Spain, I'd have to agree - I'm a no until I see some hard business facts that prove we'd be better on our own. I too love my country and would always vote for a party that had it's best interests at heart, however, this is massive and we need real debate - simple as that!
Supporter Liaison Officer 

 
Reply
#67
(11-02-2013, 09:14 PM)Spain Wrote:
(11-02-2013, 07:14 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: For someone who is siting on the fence you seem to be pretty much against independence, why not just come out and say it?

It's pretty standard that anyone that questions the "yes" stance is instantly adjudged to be against it, when it's not necessarily the case.

I'm not against independence at all. I do however disagree with stupid arguments being made the cornerstone of the campaign when they're largely irrelevant. Whether I like Salmond or Cameron or not, whether we wrongly went to war or not, the trident issue, they aren't really relevant to the final decision. The decision has to be based on a proper Scotland PLC business plan.

A country is essentially a business, where the residents are both the shareholders and the clients, and the government is the board of directors. Vote's by BoD's or Shareholder's should always be in favour of a status quo unless evidence and projections accurately predict benefit in change. It's really that simple. A fair and representative business plan that show why we'd be better off, or I'll stay a no, as everyone else should. It's naive to base a decision on anything else and the facts just simply aren't there yet to back up the decision.

As I've said however, I'm a "no" until convinced otherwise, as everyone should be. I love my country and I think of myself as Scottish as opposed to British, but I will never ever let that colour my decisions.

It's a shame I'm forced to be so defensive in what should be a serious debate.

To be honest to say nuclear weapons, illegal wars etc is NOT relevant is kind of irresponsible, and if folk feel this is important in the country they live in then it is important to them. I am kind of glad you have been made to feel defensive Spain, as this is exactly how you have made many others on this thread (including myself) feel.

As it has also been pointed out before, if you think you are going to get a black and white economic report that will give the full facts you are living in a dream world. Do you honestly think both sides will agree a set of figures that we can all look at and say Aye or Naw??
 
Reply
#68
(11-03-2013, 12:58 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: To be honest to say nuclear weapons, illegal wars etc is NOT relevant is kind of irresponsible, and if folk feel this is important in the country they live in then it is important to them. I am kind of glad you have been made to feel defensive Spain, as this is exactly how you have made many others on this thread (including myself) feel.

As it has also been pointed out before, if you think you are going to get a black and white economic report that will give the full facts you are living in a dream world. Do you honestly think both sides will agree a set of figures that we can all look at and say Aye or Naw??

I've apparently made people defensive by raising serious concerns, whereas I'm made defensive by the unjust labelling of me as a unionist purely for my non-conformity with the nat's agenda. Being undecided appears to be a bit of a crime here, but thankfully I appear not to be alone at least.

Things like Trident are completely irrelevant. The SNP say they won't have them on Scottish soil, does a yes vote mean the SNP will be in power forever? Of course not. You're getting mixed up between the SNP's manifesto and the actual scenario of becoming independent. If we had been independent at the time of the Iraq invasion, and a "Scottish Labour" had been in government, can you guarantee they wouldn't have agreed with the "British Labour" and contributed our forces to the war? To base any decision on yes and no, on things that can't actually be decided by a yes and no vote, is the wholly irresponsible and naive method IMO.

This huge decision that will affect us all, has to be based purely on the real effects of the decision itself. In other words, this has to be almost entirely about the economics of the decision.

Which leads me nicely to your final point, as the "economic report" is actually due soon, so you're way off the mark here (the Yes Campaign have actually claimed the November report will cover most of it). Both sides don't have to agree on exact figures, but the report has to be clear and set out sound logic on what can, and can't be achieved. There is no one right answer, but it has to give a fair and representative picture of what could be achieved.

I urge you to do some research (not just reading Yes literature) and take this decision more seriously.
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
#69
(11-03-2013, 01:24 PM)Spain Wrote:
(11-03-2013, 12:58 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: To be honest to say nuclear weapons, illegal wars etc is NOT relevant is kind of irresponsible, and if folk feel this is important in the country they live in then it is important to them. I am kind of glad you have been made to feel defensive Spain, as this is exactly how you have made many others on this thread (including myself) feel.

As it has also been pointed out before, if you think you are going to get a black and white economic report that will give the full facts you are living in a dream world. Do you honestly think both sides will agree a set of figures that we can all look at and say Aye or Naw??

I've apparently made people defensive by raising serious concerns, whereas I'm made defensive by the unjust labelling of me as a unionist purely for my non-conformity with the nat's agenda. Being undecided appears to be a bit of a crime here, but thankfully I appear not to be alone at least.

Things like Trident are completely irrelevant. The SNP say they won't have them on Scottish soil, does a yes vote mean the SNP will be in power forever? Of course not. You're getting mixed up between the SNP's manifesto and the actual scenario of becoming independent. If we had been independent at the time of the Iraq invasion, and a "Scottish Labour" had been in government, can you guarantee they wouldn't have agreed with the "British Labour" and contributed our forces to the war? To base any decision on yes and no, on things that can't actually be decided by a yes and no vote, is the wholly irresponsible and naive method IMO.

This huge decision that will affect us all, has to be based purely on the real effects of the decision itself. In other words, this has to be almost entirely about the economics of the decision.

Which leads me nicely to your final point, as the "economic report" is actually due soon, so you're way off the mark here (the Yes Campaign have actually claimed the November report will cover most of it). Both sides don't have to agree on exact figures, but the report has to be clear and set out sound logic on what can, and can't be achieved. There is no one right answer, but it has to give a fair and representative picture of what could be achieved.

I urge you to do some research (not just reading Yes literature) and take this decision more seriously.

Look I get your point, my problem is you fail to recognise any point that anyone else makes, unless it is purely on economics or it is line with what you think.

Of course it is not a crime to sit on the fence, I tend to think you are not siting on the fence though, and would rather you were honest and just say you are against independence, which again is not a crime!

I am also well aware after independence the country can make it's own way on important decision and things will change. This is same every kind of election so to say this is not an important policy as it can change next time around is saying nothing really. People will vote for what they want in the immediate future with the policies that are put in front of them.

I honestly believe you are in a dream world if you honestly think there will be a magic report that will explain everything. Yes I am aware the report will come out (no idea why you keep missing obvious points), but say for example the argument for Yes get the figures spot on, this will instantly be rubbished by anyone that does not want to accept what is in it. Unfortunately that is the nature of politics which I am surprised you have not noticed, specially someone urging others to carry out research.
 
Reply
#70
(11-03-2013, 02:16 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: Look I get your point, my problem is you fail to recognise any point that anyone else makes, unless it is purely on economics or it is line with what you think.

Of course it is not a crime to sit on the fence, I tend to think you are not siting on the fence though, and would rather you were honest and just say you are against independence, which again is not a crime!

I am also well aware after independence the country can make it's own way on important decision and things will change. This is same every kind of election so to say this is not an important policy as it can change next time around is saying nothing really. People will vote for what they want in the immediate future with the policies that are put in front of them.

I honestly believe you are in a dream world if you honestly think there will be a magic report that will explain everything. Yes I am aware the report will come out (no idea why you keep missing obvious points), but say for example the argument for Yes get the figures spot on, this will instantly be rubbished by anyone that does not want to accept what is in it. Unfortunately that is the nature of politics which I am surprised you have not noticed, specially someone urging others to carry out research.

You're obviously not getting my point though. The bit I've highlighted is the most important/concerning thing in all of this, this isn't just like another election. You can always vote for someone else in 4 years time in an election, you can't rejoin the union in 4 years time if you change your mind. This is not an election or anything like it.

The second bit I've highlighted I take as you suggesting I would be swayed by whatever nonsense the No Campaign spouts in reply to the report. You're sadly mistaken there. I make my own mind up, which is why I have taken such an exception to both camps, and specifically your criticism of me.

Listen, I understand there will be some people out there that will have made up their mind regardless of what information has been put in front of them, but if you're going to argue, then at least argue the relevant points.

I'm not arguing with everything anyone on the yes side states, I happily admitted that Reluctant Hero posted a decent reply in favour. He's the only one that's really tried to post a reasoned debate "for". My only gripe with it was my concern over the financial sustainability of the renewables industry (seeing as it's so heavily subsidised). SoE tried to argue for, and failed due to his lack of understanding. I never picked that apart, another well informed, well educated poster, who knew far more on the subject did that instead. And as far as I'm aware, he too is on the fence.

Try not to take it too personally. You don't have to know all the answers now. Again, I urge you to wait for the facts, then make up your mind. At the moment, everyone's very much "shooting from the hip" while "pissing in the dark", so to speak.

Edit: The reason I haven't argued against the "no" voters yet, is that no-one has posted in favour of a no. If they did, I'd try to argue them back to the middle ground too.
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
#71
Again you have missed my point. You said about nuclear weapons and such like: "You're getting mixed up between the SNP's manifesto and the actual scenario of becoming independent" which I replied too. I said nothing about changing minds in the future and going back into the union!!!! To be honest I get completely lost with your posts, i.e. you say one thing and when pinned down go off in a completely different direction.

As for the viability of Renewable energy. Can you tell me the real cost of Nuclear, i.e. how much as been spent on R&D so far, subsidies, and how much will need to be spent in the future to deal with the waste/clean up? I think if these answers were known or properly estimated and released, then Renewables would look a whole lot more attractive. It is worrying that Westminster are going down the nuclear route again, just as they did in the 80's when we had a chance to be at the forefront of marine renewables with all home grown technologies and expertise.

Anyway, certainly not taking this personally, don't worry about that!.
 
Reply
#72
(11-03-2013, 04:12 PM)Spain Wrote: Edit: The reason I haven't argued against the "no" voters yet, is that no-one has posted in favour of a no. If they did, I'd try to argue them back to the middle ground too.

Do you not think this speaks volumes? The Yes campaign has a tens of arguments while the No vote has nothing ?

The country is basically a business? I have never heard so much tory spew in my life. Business is supply and demand... Government is management and mismanagement is the single biggest reason I'm voting Yes.
Highlander29
 
Reply
#73
Wish someone from the "No camp" can explain why there will be no proper and open inquiry into the Falkirk Labour party, Vote rigging.

A. Darling leader of the "No Campaign" wants one.
What's her Name leader of "Scottish" labour wants one.
Secretary of the local party wants one.
Local members want one.

But London head office says no.
Ed Miliband leader of the "British"says no

Very strange that, what all the Labour people in Scotland want, is denied them by others in London who know better.

That's why I will not vote No, sit on the fence Too Many Barbs.
You can take the People out of the Highlands but not the Highlands out of the People
 
Reply
#74
(11-05-2013, 02:27 PM)Applecross Staggie Wrote: Wish someone from the "No camp" can explain why there will be no proper and open inquiry into the Falkirk Labour party, Vote rigging.

A. Darling leader of the "No Campaign" wants one.
What's her Name leader of "Scottish" labour wants one.
Secretary of the local party wants one.
Local members want one.

But London head office says no.
Ed Miliband leader of the "British"says no

Very strange that, what all the Labour people in Scotland want, is denied them by others in London who know better.

That's why I will not vote No, sit on the fence Too Many Barbs.

None of that would change in light of a yes vote, though.
 
Reply
#75
(11-05-2013, 02:27 PM)Applecross Staggie Wrote: Wish someone from the "No camp" can explain why there will be no proper and open inquiry into the Falkirk Labour party, Vote rigging.

A. Darling leader of the "No Campaign" wants one.
What's her Name leader of "Scottish" labour wants one.
Secretary of the local party wants one.
Local members want one.

But London head office says no.
Ed Miliband leader of the "British"says no

Very strange that, what all the Labour people in Scotland want, is denied them by others in London who know better.

That's why I will not vote No, sit on the fence Too Many Barbs.

I'm not sure how closely Labour in Scotland actually want it all scrutinised - they are rotten, corrupt, and in this up to their necks. Eric Joyce, actually making sense for a change, described them as the "Scottish Unite Party".
 
Reply
#76
(11-02-2013, 09:14 PM)Spain Wrote: The decision has to be based on a proper Scotland PLC business plan.

A country is essentially a business, where the residents are both the shareholders and the clients, and the government is the board of directors. Vote's by BoD's or Shareholder's should always be in favour of a status quo unless evidence and projections accurately predict benefit in change. It's really that simple. A fair and representative business plan that show why we'd be better off, or I'll stay a no, as everyone else should. It's naive to base a decision on anything else and the facts just simply aren't there yet to back up the decision.

So let's just say England is Asda and Scotland is Morrisons. The two organisations have been locked together for 300 years but act as two subsiduaries in the same company. However the decisions taken by the company apply to both subsiduaries.

This is clearly sub-optimal because each subsiduary needs different strategies to maximise their potential.

Asda is at the cheaper end of the market and needs a pricing structure and strategies that appeals to people who are going to continue to buy their cheap goods.

Morrisons (Scotland!) on the other hand, is at the higher quality end of the market and their customers (Scottish electorate) place greater emphasis on quality (quality of life etc) than mere price.

Therefore different decisions have to be taken to get the best out of Morrisons and Asda. This is best done by treating them as separate companies.

Life is in no way certain. Therefore we are never going to know the facts for certain. Therefore we need to set ourselves up to give us the best chance of getting a good outcome to circumstances that come our way. The above example shows that we would be better situated if we were in control of the decisions we take and we only had to worry about the interests of our "company".
 
Reply
#77
(11-09-2013, 01:50 AM)ReluctantHero Wrote: Life is in no way certain. Therefore we are never going to know the facts for certain.

This is why those who demand detailed answers from the Yes camp should also be asking the same questions of the No camp. There's no certainty offered by a No vote either, and who knows what the "status quo" will evolve into - the only thing that is certain is that it won't stay the same. It already looks like the best way to keep Scotland in the EU, for example, would be to vote for independence. A couple of years ago, that wasn't apparent.
 
Reply
#78
Wind farms? The proliferation of them is ridiculous. The new energy boom for Scotland? Read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/s...-farm.html
WDDDWWWWWWWWWDDDWDDDWWWWDWWDWD
CHAMPS
WWDWWDDDWDD
40 UNBEATEN
 
Reply
#79
(11-09-2013, 06:57 PM)Ed Wrote: Wind farms? The proliferation of them is ridiculous. The new energy boom for Scotland? Read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/s...-farm.html

I know nature lovers and folk who like a bonnie view hate wind farms. I thought they were limited also but just over a month ago the entire North of Scotland ran on wind farms alone for 6 hours before the turbines were brought back in.

This (As an electrician) completely lifted the lid on the wind energy arguement for me.

Beware Ed as I know your not daft, some press have an agenda. Let the facts speak, the industry is in its infancy and will only grow more efficient with spending and development backed by a strong government. 6 hours running the north of Scotland is impressive for this early stage.
Highlander29
 
Reply
#80
What does this boil down to now? Vote No and red Clydeside keeps it's jobs, Vote Yes and red Clydeside will lose it's jobs!! How mature of the Current UK government and the Labour party who want us to vote No!!
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)