Furthermore anyone calling silly buggers, yet supporting Salmond is effectively Liverpool.
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Salmond might actually win something mind.
Na, bit of a slip today... Doesn't have the experience.
It'll make for a cracking DVD though... "almost independence day"
I think would be better give London independence, leaving the rest of us to from a new country.
Edit, and Leeds, London and Leeds
Edit, and Leeds, London and Leeds
London and a corridor up the A40 to Oxford and swells out to include Cheltenham and The Cotswolds. The rest of you lot can do one.
I love how everyone has a go at Salmond because women are less likely to vote for him. It's not like no women are voting for him. And as women are less likely to vote in general than men (IIRC) that sounds like it's a good ratio to have
If Ireland invaded Kent, would I have to pay less tax?
Wars are costly for both sides, increased taxes all round
Have Scots always been so offended by things the English say? All over here and BBC message boards Scottish people are saying "Oh that's so offensive", "That's rather insensitive..." quite a lot. Is this a recent thing?
Throughout this campaign I've heard much about the possible "upsides" of Scottish independence from him but, worryingly, very little about the possible "downsides". He just swats questions about them away if anyone asks.
Just been watching him on telly and now that different companies are appearing and pointing out some downsides he's bleating about "bullying and intimidation". Makes me wonder what he is trying to cover up. There will be many downsides naturally but the Scots have only been fed what they may gain from independence, not what they may lose.
I hope they consider that before they vote. (For some reason I don't trust this Salmond).
Just been watching him on telly and now that different companies are appearing and pointing out some downsides he's bleating about "bullying and intimidation". Makes me wonder what he is trying to cover up. There will be many downsides naturally but the Scots have only been fed what they may gain from independence, not what they may lose.
I hope they consider that before they vote. (For some reason I don't trust this Salmond).
Right, this is my concern as well.
As I said earlier in the thread - if I were Scottish and on the cusp of a referendum about independance, I would want to see some far more convincing answers to the big questions before I would be prepared to throw my hat into the independance ring.
Better the devil you know. Going off into the unknown sounds lovely and romantic, but it was only a matter of years ago that the UK government and taxpayers had to bail out RBS - could an independant Scotland do the same if this happened again? Only with a formal currency union, and there would no doubt be more severe reprecussions.
Damn. This has given me another thought though. Why doesn't Scotland join with Ireland? I watched Bravehart the other day and they were all chummy in that. They'd get to use the Euro, and get far more political sway than under their current union
And if you combine their names, it's.. umm... Scotland! Or Ireland.
I'm sure independance support would drop in the result of independence being confirmed, does support for the winner ever not drop? But when 50% of Scottish electorate support it... In a way they are already gone. 50% support it despite constantly being told of their financial quagmire it would leave them in. 50% support independance despite probably losing the EU, despite possibly losing the BBC and the NHS.
It's fair to say us English didn't and don't understand at all.
It's fair to say us English didn't and don't understand at all.
People tend to get offended when they get told that we're part of a big family and are begged not to break that up while headlines on London papers red "Why don't we tell the Scots to shove off?". People tend to get offended when they're bullied into voting no by banks and companies by Westminster. People tend to get offended when Downing Street holds one-on-one talks with Supermarket chiefs and asks them to scaremonger (and in some cases flat out lie) about the impact of an independent Scotland.
We're not offended by everything. Many of us are just totally pissed off.
He's bleating about bullying and intimidation because it's pretty fecking obvious that's what it is. Why didn't these people come out and scaremonger a year ago? Why a week before the vote? Why after something like 700k people have already cast their vote?
It's not scaremongering it's explaining everything that might happen. How can someone make an informed decision on which way to vote if they don't have all the information?
Better Together signs being ripped down, intimidation of English people living in Scotland. It's getting very ugly, and is dividing Scotland, and it will be worse after the result.
Ignoring the funny side for a second, since when is Salmond in charge of what TV networks show what and the ins and outs of where the Premier League decide to sell their TV rights.
Why is it scaremongering and not cold hard facts?
If you're so scared about the reality of the situation and what they're suggesting will happen, then it's a pretty good indicator that you should steer the feck clear of independence. Your hopes and dreams are just that - hopes and dreams. They need to be built on something substantive. The reason it's taken a year for them to conclude their position is because it's taken a year for the yes camp to form an argument -- and even then it's barren of any substance. Just Salmond and co's rhetoric and pulling on the heart strings. The economists, editors etc have sat and waited to see how the campaigns have unfurled. In the end, the yes camp didn't convince them. That's why they're now all striking their colours and pin pricking the "yes" camp to death.
This is a serious issue that will affect not only ourselves but our descendants for years to come. Empty promises won't put food on the table.
The so-called scaremongering claims reek of desperation to me.
http://www.scottishreview.net/CarolCraig172.shtml
I read that article earlier which for me, summised the current mindset of the YES and NO campaigns very well. The YES campaigners and Salmond have done a great job of being optimists - assuming the best-case scenario on most key points and blindly ignoring anyone who says otherwise. Salmond et al. refuse to listen to any opinion other than their own when it comes to things like currency and EU membership, and simply churn out the same ignorant assumptions that rUK and the rest of Europe are going to bend over backwards to accomodate an independant Scotland, even to the point of it being their own detriment.
The reality is that other countries, rUK, corporations etc all have their own agendas and priorities to look to, over and above Scotlands. There seems to be a very unhealthy level of self-importance coming from the YES campaign in this regard.
The "scaremongering" for me is simply people trying to give an actual, realistic impression of what the future will hold for an independant Scotland. If it sounds scary then that is because it IS, not because the world is against you and just trying to bully and intimidate Scotland into voting NO. The NO campaign has been dire, and it has focused probably TOO MUCH on the negatives rather than portraying the benefits of staying in the Union - but the nature of the argument can be seen as negative; keeping the status quo and not taking the chance of independance. The YES campaign is promoting change, and others are trying to point out that not all change is good.
Can you really blame the banks for wanting to move south when Salmond doesnt even know which currency they are going to be using in these banks?
Its been said before but at this point I think Salmond just wants to take his place in the history books and secure his legacy. For him it is independance at any cost, and that is a notion that I simply cannot agree with. I visit Scotland frequently to see the in-laws and it is very definitively Scotland, not England. I see the St. Andrews cross regularly, and I see and hear all the other parts of Scotlands individual identity. None of that is, or ever has been under threat, and so should be irrelevant to this debate.
A common argument by YES supporters is the "illegal wars" etc that Scotland didnt/dont want to be part of - the war that was started by Tony Blair and the Labour party (including plenty of Scottish MPs), which has always traditionally been Scotlands strongest political party. Yet now that the Tories are in you complain about not getting a government that you vote for? When the previous regime which you DID vote for was responsible for the "illegal wars" that are brought up so much?
As far as rUK is concerned it seems we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.
He isnt, and doesnt. This is a fairly minor example, but is another typical example of exactly what I said above - the best-case scenario is the only outcome presented by the YES campaign, all other outcomes are just brushed under the carpet and palmed off as scaremongering.
It would make my day if the BBC responded to that very post and destroyed Salmond, but obviously they cannot interfere as they have to been seen as impartial. Salmonds white paper suggests that the new SBS (Scottish Broadcast Service) would have a contractual agreement with the BBC to share programming between the two service providers - ie Scotland would still get the full BBC lineup, and rUK would get whatever shows the SBS cobbles together with the miniscule budget of £345m that Salmond has suggested for it in his white paper (the BBC spends £1.5bn on BBC1 alone, for comparison).
Does that really seem like a fair trade? As a UK resident I would be outraged if my TV license fee was paying for an independant Scotland to watch bloody Doctor Who, and I doubt I would be alone in that sentiment.
Realistically, the most likely outcome would be a commercial agreement between Scotland and rUK for the BBC to provide its services to the Scots, for a fair and proper fee. But this would cost a damn sight more than the £345m that Salmond is budgeting for in his white paper.
Again TV is a pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but it just goes to show how badly thought through the entire "plan" presented by YES, really is. It is purely best-case scenarios and assumptions that the rest of the world (let alone the rest of the UK) will comply with their every wish.
In case anyone is wondering - these figures come from a Guardian article I read earlier today, which can probably summise the situation in a lot more detail than I can.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/sep/08/could-an-independent-scotland-keep-the-bbc
Lets put the boot on the other foot and say that I am the Better Together campaign.
I promise that if Scotland remains in the Union, there will be an overnight transformation of the UK into a utopian workers paradise - there will be massive tax cuts and huge increases in public spending for everyone. We will abolish all nuclear weapons and deterrants because there will also be world peace, and jobs for everyone. Because that is about as realistic as a lot of what Salmond comes up with.
Now, if you try to tell me that this is unrealistic, then you are simply being negative and intimidating/scaremongering.
Last edited:
One of Scotland's richest men was on radio 5 live today, and he was basically saying that everything could be shared, such as embassies, and financial regulators, and that we could share the currency no problem, and having no control over interest rates etc wouldn't be a problem for Scotland, and that they would remain in the United Kingdom , as that was a union of the crown, and all sorts of other stuff about the UK being aggressive and negative. Just a plain strange interview.
Do you really think so? In what way? violence? religious divide?
I work in the oil industry and know quite a few scottish colleagues, as well as some english people living in scotland. Not violence, but severe acrimony, and communities starting to become polarised on the issue. Their conjecture (and please don't put me in the rawk "my scottish no supporting mate said" league) has been that they see real stress in communities, and that the campaign has stirred up an awful lot of ill feeling. They think a yes vote will be catastrophic where companies pull out of Scotland and people lose jobs.
It's a dangerous road to go down IMO. However, I don't care which way the vote goes, but if I was Scottish I'd have serious concerns about voting Yes, especially with that bollocks Salmond as the head campaigner.
Having watched him today I was astounded that he dodged every question asked of him, he is a complete buffoon. I wouldn't trust him in charge of a McDonalds let alone a referendum.
I really hope that whatever the outcome it's accepted and we all move on peacefully.
I'd quote those who replied to me but I don't know how to multi-quote and many of the points I've already disagreed with anyway.
A huge number of people have already voted. It's a disgrace that these banks, supermarkets etc have been told to come out now and voice their concerns.
They may be our strongest party but that doesn't mean we agree and back everything they do/did.
Many people think Blair/Brown are arseholes who don't/didn't have a clue. The fact we voted for them (let's face it, we're never, ever going to vote the other lot up here) isn't to say that they were speaking for us when they made decisions to go to war.
Any opinion on the other common argument (weapons of mass destruction)? They were deemed too high risk to keep anywhere near an English city but are conveniently situated just down the road from Scotland's largest and most populous city/area.
A huge number of people have already voted. It's a disgrace that these banks, supermarkets etc have been told to come out now and voice their concerns.
They may be our strongest party but that doesn't mean we agree and back everything they do/did.
Many people think Blair/Brown are arseholes who don't/didn't have a clue. The fact we voted for them (let's face it, we're never, ever going to vote the other lot up here) isn't to say that they were speaking for us when they made decisions to go to war.
Any opinion on the other common argument (weapons of mass destruction)? They were deemed too high risk to keep anywhere near an English city but are conveniently situated just down the road from Scotland's largest and most populous city/area.
1) Regarding Blair/Brown - of course you wont always agree with their every decision. Again this is how a democracy works. Do you think that everyone in England/Wales/NI were unaminously behind the Iraq war? It was a controversial subject, not unique to Scotland.
You simply cannot expect every government to do everything 100% that you want (despite the pretty picture Salmond likes to paint). The point I was making is that you lot are currently complaining about the Tories "You're the Prime Minister? Well I didnt vote for you!" yet also complaining about the previous government that you DID vote for, because they made a decision you (and many others) didnt agree with. If you think that getting your own government will prevent any controversial decisions from ever taking place, you are going to be in for a shock.
2) Regarding the WMDs, I personally dont see the problem. I live in Cheltenham, down the road from GCHQ, which would be one of the highest priority targets for any sort of terrorist attack, or in any sort of conflict, it isnt something that bothers me in the slightest.
Interestingly, another Guardian article I read this morning (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-scotland-defence-trident) stated that 61% of rUK Brits would want Trident relocated to an English base in the event of Scottish independence anyway, as we wouldnt want it on foreign soil. By all accounts it was placed where it is, because that was the best strategic and most appropriate position for the base.
Furthermore, the Trident base is a massive, massive employer. This along with all the companies relocating south will be a big loss of jobs, and im surprised that nobody seems to be concerned about that.
Didn't realise until yesterday that they're letting kids vote in this.
16 and up isn't it? Bit of a ploy from Salmond, knowing he can bank on a severe portion of somewhat easy votes.
The Faslane site would still be a military base Walrus, and many of the jobs there are actually people from the rest of the UK so overall the employment levels in that region would not be drastically affected.
Besides, having nuclear weapons that can be launched by an American president just 25 miles from your largest city isn't the best job creator in the world.
Besides, having nuclear weapons that can be launched by an American president just 25 miles from your largest city isn't the best job creator in the world.
Last edited:
Salmond's new friend:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../North-Korea-backs-Scottish-independence.html
The whole yes campaign as been made to look a foolish last couple of days, a part of me feels a little sorry for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../North-Korea-backs-Scottish-independence.html
The whole yes campaign as been made to look a foolish last couple of days, a part of me feels a little sorry for them.
Similarly the local dissident wannabes in Belfast have put up a massive YES SCOTLAND slogan on the side of a mountain overlooking Belfast.... Other tragic instalments over the past few weeks have been viva Palestine & viva Ireland.
In the interest of fairness we also have our local orange order going over to Glasgow to March for the union.
Both efforts will surely do untold damage to their respective campaigns, who would want to be seen to be on the same page as either pack of wankers.
In the interest of fairness we also have our local orange order going over to Glasgow to March for the union.
Both efforts will surely do untold damage to their respective campaigns, who would want to be seen to be on the same page as either pack of wankers.
Actually it seems that the younger demographic is voting NO for the most part - they are rightly concerned about the youth unemployment rates which currently in the UK are 18% (EU average 22%) when troubled economies like Spain and Greece are over 50%. The short term economic turmoil following a YES vote would surely be problematic for them.
Fortunately the UK have very good relations with the USA and so such an eventuality is completely unplausible. I would see NOT HAVING a nuclear deterrent as a much more vulnerable position, personally.
Yeah I live less than a mile away from it, I'm so getting nuked first
You arent a P.E Way chav are you? :/
God no, I live in Tivoli, actually thinking about it Its more like a mile away.