Jump to content
BANGKOK
Sign in to follow this  
News_Editor

Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

Recommended Posts

The paper won't sway my decision, independence is what's needed and now is the time to do it.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

No Wonder your Skint.biggrin.png .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks (phuketjock) for identifying the source of the quote. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion, I think it would have been useful to have the opposition view as well, rather than just repeating the propaganda from the "Yes" campaign web site.

SC

Be useful then. Give us a quote of similar length from the "NO Campaign" propaganda. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion of course (LOL).

awayego, if you read all posts before commenting; as anyone who is really interested in this would surely do, you would know that I provided links to the No campaign in response to phuketjock's original post!

To save you the effort of looking for them, here they are again:

Better together

No Scotland.

What I didn't do is waste forum space by quoting at length from them as I thought forum members were capable of clicking on the links and reading them for themselves.

Well why the hell didn't you say so in your comment to 'phuketjock' then instead of apparently criticising him for not doing so?

Why infer that a 'Yes' proponent should also propogandise for the opposite side "in the interests of fair and balanced discussion"? Surely it's the job of the 'NO' supporters to put the other side's case.

It's all just propoganda anyway and needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt.

I am old enough and wise enough not to take anything at face value, least of all from politicians, journalists or TV posters. That said, on balance I prefer to take a more positive viewpoint on independence after a great deal of reading, sifting and careful consideration. The quote from the 'Yes' campaign propoganda is closer to my own thoughts than is the propoganda of the 'NO' campaign, and is greatly re-inforced by much of the drivel contained in the more ill-considered and stereotypical responses by some English posters here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland becomes independent, what happens to Balmoral?

Well, some suggestions:

1. Turn it into a national park and Centre for the Environment.

2. It could become Scotland's version of Chequers. On second thoughts the cost would be unjustifiable.

3. Make it totally secure and keep the entire Royal family and all their hangers on under permanent house arrest, provided of course that it was all funded by Westminster.

Any other suggestions?

It needs to be a cash cow, so high end holiday destination. It would be a big earner.

Oh yes, I like it! Plenty of top-class Scottish huntin', shootin' and fishin' I believe. Perhaps the Royal family might even be 'game' for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awayego, if you read all posts before commenting; as anyone who is really interested in this would surely do, you would know that I provided links to the No campaign in response to phuketjock's original post!

To save you the effort of looking for them, here they are again:

Better together

No Scotland.

What I didn't do is waste forum space by quoting at length from them as I thought forum members were capable of clicking on the links and reading them for themselves.

Well why the hell didn't you say so in your comment to 'phuketjock' then instead of apparently criticising him for not doing so?

Why infer that a 'Yes' proponent should also propogandise for the opposite side "in the interests of fair and balanced discussion"? Surely it's the job of the 'NO' supporters to put the other side's case.

I did not criticise him for not putting the No side nor did I infer that he should put the case for the No side.

Here we go then, the facts as they stand on Scotlands ability to handle independence.

Source

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/does-scotland-have-what-it-takes-be-independent

Given that your source is the Yes campaign, one has to ask whether your lengthy post consists of facts or propaganda! Despite quoting my previous post in full, interestingly your lengthy post didn't deal with a single point I raised.

For the alternative viewpoint, including counter arguments to the Yes campaign's 'facts' see Better together and No Scotland.

You really should read posts before commenting on them; you'll look less foolish that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks (phuketjock) for identifying the source of the quote. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion, I think it would have been useful to have the opposition view as well, rather than just repeating the propaganda from the "Yes" campaign web site.

SC

Be useful then. Give us a quote of similar length from the "NO Campaign" propaganda. In the interests of fair and balanced discussion of course (LOL).

awayego, if you read all posts before commenting; as anyone who is really interested in this would surely do, you would know that I provided links to the No campaign in response to phuketjock's original post!

To save you the effort of looking for them, here they are again:

Better together

No Scotland.

What I didn't do is waste forum space by quoting at length from them as I thought forum members were capable of clicking on the links and reading them for themselves.

Well why the hell didn't you say so in your comment to 'phuketjock' then instead of apparently criticising him for not doing so?

Why infer that a 'Yes' proponent should also propogandise for the opposite side "in the interests of fair and balanced discussion"? Surely it's the job of the 'NO' supporters to put the other side's case.

It's all just propoganda anyway and needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt.

I am old enough and wise enough not to take anything at face value, least of all from politicians, journalists or TV posters. That said, on balance I prefer to take a more positive viewpoint on independence after a great deal of reading, sifting and careful consideration. The quote from the 'Yes' campaign propoganda is closer to my own thoughts than is the propoganda of the 'NO' campaign, and is greatly re-inforced by much of the drivel contained in the more ill-considered and stereotypical responses by some English posters here.

 

That was me that posted the critical comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really should read posts before commenting on them; you'll look less foolish that way.

My sincere apologies! I see now my remarks should have been addressed to 'streetcowboy'.

I did actually read all posts but, in my haste, made a wrong ID.

I feel suitably foolish now!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No land in Scotland is owned by anyone that includes the royals.

Tell that to Donald Trump!

Do the SNP intend do take all privately owned land in Scotland into state ownership on independence?

If so, do the ordinary people of Scotland who own their own homes know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Salmond intend confiscating all land owned by non pure blood Scots after independence?

I think you should refer to them as "Muggles" or "Half Bloods".

wink.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skint seems to have had problems with the quote function, Chicog. It was actually me who asked that question.

I asked it because Balmoral is not owned by the Crown Estates but is the private property of the Queen, whose mother was Scottish.

So questions and speculation about the ownership and fate of Balmoral post independence are irrelevant unless the answer to my question is "Yes."

Especially as Salmond has said that an independent Scotland will retain the Queen as head of state.

Assuming she wants the role; which I think we can all accept as a given.

Edited by 7by7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that Alex Salmond to be an objectionable Jabba the Hut lookalike. Having him there is quite a good deterrent to a vote for independence. They should have got Sean Connery.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skint seems to have had problems with the quote function, Chicog. It was actually me who asked that question.

I asked it because Balmoral is not owned by the Crown Estates but is the private property of the Queen, whose mother was Scottish.

So questions and speculation about the ownership and fate of Balmoral post independence are irrelevant unless the answer to my question is "Yes."

Especially as Salmond has said that an independent Scotland will retain the Queen as head of state.

Assuming she wants the role; which I think we can all accept as a given.

Maybe the rest of the UK will not like that, I personally prefer that the separation will be 100%

and according to opinion polls, the English are naturally more enthusiastic for the YES vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic post deleted and a post with messed up quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's theblether when Scottish independence is under discussion ? Last time it came up it didn't end happily wink.png

I'm sure he'll be along shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not read the full 670 page (!) document in full, but from the BBC: Scottish independence: White Paper at-a-glance

More of an SNP election manifesto than an objective explanation of the case for independence.

Also, as predicted, contains many assumptions that Salmond will get his way in important, nay vital, negotiations; such as Scotland keeping Sterling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...