2141 replies to this topic

[LY_Scott]

No no....he's MP for Bradford West He told us that a number of times. You can have him

[LY_Scott]

Made me chuckle this morning

[Dunk]

[Rosssco]

So give us a better run down of your thought of George then Scott?

 

Any points that you agreed with, and any that you just though "BS"..?

[LY_Scott]

A lot of what was said I could agree with but not as arguments for a No vote but simply because they were speaking lots of socialist ideals. The GMB union chap even seemed to directly quote Tommy Sheridan when he said services should be brought back into public ownership and used for "social need not for private profit". The other labour council spoke for a while on what Fife council(labour) had acheived redircting money and the schools that have been built and their efforts to tackle inequality etc. Kenny brought up the corporation tax pledge which he stated would (or could) end up as a race to the bottom. I can see the logic in that. George brought that up again making the point in his own way. I get that. That makes sense to me. A few of the labour chaps spoke about measures and focus put on to the referendum by the SNP government that could have been spent tackling inequality, George even suggested raising taxes to pay for it. I could get that there's been a distraction over the term of this government but we are where we are and it's not a reason to vote No. I suppose there could be an argument that if the SNP had made focus on the inequality they wouldn't be able to shout so much about it for a Yes vote however thats pretty speculative. They also don't have any control over welfare. The SNP have plugged the gap of Bedroom Tax. Doesn't get passed the fact that Scotland votes Labour at every UK election overwhelmingly already. It makes no difference to the outcome of said election. NATO was brought up with a paradox of how can Scotland aim to join Nato and get rid of nuclear weapons....25 of NATO's 28 members do not have nuclear weapons. (26 of 29 if Scotland joined). Made the Spain argument about EU membership forgetting that the situations are different or how many Spanish fishing boats ply their trade in Scottish waters. No one from Spain has said they would oppose EU membership. We've honestly had a better argument in here George's speech consisted mainly of his life story sharing toilets and being a baby in a drawer and how Labour changed all that. How we shouldn't abandon the people of his constituency in Bradford by abandoning them to an endless line of tory govenments. Scotland votes Labour all the time of course. There will be a labour government when England votes for it, like always. I'm sure it's something like a 1% swing needed. Also pressed home how Salomond would become an eternal ruler of Scotland, quoting some dictator who had lived and ruled til he was 92..chuckle chuckle....There's elections in 2016 George. I'm not an SNP person. Going by the polls around (or over hopefully) 2,000,000 people are about to vote yes. The SNP membership is 25,000. I recommend you go along though. I would say it was totally different to the Sturgeon event the week before. much less people. I'll post a pic in a bit. No applause when he entered, no laughs and lots leaving during. Much more subdued. Matched that there was a nutter at each though. Last week there was a nutter yes woman who rambled on on and was ejected, last night there was a nutter no man we arra peepel tattoos on show etc goading the crowd. He asked if there were any yes voters in. He seemed disappointed when half the crowd put their hands up. Other than that pretty well behaved. Although I may have clapped like a seal at certain questions about that the current UK labour party won't be elected on any of the views expressed at this meeting. An old boy also asked that weird question about anti-catholism after a yes vote. To which I may have laughed and shouted WHIT? Aye pal...have you looked where the Orange order have stuck their money? I've no idea where that view comes from. I think it's something to do with a bill around catholic schools. Whole other subject but really bizarre. Go along though. Defo.

[Rosssco]

Cheers for the run down. Sounds like it was worth while. I often wonder though, how many of these events are attended by those who have effectively already decided, vs. those who are turely undecided, for whihc there may be some reall benefit..

 

A lot of what was said I could agree with but not as arguments for a No vote but simply because they were speaking lots of socialist ideals. The GMB union chap even seemed to directly quote Tommy Sheridan when he said services should be brought back into public ownership and used for "social need not for private profit". The other labour council spoke for a while on what Fife council(labour) had acheived redircting money and the schools that have been built and their efforts to tackle inequality etc.

 

I think its a continuing dream of socialist to bring things back into public ownership, but the reality is that the public mostly dont want to pay for that..I dont necessarily disagree with that and the benefits of public ownership for critical services, but the whole scale return to public ownership of many now privatised is unrealistic and would unlikely bring no service or VFM benefits IMO

 

Kenny brought up the corporation tax pledge which he stated would (or could) end up as a race to the bottom. I can see the logic in that. George brought that up again making the point in his own way. I get that. That makes sense to me.

 

 

One of my primary concerns. We will be opening ourselves up to competition with rUK that has never existed before. Only once we have entered that race will we really see and feel either the competitiveness / lack of competitiness of th Scottish economy, but given that we have no real advantages in this respect in comparison to parts of the rUK, I fear we would not come out of that as the main benefactors.. We either need to take one of two routes - go down the high tax / high welfare / high standard of living approach (not dis-similar to the Noggies) and hope we can offer something to people to want to stay and invest here (which doesn't seem totally compatibible with EU integration), or we go down the low tax, lower spending route (a bit like Ireland) and become a competitive place for companies to set up and do business. We'd really need the Euro for that however. Problem is there's only some half-way, please as many as you can approach comming out of the nationalists, which is not going to improve things for anybody..

A few of the labour chaps spoke about measures and focus put on to the referendum by the SNP government that could have been spent tackling inequality, George even suggested raising taxes to pay for it. I could get that there's been a distraction over the term of this government but we are where we are and it's not a reason to vote No. I suppose there could be an argument that if the SNP had made focus on the inequality they wouldn't be able to shout so much about it for a Yes vote however thats pretty speculative. They also don't have any control over welfare. The SNP have plugged the gap of Bedroom Tax.

 

 

Which partly (as per my recent post) goes to prove that the current devolved set-up does give real power to affect things in Scotland. It is often over-looked and ignored. Tax raising powers are coming (regardless - Revenue Scotland was just inaugurated) so partial tax and spending powers will be here. I often ask the question of "what more powers do you want and what will you use them for?". Typically black expressions as nobody really knows why they want more tax power, just that they do.. And if the route is to raise taxes to pay for things, then that should be proposed to us. We shouldn't have to (quite easily admittedly) figure out for ourselves that we'll have to be taxed more if we want the things proposed by the YESNP.

Doesn't get passed the fact that Scotland votes Labour at every UK election overwhelmingly already. It makes no difference to the outcome of said election.

 

 

In the recent past, yes it has. But this question is always approched from the perspective of all power lieing with Westminster, which it no longer does.. In fact, its only such a big part of te nationalist argument because we have a Conservative government in power implementing an austerity programme that the UK or an independant Scotland would have to go through.. I'm not sure we'd hear this drum being banged quite so hard if there wasn't.

NATO was brought up with a paradox of how can Scotland aim to join Nato and get rid of nuclear weapons....25 of NATO's 28 members do not have nuclear weapons. (26 of 29 if Scotland joined).

 

 

Yes, but we cannot have such a vociferous rejection of the primary pillar of the NATO defence strategy (nuclear deterrent) and demand that they be removed from our lands and expect to be welcomed back so easily into this club. We are potentially directly effecting the cohesive nature of this military alliance, and potentially denegrating the capablity of probably its priamry European-based power (UK), ot to mention costing it alot of money. All so that we can take some moral high ground of not having them on our land (its call NIMBYism), despite wanting to rejoin and utilise the protection it offers. I'm sure we'll gain alot of respect internationally for that.. Of those nations that don't have nuclear weapons, which ones had then removed them? None.

Made the Spain argument about EU membership forgetting that the situations are different or how many Spanish fishing boats ply their trade in Scottish waters. No one from Spain has said they would oppose EU membership.

 

 

Its not primarily about Spain directly opposing us, its about the political precident it will create in the EU. The EU, being the Borg-like super-entity it is, doesn't really (if they were being honest about it, behind all the smiles and BS politiking) want a collection of small countries, it wants larger countries where agreements are easier to reach, and less political wrangling is required to get things moving beyond its consistantly glacial pace. The precident set if Scotland went Indy, but managed to achieve not only unimpedied re-entry, but retained all the benefits of the previous state (UK), would send a signal to many regions (nationalism isn't a Scottish only thing) in larger countries that they could take a punt on their own independnace referendums etc. Therefore, Scotland will be re-admitted to the EU, but the price will be ceding of certain powers, restrictions on some of the benefits and opt-outs the UK current has, and a move closer to the EU super-state. Thats the political price I'm afraid. If you are happy with this, then fine. I don't want it though personnaly..

We've honestly had a better argument in here

 

 

I think we do. There's been very little good debates on TV or Youpube. The odd one, but nothing ground shattering.

George's speech consisted mainly of his life story sharing toilets and being a baby in a drawer and how Labour changed all that. How we shouldn't abandon the people of his constituency in Bradford by abandoning them to an endless line of tory govenments. Scotland votes Labour all the time of course. There will be a labour government when England votes for it, like always. I'm sure it's something like a 1% swing needed.

 

 

Depends on if you consider yourself just Scottish, with no affinty to the rest people in the UK or not I guess.. I think I do. I don't care about Westminster. Its abit sh*t, but I also see the UK as a country, so I don't think that should be surrendered because we've had whats considered by some, a bit of a bad run of late..

Also pressed home how Salomond would become an eternal ruler of Scotland, quoting some dictator who had lived and ruled til he was 92..chuckle chuckle....There's elections in 2016 George. I'm not an SNP person.

 

 

Yes, the Kim Jong Salmond stuff is fun, but some twats take it too serious. However, the notion that he will not run for Il Presidente and that the SNP will melt away is also fantasy. They will capitalise on their political gains in the event of a yes vote, and use it as a precident to move forward with. They will negotiate on our behalf with rUK / EU/ NATO etc. to achieve a settlement that fits best to their political ideal. I would prefer in such a situation that we had an election BEFORE we comduct the negotiations. The thing about people in power, is that they tend to want one thing.. More power! The SNP will be no different I'm afraid..

Going by the polls around (or over hopefully) 2,000,000 people are about to vote yes. The SNP membership is 25,000. I recommend you go along though. I would say it was totally different to the Sturgeon event the week before. much less people. I'll post a pic in a bit. No applause when he entered, no laughs and lots leaving during. Much more subdued. Matched that there was a nutter at each though. Last week there was a nutter yes woman who rambled on on and was ejected, last night there was a nutter no man we arra peepel tattoos on show etc goading the crowd. He asked if there were any yes voters in. He seemed disappointed when half the crowd put their hands up. Other than that pretty well behaved. Although I may have clapped like a seal at certain questions about that the current UK labour party won't be elected on any of the views expressed at this meeting. An old boy also asked that weird question about anti-catholism after a yes vote. To which I may have laughed and shouted WHIT? Aye pal...have you looked where the Orange order have stuck their money? I've no idea where that view comes from. I think it's something to do with a bill around catholic schools. Whole other subject but really bizarre. Go along though. Defo.

 

[Rosssco]

Sir Ian Wood less optimistic on NS oil & gas: http://www.energyvoi...ependence-vote/ Given he recently conducted an industry wide review (and he gave me my degree certificate ), I'm going to say he sounds right about on the money..

[LY_Scott]

Seen that. But ot oh. Looks like the 24 billion barrels figure came from......Ian Wood also. So which figures is he committed to?

[LY_Scott]

My biggest worry at the moment is the amount of postal voters registered. Apparently 1 in 4 voters will be a postal vote.

[Mangham54]

My biggest worry at the moment is the amount of postal voters registered. Apparently 1 in 4 voters will be a postal vote.

 

Out of interest why do you feel that?

[Mangham54]

No no....he's MP for Bradford West He told us that a number of times. You can have him

 

He is only an MP for Bradford because of the tribal nature of the competing sections/factions of the local muslim community here. Basically it is 'easier' for the community to vote for a white candidate than it is for them to vote for a politician from the opposing group, or so am I told buy locals to the area.

 

He is not a politician for / of the area, he was chosen on a basis of being 'the least disagreeable' option. He has no interest in this area, or understand what makes this area such a valuable place, as well as being such a problematic area. He wouldn't have been voted in anywhere else in the UK, as he would have been outed as the charlatan that he is.

[Rosssco]

Seen that. But ot oh. Looks like the 24 billion barrels figure came from......Ian Wood also. So which figures is he committed to?

 

If you watch the ~30 min video, all will be made clear, as will the nationalists facade about offshore renewables (which I've been trying to explain to people)

 

The 24 BBoE is the upper estimate, and provides an insight to the vast unpredictability inherent in this process, but he estimates that that actual recovery (thats the amount you can effectively recover, not the amount in there) is likely to be half that (12-13B) but with increased measures and focus on recovery initiatives proposed in the Wood review, this could increase to a realistic 15-16 BBoE.

 

The important point made also, is that real effects in the gradual decline (thats already happening to an extent) in the NS will start to be felt is around ~15 years. No surprise really - much of the offshore infrastructure is crumbling and already well past it design life in the case of some installations.

 

This is a rather uncomfortable one, as despite the SNP saying the NS "will produce for another 40 years", it will, but the amount coming out of the ground will be a fraction of what we have now..

 

Nationalists will stick their head in the sand on this, accuse him of being a Tory and in with the UK government (in which case he also happens to be in with the Scottish government), and continue with their own version of hope and dreams that will inevitiablty turn into a form of economic vandalism (because they are economically illiterate and unrealistic) should they get their wishes.

 

Scott, what plans do the YES campaign have in the event that NS oil & gas income does not rise and continues its trend of the last few years and reduces, meaning we have a significant income gap? What is the plan for the rundown of the industry over the next 40 years, the eventual significant reduction in tax income, job / business flight from the North East, unemployment etc.? Or do you just want the oil money and not the industry? Is there any new initiatives to revive the industry, reduce cost and up production? I've never heard any plans for such matters.

 

On postal votes, Scott's probably worried as he suspects the UK government will effectively rig it by 'finding' or 'losing' votes depending how it suits.. I might go for a postal vote because I might be away during the day (assuming I still have a job at that stage..)

[slindborg]

Would BBC (shite AV brand from the 80's/90's)  bugger off after Indie? its wasting bandwidth that could be used for a BBCx+1 service.

[Rosssco]

Would BBC (shite AV brand from the 80's/90's)  bugger off after Indie? its wasting bandwidth that could be used for a BBCx+1 service.

 

TBH, I have no idea what this means..?

 

On another point, here's an interesting option for a possible future Scotland (of which I've briefly alluded to above):

 

http://www.cityam.co...tland-hong-kong

 

Low tax, business-friendly environment, cut the public sector drastically, and become an attractive place to invest, away from the government-led support and intervention that most think will bring them real opportunity..

 

Thoughts? Anybody on here other than me and Scott?

[Sammy]

Low tax, business-friendly environment, cut the public sector drastically, and become an attractive place to invest, away from the government-led support and intervention that most think will bring them real opportunity..

 

 

 

Isn't that a very conservative based policy?

[techieboy]

There is no reason why 5m Scots cannot do far better as an independent nation, but it will require that they ditch both welfare dependency and subsidies, and embrace reality.

 

 

Likelihood of this?

[Rosssco]

Doesn't matter. If it works, it works. Its the path many small countries like Scotland have taken to relative success. Then we'd be free, always get the government we voted for, remove Trident, the Bedroom tax and become a fairer society, where everyone get their fair share of what they put into it.

[Rosssco]

Lets hope Scottish businesses do make it clear on the risks of Indy:

 

http://www.telegraph...dependence.html

 

http://www.telegraph...C-chairman.html

 

Mean while, SNP Economic genius repeats old statement on "No currency union, no debt" line.. Hope no one needs any form of credit in an independant Scotland..

 

http://www.telegraph...-the-pound.html

 

(Disclaimer. - This is MSM run by Tories in London, and is in now way truthful or accurate)

Edited by Rosssco, 25 August 2014 - 10:50 AM.

[KurtVerbose]

Crawford Beveridge - great name.

[KurtVerbose]

Mean while, SNP Economic genius repeats old statement on "No currency union, no debt" line.. Hope no one needs any form of credit in an independant Scotland..

 

That's a little hard to reconcile with the SNP proposal to borrow more.