2141 replies to this topic

[LY_Scott]

Its written in English? Not your first language?

[jules_s]

lol

 

Yep, I actually read past 'trillions' did you?

 

That sort of sums up half the guff publicised about the ref generally....woeful

 

That's an agency citing its own 'research' as fact. They even link themselves as such in the second paragraph and conclude it all with their CEO referencing their own findings   they wont get many people enrolling on their books by speculating there is FA oil will they!!

 

I wonder what I would find if I clicked on their UK jobs list?  (yes I did btw - mostly in England)

[LY_Scott]

You sound very well informed on the referendum. The site isn't a yes page. http://www.sundaypos...admits-1.446273

[jules_s]

I'm not informed whatsoever; and never claimed to be

 

However, it's not me posting biased links which contain no foundation other than their own opinion (as in the agency link you posted claiming TRILLIONS) and in this instance I'm taking the time to read what is put in front of me

 

Not really sure why you are referencing that piece on Heseltine either, it's another badly written hack load of mumbo jumbo deliberately spun to completely mis inform. If you read it quickly, you could believe a semblance of truth in it

 

Read it again a few times and its twisted to sway a negative opinion.

 

'The conspiracy is out' sums it up quite nicely. Politicians trying to spin every single comment made to forward their own agenda.

 

And I'm not out to rile you here; you have an opinion and you are entitled to it.

[LY_Scott]

All of the info posted from either side is bias and has an agenda. There are no neutral sources. When Ross posts info from Ronald McDonald as fact there's the caveat that Mr McDonald is a No campaigner and reports quoted were compiled at better together's request and expense. Low and behold they fit their agenda. Its a case of listening to all of it and making your own mind up. I'm openly Yes. For me this speaks volumes. http://wingsoverscot...om/weebluebook/ But Ross will hate it and give you a list of reasons why he does as No man. We have to all make our own minds up. Only around 8-10% are left to do so and Yes are gaining rapidly. Closing by 14 points over August down to now only 6 points. Bearing in mind opinion polls for a referendum on devolution had yes well below 45% we eventually voted 74.3% yes. Same with the SNP landslide in 2011. Anything can happen.

[LY_Scott]

While we're on it here's the Daily Mirror sorry record giving their unbiased viewpoint in today's edition But we've always known that

Edited by LY_Scott, 04 September 2014 - 12:12 AM.

[slindborg]

As per FB:

 

So the blue book is written by YES people.... well thats hardly something to band about as "fact" then is it.

 

If it was written by someone in China who had no vested interest in Yes or No then I'd go with that

[LY_Scott]

I never promoted it as a book with impartial views. There aren't any. Have a read of it. Have a read of what better together have put together and make a choice.

Edited by LY_Scott, 04 September 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[slindborg]

I choose to make Luton part of Scotland, regardless of the outcome,

[Rosssco]

And one for Ross's reasoned input http://www.oilandgas...orth-trillions/

 

Yes, I discussed this recently when a couple of Yes mates got all excited...

 

To start, Oil and Gas People "came out" as yes campaign supporters a while ago, despite trying to give an impression of impartiality. They are essentially into recruitment, and don't seem to have any credible technical or commercial dept. that could make such an analysis.

 

TBH, stories like this are lapped up by those who actually know nothing about the oil or offshore industry, but like to moan from an armchair (not aimed at you Scott, although , who doesn't love an armchair?!).

 

The story is just rejurgitating stuff that's been known for a while - the Atlantic zones MAY contain significant reserves, but very little real exploritory work has been done for a number of reasons, both technical and commercial. People equate it to the NS but its deeper water, signifncantly harsher environmental conditions, and there is no infrastructure on the west coast comparible to the East (think of oil processing and handling facilities from Shetland, Peterhead, Grangemouth, massive industrial facilities)

 

A friend of a friend (who's Irish) commented that she'd worked on the potential development of these areas, but would honestly bet nothing on them, as they are very much 'frontier' areas which are unexplored.. Despite that fact that Ireland could really do with such a find themselves! As the article notes, the have only looked at this from a relatively high level geological perspective which may indicate the presence of hydrocarbon reserves. There could be nothing worth extracting in these areas, as has been proved on may occasions - there are far more test wells out there that found nothing in comparison to those that have..

 

This all currently makes it a significantly different commerical project for operators - its not just moving stuff round from the NS.. The NS is already one of the most expensive places to produce in the world, and its unlikely to get cheaper. The Atlantic regions are likely to be a cost level above this..

 

So, if you want an impartial assessment that accounts the realistic potential of UK / Scottish offshore regions, you'd struggle to do better (in fact you won't, as the author spend best part of a year researching it) than Sir Ian Woods report, even though the Nationalists may stick their head in the sand / up there arse and choose to ignore it.. They say the same with regards to Trident removal, that it will open up new oil fields.. Do you really think the UK government wouldn't have found a way to allow extraction in these areas if it was technically and commercially feasible?

 

The point is that you cannot use the POTENTIAL for some reserves somewhere as any legitmate reason to influence your way to vote. Some people may be setting themselves up for disappointment in that case..

[LY_Scott]

http://www.englishsc...ter-to-england/

[slindborg]

So if its Anti-westminster... and the english(welsh and as far as you are concerned not scottish) vote westminster in, then it is anti english in that respect.

 

/poke poke

[Rosssco]

Next It'll be:

 

Badgers for Independance

 

"We are sick of being persecuted and blamed for spreading disease in England. In an independant Scotland, badger's will no longer have to put up with Tory governments and culling policies we didn't vote for."

[LY_Scott]

Ross doesn't like yes support people. Too wishy washy No campaign have groups like The Orange Order UKIP SDL Brittanica Party BNP Britain First....

[techieboy]

Yeah, of course, there are no zealots on the Yes side.

[LY_Scott]

I challenge you to find any.

[techieboy]

I don't need to look very far, do I?  

[LY_Scott]

I'm hardly a zealot

[techieboy]

You're the very definition

 

zealot (plural zealots)

• One who is zealous, one who is full of zeal for his own specific beliefs or objectives, usually in the negative sense of being toopassionate; a fanatic

[techieboy]

Notice, I didn't use "bigot", although I guess they exist on your side too.