Colkitto Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I reckon 24 months of tedium will result in a massive 'no' vote. Six weeks of happy-clappy Salmond and you might have won it. We've been debating independence on this forum for over 10 years - still going strong. Don't blame me I voted Yes!!!! - We tried to tell you !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro.mcghee Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Connery refuses to give the brit government his money. He gives his opinion as a Scot who believes that his country should be an independent nation. If you don't value his opnion ignore it. I heard his health isn't good right now, perhaps that's why he didn't attend? Anyway, in the big scheme of things does it matter if he was there or not? No one was paid to attend the YES campaign. The only ones who seem to be going on about Braveheart are Unionists! I have never heard Salmond or any other Scottish government Minister shout Freedom! or tell us to vote for independence because of Bruce or Wallace. As far as I'm aware neither name came up at the YES campaign..There are those of us (like myself) who have an appreciation of history and the sacrifices that were made to keep Scotland a nation in it's own right. Again if it's not your thing then ignore it and move on as it won't have any bearing on what way Scotland will vote in the referendum. Pensions are a problem whether we stay in the Union or not. The pension age is rising as we speak. I personally believe we would be better suited as an independent country to take care of our pensioners. With our vast oil and gas reserves, renewable energy and our exports, Scotland would thrive financially. As for interest rates, well we don't decided that now within the Union. The BoE is independent of government on both sides of the border.If you prefer to vote No in the refeendum then that is your right. But voting No doesn't mean things will stay as they are right now. There is no status quo anymore with the Scotland Bill passing through both parliaments. In my opnion we haven't got enough Tax raising powers in the Bill to compensate for the reduction in the Barnet formula. Our Taxes will rise to compensate, we won't have the same level of spending as we have now meaning our public services will be cut. Education will suffer, reduced levels of police, rising Council Tax...I could go on. With the threat of independence taken away, Westminster won't give a toss for our gripes..YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! 1. perhaps not but the SNP have in the past ues mell gibsons pitrail on election lefflets have thay not ? 2. so are you happy for this to contiuew a foren countray seting our intrest rates not exactly indapendent is it ? I am dyslexic and I am getting tired of your shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 1. perhaps not but the SNP have in the past ues mell gibsons pitrail on election lefflets have thay not ? 2. so are you happy for this to contiuew a foren countray seting our intrest rates not exactly indapendent is it ? 1. Have they? Personally I haven't seen any. But as I say, if it doesn't interest you just ignore it. 2. Interest rates are not set in Scotland as it is just now. The Bank of England is the central bank of the UK, we have every right to use it as the rest of the UK. We paid into it and it's independent of Westminster government so why not the Holyrood government as well? Don't blame me I voted Yes!!!! - We tried to tell you !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro.mcghee Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 1. Have they? Personally I haven't seen any. But as I say, if it doesn't interest you just ignore it. 2. Interest rates are not set in Scotland as it is just now. The Bank of England is the central bank of the UK, we have every right to use it as the rest of the UK. We paid into it and it's independent of Westminster government so why not the Holyrood government as well? so you are happy withe the BOE desiding Intrest rates after indapendance not very "indapendent" is it I am dyslexic and I am getting tired of your shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 1. Have they? Personally I haven't seen any. But as I say, if it doesn't interest you just ignore it. 2. Interest rates are not set in Scotland as it is just now. The Bank of England is the central bank of the UK, we have every right to use it as the rest of the UK. We paid into it and it's independent of Westminster government so why not the Holyrood government as well? In practice it won't make any difference to the situation as at the moment absolutely zero consideration is given to the best interests of Scotland when interest rates are decided. Nevertheless, my preference is for a Scottish currency with full control of it held within Scotland so that we can decide how to run our country rather than be in thrall to currency speculators. If it is though best to peg the currency to another such as the US dollar or whatever, then so be it, but at least it's our own choice. I think the decision to keep sterling is to avoid frightening the timid. "Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Dublin End Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Scotland will be an independent country, it's inevitable, it doesn't matter if there is a NO vote in the forthcoming referendum, that will only delay matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 so you are happy withe the BOE desiding Intrest rates after indapendance not very "indapendent" is it The ECB sets the interest rates for all countries within the Eurozone: is Germany an independent, sovereign nation state? The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before.. So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdoc1874 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Classic snp's we love the queen app :lol: Royalist arse licking with public funds, or maybe just trying to pull favour with rangers fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Edwards Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Classic snp's we love the queen app :lol: Royalist arse licking with public funds, or maybe just trying to pull favour with rangers fans. Yes, and here we find Eck at his emetic best:- 'The Queen has given Scotland 60 years of unparalleled service........during her time on the throne the Queen has been a particular friend to Scotland...........the App is an exciting mix of the traditional and modern....I hope it helps people in today's modern digital Scotland celebrate the Jubilee and commemorate the wonderful service offered to them by their Queen'. Thanks but no thanks Eck. Celebrate if you want to, but I'm no for joining in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Classic snp's we love the queen app :lol: Royalist arse licking with public funds, or maybe just trying to pull favour with rangers fans. At least they are not funding the Orange Order like Labour are. Don't blame me I voted Yes!!!! - We tried to tell you !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Edwards Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 At least they are not funding the Orange Order like Labour are. I'm afraid the Scottish Government is, albeit indirectly. The funds for 'street parties' were made available to local authorities by the Scottish Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Thanks but no thanks Eck. Celebrate if you want to, but I'm no for joining in. Indeed, this and their support of faith schools are the two main issues of SNP policy I disagree with. IMO it would have been far better at this stage to have taken a neutral stance on the issue of monarchy as head of state. A stated policy of continuing with the monarch as head of state for a transitional period after independence but with a commitment to resolve the issue once and for all by referendum within 5 years, would I think have been seen as fair, reasonable and acceptable to most people. Not sure why they've went out on a limb on this potentially divisive issue. I suppose they'd claim it's showing leadership, but it seriously risks losing the support of pro-independence republicans (e.g., folk like you and me I suspect). Thats why I think the YES campaign should go to great lengths to make it clear it's not only SNP supporters who back it. SNP still have my support and vote in the bag just now as they're of course by far the most likely party to be able to deliver the ultimate prize, and overall I do still agree with much more of their policies than I disagree with. But post indepedence I'll certainly be doing a lot more shopping around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie McArthur Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Indeed, this and their support of faith schools are the two main issues of SNP policy I disagree with. IMO it would have been far better at this stage to have taken a neutral stance on the issue of monarchy as head of state. A stated policy of continuing with the monarch as head of state for a transitional period after independence but with a commitment to resolve the issue once and for all by referendum within 5 years, would I think have been seen as fair, reasonable and acceptable to most people. Not sure why they've went out on a limb on this potentially devisive issue, it seriously risks losing the support of pro-independence republicans (e.g., folk like you and me I suspect). Thats why I think the YES campaign should go to great lengths to make it clear it's not only SNP supporters who back it. SNP still have my support and vote in the bag just now as they're of course by far the most likely party to be able to deliver the ultimate prize, and overall I do still agree with much more of their policies than I disagree with. But post indenpence I'll certainly be doing a lot more shopping around. So, how come you can vote and I can't? Anyway, I find find it astonishing that the SNP wish to retain Her Majesty post-independence and I find it laughable that none of the 'high profile nats' on here have said it's a farce. MARTY OUT!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I'm afraid the Scottish Government is, albeit indirectly. The funds for 'street parties' were made available to local authorities by the Scottish Government. Well how far do you want to go back Mr E? It's Westminster government fault for supplying money to the Scottish government? The buck stops with the City Council. They willingly released money to the Orange Order. Don't blame me I voted Yes!!!! - We tried to tell you !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Indeed, this and their support of faith schools are the two main issues of SNP policy I disagree with. IMO it would have been far better at this stage to have taken a neutral stance on the issue of monarchy as head of state. A stated policy of continuing with the monarch as head of state for a transitional period after independence but with a commitment to resolve the issue once and for all by referendum within 5 years, would I think have been seen as fair, reasonable and acceptable to most people. Not sure why they've went out on a limb on this potentially devisive issue, it seriously risks losing the support of pro-independence republicans (e.g., folk like you and me I suspect). Thats why I think the YES campaign should go to great lengths to make it clear it's not only SNP supporters who back it. SNP still have my support and vote in the bag just now as they're of course by far the most likely party to be able to deliver the ultimate prize, and overall I do still agree with much more of their policies than I disagree with. But post indenpence I'll certainly be doing a lot more shopping around. I agree entirely with you, and with Mr Edwards slightly further up the page. I disagree strongly with the SNP's line on faith schools although I can appreciate why neither they nor any other party is willing to take a stand on that matter. The sycophantic toadying to the queen does as much harm as good to the independence movement. It's a separate issue and should be kept as such. I don't recall Alex Salmond being much of a fan of the monarchy in earlier days, and I suspect that he's just trying to win votes, but trying to make the SNP an "establishment" party is rather irritating to the many supporters who have the luxury of being able to stick to their principles. Will be interesting to see if he keeps his views the same after independence - and I seem to remember that a referendum on the type of head of state, if any, in an independent Scotland was a longstanding SNP policy. Still should be IMHO. Off to get the provisions for our "Stick your jubilee up your 4rse" barbecue tomorrow. Power to the people, to quote that far-sighted visionary, Wolfie Smith... "Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissiboi Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 One argument that does do my moobs in is the if we had a politician it would be worse ? but at least we would have the choice in a democratic society. The electorate make the choice of government so why not head of state ? I am not excluding any member of the royal family from that but the idea of born to rule has to be abolished. I am sure we'd absolute donkeys but that would be our choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 One argument that does do my moobs in is the if we had a politician it would be worse ? but at least we would have the choice in a democratic society. The electorate make the choice of government so why not head of state ? I am not excluding any member of the royal family from that but the idea of born to rule has to be abolished. I am sure we'd absolute donkeys but that would be our choice. Why do you need to have a head of state at all? "Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The majority of polls show support for the present monarchy is still quite high in Scotland. Whether we republicans like that or not it would seem most Scots want the present Queen to be Head of State. It's no use the SNP trying to fight another battle on the monarchy at this present time - 2 1/2 years away from a referendum. The high republican membership within the SNP concede not to raise the issue at this present time and I as a republican agree with that. On day one as an independent Nation, I will be fighting for a republic, and I'm convinced I won't be alone. Salmond may favour the present Monarchy, but I'm certain a motion would be passed at conference to have a referendum on whether we have a Monarchy in an independent Scotland or not. Now is not the time to be having that argument. Don't blame me I voted Yes!!!! - We tried to tell you !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Edwards Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Well how far do you want to go back Mr E? It's Westminster government fault for supplying money to the Scottish government? The buck stops with the City Council. They willingly released money to the Orange Order. Sorry Col, I reckon the buck should stop with the Scottish Government for making 'jubilee celebration' funds available in the first place. If groups or organisations want to celebrate then fine, let them go ahead unhindered, but they should fund it all themselves, including the fees for street closures. Particlarly so in this time of austerity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sorry Col, I reckon the buck should stop with the Scottish Government for making 'jubilee celebration' funds available in the first place. If groups or organisations want to celebrate then fine, let them go ahead unhindered, but they should fund it all themselves, including the fees for street closures. Particlarly so in this time of austerity. The government supports the Monarchy Mr E, whether we like that or not, it would be ludicrous for them not to release funds to councils for Jubilee celebrations. The elected GCC have to accept responsibility as they are the ones who directly and willingly make the decision on who to release money too. Don't blame me I voted Yes!!!! - We tried to tell you !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.