Jump to content

Sellout Salmond


wighty1963

Recommended Posts

Really?

Why were we not cast out before the oil - if it's such a potentially deal-breakingly important reason for England to partner with Scotland.

The union is over 300 years old and we've had the benefit of 'Scottish' oil (and let's not forget the benefit of 'English' gas) for 40 years or so? Perhaps a little longer - let's err on the side of generosity.

But now - no oil means we will be cast out? We can only wonder why Wales and Northern Ireland managed not to be cast out long ago for having no oil or gas of note at all.

Anyway, why worry? Everything is going to be gold and shiny and brilliant post-Union. With or without oil we're told. Being cast out is what the SNP want - so why the anxiety in the first place? It's not as if we're headed for the - how did you put it - wilderness.

I'm sure your assertion must be correct because you are so very obviously not kidded - your case just appears to be baseless and completely lacking in logic. A mystery it must be. Mustn't it?

This is a very different island compared to what it was 300 years ago. You are making the assumption that most english people are happy with a union with scotland. The truth is, the majority couldnt care less. Its only the politicians that want it, and why is that i wonder. Why would our friendly neighbours steal 6000 miles of scottish waters? To go sailing in?

If you cant see the difference in our country since the SNP finally got some real powers, then nothing i can say will convince you. I get that some people grow up with the union as a big part of their upbringing, much like myself. But there comes a time when you have to accept the facts. We would be a much more prosperous and healthier nation with our own politicians running our own country.

You make a decent point about Wales and N.ireland, but to be fair, they have some of the most deprived areas in the uk, a little similar to Scotland. I think its something like the top 20 richest towns are in england. Do you not see something wrong in that? Im not saying england will cut us off totally when the oil runs dry, but im sure they will be much happier to give us independence when it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you cant see the difference in our country since the SNP finally got some real powers, then nothing i can say will convince you.

It's called populist politics. They make several policies that appeal to the average Joe to win favor so maybe they think "life will be OK under the SNP".

Do you have any idea the financial power London holds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resources don't appear for free. The fact things like prescriptions have to be subsidized by the patient means less money from tax goes to it.

In Scotland, the earnings of the well pay for the medicine for the sick.

How can this happen? Significantly raise National Insurance or spend less money on other public services.

The former doesn't seem to have happened so they're spending a lot less on other public services.

Which? None of the SNP members/MSPs will give me a straight answer.

My opinion? A factory worker paying for the medication of an executive on 200 grand a year is a disgrace.

An exec earning 200k a year should be paying enough tax to cover his meds if he becomes ill. I dont see how that equates to a factory worker paying for it. I cant answer your other questions either. I dont have access to the books (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

An exec earning 200k a year should be paying enough tax to cover his meds if he becomes ill. I dont see how that equates to a factory worker paying for it. I cant answer your other questions either. I dont have access to the books (tu)

That high earner already pays the tax rate he does.

As does the factory worker.

The exec no longer subsidizing prescriptions means that tax spent on his medication is no longer there to spend on public services that will help out the factory worker.

If you believe the exec should pay for his own medication that's fine and a very valid opinion. But it completely contradicts your point that the SNP's extreme socialist policy of free prescriptions for all is an indication that things are better under the SNP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called populist politics. They make several policies that appeal to the average Joe to win favor so maybe they think "life will be OK under the SNP".

Do you have any idea the financial power London holds?

Just maybe life will be ok in an independent Scotland. Do you honestly think it will get noticeably worse?

I do have an idea how financially powerful london is. I also have an idea how they became so powerful. It wasnt by helping out foreign countries, of which we once were, and hopefully will be again one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just maybe life will be ok in an independent Scotland. Do you honestly think it will get noticeably worse?

I do have an idea how financially powerful london is. I also have an idea how they became so powerful. It wasnt by helping out foreign countries, of which we once were, and hopefully will be again one day.

Life is already fine in the UK. Why take a gamble that life might still be OK in a new country of Scotland?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That high earner already pays the tax rate he does.

As does the factory worker.

The exec no longer subsidizing prescriptions means that tax spent on his medication is no longer there to spend on public services that will help out the factory worker.

If you believe the exec should pay for his own medication that's fine and a very valid opinion. But it completely contradicts your point that the SNP's extreme socialist policy of free prescriptions for all is an indication that things are better under the SNP.

You can pick holes in any political policy to suit any way of thinking. The fact is, the election will be decided by people that get their opinion from the most popular daily rhag of the day. Democracy in Great Britain 2012. I think we deserve a little better than that. We also deserve to wake up in a country that decides its own fate, for better or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can pick holes in any political policy to suit any way of thinking. The fact is, the election will be decided by people that get their opinion from the most popular daily rhag of the day. Democracy in Great Britain 2012. I think we deserve a little better than that. We also deserve to wake up in a country that decides its own fate, for better or worse.

Just out of interest, why choose Scotland as the borders for your new country? Just because it was a Kingdom 300 years ago? Why not make Glasgow the new country? Fife?

Until someone can give me a pragmatic, economical reason to create a new country based on the borders of Scotland, (and I've asked MANY nationalists, both academic and average men) I'll remain convinced that any supporter of Scottish nationalism is purely emotionally so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is already fine in the UK. Why take a gamble that life might still be OK in a new country of Scotland?

Aye mate its fine for some. Poverty, drug abuse, worst health record in western europe, pish poor housing, riddled with taigery, little say in foreign policy, little say in taxation of its population, poor fckers leaving school with no hope of ever working. People leaving school that cant read or write. Trident, a ticking timebomb sitting on scottish waters, well away from london. Oil revenue getting pissed away on illegal wars. etc etc

Aye, everythings fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, why choose Scotland as the borders for your new country? Just because it was a Kingdom 300 years ago? Why not make Glasgow the new country? Fife?

Until someone can give me a pragmatic, economical reason to create a new country based on the borders of Scotland, (and I've asked MANY nationalists, both academic and average men) I'll remain convinced that any supporter of Scottish nationalism is purely emotionally so.

This (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye mate its fine for some. Poverty, drug abuse, worst health record in western europe, pish poor housing, riddled with taigery, little say in foreign policy, little say in taxation of its population, poor fckers leaving school with no hope of ever working. People leaving school that cant read or write. Trident, a ticking timebomb sitting on scottish waters, well away from london. Oil revenue getting pissed away on illegal wars. etc etc

Aye, everythings fine.

And you think an independent Scotland would rid any of that?

The most hilarious thing about your post is the word "taigery". You think it's England and Wales the "taigs" come from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comeoffit:

I don't want this "argument" to become negative in any way so let's just agree to disagree.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and none are more important than others.

Not meaning in any way to sound patronizing, but if you care at all and have a little time to fill, have a look at how the borders of the world formed through history.

Something that may shock you is that every single human started in North Africa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you think an independent Scotland would rid any of that?

The most hilarious thing about your post is the word "taigery". You think it's England and Wales the "taigs" come from?

Scotland has no immigration policy, never has. We have to take whoever england sees fit to let on this island. You see my point. In theory, england could let whoever they want in and give them a one way ticket to Scotland and wish them good luck.

And yes, i do think an independent Scotland with all the problems i mentioned. Especially the nuclear time bomb on our doorstep. Why is it not on the thames?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, why choose Scotland as the borders for your new country? Just because it was a Kingdom 300 years ago? Why not make Glasgow the new country? Fife?

Until someone can give me a pragmatic, economical reason to create a new country based on the borders of Scotland, (and I've asked MANY nationalists, both academic and average men) I'll remain convinced that any supporter of Scottish nationalism is purely emotionally so.

What a weird viewpoint.

The answer is because we are seen as a historical nation, and because we can.

Fife just wouldn't be internationally accepted as a new country.

There's not many other historic countries that don't govern themselves - because it is a huge advantage.

There are plenty of economic reasons, including benefiting from our own resources, and gaining the extra powers to compete better.

But the number one reason isn't economic, it's because the people who live here, should make the decisions regarding

the future of this country.

Instead of having a feeble voice in London, where we will have a mere 50 out of 600 MPs,

- most of them totally useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comeoffit:

I don't want this "argument" to become negative in any way so let's just agree to disagree.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and none are more important than others.

Not meaning in any way to sound patronizing, but if you care at all and have a little time to fill, have a look at how the borders of the world formed through history.

Something that may shock you is that every single human started in North Africa.

Behave man. Im sure you have a point somewhere about north africa, maybe its a little late in the night for me to see it. No arguing from me here, just talking (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

....

Salmond dislikes the sovereingty and was asked to leave an officers mess at an Air Force base in Jockland for refusing to stand up for a toast to HM.

What a load of shite.

Salmond wants to keep the union of the crowns, and gets on well with the Queen and Charles.

The union of the crowns isn't a problem - it is the unequal political union.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a weird viewpoint.

The answer is because we are seen as a historical nation, and because we can.

Fife just wouldn't be internationally accepted as a new country.

There's not many other historic countries that don't govern themselves - because it is a huge advantage.

There are plenty of economic reasons, including benefiting from our own resources, and gaining the extra powers to compete better.

But the number one reason isn't economic, it's because the people who live here, should make the decisions regarding

the future of this country.

Instead of having a feeble voice in London, where we will have a mere 50 out of 600 MPs,

- most of them totally useless.

Thanks dude. Its what ive been trying to say, but my anti english hatred just gets the better of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of economic reasons, including benefiting from our own resources

Look up how much Scotland contribute to the UK economy compared to how much they receive

and gaining the extra powers to compete better

You really think Scotland, a tiny country like an Iceland, would have any kind of international power? Despite the fact it's massively depleted from the world power it was, the UK still has a lot of international influence. In fact, the UK are one of the only 5 countries with a UN Security Council veto along with Russia, America, France and China.

Would Scotland have that?

But the number one reason isn't economic, it's because the people who live here, should make the decisions regarding the future of this country.

You mean a bunch of liars in Edinburgh should make the decisions for us rather than a bunch of liars in London?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up how much Scotland contribute to the UK economy compared to how much they receive

You really think Scotland, a tiny country like an Iceland, would have any kind of international power? Despite the fact it's massively depleted from the world power it was, the UK still has a lot of international influence. In fact, the UK are one of the only 5 countries with a UN Security Council veto along with Russia, America, France and China.

Would Scotland have that?

You mean a bunch of liars in Edinburgh should make the decisions for us rather than a bunch of liars in London?

You're kidding yourself if you think the UK calls the shots anymore.

We just kiss America's ass and do whatever they want, including getting dragged into their illegal wars.

Pretending we have a 'special relationship'.. Israel has far more influence on the US than we do, and Obama apparently dislikes Britain because of our colonial history in Kenya - he sent back a statue of Churchill that was in the White house.

And I do think a Scottish Government would represent us better.

Because their loyalty is to this country first and we would get the government we vote for.

50 MPs out of 600 in London is an insignificance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any bear voting for these Jacobite cunts wants a hefty kick in the balls.

Get a grip. There are plenty of Scottish rangers fans voting SNP.

Govan currently voted in Nicola Sturgeon, and Jim Sillars was an MP in the past.

There is no conflict at all. We are a proud Scottish and British club, and having political control

of our country won't change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...