I see Jim McColl Clyde Blowers is backing snp ?

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,660]

Maybe I've been to critical of McColl ? Is all what it seems ? Now what you have got to ask yourself since the big fall out between wee salmond and the spawn of the devil over gay marriages does Jim McColl have an ulterior motive ? Confused Loyal !

[jack1690 793]

You said " We already get govt funding here which is higher per head of population than the rest of the UK."

Forgive me for paraphrasing that to subsidised !!!

BUT we pay our way ! and if you are NOT implying we are subsidised then you have answered your own question of how we fund ourselves!

Dont paraphrase me or try to twist words. You lot have no clue, same as your 2 "leaders".

You really do think our taxes will fund the country. Niave school kids could work out the economics but your lot cant.

[saintbob1969 1,473]

Now we know why he didn't get involved with us, he's a wee jacobite at heart, ah well all's well that ends well !

Fat Salmond keeps trotting out these dogs who love Scotland so much they don't actually live or pay taxes here. The media keep punting this propaganda. Makes me sick.

[ranter 136]

Where in my post did I use the word "subsidised"? You seeing things or just making them up to suit your agenda?

Still no answer from the shortbread tin models of where the money will come from for independance.

If they win the vote they will ammalgamate with sfa & sfl and when they need extra money they will just fine us.Simples,bastards.

[ray 105]

Fat Salmond keeps trotting out these dogs who love Scotland so much they don't actually live or pay taxes here. The media keep punting this propaganda. Makes me sick.

You mean like a previous Rangers owner setting up tax avoidance schemes to minimise tax payments to the exchequer, that landed us where we are ?

[meekogus 6]

Rule Britannia !

The Band of the Irish Guards playing a medley including the sash during the Trooping of the Colour.

That is outstanding!

[stevie1984 18]

You mean like a previous Rangers owner setting up tax avoidance schemes to minimise tax payments to the exchequer, that landed us where we are ?

That didnt land us where we are. Shyte not paying the PAYE did that. The tax avoidance scheme you speak of was perfectly legal at the time, and still hasnt been ruled on.

[bubblybear 258]

Stevie, so who got HMRC off our backs?

[ray 105]

That didnt land us where we are. Shyte not paying the PAYE did that. The tax avoidance scheme you speak of was perfectly legal at the time, and still hasnt been ruled on.

Are you fuckin thick stupid or all three, a five year old knows the difference between avoidance and evasion, any kunt avoiding or evading tax is a robbin bastard and should be put up against a wall.

Those fine chaps above in their red tunics get payed a fuckin pittance tae get shot at and defend our liberty, and rich fucks like sand dancing fitba' players and big business along with politicians use every "legal" loophole tae rob the exchequer of the money that funds this country and pays for equipment and the piss poor wages our fine young soldiers are grudgingly paid, and aye the sojers pay full fuckin tax.

No surrender, aye as long as we don't have tae pay full tax, Stalin knew how tae deal wi' the fucks who robbed the state.

[Seinchin 11]

You mean like a previous Rangers owner setting up tax avoidance schemes to minimise tax payments to the exchequer, that landed us where we are ?

Bollox, you really should do your research b4 you post.........

[ray 105]

Bollox, you really should do your research b4 you post.........

[stevie1984 18]

Are you fuckin thick stupid or all three, a five year old knows the difference between avoidance and evasion, any kunt avoiding or evading tax is a robbin bastard and should be put up against a wall.

Those fine chaps above in their red tunics get payed a fuckin pittance tae get shot at and defend our liberty, and rich fucks like sand dancing fitba' players and big business along with politicians use every "legal" loophole tae rob the exchequer of the money that funds this country and pays for equipment and the piss poor wages our fine young soldiers are grudgingly paid, and aye the sojers pay full fuckin tax.

No surrender, aye as long as we don't have tae pay full tax, Stalin knew how tae deal wi' the fucks who robbed the state.

lolz sleep it off man.

[goldenbaws 6]

Are you fuckin thick stupid or all three, a five year old knows the difference between avoidance and evasion, any kunt avoiding or evading tax is a robbin bastard and should be put up against a wall.

Those fine chaps above in their red tunics get payed a fuckin pittance tae get shot at and defend our liberty, and rich fucks like sand dancing fitba' players and big business along with politicians use every "legal" loophole tae rob the exchequer of the money that funds this country and pays for equipment and the piss poor wages our fine young soldiers are grudgingly paid, and aye the sojers pay full fuckin tax.

No surrender, aye as long as we don't have tae pay full tax, Stalin knew how tae deal wi' the fucks who robbed the state.

well said, it is morally indefensible to avoid tax considering the money these people earn, while everyone else pays up and struggles on.

[stevie1984 18]

A few masks slipping ITT.

[keithgersbear 3,225]

The SNP are an embarrassment and won't win any vote on independence. That cunt Alex Salmond even knows it.

[keithgersbear 3,225]

You said " anti-traditional Scottish Protestant establishment " -!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those token "prods" again I see.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,660]

If McColl turned up on the doorstep again would you want him ?

[bubblybear 258]

If McColl turned up on the doorstep again would you want him ?

I am surprised to admit this but, I think C Green and his consortium have the measure of J McColl and his cronies, I was one that wanted TBN and so called Rangers men to take over hindsight eh!

Now we have a Yorkshire man and god knows who running the show and doing a decent job of it, so my answer would be No, go with Greens plan for now take thier money but no control to one man.

[MaddistonKnight 1,567]

As one who never usually comments on this upcoming vote on the destruction of the Union.....................I would just like to say..............What the fuck has it to do with this cunt that has fucked off to live in a foreign country!

He is just being the same indecisive little cunt with his politics as he was in trying to buy our club.........................I ask any jacobite rebel on the forum to tell me ....what has the we fat keech come out with to make this fuckin no-mark to change his allegiance.

Oh! wait maybe it was the announcement of lady-boy running the campaign that gives him a hard on.

Also can anyone on here who intends to vote for these destructive cunts answers what their stance are on.......................

What will they do to replace the M.O.D jobs?

What will they do to replace the N.H.S?

What will they do to replace the Royal Mail?

What will they do to replace the shipbuilding and ship repair jobs?

What will they do to replace Transport subsidy?

What will they do to replace the Sate Pensions?

What will they do to replace Car Tax?

What will they do to replace the £

Just a few questions that would be interetsing to see what answers these destroyers on here who will vote for them...............I know as I took the time to find out!! was very interesting in the response they gave!

So unlike the poster who said people on here vote for the Union is because we are rangers fans ...........well this Rangers fan votes against these self-cantered bastards because in part the above points.

Yet I noticed the poster never mentioned any reason why the misguided vote for this shite snp....................why do they?

Final point ....this snp keech..want independence so they can stand on their own two feet(I know I still laugh at that) and at the same time want to be in the EU when they will have less say than they say they have in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nrth Ireland.

Will the EU want another Greece, Spain, Portugal or ireland..........can they afford another country to bailout .............and why does wee fat keech not wax lyrical anymore about this ireland anymore................?

I couldn't agree with you more.

Every point you made about the costs of independence have never been answered at all, so whats it to be people? off into the unknown without a fucking clue as to how we are going to survive, or provide the people with a fully costed economic model of an independent Scotland. And see the support disappear like snow aff a dyke?

Don't get me onto the EU. Independent on one hand by tied into a burgeoning sociopolitical economic union on the other - surely the definition of irony!

I've never liked Salmond, a true wee chancer if there ever was one. I would actually struggle to vote for him even if I did believe in independence. And as for Swinney - got married and changed his faith. If you cannot hold true to your faith you are not to be trusted at all. Lose it - it happens. Change it because of a woman - oh dear.

[Mr Struth 137]

You're certainly a survivor. Fuck knows how you've got away with it for so long. Well done, Declan.

I hate you and everything you, your family and every other gypsy like you stand for.

WATP.

Someone had a disappointing mass this morning.

[BEARGER 339]

As one who never usually comments on this upcoming vote on the destruction of the Union.....................I would just like to say..............What the fuck has it to do with this cunt that has fucked off to live in a foreign country!

He is just being the same indecisive little cunt with his politics as he was in trying to buy our club.........................I ask any jacobite rebel on the forum to tell me ....what has the we fat keech come out with to make this fuckin no-mark to change his allegiance.

Oh! wait maybe it was the announcement of lady-boy running the campaign that gives him a hard on.

Also can anyone on here who intends to vote for these destructive cunts answers what their stance are on.......................

What will they do to replace the M.O.D jobs?

What will they do to replace the N.H.S?

What will they do to replace the Royal Mail?

What will they do to replace the shipbuilding and ship repair jobs?

What will they do to replace Transport subsidy?

What will they do to replace the Sate Pensions?

What will they do to replace Car Tax?

What will they do to replace the £

Just a few questions that would be interetsing to see what answers these destroyers on here who will vote for them...............I know as I took the time to find out!! was very interesting in the response they gave!

So unlike the poster who said people on here vote for the Union is because we are rangers fans ...........well this Rangers fan votes against these self-cantered bastards because in part the above points.

Yet I noticed the poster never mentioned any reason why the misguided vote for this shite snp....................why do they?

Final point ....this snp keech..want independence so they can stand on their own two feet(I know I still laugh at that) and at the same time want to be in the EU when they will have less say than they say they have in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nrth Ireland.

Will the EU want another Greece, Spain, Portugal or ireland..........can they afford another country to bailout .............and why does wee fat keech not wax lyrical anymore about this ireland anymore................?

Did not realise we got all of the above for free at the moment.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Did not realise we got all of the above for free at the moment.

Ha ha ................ heavily subsidised by the rest of the UK and I am sure you are aware that we have the worst health regards the NHS requirements , also what sort of pension do you expect when you have what about say 1.5 million people paying tax and NI .Can go on and on..............

[1690KWilliam 168]

So what? Rangers fans don't have to be against independence nor does any board members.

[ray 105]

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."

　

This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.

　

This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.

　

Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.

　

Let's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.

　

Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.

　

Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.

　

For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.

　

But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.

----------------------------

Last figures are for 2009/10.

Every Scottish resident (5.2 million) received £10,400.

Every Londoner (8 million)got £10,655

Who's the 'subsidy junkie' ?

Table 9.4

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2011_chapter9.pdf

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."

　

This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.

　

This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.

　

Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.

　

Let's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.

　

Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.

　

Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.

　

For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.

　

But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.

oh shit!!

well said Ray !!