Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[StreetCowboy]

@7x7

Would you like to reconsider your tone and remove any reference to me accusing a member of lying? I have merely asked Folium to confirm that he is a resident of Scotland and on the Scottish Voters Role.

It was news to me that he was a resident of Scotland and I'm merely asking for confirmation of that fact.

If Folium says that he is I will believe him without reservation.

It takes balls to admit one is Scottish,give it time,spare him the embarrassment.

Normally when I tell taxi drivers I'm Scottish, they say "Oh well, never mind..."; so I tried saying I was English once...

he turned round beaming "You've got cracking neighbours, eh?"

SC

Tell'imtaekeephiseyesontheroad,like

RIBB

Edited November 3, 2012 by StreetCowboy

[nontabury]

@7x7

Would you like to reconsider your tone and remove any reference to me accusing a member of lying? I have merely asked Folium to confirm that he is a resident of Scotland and on the Scottish Voters Role.

It was news to me that he was a resident of Scotland and I'm merely asking for confirmation of that fact.

If Folium says that he is I will believe him without reservation.

It takes balls to admit one is Scottish,give it time,spare him the embarrassment.

Normally when I tell taxi drivers I'm Scottish, they say "Oh well, never mind..."; so I tried saying I was English once...

he turned round beaming "You've got cracking neighbours, eh?"

SC

Tell'imtaekeephiseyesontheroad,like

RIBB

I think he was referring to the Welsh, or even maybe the French.

Edited November 3, 2012 by nontabury

[7by7]

@7x7

Would you like to reconsider your tone and remove any reference to me accusing a member of lying? I have merely asked Folium to confirm that he is a resident of Scotland and on the Scottish Voters Role.

It was news to me that he was a resident of Scotland and I'm merely asking for confirmation of that fact.

If Folium says that he is I will believe him without reservation.

He's already said that he is, yet you then asked him to confirm it. Not once; but at least twice!

Hardly believing him without reservation!

Which is why I asked you if you were accusing him of lying.

You have said that you were not; which is good enough for me.

[theblether]

@7x7

Would you like to reconsider your tone and remove any reference to me accusing a member of lying? I have merely asked Folium to confirm that he is a resident of Scotland and on the Scottish Voters Role.

It was news to me that he was a resident of Scotland and I'm merely asking for confirmation of that fact.

If Folium says that he is I will believe him without reservation.

He's already said that he is, yet you then asked him to confirm it. Not once; but at least twice!

Hardly believing him without reservation!

Which is why I asked you if you were accusing him of lying.

You have said that you were not; which is good enough for me.

Folium indicated that he was qualified to vote, I asked him to clarify that. It is you that is going down the road of using such pejorative language, not I.

If he comes back on and states that he is a resident of Scotland and on the Voters Roll I will accept that without reservation.

It's not up to you to be the arbiter of questions on this forum and most certainly not up to you to suggest that I'm accusing them of lying by merely asking for clarification.

I thinks it's only fair to Folium that we leave this issue just now and await his response.

[7by7]

Meanwhile, back to the major point of the post in question, which you have neatly attempted to dodge.

Sorry 7x7, that's not the source I've been talking about, the source I have been talking about has been posted twice already.

It is the only source posted by anyone which mentions any speculation on the effects of Scottish independence on the UK's position on the UNSC.

All other sources linked to on regarding UNSC reform do not mention it at all!

http://www.scribd.co...ecurity-Council

As you have to log in, i.e. join, to read the paper, I haven't read it. But the paper is entitled "Europe's Veto Power" and the page you linked to says

This paper argues for reforms of the UN Security Council membership

So the logical conclusion is that the paper argues for an EU role on the Security Council; nothing to do with the UK's position should Scotland leave the Union. However, if you can provide a quote from the paper saying that the UK's position is threatened by Scottish Independence, then at least you will have one source to back up your assertion. An academic paper from an organisation totally unassociated with the UN and funded largely by the German government, but at least a source.

Folium says he has read it, and no mention is made of Scottish independence.

So, can you quote the relevant part in order to educate me and prove him wrong?

Found a quote yet?

[theblether]

As for your other issue re the Veto.......the chronological order is clear. I stated that there was a threat to the UK standing on the UNSC, you among others guffawed me for saying that, I then provided a link to a discussion paper that addressed that issue. Then you all back tracked and did the usual Instant Google expert thing, and then did the usual shoot the messenger thing.

Later in the week it emerged that the Washington Post also addressed the issue, only this time they addressed it directly in connection with the Scottish Independence debate, that's not a matter for me, that's a matter for the newspaper.

It verifies my point that there is a debate taking place at the moment about the UK standing at the UNSC.

As per usual though, in the face of evidence of a debate by third parties, rather than say, " oh well theblether, before I opened this topic I didn't know that" you all rush to the barricades and start howling at the moon.

It's amusing and tiring to watch at the same time.

.

Edited November 3, 2012 by theblether

[7by7]

Yes, you stated that there is a threat due to Scottish independence; and you have produced no evidence of that apart from an opinion piece which says there is some speculation on this issue.

I ask you again, speculation by whom?

No one has denied that there are discussions regarding the make up of the UNSC; I have provided a link to the official UN meetings on this very subject which have been going on since 1992!

When will you admit that the reason you have not been able to provide a link to show that Scottish independence is a serious consideration in this matter is because it isn't?

Even the link you claim did so, doesn't!

[endure]

Just a reminder...

4) Not to flame fellow members.Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.

[theblether]

From post 142

Cameron needs to maintain the Union, the implications to the standing of the UK in World terms is far beyond what many people here now realize. For example, there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland. The UN Security Council seat has a value far beyond what most people here realize. That is only one of many issues that will come under scrutiny by the international community, and losing Scotland could relegate the UK into the second tier of countries within a generation.

I then went on to provide links that there was already a campaign running in reference to the UK seat on the UNSC.

Now, let's look at this for a moment...........I stated that it was unlikely that the UK would retain the seat after Independence, not definite. I also stated in a later post that countries opposed to the UK will move against the UK position when the time was right, the time will be right if Scotland leaves the UK.

The Washington Post then came to the fore and stated what I had already said, that the UK seat could be under threat if Scotland gained Independence.

The UNSC has been looking at the issue of reconstruction for years, but they will be doing so based upon the current circumstances, there is no way due to International protocol that they will publicly figure in the effect of Scottish Independence.

This is not the " Dance of the Seven Veils" that was put forward previously as a strategy...........this is Real Politik. Other countries will not get involved in the referendum debate, it's against International Protocol to do so, but the next morning, in the event that the debate is won by the SNP, there will be recalculations pouring through every political office in the First World.

So as far as I'm concerned, you are merely and Instant Google on this issue........you didn't have a clue before I brought it up, it's been proven that the make up of the UNSC has been under discussion, it's been proven that the UK seat is under discussion, and the WA has discussed the possible effects of Independence upon the debate.

At this point, that's enough to be going on with...........the UK the day after Scotland votes for Independence will be a diminished and weaker place.......far weaker than some of you guys are prepared to believe.

As for we SNP supporters? We don't care, we don't crave the power and glory that you English do.

[7by7]

Yet again you state as fact that "there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland" and yet again the only evidence you offer for this is a throwaway line in an opinion piece in a newspaper; one journalists opinion!

The pathetic excuse you offer for not providing more evidence; that other countries wont speak out due to international protocol barring them from doing so as it might effect the results of the referendum, just wont wash.

I asked before, you didn't answer; so I ask again; if no one is mentioning this due to international protocol, how come you are aware of this so called campaign?

You ignored the question last time; will you answer it now?

Surely the same 'international protocol' would bar countries from speaking out on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU; hasn't stopped two EU commissioners nor the Spanish government from doing so, though!

BTW, I was well aware of discussions on reform of the UNSC and the possibility of the EU as a whole replacing both the UK and France long before you raised it here. I was not aware of Scottish independence being an issue in this until you brought it up. Yes, I did use Google to find any evidence of this (I didn't, quite the contrary in fact), as I said before; that's what it is, a research tool.

What have you got against Google, or similar search engines? Surely you are not dismissing them so lightly because they return results disproving your assertion rather than proving it?

Would you be so dismissive if I'd gone to a library and ploughed through piles of paper to find the same results?

I wonder where you found the Washington Post piece you place so much weight upon. Arte you a subscriber or, whisper it if one dare; did you find it from a search engine?

This is a side issue; but you have cleverly used it to detract from the important question raised in this topic. Namely when will Salmond come clean about the increased taxes, higher unemployment and reduction in services Scotland will face when it loses it's current tax subsidy from England?

Edited November 3, 2012 by 7by7

[theblether]

I've ignored nothing.....you don't like answer

Ps. You've just shot yourself in the foot, have a look at your post and work out why.

Edited November 3, 2012 by theblether

[StreetCowboy]

Yet again you state as fact that "there is a campaign running just now to have the UK removed as a permanent member of the UN Security council, it is unlikely that the seat would be retained after Independence for Scotland" and yet again the only evidence you offer for this is a throwaway line in an opinion piece in a newspaper; one journalists opinion!

The pathetic excuse you offer for not providing more evidence; that other countries wont speak out due to international protocol barring them from doing so as it might effect the results of the referendum, just wont wash.

I asked before, you didn't answer; so I ask again; if no one is mentioning this due to international protocol, how come you are aware of this so called campaign?

You ignored the question last time; will you answer it now?

Surely the same 'international protocol' would bar countries from speaking out on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU; hasn't stopped two EU commissioners nor the Spanish government from doing so, though!

BTW, I was well aware of discussions on reform of the UNSC and the possibility of the EU as a whole replacing both the UK and France long before you raised it here. I was not aware of Scottish independence being an issue in this until you brought it up. Yes, I did use Google to find any evidence of this (I didn't, quite the contrary in fact), as I said before; that's what it is, a research tool.

What have you got against Google, or similar search engines? Surely you are not dismissing them so lightly because they return results disproving your assertion rather than proving it?

Would you be so dismissive if I'd gone to a library and ploughed through piles of paper to find the same results?

I wonder where you found the Washington Post piece you place so much weight upon. Arte you a subscriber or, whisper it if one dare; did you find it from a search engine?

This is a side issue; but you have cleverly used it to detract from the important question raised in this topic. Namely when will Salmond come clean about the increased taxes, higher unemployment and reduction in services Scotland will face when it loses it's current tax subsidy from England?

I'm guessing that he reckons we will lose our UN seat before Scotland gains independence, therefore it is unlikely we (you? maybe it will go to Scotland?) will retain our UN seat after Scotland gains independence; I'm hoping Scotland will gain independence not before the dinosaurs resume dominance of the earth. (Looking at the Scottish labour party, maybe a better metaphor might have been in order...)

SC

[David48]

@7x7

<snip> I have merely asked Folium to confirm that he is a resident of Scotland.<snip>

It takes balls to admit one is Scottish,give it time,spare him the embarrassment.

Normally when I tell taxi drivers I'm Scottish, they say "Oh well, never mind..."; so I tried saying I was English once...

he turned round beaming "You've got cracking neighbours, eh?"

SC

Tell'imtaekeephiseyesontheroad,like

RIBB

...

[StreetCowboy]

deleted quote edited out

I'm always a little bit embarrassed to express contemptible opinions, and when I do, I try to do so in a light-hearted and generous manner. I suppose that highlights the benefits of an independent education system.

SC

Edited November 4, 2012 by Scott

[dundee48]

To `The Blether`I have just read every post in this discussion and would like to thank you for becoming invovled in it.Since you became involved the petty,sniping anti-Scottish rhetoric has all but disappeared.These people know who they are but haven`t had the guts to re-appear after you shot them down in flames.I don`t agree with everything you have written but at least i can make an honest judgement based on some very good links that have been posted by you and others.

Regards Dundee.

[StreetCowboy]

To `The Blether`I have just read every post in this discussion and would like to thank you for becoming invovled in it.Since you became involved the petty,sniping anti-Scottish rhetoric has all but disappeared.These people know who they are but haven`t had the guts to re-appear after you shot them down in flames.I don`t agree with everything you have written but at least i can make an honest judgement based on some very good links that have been posted by you and others.

Regards Dundee.

I was quite surprised at the anti-unionist stance, and indeed the anti-British stance displayed by some of our English compatriots. It didn't tally with my experience of English people back in the Old Country. Maybe English people emigrate because they hate their country, but Scottish people emigrate although they love their country.

SC

[theblether]

@dundee48, thanks very much, I appreciate you saying that......the strange thing is I've been fire-fighting throughout this thread and I haven't put the case for Scottish Independence yet.

If you can forgive me, I won't be doing that any time soon either........I take this issue very seriously and there is a lot of research going in to the arguments at the moment. It will take me a few months before I'm ready to fully engage.

ps. I don't agree with everything that the SNP stand for, argumentative discourse is the source of learning and democracy.

Edited November 3, 2012 by theblether

[nontabury]

This is a side issue; but you have cleverly used it to detract from the important question raised in this topic. Namely when will Salmond come clean about the increased taxes, higher unemployment and reduction in services Scotland will face when it loses it's current tax subsidy from England?

He cannot answer these questions because the SNP does not know, or if they do know, maybe the answers will not help their cause.However we must give him some credit, he is at least trying to justify separation for Scotland on economical facts,even if those facts don't hold up.this is in contrast with a large number of SNP supporters who will base their judgement solely on a anti- English Sentiment,

[nontabury]

To `The Blether`I have just read every post in this discussion and would like to thank you for becoming invovled in it.Since you became involved the petty,sniping anti-Scottish rhetoric has all but disappeared.These people know who they are but haven`t had the guts to re-appear after you shot them down in flames.I don`t agree with everything you have written but at least i can make an honest judgement based on some very good links that have been posted by you and others.

Regards Dundee.

I was quite surprised at the anti-unionist stance, and indeed the anti-British stance displayed by some of our English compatriots. It didn't tally with my experience of English people back in the Old Country. Maybe English people emigrate because they hate their country, but Scottish people emigrate although they love their country.

SC

Would agree with most of this,but let's not forget it's the attitude of many whinging Scots(Sc,I don't include you in this) which has led to many English people, to now say enough is enough.

Yes, many English people have left their country and many more would like to, it's not because they hate their country,they just do not like how it's been transformed by the likes of Blair and Brown. Maybe some Scots feel the same,yet they have an alternative,namely the SNP.

[theblether]

This is a side issue; but you have cleverly used it to detract from the important question raised in this topic. Namely when will Salmond come clean about the increased taxes, higher unemployment and reduction in services Scotland will face when it loses it's current tax subsidy from England?

He cannot answer these questions because the SNP does not know, or if they do know, maybe the answers will not help their cause.However we must give him some credit, he is at least trying to justify separation for Scotland on economical facts,even if those facts don't hold up.this is in contrast with a large number of SNP supporters who will base their judgement solely on a anti- English Sentiment,

It's all about the money, money, money.............that's what the battle will boil down to, money plain and simple. Out-with pointing out the Corporation Tax issue I haven't even remotely started to outline the economic case for separation. I have no intention of doing so at the moment either, it will take me a while to gather all the information that I need before I put forward a case.

[StreetCowboy]

This is a side issue; but you have cleverly used it to detract from the important question raised in this topic. Namely when will Salmond come clean about the increased taxes, higher unemployment and reduction in services Scotland will face when it loses it's current tax subsidy from England?

He cannot answer these questions because the SNP does not know, or if they do know, maybe the answers will not help their cause.However we must give him some credit, he is at least trying to justify separation for Scotland on economical facts,even if those facts don't hold up.this is in contrast with a large number of SNP supporters who will base their judgement solely on a anti- English Sentiment,

It's all about the money, money, money.............that's what the battle will boil down to, money plain and simple. Out-with pointing out the Corporation Tax issue I haven't even remotely started to outline the economic case for separation. I have no intention of doing so at the moment either, it will take me a while to gather all the information that I need before I put forward a case.

Personally, I doubt that the EU will be sympathetic to a predatory pricing approach to corporation tax. My understanding is that they are seeking to harmonise taxation across Europe, generally at the expense of the taxpayer.

SC

[theblether]

The EU are powerless in this area.....they tried to get the Irish to raise the rate from 12% and the Irish refused point blank.

[7by7]

I see that you now wish to drop the UNSC issue; presumably because you realise, or more likely have known all along, that Scottish independence has no bearing on the matter.

So one has to wonder why you raised it in the first place!

I can only surmise that it was because you know that the overwhelming attitude to Scottish independence among the English is a mixture of indifference and good riddance. Therefore you felt the need to try and convince us that the English need Scotland and would suffer dire consequences were you to become independent.

Despite some flippant remarks I may have made in this topic, I am a unionist at heart and do believe that the UK will be stronger with Scotland than without it. But the simple fact, hated by Salmond and his supporters, is that Scotland needs the union more than England does.

The majority of Scottish people are intelligent enough to realise this; which is why the SNP may have garnered 45.4% of the Scottish vote in the 2011 Scottish parliament election, seen by many as a sideshow, in the 2010 general election they only managed 19.9%; their worst result since 1983!

(Yes, I did use Google to come up with these figures; it's called research and does not mean they are wrong!)

I await with keen anticipation your economic arguments; after you have done your research; presumably without the aid of Google or any other search engine!

[theblether]

You're the guy that said in the last post that you knew previous to this thread that there was a threat to the UK standing on the UNSC, if you choose to believe that losing Scotland will not have an affect then Up To You

You also seem to overlook that the Scottish electorate is very sophisticated, we made a concerted effort to eradicate the Tory presence from Scotland and switched votes to ensure that it happened. Unfortunately one of them still snuck in.......we'll get him next time

[7by7]

You're the guy that said in the last post that you knew previous to this thread that there was a threat to the UK standing on the UNSC

Not just my last post, but many previous to that; I have never denied it and pointed out repeatedly that discussion on reform started 10 years ago!

if you choose to believe that losing Scotland will not have an affect then Up To You

As, despite many requests, you have failed to provide any evidence, apart from one throwaway line in one opinion piece in one newspaper, that it will and as my own research has failed to come up with any serious mention of it; I do choose to believe it.

If you choose to believe, without any evidence, the opposite; up to you.

End of this sideshow as far as I am concerned. I now eagerly await your response to the economic arguments against Scottish independence.

Once you have managed to find some, which you admit will take you some months to do.

And please don't say that the referendum is two years away and all the arguments will be presented before then; if the SNP don't already have their economic arguments prepared then they really are a bunch clowns!

BTW, tactical voting in 2010 by the whole of Scotland to get rid of the Tories? Really? What Tories?

1997, Tories win no seats in Scotland, 2001 they win one, 2005 they win one, 2010 they win one with their share of the vote staying roughly the same over the period; between 15 and 17%.

When it comes to the crunch, Scottish voters are sophisticated enough to know that the SNP are fine for local affairs and powerless ego trips like the EU Parliament; but when it comes to exercising real power they simply don't trust them! Similar to the position of the LibDems in England, really.

Edited November 4, 2012 by 7by7

[nontabury]

This is a side issue; but you have cleverly used it to detract from the important question raised in this topic. Namely when will Salmond come clean about the increased taxes, higher unemployment and reduction in services Scotland will face when it loses it's current tax subsidy from England?

He cannot answer these questions because the SNP does not know, or if they do know, maybe the answers will not help their cause.However we must give him some credit, he is at least trying to justify separation for Scotland on economical facts,even if those facts don't hold up.this is in contrast with a large number of SNP supporters who will base their judgement solely on a anti- English Sentiment,

It's all about the money, money, money.............that's what the battle will boil down to, money plain and simple. Out-with pointing out the Corporation Tax issue I haven't even remotely started to outline the economic case for separation. I have no intention of doing so at the moment either, it will take me a while to gather all the information that I need before I put forward a case.

The SNP is not only relying on what they consider to be the the financial advantages for separation, they are also using good old fashioned Nationalism and Anti-English sentiment. Alex Salmond Demanded that the vote takes place in 2014,does that Number equate with a monetary return,or does it mean something else.He also demanded that 16-17yr olds received the vote,presumably expecting to take advantage of their maturity and their experience in the money world, and nothing to do with feeding them on a diet of Mel Gibson's interpretation of Braveheart.

You mentioned some time back that you consider Alex Salmonds to be far to clever for David

Cameron, this again is something that only time will prove, David Cameron did reject AS demand for a 2nd question at the vote,that in the event of a No vote, Scotland would receive greater powers of devolution and of course more subsidies from the English tax payers.In other words DC is saying to Scotland your either in or out,no second option. I'm only disappointed that DC did not insist,that in the event of a No vote,Scotland would then be treated exactly the same as the English ,with no preferential term as they now enjoy, thus ensuring that both the SNP and the English people would be happy with the outcome.

[theblether]

I missed the part where Alex Salmond requested the second question......can you point me in that direction please? Not newspaper speculation, just the link to any official government body that can confirm the second question was requested. This is a genuine request, I'm not trying to be smart.

DC knows he's walking into a trap........and all you guys that are moaning about 16 and 17 year old's getting the vote, wake up and smell the coffee. These kids can legally marry blah blah, and we should involve them in every aspect of British politics, the adults in the country are abandoning democracy in their droves, the voting turnout is terrible going on abysmal.

I personally think that if you are old enough to marry then you are old enough to vote, no doubt some sour old codgers won't agree with that, but amusingly they are the same sour old codgers that don't vote anyway.

Just sayin'

Edited November 4, 2012 by theblether

[7by7]

Cameron is not walking into a trap at all; rather he has set one for Salmond.

If the vote is 'Yes' then Westminster can wash it's hands of Scotland; good bye, you're on your own, don't come to us for help when your money runs out.

If the far more likely result happens, a 'No' vote, then Cameron knows that Salmond and the SNP will be relegated back into the obscurity of local government politics; where they belong.

The 'DevoMax' question, which according to all media reports Salmond, but not necessarily his party, did want included as a second question, is now dead in the water; you're in, or you're out!

[theblether]

Ehm......I think you'll find it was the opposite however you can feel free to provide the link to where Alex Salmond or any other SNP official requested the second question.

Google is your friend.......no newspaper speculation, just a factual link.

[theblether]

You're the guy that said in the last post that you knew previous to this thread that there was a threat to the UK standing on the UNSC

Not just my last post, but many previous to that; I have never denied it and pointed out repeatedly that discussion on reform started 10 years ago!

if you choose to believe that losing Scotland will not have an affect then Up To You

As, despite many requests, you have failed to provide any evidence, apart from one throwaway line in one opinion piece in one newspaper, that it will and as my own research has failed to come up with any serious mention of it; I do choose to believe it.

If you choose to believe, without any evidence, the opposite; up to you.

End of this sideshow as far as I am concerned. I now eagerly await your response to the economic arguments against Scottish independence.

Once you have managed to find some, which you admit will take you some months to do.

And please don't say that the referendum is two years away and all the arguments will be presented before then; if the SNP don't already have their economic arguments prepared then they really are a bunch clowns!

BTW, tactical voting in 2010 by the whole of Scotland to get rid of the Tories? Really? What Tories?

1997, Tories win no seats in Scotland, 2001 they win one, 2005 they win one, 2010 they win one with their share of the vote staying roughly the same over the period; between 15 and 17%.

When it comes to the crunch, Scottish voters are sophisticated enough to know that the SNP are fine for local affairs and powerless ego trips like the EU Parliament; but when it comes to exercising real power they simply don't trust them! Similar to the position of the LibDems in England, really.

You're wrong on all counts...........your understanding of what has happened in Scottish politics is so off base it's alarming. The Scots came to the polls and awarded the SNP a minority government, when they returned to the polls, they awarded them a majority government, a position that Cameron cannot claim.

I don't think you have the first idea of what has actually happened here, no idea at all. I think you should take a look back at Donald Dewars involvement in the set up of the Scottish Parliament and Devolution debate. Now dead, he cannot defend himself, but he, more than any other modern politician, created these circumstances where the SNP have become a two term and majority party of government.......and yet you denigrate them as being no more than local government politicians.

You really don't know what's happened here and I look forward to you explaining your reading of Scottish political history since 1997.......let's give you a clue, was Tony Blair in favour of Devolution?