rajyindee Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) It'll be interesting to see the next couple of Honours Lists ... a few folk are "owed one". Andy Murray? Lord Murray of Dunblane? Or just, Sir Andrew? Oh I reckon he'll go with the Lord bit. No need ... I've just found out his middle name is Barron. Back to the serious stuff now ... the golf starts next Friday! Edited September 19, 2014 by rajyindee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laobali Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 10% is a pretty big difference. No one can say it was close ... Whether there will another referendum depends on central government. And of course nationalists would like to see another try in nearby future. You fail, try again ... Important is that Britain didn't fall apart. Because it's held together by Scotch tape? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tezzainthailand Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Now we need Australia to have a referendum and cut the cord from mother England. For sure, but the mood for change in Australia is almost non existent. We have to wait until the current monarchist PM is removed, preferably sooner than later, and throw out the knights and dames with him. Once that has been achieved, moves can be made for change and I think the time for change (a referendum for an Australian head of state) is either within a year of the Queen's 100 th birthday, within a year of her passing (if it is before her 99th birthday), or within the year she passes the baton to Charles if she so chooses. This method would show goodwill and respect to the Queen, and at the same time give momentum and incentive for Australians to elect a mate as head of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laobali Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Now we need Australia to have a referendum and cut the cord from mother England. For sure, but the mood for change in Australia is almost non existent. We have to wait until the current monarchist PM is removed, preferably sooner than later, and throw out the knights and dames with him. Once that has been achieved, moves can be made for change and I think the time for change (a referendum for an Australian head of state) is either within a year of the Queen's 100 th birthday, within a year of her passing (if it is before her 99th birthday), or within the year she passes the baton to Charles if she so chooses. This method would show goodwill and respect to the Queen, and at the same time give momentum and incentive for Australians to elect a mate as head of state. "... throw out the knights and dames ..." Including Dame Edna? Shame she's 80 already. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somtamnication Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Christ, we have another 300 years of support the Scots madness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Sensible result in the end. Salmonds aim was to be the "Founding Father of Scotland" by any means. Look at the destruction he has left behind. he was right about one thing....Scotland does get to keep the pound Yes... Earlier this year two men dreamt they could become prime minister of their country by curious routes. One succeeded and one failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Sensible result in the end. Salmonds aim was to be the "Founding Father of Scotland" by any means. Look at the destruction he has left behind. he was right about one thing....Scotland does get to keep the pound Yes... Earlier this year two men dreamt they could become prime minister of their country by curious routes. One succeeded and one failed. I suspect that Salmond was aiming a bit higher than mere Prime Minister! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajyindee Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) Sensible result in the end. Salmonds aim was to be the "Founding Father of Scotland" by any means. Look at the destruction he has left behind. he was right about one thing....Scotland does get to keep the pound Yes... Earlier this year two men dreamt they could become prime minister of their country by curious routes. One succeeded and one failed. It may have escaped your notice but Salmond already was, and still is, First Minister of Scotland. Edited September 19, 2014 by rajyindee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tezzainthailand Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Now we need Australia to have a referendum and cut the cord from mother England. For sure, but the mood for change in Australia is almost non existent. We have to wait until the current monarchist PM is removed, preferably sooner than later, and throw out the knights and dames with him. Once that has been achieved, moves can be made for change and I think the time for change (a referendum for an Australian head of state) is either within a year of the Queen's 100 th birthday, within a year of her passing (if it is before her 99th birthday), or within the year she passes the baton to Charles if she so chooses. This method would show goodwill and respect to the Queen, and at the same time give momentum and incentive for Australians to elect a mate as head of state. "... throw out the knights and dames ..." Including Dame Edna? Shame she's 80 already. Ooops, except for Dame Edna, and Sir Les! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 I wonder what the turn out would be if all our previous colonies had a chance to return to Britain (and become the UK)? Would Hong Kong prefer to be with us, or the Chinese? Hong kongers I know hate the mainland Chinese and are very British-ish. Myanmar you don't even need to think about, they'd be 1000 times better off with British rule. Talk to any cab driver in Sri Lanka and they wish the British had stayed. The list keeps going. Good for Scotland, I'm happy they stayed and my Scottish friends all voted No. yep.. I was in Gibraltar when they had their referendum. I think 3 (or was it 4)people voted to join Spain. Someone on here will know the figure I'm sure. That, together with Catalan, is probably why the Spanish Prime Minister waded into the debate about Scotland and the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Next up - Catalan http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29274849 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emilymat Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Sensible result in the end. Salmonds aim was to be the "Founding Father of Scotland" by any means. Look at the destruction he has left behind. he was right about one thing....Scotland does get to keep the pound Yes... Earlier this year two men dreamt they could become prime minister of their country by curious routes. One succeeded and one failed. It may have escaped your notice but Salmond already was, and still is, First Minister of Scotland. I know that of course. Supposed to be a tongue in cheek post. However, in an independent Scotland the title 'first minister' would not apply surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajyindee Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 I know that of course. Supposed to be a tongue in cheek post. However, in an independent Scotland the title 'first minister' would not apply surely? You've lost me. Salmond hasn't failed in becoming First Minister of Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post 71Cuda Posted September 19, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2014 What a bunch of Jellyfish. Scotland should have a referendum to change their name from: Scotland to Spineless/KissAssLand. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 What a bunch of Jellyfish. Scotland should have a referendum to change their name from: Scotland to Spineless/KissAssLand. Quite, I'm embarrassed to be a Scot today - what a bunch of narrow-minded dumpties. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
personchester Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Madness is over. This is win of common sense. Deception based on irrational and blind nationalism has lost. I hope forever. This cannot be regarded as madness because almost half the Scottish voters (45 %) wanted independence, 55 % of voters went against this and Scotland will remain part of the UK as it has been for 307 years. The "YES" voters wanted their country to be independent in order to ensure that they have no more control from others. Due to the large numbers of Scots that wanted independence the British government will provide additional political freedom for Scotland in order to ensure that they will continue to stay within the UK. When those matters take place in Scotland this will then also be requested by Wales & Nth.Ireland and they will no doubt receive the same addition in order to keep them all in the United Kingdom (UK). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i claudius Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 From the beginning I said that turkeys never vote for Xmas Scotland got to much out of being in the UK now let's have English MPs only making decisions for England and Scots not allowed to vote except on Scottish matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munsterman Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 .. if we didnt stand up to england i fear we are next to be taken over by the followers of the religion of peace.. What, is Man U Supporters Club really heading north? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 From the beginning I said that turkeys never vote for Xmas Scotland got to much out of being in the UK now let's have English MPs only making decisions for England and Scots not allowed to vote except on Scottish matters A reasonable request....but this is only going to work when England devolves these things into regional assemblies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketjock Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 What a bunch of Jellyfish. Scotland should have a referendum to change their name from: Scotland to Spineless/KissAssLand. Quite, I'm embarrassed to be a Scot today - what a bunch of narrow-minded dumpties. The front page pre referendum VOW is already being threatened with being renaged on, watched a post result interview with William Hague and when asked about the promised new revenue raising powers for the post referendum Scottish government and continuation of the Barnett payment system he immediately said " oh well if there are new revenue raising powers for the Scottish government we may have to adjust the Barnett system payment levels." The ink is barely dry on the counting officers declaration papers and the Westminister rats are up to their old lying and cheating ways, nothing new there then. @asterds of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketjock Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Madness is over. This is win of common sense. Deception based on irrational and blind nationalism has lost. I hope forever. This cannot be regarded as madness because almost half the Scottish voters (45 %) wanted independence, 55 % of voters went against this and Scotland will remain part of the UK as it has been for 307 years. The "YES" voters wanted their country to be independent in order to ensure that they have no more control from others. Due to the large numbers of Scots that wanted independence the British government will provide additional political freedom for Scotland in order to ensure that they will continue to stay within the UK. When those matters take place in Scotland this will then also be requested by Wales & Nth.Ireland and they will no doubt receive the same addition in order to keep them all in the United Kingdom (UK). You think see my post above??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 What a bunch of Jellyfish. Scotland should have a referendum to change their name from: Scotland to Spineless/KissAssLand.Quite, I'm embarrassed to be a Scot today - what a bunch of narrow-minded dumpties. The front page pre referendum VOW is already being threatened with being renaged on, watched a post result interview with William Hague and when asked about the promised new revenue raising powers for the post referendum Scottish government and continuation of the Barnett payment system he immediately said " oh well if there are new revenue raising powers for the Scottish government we may have to adjust the Barnett system payment levels." The ink is barely dry on the counting officers declaration papers and the Westminister rats are up to their old lying and cheating ways, nothing new there then. @asterds of the highest order. To be fair to the brave Scots voters, as apposed to the bigoted nationalist, I think very few if any changed their voting intentions due to what the 3 Westminster clowns were saying, the intelligent Scottish voters realised that any further Scottish subsidies would have to be endorsed by a parliament consisting of M.P's from all over the country and not the 3 unwise men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyf Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 "The North Sea oil boom predates Salmond's political career. He joined the SNP in 1973 when he was about 19 years old so he would have been about 21 years old when you claim you first saw his rhetoric. He was first elected to Westminster in 1987 when he was about 33 years old." That would be about right. Most senior politicians are very vocal in their early years. William Hague is probably the most notable. I do do not know about your area but in Grampian SNP was very controversial and on the news frequently. This party that Salmond signed up to advocated an SRA to operate in the same way as the IRA, hardly in the interests of the Scottish community. Oil did not predate Salmond. My brother went to work at Ardersier in 1975 when he was 19 and stayed on the booke till they closed. My cousin also went at the same time but was made redundant early nineties and went offshore. At 67 he is still a deck supervisor on a Shell NPV. Many thet I went to school with returned to Forres to work at the yard. Later in the nineties most were made redundant and a lot of the money went back to the local community. That part of Scotland certainly prospered from the North Sea Oil. At this point in time the English Government were not the Number 1 enemy, it was the Americans. The people of Aberdeen resented being taken over and the perception was that the Scots do the work and the Americans take the profit. Off course when they bailed out focus turned on Westminster. I had a friend, from RAF days, that had a good position in the oil industry. I visited him in 1988 in Aberdeen and he said they left like a plague of locusts, leaving a large percentage of the Aberdeen population in negative equity. Unfortunately he has since died of leukemia. What many fail to remember is in the quest for North Sea Oil the cost in terms of human life. I saw the wreck of Piper Alpha when it was moored near Dundee, not a pretty sight. With ME countries able to get oil from the ground so easily is it worth Scotland pursuing their reserves? At the end of the day common sense prevailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyf Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Sensible result in the end. Salmonds aim was to be the "Founding Father of Scotland" by any means. Look at the destruction he has left behind. he was right about one thing....Scotland does get to keep the pound Yes... Earlier this year two men dreamt they could become prime minister of their country by curious routes. One succeeded and one failed. I think you are mistaken, one dreamt that he could be the first President of an independent Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daffy D Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Maybe next time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robroona Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 It's great that such a large % of the electorate took part. The Nationalist thought this would help them, they din't realise that so many people would vote on known facts rather than a policy of no answers. One interesting point, if you look at the BBC map of Scotland, it's nearly all coloured for the "NO" side, surprisingly or is it, the only areas to vote "YES" where the Weston lowlands, (Glasgow, west Dumbartonshire,north Lanarkshire) and Dundee. Area wise very little, and areas that I would have thought were Labour country. What do you think? The areas you mention have higher unemployment, higher unemployable people, large student populations. Remember that this election was structured so that anyone who had an address in Scotland, including Eastern Europeans, immigrants whatever had the vote. There were many radio interviews with student activists who were not Scots, but spouting the Yes line. Was surprising to hear foreigners canvassing from Independence, Spaniards Poles etc. There was even one woman from Australia had traveled over as she had "Scots Heritage". The 16 and 17 year olds who were allowed to vote for the first time, and the only time, didn't do the trick for Salmond. Can you imagine an election in Thailand where school kids and foreigners were allowed to decide the destiny of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsetBkk Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Salmond's gone now. I hope the door doesn't hit him on the rear on the way out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockPieandBeans Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Sensible result in the end. Salmonds aim was to be the "Founding Father of Scotland" by any means. Look at the destruction he has left behind. he was right about one thing....Scotland does get to keep the pound Yes... Earlier this year two men dreamt they could become prime minister of their country by curious routes. One succeeded and one failed. It may have escaped your notice but Salmond already was, and still is, First Minister of Scotland. No he's not. He has resigned as First Minister and stepped down as the leader of the SNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post joecoolfrog Posted September 19, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2014 PhuketJock Please explain why the Barnett formula is neccessary if The Scottish parliament gets tax raising powers. Its no good trying the Salmond trick of blaming everything on nasty English tories , even the majority of Scots have now seen through that. Barnett is hugely unfair to certain less prosperous parts of the UK , notably Wales and the North East of England. Further devolution means Scotland taking financial responsibility , good luck expecting that from Salmond. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now