Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't believe SNP are trusted in Scotland, think its a case of the best

out of a bad bunch. I'm hoping if its a yes, some ofthe people who have become involved

will continue to follow, and be involved in the changes that come.most people I know believe it

may be hard, but also feel there is a chance for people to come together and actually prectice

creating a democracy. who knows what may happen, only time woud tell.

But there has LONG been talk of the UK leaving the EU right?


The Conservatives (or a large portion of them anyway) advocate this and many UK voters would back them. And this has been the case long before Scotland referendum


So would that be political or emotional if it was to become policy?


as for ""We are better off alone, just us""


does the "just us" mean " we will be better off if it's just us alone" or "just us who will be better off" ?

if i was being pedantic, given the inadequcies of politicians, economists, polemicists, sociologists and analysts at having the foggiest idea at the correlation between policy and result and evenworse at predicting the future results, I'd posit that there is no difference between the political and the emotional.


But yes, i think most going for the EU exit are ideologically/emotionally driven than objectrively so, but then of course they'd say that they are objective and anyone hoping to stay in the EU is driven by ideology/emotion/fear.


As for the cornish thing earlier, utterly ridiculous, but if it happens then the plunge into balkanisation will headlong!!

going back to the voting rights of Scottish MPS in Westminster (west Lothian question), the issue becomes a lot simpler and even a non-issue.

one consequence of Scotland leaving the UK would be that the 59 Scottish seats at Westminster will disappear or be subsumed into the Scottish Parliament. Its only a question of when that happens

I reckon Cameron et al know something about a $hit load more of yet to be drilled for oil in the North Sea. Can't see why else he would be so desperate to keep the jocks happy? It surely benefits the tories if scotland leaves the union anyway doesn't it?


Louisa.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Apparently Brown has just made an amazing speech

> which is going to change everything (sounds highly

> improbable I'll grant you). Anyone seen / heard

> it?


Saw it in work - No Sound - he was emotional though -

and a few of us said it looked like he was at his best.

I dunno, maybe just maybe, he thinks 300 years of joint history shouldn't be thrown away*


*added to which he doesn't want to go down as the PM who lost it, and it'll almost certainly cost him his job


..but cyncism aside I think it's possible that many tories aren't just weighing up the advantages getting rid of Scotland will give them in a GE

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> But there has LONG been talk of the UK leaving the

> EU right?

>

> The Conservatives (or a large portion of them

> anyway) advocate this and many UK voters would

> back them. And this has been the case long before

> Scotland referendum -


er, they don't (yet) and those that largely do this on a fuzzy 'we're different to Europe' which is pretty interchangeable with 'we're different to England (Or London/Westminster) and there's not much difference really.


Plus the EU is a 50ish year old arrangement which we've been part of for 40 years with diverse languages etc etc not a 300 year old plus union

>

> So would that be political or emotional if it was

> to become policy?

>

> as for ""We are better off alone, just us""

>

> does the "just us" mean " we will be better off if

> it's just us alone" THIS BIT or "just us who will be better

> off" ?

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I reckon Cameron et al know something about a $hit

> load more of yet to be drilled for oil in the

> North Sea. Can't see why else he would be so

> desperate to keep the jocks happy? It surely

> benefits the tories if scotland leaves the union

> anyway doesn't it?

>

> Louisa.


Alistair Carmichael (MP for Northern isles) says Shetland

may gain independence from Scotland - if they vote more than

60% No.


There is a new well west of Shetland


and the Guardian denies it :)


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/conspiracy-theories-scots-government-oilfield-shetland

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I reckon Cameron et al know something about a $hit

> load more of yet to be drilled for oil in the

> North Sea. Can't see why else he would be so

> desperate to keep the jocks happy? It surely

> benefits the tories if scotland leaves the union

> anyway doesn't it

>

> Louisa.


The wood review on uks oil.


http://www.woodreview.co.uk/

"Small mindness to me - don't see huge emotional differences in the outcomes that the SNP and UKIP seek. Little englanders and Little scotlanders."


^totally agree with this.


My theory is that Eck accuses the no side of doing the very things that he does himself:

Bullying and blustering? = exactly what he does

That the offer from the 3 main parties is a load of nothing? = exactly what he's offering, with no chance of paying for it.


The Scottish Government/Holyrood already have the power to raise income tax by 3p so why didn't they do it to help the NHS? All they do is reiterate 'scaremongering', 'negative campaign' and 'Westminster's fault'.


Someone I greatly admire has advised, 'just be stoical about it, there'll be big changes either way which might be good for us' but I don't feel like that. Like most I know, I feel unsettled, its been hugely divisive.


I don't think its a good idea to offer yet more incentives to Scotland. Why haven't they used the extra tax raising powers that already exist? No wonder the rest of the union is feeling disgruntled.


'free' prescriptions have not helped the truly poor in society (that has always been there for them so they haven't seen a benefit, unlike others).


The Clair oil field was discovered in the 70s, so nothing new. Now up for sale. Interest in the west of Shetlands has been going on for donkeys years. Of course, the yes campaign have pooh-poohed comments by Sir Ian Wood, so hey, they must be right. Rather listen to them than someone with 40+yrs experience in the industry. I could go on but won't.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This is why the NFU are so unhappy that Clarkson is involved as it distracts from the issues for real farmers. Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation and, I suspect, a long way from the truth but something to government would love for people to think. Again, read this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo          
    • Anyone got any feedback on Transgender Awareness Week over the last week? I don't. And neither has my wife. And neither have my sisters. And neither has my mum, nor my daughter   x
    • It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately.  If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.
    • Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉  Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash.  Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671. Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably.... Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...