How will you vote?

[k979aaa]

So Margret thatcher was named the milk snatcher so should MAY be known as the house snatcher!

[SierraOscarBravo]

Scottish nationalists have still to explain why they wish to be independent of the UK but to hand over control of their country to the EU bureaucracy

If you don't buy into the lie that "EU bureaucracy" has control of your country there isn't anything to explain.

The bottom line is that the SNP manifesto on which they were elected as the government of Scotland contains a specific pledge to seek a second referendum if the UK voted to leave the EU. At the time nobody paid much attention to it probably because nobody actually thought the UK would be that stupid but here we are so as well as accepting the democratic will of the people of the UK to leave the EU we must also accept the democratic will of the Scottish people who voted the SNP into government based on a manifesto containing a pledge for a second referendum.

Anything else is just hypocritical bullshit.

The SNP manifesto can promise anything they want, but the bottom line is the power to call a second referendum in Scotland is a reserved power of the UK Government. Scotland has a devolved Parliament but on matters of the constitution it is the UK Government and Prime Minister who ultimately decide on whether there is an overwhelming demand in Scotland for a second referendum. Nicola Sturgeon does NOT have that power and if she were to go ahead with a referendum of her own, it would not only carry no legitimacy, but she would be breaking UK law.

[toomuchcoke]

Scottish nationalists have still to explain why they wish to be independent of the UK but to hand over control of their country to the EU bureaucracy.

Here's a simple question for you ... Who has more control over their destiny? Scotland as part of the UK, or the Netherlands as part of the EU?

They also fail to acknowledge that outside the United Kingdom they would have to have the euro as their currency. They could not keep the British pound.

Oh yes, the good old "you'll be forced to adopt the Euro" line ... Which is of course, not actually true! Yes, if an independent Scotland joined the EU then it would in all probability be required to commit to joining the Euro at some future unspecified date however there's the thing, there's no specified date! Sweden joined the EU in 1994, and hasn't adopted the Euro yet nor does it have any announced plans to do so.

As for using "the British pound"? Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's a fully tradable country so anyone can use it anywhere if they want! (The sandwich bar in the domestic terminal of Sydney Airport accepts Sterling, and I doubt they asked the UK government first!) And then there's all those Scottish bank notes floating around, which are all backed by Bank of England notes at the relevant Scottish banks. So frankly I'd expect a newly independent Scotland to start with the hybrid combination of Sterlingisation and Currency Board that could be said to exist in Scotland right now, before moving to a full currency board and then later onto a fully floating Scottish Pound.

They would also not be able to have the Queen as head of state.

What on earth are you smoking? When Australia, New Zealand and Canada became fully independent (ignoring the fact that it's not actually possibly to pin down an exact date when those events occurred!) where they required to no longer have the Queen as their head of state? How about when India and Pakistan became independent (something that can be pinned down to an exact date), who was their head of state immediately afterwards? Or if you want an example closer to home, who was the head of state immediately after the Irish Free State (as it was then called) became independent?

To put it bluntly, the Queen is the head of state of 16 different countries and I'm unaware of any restriction on that becoming 17? (Indeed, depending upon exactly how one looks upon the status of the Cook Islands and Niue it could be argued she's already up to 18!)

The UK's Trident submarine base would have to be moved to England leaving Scotland with no nuclear defence and thousands of defence related jobs in Scotland would be lost. The financial sector in Scotland would collapse as jobs went south to England.

Out of the current 28 countries in the EU, only 2 of them have nuclear deterrents. 3 of them aren't even in NATO, so can't even be said to be sheltering under the nuclear umbrellas provided France, the UK and the USA. The net flow of finance jobs might not be so favourable as you think (and we'll ignore the fact that to move the headquarters for a corporate entity only requires moving a name plate and changing the stationary!) if rUK is outside the EU and iScotland is inside it - an English speaking country with easy access to Europe, that's the reason a lot of those USA-ian companies have their European offices in London you know.

To sum it up. An independent Scotland would collapse economically without the resources pumped into the economy as a result of the union.

This is the massive subsidy that's poured into Scotland every year from those kind generous Conservative Party ministers, who are of course well known for their love of subsidising the unproductive and lazy would it? I have to ask, if Scotland is such a drag on England's economy why on earth are the Tories in favour of keeping it? Negotiate a deal that no independent 3rd party observer would say was anything other than fair and reasonable, and then you get to cut the deficit, cut taxes and increase spending! Plus their majority in Parliament would shoot up! Surely it's a win-win-win-win for them?

In any case, since we don't know and indeed can't know, what decisions the government of a independent Scotland would make with regards to taxation or spending it's rather difficult to know what the economic situation would be. (Though if we look at other small energy rich countries surrounding the North Sea, I think there's at least cause for optimism.) Though if we take the UK Government's announcements from the time period leading up to the 2014 referendum, apparently a newly independent Scotland would be busy building an entirely new set of lighthouses! I'm not sure why, given that (a) there already are a perfectly good set of lighthouses there already and (b) the organisation that owns and maintains them, namely the Northern Lighthouse Board, is based in Edinburgh but according to the UK Government that was an organisation a newly independent Scotland would need to create!

I tell the following as free advice, if the Unionists want to "win" they need to start talking about the advantages of economy of scale, of being able to punch above our weight diplomatically and militarily through being part of a greater whole and not staking out a position that basically amounts to "You Scots are too stupid to make your own decisions, stick to your pretendy parliament and let mummy & daddy England make all the real decisions!". They'll also need to explain the mysterious disappearance of the elements of "The Vow"(TM) - just little things like "What happened to Scotland's guaranteed membership of the EU?", "Why did all those HMRC jobs disappear?", "Why haven't 13 Type 26 frigates been ordered like was promised?" and "Why isn't Holyrood the most power sub-national parliament in the world, like was promised?"

[Tman]

Scottish nationalists have still to explain why they wish to be independent of the UK but to hand over control of their country to the EU bureaucracy.

Here's a simple question for you ... Who has more control over their destiny? Scotland as part of the UK, or the Netherlands as part of the EU?

Presumably you're not trying to sabotage your own point, but clearly being one of four (in an alliance going back hundreds of years) beats being one of 28 (in a federation going back less than fifteen for some but no more than sixty for all).
As for Scotland having some sort of "right" to use Sterling you're weeing in the wind just as Oily and Wee Jimmie do. The BoE wouldn't stand for Sterling's exchange rate or standing world-wide being affected by an essentially foreign country, and to quote that some sandwich bar takes it in Sydney (whoopee-do..airports the world over tend to do just that) shows how little this has been thought through by SNP supporters.
You need to ask yourself (and the Oily One, as he keeps reiterating it too) why the BoE would keep supplying hard cash in bulk to a foreign Scotland when they would have no control or input to Holyrood's financial decisions re interest rates, exchange rates, etc etc.
Another one of the SNP's "well we could do that..." made-up-on-the-hoof" policies which don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Tman]

"What happened to Scotland's guaranteed membership of the EU?",

Who promised that? How could anyone promise it? You made it up...

"Why did all those HMRC jobs disappear?",

New technology and a slimmed -down HMRC?

"Why haven't 13 Type 26 frigates been ordered like was promised?"

Stop whining, the inefficient Clyde yards got the two carriers as a bribe to vote no, and it worked.

and "Why isn't Holyrood the most power sub-national parliament in the world, like was promised?"

Who promised that, and why should you lot be more "powerful" than the Welsh and NI Assembly?

Nationalism again...

[toomuchcoke]

Presumably you're not trying to sabotage your own point, but clearly being one of four (in an alliance going back hundreds of years) beats being one of 28 (in a federation going back less than fifteen for some but no more than sixty for all).

Well okay, I can see you're going to need more information before you understand :-

* The government of the Netherlands has full control over how much corporation tax it charges and what allowances can be used by companies to reduce the amount they pay, Scotland has no control over corporation tax.
* The government of the Netherlands has full control over how much income tax they charge and what sorts of income it's levied on, Scotland has a very small amount of control over income tax.
* The government of the Netherlands has full control over how much VAT they charge, subject only to the EU's requirement for a minimum standard rate of 15%, Scotland has no control over VAT.
* The government of the Netherlands has full control over any additional sales taxes (e.g. on alcohol, tobacco and petroleum products) it wishes to levy, Scotland has no control.
* The government of the Netherlands has full control over what military forces it wishes to have, how large it wishes them to be and what missions it wishes to send them on. Scotland isn't allowed to have it's own military forces.
* In negotiations within the EU the Netherlands has a voice (either a veto on some matters, or votes if it's a qualified majority issue), Scotland has/had basically no voice in the EU. Indeed the last time the UK was negotiating fisheries policy with the EU, the Scottish government's representative was told by the UK to "wait outside" and was then informed what the UK's decision had been.
* If the people of the Netherlands wish to leave the EU, they need merely elect a government that promises to do so. (There might be a referendum at this stage, or maybe not, I don't have that level of detail on their political scene.) Said government then initiates Article 50 and they're leaving. If the people of Scotland wish to leave the EU, they need to elect a government that wants to achieve that which will then ask "pretty please can we have a referendum? to the UK government who might or might not think about it ...

Yeah, based on all that clearly Scotland has more control over it's own affairs than the Netherlands ... NOT!

As for Scotland having some sort of "right" to use Sterling you're weeing in the wind just as Oily and Wee Jimmie do. The BoE wouldn't stand for Sterling's exchange rate or standing world-wide being affected by an essentially foreign country, and to quote that some sandwich bar takes it in Sydney (whoopee-do..airports the world over tend to do just that) shows how little this has been thought through by SNP supporters.

So you believe those those airports have been granted "some kind of right" to use Sterling? Perhaps you could be good enough to tell me which act of parliament granted that "right" to them? Or if you prefer, you can tell me the act of parliament that denies the right of foreign countries to use Sterling? Though in the latter case, you're also going to have explain what the enforcement mechanism is! Or to put it more directly, imagine Scotland became independent today ... What would the government of rUK do to prevent people and/or organisations using Sterling as a currency if they wanted to? Would the ruK government send in the British Army with orders to go through the pockets of every person in Scotland?

As I said before, the very concept of "right to use Sterling" just doesn't occur. It's a freely tradable currency on the world's markets, anyone can use it anywhere!

You need to ask yourself (and the Oily One, as he keeps reiterating it too) why the BoE would keep supplying hard cash in bulk to a foreign Scotland when they would have no control or input to Holyrood's financial decisions re interest rates, exchange rates, etc etc. Another one of the SNP's "well we could do that..." made-up-on-the-hoof" policies which don't stand up to scrutiny.

So you're saying that in the event of Scotland achieving independence then rUK will default on it's obligations? I would think that the implications of that for the Sterling exchange rates and the interest rates that rUK would have to pay on it's borrowing would worry the BoE far more? All those Scottish bank notes in existence are backed by deposits of Sterling. The very concept of the BoE "supplying hard cash in bulk to a foreign Scotland" boggles the mind, I don't know where you got it from.

Overall I think it's you that's "making things up on the hoof"! Perhaps you should go away and acquaint yourself with things like currency substitution and currency boards? You should also perhaps go and acquaint yourself with the early history of the Irish Free State? It started out using Sterling as it's currency for the first 6 years of it's existence before launched it's own "Irish Pound" which was pegged 1:1 with Sterling (it even used the same blanks for it's coinage), a status which it retained until the peg was removed in 1978. However if you check the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, the treaty which legally created the Irish Free State there's no mention of currency, coinage, pound or sterling anywhere within it ... I guess this means that, according to you, the Irish Free State didn't "the right" to use Sterling?

[toomuchcoke]

"What happened to Scotland's guaranteed membership of the EU?",

Who promised that? How could anyone promise it? You made it up...

Better Together ... Various people such as Ruth Davidson, Alistair Carmichael and Alistair Darling also said there was no realistic chance of there being an EU referendum. Ruth Davidson actually said that there was little chance of the Tories winning the 2015 General Election!

"Why did all those HMRC jobs disappear?",

New technology and a slimmed -down HMRC?

That would be the HMRC jobs that they said would disappear in the event of independence and that only a "no" vote could save? (A strange position to take, did they imagine an independent Scotland wouldn't be levying any taxes?)

"Why haven't 13 Type 26 frigates been ordered like was promised?"

Stop whining, the inefficient Clyde yards got the two carriers as a bribe to vote no, and it worked.

The carriers where not built on the Clyde, they where built in modules at various dockyards around the UK (granted including the Clyde) with final assembly of the modules occurring in Rosyth ... Which is very definitely not on the Clyde?

and "Why isn't Holyrood the most power sub-national parliament in the world, like was promised?"

Who promised that, and why should you lot be more "powerful" than the Welsh and NI Assembly?
Nationalism again...[/quote]

The Prime Minister of the time, one David Cameron by name promised it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... world.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and whilst his Scottish Secretary of State David Mundell claimed it has been delivered those hotbeds of rabid nationalism known as the BBC aren't 100% convinced he's telling the truth! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-35716653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Kezia Dugdale (leader of Scottish Branch office) also thought it was delivered, though these days she's more often found recommending people vote for the Tory party ...

[Tman]

Well okay, I can see you're going to need more information before you understand :-

I think you need to do some research yourself, but carry on if you must...

*

The government of the Netherlands has full control over how much corporation tax it charges and what allowances can be used by companies to reduce the amount they pay, Scotland has no control over corporation tax.
* The government of the Yeah, based on all that clearly Scotland has more control over it's own affairs than the Netherlands ... NOT!

Which rather misses the point that the Netherlands is a sovereign country in it's own right unlike ummmm.... Scotland.
Come back and make that comparison if/when Scotland has it's own place in the UN, embassies around the world, and makes all it's own laws, but until then you can't make comparisons with the big boys.

So you believe those those airports have been granted "some kind of right" to use Sterling? Perhaps you could be good enough to tell me which act of parliament granted that "right" to them?

Lots of airports have shops etc which accept various currencies, but that doesn't mean (in the case of Sterling) that there's supplies of notes and coin being sent there on a weekly basis. Far from it, as the currency accepted is then sent to the bank at close of business.

Or if you prefer, you can tell me the act of parliament that denies the right of foreign countries to use Sterling?

Frankly you're either being contentious or ludicrous. No country will or would supply another country with currency unless by some prior arrangement.
"Yebbut it's ours too" is nothing but Oily McSmug talking shite again.

Though in the latter case, you're also going to have explain what the enforcement mechanism is! Or to put it more directly, imagine Scotland became independent today ... What would the government of rUK do to prevent people and/or organisations using Sterling as a currency if they wanted to? Would the ruK government send in the British Army with orders to go through the pockets of every person in Scotland?

Yeah OK...you win.

[SierraOscarBravo]

Well okay, I can see you're going to need more information before you understand :-

I think you need to do some research yourself, but carry on if you must...

*

The government of the Netherlands has full control over how much corporation tax it charges and what allowances can be used by companies to reduce the amount they pay, Scotland has no control over corporation tax.
* The government of the Yeah, based on all that clearly Scotland has more control over it's own affairs than the Netherlands ... NOT!

Which rather misses the point that the Netherlands is a sovereign country in it's own right unlike ummmm.... Scotland.
Come back and make that comparison if/when Scotland has it's own place in the UN, embassies around the world, and makes all it's own laws, but until then you can't make comparisons with the big boys.

So you believe those those airports have been granted "some kind of right" to use Sterling? Perhaps you could be good enough to tell me which act of parliament granted that "right" to them?

Lots of airports have shops etc which accept various currencies, but that doesn't mean (in the case of Sterling) that there's supplies of notes and coin being sent there on a weekly basis. Far from it, as the currency accepted is then sent to the bank at close of business.

Or if you prefer, you can tell me the act of parliament that denies the right of foreign countries to use Sterling?

Frankly you're either being contentious or ludicrous. No country will or would supply another country with currency unless by some prior arrangement.
"Yebbut it's ours too" is nothing but Oily McSmug talking shite again.

Though in the latter case, you're also going to have explain what the enforcement mechanism is! Or to put it more directly, imagine Scotland became independent today ... What would the government of rUK do to prevent people and/or organisations using Sterling as a currency if they wanted to? Would the ruK government send in the British Army with orders to go through the pockets of every person in Scotland?

Yeah OK...you win.

It seems the Scottish Nationalists think they can have their cake and eat it. They want to break away from the United Kingdom - a union that has endured over 300 years and seen all 4 of our nations mutually benefit from that union in peacetime and in wartime. Some of their supporters have a disturbing anti-English venom that unfortunately is a byproduct of whipping up nationalistic fervour.

The Scottish Nationalists want to be independent from the UK yet think they can remain in the EU using the British pound. The UK voted as one nation to leave the EU and that is happening however much Nicola Sturgeon bleats to the contrary. The EU has already made it crystal clear that they will not deal with Scotland as a separate nation as Scotland is part of the UK. In the event of Scotland becoming an independent nation, the EU has also made it clear that Scotland would have to apply as a new candidate for EU membership and meet all the economic criteria (ie debt ratios) as well as accept the euro as the unit of currency.

The notion that the UK can leave the EU but Scotland can stay in the EU and keep the British pound is completely false. The EU referendum was a UK wide vote. There was no agreement beforehand that regions/nations voting in or out would leave or remain accordingly. Again this is the SNP wanting to have their cake and eat it.

The SNP knows that there is no desire in Scotland to ditch the British pound for the euro. They also want to keep the British pound as an insurance policy for when the Scottish economy goes tits up after independence. In such a scenario, Scotland would have to take on its fair share of the UK national debt. It would have to deal with the loss of the Barnett Formula that currently gives Scotland the highest government spending per head in the UK after Northern Ireland. Job losses would soon run into the hundreds of thousands as the UK Government pulls out its defence forces including Trident nuclear submarines and their bases. Public and private sector jobs would go south to the rest of the UK. Scotland is a relatively small nation with a growing elderly population and greater health and social costs due to the geography and density of the population. English taxpayers currently subsidise these costs. Post-independence Scotland would be left with a gaping hole in her finances that could not be filled without hefty increases in taxes and borrowing.

I am a Unionist and I have family in all four of our great home nations. Our United Kingdom has stood the test of time and seen us through our darkest days. Unlike the EU, this union of ours is one that is tried and tested. The EU is a political project to create an artificial superstate in which we must all comply with what the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels want.

The SNP do not speak for the Scottish people. They have only one agenda and that is independence at all costs. On 8th June I urge everyone to reject the SNP and cast a vote of confidence in our precious union of the United Kingdom.

[simply_the_best]

There's little point in debating with Scottish Nationalists, they have invested so much time into it that they are blinkered as to how poorly our country is being run by them. Police, Health, Education and transport are all devolved powers and in a mess.

At least toomuchcoke has taken the time to go onto the Wings over Scotland or some similar crap Nat site to copy and paste some nonsensical propaganda for us all to read.

[Tman]

I suspected as much as so much was the Thoughts of Chairman Oily.
Corbyn, May, McSmug and Wee Jimmy Krankie, Tigger Farron, Lucas, the SNP half-wit... is there no one actually worth voting for?
Maybe Ruth Davidson can stand for the whole UK...she'd walk it given the current opposition.

[Postie45]

well Corbyn has finally put his nail in the coffin for me to have any chance of voting for him. Lifetime Labour voter, but will go ahead and vote tory as the Labour party is impotent with Corbyn at the helm. His comments on terrorism being UKs fault THIS week shows not only horrendous timing but also are fundamentally wrong in recent times. Go read what ISIS actually want, altho they have some angst against western intervention on "their" lands, this is far from their final goals and aims. Whether or not this weeks attack was ISIS related is still open to debate although you can draw your own conclusions, what is 100% fact though is they have now a long track record of terrorism based on the want to enforce their ideals onto people in "their" region and also abroad, To me Corbyn is pretty much dangerously inept as Trump.

[jetblack]

Attacker was of Libyan descent. And you think the fact that the UK invaded Libya in recent years (to liberate it of its oil), assasinated its leader etc (all done using the "Royal Prerogative" BTW- there was no parliamentary or democratic mandate), leaving in its wake absolute chaos and destruction (to this day), you think this is all a coincidence ???

Corbyn should be applauded for his stance - cos what I want in a leader is someone brave enough to stand up and address the real root causes - not someone who is trying to make us believe that we are all in it together (we aren't), who wants us to believe they are doing us a favour (they aren't), and who bangs on in an absolutely monotonous repetitive patronising mantra everytime any atrocity like this occurs how strong the people of the UK are and how we are great for pulling together.

Patronising rhetoric isn't going to make one iota of a difference - reassessing UK foreign policy is. What the people of the UK want and need is events like Manchester not to happen again, simple as that. No amount of Cobra meetings and raising the security threat level is going to bring about change - nor intelligence for that matter. The problem has to be addressed at source - otherwise you are just papering over the cracks.



I would also like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the people of Manchester and all those affected by the horrific events of the last week.

[k979aaa]

Only 5% in the gap now between labour and the conservatives one slip up from MAY and she would have shot herself and the party in the foot cannot wait to see the end of her and the conservatives!

[Tman]

Although having seen Corbyn "stand in line" with the firemen was just toe-curling and cringing.
That said, he's right and the West shouldn't have got involved in the campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, but given his stance on IRA murderers he's probably right but for the wrong reasons.
And of course he'd let another few million in ensuring trouble and religious strife for the next generation too.
What a liability he is.