william wrote:
> Hope you have your passports and all ready for crossing to
> scotland and of course your visa as its going to cost you a
> lotta Eck's to cross that line...
Why would we want to cross that line?
Scottish independence betting
Re: The Yes campaign takes the lead.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Robches and David J
Most European Jews and Slavs are 'white'. So the Nazis' extermination of them wasn't to do with race?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Yes campaign takes the lead.
Isn't there supposed to be an estimated million Scots who've said they'd come live in the UK if Scotland left?
There'll be lots crossing the border, I feel, but it won't be people travelling north.
Having said that, I'm quite excited about Scotland gaining independence. It might shake people up down here.
There'll be lots crossing the border, I feel, but it won't be people travelling north.
Having said that, I'm quite excited about Scotland gaining independence. It might shake people up down here.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Yes campaign takes the lead.
And where pray will these million people live? Scenic Greenock? The Concrete Hell of Cumbernauld? And I doubt Walker's Shortbread need that many more staff.
Re: The Yes campaign takes the lead.
you can still get 2/1 on betfair that it'll be a YES vote next week, i think personally the NO vote will shade it.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Yes campaign takes the lead.
Regardless of what happens, I can see other regions in the UK pushing for more devolved powers.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Could 42% win it?
According to the BBC today it is a dead heat, with 41% for 'yes' and 41%' for 'no'. The 'undecideds' make up the other 18%. Come referendum day next week whoever gets the most votes will win, even if it's not over 50% of the people of Scotland voting that way. So if the 'yes' lot move up to 42%, the 'no' lot remain at 41%, and the undecided's (the absteiners) drop slightly to 17% then I assume the 'yes' lot will win and Scotland will leave the Union - all because 42% of those eligible to vote voted that way, and everyone else either voted the other way or didn't vote at all. Hardly seems fair does it?
Surely it would be reasonable to require 50% or more of those eligible to cast their ballot to vote a certain way to carry it, even two-thirds. To have just over 4 in 10 people voting to leave, and that means Scotland departs from the union, doesn't seem right. What do people think?
Also, on Newsnight yesterday (Monday) a Scottish historian was interviewed. I cant remember his name but I've seen him hosting numerous programmes over the years. He currently lives in the USA and is therefore not able to vote but he was saying he hopes Scotland votes to stay. He said if Scotland leaves they will be become a second-rate European backwater, rather than a frontline world nation which, as part of the UK, they currently are. He said they'll end up like Slovakia or Belarus.
Scotland would never have been anything more than the equivalent of Slovakia or Belarus for the last 300 years, right up to today, if it hadn't joined with England. Having bankrupted themselves trying to build an empire in Panama, England bailed them out in return for amalgamating and forming the union. Scotland annexing itself only England was hugely beneficial in their becoming a world trading nation, it opened up trade routes for them to the world.
Glasgow was the second city of the Empire and vast numbers of Scots got rich by looting other countries just like loads of English people did. If you read books or see TV programmes about the British Empire you'll see there were just as many Scottish colonisers, landowners, pioneers, industrialists (all of those are polite terms for invaders, looters, pillagers, etc) as there were ones from England. All the advanced things Scotland later ended up having, from the health service to the welfare state, wouldn't have happened without the union with England. Do Slovakia or Belarus have healthcare like the UK does, and it all being free, or a welfare state where you're housed and supported by money from the State if you need it? Also when was the last time Scotland was invaded? Scotland has done very well out of the Union.
I'm just stating facts here in these comments, I've have a lot of respect for Scotland and Scottish people.
Surely it would be reasonable to require 50% or more of those eligible to cast their ballot to vote a certain way to carry it, even two-thirds. To have just over 4 in 10 people voting to leave, and that means Scotland departs from the union, doesn't seem right. What do people think?
Also, on Newsnight yesterday (Monday) a Scottish historian was interviewed. I cant remember his name but I've seen him hosting numerous programmes over the years. He currently lives in the USA and is therefore not able to vote but he was saying he hopes Scotland votes to stay. He said if Scotland leaves they will be become a second-rate European backwater, rather than a frontline world nation which, as part of the UK, they currently are. He said they'll end up like Slovakia or Belarus.
Scotland would never have been anything more than the equivalent of Slovakia or Belarus for the last 300 years, right up to today, if it hadn't joined with England. Having bankrupted themselves trying to build an empire in Panama, England bailed them out in return for amalgamating and forming the union. Scotland annexing itself only England was hugely beneficial in their becoming a world trading nation, it opened up trade routes for them to the world.
Glasgow was the second city of the Empire and vast numbers of Scots got rich by looting other countries just like loads of English people did. If you read books or see TV programmes about the British Empire you'll see there were just as many Scottish colonisers, landowners, pioneers, industrialists (all of those are polite terms for invaders, looters, pillagers, etc) as there were ones from England. All the advanced things Scotland later ended up having, from the health service to the welfare state, wouldn't have happened without the union with England. Do Slovakia or Belarus have healthcare like the UK does, and it all being free, or a welfare state where you're housed and supported by money from the State if you need it? Also when was the last time Scotland was invaded? Scotland has done very well out of the Union.
I'm just stating facts here in these comments, I've have a lot of respect for Scotland and Scottish people.
Re: Could 42% win it?
max_tranmere wrote:
> According to the BBC today it is a dead heat, with 41% for
> 'yes' and 41%' for 'no'. The 'undecideds' make up the other
> 18%. Come referendum day next week whoever gets the most votes
> will win, even if it's not over 50% of the people of Scotland
> voting that way. So if the 'yes' lot move up to 42%, the 'no'
> lot remain at 41%, and the undecided's (the absteiners) drop
> slightly to 17% then I assume the 'yes' lot will win and
> Scotland will leave the Union - all because 42% of those
> eligible to vote voted that way, and everyone else either voted
> the other way or didn't vote at all. Hardly seems fair does it?
>
>
> Surely it would be reasonable to require 50% or more of those
> eligible to cast their ballot to vote a certain way to carry
> it, even two-thirds. To have just over 4 in 10 people voting to
> leave, and that means Scotland departs from the union, doesn't
> seem right. What do people think?
>
> Also, on Newsnight yesterday (Monday) a Scottish historian was
> interviewed. I cant remember his name but I've seen him hosting
> numerous programmes over the years. He currently lives in the
> USA and is therefore not able to vote but he was saying he
> hopes Scotland votes to stay. He said if Scotland leaves they
> will be become a second-rate European backwater, rather than a
> frontline world nation which, as part of the UK, they currently
> are. He said they'll end up like Slovakia or Belarus.
>
It was Niall Ferguson.
I agree with your other points, I don't know how Salmond managed to get it past Cameron. One vote over 50% of those cast would mean a break up of the UK. It should have been a vote over 50% of the entire electorate, or else a two thirds majority, something like that. It also amazes me that EU nationals living in Scotland get a vote to break up our country! If that isn't fucked up, I don't know what is. Added to the fact that kids of 16 and 17 get a vote, and you can see that Salmond has run rings round the complacent idiots in Westminster, who are now panicking, and all three party leaders are on their way to Scotland tomorrow to throw money at the Scots and beg them to stay. Truly, those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
> According to the BBC today it is a dead heat, with 41% for
> 'yes' and 41%' for 'no'. The 'undecideds' make up the other
> 18%. Come referendum day next week whoever gets the most votes
> will win, even if it's not over 50% of the people of Scotland
> voting that way. So if the 'yes' lot move up to 42%, the 'no'
> lot remain at 41%, and the undecided's (the absteiners) drop
> slightly to 17% then I assume the 'yes' lot will win and
> Scotland will leave the Union - all because 42% of those
> eligible to vote voted that way, and everyone else either voted
> the other way or didn't vote at all. Hardly seems fair does it?
>
>
> Surely it would be reasonable to require 50% or more of those
> eligible to cast their ballot to vote a certain way to carry
> it, even two-thirds. To have just over 4 in 10 people voting to
> leave, and that means Scotland departs from the union, doesn't
> seem right. What do people think?
>
> Also, on Newsnight yesterday (Monday) a Scottish historian was
> interviewed. I cant remember his name but I've seen him hosting
> numerous programmes over the years. He currently lives in the
> USA and is therefore not able to vote but he was saying he
> hopes Scotland votes to stay. He said if Scotland leaves they
> will be become a second-rate European backwater, rather than a
> frontline world nation which, as part of the UK, they currently
> are. He said they'll end up like Slovakia or Belarus.
>
It was Niall Ferguson.
I agree with your other points, I don't know how Salmond managed to get it past Cameron. One vote over 50% of those cast would mean a break up of the UK. It should have been a vote over 50% of the entire electorate, or else a two thirds majority, something like that. It also amazes me that EU nationals living in Scotland get a vote to break up our country! If that isn't fucked up, I don't know what is. Added to the fact that kids of 16 and 17 get a vote, and you can see that Salmond has run rings round the complacent idiots in Westminster, who are now panicking, and all three party leaders are on their way to Scotland tomorrow to throw money at the Scots and beg them to stay. Truly, those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.