Thats interesting about Bill Bailey. Apparently we are always being told we cannot trust Westmisnter, (but it is implied to mean the English) to look out for our well being, but here is an Englishman being used to promote independence. Maybe its all our rabid first cousins that occupy Westminster we cannot trust rather than the 2nd ones who make up the general population, so how does independence save us from those Scots?
Germany's chancellor wants Europe to have final say over countries economies...
"We need to be ready to accept that Europe has the last word in certain areas. Otherwise we won't be able to continue to build Europe.”
European leaders are due to meet in June to discuss moving towards fiscal union. Germany favours tighter, centralised controls of national budgets and has proposed that the EU’s economics commissioner should be given more powers to police countries’ budgets. Berlin insists that deficit reduction is key to rebuilding the euro zone economy.
Let's not get all mockraged about it. It's not racist. It's fact. David Cameron is an English Tory, as is Gideon (George) Osborne. They've both been up here recently telling us uppity jocks that the sky will fall down and we won't be allowed to spend our money if Scotland wakes up and votes Yes.
To be honest though, I don't mind these upper class toffs coming North to tell the Scots that we're too wee, too poor and too stupid to run our own affairs. They must think that tactic is a winner. Good luck to them with that.
Painty - 1st June '00 to 19th Sep '08 Coco - 17th July '13 to Feb '14 Rudi - 27th Dec 2013...................
Imagine if we had to pay no EU membership fee. Currently that stands at over £50million per day. So every day we in the UK give up a new hospital or school, a fighter plane or ten tanks. So the question is if it is right that Scotland has a vote on our membership of the UK, why is it not right to have the same choice on Europe? The question is equally valid yet we are not "trusted" enough to provide the right outcome in regards to Europe. I say that we will not be truly independent until we have no external rule and changing from Westminster to Europe is just a gesture, appeasing to the Zionist and racists. Without that full Indy question being asked at the same time feels as if the SNP have taken us for a ride.
So will an average bloke like myself be any better off within an independant scotland or will it just be the usual 'vote for us/this' and itll just be more of the same with a different face leading the way?
You'll be substantially better off, because at present Scotland subsidises the UK by paying more than its due share into Westminster's coffers. And that doesn't even include the oil money.
You sound as if you believe in the top gear maths the SNP employ. lets say that all people and companies pay tax, and that they all pay for this example the same amount of tax as a person or a business. That tax is collected centrally, (in Wales for the majority) and then distributed by the central Government. If Scotland had 100 companies and 1000 taxpayers all pay £10 in tax, that give a sum of 11000. Now in SNP maths you take the amount spent per person, let say £9 and say as we only get £9000 we pay more than we get and Blame the English. This childish view of the system fails to consider many factors. Some of the spend is common central spend, so for example defense, embassy costs, foreign aid. Even our membership of Europe costs, (£53Million a day)The process of collecting the tax also costs money as does giving it to the SNP to spend, (their governmental costs close to £50M a year) So it is mathematically impossible for Scotland to get back as much as what she puts in. But if we look at the spend per person in Scotland we do not so bad. Under the Barnett Formula, for every pound spent on an English person, the Government has to spend £1.09 on every Scot. This is second only to Northern Irish. Further some parts of Scotland attract additional regional development spend which SE England is barred from.
So if we just listen to play ground chants and not actually visit the maths we will all believe the SNP propaganda.
Post by livimoaner on Sept 26, 2013 12:50:46 GMT 1
I am still waiting for the euro question to be answered. The SNP have made it clear that they intend to be members but none will say why we cannot have a vote on that issue. I would love to live in an independent Scotland, but as currently modeled this is not what we are getting. Is the Euro route being chosen so that Scotland has somebody to blame? At present our current fall guy are the English are we plaaning to be part of Europe so we can blame them instead?
You'll be substantially better off, because at present Scotland subsidises the UK by paying more than its due share into Westminster's coffers. And that doesn't even include the oil money.
You sound as if you believe in the top gear maths the SNP employ. lets say that all people and companies pay tax, and that they all pay for this example the same amount of tax as a person or a business. That tax is collected centrally, (in Wales for the majority) and then distributed by the central Government. If Scotland had 100 companies and 1000 taxpayers all pay £10 in tax, that give a sum of 11000. Now in SNP maths you take the amount spent per person, let say £9 and say as we only get £9000 we pay more than we get and Blame the English. This childish view of the system fails to consider many factors. Some of the spend is common central spend, so for example defense, embassy costs, foreign aid. Even our membership of Europe costs, (£53Million a day)The process of collecting the tax also costs money as does giving it to the SNP to spend, (their governmental costs close to £50M a year) So it is mathematically impossible for Scotland to get back as much as what she puts in. But if we look at the spend per person in Scotland we do not so bad. Under the Barnett Formula, for every pound spent on an English person, the Government has to spend £1.09 on every Scot. This is second only to Northern Irish. Further some parts of Scotland attract additional regional development spend which SE England is barred from.
So if we just listen to play ground chants and not actually visit the maths we will all believe the SNP propaganda.
To be honest, there's so much nonsense spouted there it would make your head birl.
Vote for the party in an independent Scotland that offers you an 'in/out' referendum on the EU. Job done.
Anyway, the thing is, just because Westminster spends more money on Northern Ireland and London (you forgot London, don't forget about London. London certainly doesn't forget about London) than it does on Scotland and the rest of England is not a reason to remain shackled to it's broken financial, welfare, nuclear power generation, armed forces policies (I could go on!). Don't forget that Scotland pays more in (%) than it get's out (%).
How about we just raise our own money, pay our own bills and focus on the betterment of Scotland for the people of Scotland? Sure sounds like a better way of addressing the issues that affect the people of Scotland to me!
How will we pay for it (the unionists ask). Simple. We won't be spending billions paying for London's nuclear weapons on the banks of the River Clyde. We won't be spending what we haven't got sending our troops to die in illegal wars.
You can argue all day long about how much it'll cost to buy a pan loaf in an independent Scotland, or how we'll manage to get up in the morning and open the curtains without Westminster holding our hands, but, you know what, we'll do just fine.
We'll manage like every other independent country in the world.
You sound as if you believe in the top gear maths the SNP employ. lets say that all people and companies pay tax, and that they all pay for this example the same amount of tax as a person or a business. That tax is collected centrally, (in Wales for the majority) and then distributed by the central Government. If Scotland had 100 companies and 1000 taxpayers all pay £10 in tax, that give a sum of 11000. Now in SNP maths you take the amount spent per person, let say £9 and say as we only get £9000 we pay more than we get and Blame the English. This childish view of the system fails to consider many factors. Some of the spend is common central spend, so for example defense, embassy costs, foreign aid. Even our membership of Europe costs, (£53Million a day)The process of collecting the tax also costs money as does giving it to the SNP to spend, (their governmental costs close to £50M a year) So it is mathematically impossible for Scotland to get back as much as what she puts in. But if we look at the spend per person in Scotland we do not so bad. Under the Barnett Formula, for every pound spent on an English person, the Government has to spend £1.09 on every Scot. This is second only to Northern Irish. Further some parts of Scotland attract additional regional development spend which SE England is barred from.
So if we just listen to play ground chants and not actually visit the maths we will all believe the SNP propaganda.
To be honest, there's so much nonsense spouted there it would make your head birl.
Vote for the party in an independent Scotland that offers you an 'in/out' referendum on the EU. Job done.
Anyway, the thing is, just because Westminster spends more money on Northern Ireland and London (you forgot London, don't forget about London. London certainly doesn't forget about London) than it does on Scotland and the rest of England is not a reason to remain shackled to it's broken financial, welfare, nuclear power generation, armed forces policies (I could go on!). Don't forget that Scotland pays more in (%) than it get's out (%).
How about we just raise our own money, pay our own bills and focus on the betterment of Scotland for the people of Scotland? Sure sounds like a better way of addressing the issues that affect the people of Scotland to me!
How will we pay for it (the unionists ask). Simple. We won't be spending billions paying for London's nuclear weapons on the banks of the River Clyde. We won't be spending what we haven't got sending our troops to die in illegal wars.
You can argue all day long about how much it'll cost to buy a pan loaf in an independent Scotland, or how we'll manage to get up in the morning and open the curtains without Westminster holding our hands, but, you know what, we'll do just fine.
We'll manage like every other independent country in the world.
Because it's normal.
Vote Yes.
To me its not so important about who runs the country but about the quality of life I can provide for my family. To me it is wrong that I get to spend less of my gross income than any Government does. At present we can argue that the cause is Westminster or Europe but we can both agree that for any working man to have less money in his pocket than what the Government takes is wrong. I do know about economics and the true cost to the economy of leakages such as the cost of membership of the EU so to me binning that membership is directly related to me having more pounds in my pocket. It is also the reason why I do not believe in multiple levels of Government we have now. Much will not change after Independence and that is a big point, if that is the case why bother? We will be no richer or poorer better represented or worse have more power or less. But what we will have is still no choice on a membership of a proven corrupt proven undemocratic institute which no one ever voted for in this country, and all it would take is the SNP saying yes we will go to the polls about Europe to change my mind.
Will we be able to decide our fate in Europe? That has more of an affect on my daily life than either Westminster or Holyrood. So why are we being disenfranchised over Europe by the SNP?
I am not sure using divorse to illustrate the principle of independence is the best way forward. A significant number of people who divorse are looking or have found someone else they want to spend time with. Is that "person" meant to be Europe? If it is it creates a weird scenario where the divorsed couple are still both in a working relatinship with a thrid party. That thrid party being courted previously by one of the couple, but also that third party is not the same person, replaced as if in a cheap sitcom.