Confidemus Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 A friend of mine works for a large non departmental UK Government organisation. He doesn't know what will happen to his job in the event of a Yes vote. He's still voting Yes, regardless. #baller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 A friend of mine works for a large non departmental UK Government organisation. He doesn't know what will happen to his job in the event of a Yes vote. He's still voting Yes, regardless. #baller A friend of mine works for a large non departmental UK Government organisation. He doesn't know what will happen to his job in the event of a Yes vote. He's still voting Yes, regardless. #baller Eejit. Or single person still living with momma, no kids and no mortgage/pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 My job comes first, before the right to shout freedom. Straw man or not, I ain't risking my employment. When contracts are dished out on pennies per tonne differentials, would you? Add on diesel costs to transport exports to England from Scotland instead of Hull, Immingham and Redcar, then you see how tight the market is. Another side issue would be rising energy prices if the imports have no home competition. You're no very clued up on the energy market. Oh it is the coal industry. Are you on road or rail? About above, it realy must already be a concern about the industry. Are the cheep imports being imported only because they are cheep or because they burn better and cleaner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Eejit. Or single person still living with momma, no kids and no mortgage/pension. He has two sons, a fiancee and a mortgage. His reasoning, as mine, is that this is far too large a decision to bring personal gain into it. Don't get me wrong, I do understand people being concerned about job loss/ job security, but this is just too big and the repercussions will last too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 David Cameron has almost no incentive to debate with Salmond. Salmond can cry chicken all he likes, it's not going to convert the masses. David Cameron getting involved in the debate probably would. Also, since Salmond is shying away from debates that don't involve Cameron, the prime minister can effectively test the nerve of Salmond by holding out. Like I said in the other thread, I don't like the idea of one-on-one debates because both campaigns have broad spectrums of political opinion, I'd prefer 2-on-2's or 3-on-3's involving people from all of the main political parties, and some others on the outside like the two Blair's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 He has two sons, a fiancee and a mortgage. His reasoning, as mine, is that this is far too large a decision to bring personal gain into it. Don't get me wrong, I do understand people being concerned about job loss/ job security, but this is just too big and the repercussions will last too long. Don't talk pish. This vote has, and always will be about personal gain. "£1,400 better off" and "£1,000 worse off" type of patter was spotted last week. I'm voting for me and mine. Fcuk nationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Don't talk pish. This vote has, and always will be about personal gain. "£1,400 better off" and "£1,000 worse off" type of patter was spotted last week. I'm voting for me and mine. Fcuk nationalism. I have never once used the personal gain line, nor am I even remotely interested in it. Strikes me that it's No voters who are more fixated with this. In my eyes, it's pretty sad to deny my great great great grandchildren of all the benefits of an independent country for an extra 100 nicker a month. Personal wealth, for me, is IRRELEVANT in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Oh it is the coal industry. Are you on road or rail? About above, it realy must already be a concern about the industry. Are the cheep imports being imported only because they are cheep or because they burn better and cleaner? It's all about the money. How can coal being shipped thousands of miles, burning tonnes of diesel be greener than British coal? It isn't possible. Some of our stuff, sadly still stuck below the ground, are only 3% ash and 39% volatile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 My job comes first, before the right to shout freedom. Straw man or not, I ain't risking my employment. When contracts are dished out on pennies per tonne differentials, would you? Add on diesel costs to transport exports to England from Scotland instead of Hull, Immingham and Redcar, then you see how tight the market is. Another side issue would be rising energy prices if the imports have no home competition. You're no very clued up on the energy market. ps: How is it possible to import coal to the UK from USA and Columbia cheaper than to dig up and sell Scottish coal? Do you want more imports and then toss all the opencast guys on the dole? It's all part of the EU - US free trade agreements going on, which will probably see the NHS privatised too. None of the above answers your initial ridiculous premise - who would impose tariffs on Scottish exports, at which market, for what purpose and how would that be approved. On each of the above points your claim is moronic nonsense. If and when your coal is chucked out of the open market that will occur in a global common market environment, entirely irrelevant to Scotland's position as an independent state or not. Better luck next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Don't talk pish. This vote has, and always will be about personal gain. "£1,400 better off" and "£1,000 worse off" type of patter was spotted last week. I'm voting for me and mine. Fcuk nationalism. Steady now. Alot of YES voters are voting for you and yours too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 None of the above answers your initial ridiculous premise - who would impose tariffs on Scottish exports, at which market, for what purpose and how would that be approved. On each of the above points your claim is moronic nonsense. If and when your coal is chucked out of the open market that will occur in a global common market environment, entirely irrelevant to Scotland's position as an independent state or not. Better luck next time. None of the above answers your initial ridiculous premise - who would impose tariffs on Scottish exports, at which market, for what purpose and how would that be approved. On each of the above points your claim is moronic nonsense. If and when your coal is chucked out of the open market that will occur in a global common market environment, entirely irrelevant to Scotland's position as an independent state or not. Better luck next time. None of the above answers your initial ridiculous premise - who would impose tariffs on Scottish exports, at which market, for what purpose and how would that be approved. On each of the above points your claim is moronic nonsense. If and when your coal is chucked out of the open market that will occur in a global common market environment, entirely irrelevant to Scotland's position as an independent state or not. Better luck next time. None of the above answers your initial ridiculous premise - who would impose tariffs on Scottish exports, at which market, for what purpose and how would that be approved. On each of the above points your claim is moronic nonsense. If and when your coal is chucked out of the open market that will occur in a global common market environment, entirely irrelevant to Scotland's position as an independent state or not. Better luck next time. Care to explain the reason why USA coal is cheaper than UK coal? I know the reason. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's all about the money. How can coal being shipped thousands of miles, burning tonnes of diesel be greener than British coal? It isn't possible. Some of our stuff, sadly still stuck below the ground, are only 3% ash and 39% volatile. Not greener, but better. If it burns better then its more efficient and cleaner. Less cleaning out and more heat. Cheeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I actually think that Cameron would do better than most folk think. The expectations for him would be so low that any sort of credible performance would seem like a victory. Salmond in a weird way would be in a no-win situation. As long as Cameron avoided his natural urge to give a big GIRFUY to Scotland he would be OK. Cameron's father was born in Huntly. Cameron is half-Scottish. Why on earth you'd think he'd would want to. "give a big GIRFUY to Scotland" is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Not greener, but better. If it burns better then its more efficient and cleaner. Less cleaning out and more heat. Cheeper. If it burns better, it burns quicker. If it burns quicker, you burn more. If you burn more, you buy more. If you buy more, you pay more. Fife, Lothian and Ayrshire coal is so good they have to blend it with crap to get tonnage up and a wee bit more longevity out of the burn. Our fuel can be adjusted to any blend the buyers want. The byproduct, flyash gets sold on too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 If it burns better, it burns quicker. If it burns quicker, you burn more. If you burn more, you buy more. If you buy more, you pay more. Fife, Lothian and Ayrshire coal is so good they have to blend it with crap to get tonnage up and a wee bit more longevity out of the burn. Our fuel can be adjusted to any blend the buyers want. The byproduct, flyash gets sold on too. Well thats pissing me off. I stay in East Ayrshire too and I'm no too happy about the closed opencasts that we will all have to pay to refill. If these casts could still be producing then who is to blame for them being closed? How safe is the opencast near Cumnock and for how much longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Well thats pissing me off. I stay in East Ayrshire too and I'm no too happy about the closed opencasts that we will all have to pay to refill. If these casts could still be producing then who is to blame for them being closed? How safe is the opencast near Cumnock and for how much longer? There's a few opencasts in East Ayrshire. I don't know what one you speak of. All are under threat from imports which somehow are cheaper even though they travel from afar. There is just no market for Scottish coal in Scotland. Our only coal fired power station up here burns nothing but imported fuel. Why is that? Shouldn't a Scottish government have put a stop to that? Why is it cheaper for them to import from thousands of miles away rather than a hundred miles? Tariffs? Transaction charges? Keeping the the US sweet hunting for a free trade agreement with EU? I'll boldly say here and now, a YES vote will decimate the opencasts we have left in Scotland. I think most, if not all the staff there realise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 The 'Scots voice at Westminster' hasn't been the preserve of the 'posh boys'.. Arthur Henderson, Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald would tell you otherwise. Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald being dragged out of their long cold graves as relevant examples is about as funny as H_B's declaration of 1955 as 'recent'. I know the difference between 'relevant; and 'recent'. Unlike you I can state firmly that, "The 'Scots voice at Westminster' hasn't been the preserve of the 'posh boys'.. Arthur Henderson, Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald would tell you otherwise." The fact that they are long dead makes them completely, 100% irrelevant to a discussion of Westminster representation in 2014, in the exact manner of H_B's 'the Tories won a majority of Scottish voted in 1955, you know' is irrelevant to their current prospects of doing so. Thanks for playing anyway. I know this is a day or two ago but 2 things. 1. Your, "Thanks for playing anyway" patter may have been fresh and fun once but is now predictable and desultory. 2. Referencing three influential, Scottish Labour politicians who changed the shape of Westminster in living memory is entirely relevant. Especially relevant in the context of someone who wants to re-instigate a 300 year old parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 First shipbuilding, now coal. If I hear that a yes vote could damage our steelmills I will be voting No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I know this is a day or two ago but 2 things. 1. Your, "Thanks for playing anyway" patter may have been fresh and fun once but is now predictable and desultory. 2. Referencing three influential, Scottish Labour politicians who changed the shape of Westminster in living memory is entirely relevant. Especially relevant in the context of someone who wants to re-instigate a 300 year old parliament. Whose living memory? Only old man danger and I think he left Labour before MacDonald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 There's a few opencasts in East Ayrshire. I don't know what one you speak of. All are under threat from imports which somehow are cheaper even though they travel from afar. There is just no market for Scottish coal in Scotland. Our only coal fired power station up here burns nothing but imported fuel. Why is that? Shouldn't a Scottish government have put a stop to that? Why is it cheaper for them to import from thousands of miles away rather than a hundred miles? Tariffs? Transaction charges? Keeping the the US sweet hunting for a free trade agreement with EU? I'll boldly say here and now, a YES vote will decimate the opencasts we have left in Scotland. I think most, if not all the staff there realise that. Its probably up to who owns the power station. Can a devolved Scottish government tell them what to burn? Libby is the one to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.