Jamaldo Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Mr Bairn's posts genuinely wouldn't look out of place scribbled on a wall in blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 A straw poll conducted by H_B and Mr Bairn among others named you the thickest poster in the clown collective Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Well you said something along the lines of only caring about Scotland and not England, particularly in a debate about team GB a few weeks back. You've made a couple of "Scottish not British" type comments. Really disgusting and disappointing because you're a sound guy imo. Well why the f**k would I care about England? It's a foreign country, I couldn't give a toss about them any more or less than any other foreign country. That's not anti English. One of my best mates is English, he's in my Facebook profile pic he's that good a mate, if I was a vile nationalist or whatever that was anti English then he wouldn't be my mate would he? How the fucks it disgusting? I am British at the end of the day Scotland is on the island Great Britain but I don't see English or Welsh people as my fellow countrymen. Whole things stupid and a load of bollocks. I don't understand why we have a Team GB anyway tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazelle Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 No. But let me explain. I am not against the idea off full independence, but I find the idea that Yes campaign is all made up of this may happen is a step too far. Don't get me wrong, I know there will always be a certain uncertainty about going it alone. However the Yes campaign has not yet, given me solid assurances that x,y and z will happen. Take Sterling for instance, the UK has said that Scotland will not be involved in sterling if it goes alone (at least in momentary policies). The yes statement on that, the UK government will back down. Yes it may happen, but what happens if they don't. I think the Yes campaign should have said: OK we don't think it will be an issue, but if it does we will do..... The EU, what happens if Scotland don't get in as an existing member. I find this disappointing again with the Yes campaign that there is no plan as it will not happen according to Mr Salmond. But if it does? To join the EU now, you must take the Euro, join the Schengen Agreement, to never have a veto again. How will Scots take to having this pushed onto us? No response from the Yes campaign about plans if it does not go to plan. How would it effect our relationship with our major trading partner, rUK? Nothing changes according to yes, but it will. Tax raising and rates, where is any idea, what tax rates are presumed. For both business and personal? I can't operate my business without a plan for cash, so how can the white paper contain such a small amount of space on it. Not being funny but finance is the biggest part of any country. Defence, albeit this is a personal point of view. I would prefer to stay within the limits of UK as a partner in protection of ours and rUK as a combined force. However I appreciate that it may cost us, to do that. I have seen on here that anyone who questions yes, is taken as unpatriotic or thick. But these are fundamentals, even before we cross the t's and dot the i's. However, if something happens big in the next month, I may change my mind. But in all honesty I can't see it happening. I really think Scotland has missed a big opportunity, by going into this with only a pie in a sky idea. With no backbone to detail. Couple of points. You won't find many people in YesScotland who actually wants a currency union. If they had their way we would have our own currency - which will likely happen 5/10 years after a yes vote. This won't be admitted as it will frighten the rabbits. If the rUK decided it would like to devalue it's currency, inflict transition costs on it's businesses and see Scotland walk away from the debt that is guaranteed by the treasury all for no reason...then perhaps they would have to announce a plan B - further of course than simply publishing B/C/D in the whitepaper. I can't think why Gideon wouldn't admit a currency union will remain.... The reason Scotland will retain it's member state status is because we are wanted there. Perhaps that's why Cameron wasn't keen on Juncker. Practically speaking our waters are quite important strategically and more importantly the legal rights of EU citizens in a Scotland outwith the EU would present an unnecessary headache. It's also worth noting the rUK will be having a referendum whether to leave thanks to the success of UKIP (that is the party who wants to disband the Scottish Parliament). There is absolutely no plan for tax hikes. The SNP do plan to cut corporation tax as to compete with London. I'd say we are safer minus the UK and in any series conflict that was legal you'd find us co-operating with them. I'd ask you to consider this before voting no. If further devolution is the solution then surely the problem is the union. We make about £4,000 more per head than the UK, we have produced more oil than the UAE and yet the wealth isn't here and there is little sign of it even it England excluding the south east. Successive Westminster governments have squandered it and built up a ridiculous debt. Only Iraq and the UK have oil in their waters and no oil fund. Norway have a fund so vast they spend a tiny fraction of the interest they make on it. We will never be truly wealthy now but we can stop 800,000 Scottish people living below the poverty line. We receive 5 billion pounds a year less than we put into the UK which will soon be 10 if we vote no. The Scottish government then has to mitigate the effects of a foreign governments policies to safeguard our healthcare and housing. That's the housing they sought to destroy by giving away houses for 25% percent of their value at the expense of the tax payer - introduced by the Tories and watched by Labour. All Scotland's affairs should be run by people in Scotland who where democratically elected by the Scottish population and with the Scottish interest at heart. This Etonian does not represent us - neither does Ed Miliband who spends £70 pounds a week on shopping (or more) lives in a 3 million pound house and can't eat a bacon sandwich! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney21 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 We should be proud and confident in our own ability all other points are peripheral,it,s not or shouldn,t be about Eck/oil/pound/economy it should be about US the Scots people standing tall and moving forward,we have all but lost our soul our sense of being all imperialist rulers first try to destroy the culture/heritage/language of their subjugated peoples this they have all but achieved in Scotland,we are taught at school mostly about the British Empire and it,s acheivements but little of the contribution of Scots to civilization none other than W Churchill commented that Scotland/Greece were two of the greatest contributors to world civilization,this to me is why so many of us grow up thinking of ourselvesas British first rather than Scottish,we are hugely admired outside of these islands huge anomaly for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Scotland doesn't receive 5bn less in spending than it puts in. Public spending in Scotland last year, as across the UK, was higher than the money brought in by a significant margin. The UK is spending more than it makes and Scotland is no exception that. I'd be delighted to know why you think this almost certainly made up figure will double to 10bn in the even of a 'no' vote. Indeed, you later claimed we make around £4,000 more per head than the UK as a whole. If your 5bn figure was to bear any truth, that figure would have to be in the region of £8,000. (I don't know exactly what our population is, but I'd guess around 5.5m) The point about Cameron and Miliband being wealthy isn't really much of a point either. I doubt your Salmonds, Lamonts and Sturgeons are having to worry about money either. Does having a bit of money really disqualify someone from 'representing' you any more than their inherent characteristics and policies already do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Scotland doesn't receive 5bn less in spending than it puts in. Public spending in Scotland last year, as across the UK, was higher than the money brought in by a significant margin. The UK is spending more than it makes and Scotland is no exception that. I'd be delighted to know why you think this almost certainly made up figure will double to 10bn in the even of a 'no' vote. Indeed, you later claimed we make around £4,000 more per head than the UK as a whole. If your 5bn figure was to bear any truth, that figure would have to be in the region of £8,000. (I don't know exactly what our population is, but I'd guess around 5.5m) The point about Cameron and Miliband being wealthy isn't really much of a point either. I doubt your Salmonds, Lamonts and Sturgeons are having to worry about money either. Does having a bit of money really disqualify someone from 'representing' you any more than their inherent characteristics and policies already do? So you think that Boris, David Cameron's right hand man, has our interests at heart, along with the rest of the Bullingdon Boys? This increasingly London-centric government is good for Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The quoted post implied wealth was the reason they didn't represent Scotland. They do what they think is best for the UK. I don't think they represent Scotland well, but neither do they do it that badly. I disagree with things they've done and agree with some others. Of course Boris would say that - he's the mayor of London and London only. It would be like Salmond saying money is better spent in Stirling rather than Stafford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taza Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Well why the f**k would I care about England? It's a foreign country, I couldn't give a toss about them any more or less than any other foreign country. That's not anti English. One of my best mates is English, he's in my Facebook profile pic he's that good a mate, if I was a vile nationalist or whatever that was anti English then he wouldn't be my mate would he? How the fucks it disgusting? I am British at the end of the day Scotland is on the island Great Britain but I don't see English or Welsh people as my fellow countrymen. Whole things stupid and a load of bollocks. I don't understand why we have a Team GB anyway tbh. To be fair, I don't suppose it's any more ridiculous than having a team Europe for the Ryder Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 So HS1, HS2, HS3 are good for Scotland? While we have to pay for them here for over a generation, they will continually drain this country of millions of pounds. So while the north gets less and less of a good deal, London becomes more of a monster. And you think this is Scotland being represented well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 He's a total heidcase Yes. I think we can ascertain that Mr Bairn is a loopster. He must have been red faced and black affronted after realising his fcuk up. A glaring alias alert if I have ever seen one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Scotland doesn't receive 5bn less in spending than it puts in. Public spending in Scotland last year, as across the UK, was higher than the money brought in by a significant margin. The UK is spending more than it makes and Scotland is no exception that. I'd be delighted to know why you think this almost certainly made up figure will double to 10bn in the even of a 'no' vote. Indeed, you later claimed we make around £4,000 more per head than the UK as a whole. If your 5bn figure was to bear any truth, that figure would have to be in the region of £8,000. (I don't know exactly what our population is, but I'd guess around 5.5m) The point about Cameron and Miliband being wealthy isn't really much of a point either. I doubt your Salmonds, Lamonts and Sturgeons are having to worry about money either. Does having a bit of money really disqualify someone from 'representing' you any more than their inherent characteristics and policies already do? For each of the last 33 years, Scotland has paid more into the exchequer than it has received. I think there is some substance to the point about Cameron and Miliband being wealthy. Prior to the reshuffle, 23 out of 29 cabinet members were personal millionaires. In a country that has the largest wealth divide in Europe and that is the 4th most unequal in the developed world. Does that seem fair to you? How can they possibly relate to a single mother who has to experience the shame of going to a foodbank? Or the record levels of people experiencing poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Is Eck a millionaire? Just wonderin'. Mibbes Aye, mibbes Naw.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Is Eck a millionaire? Just wonderin'. Mibbes Aye, mibbes Naw.. I doubt it. I just googled it to see, but couldn't find an answer. Interestingly, when you type in "Alex Salmond" into Google, the first entry that appears is "Alex Salmond jokes". Those cuddly old Britnats, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazelle Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Scotland doesn't receive 5bn less in spending than it puts in. Public spending in Scotland last year, as across the UK, was higher than the money brought in by a significant margin. The UK is spending more than it makes and Scotland is no exception that. I'd be delighted to know why you think this almost certainly made up figure will double to 10bn in the even of a 'no' vote. Indeed, you later claimed we make around £4,000 more per head than the UK as a whole. If your 5bn figure was to bear any truth, that figure would have to be in the region of £8,000. (I don't know exactly what our population is, but I'd guess around 5.5m) The point about Cameron and Miliband being wealthy isn't really much of a point either. I doubt your Salmonds, Lamonts and Sturgeons are having to worry about money either. Does having a bit of money really disqualify someone from 'representing' you any more than their inherent characteristics and policies already do? Scotland earns more and borrows more, I can see why a lesser mind might conclude the figures as like for like. It should not come as a surprise given the different polices of the two governments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266 to be fair this is slightly outdated, the most recent figures is £2300. The Barnett formula will certainly be reworked and the figures are available. Every authority in England believe Scotland is subsidized. Regarding your last point, the issue was not his wealth but the fact that he had no idea of the basic cost of living of those he represents, the fact he lives in a £3,000,000 gives you a clue why he has no idea. A career politician if ever I saw one. I found your reply to be lacking in any substance, perhaps you could present a case for the union. Without the project fear rhetoric.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taza Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Scotland earns more and borrows more, I can see why a lesser mind might conclude the figures as like for like. It should not come as a surprise given the different polices of the two governments. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266 to be fair this is slightly outdated, the most recent figures is £2300. The Barnett formula will certainly be reworked and the figures are available. Every authority in England believe Scotland is subsidized. Regarding your last point, the issue was not his wealth but the fact that he had no idea of the basic cost of living of those he represents, the fact he lives in a £3,000,000 gives you a clue why he has no idea. A career politician if ever I saw one. I found your reply to be lacking in any substance, perhaps you could present a case for the union. Without the project fear rhetoric.... What is this 'case for the union' thing. I have heard mention of it before but nobody seems sure of it's existence. I have never seen a Yeti either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 I doubt it. I just googled it to see, but couldn't find an answer. Interestingly, when you type in "Alex Salmond" into Google, the first entry that appears is "Alex Salmond jokes". Those cuddly old Britnats, eh? I googled the man a few days ago. This came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 I googled the man a few days ago. This came up. fanny.jpg You had 3 new tweets and you googled that? Priorities, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taza Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 I googled the man a few days ago. This came up. fanny.jpg I got 'Alex Salmond - best politician in The British Isles' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 I got Alex Salmond and Morning Joe. It turns out it's the name of an MSNBC programme, and not his predilection for coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.