New bar opened in old Topman,the Scotland Discussion

[arsenal]

Mr Scotty. The only chips I have are those served with fish. I believe you attacked the English policy on immigration. However, millions have entered England over the last ten years or so and are entitled to all the benefits so that seems quite generous to me.

The only conjecture I mentioned was your head of state. Everything else (the currency, the EU membership) is a matter of public record. It would be very strange for an Independent Scotlnd to use the pound without a formal currency union, which all three Westminster parties say you won't get. A bit like a teenager demanding independence and pocket money at the same time.

And if other posters are unaware of Scotlands' contribution to the world thenI wouldn't bother trying to educate them. Just as Englands' contribution is immeasurable, which I am sure you would agree with, though perhaps through clenched teeth. (And a deep fried Mars Bar )

[scottish-guy]

The difference is that I am unaware of any poster suggesting that the only thing England is known for is bowler hats and morris dancers - right?
So I think I'm entitled to respond to the "kilts" and "Deep-Fried Mars Bars" references.
I am happy to acknowledge that England has a long and proud history of innovation and much else besides.

Now, to your points:

1. There IS no "English policy on Immigration" - so how can I attack it. HELLO?
What I attack is a UK Immigration policy which is populist, racist, panders to Daily Mail and Telegraph readers, is designed for the South East of England and prevents the Economy from growing. You will not find any history of any support for the racist and xenophobic National Front, BNP, or UKIP in Scotland - their support lies in England whether you like to admit it or not.

2. It would not be at all strange for Scotland to use the ┬г without a formal currency union, but the panel of International economic experts including 2 Nobel laureates who are advising the Scottish Govt have said that a formal currency union is preferable and in the interests of BOTH countries. If the UK wants to be stubborn about it - fine - we'll use the ┬г without a formal currency union BUT if Scotland is to be denied a share of UK assets (which it has contributed to for 300 years) then we wont't be taking on any share of UK liabilities such as any part of the ┬г1.2-┬г1.4 TRILLION debt. The "quip" about the teenager makes no sense and does not equate to the situation in any way.

[arsenal]

If anyone has chips on their shoulders on this thread it's not me. Perhaps closer to home though SG. You are beginning to sound quite shrill so I shall withdraw from this thread as it is after all, a Scottish matter.

[egel]

Will the UK have to move out of RAF Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars etc. Cant possibly have our front line Squandrons based in a foreign land can we?
And, as for that submarine pen on the west coast...what our biggest nuclear deterrant based abroad?
Unthinkable...

[scottish-guy]

Arsenal, the truth is you've withdrawn from the debate because you've been exposed on the issues. The trouble is you get your mis-information from the Daily Mail (or maybe the Telegraph if you feel like splurging out) and anything they print about Scotland is utter shite.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you may augment your news sources by listening to the State Broadcaster aka BBC who serve up a daily diet of anti-Scottish insult, am I right?
Just the other day we had a HAIRDRESSER on the BBC Daily Politics show telling us we should vote NO and that was quickly followed by Gryff Rhys Jones (a Comedian) telling us what we should do. For 24 hours we had blanket news coverage of David Bowie giving us his opinion (4 words worth) - so I think any outside observers can gauge the level the BBC is setting the debate at.

Nothing you have said on these matters, Arsenal, stands up to scrutiny - and the "chip on the shoulder" remark was made precisely because I knew you'd come away with that one (that's why I added "sound familiar?" when I posted it)

Now, moving on to Egel - Defence is not a strong suit for the Unionists, Egel, you ought not to have opened up that can of worms:

1. You don't have to worry about the nuclear Trident submarines being left in the Clyde - if there's a YES vote, the rump UK will be instructed (yes, instructed) to remove them forthwith. Will you enjoy having these weapons of mass destruction in your own back yard?
Devonport has been suggested - personally I'd like to see them based in the Thames - but I hear the Welsh First Minister wants them (amazing how some people will prostitute their principals for a few quid).
The big problem (for UK) though, is that a rump UK would have nowhere to move these nuclear submarines to, nor anywhere to store the warheads - oh dear, what will they do? If UK Tory Govts from Thatcher onwards hadn't pissed off the whole of Europe with their xenophobic attitudes they might have had options there

2.You suggest/threaten the removal of the RAF bases @ Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars etc ..... well my dear you really must try to keep up - RAF Kinloss CLOSED to flying operations in 2011, RAF Leuchars is scheduled for CLOSURE in Autumn 2014, and RAF Lossiemouth is to be reduced to an army barracks - so where are these "front line squadrons" you refer to Did you stop keeping up-to-date in 1945?
AND these closures and downgrades have occurred under the UK Govt, so what are we supposed to be afraid of losing?
The latest available UK Govt figures for defence spending in Scotland show that in 2007/2008 Scotland contributed ┬г3.3 billion to the defence budget and received spending of ┬г1.9 billion - so, get your facts right before commenting. The UK does Scotland no favours in defence, or in anything else.

So, I look forward to any rebuttal you care to make but I suspect there will be nothing of substance - it seems to me that when it comes to trading debating points instead of newspaper headlines and out-of-date generalisations, Arsenal and Egel "don't like it up 'em"

[attachment=0:1t5v4dun]arseegel.png[/attachment:1t5v4dun]

[scottish-guy]

A rare truthful article from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26327874

[arsenal]

SG. I wasn't aware I'd given you a list of my media sources.

If you use our currency (with or without a union) then how can you be truly independent? You will be hostages to the fortunes of another state. Decisions made by The Bank of England will have a direct bearing on your borrowing capabilities.
It's hardly surprising that the organisations advising Scotland aadvise that a currency union is in the interests of both parties, they are being paid by Scotland. You are a citizen of the EU due to the agreements signed by The UK, If you leave the UK then the citizenship will go with it, HELLO.

[Manforallseasons]

Surfcrest wrote:
The Scotland Discussion has been moved to the "Open Discussion" forum, the new topic is;.

New bar opened in the old Topman, The Scotland Discussion

new-bar-opened-old-topman-the-scotland-discussion-t30446.html



This is Gay Thailand Forum.

There is a proper forum for this It's Global Forum.

[scottish-guy]

...SG. I wasn't aware I'd given you a list of my media sources.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I'm right, and I note you haven't denied it

...If you use our currency (with or without a union) then how can you be truly independent? .....

Well well well - there we have it, and I've highlighted it to make it even more obvious - what arrogance !!
The ┬г Sterling is not YOUR currency!
The pound is the national currency of Scotland just as much as it's the currency of the rest of the UK.
The Bank of England has been nationalised since 1946 and for over 65 years revenues from Scotland have contributed towards its development.
It's a UK Asset - Scotland owns a share of it and as an independent state, Scotland would have just under 10% of a stake in the Bank of England, and we would demand 10% of influence. At the moment Scotland has NO influence. 10% of influence is a damn sight more than the 0% influence we have just now.

Similarly, it is accepted that for a currency union to work, some sovereignty would have to be ceded - but seeing as we have sod-all sovereignty at the moment, that seems quite acceptable.

But your argument is founded on a ridiculous proposition - are you seriously saying that France and Germany, because they share a Central Bank are not "Independent" countries? Maybe you should try telling the Germans and French that! What utter tosh!

..... It's hardly surprising that the organisations advising Scotland advise that a currency union is in the interests of both parties, they are being paid by Scotland....

I'm sorry Arsenal, we are talking about eminent, world-leading economists, including TWO Nobel laureates - are you seriously suggesting that these guys would risk trashing the international reputations they have built up over a lifetime by making untrue statements for the sake of a few quid in expenses (I believe they are actually unpaid, but I don't have a reference for that) They're not Lib-Dems you know!
Alastair Darling (Leader of the NO campaign) admitted the same thing some months ago (currency union in the best interests of both countries) - and he is hardly a friend of or paid by the Scottish Govt.
Just last week the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Tory Party said that although he wants a NO vote, if it's YES he will "man the barricades" to obtain a currency union.
Mervyn King (remember him?) ex BoE Governor, told the First Minister ' What they (Westminster politicians) say now, is quite different to what they will say after the event'

You are a citizen of the EU due to the agreements signed by The UK, If you leave the UK then the citizenship will go with it, HELLO.

HELLO. Please cite the EU mechanism for expelling approx 5 million EU citizens from the EU. Actually, don't waste your time looking - there isn't one, and there will be no expulsion - the idea is ludicrous. The entire history of the EU is about pragmatism and expansion - suddenly they're going to start throwing 5 million EU Citizens out? Crap!
Can you imagine the upheaval that would cause - all EU migrants and students would overnight have no right to stay in Scotland (you'd like that one if it were the UK, wouldn't you ) and would all have to leave immediately. The Spanish and others would have to immediately stop fishing the hell out of our waters. The Germans would have to find a new oil source (they import much of it from what would be Scottish oil fields)

There will be an 18 month interval between a YES vote and Independence Day. Matters will be negotiated within that time-frame to ensure that at the point of Independence, Scotland transitions seamlessly into a sovereign member of the EU.

But there is something else you need to consider - when Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. Who has pointed this out? A certain Mr Norman Tebbit!! What do you say to that?

[arsenal]

SG. I don't feel the need to deny anything just as you don't feel the need to confirm if you've ever actually been to Thailand.

So. Scotland is going to leave The UK. Take all the oil, have total ownership of the fishing grounds, leave the debt behind, seamlessly rejoin The EU, happily carry on using pound sterling, keep HM QE 2 as head of state, and everyone will ride off counting all their cash. Is there anything I've missed?