PDA

View Full Version : Scotland's Referendum



Judge
07-09-2014, 18:59
Not long to go now September 18... for the first time I read that the Yes campagin has taken a slight lead in a recent poll..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2746384/Shock-poll-puts-Yes-camp-front.html

It will be interested to see what happens if the the Scots do gain their independences ,there will be pressure on Cameron to resign...for now he said he won't,but who knows, one thnig he will be known for is being the PM who let Scotland leave the UK.

FatAndy
07-09-2014, 19:20
Will London send armoured troops to push down seraratism? :suspect:

Shouldn't forget to remind Shoigu tomorrow to develop kilts/tartans in the green/grey/brown colour gamme, and start learning for polite ppl how to wrap them around... just for a case... ;)

Pity I have to be in Ekaterinburg that day...

rumple_stilskin
07-09-2014, 19:29
Will London send armoured troops to push down seraratism?

Best bet would be to send the artillary to shell residential areas, that way everyone leaves scotland. repopulate the area with English. Northern Ireland or Palestine style. Proven methods that get results.

Judge
07-09-2014, 19:36
Will London send armoured troops to push down seraratism? :suspect:
London could send in little green men to keep them from jumping over the wall..


Shouldn't forget to remind Shoigu tomorrow to develop kilts/tartans in the green/grey/brown colour gamme, and start learning for polite ppl how to wrap them around... just for a case... ;)

Along with Russian gas men , offering the Scots a sweet deal , connecting the Nord Stream to Scotland.:coffee:

penka
07-09-2014, 23:39
Nah, Scotland won't become independent and certainly Cameron won't resign. Scotland becoming independent will cost a pretty penny for England, so, without any doubt, they will make some deals to encourage nay-sayers.

Nobbynumbnuts
07-09-2014, 23:56
Will London send armoured troops to push down seraratism? :suspect:..............

No, but we might start arming local pro unionist militia and shoot down a civilian airliner then blame it all on the other side. ;)

If Scotland vote for independence expect them to receive it without a shot fired or a fist raised because that's how civilized countries do it! :D

Nobbynumbnuts
08-09-2014, 00:02
Nah, Scotland won't become independent and certainly Cameron won't resign. Scotland becoming independent will cost a pretty penny for England, so, without any doubt, they will make some deals to encourage nay-sayers.

I think just enough Scots will be sensible and avoid a risky leap into independence.
How can people vote on something so important without anyone being able to say with any certainty what it will all mean for Scotland?
I think they'll be a 'no' vote and Westminster will then grant them more autonomy. That's the sensible solution.

MickeyTong
08-09-2014, 00:55
I think just enough Scots will be sensible and avoid a risky leap into independence.
How can people vote on something so important without anyone being able to say with any certainty what it will all mean for Scotland?
I think they'll be a 'no' vote and Westminster will then grant them more autonomy. That's the sensible solution.

If there is "No" vote Westminster will have no incentive to grant any more autonomy, so they won't.

A "No" voter will be in favour of Tory (Multi-millionaires and their servants), New Labour (Tory Lite) and Liberal Democrats (Tory 0%).

A "Yes" vote is not a vote for Alex Salmond or the SNP. In an independent Scotland the other parties will have to change their game plans or be slapped in the face again.

Nobbynumbnuts
08-09-2014, 01:15
If there is "No" vote Westminster will have no incentive to grant any more autonomy, so they won't.

A "No" voter will be in favour of Tory (Multi-millionaires and their servants), New Labour (Tory Lite) and Liberal Democrats (Tory 0%).

A "Yes" vote is not a vote for Alex Salmond or the SNP. In an independent Scotland the other parties will have to change their game plans or be slapped in the face again.

Either way the vote will be very close. Therefore very nearly half the population of Scotland will have voted yes and will have received nothing for their efforts. Only a fool would believe Westminster would not placate them and offer concessions to avoid repercussions in the near future. Not too hard to understand.

Besides, what kind of independence if you don't have your own currency! :rofl:

MickeyTong
08-09-2014, 01:35
Either way the vote will be very close. Therefore very nearly half the population of Scotland will have voted yes and will have received nothing for their efforts. Only a fool would believe Westminster would not placate them and offer concessions to avoid repercussions in the near future. Not too hard to understand.

Besides, what kind of independence if you don't have your own currency! :rofl:

Personally, I don't mind either way (I'm an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for 20 years - and my Scottish wife will vote NO).

In the event of a No vote, why would Westminster bother to grant any concessions? There won't be another referendum, ever, so why should they worry about repercussions?

I agree with you about currency. But the referendum is about independence in principle - the details will be hashed out afterwards. Scotland will not become independent (or not) on Set 18th. Before that actually happens there will be much money to be made by lawyers on both sides of the Tweed.

Fantastika
08-09-2014, 07:49
Besides, what kind of independence if you don't have your own currency! :rofl:

There are some countries that use another country's currency, like the US dollar is official in Lebanon, LIberia, Costa Rica, etc.

Pensions, London would no longer pay them, so Scotland would have to ramp up a new program to replace it. Probably would be a net gain for Scotland and a loss for England - I bet Scotland contributes more to the British treasury than it gets back and vice-versa.

Nobbynumbnuts
08-09-2014, 11:21
Personally, I don't mind either way (I'm an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for 20 years - and my Scottish wife will vote NO).

In the event of a No vote, why would Westminster bother to grant any concessions? There won't be another referendum, ever, so why should they worry about repercussions?

I agree with you about currency. But the referendum is about independence in principle - the details will be hashed out afterwards. Scotland will not become independent (or not) on Set 18th. Before that actually happens there will be much money to be made by lawyers on both sides of the Tweed.

We now know that around half the population of Scotland wants to see an independent country (as polls stand) That's a powerful political voice. Politicians will try to exploit it in the case of a 'no' vote.
Makes sense for Westminster to make concessions post election in the event of a 'no' vote

Also, Westminster has hardly been miserly with it's dealings with Scotland in recent history. The three main political parties have all signed up to devolution for Scotland. A Scottish parliament has been set up along with many other institutions and bodies. All done pretty amicably.

Salmonds is demanding the pound because he knows Scotland cannot stand alone without it. The pound in a Scotsman's wallet after independence will be backed by the bank of England. That's not independence.

Nobbynumbnuts
08-09-2014, 11:32
There are some countries that use another country's currency, like the US dollar is official in Lebanon, LIberia, Costa Rica, etc.

Pensions, London would no longer pay them, so Scotland would have to ramp up a new program to replace it. Probably would be a net gain for Scotland and a loss for England - I bet Scotland contributes more to the British treasury than it gets back and vice-versa.

The issue is that Scotland is large in the context of the UK. For them to have the pound but Westminster to have no control of Scottish fiscal policy is dangerous. Would you give your credit card to someone else to use?

Lebanon, Liberia, Costa Rica, Bermuda etc etc are very small compared with the US economy.

"I bet" and "probably" are not grounds to seek independence.

vossy7
08-09-2014, 11:57
So how will they calculate Scotland's share of the UK's external debt should it become independent?
1 United States $17,754,467,569,229.71 6 September 2014
2 United Kingdom $9,590,995,000,000 31 March 2014

Nobbynumbnuts
08-09-2014, 12:22
So how will they calculate Scotland's share of the UK's external debt should it become independent?
1 United States $17,754,467,569,229.71 6 September 2014
2 United Kingdom $9,590,995,000,000 31 March 2014

These issues will all be settled after a 'yes' vote.
Salmonds has hinted that if Scotland doesn't get the pound then Scotland won't settle it's share of the national debt.

Judge
08-09-2014, 13:47
I say good luck to Scotland, hope they get their independence,all we have heard from Downing Street leading up to the referendum is threats, like how Scotland will survive alone, economy will go down the drain, who will protect them,no currency and so...basically telling the Scots they are better off with their big brother taking good care of them..
If they get to keep all their oil and gas and invest it wisely they could be well off like Norway,roughly the same size and population.
Good luck to the Scots,

Taken from a YES site..


It is worth remembering that Norway discovered oil and gas at the same time as Scotland, and has been able to use this wealth to become one of the very wealthiest countries on earth in terms of GDP per head of population and also now sits at the very top of world wellbeing and equality league tables.

rumple_stilskin
08-09-2014, 14:26
I say good luck to Scotland, hope they get their independence,all we have heard from Downing Street leading up to the referendum is threats, like how Scotland will survive alone, economy will go down the drain, who will protect them,no currency and so...basically telling the Scots they are better off with their big brother taking good care of them..
If they get to keep all their oil and gas and invest it wisely they could be well off like Norway,roughly the same size and population.
Good luck to the Scots,

Taken from a YES site..

It would be interesting to know exactly how much these foreign wars have cost in the last 30 years. You have Iraq I, Iraq II, Libya, anti-Syria support and now Iraq III coming up. Plus there were others, the Yugoslavia mess.

The cost directly and indirectly. All this is part of government debt and therefore interest is getting added to the cost. By the time it is paid off with interest, what exactly is this total cost?

What percentage of the UK national debt is this?

The bankers and armaments industry are doing nicely...

It should not be surprising where the UK oil money went to, not surprising the Scottish want to go it alone.....

p.s the stakeout cost of the Julian assange embassy fiasco is already $12 million.
p.p.s. recent NATO on standy force for the UK will be 50 Million or more a year, over 20 years that is 1 billion euros/pounds...

Judge
08-09-2014, 14:55
It would be interesting to know exactly how much these foreign wars have cost in the last 30 years. You have Iraq I, Iraq II, Libya, anti-Syria support and now Iraq III coming up. Plus there were others, the Yugoslavia mess.

The cost directly and indirectly. All this is part of government debt and therefore interest is getting added to the cost. By the time it is paid off with interest, what exactly is this total cost?

What percentage of the UK national debt is this?

The bankers and armaments industry are doing nicely...

I bet the amount is staggering, even if 10% was spent on Scotland, the Scots would be happier,less poverty,run down areas.

Just found this on poverty in Scotland
http://www.cpag.org.uk/scotland/child-poverty-facts-and-figures


It should not be surprising where the UK oil money went to, not surprising the Scottish want to go it alone.....

Money will be invested instead of war and trying to live in the past of having a empire or helping others run their empires.


p.s the stakeout cost of the Julian assange embassy fiasco is already $12 million.

Give hard up families 100000 quid each of the assange money and they will be very happy instead of the police wasting time...


p.p.s. recent NATO on standy force for the UK will be 50 Million or more a year, over 20 years that is 1 billion euros/pounds...

more money that can be used elsewhere....

Fantastika
08-09-2014, 15:30
Is it all about money, or is anyone talking about cultural rot spreading from England?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/post_512.html

It seems to me that England, France, etc. US, too, and their media, are hysterical about Russia, as a way to divert attention away from their own internal turmoil (I am thinking of last year? when the "peaceful Moslem immigrants" burned 8000 cars in Paris, Obama's IRS destroying the American Tea Party, the "border" with Mexico where parents send their children, and hordes of criminals and unemployed stream across and are welcomed by the Left).

Nobbynumbnuts
09-09-2014, 03:46
I say good luck to Scotland, hope they get their independence,all we have heard from Downing Street leading up to the referendum is threats, like how Scotland will survive alone, economy will go down the drain, who will protect them,no currency and so...basically telling the Scots they are better off with their big brother taking good care of them..
If they get to keep all their oil and gas and invest it wisely they could be well off like Norway,roughly the same size and population.
Good luck to the Scots,

Taken from a YES site..

Easy for you to tell the Scots to vote yes. There's no risk for you.
No one can say for sure they will be better off. Independant experts cannot agree.
On what information do you base your claim with oil revenues they will be another Norway?
How much oil is in under the North Sea? No one knows for sure. Experts disagree
How long will it last then? No one knows
How much is it worth? No one knows. We know the price of oil today, how much will it be next week, next year, 10 years from now?
The price is also dependant on the value of the currency your using against the value of the dollar. Oil is priced in dollars.
North Sea oil production has fallen shaply over the past 4 years. Will this continue, is it a trend. No one knows for sure.
One thing is certain, Scotland will never be another Norway. Norway has enjoyed oil revenues for over 40 years. All experts agree it's highly unlikely it will last another 40 years at worthwhile volumes.
How much will it cost to fund an independent Scotland every year? No one can answer that with any certainty, either. There are too many unanswered questions. How can people asked to vote when they don't have clear answers?

Maybe Scotland will be better off. Maybe it won't.
Only a fool would gamble their future on such uncertainty.

There is a political process underway. There's gamesman ship on both sides. Unless of course you believe Alex Salmonds is the second coming and incapable of such tactics for political gain himself.
The sensible and safer option is to take what Westminster is now offering-more devolution for a no vote.
Unless Judge you can succeed where everyone else has failed and provide proof Scotland will be a net winner if they vote yes. ;)

Nobbynumbnuts
09-09-2014, 04:07
Is it all about money, or is anyone talking about cultural rot spreading from England?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/post_512.html............

Obviously these unsavoury things never happen in Russia :D

Judge
09-09-2014, 08:37
Easy for you to tell the Scots to vote yes. There's no risk for you.
No one can say for sure they will be better off. Independant experts cannot agree.
On what information do you base your claim with oil revenues they will be another Norway?
How much oil is in under the North Sea? No one knows for sure. Experts disagree
How long will it last then? No one knows
How much is it worth? No one knows. We know the price of oil today, how much will it be next week, next year, 10 years from now?
The price is also dependant on the value of the currency your using against the value of the dollar. Oil is priced in dollars.
North Sea oil production has fallen shaply over the past 4 years. Will this continue, is it a trend. No one knows for sure.
One thing is certain, Scotland will never be another Norway. Norway has enjoyed oil revenues for over 40 years. All experts agree it's highly unlikely it will last another 40 years at worthwhile volumes.
How much will it cost to fund an independent Scotland every year? No one can answer that with any certainty, either. There are too many unanswered questions. How can people asked to vote when they don't have clear answers?

Maybe Scotland will be better off. Maybe it won't.
Only a fool would gamble their future on such uncertainty.

There is a political process underway. There's gamesman ship on both sides. Unless of course you believe Alex Salmonds is the second coming and incapable of such tactics for political gain himself.
The sensible and safer option is to take what Westminster is now offering-more devolution for a no vote.
Unless Judge you can succeed where everyone else has failed and provide proof Scotland will be a net winner if they vote yes. ;)

Would have been better if I used the past tense,''If they got to keep all their oil and gas'', yes it's hard to say how much oil is there, there's talk of a $1tr-2tr or more,depends on the price of oil, Scotland could be in for another oil boom like it was 40 years ago, with new drilling technology, oil that was hard to get can be reached,there's also a new field that they have checked and it could hold up to $300bn worth of oil,also the oil could last for another 40 years, into 2050..As you know, it's hard to say,but
Putting the oil aside for now, Scotland does well in tourism and exports of Scotch Whisky,for sure this doesn't come close to what it could get from oil.Joining the EU will also allow Scotland to raid the EU funds.
How the border will work with the UK will be interesting,maybe Scotland will join the schengen zone,the other day there were threats about border patrols,maybe they will rebuild the wall again..



Politicians have tried to scare the Scots into voting No, and yesterday we saw them trying to bribe the scots with 'Westminster is now offering-more devolution for a no vote'.Politicians make it sound like Scotland will return to the dark ages..

Judge
09-09-2014, 08:45
The NO campaign are getting more desperate..... calling on the Queen to get involved..

Scottish independence: The Queen is urged to intervene.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083204/Scottish-independence-The-Queen-is-urged-to-intervene.html

JanC
09-09-2014, 09:31
Maybe Scotland will be better off. Maybe it won't.


Not unlike the UK wanting to leave the EU then. Very different issues of course, but with quite a few similarities. It's certainly ironic to see the anti-EU politicians in England being so opposed to Scotland going off to do its own thing.

Scotland wouldn't automatically become another Norway, that's for sure. As a Scot, I wouldn't be able to vote Yes whilst the consequences of doing so are as unclear as they are, even if in principle I could see the benefits of Scotland being independent.

Judge
09-09-2014, 09:57
Not unlike the UK wanting to leave the EU then. Very different issues of course, but with quite a few similarities. It's certainly ironic to see the anti-EU politicians in England being so opposed to Scotland going off to do its own thing.

Funny to think about it, we could see an independent Scotland, what's left of the UK holding another referendum in 2017 to see if it wants out of the EU, and Scotland applying on their own to join the EU.

annasophia
09-09-2014, 16:10
Debt Rattle Sep 8 2014: Please Scotland, Blow Up The EU

September 8, 2014 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 7:24 pm



You know they’re desperate when they play the royal card and announce a new baby on the way. Britain, and especially Downing Street 10, got a huge scare last week when a poll showed the Scottish independence movement is now favorite to win the September 18 referendum. It’s not entirely clear, but I don’t think Cameron and his crew would be able to stay on if Scotland secedes from the UK.

So who would do the negotiations for what remains united under the Queen? That’s the first bit of confusion and mayhem I very much hope will turn into an absolute mess that will break the EU and the eurozone as they presently exist. Simply because something needs to be the catalyst that makes it happen.

Brussels has turned into a convoluted monstrosity that makes far too many victims just to allow a few handfuls of people with extreme and contorted power dreams to ejaculate. The EU is way past its best before date, and the rot and decay can only possibly lead to more victims if it isn’t halted.

It was a nice idea 60-odd years ago, but it’s fallen into the hands of the wrong cabal, and when you look at how things have evolved during that time, it’s not that hard to recognize the entire set-up was doomed to lead where it has. There was never any positive feedback built into the system, i.e. Brussels was handed more power all the time as time went by, until it became more powerful than its member states (with the possible exception of Bonn/Berlin).

It has become self-propelling, for the simple reason that it was built that way. An ideal opportunity for psychopathic schemers to live out the fantasies such people have, and which they will live to the fullest unless they’re kept in check. The same thing that’s painfully evident in places like Washington or Beijing.

Only with even less democracy. Voters in European nations may still have a token influence through their national ballot boxes, but the big decisions are made in Brussels. And all the politicians they get to choose from, at least those in the parties that matter, all support the EU project, more often than not because they too dream of centralized power.

There is no longer a choice available to reject Brussels, or reject the Euro, or reject what either the ECB or the European Commission – both of which are extremely ‘light’ on democracy – dictate. That’s the heart of the European problem, and that’s what will finish it off. Only, if that last bit takes too long, it will cause a lot of additional damage throughout the EU.

It’s a project with its own demise built in. A good idea with a fatally defective architecture. As always, nobody notices in times of plenty and abundance. But when those proverbial ‘seven years’ have gone, people won’t want to belong to some larger block anymore; when the alleged advantage of the bigger unity has evaporated, people don’t want their decisions to be made by someone they don’t know and who doesn’t speak their language or know their culture.

But according to Brussels, and to all the national politicians who support the EU project, there is now no longer a way back. The euro can’t be undone, and neither can the EU. The narrative is that Brussels must, of necessity, absorb ever more power from national governments, and hence ever more power from the people they represent, and that’s exactly the way the entire monstrous project was constructed. Perhaps not intentionally, but still.

Point in case: the EU is set to announce new sanctions against Russia, still based on zero evidence about anything at all, and the best part is they seek to hurt the oil industry but not the gas industry, because they need the latter. And what’s going to keep Russia from saying if you want one you must take both? What would keep Moscow from closing its airspace to EU airlines and bankrupting a whole series of them? In Brussels, arrogance, hubris and stupidity are in a fierce battle for first place.

Scotland is the first EU region to try and break free from a larger entity, and, oh sweet irony, many of the pro-independence Scots will vote Yes because they like the EU so much (or at least more than the UK presently does). But let’s not let a bit of irony get in the way, shall we?

If only because a win for the Yes side has the potential to cause so much disruption it won’t matter what caused the disruption. The Yes side wants to be part of the CTA, which allows free flow of people between England and Scotland, no passports etc. But whether that’s acceptable to the EU, or the UK, is doubtful.

The Yes side wants to keep using the British pound, in a scheme they call sterlingization, and there are tons of questions there as well. Will the UK allow it, will the EU, can you be an EU member when you use someone else’s currency, can you be without having your own central bank, plenty of delightful conundrums that so far nobody has provided a conclusive answer for.

If and when Scotland votes for independence 10 days from now, the confusion and mayhem and anger and bitterness will be the only things deemed worth talking about in Albion. Royal baby or not. But the whole thing will be resolved at some point, not to everybody’s whole content, and not with every politician still in the seats they occupy today, but one thing’s for sure: it will be a breath of fresh air that Europe desperately needs.

Because if Scotland can do it, so can Catalunya, and the Basque, and Venice, and so many other regions that would rather decide about their own future than have some ‘higher power’ do it for them. As is their right as per the UN charter on self-determination.

The EU has become a straight-jacket that restricts the freedom of far too many people, and they’re going to break free. It’s only a matter of time. Of course it more likely that the UK will opt to leave the EU than for Scotland to be put out on the curb, but that’s fine by me: what’s important right now is that somebody starts rattling the cage, and starts calling out for freedom. It’s inevitable that it will take place, and the sooner that happens the better, because we don’t want violent unrest to erupt.

In yet another twist of irony, I am most likely to see my wish of an EU break-up fulfilled by someone I have grave doubts about: Marine Le Pen of the Front National in France. She called yesterday on President Hollande – and his 13% approval rating – to dissolve parliament, and she leads in all the polls. Le Pen would take France out of the EU in only a few simple steps, and that would be the end, since without France there is no EU.

It’s for the people in Greece, Italy, Spain etc. that this is the most crucial. Until the moment that their countries break free of the Brussels shackles, their economies will continue to suffer, and so will they.

Unemployment numbers are still at insane levels there, debt levels are, if possible, even crazier, and there’s no way out because they are forced to live in a sort of Germany by the olive trees. All their ‘leaders’ since the crisis hit have been EU happy technocrats, who talk of reforms until the cows come home but do thing to alleviate unemployment numbers, undoubtedly the biggest problem around.

My point is, we need something that will lead to the dissolution of the EU as it exists today. And then all parties involved can go back to the drawing board. Some form of European cooperation is of course fine, and can be very beneficial, but not the one there is today.

So come on Scotland, help make it happen. We’re counting on you guys.


http://www.theautomaticearth.com/debt-rattle-sep-8-2014-please-scotland-blow-up-the-eu/

Nobbynumbnuts
09-09-2014, 17:43
[B]

You know they’re desperate when they play the royal card and announce a new baby on the way........

William is a bloody genius! How did he know the vote was going to be so close and then manage to knock Kate up just in time to save the day. Bloody amazing! :D

The Automatic Earth?? Someone will be quoting the Beano shortly! :-D

Nobbynumbnuts
09-09-2014, 19:19
Would have been better if I used the past tense,''If they got to keep all their oil and gas'', yes it's hard to say how much oil is there, there's talk of a $1tr-2tr or more,depends on the price of oil, Scotland could be in for another oil boom like it was 40 years ago, with new drilling technology, oil that was hard to get can be reached,there's also a new field that they have checked and it could hold up to $300bn worth of oil,also the oil could last for another 40 years, into 2050..As you know, it's hard to say,but
Putting the oil aside for now, Scotland does well in tourism and exports of Scotch Whisky,for sure this doesn't come close to what it could get from oil.Joining the EU will also allow Scotland to raid the EU funds.
How the border will work with the UK will be interesting,maybe Scotland will join the schengen zone,the other day there were threats about border patrols,maybe they will rebuild the wall again..



Politicians have tried to scare the Scots into voting No, and yesterday we saw them trying to bribe the scots with 'Westminster is now offering-more devolution for a no vote'.Politicians make it sound like Scotland will return to the dark ages..

A lot of 'Ifs' 'coulds' and 'Maybes' in there. Not the basis to commit yourself for ever to Independence.
As i said, there's a political game on both sides. Salmonds saying "give us the pound or we won't pay our share of the debt"
He can't do either. I already explained why sharing the pound is stupid for the UK to consider. Then, Scotland will default on it's debt obligations as soon as it achieves independence?? Again, complete madness and Salmonds knows it.

Judge
10-09-2014, 13:58
A lot of 'Ifs' 'coulds' and 'Maybes' in there. Not the basis to commit yourself for ever to Independence.
As i said, there's a political game on both sides. Salmonds saying "give us the pound or we won't pay our share of the debt"
He can't do either. I already explained why sharing the pound is stupid for the UK to consider. Then, Scotland will default on it's debt obligations as soon as it achieves independence?? Again, complete madness and Salmonds knows it.

I think the Scots will keep the status quo in the end, but the way things are going and what's been offered they will come out with what they always wanted before the referendum was even considered, meaning more power to them in the end, so if England keeps throwing more stuff their way, they will end up winners even if they lose the referendum..
Now the question is, will the English politicians keep their promises,the Scots know their history well enough to maybe not trust the English leaders...It won't be the first time the Scots were f*cked over by the English..

Fantastika
10-09-2014, 17:42
Pro-Russian rebels compare independence battle in Ukraine to Scottish independence from England (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2750537/Pro-Russian-rebels-mockingly-compare-battle-Ukraine-Scottish-independence-asking-England-do)

AstarD
10-09-2014, 18:00
Why would they? Holding the referendum has been agreed for many years already. And was authorized by Parliament in London. And holding referenda is not illegal in any part of the UK, although it is in Russia.

Uncle Wally
10-09-2014, 18:23
Why would they? Holding the referendum has been agreed for many years already. And was authorized by Parliament in London. And holding referenda is not illegal in any part of the UK, although it is in Russia.




Illegal in America too.

AstarD
10-09-2014, 18:24
I don't recall America promoting the referendum held in Crimea or anywhere else.

Fantastika
10-09-2014, 20:09
I don't recall America promoting the referendum held in Crimea or anywhere else.

Anyone promoting the separation idea in America could be charged with treason, and they certainly be attacked by the IRS, an agency which most Americans are terrified of.

As far as the 30 or so referenda held in separate states like California, Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, etc., to prohibit homosexual "marriage" and the referenda held in many states to make abortions more regulated (making sure abortion clinics follow the same sanitary rules as hospitals) ALL of them (after the state's population voted majority "Yes") were overturned by Leftist or "Progressive" unelected federal judges.

So that makes the idea of a referendum in the US, not "illegal" (in the case of secession) but "meaningless" (for any other proposition).

Fantastika
10-09-2014, 20:19
I can well understand the Donbass separatists. On the one hand the West is saying it's ok for Scotland - which has been part of the UK for 300 years - to have independence, while on the other it's telling Russians in Donetsk that they must forever remain part of the 24-year-old Ukraine, despite having lived in Russia for the previous 400 years. The West has totally lost all common sense and deserves all the ridicule it gets.

Armoured
10-09-2014, 20:57
Anyone promoting the separation idea in America could be charged with treason...

Nonsense. Can you name one since, say, the civil war that has been charged with treason for promoting separation in the US?

It likely wouldn't even fit the definition unless it involved actual acts of war, per the Constitution - "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "


So that makes the idea of a referendum in the US, not "illegal" (in the case of secession) but "meaningless" (for any other proposition).

Well, yes, courts can overturn laws passed by referenda that contradict the constitution. Isn't that the point?

Armoured
10-09-2014, 21:02
I can well understand the Donbass separatists. On the one hand the West is saying it's ok for Scotland - which has been part of the UK for 300 years - to have independence, while on the other it's telling Russians in Donetsk that they must forever remain part of the 24-year-old Ukraine, despite having lived in Russia for the previous 400 years.

Well, no.

-"The West" is not saying anything about Scotland. The United Kingdom's own elected government decided to let Scotland have a vote, in accordance with UK law and constitution.

-"The West" has said nothing of the sort about Donetsk. "The West" has (simplifying considerably) been opposed to this being settled by means of armed groups doing so by force with the covert/overt support of another government in (alleged) contravention of international law. Whether "the West" would have a particular issue with peaceful groups lobbying for separatism in Donetsk is unclear - strangely, there weren't really any of such groups before, and they went immediately to force of arms.

Fantastika
10-09-2014, 21:10
Well, yes, courts can overturn laws passed by referenda that contradict the constitution. Isn't that the point?

No, the point is, it's not a *democracy* when the will of the people is suppressed by unelected "Progressive" federal judges.

Judges DECIDE disputes ABOUT the law. They are not supposed to MAKE laws.

Fantastika
10-09-2014, 21:19
Well, yes, courts can overturn laws passed by referenda that contradict the constitution. Isn't that the point?

In which part of the US Constitution does it say "The Right of Homosexual Marriage shall not be abridged"?

In which part of the US Constitution does it say "The States shall have no rights to inspect, monitor or demand basic sanitary rules regarding abortion mills"?

In which part of the US Constitution does it say "The Rights of People to Liberty and Democracy via Referendum shall be overruled by any Federal Judge"?

Any tinpot self-designated dictator of a judge can proclaim "that law violates the constitution" or claim powers to tax the people (which was reserved by the constitution for the Legislature, not the Judiciary) to fulfill his personal visions of what is right or wrong.

Do you know the difference between tyranny and democracy? Obviously not.

Fantastika
10-09-2014, 21:24
Well, no.

-"The West" is not saying anything about Scotland. The United Kingdom's own elected government decided to let Scotland have a vote, in accordance with UK law and constitution.

-"The West" has said nothing of the sort about Donetsk. "The West" has (simplifying considerably) been opposed to this being settled by means of armed groups doing so by force with the covert/overt support of another government in (alleged) contravention of international law. Whether "the West" would have a particular issue with peaceful groups lobbying for separatism in Donetsk is unclear - strangely, there weren't really any of such groups before, and they went immediately to force of arms.

And here I thought the Chocolate King was the one starting the armed hostilities, and bombing Lugansk and Donetsk. I didn't know that Putin was bombing Kiev.

Just what Moscow needs, yet another "Progressive," another CNN kool-aid drinker, to look down his nose at Russia and Russians, and bring them up to speed on what is "proper" way to think and act.

Uncle Wally
10-09-2014, 21:35
Nonsense. Can you name one since, say, the civil war that has been charged with treason for promoting separation in the US?

It likely wouldn't even fit the definition unless it involved actual acts of war, per the Constitution - "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "



Well, yes, courts can overturn laws passed by referenda that contradict the constitution. Isn't that the point?



You obviously have not read the Patriot Act,

Armoured
10-09-2014, 21:41
Judges DECIDE disputes ABOUT the law. They are not supposed to MAKE laws.

And the dispute was, I believe, about whether a law was constitutional. They struck it down. They didn't write a new law.

Armoured
10-09-2014, 21:44
Any tinpot self-designated dictator of a judge can proclaim "that law violates the constitution" or claim powers to tax the people (which was reserved by the constitution for the Legislature, not the Judiciary) to fulfill his personal visions of what is right or wrong.

A dictator-judge? I think you're confusing the real world with Judge Dredd.

How would a dictator-judge in the US get a tax enforced?

Nobbynumbnuts
10-09-2014, 22:18
I think the Scots will keep the status quo in the end, but the way things are going and what's been offered they will come out with what they always wanted before the referendum was even considered, meaning more power to them in the end, so if England keeps throwing more stuff their way, they will end up winners even if they lose the referendum..
Now the question is, will the English politicians keep their promises,the Scots know their history well enough to maybe not trust the English leaders...It won't be the first time the Scots were f*cked over by the English..

It's a no brainer. Vote no and get more autonomy and less risk.

No reason for the Scots to doubt they will get more devolution.
All three main political parties have agreed to a devolved Scotland. Scotland now has it's own parliament (Hollyrood) and many other institutions and statement instruments that have been set up recently from Westminster. All they have had to do to get them is basically ask.

Judge
10-09-2014, 22:34
What a joke Cameron and the other party leaders are...... Cameron should have looked after his own backyard before trying to play the tough leader telling Russia off, harsher sanctions and so on, wanting to bomb the shit out of Syria,telling other country leaders what to do, and now his own Union could fall apart.... All day today he's been up in Scotland pleading,begging the Scots to keep the family together,maybe if he and his party didn't f*ck the Scots down the years he and his party wouldn't be hated so much .


Scotland is usually a labour stronghold,if the Scots go it alone, the Labour will lose lots of votes and can kiss any future election victory goodbye...So what is Cameron really complaining about, Oh yeah, putting country before his party...

Read earlier today, only hold a referendum if you're sure you'll win it.... Cameron could learn a thing or two from Putin......:focus:

TolkoRaz
10-09-2014, 22:42
What are the demographics in Wales?

If the Scotts get their 'Yes' vote, will the Welsh try for a 'Yes' vote?

If so, would they succeed?

penka
10-09-2014, 22:48
What are the demographics in Wales?

If the Scotts get their 'Yes' vote, will the Welsh try for a 'Yes' vote?

If so, would they succeed?



No.

No.

The Scotts won't get a "yes" vote either.

Judge
10-09-2014, 22:48
It's a no brainer. Vote no and get more autonomy and less risk.

No reason for the Scots to doubt they will get more devolution.
All three main political parties have agreed to a devolved Scotland. Scotland now has it's own parliament (Hollyrood) and many other institutions and statement instruments that have been set up recently from Westminster. All they have had to do to get them is basically ask.

A politician who keeps their word:agree:, soon there will be elections and then new ideas, new people in power,new politician in new jobs, maybe new party gets elected, blame the previous PM,same old BS.

You mention Hollyrood, I'll give you the real thing mate....Hollywood.:)
Braveheart Freedom Speech (HD) - YouTube

Nobbynumbnuts
10-09-2014, 22:52
A politician who keeps their word:agree:, soon there will be elections and then new ideas, new people in power,new politician in new jobs, maybe new party gets elected, blame the previous PM,same old BS.

You mention Hollyrood, I'll give you the real thing mate....Hollywood.:)
Braveheart Freedom Speech (HD) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE)

Not same old BS. As i said, Scotland has been given a lot of autonomy by many different governments over recent years-just had to ask. They'll be given more on the 19th September. ;)

penka
10-09-2014, 23:06
Not same old BS. As i said, Scotland has been given a lot of autonomy by many different governments over recent years-just had to ask. They'll be given more on the 19th September. ;)

No doubt - the English can't afford losing 'em;)

Judge
10-09-2014, 23:08
What are the demographics in Wales?

If the Scotts get their 'Yes' vote, will the Welsh try for a 'Yes' vote?

If so, would they succeed?

The Welsh they can keep:), there's already talk of Newcastle,Manchester ,Liverpool and others forming their own freedom party, wanting to break away from London...Basically, all towns and cities north of Watford..

TolkoRaz
10-09-2014, 23:18
I read somewhere that the Muslims were wanting to form a Caliphate in the UK!

Sharia Law!

No wonder the Scotts want Independence! ;)

Judge
10-09-2014, 23:23
No doubt - the English can't afford losing 'em;)

That's life, some countries get small whereas others grow...

The history books could show, Cameron the leader who lost the United Kingdom.
Cameron the Union Destroyer.
Even worse, this could really hit the Queen hard...
Will she be wanting to go down in the history books to be the one to lose Scotland.


Now we come to Russia..

Putin the Conqueror

Uncle Wally
10-09-2014, 23:38
The Welsh they can keep:), there's already talk of Newcastle,Manchester ,Liverpool and others forming their own freedom party, wanting to break away from London...Basically, all towns and cities north of Watford..



There goes English football.

TolkoRaz
11-09-2014, 00:09
Not same old BS. As i said, Scotland has been given a lot of autonomy by many different governments over recent years-just had to ask. They'll be given more on the 19th September. ;)

Does the Loch Ness Monster get a vote? :confused:

Nobbynumbnuts
11-09-2014, 00:14
No doubt - the English can't afford losing 'em;)

They can't afford to loose us, literally. They have to have our pound to survive. :p

Uncle Wally
11-09-2014, 00:30
They can't afford to loose us, literally. They have to have our pound to survive. :p


You whore, sorry I didn't mean that, you slave, no I didn't mean that either.


"They can't afford to loose us" You know sometimes it just get to the point where no body gives a flying .... man up, stop kissing a$$.

I'd suffer anything and be glad just not to have to live under people like them!

Grow a pair will ya,


Bargain - The Who - YouTube

Uncle Wally
11-09-2014, 00:33
Does the Loch Ness Monster get a vote? :confused:

What do you mean? That's who's counting the votes!

Nobbynumbnuts
11-09-2014, 00:46
You whore, sorry I didn't mean that, you slave, no I didn't mean that either.


"They can't afford to loose us" You know sometimes it just get to the point where no body gives a flying .... man up, stop kissing a$$.

I'd suffer anything and be glad just not to have to live under people like them!

Grow a pair will ya,


Bargain - The Who - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyv_65o1HDY)

You've obviously lit up again :D

Uncle Wally
11-09-2014, 00:53
You've obviously lit up again :D


Wrong again honey.

I'm no pussy. I just want you to,

The Who - Join Together - YouTube

Uncle Wally
11-09-2014, 00:56
Right now I'm trying the,

Liquid Tension Experiment - "Paradigm Shift" - Live 2008 *HD 1080p* - YouTube

Wait for the bass solo 4:40 mins in.

Fantastika
11-09-2014, 08:33
Right now I'm trying the,

Wait for the bass solo 4:40 mins in.

Can't say I'm impressed with a bassman trying to imitate a (slow) lead guitar.

Fantastika
11-09-2014, 09:11
Everyone's favorite music video thread?

Maybe Mr. Poroshenko should watch this one then think about what kind of winter holidays he is bringing to his people, and how he will be judged by history..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGjByOI9Iqw

Fantastika
11-09-2014, 10:30
OK, I give up. How does everyone else do the HTML to get the pic of the youtube video to display, not the clickable text?

Judge
11-09-2014, 10:40
OK, I give up. How does everyone else do the HTML to get the pic of the youtube video to display, not the clickable text?

I usually just copy and paste the link and there it appears.....I tried your video and it just comes back up with the link..... Wally seems to be an expert at putting up links, maybe he knows..

Judge
11-09-2014, 10:54
It's a no brainer. Vote no and get more autonomy and less risk.

No reason for the Scots to doubt they will get more devolution.
All three main political parties have agreed to a devolved Scotland. Scotland now has it's own parliament (Hollyrood) and many other institutions and statement instruments that have been set up recently from Westminster. All they have had to do to get them is basically ask.

You were saying?

David Cameron was facing an English backlash at Westminster last night over the rush to hand Scotland sweeping new powers.
The Prime Minister yesterday confirmed that Scotland would get ‘major new powers over tax, spending and welfare’ if it voted No to independence next week.
Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are also pledging a major transfer of powers in a last-ditch bid to persuade Scots to keep the UK together.
But the move provoked alarm among English MPs, who last night warned it would be ‘untenable’ for Scotland to be handed new powers without major reform of its voting rights at Westminster and generous funding settlement.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2751296/English-MPs-hitting-Scots-new-powers-Questions-raised-Prime-Minister-s-pledges-tax-spending.html#ixzz3CzIOUl6h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Uncle Wally
11-09-2014, 10:54
OK, I give up. How does everyone else do the HTML to get the pic of the youtube video to display, not the clickable text?

step one; click the http: you want, this should turn it blue

step two; press Ctrl then c

step three; go back to your post and click in the post box then press Ctrl then v



South Park - It's easy M'kay - YouTube

FatAndy
11-09-2014, 14:18
http://radiosn.org/posts/83-prosto-poverte.html - some fun here in the text (Rus) and pics.

Fantastika
11-09-2014, 16:07
Mr. Poroshenko should watch this one then think about what kind of winter holidays he is bringing to his people, and how he will be judged by history...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGjByOI9Iqw

Control C, Control V, but no pic?

HTML in the post is: "https://www..." bookended by "URL" and "/URL", which are bracketed with "[" and "]"

Uncle Wally
11-09-2014, 16:21
Three Days Grace - Animal I Have Become - YouTube


Works for me.

Fantastika
11-09-2014, 16:25
Okay, I got it! "Https" will not display pic, have to cut off the "S" on the end.

The 3 Days video, I never get quite comfortable with parallel thirds as legitimate bass pattern...


Three Days Grace - Animal I Have Become - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqds0B_meys)


Works for me.


Click Here

Three Days Grace - Animal I Have Become - YouTube

Uncle Wally
11-09-2014, 16:55
Oh good for you.






If Scotland can secede, so can Texas



Global markets are suddenly jittery about the prospect that Scotland, after 307 years as part of the United Kingdom, could become its own country if Scots vote for independence in a Sept. 18 referendum. If proud but tiny Scotland can do it — which polls suggest is a distinct possibility — then America’s 28th state, Texas, will certainly take notice.

If any state is fed up with the rest of America, it’s Texas. Republican Gov. Rick Perry floated the idea of seceding from the United States in 2009, though he later backpedaled. A petition for Texas to “withdraw" from the United States, lodged on the White House’s “We the People” Web page, gathered 125,000 signatures before voting closed in 2013. A group called the Texas Nationalist Movement has nearly 190,000 likes on Facebook.

Even as a state, Texas has strong anti-federal leanings. It’s a hotbed of Tea Party activity and has declined, so far, to participate in the Affordable Care Act. Perry has called Social Security, the cherished American retirement program, a Ponzi scheme. Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, also a Republican, wants to abolish the IRS. In lieu of a strong federal overlord, secessionists want to form — or rather, recreate — the Republic of Texas, which was an independent nation for a decade before Texas joined the union in 1845.

The case for Texas existing as an independent nation is considerably stronger than it is for Scotland. Here are some of the reasons Texas might thrive as an independent nation:

It’s big. With a population of nearly 27 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion, an independent Texas would be the 13th biggest economy in the world, between Australia and Spain. That’s plenty of heft to play in the big leagues. Scotland, by comparison, is puny, with 5.1 million people and GDP equivalent to about $210 billion--which would rank around 50th.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/if-scotland-can-secede--so-can-texas-185536102.html

Armoured
11-09-2014, 18:58
If any state is fed up with the rest of America, it’s Texas. Republican Gov. Rick Perry floated the idea of seceding from the United States in 2009, though he later backpedaled. A petition for Texas to “withdraw" from the United States, lodged on the White House’s “We the People” Web page, gathered 125,000 signatures before voting closed in 2013. A group called the Texas Nationalist Movement has nearly 190,000 likes on Facebook.

We await the treason charges, which should be flying fast and thick.

Fantastika
11-09-2014, 21:13
I would like to see Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas form a new country. Kansas has wheat and cattle, foodstuffs, Oklahoma has oil, Texas has military bases, and deep-water ports. Then we would no longer have to pay $100's of billions in federal taxes to support millions of illegal immigrants and welfare deadbeats in California and New York.

независимость in Spain, protesters in Barcelona, from the "Useless Today" news-rag:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/10/catalonia-independence-day-vote-scotland/15381099/

Nobbynumbnuts
11-09-2014, 21:40
You were saying?

David Cameron was facing an English backlash at Westminster last night over the rush to hand Scotland sweeping new powers.
The Prime Minister yesterday confirmed that Scotland would get ‘major new powers over tax, spending and welfare’ if it voted No to independence next week.
Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are also pledging a major transfer of powers in a last-ditch bid to persuade Scots to keep the UK together.
But the move provoked alarm among English MPs, who last night warned it would be ‘untenable’ for Scotland to be handed new powers without major reform of its voting rights at Westminster and generous funding settlement.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2751296/English-MPs-hitting-Scots-new-powers-Questions-raised-Prime-Minister-s-pledges-tax-spending.html#ixzz3CzIOUl6h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Two MP's voicing dissent out of a total of around 650. Must be a slow day at the Daily Mail......... ;)

TGP
12-09-2014, 02:56
If Scotland separates, new sanctions against Russia will folloow

Fantastika
13-09-2014, 15:04
So how will they calculate Scotland's share of the UK's external debt should it become independent?
1 United States $17,754,467,569,229.71 6 September 2014
2 United Kingdom $9,590,995,000,000 31 March 2014

$9 TRILLION? Wow, that puts a whole new wrinkle on things...

I know, rump England can say it's the Scots' debt, and Scotland can say it's England's debt.

That's why they're separating...they can get rid of the debt and start over. A clever plan!

Uncle Wally
13-09-2014, 15:19
If they can do it so can we, Spain

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/11/catalonia-independence-referendum-protests/15436277/

Fantastika
13-09-2014, 16:37
So how will they calculate Scotland's share of the UK's external debt should it become independent?
1 United States $17,754,467,569,229.71 6 September 2014
2 United Kingdom $9,590,995,000,000 31 March 2014

Are these figures comparing apples and oranges?

The US figure is "public debt", the Brit figure is "external debt", I think. Two different things.

Fantastika
13-09-2014, 17:01
If they can do it so can we, Spain

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/11/catalonia-independence-referendum-protests/15436277/

JanC, this is a typical US media "one-day wonder" news story. There will be zero coverage or analysis of these 500,000 people demonstrating tomorrow. But 100 societal rejects in Ferguson demonstrating, well, that's a BIG story.

fenrir
13-09-2014, 17:16
If they can do it so can we, Spain

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/11/catalonia-independence-referendum-protests/15436277/

It is doubtful if this will happen in Spain. The army there has said it will not allow such an action to occur.

FatAndy
13-09-2014, 20:51
It is doubtful if this will happen in Spain. The army there has said it will not allow such an action to occur.
It depends on "polite people" I guess - how fast they'll learn Catalunian and change glengarries to barretinas. :)

JanC
14-09-2014, 00:29
JanC, this is a typical US media "one-day wonder" news story. There will be zero coverage or analysis of these 500,000 people demonstrating tomorrow. But 100 societal rejects in Ferguson demonstrating, well, that's a BIG story.

That doesn't sound crazy to me. I think you're not noticing the bazillion other news stories on other topics that are really only news for a day. Most news is only for a day. Demonstrations in Spain? How much would a US viewer care about that? Riot police in military gear out on America's own streets seems a bit closer to home. That actually happened several days in a row.
The media are profit driven. Some things can be spun and milked to make more money, others can't. If there was really a sinister agenda, why report on it at all? Nobody in the US would've noticed the difference. 9 out of 10 probably doesn't have a clue where basque country is.

I don't expect US media to give much exposure to the whole Scotland independence thing either, until there is some actual stuff to report on. Meanwhile in Europe and the UK in particular it's all over the news.

Fantastika
14-09-2014, 02:52
That doesn't sound crazy to me. I think you're not noticing the bazillion other news stories on other topics that are really only news for a day. Most news is only for a day. Demonstrations in Spain? How much would a US viewer care about that? Riot police in military gear out on America's own streets seems a bit closer to home. That actually happened several days in a row.
The media are profit driven. Some things can be spun and milked to make more money, others can't. If there was really a sinister agenda, why report on it at all? Nobody in the US would've noticed the difference. 9 out of 10 probably doesn't have a clue where basque country is.

I don't expect US media to give much exposure to the whole Scotland independence thing either, until there is some actual stuff to report on. Meanwhile in Europe and the UK in particular it's all over the news.

You bend over so far backwards to rationalize biased media, you look like a hoop-wheel.

When 100,000 - 200,000 people come out to demonstrate every January 22, in Washington DC, against abortion, and a couple dozen femi-Nazi's stage a counter-demonstration, who does the media cover? Right the femi-nazi's.

When John McCain and Sarah Palin had political gathering of 35,000 in Fairfax County, in 2008, there were 3 dirty, hostile people with anti-McCain signs camped on the edge of the park. That night, the media news shows focused on the 3 loons, giving them credibility they denied McCain and Palin.

One time I was walking in DC and I saw 3 crazy-looking women with signs hiding in a doorway. I stopped for a minute to read their signs, but they started cursing at me. That night, I read in the Washington Post, front page, with prettified photo of the 3 loons, calling them the executive directors of some "human rights' organization, and the newspaper vomited forth a report about a "big" demonstration for "human rights for women." Haha - "big" demonstration - 3 people.

How can you twist logic into a pretzel on these?

The media has an agenda, is it that hard to accept?

MickeyTong
14-09-2014, 19:56
I know, rump England can say it's the Scots' debt, and Scotland can say it's England's debt.

That's why they're separating...

Yep, this is why we're separating. When most people talk about the UK what they really mean is England - not England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island, just England. And not just England, really - mainly the southern counties of England.

The UK = London and its colonies.

JanC
14-09-2014, 20:06
The media has an agenda, is it that hard to accept?

Not at all. You're just seeing things all the time which aren't always necessarily there. I assume you're going on your own perception here with these "one day wonder" stories, not any actual stats on how long different types of news stories stay fresh?

US media could easily have ignored the thing in Northern Spain altogether, if they didn't really want people to know about it, why bother? No-one would've known the difference.

JanC
14-09-2014, 20:06
And not just England, really - mainly the southern counties of England.


I drove a bit too far North once, it was scary.

MickeyTong
14-09-2014, 20:17
I drove a bit too far North once, it was scary.

Well, yeah. It must be like driving too far out of Moscow.

Suuryaa
14-09-2014, 20:34
I drove a bit too far North once, it was scary.

Why?

Armoured
14-09-2014, 20:39
When John McCain and Sarah Palin had political gathering of 35,000 in Fairfax County, in 2008, there were 3 dirty, hostile people with anti-McCain signs camped on the edge of the park. That night, the media news shows focused on the 3 loons, giving them credibility they denied McCain and Palin.

Of course, without knowing which exact appearance in Fairfax Co I can't be certain you're talking about the same one, but (let's assume the two only appeared once in Fairfax during the campaign), I call bullsh!t on your overall narrative that mainstream media focussed on '3 loons.' (Unfortunately I don't have the resources to check what the 'media news shows' did so it's conceivable that they all did).

Here's the Washington Post on the event:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091000978.html

The event is covered with no mention of protestors until paragraph 13. They clearly identify the protestors as "Obama supporters". They also dispute your statement that there were only three - they say about 150.

Now I apologise for saying 'bullsh!t' but your narrative of the media focussing on only a bunch of random protestors and ignoring the large crowd doesn't fit. You dont' get more mainstream than the WaPo. The facts don't seem to fit your narrative of persecution of some 'moral majority' that's being purposefully ignored.

Perhaps your memory is selective.

[Editadd] And if they were dirty and hostile, how did showing pictures of them 'give them credibility?'

JanC
14-09-2014, 20:56
Why?

Well I was joking, sort of.... people to the North become increasingly more difficult to understand and quite... "chavvy" to use a local term.

Not as affluent a region as the 'UK' is usually portrayed as.

Judge
15-09-2014, 13:13
The Tartan Army is starting to rise..

British Bias Corporation


BBC's Nick Robinson denounced by nationalists as a liar as battle for votes in referendum gets nastier

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-Robinson-denounced-nationalists-liar-battle-votes-referendum-gets-nastier.html

Uncle Wally
15-09-2014, 13:23
BBC?

The British Brainwashing Chanel

FatAndy
15-09-2014, 14:57
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-Robinson-denounced-nationalists-liar-battle-votes-referendum-gets-nastier.html
Ouch, what polite, tolerant and civilised things I read there... did they rent magician Churov already? :question:

Fantastika
15-09-2014, 16:14
Not at all. You're just seeing things all the time which aren't always necessarily there. I assume you're going on your own perception here with these "one day wonder" stories, not any actual stats on how long different types of news stories stay fresh?

What a joke. Even if I spent days compiling statistics on obvious media bias, you would cherry-pick one exception, and claim that's the rule.

None are so harmful to society as the willfully ignorant.


US media could easily have ignored the thing in Northern Spain altogether, if they didn't really want people to know about it, why bother? No-one would've known the difference.

A possible new country in the world? They can't totally ignore it. They have been ignoring it for the past 20 years, but now it's impossible, given the reality.


Yep, this is why we're separating. When most people talk about the UK what they really mean is England - not England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island, just England. And not just England, really - mainly the southern counties of England.

The UK = London and its colonies.

I know, I have been lectured a few times about the non-interchangeability of "England", "UK", etc. According to the US Post Office, you can address your package as "United Kingdom," "Scotland", "Wales" "Northern Ireland" or "England." Or "Isle of Man."

My ancestors came from the Isle of Man. Maybe they can claim independence, too!


Ouch, what polite, tolerant and civilised things I read there... did they rent magician Churov already? :question:

Is it true BBC is not private corporation, they are run (well, financially supported) by British government?

FatAndy
15-09-2014, 16:38
Is it true BBC is not private corporation, they are run (well, financially supported) by British government?
They were AFAIR. Now like a public organisation
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C1%E8-%E1%E8-%F1%E8

I especially like the element in the literature list:
Артемов В.Л., Семенов В.С. Би-Би-Си: история, аппарат, методы радиопропаганды — М.: Искусство, 1978 - 256 с. Серия: Империализм. События. Факты. Документы. :voodoo:

Fantastika
15-09-2014, 17:04
Of course, without knowing which exact appearance in Fairfax Co I can't be certain...

Here's the Washington Post on the event:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091000978.html

Who is talking about the Washington ComPost? I saw these 3 unwashed, slobs with weird anti-McCain signs, fidgeting in the grass at the edge of the parking lot, and a gaggle of TV reporters with super-sized cameras gathered around them. Later that night I saw the 3 slobs on Channel 4 News.


They also dispute your statement that there were only three - they say about 150.

I saw 3, not 150. They looked like leftovers from the Summer of Love. The Compost focuses on counter-demonstrations at Republican events, and censors any counter-demonstrations at Democrat events.


You dont' get more mainstream than the WaPo. The facts don't seem to fit your narrative of persecution of some 'moral majority' that's being purposefully ignored.

The Compost is "mainstream"? :groan: The unofficial mouthpiece for big, nanny government, Progressives and Democrats? Do you know how despised the Compost, and bureaucrats, with the ever-heavier load of regulations, is in the rest of the country?

Moral majority? The Compost is Amoral when it's not being IMmoral. Obviously, when the Compost ignores and censors 200,000 anti-abortion protestors, but front-pages a demonstration by 100 abortionists on the same day, it is biased.

Anyone who claims the Compost is not biased is suffering from botched brain surgery.


Perhaps your memory is selective.

Uh, it's the Progressive media and their Democrat cronies that have a selective memory.


[Editadd] And if they were dirty and hostile, how did showing pictures of them 'give them credibility?'

What does dress style have to do with credibility? You judge people by their clothes and bathing habits?

Armoured
15-09-2014, 17:28
Who is talking about the Washington ComPost? I saw these 3 unwashed, slobs with weird anti-McCain signs, fidgeting in the grass at the edge of the parking lot, and a gaggle of TV reporters with super-sized cameras gathered around them. Later that night I saw the 3 slobs on Channel 4 News. I saw 3, not 150.

I see. So objectivity is what you saw and which news station you sampled?


They looked like leftovers from the Summer of Love. ... What does dress style have to do with credibility? You judge people by their clothes and bathing habits?

You mention they 'look like' leftovers, and are 'dirty'. I'm not judging based on what they look like, but you seem to think that this is relevant.


The Compost focuses on counter-demonstrations at Republican events, and censors any counter-demonstrations at Democrat events.

Evidence please? In this article, the Post didn't seem to concentrate on the counter-demonstration, identified it as organised by democrats, and that was the only paragraph they gave to the (democratic) protestors.


The Compost is "mainstream"? :groan: The unofficial mouthpiece for big, nanny government, Progressives and Democrats? Do you know how despised the Compost, and bureaucrats, with the ever-heavier load of regulations, is in the rest of the country?

What media outlet would you propose as mainstream?

At any rate, if it is the 'official mouthpiece for ... nanny government, Progressives,' etc., I am missing how them noting that the McCain/Palin crowd was tens of thousands, and only mentioning in the 13th para the (obama supporter) demonstrators (and no mention of the three 'dirty' protestors) fits with your narrative that the media ignores the 'mainstream.'


Anyone who claims the Compost is not biased is suffering from botched brain surgery.

That was, of course, not my claim.


Uh, it's the Progressive media and their Democrat cronies that have a selective memory.

Again, you brought up a specific case, and what YOU identify as a Progressive/Nanny government/democratic media source did not at all report the way you claimed. In response, you only mention what you saw.

Fantastika
15-09-2014, 18:09
I see. So objectivity is what you saw and which news station you sampled?

Yes, I believe what I see, I don't believe the Compost.

What does dress style have to do with credibility? You judge people by their clothes and bathing habits?


You mention they 'look like' leftovers, and are 'dirty'. I'm not judging based on what they look like, but you seem to think that this is relevant.

You're the one who said "And if they were dirty and hostile, how did showing pictures of them 'give them credibility?'" implying that dirty people are not credible. I said I don't judge people based on that. So stay on your own boat, don't jump over to mine and then try to push me off.

The Compost focuses on counter-demonstrations at Republican events, and censors any counter-demonstrations at Democrat events.


Evidence please?

I know you're not stupid, so you have to be willfully ignorant to NOT know the media is overwhelmingly biased against Republicans and 99% Pro-Democrat Obama butt-kissers. If you don't know that, you live on Mars.

Armoured, if I want to know the daily Obama-CNN-Compost talking points, I can turn on the radio or watch TV or read a newspaper. I come here to this forum, to get an alternative to the blatantly biased US mainstream media, not to get preached to by yet another CNN Kool-Aid drinker.

Someone's about to yank these comments unless we keep on topic - which could be construed as connected as we're talking about biased media, and that seems to be the case in Scotland, too...

Fantastika
15-09-2014, 18:19
I wonder if an independent Scotland would seek to join NATO?

FatAndy
15-09-2014, 18:24
I wonder if an independent Scotland would seek to join NATO?
For what? They will have their own nuclear weapons, AFAIK, no need to seek somewhat "umbrella".:11629:

Armoured
15-09-2014, 18:38
Yes, I believe what I see, I don't believe the Compost.

Okay - but that's NOT objectivity. That's pretty much the definition of subjectivity.


You're the one who said "And if they were dirty and hostile, how did showing pictures of them 'give them credibility?'" implying that dirty people are not credible.

Again, if that's not how your'e judging them, why bring it up? Why call them 'dirty' and 'leftovers'? You were making a judgment (and telling others what you think of them and what they should think).


I know you're not stupid, so you have to be willfully ignorant to NOT know the media is overwhelmingly biased against Republicans and 99% Pro-Democrat Obama butt-kissers. If you don't know that, you live on Mars.

You've apparently decided what the answer to any discussion is in advance. I've listened to you, and when I looked for evidence - none.


Armoured, if I want to know the daily Obama-CNN-Compost talking points, I can turn on the radio or watch TV or read a newspaper. I come here to this forum, to get an alternative to the blatantly biased US mainstream media, not to get preached to by yet another CNN Kool-Aid drinker.

So again, you've decided what I am and where I get my information without actually discussing the points. You're not actually looking for 'an alternative', you're looking for confirmation of the viewpoint you've already decided upon - a specific alternative.

tonytony
15-09-2014, 22:29
Well I was joking, sort of.... people to the North become increasingly more difficult to understand and quite... "chavvy" to use a local term.

Not as affluent a region as the 'UK' is usually portrayed as.


Chav is not a ''local term'' to the north. I would suggest that the word is probably more associated with Essex and London.

I might agree with you somewhat about a very pronounced Geordie accent being difficult to understand - I remember one Russian woman upon hearing a person speaking in a very broad Geordie accent exclaiming that this person must be speaking in a different language.

However, to say that northern accents in general are more difficult to understand than those down south is quite clearly ludicrous - you've obviously never been to the more remote parts of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Gloucestershire.

When it comes to being more ''affluent'' obviously nowhere is as affluent as the richest parts of London - just as there is nowhere as affluent in Russia as the very richest parts of Moscow. However, once you get outside of central London and one or two areas of Surrey perhaps the most affluent areas in the UK are in the north. Solihull and the surrounding areas are particularly affluent but I think that Cheshire and south Manchester probably rank as the most affluent areas outside of London.

When we lived in the UK my wife used to work in a bank branch in Cheshire just to the south of Manchester. If you remember a UK tv programme called ''Footballers' Wives'' it was just like that. She would often end up dealing with players from Manchester United and City - and even some of the players from the lowly teams like Stockport County [joke]. Of course, Sir Alex Ferguson also lived just down the road and he would pop in occasionally.

By the way, I'm not exaggerating here, this is quite truthful. I really hope that my better half doesn't get too annoyed with me for sharing this. Of course, the really funny thing was that she was totally unaware of who these people were as we were only living in the UK for a few years and she really didn't know anything about British football players. So she would have a colleague come up to her and say ''Wow, you were just talking to xxx [famous football player]. What's he like?'' and she genuinely had no idea that her customer was in any way well known.

This area was way too expensive for us and we didn't live there. In terms of house prices in that area, I've just done a quick google and average house prices - that is for everything from the smallest apartment to the largest home - averages out at £759,083 according to the UK website Zoopla and the average rent is £3,124 pcm. Converting that to roubles gives an average price of 47 million roubles and an average rent of 195,000 roubles per month. In case you're interested there are more than 200 properties for sale in this area to the south of Manchester for between £1 million and £7 million - that's between 60 million and 400 million roubles.

To say that the north is not as affluent as the rest of the UK - with the exception of parts of London and Surrey - is very inaccurate.

EDIT

I think I also remember Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top Gear about Cheshire being home to the highest numbers of Range Rovers and Bentleys in the UK.

Nobbynumbnuts
15-09-2014, 22:50
The Tartan Army is starting to rise..

British Bias Corporation


BBC's Nick Robinson denounced by nationalists as a liar as battle for votes in referendum gets nastier

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-Robinson-denounced-nationalists-liar-battle-votes-referendum-gets-nastier.html

From being ahead to now finding themselves behind in a very close race the 'No' campaign are obviously frustrated.
Politiking and spin on both sides? Heaven forbid!!
It's just as one would expect. Very glad to see and hear that not a single fist has been raised so far. Quite remarkable when you think of the importance of the vote, it's closeness and feelings on both sides.
I'm sure you'll now troll the internet Judge to find an incident of someone giving a 'nasty look' to try and prove me wrong! ;)

Nobbynumbnuts
15-09-2014, 23:01
For what? They will have their own nuclear weapons, AFAIK, no need to seek somewhat "umbrella".:11629:

I believe Scotland might renounce their nuclear weapons if a 'Yes' vote but anyway NATO is more than just an 'umbrella' Don't think many people would be happy to see a smaller, independent country with a nuclear arsenal not part of some 'club' with their rules of engagement etc. Rogue nations and all that....;)

Fantastika
16-09-2014, 02:59
Okay - but that's NOT objectivity. That's pretty much the definition of subjectivity.


Noooo, OBJECTIVE is when I see something, like in the morning I can see the sun rising in the East. That's REAL.

SUBJECTIVE is when you read the Compost, and the Compost says "Poroshenko's Pope-like Qualities Endear Him to All Ukrainians" and you go yep, yep, yep, that be the Truthь!

When I see 3 whack-a-mole demonstrators, that's OBJECTIVE.
When the Compost claims there were 150 of them, that's SUBJECTIVE.


You've apparently decided what the answer to any discussion is in advance. I've listened to you, and when I looked for evidence - none.


You haven't found any evidence of media bias? I guess that statement would be laughable, but you seem to be serious.


So again, you've decided what I am and where I get my information without actually discussing the points. You're not actually looking for 'an alternative', you're looking for confirmation of the viewpoint you've already decided upon - a specific alternative.

Obviously I can recognize your Progressive, Left-wing, biased media viewpoint. And I can get that from 1001 other places. Why should I need to get it here? The "news" is just repetitions of the same stories, with the same slant, the same bias, and the same stories presented in the same order of importance, on all the channels, in all the newspapers.

Anyone who thinks the American media is not biased, is simply not playing with a full deck, or you could say in Russia, is operating with a carton of 9 eggs.

Ciao

Fantastika
16-09-2014, 03:01
I believe Scotland might renounce their nuclear weapons if a 'Yes' vote but anyway NATO is more than just an 'umbrella' Don't think many people would be happy to see a smaller, independent country with a nuclear arsenal not part of some 'club' with their rules of engagement etc. Rogue nations and all that....;)

Scotland with nuclear weapons? What's next, Luxembourg with nuclear weapons? Liechtenstein? San Marino? The Republic of Chuvashia?

Maybe Rasmussen will invite Chechnya into the NATO club, oh never mind...

Nobbynumbnuts
16-09-2014, 04:17
Scotland with nuclear weapons? What's next, Luxembourg with nuclear weapons? Liechtenstein? San Marino? The Republic of Chuvashia?

Maybe Rasmussen will invite Chechnya into the NATO club, oh never mind...

The UK has nuclear weapons, some of which have been paid for by Scotland and some of which are stationed in Scotland. In the event of a 'Yes' vote it's highly likely vote Scotland will take control of them.

Judge
16-09-2014, 08:56
From being ahead to now finding themselves behind in a very close race the 'No' campaign are obviously frustrated.
Politiking and spin on both sides? Heaven forbid!!
It's just as one would expect. Very glad to see and hear that not a single fist has been raised so far. Quite remarkable when you think of the importance of the vote, it's closeness and feelings on both sides.
I'm sure you'll now troll the internet Judge to find an incident of someone giving a 'nasty look' to try and prove me wrong! ;)

How about some Scottish humour for you...:tongue:

Checkpoint Jimmy!!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/15/1410809917624_wps_4_PASSPORTS_AT_THE_READY_A_.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/15/1410809908639_wps_3_PASSPORTS_AT_THE_READY_A_.jpg

Nobbynumbnuts
16-09-2014, 12:16
How about some Scottish humour for you...:tongue:

Checkpoint Jimmy!!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/15/1410809917624_wps_4_PASSPORTS_AT_THE_READY_A_.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/15/1410809908639_wps_3_PASSPORTS_AT_THE_READY_A_.jpg

Brilliant! ;)

Fantastika
18-09-2014, 03:55
What's being avoided here, in any discussion of the process, and the when, and the how, of Scottish independence, is the WHY. Why does a sizable segment of the Scottish population want to separate itself from England?

It's the "why" that is most interesting, and about which nothing has been said in the media. The answer to the media fear is obvious - separation would be tantamount to an admission that progressive social policies have failed, the media's social agenda has failed dismally.

The Scots want to separate to prevent the cultural rot from spreading up from London. Highest crime rate in the world? People are not allowed to own weapons and defend themselves? Mullahs preaching terror and hate in central London, while anyone criticizing them is arrested for a "hate crime"? An educational system that gives birth to 100 anti-Christian youths volunteering to go to the Caliphate and become terrorists?

I don't blame the Scots for wanting to keep the cultural sewer from overflowing onto their land, making a stench in their part of the British Isles.

Khrushchev called it "decadence" but it's worse than that. Immigrants come here now, in the US. and Europe, too, I suppose, not to work, but to collect welfare, accuse whites of being "racists," and demand everyone else speak their language, not English. Black rappers spread race and gender hate via their anti-musical "songs."

When the US labels the arrest of Pussy Riot a "human rights violation" and promotes sponsor boycotts of Sochi 2014 because Russia does not give homosexuals preferential treatment, attacks the Christian church, the foundation of Western civilization, by forcing it to swallow "gay marriage," the cultural rot is well underway in America, too.

This is the reason I moved from the East Coast to Kansas, because the cultural rot is spreading inward from California and New York, has not reached Middle America yet. And why I like Russia, it doesn't accept the cultural rot of the West, and I hope they keep up their visa system, to keep out Western NGO's promoting social "values" like gambling, gay marriage, drug usage, racism, etc.

Anyway, I am hearing the WHY of it validated now on media which is not afraid to be smeared with the "racist" label. Such media is censored in "Progressive" Europe.

The gang rapes in Rotherham, England, girls targeted and gang-raped by roving mobs of Pakistanis, is enough to make me sick and want nothing to do with England ever again. David Cameron's reaction to it - to try to suppress the public's awareness of these immigrant criminals, is likely worse than the crimes themselves.

England is a country in decline. The Scots want to disconnect from London for cultural reasons, not for money. They see what London has become, and want no part of it. That's the WHY of it.

Yaks
18-09-2014, 06:26
Actually Scotland is far more favourable to muslims-two cities(including Glasgow) raised Palestinian flags during the Gaza crisis. Scotland is left wing labour heartland-very liberal pro-gay rights and basically everything you dislike. They are the opposite of more conservative England. It also intends to have a more inclusive immigration policy..

So what you attribute to "rot" is more the thinking in Scotland, not London. It might pay for you to research the subject before going on about the evils of English society and the reason why Scotland wants to break away..

Fantastika
18-09-2014, 07:08
Actually Scotland is far more favourable to muslims-two cities(including Glasgow) raised Palestinian flags during the Gaza crisis. Scotland is left wing labour heartland-very liberal pro-gay rights and basically everything you dislike. They are the opposite of more conservative England. It also intends to have a more inclusive immigration policy..

So what you attribute to "rot" is more the thinking in Scotland, not London. It might pay for you to research the subject before going on about the evils of English society and the reason why Scotland wants to break away..

Well, then, jolly old England is well rid of the blighters! Top of the mornin' to ya!

Uncle Wally
24-09-2014, 22:11
Scottish Independence: Petition Demanding Referendum Be Re-Held Because It Was Rigged Reaches 70,000 - YouTube