FREEDOM!!!! [3]

Of course they are all going to say that.... they are yes campaign posters.

The No side cant even get that right! Its actually Pan D in the White Paper, A being currency union, B is sterling zone, C is our own currency and D is the euro.
But I suppose expecting the No side to get something as simple as the alphabet right is even expecting too much.

And nice to see an attack on the substance and not yet another tedious attempt to attack an individual- this is why they are losing the argument. Well that and they dont appear to have any arguments.


Of course they are all going to say that.... they are yes camoaign posters. - Lance

The fininacial ones site the sources- check them out yourself- thats what the people have Scotland have been doing for months- checking out the information for themselves- and the more people do that the more they tend to move towards YES.
And Camerons words are a quote- you can look them up, as are the other No side quotes.
Problem for NO is if you start out with ludicrous scare stories you can only back down and look less credible.
EU membership is a good example- they started off saying we would be kicked out, we would have to reapply as a new member, it would take years if we werent vetoed and not allowed back in at all- by the last debate Darling was reduced to just arguing that it might take a few months longer to get back in than the YES side claimed.
Thats one hell of a climb down- and its been like that on everything.

talking of White papers

Figg I only need to go to my facebook page any day to gather 20 new pro yes such things we could just trade them if you like.

But regards stop and search- we had a severe knife crime problem- now we dont.

Also a YES vote is not for the SNP - we are not voting them into power, we are voting to make our country independent- that's a completely different thing all together.

Also its just more personal attacks with no substance- always the last refuge of the desperate and the underhanded.

As to the last one- well off that list the following could all have been answered long ago by Westminster but they refused too-

Set up costs (although that is covered in the White Paper anyway), EU position, currency and so borrowing, NATO.
Immigration rules are in the White Paper employing a similar system to Australia, likewise pensions are covered and costed in the White Paper.

You really should go read what is in the White Paper first and then you would know the answers to much of what you post from the NO side.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:how do you get the road map you'll need to proceed toward an independent Scotland? A government commission to study the process?

If so, this could take a while, couldn't it?- David

The agreement for that is already in place, and was contained in the signed document.
In the event of a YES vote there is a preset 18 month period in which negotiations take place, during that time Scotland remains a member of the UK. Independence day follows that period of negotiations.

Do you know who'd be speaking for each side or how they'd be appointed?
And would it be correct to assume that any agreement would then have to pass a vote of Parliament?
This could get even more interesting!

I am sure you could get more Yes campaign posters and I bet they all paint the same rosy, perfect Scottish world.

I really wish you would do some very basic research first Figg, it would save a lot of time, from the tedious letter yet again just trying to attack the individual not the arguments-



1. I didnt get legal advice.

Yes he did from the Scottish law lords. The fuss was over how he worded it. The matter was resolved over a year ago.

2. We cant stay in Europe we hjave to reapply taking 6 years.

Simply rubbish we are already EU citizens, and under the rules of the treaty we can negotiate our new permission as a continuing state in the 18 month negotiating period. This has come up time and again by the NO side and been cast down ever time, even they have stopped saying it publicly now.

3. We cant keep the pound.

Legally there is no way to stop us keeping it. Sterling is a freely available tradeable currency, anyone can use it.

4. We will have to take the Euro.

Betrays no knowledge of how the euro works, you first have to enter into agreement where currencies are synced, that part is VOLUNTARY, not a requirement of EU membership, and even once entered it takes years before you get to the euro bit.

5. We wont get UK warship contracts.

Possibly, but they will get Scottish military contracts. And England has nowhere to build theirs.

6. I dont  really love NATO just said it for votes.

The NATO position was decided on a free vote at the SNP conference. Thats called democracy.

7. Your pension may not be safe.

Unless you ask the civil servant who is in charge of pensions at Westminster and told a select committee they were safe and guaranteed.

8. We couldnt have afforded to bail out our banking sector.

Nope we couldnt have, but then nor could Ireland but the UK tax payer bailed them out anyway as so much London money was tied up i them. There  is even more London money tied up in Scottish banks- if there is another crash its not us that will get hammered by it, its London where banks like RBS conduct 90% of their business- all they have here is a their HQ.

The rest is not worthy of any sort of reply its just nastiness.

You really need to do some research on these matters rather than just posting spurious NO propaganda.

Do you know who'd be speaking for each side or how they'd be appointed?
And would it be correct to assume that any agreement would then have to pass a vote of Parliament?
This could get even more interesting! - David

There will be abroad coalition across al the parties negotiating on the YES side.
So far the head of the Scottish Tories and the current Scottish Secretary to Westminster (both NO campaigners) have said if Scotland votes YES they would whish to be part of the team negotiation for Scotland.
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory head as even said she would argue for a currency union in the event of a YES, even though she stands on the platform of opposing one now!

And yes, it will require a final act of Parliament to grant independence.

On 3 and 4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29043878

I am sure you could get more Yes campaign posters and I bet they all paint the same rosy, perfect Scottish world.- Lance

I daresay they would. But I dont a YES voter who is voting YES in the expectation of instant success and wealth.
Most in fact expect a tough transition period, and possibly a short term loss.
This vote is about much more than that however- it is about social direction, its about representative democracy, its about how we see ourselves and who we are and what sort of country we want to try to create.

It is not about representative god damn democracy!! It will create the same minorities just in a smaller space. Of all the arguements that one is bullshit.

the Gollum one was funny though

It could actually be quite a productive exercise then, with nothing cut in stone at the start. I wonder if that's why there aren't any devolution plumbs being offered now to try to influence the vote as you'd expect: Instead, they're being held as bargaining chips for the negotiations.

Yeah discussed that with Figg earlier, might be a page back now Lance.

Its full of phrasing like-  'Continuing to use the pound without a formal currency union could prevent an independent Scotland from joining the EU'

Thats how previous scare stories that have turned to dust in  the light of reason were worded too.

I also note it appeared on the BBC Scotland web page as a main news headline- and within two hours it was at the very bottom in small print and almost off the page all together, usually a sign the BBC dont have much confidence in a stories merit.


'It is not about representative god damn democracy!!'= Lance

It will mean that the majority vote in Scotland will get the party they voted for, which doesnt happen right now . I tory mp and they run the country, that is not representative.

How do youexplain this away neatly?

Overall tax revenues from North Sea oil and gas fell from £6.1bn in 2012-13 to £4.7bn in 2013-14.


The Scottish independence campaign has received "a body blow" with new figures showing tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas have dropped by almost a fifth, according to the chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander.

Figures released on Friday by HM Revenue & Customs show corporation tax revenues from the North Sea have fallen from £4.4bn in 2012-13 to £3.6bn in 2013-14. This would have "serious consequences for the public finances of a separate Scotland", Alexander said.

They follow on from figures published in June that showed total overall tax revenues from North Sea oil and gas fell from £6.1bn in 2012-13 to £4.7bn in 2013-14.

Alexander said: "These figures are another body blow to [the first minister] Alex Salmond's credibility on the economy and public services. They follow on from Sir Ian Wood's devastating criticism that the Scottish government has wildly overstated oil reserves.

"On the very day that he is promising enhanced childcare, they show a significant downward trend in oil-related tax revenues that are a vital component of our public finances.

"They add to the overwhelming evidence that Scotland can better afford the quality public services it deserves by staying as part of the United Kingdom, and not by separating. Mr Salmond is guilty of promising the earth, but not having the oil and tax revenues to pay for it.

"The Scottish government has over-forecast total oil and gas revenues by £5bn over the past two years.

"Despite this, the Scottish government's plans for independence rely on generating more than double the amount of North Sea tax forecast by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

But seriously, who the fuck made this image.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah discussed that with Figg earlier, might be a page back now Lance.

Its full of phrasing like-  'Continuing to use the pound without a formal currency union could prevent an independent Scotland from joining the EU'

Yes, you are creating a new majority because you cant get yoyr own way. You are creating a new minority who previously werent that. So I am sure that the minority of scots will get their way over the majority of the uk including a significant portion of your own people.

Thats how previous scare stories that have turned to dust in  the light of reason were worded too.

I also note it appeared on the BBC Scotland web page as a main news headline- and within two hours it was at the very bottom in small print and almost off the page all together, usually a sign the BBC dont have much confidence in a stories merit.


'It is not about representative god damn democracy!!'= Lance

It will mean that the majority vote in Scotland will get the party they voted for, which doesnt happen right now . I tory mp and they run the country, that is not representative.

Edit - this post has go e really wrong... my reply is in the text but I cant correct on my phone

Overall tax revenues from North Sea oil and gas fell from £6.1bn in 2012-13 to £4.7bn in 2013-14. - Figg

Tax revenue from oil goes up and down every year depending on world demand and other events, like wars in oil countries.
One of the major arguments for the setting up of an oil fund is that it acts as a stabiliser on fluctuating prices.

You are making the case here FOR independence and an oil fund.

Only the NO side could make the claim with a straight face that Scotland's abundance of oil is a bad thing for us.

Only the Yes campaign could make a case for spending more money when that their forecasts have missed several times.

And Eldo.... that is not really accurate either. We want to withdraw because the European courts are fecking idiots who seem to place more value on the rights of criminals than victims.

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

But seriously, who the fuck made this image.

Err.. yes, that one's a bit of a stretch. They would still be bound by other human rights conventions, like the different UN ones. Those do not have a court that can make binding judgement on human rights breaches in the signatory states like the European Convetion of Human RIghts though. And there would probably be national legislation to protect same rights.

Really it all boils down to the fear of displacement of national power to centralized regional institutions. Which, in the area of human rights at least, seem a bit ridiculous. I agree with the poster in that, though certainly not in all it's assertions.

This one is great though.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

I suppose this is all scaremongering as well, it look like anything you dont agree with is scaremongering.

It Looks Like Scotland Will Have To Risk Defaulting On Its Debt To Get Independence


Monday night's Scottish independence referendum debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling raised the scariest question for voters leaning toward a Yes vote: Does Scotland have the courage to face down the Bank of England, walk away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, and become an international banking pariah in order to get its independence?

Scottish National Party leader Salmond did not quite say he would do that, but admitted it was a negotiating tactic. Darling, leading the "Better Together" campaign, led him to the brink on the issue.

The central problem in the Sept. 18 independence vote is what Scotland's currency will be if the country becomes independent of the U.K. Salmond has said that Scotland should continue to use the British pound, and then negotiate some form of shared currency union with the U.K. The U.K. government in Westminster, however, has made it quite clear that Scotland will be going it alone if it leaves the union — the new country will have no say over the pound.

One potential option for Scotland is to use the pound anyway, as Panama does the U.S. dollar. The difficulty with that is that Scotland would have no control over the Bank of England, and would be forced to pay its debts in a currency whose strength is determined by interest rate decisions in London.

In that situation, Scotland could simply default on its debt and force the British to pay it instead — but that would make Scotland so risky as a sovereign borrower that it would be unable to borrow money elsewhere unless it accepted ludicrously high interest rates. Yet Salmond hinted that he was willing to force the BofE into sharing the pound by threatening just such a default, according to the Financial Times:

Mr Darling confirmed that an independent Scotland would be able to use the pound unilaterally even if the rest of the UK refused a currency union, a statement leapt on by Mr Salmond as “the most important revelation” of the debate.

But the former chancellor said the “sterlingisation” option would be hopeless since Scotland would not have a central bank and would have to run a permanent surplus. “Of course we could use the pound – but we could use the rouble,” he said.

Mr Salmond also repeated his warning that Scotland would walk away from its share of Britain’s national debt if the UK refused to “share the assets” of the Bank of England in a currency union; Mr Darling said a default would make Scotland a pariah on international money markets

That is an extraordinary thing to hear in a political debate: The leader of a country openly threatening default as a negotiating tactic. But it's a good one, and it appeals to the position that the nationalists are in: They are behind in the polls and need to show they have the grit to take Scotland to independence come what may.

That grit, however, would come with a cost. It could bring Scotland to its knees, economically, through the prospect of a major, modern European capitalist economy, currently running at a debt, being suddenly cut off from all reasonable access to international finance. Such a scenario suggests a massive collapse of the Scottish economy.

But Salmond is willing to risk it. Here's the Huffington Post's account:

He added: "We don't need permission to use our own currency. The argument actually is that they will deny us the assets of the Bank of England. The reason that won't happen is that if you deny us the financial assets, then the UK will get stuck with all of the liabilities."

Salmond said no chancellor would let Scotland away with its share of the debt liabilities and therefore a currency union would be agreed.

Darling said: "If your first message in the world is here we are, here is Scotland, and by the way we've just defaulted on our debt, what do you think that would do to people who are lending us money in the future. Nobody would lend us any money in the future."