Gball1973

Irfan, Dan , 100% agree - ALL politicians have an agenda. Colin, one thing that will be guaranteed to happen if the vote comes back as yes - we will no longer be paying for the un-elected house of lords who do/can influence any change in law, even if they only received the "lordship" because of how big their donation was. (Each Lord receives £300 a day just for turning up - out of OUR taxes). While I also agree with Dan that everything probably won't be smell of roses for the first few years, can anyone truly trust the way ANY of the main parties would run the UK and genuinely represent the majority of the population, not just big business?

One of the problems that BT have. Yes sounds positive, No sounds negative. Pete It seemed to be just a function of the debate? That the Yes campaign 6 months ago were promising some outlandish things which the No campaign had to challenge and it hasn't reverted back since. The problem with the No campaign offering the sorts of things the Yes campaign were offering is that it was a bit nonsense and having been part of the UK for so long would know its not realistic - however a colourful wonderful painted world of independence does make it easier to promise without worrying about delivering. The No campaign should have been more clear over the last 6 months about what additional benefits would be on the table in terms of powers but in terms of what this means to your average punter who has the Yes campaign saying they will be X thousand of pounds better off is probably minimal. While I'm under no illusions as to the potential greatness/damage that can come from the vote, like many people up here, one of my thoughts are - if you claim we are "better together", why are we in the place where we are even thinking of taking control back from Westminster? I am at that age , where I can remember the damage created by the Thatcher government and following cabinets and the start of Tory privatization. While this may be good for business and competitiveness, it's not good for the majority - the people who elected them to represent ALL of us, not just the few who can afford to donate six /seven figure sums to the political party of the month. Look at the NHS, with so many hospitals and care facilities in the hands of private "contracts", some patients with life threatening conditions waiting for "funding" to become available, elderly paying VAT on care because of loopholes in the tax system..........The majority of the population doesn't want this, regardless of nationality. The recession caused by bankers, what did Westminster do? Bailed them out and didn't really say anything else. The post office - sold it off at a fraction of the value, reputedly to Tory party donators. Even now, Westminster are blocking public servants and NHS frontline staff from a 1% pay rise while giving themselves an additional 10% on top of their already subsidized expenses. Scotland has a chance, yes - a chance, to get away from this behaviour. If you could, wouldn't you?

Have to agree with this, the official Yes campaign has been showing nothing but a positive outlook. Compare this to the negative and, dare I say it, contemptuous outlook from the Better Together campaign... If we truly are better together, why has there been no positives put forward by BT? Why have BT continued to rely upon fear tactics? Do they actually have anything they can put to the people of Scotland that IS positive?

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference - they could be from Swaziland, if they have no intention of contributing to the economy(either UK or independent Scottish) and/or living here, they should p1$$ off. Connery only ever shows up for photo opportunities and golf. Granted, he does own property here but lives (iirc) in the Bahamas as a tax avoider. Maybe he's hoping for cheaper green fees.

Add to that the likes of Sean Connery and Brian Cox - both very vocal about being pro independence, but neither set foot on home soil unless it's to play a round in St Andrews - just in case the tax man knocks on their respective doors. While I think it's great they still have "passion" for what's happening to their homeland, knowing neither will return on a permanent basis, why should they have such potential influence?

Protection Money :lol: :lol: That being said, Cameron warned earlier this week that an independent Scotland would be more of a target for terrorists (yet another focus of trying to project fear). The last time a terrorist tried anything in Scotland, he got the $h!t kicked out him by a baggage handler

Double post

Dan, have a read of this. Even if you were to replace the words Scotland and Scottish with England/Britain it makes a compelling point. http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/westminster-establishment-complacency.html?m=1

Here's an independent report published yesterday showing (in part) the argument for a yes vote. http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=20140904scottish-independence-uk-dependency Take note of the first sentence in paragraph 9 - "The status quo has worked very well for the financiers". Personally, I don't think it's working for any average citizen, Scottish, English or Welsh.

He actually said in a television interview from Arbroath that given the choice of an independent Scotland and politics, he would choose independence - suggesting he'll quit if we have a yes vote.

Double post

I believe Scottish (as well as English, Welsh and Irish) taxes have already paid for a fair share of the military hardware and infrastructure.

100% agreed and 100% the point.

True there us subsidies for energy companies - both North AND South of the border. I see where you are coming from re the public spending, but, as documented by Westminster, those if us north of the border have a generally lower life expectancy. While we pay the same as our English, Welsh and Irish counterparts towards a pension, we will, most likely , not use as much of the funds available. Thus, by default, paying for someone else's retirement south of the border. When you also look at how much public spending in London/south east is compared to the rest of the UK, that's just a big slap in the face, not just for Scotland but anyone north of the M25. I agree 100%, that high taxes in Scotland don't sit well with the population, but, if we can see where the money is going and have a better say in where it's being spent, I think it's worth it.

I've never liked Salmond or his right hand thing. My earlier post in this topic, I was quite cynical about how things would happen at the start of a newly independent Scotland, but I can't see myself voting "no". Granted, there are still (for me anyway) too many unanswered questions from both sides. There have been a lot of the usual diversions etc, etc...but, if the referendum comes back with a "no" vote, Scotland will be the only country ever to vote against independence. Personally, I think whoever is in charge, we will get shafted in one way or another. If, as suggested, the Independent Scottish government does have to raise income tax for a while, at least it would be 100% spent in Scotland - prime example being the (estimated) £4.2bn from Scottish income tax going towards HS2, even though not even an inch of track will be laid in Scotland. Add to this , the major political parties' reluctance to tackle tax avoidance by major corporations, selling royal mail, gradually privatization of the NHS (which, I'm sure most "average Joe's" in England, Wales and Ireland are/were against as well), all with little or no accountability taken from whoever is /was in office. I have no doubt, at all, that for a period of time after a yes vote both sides of the border will feel the pinch, but as suggested by numerous online articles the consequences for Scotland voting no looks very bleak - After a FOI request by Hollyrood, the Attorney General said releasing the data for projected devolution "would not be in the public interest". Why? Unless the Tories are planning to cut spending again? This article sums up some of the thoughts I currently feel http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland Add to all of that - We are being told we can't use the pound, well have to use the Euro one minute, the next we're being told we won't be "allowed" to join the EU. Now, excuse my ignorance here, but, wouldn't we actually have to be part of the EU to use the Euro? (Haven't looked in to this yet).

So, coming home from work - just past the high street in the village, there's a one way system which has a 10-12ft stone wall on one side and the other full of parked cars. I get halfway along , and here comes mum,dad and two kids on bicycles (the wrong way) weaving between the drivable road and the parked cars - not one safety hat/helmet between them! Not exactly setting a good example to the next generation. Obviously, if this had been a car or a motorcycle, there would have been legal implications, yet cyclists can get away with this sort of behaviour.

It's where the headlight washer is on UK models.ðŸ‘

Zakk Wylde signature Les Paul😎

Good call from Martin Gotta love a bit of the Satch and Vai. Although, can't beat some Rodrigo y Gabriela

Two Blade Silvers heading north on the Tay Bridge about 3pm. I assume, on the way home from Crail.

'Nuff said

Met Tim Wheeler from Ash a few years back at the Dundee Student Union when his brother was studying in Dundee. He was a complete to$$er, his biggest comment in the place was "Make way for the Star"! Told him he was being a P£ick and his band was $hit£ (was very very drunk, but still stand by that after meeting him).

Anything from these guys' Dark Adrenaline album or

Just to add, the same as the other Scottish members who have said they will vote No, with as little confidence that I have in Cameron as PM I have very little confidence that the current First Minister and Scottish Government could run the country successfully.

So far, some interesting comments have been made. I would love to see an independent Scotland, but will most likely vote No. Some of the things that is bugging me about the upcoming referendum: Salmond is allowing 16 yr olds to vote- Why? half of them don't know their ars£$ from their elbows, and, as stated above most will base their vote on propaganda in the tabloids. If this was a regular general/local election would/will they still be allowed to vote? If not, why are they being allowed this time? wee Eck is also (supposedly) allowing celebrities like Sean Connery, Brian Cox and Alan Cumming to vote, none of whom actually live here anymore (other than for holidays), but is not allowing the "average joe" Scot living in other parts of the UK the same rights. The SNP seem to quote oil and gas revenues as the answer for most, if not all, independence finance issues. Surely they are joking? There is so many differing opinions as to how long the reserves in the north sea will last, have they accounted for the possibility that it may be gone within 50 years? As a country with a dedicated green policy, why are the SNP and the Yes campaign so dependant on the oil and gas industry? How would the newly independent Scotland actually pay for setting up the new infrastructure, whilst also paying the UK it's share of the national debt and buying military equipment etc.. without raising tax - either corporation or income? One of the comments earlier in this thread reminded me of a picture the Yes campaign put online showing a picture of David Cameron with the quote "A no vote for Independence is a vote yes for him". How so? If that's the case does that mean yes vote is a vote for Salmond? What the propaganda never seems to mention is, people in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are suffering under the "Selfservatives", not just Scotland. It seems to me that the voting public of the UK forgot what they did to us in the 70s,80s and early 90s. To finish I'll leave you all with a quote which IMHO applies to ALL politicians "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph Goebbels