One question – if you’re wrong, whats plan B?

Keep the nuclear weapons and point them towards our new enemy?

Yourselves?

good call!

£500M fishing business, versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EU

I’m afraid that this is a trade war you ain’t gonna win

You won’t be laughing when the Tunnocks stop coming south.

versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EU

You telling me that people in Europe would instantly stop drinking whisky? That argument is retarded.

Also given that Scottish boats alone landed £429million worth of fish in one particularly bad year a couple of years ago, it would seem unlikely that the whole fishery was only worth £500m/yr.

£500M fishing business

Does that include the non-uk vessels fishing in Scottish waters but landing outside uk?

Ernie, ninfan,

The reason given for their inability to “nuke us” was poor outdated equipment

sorry Ernie I meant that they can’t nuke us because we have nukes i.e. a deterrent. Let’s try to keep the discussion pleasant guys. 😉

Ben, I agree with you nukes are repugnant but I think the world is stuck with them until we all live in peace, due to the amount of conflict going on I predict that won’t be any time soon 🙁 .

Wanmankylung is a better together troll?

No – and that’s actually pretty insulting.

sorry Ernie I meant…..

I see, you meant something different to what you said.

Is this even on topic anymore?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/11034881/Bank-of-England-flatly-denies-Scottish-currency-talks.html

Somebody is fibbing somewhere.

I see, you meant something different to what you said.

No Ernie as pointed out by ninfan there was a comma there to aid understanding. I will use bullet points from now on. 😉

Nothing to do with commas. Z-11 tried to help a fellow nuclear armer out by suggesting it was all down to commas.

If you wanted to say “they can’t nuke us because we have nukes” then you should have said so.

Even with all the commas it still doesn’t say “they can’t nuke us because we have nukes”

fasternotfatter – Member

Ben Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn’t nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.

Gordi, they invaded Georgia and slyly invaded Ukrainian Crimea as well.
Posted 23 hours ago # Report-Post

On a side issue, almost every country in the world doesn’t have nuclear weapons and yet Russia and China haven’t nuked any of them with their outdated equipment and inexperienced troops.

Is having experienced troops a good thing to boast about? Or is it more a sign that the country’s leaders are a bit fighty and warmongering.

klumpy – Member
….As for moving them from Scotland, the base was never a nuclear target in itself as the deterrent subs are mostly at sea…

Strange reasoning. The base is where the non-operational subs and warheads are held. It would have to be a prime target if only to deny re-supply.

There is a precedent.

The UK put a lot of effort into trying to destroy German U-boat bases during WWII for very much the same reasons.

scotroutes – Member
A/ a currency union would place no more restraints on the Scottish Government than it currently has.

Was that serious Scotroutes? If so, that is a unique interpretation of how CUs work.

Perhaps it was a really smart answer in that the no more restraints refers to the fact that you would (it isn’t going to happen) devolve all responsibility to a foreign country. So independent, that you don’t even bother. Amazing concept.

THM – would Scotland be independent if they joined the Euro? Because Germany, France, Spain and Italy are all what right minded individuals would call independent and they use a currency over which they do not have full control. So, what exactly is your grip about a currency union? Other than spouting utter shite.

You don’t quite understand how independence works. Sure, we’d be tied into a currency union, EU treaties, NATO treaties, WTO treaties, whatever, same as every other country.

But if we didn’t like it, we could elect a government that would pull us out of those treaties. We could decide for ourselves whether we wanted to be in those clubs or not.
On the contrary, I understand entirely how this works.

However, how long do you think it takes to negotiate a way out of treaty commitments and how much do you think it costs? It is a contract. It will have penalties designed to be much worse in the event of departure than staying. No party to a treaty will be happy to (say) see Scotland benefit for 10 years and then leave the deal once it is Scotland’s turn to let the support flow the other way without paying for that. Once you’re in, departing is a nuclear (in political and diplomatic terms) option.

Why thank you – utter shite it is then.

Out of interest, have you had a wee look at what has been going on in Europe over the past few years. What happens when you’re devolve responsibility to others who are unaccountable to you. Just how much independence do many countries in the (your word) shite have. Look at the “democratic” result in Italy. Ask youself just have equal and prosperous the periphery of Europe are.

They have given up responsibility for their own policies and the results have been an utter disaster.

So how independent? Less than now, that is the elephant in the room. If you want to swallow this, good luck! See no evil, hear no evil, speak now evil…..

Anyway CU isn’t going to happen, so major gripe is that the DO should STFU and come up with plan D and no, that isn’t sterlingisation..

Anyway CU isn’t going to happen, so major gripe is that the DO should STFU and come up with plan D and no, that isn’t sterlingisation..

What are you basing the currency union isn’t going to happen claim on?

Also wtf is a DO?

And plans A&B are using sterling, plan D is using the Euro and plan C is the Cameron is a Bawbag (rather catchy name for a currency.)

It takes considerable myopia to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. But don’t say that you were not warned.

I want a Scotland that is not part of the UK. That is exactly what I want and I don’t really care what flavour it comes in as I’ve said all along.

And plans A&B are using sterling, plan D is using the Euro and plan C is the Cameron is a Bawbag (rather catchy name for a currency.)

Well, if you could get the leader of the Yes campaign to state that very clearly and say if he agrees with everything his beloved Fiscal Commission had to say on the subject, that would be handy.

Understanding.

Is a person whose deliberately deceives and lies to people for vanity purposes.

A – no
B – even worse
C – ?
D – won’t exist in 5 years time

wanmankylung – Member
I want a Scotland that is not part of the UK. That is exactly what I want and I don’t really care what flavour it comes in as I’ve said all along.

Oops, either way you are not going to have your wishes fulfilled.

I am still waiting for the SNP to tell us what not having a currency union will cost Scottish businesses. Within a day of Osborne announcement we were told it would cost rUK business £500m. Is it too much to assume that a Scottish government that cares so much for it’s people would not have worked out the cost to Scotland also?

Well, if you could get the leader of the Yes campaign to state that very clearly and say if he agrees with everything his beloved Fiscal Commission had to say on the subject, that would be handy.

He has given a very clear answer many times on the question off currency. Scotland will continue to use the pound and it will more than likely be in a currency union at least for the short to medium term. It is the only logical solution for both sides.

Oops, either way you are not going to have your wishes fulfilled.

That is a moronic thing to say – a yes voted will give me exactly what I want.

Enjoy your dreams then but be ready for when you wake up…..the hangover will be long and hard.

He has given a very clear answer many times on the question off currency. Scotland will continue to use the pound and it will more than likely be in a currency union at least for the short to medium term. It is the only logical solution for both sides.

Eh, no. That’s his preference for Plan A.

Have you read the Fiscal Commission’s Report? It discounts using Sterling in anything other than a formal currency union. That’s why AS has never formally listed it as plan B – because to do so would undermine the credibility of the “experts” who recommended Plan A and so undermine the proposal itself. Just to quote it again as you must have missed it:

International evidence suggests that informal monetary unions tend to be adopted by
transition economies or small territories with a special relationship with a larger trading
partner (e.g. between the UK and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man). Advanced
economies of a significant scale tend not to operate in such a monetary framework. Though
an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution.

The Fiscal Commission’s Plans B and C are the Euro and a Scottish Currency.

He has given a very clear answer many times on the question off currency. Scotland will continue to use the pound and it will more than likely be in a currency union at least for the short to medium term. It is the only logical solution for both sides.

And you claim others are talking utter shite and being moronic?

No they are not. Go away and read it.

THM – remember a couple of years ago you said that the Euro was on its way out and that Germany and Greece would be leaving it?

Read the FC stuff several times. Have you? Here’s something else to read

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/16d54dd4-237a-11e4-8e29-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#slide0

When not if….it’s simple. Tell me about the democratic process in Italy? Actually don’t, better that you have sweet dreams with innocent dreams.

No they are not. Go away and read it

I have, dry though it is. Have it open right now if you could point me to the bit where they recommend any informal use of sterling.

That rejection of it which I quoted, by the way, is para 20 on page 4 of the Feb 2013 report.

At least the DO is not alone in talking shite. Swinney has also been at it. Yet another yS bit of nonsense requiring the BOE to make an announcement saying that they (yS) are telling porkies (again!!)

OB, mentioned it a few pages back. The DOs latest stunt was dismissed in one short para by the FIscal Commission. Not even worth discussing by his own advisers because it is a BS solution. But Wanman…reckons it’s a goer!

THM – are you realistically expecting an educated man to accept what is written in the media?

What is a DO?

What is a DO?

Is a person who deliberately deceives and lies to people for vanity purposes. Best avoided at all costs.

Ah – so it’s a David Osborne. I get it now.

Deceitful One, I think. As in Salmond for THM.