[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

making every ex-pat Scot go home, making every EU citizen leave Scotland

And the other EU members will want to send home every Scot who doesn't want to keep a UK passport? If even the official reports into EU membership reckon some sort of fudge prior to separation is the most likely, why do people on here not accept it? I guess we're all to set on being right all the time.

....every Scot who doesn't want to keep a UK passport?

Why would a Scot living in a EU country not want to keep their UK passport, specially if they wanted to reside in an EU country ? 🙂

Of course exactly the same situation exists today, if someone decides to scrap their UK passport and instead rely a non-EU passport then they won't have automatic right to reside in the EU.

What whatnobeer
said those doing the negotiation [ hopefully] wont be as petty as we are on here.

Every Scot currently holds a British passport and it would be up to them if they decided to keep it or not (assuming UK doesn't withdraw it

rUk will base its response on what iS does..stated position of rUK. Given they let the Irish in i think we will be safe.
Not sure what document it is in as I have read so many but that is the position
there you go cleared that one up eh. no one can accuse rUK of being vague eh 😉

ernie_lynch - Member

if we weren't a member of Nato we would be more vunerable

What, you mean like Ireland ?

That was a joke......right ?

[quote=duckman ]Ok, I don't actually think that there are evil despots planning on conquering Scotland,should we manage to rid ourselves of our current ones

[img] [/img]

The passport issue could be a problem once EW&NI is UKIPed out of the EU.

What is going to happen to all those immigrants (from UK) in Spain - deportation?

That was meant to be tongue in cheek and leaving it open for interpretation who the evil despot is,(as you will have worked out)but hey-ho fill you boots anyway.

we would have less ability to deal with the day to day stuff like off course Russian planes and "trawlers".

More. Last time the Russians decided to invade*, the MoD only found out via Twitter, and it took two days for the nearest available ship to arrive. An independent Scotland will spend defence money on smaller patrol vessels, not massive white elephants like Trident and the carriers.

*Okay, they were sheltering from a storm, but that sounds boring 😉

What is going to happen to all those immigrants (from UK) in Spain - deportation?

Brits wanting to work in Spain will probably have to fill out a Visa Application form.

Ben, was it not from a trawlerman's tweet in the first place?

bencooper - Member
An independent Scotland will spend defence money on smaller patrol vessels, not massive white elephants like Trident and the carriers.

And what if they decide not to turn around? Or perhaps decide to deploy some of the 40+ aircraft they could carry?

No nuclear powered submarines, no aircraft carriers, no nuclear weapon deterrent as a line in the sand.

Don't worry though, those KH41s are probably just bluffing. 😀

tightywighty - Member
And what if they decide not to turn around? Or perhaps decide to deploy some of the 40+ aircraft they could carry?...

In what world is that a realistic scenario?

And what if they decide not to turn around? Or perhaps decide to deploy some of the 40+ aircraft they could carry?

The UK would be stuffed anyway. There's no conceivable scenario where the UK military could beat the Russian military without using the nuclear option - and if that was used we'd all be dead.

Do Iceland panic about being invaded by the Russians? Belgium? Denmark?

bencooper - Member
The UK would be stuffed anyway. There's no conceivable scenario where the UK military could beat the Russian military without using the nuclear option - and if that was used we'd all be dead.

Do Iceland panic about being invaded by the Russians? Belgium? Denmark?

The point of having nukes is that you don't have to use them; they're a deterrent.

If you are completely unconcerned, why have armed forces at all?

tightywighty - Member
...If you are completely unconcerned, why have armed forces at all?

We'll need them because we'll will have a militarily aggressive neighbour ruled by an oligarchy with the nasty habit of invading oil and resource rich countries in the name of christianity/democracy.

HTH 🙂

The point of having nukes is that you don't have to use them; they're a deterrent.

That worked* in the Cold War, when there were two massive opponents, either of which could totally obliterate the other, and that was considered a Very Bad Thing.

That's not the case now. Who are we deterring? It'd be a massive over-reaction to nuke Afghanistan in retaliation for any terrorist attack, and the terrorists may well not care about retaliation anyway. The Russians? Any attack we launch on them would be sure to attract a response that would kill a large percentage of the UK population.

There's no scenario where using nuclear weapons is better than not using them. None. So what use is a deterrent which you can never use?

And, again, why do most other countries not need a nuclear deterrent?

*For a given value of "worked" - there was no nuclear Armageddon, but it came damn close several times, and millions of people died in proxy wars.

That's not the case now. Who are we deterring?

[b]Now[/b]

Thats your problem Ben

You never know just whats round the corner politically - for example the national front romping home in the French elections, Russia invading the Crimean peninsular, none of which were seen as realistic possibilities even a few months ago!

And what would we be able to do about those things? Invade France? Attack Russia? What scenario would having nuclear weapons help with?

So not only does it turn out that [url= http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/barack-obama-was-asked-to-intervene-in-debate/ ]Obama was asked to intervene by Cameron[/url], contrary to what was claimed at the time, but also that [url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/alistair-darling-salmond-behaving-kim-jong-il ]Alastair Darling did agree with the Blood and Soil comment[/url] in the New Statesman interview.

That's two things in a week that Better Together have been caught lying about.

So Ben, an unnamed US Government source quoted by an unnamed Scottish Government source. Quite a compelling case that.

And Darling clearly qualified the blood and soil comment - not sure how anyone objective could associate its problematic historic connotations with the way it was used in that interview.

I'm afraid that's a big "so what" from me with added credibility for the nat cause lost by going on about it.

This made me chuckle :

A spokesman for Yes Scotland added: “This rather betrays the No campaign’s growing desperation and worry that Yes is on the winning path.

If there is any side in this debate that should be getting desperate it's the SNP. Because despite having had 80 years to convince Scots of the virtue of independence, and less than a hundred days left until the referendum, all the evidence suggests that they still haven't managed to convince the majority of Scots.

Time's running out lads and the gap is [i]widening[/i] - not narrowing. I reckon it's time to start panicking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker

I had previously thought that Scots would [i]probably[/i] vote Yes. But now with each remaining day that passes I'm not so sure.

Ernie, be careful of believing what the BBC publishes, it uses the same journalistic standards as Pravda.

If there's such a strong No vote, how come for every public event there is a large local turnout for Yes, but BT have to bus the same gang of 'supporters' in each location. They even have the golden heir to his daddy's seat to organise it.

made me chuckle, that out of the 6 polls on your link, you are obviously going by the worst one! 😆 the yougov one puts it as static and 3 out of the 6, show an increase.

Ernie, be careful of believing what the BBC publishes

See Ernie, the polls are all biased in favour of No, its all part of the conspiracy

If there's such a strong No vote, how come for every public event there is a large local turnout for Yes

😆

Every time I go to an England match at the pub, there seems to be a large local turnout for the EDL, must be proof of something!

made me chuckle, that out of the 6 polls on your link, you are obviously going by the worst one! 😆

I'm going by all of them - they all show the No camp trailing the Yes camp. I'm not sure why that makes you laugh 🙂

I don't know what "the worst one" is suppose to mean. Several show the same sort of gap between the the No and Yes camps. And ICM doesn't even show the biggest gap.

Did you actually look at the link beyond just quickly scanning it ?

they all show the No camp trailing the Yes camp

Ah, but some of them show that Yes support has gone up one percent in the last week, if we extrapolate that 99 days into the future, then Yes will [i]definitely[/i] win!

Sorry I meant the Yes camp trailing the No camp ! It's hot, I've just been on a long bike ride, and I'm tired! 🙂

ernie_lynch - Member
made me chuckle, that out of the 6 polls on your link, you are obviously going by the worst one!
I'm going by all of them - they all show the No camp trailing the Yes camp. I'm not sure why that makes you laugh

I don't know what "the worst one" is suppose to mean. Several show the same sort of gap between the the No and Yes camps. And ICM doesn't even show the biggest gap.

Did you actually look at the link beyond just quickly scanning it ?

I had previously thought that Scots would probably vote Yes.

Was this on another thread in a parallel universe?
What you going to claim next you have only just looked at the poll data ?

Can we just get this divorce over with? This thread must have broken some wills. It certainly has mine.

Only needed a quick scan, not exactly rocket science, and only 2 show a widening gap, 3 show a narrowing gap..

3 show the gap widening. Of the ones that don't 2 show a huge gap. And it's not "rocket science" to figure out that the gap needs to be in the [i]opposite[/i] direction for the Yes camp to win. As I say, there's less than a hundred days left - perhaps time to start panicking ?

Maybe your laughing is a form of hysteria ?

I had previously thought that Scots would probably vote Yes.

Was this on another thread in a parallel universe?

No on this thread in this universe.

Ernie. Nope utter hilarity reading your reasoning. Away an look at the polls again. 😆

I'm not sure why the nats are finding so much humour in six different polls that all suggest the nats will lose?
😕

sbob - Member
I'm not sure why the nats are finding so much humour in six different polls that all suggest the nats will lose?

Probably for the same reason people in the UK used to laugh at Lord Haw Haw's pronouncements...

Probably for the same reason people in the UK used to laugh at Lord Haw Haw's pronouncements...

I see. ICM, YouGov, etc, poll results, are the same to you as Nazi propaganda during World War 2. You laugh at the face of such propaganda. What a reasonable and perfectly fair assessment you have 😀

Was that Godwins

piemonster - Member
Was that Godwins

Nah, it's just I forgot Ernie can never be wrong 🙂

99days to go.

Was that Godwins

Nah, it's just I forgot Ernie can never be wrong

You're becoming increasingly incoherent as you try to shift the focus away from reasoned debate and onto personal taunting.

You really don't know what to say do you ? 🙂

💡 Try to combine a personal attack with a valid point, if you can think of one.

sbob - Member 
I'm not sure why the nats are finding so much humour in six different polls that all suggest the nats will lose?

Personally I just enjoy pointing out ernies utter nonsense from time to time. It's highly amusing. 😆

Is that what you were doing.......pointing out my "nonsense" ?

I truly thought this was a joke :

epicyclo - Member

Ernie, be careful of believing what the BBC publishes, it uses the same journalistic standards as Pravda.

If there's such a strong No vote, how come for every public event there is a large local turnout for Yes

But you actually meant it !!!

EDIT : My mistake it was epicyclo that made that "reasoned" comment. What was the "nonsense" that you pointed out ?

Are we now to believe that polls are being fiddled, and that few actually intend voting no? Ridiculous! If yes win 55% to 45%, will it be said that the no vote could not have been that high! No voters have generally been silent, but if we don't speak up, we will be trampled on after a yes vote.

No voters have generally been silent

To be fair JY, it's mostly been filled by non voters