Alex MacLeod

Brill doesn't flinch! Its no the same for footballers. They're used to ice baths

Isn't that wee blonde guy a ginger?

Well done Ryan

Whats really pee!ng me of is that Dundee United have been found guilty, in the court of Adams, of blatant theft. Personally I think they should be given community service and forced to travel to Dingwall and clean the inhabitants up a bit.

The figures are the value of Scotlands exports in whisky, oil and gas. We export oil and gas as well as use it. We export refined products from oil and gas.These are nothing to do with revenue income but more to do with demonstrating that we are a thriving nation. Bear in mind that showing a healthy economy also shows that people are in employment and paying taxes. Its not just about the taxes from the profits of the companies its about the taxes from the people. There are around 42,000 employed directly and indirectly in the Scottish whisky industry and close on 200,000 in oil and gas in Scotland. Assuming an average wage of £30,000 and taxes at 20% thats 1.4 billion to the treasury. Add to that the taxes on spending (VAT, Insurance taxes etc) and it comes to a substantial amount from two industries. Yesterday or the day before the Financial Times ran an article stating that an independent Scotland would be in the top twenty of the worlds wealthiest countries. I'd provide a link but I've no intention of paying a subscription. Thanks for trying to clarify, but the figures for oil and gas cannot be annual export value. The link here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fff67a62-88fa-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3B7Z5SzkA is pretty factual I think and quotes a Scottish Government spokesman as saying the exports of of oil and gas in 2012 (including to the rest of the UK) to be £24.4bn. In terms of wider value to the Scottish economy, using your figures of 200,000 earning an average £30,000 gives us a wage bill of £6bn in oil and gas related activity. The value of oil related exports and the wider benefit to the economy is therefore in the region of £30bn - that is just 2% of the £1,500bn quoted in the "YES" bookle I would imagine that the figure includes sales of oil and gas, sales of petroleum products, sales of expertise, sales of technology, sales of equipment, servicing of rigs etc etc. It may surprise many people not involved in the industry exactly how much of the aforementioned comes out of the country. The installation I'm on at the minute, although built in Singapore, is built from many components sourced from Scottish companies.

The figures are the value of Scotlands exports in whisky, oil and gas. We export oil and gas as well as use it. We export refined products from oil and gas.These are nothing to do with revenue income but more to do with demonstrating that we are a thriving nation. Bear in mind that showing a healthy economy also shows that people are in employment and paying taxes. Its not just about the taxes from the profits of the companies its about the taxes from the people. There are around 42,000 employed directly and indirectly in the Scottish whisky industry and close on 200,000 in oil and gas in Scotland. Assuming an average wage of £30,000 and taxes at 20% thats 1.4 billion to the treasury. Add to that the taxes on spending (VAT, Insurance taxes etc) and it comes to a substantial amount from two industries. Yesterday or the day before the Financial Times ran an article stating that an independent Scotland would be in the top twenty of the worlds wealthiest countries. I'd provide a link but I've no intention of paying a subscription.

You're not wrong Yngwie though it should also be pointed out that it is a few paragraphs copied from the Scotsman article. Some of article is reproduced below and heres a link. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-english-backlash-warning-1-3514735?fid=15991&isc=1&did=bookmark.7d626d9fdbe9e961305f1dd04b9d003a9ab45f4e&ctp=article by SCOTT MACNAB Updated on the 20 August 2014 12:55 Published 20/08/2014 00:00 Print this comments Have your say! AN ENGLISH backlash against Scotland’s demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum. Alex Salmond’s proposals for a currency union are opposed by two-to-one among English voters, who say the UK should block an independent Scotland joining Nato and the European Union, according to new polling evidence today. Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP has warned could see £4 billion removed from the Scottish budget. • Get the latest referendum news, opinion and analysis from across Scotland and beyond on our new Scottish Independence website “The English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,” said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University. “There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the Border. “There is also overwhelming English support for limiting the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster. The question for Scottish voters is whether they can rely on pledges about the consequences of a No vote, when such pledges do not seem to be supported in the largest and most important part of the Union.” The YouGov poll of 3,695 English adults was carried out in April, but held back until now by the Economic and Social Research Council, which commissioned it. Only 23 per cent agreed with the proposition that “an independent Scotland should be able to continue to use the pound”, while 53 per cent disagreed. Conservative Party supporters (69 per cent) are most opposed and 64 per cent of Ukip supporters are against sharing the pound. The figure for Labour supporters is 46 per cent and Liberal Democrats 49 per cent. Even if Scots reject independence, the majority (62 per cent) of people south of the Border believe it is time to get tough. The poll says 56 per cent want public spending in Scotland – about £1,300 higher per head than in the rest of the UK – to be brought in line with the UK average. And 62 per cent want Scotland MPs barred from voting on English-only issues. But support for greater Holyrood powers is strong in England, with 42 per cent agreeing that the Scottish Parliament should be given control of the majority of taxes raised in Scotland. A spokesperson for Yes Scotland said: “It is a real concern for a growing number of Scots that Scotland’s budget is in Westminster’s crosshairs and waiting to be slashed in the event of a No vote.” The pro-union Better Together campaign said English opposition to sharing the pound was to be expected. Labour MSP Jackie Baillie said: “It is not surprising that the majority of people in England do not support a currency union. For us in Scotland, it would mean handing over control of our economy to what would then be a foreign country.” Professor Charlie Jeffery of the University of Edinburgh, another of the researchers, said: “It is striking how tough people in England are on Scotland whatever the referendum outcome. If anything, the message appears to be: ‘Vote Yes by all means, but if you do, you’re on your own.’ “But if Scots vote No, there’s something similar at play. Here the message is: ‘By all means have more devolution, but you can’t then have the role at Westminster you do now, and don’t expect any funding to flow northwards from England’.”

My predictions.

We all have our opinions on the subjects of this debate and I would never slate anothers opinion no matter how much against my own it may be. Indeed there are times when I share the opinion of some who oppose that which I believe in. At the end of the day the only real hope for a fair and prosperous Scotland in independence. If the referendum returns a No vote then I despair for the future of this country. There will be no status quo. There will be no free prescriptions. There will be no free higher education. There will be major cuts in everything. There will be increased poverty and there will be an ever increasing gulf between the haves and the have nots. The Telegraph: “If independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster. The researchers found overwhelming support, with 62 per cent in favour and 12 per cent opposed, for the proposition that ‘Scottish MPs should be prevented on voting on laws that apply only in England.’ By a similarly large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.” The Scotsman: “An English backlash against Scotland’s demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum. Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP has warned could see £4 billion removed from the Scottish budget. ‘The English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,’ said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University. There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the Border.’” It seems safe to say that the lovebombing is over, readers. The only thing we’re a bit confused about is the £4bn figure. The No campaign has been hammering away for several weeks now on a figure of £1400 “for every man, woman and child” in extra UK spending in Scotland. The population of Scotland is 5.3 million. Multiplied by 1400 that’s £7.42bn, not £4bn. That’s the £7bn figure we told you about last November, which would be slashed from the Scottish budget were the Barnett Formula (the source of the “higher spending”) to be ended and Scotland made to raise its own tax revenue under new devolved powers proposed by all three Unionist parties – but NOT given control of its oil revenues. It would be impossible to recoup that vast figure from tax rises, because people would simply flood out of Scotland in their millions. The only way to get it back would be, as noted by Professor Jones, cuts to the Scottish budget of a magnitude unlike anything previously seen under austerity. Scottish voters are about to be faced with a stark choice. They can choose to take responsibility for their own affairs and manage the future with the security of a massive oil bonanza behind them, or they can choose to run away from responsibility and go crawling to a Westminster which will be under enormous pressure from voters to punish them viciously in the name of “more devolution”. We told you nine months ago. Perhaps now the mainstream press has finally caught up with the story, more Scots will face up to the reality of the choice before them. If NO then prepare for the backlash. YES is the only way!!!

Who? Yogi?

I am not aware that anyone has said that Independence is the big danger to the NHS in Scotland. In our current devolved parliament, Health is a wholly devolved matter. The Scottish government already has the power to fund it within available resource. What do you mean by "sucumb to privitisation"? As I made absolutely clear in my previous post, the private sector is and always has been an important part of the NHS. Involvement of the private sector does not mean cuts to the NHS or cuts to the funding. The NHS continues to fund services provided by the private sector. All the major unionist parties have pledged their continuing support for the NHS. The Government has continued to protect the NHS from other post recession public spending cuts and funding for the NHS continues to rise above the rate of inflation. What the NHS in England is doing and which the Scottish Government is hoping to conveniently ignore till after the referendum, is to address the fact that demands on the NHS are rising even faster than the rising funding can address. I may not particularly like the way they are going about it in England but the fact is that Independence will not make these pressures disappear in Scotland. It is not political policy at Westminster that is a threat to the health service in Scotland, it is the growing demand for health care from the people of Scotland that threatens to overwhelm the NHS. The question is, how will an independent Scottish Government address this problem? Private sector involvement has been around for many years. That is a totally different situation to privatisation. Private sector involvement keeps control within the NHS. Privatisation sells that control to the private sector. It is well documented that many Tory MP's would like to do with the NHS what they done with BT and BG and all the other national institutes that were privatised.

The big danger to the NHS in Scotland is not Independence. In an independent country the people in power will have total control of the available budget and will use it as they see fit. If the answer is no NHS England and Wales will succumb to privatisation of some description. This will mean that the budget for NHS England and Wales will be cut. Under the Barnet formula Scotlands funds will also be cut pro rata. So to maintain a service anywhere like what we have at the moment will need funds transfered from other budgets. Someone or something will suffer. Just as an aside. On the subject of political parties. Yes all three major parties south of the border are agreed on keeping us all together but many in Scottish Labour see a chance to revitalise themselves and are swaying more towards YES. Finally, Israel, Palestine, Iraq etc. I would hope that an Independent Scotland would be more into seeking out and aiding in solutions to the problems rather than promoting the killing.

And when you're paying for education and paying for health services and still driving over potholes and still complaining about empty shop units in the high street and the high taxes and interest rates and the fascist state we'll be living in dont come greeting to me.

When out of the country I depend on comments here to give me an honest understanding of how a game went. I also read the press online and usually they can be biased towards the southern teams. This week I read here that we weren't very good yet much of the press praise our performance and, indeed, suggest we could have won by a few had we capitalised on our chances. Around 12 shots on goal and about five on target tells me we are creating chances. Just not puting strain on the net. two games, two clean sheets and four points isn't a bad start and I believe we will get better.

If he's anything like his father he'll get homesick. Personally I think he's a better asset to us on the field but if he were to go then I'd expect a decent fee + at least 100k youth development compensation. So English teams thats at least half a million in my book.

The wrath of the Cybernats It had to be me. They had no Plan B More likely some ex pupils Charles

I'm not Rene. There will always be someone who chooses on the grounds of position over post.

Why?

Go to the link and download the wee blue book. Loads of independent information that may held the undecided. http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/

I don't see the no camp stopping anytime soon and it is not nearly as bad as the 200 that wrote a "love letter" to scotland.... Tell that to all these countries that are not part of the uk Guernsey (in a currency union with the uk but is not part of the uk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_pound Isle of man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_pound jersey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_pound Falkland islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_pound Gibraltar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_pound Saint helena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_pound South georgia and the south sandwich islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling_in_the_South_Atlantic_and_the_Antarctic Former pound users Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_pound New zealand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_pound You forgot to add Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and South Sudan. All of which use Pound as their currency yet have no ties to Britian. Here's an interesting website from our celtic brothers across the sea. http://www.irishforyes.org/

Anyone can start a poll. If you want one feel free to set it up.

after

He's maybe a YES man and has decided to boycott the Biased Broadcasters Club afet the fixed referendum debate.

Strong enough to get a hiding from United

Assuming it is Rangers then I dont expect them to have a big crowd at the game. They'll have all deserted by then.