Jump to content

The Big Scottish Independence Debate


Laurence

Recommended Posts

Out of curiosity, how many  people on here voted NO on the strength of the "VOW"......and, if any of you did,  how many of you actually expect to have anything useful to Scotland come out of it, after it wends its way through the consultation process and then the Westminster voting system?  

 

Given Gordie Broon's pronouncement, which has been said to be "nothing less than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule”....what is the least you think Westminster will try to get off with, if anything actually comes out of it at all?  Home Rule, Devo-max and Federalism have widely understood definitions, and the "VOW" has been described at various times as any one of, or closely approximating all or one, of those....so do any of you think we are likely to get that much bang for our buck?

 

Or do you think we will, as we have with all changes to devolution settlements to date, only get powers to increase/decrease income tax to compensate for the cuts via Barnett, as a result of continuing austerity, plus following year cuts to Barnett due to being forced to use the ability to vary income tax, plus the cost of collecting the income tax, whether we vary it or not, plus, if we use the borrowing powers already on the way, the cuts due to having to pay Westminster interest on that borrowing...... and all under restrictions imposed from Westminster........with the intentions of damaging the SNP's standing and reducing the likelihood (they hope) of eventual independence.....because the Scottish Government obviously can't manage without cutting services or increasing taxes........and still help fund Westminster excesses.

 

Mind you, that deliberate ploy may work out as well for Westminster as the one which was meant to stop any majority Governments in Scottish elections

Edited by Oddquine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think a few weeks working in a modern comprehensive would be enough to disabuse you of the daft notion that a person is worthy of respect simply for having spent a lot of years on the planet.

 

As well as to have you asking why on earth about a third of the population are afforded the responsibility of having a vote when they won't have the blindest scooby about the issues relating to what they are voting for?

 

 

Steady on there Charles, I know quite a few people over seventy who have made a point of keeping abreast of current affairs. You can't just generalise and dismiss them all in that fashion.

 

I wasn't actually talking about the teachers! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep saying that I can't understand why anyone would have changed from YES to NO because of this.  If what was offered in the "vow" was what you wanted i.e devo-max within the union, why would you be thinking of voting YES in the first place!  Voting YES would be the only sure way not to get what you wanted.  If devo-max is what you wanted then a NO vote would secure the union and then you can discuss changes to the level of devolution.

 

I do however know one person who was so irritated by the stupidity of the vow that she switched from NO to YES at the last minute and was then mightily relieved when the result was NO.

 

I also fail to see the purpose of all the conspiracy theories about what level of additional powers might be devolved to Scotland.  There are two very good reasons why UK politicians will not be shafting the Scots.  Firstly, the political parties need to win Scots votes to form a UK Government.  Secondly, assuming they genuinely want Scotland to remain part of the UK, they will be wanting to ensure the electorate continue to feel "better together".  They will not want to fuel the fires of independence by making life difficult for the Scots.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep saying that I can't understand why anyone would have changed from YES to NO because of this.  If what was offered in the "vow" was what you wanted i.e devo-max within the union, why would you be thinking of voting YES in the first place!  Voting YES would be the only sure way not to get what you wanted.  If devo-max is what you wanted then a NO vote would secure the union and then you can discuss changes to the level of devolution.

 

I do however know one person who was so irritated by the stupidity of the vow that she switched from NO to YES at the last minute and was then mightily relieved when the result was NO.

 

I also fail to see the purpose of all the conspiracy theories about what level of additional powers might be devolved to Scotland.  There are two very good reasons why UK politicians will not be shafting the Scots.  Firstly, the political parties need to win Scots votes to form a UK Government.  Secondly, assuming they genuinely want Scotland to remain part of the UK, they will be wanting to ensure the electorate continue to feel "better together".  They will not want to fuel the fires of independence by making life difficult for the Scots.

 

Really ? Watch this space....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I keep saying that I can't understand why anyone would have changed from YES to NO because of this.  If what was offered in the "vow" was what you wanted i.e devo-max within the union, why would you be thinking of voting YES in the first place!  Voting YES would be the only sure way not to get what you wanted.  If devo-max is what you wanted then a NO vote would secure the union and then you can discuss changes to the level of devolution.

 

I do however know one person who was so irritated by the stupidity of the vow that she switched from NO to YES at the last minute and was then mightily relieved when the result was NO.

 

I also fail to see the purpose of all the conspiracy theories about what level of additional powers might be devolved to Scotland.  There are two very good reasons why UK politicians will not be shafting the Scots.  Firstly, the political parties need to win Scots votes to form a UK Government.  Secondly, assuming they genuinely want Scotland to remain part of the UK, they will be wanting to ensure the electorate continue to feel "better together".  They will not want to fuel the fires of independence by making life difficult for the Scots.

 

Really ? Watch this space....

 

Of course!  Are you seriously suggesting that any of the unionist parties who wish Scotland to remain in the UK are going to deliberately produce policies which will alienate the Scottish voters and which will thereby stoke the fires of independence?

 

What is far more likely is that the SNP will do their damnedest to make sure any additional devolution of powers doesn't work too well - and you can be sure they will blame the UK Government for it rather than their own failure to use the devolved powers effectively.  In 2016 we really need to elect a Holyrood Government that has a genuine wish for devolved powers to benefit the Scottish people rather one which has a vested interest in them failing.

 

In observing the political debate in the coming months it will be important to recognise that one party (or 2 if you count the greens) will be seeking a package which they can use as a stepping stone to independence. The unionist parties will be seeking a package which is in the best interests of Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29461008

 

So Alex Salmond takes Scotland a further step closer to becoming a paradise for tax dodgers and scroungers whilst at the same time actively preventing Councils from recovering money which was actually due to them. As a result, next time you see a local library close its doors, just remember that the reason is this "thank you" from  Salmond to some of the "missing million" who went on to the voters' roll so they could vote Yes to the further public subsidy which, we were told, "only and independent Scotland" could throw at them.

Salmond is really inserting himself so far up the proletariat's backside that neither Marx nor Lenin can even see his feet any more!

I have no doubt that there will be a few from the Citizen Smith brigade who will want to follow this post up with a some now rather dated Sheridanesque cliches about the evils of the poll tax. But the reality is that those people who did not pay took that course of action at the expense of those of us who do meet our legal public obligations.

Having come on to the voters' roll to deliver unto Salmond that which they imagined was Salmond's, these people will now be completely bricking it at the sudden realisation that society now knows who they are so some of other areas of the Black Economy may well become difficult for them as well. Doubtless there will be lots of cheers tonight for Salmond in The Scheme and similar locations, but we will also perhaps soon be seeing quite a lot of moonlighters as many of these people move on in order to reacquire their tax dodging anonymity.

I wonder, therefore, how many of them will still be at the SNP's beck and call on the voters' roll come the next Holyrood election - at which point a significant slice of the decent, taxpaying majority will also have become totally disgusted with the SNP's votecatching cynicism?

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you think about the poll tax, it was a tax imposed as a result of due democratic process and it does seem a quite extraordinary bit of ill-judged political pettiness to make it illegal for councils to chase people who have failed in their legal obligation to pay it.  Having said that, it should be recognised that huge sums of money are lost to the public purse by businesses and the rich finding various ways to avoid paying tax.  Some of the things that can be wrapped up as legitimate business expenses are quite absurd.  Government should close some of the legal loopholes for tax avoidance and they should chase anyone, rich or poor who does not pay their taxes.  Particular effort should go into pursuing those who owe most, but enough should be pursued at the bottom end to make people think that tax evasion (or benefit fraud) is simply not worth the risk.  There is nothing vindictive in this approach.  Every penny not paid by the tax dodgers or claimed fraudulently by benefit cheats is a penny extra that the law abiding have to pay or the lost revenue is a contribution to cuts in public services.    

 

We look to our political leaders to uphold the law, not to protect those who cheat the rest of us.  It really is quite extraordinary that he should propose to ban councils from collecting taxes which have been devolved to them to collect.  Imagine the furore if income tax was devolved to the Scottish Government and then the UK Government were to make it illegal for the Scottish Government to pursue those who chose not to pay their tax bills!  Whilst the reality is that Councils are unlikely to be pursuing poll tax debts to any extent, it is the principle that is the issue here.  Legislating to prevent Councils from collecting debts from tax cheats is simply outrageous.

 

Salmond's proposal is probably intended as a fingers up to the Conservative Government, but in reality it is an affront to all decent law abiding citizen's.  It is a clear example of Salmond pursuing a  political agenda rather than doing what is good for Scotland.  Hopefully sufficient of Salmond's own party will have enough sense of public duty to ensure this absurd proposal is not written into legislation.  As for the man himself, this is further evidence that not only is he no longer fit to be First Minister, he is not even fit to be an MSP.  It is time for him to quit and spend more time on the golf course with his good mate Donald Trump.

Edited by DoofersDad
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously suggesting that any of the unionist parties who wish Scotland to remain in the UK are going to deliberately produce policies which will alienate the Scottish voters and which will thereby stoke the fires of independence?

 

Yes it's very possible, but for the opposite reason which you argue - Labour's proposed devo-nano on the face of it seems halfbaked, look a bit deeper though and what you see is a series of fiscal traps Labour wants to set for the Scottish Government. Damaging Scotland in the hope the SNP gets the blame seems to be the game in town for Labour, I do think though that balance of where this commission on new powers goes will depend which side the Lib Dems come down on, standing behind their long standing policy and principles which would see them back the SNP and Greens for very substantial constitutional change, or keep together with their Better Together buddies.  

Edited by skifreak
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you think about the poll tax, it was a tax imposed as a result of due democratic process

 

That's a matter of some debate, the poll tax was introduced here by Scottish Ministers - who happened to be Tory, while the preceding general election result returned the following in Scotland:

 

Lab 50

Con 10 

All 9

SNP 3

 

I wasn't quite old enough to vote in the 1992 General Election, but through the period of the Poll Tax when the Scottish Grand Committee sat in the parliamentary chamber of the Old Royal High School I new there was something fundamentally wrong as far as democracy goes when nearly all the elected representatives are on the opposition benches, and it was not possible for Scotland to democratically remove the Scottish Ministers from post - their party was rejected at General Election after General Election but they remained in post accountable to no-one. People seem to forget that even before the Scottish Parliament Scottish Ministers wielded huge power - that was an enormous democratic deficit. 

Edited by skifreak
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you seriously suggesting that any of the unionist parties who wish Scotland to remain in the UK are going to deliberately produce policies which will alienate the Scottish voters and which will thereby stoke the fires of independence?

 

Yes it's very possible, but for the opposite reason which you argue - Labour's proposed devo-nano on the face of it seems halfbaked, look a bit deeper though and what you see is a series of fiscal traps Labour wants to set for the Scottish Government. Damaging Scotland in the hope the SNP gets the blame seems to be the game in town for Labour, I do think though that balance of where this commission on new powers goes will depend which side the Lib Dems come down on, standing behind their long standing policy and principles which would see them back the SNP and Greens for very substantial constitutional change, or keep together with their Better Together buddies.  

 

Why would Labour wish to set a fiscal trap for the Scottish Government when they hope to be the Scottish Government in 2016?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Labour wish to set a fiscal trap for the Scottish Government when they hope to be the Scottish Government in 2016?

Perhaps I was giving Labour too much credit for having thought their plans through! The proposals don't allow tax cuts, only rises, all bands must move together and doesn't allow for changes to the banding, while as with the impending changes from the 2012 Scotland Act, the SG will have to pay HMRC a large chunk of cash to administer it. In other words it doesn't transfer meaningful useable powers to Holyrood, it instead is just a way of diverting chunks of the block grant back to the Treasury without headline changes to Barnett Consequentials. 

 

Unless the taxes which the Scottish Parliament are given some degree of power over are collected by Revenue Scotland, then the fiscal consequences be they good or bad would continue to accrue to the Westminster Treasury so there is no increase if fiscal accountability (quite the opposite in fact). It's not just tax rates that have this problem in the current set-up. The Child Care proposals in the Indy White Paper could in theory be implemented now, but fiscally they can not because rather than been self funding over the longer term if tax receipts were retained in Scotland, such a policy under the present fiscal regime would simply transfer a large chunk of the Scottish Government's funding back to the Treasury through increased working taxes and NI payments.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whatever you think about the poll tax, it was a tax imposed as a result of due democratic process

 

That's a matter of some debate, the poll tax was introduced here by Scottish Ministers - who happened to be Tory, while the preceding general election result returned the following in Scotland:

 

Lab 50

Con 10 

All 9

SNP 3

 

I wasn't quite old enough to vote in the 1992 General Election, but through the period of the Poll Tax when the Scottish Grand Committee sat in the parliamentary chamber of the Old Royal High School I new there was something fundamentally wrong as far as democracy goes when nearly all the elected representatives are on the opposition benches, and it was not possible for Scotland to democratically remove the Scottish Ministers from post - their party was rejected at General Election after General Election but they remained in post accountable to no-one. People seem to forget that even before the Scottish Parliament Scottish Ministers wielded huge power - that was an enormous democratic deficit. 

 

We can't simply ignore the law just because we don't like the democratic system that is in place.  Are you saying the people of the Northern Isles should be free to ignore the legislation passed by the SNP Government on the basis that they voted overwhelmingly for the Lib Dems in 2011?  Unless there is a judicial ruling that demonstrates a Government exceeded it's legal powers in drafting or implementing legislation then the law is the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29461008

 

So Alex Salmond takes Scotland a further step closer to becoming a paradise for tax dodgers and scroungers whilst at the same time actively preventing Councils from recovering money which was actually due to them. As a result, next time you see a local library close its doors, just remember that the reason is this "thank you" from  Salmond to some of the "missing million" who went on to the voters' roll so they could vote Yes to the further public subsidy which, we were told, "only and independent Scotland" could throw at them.

Salmond is really inserting himself so far up the proletariat's backside that neither Marx nor Lenin can even see his feet any more!

I have no doubt that there will be a few from the Citizen Smith brigade who will want to follow this post up with a some now rather dated Sheridanesque cliches about the evils of the poll tax. But the reality is that those people who did not pay took that course of action at the expense of those of us who do meet our legal public obligations.

Having come on to the voters' roll to deliver unto Salmond that which they imagined was Salmond's, these people will now be completely bricking it at the sudden realisation that society now knows who they are so some of other areas of the Black Economy may well become difficult for them as well. Doubtless there will be lots of cheers tonight for Salmond in The Scheme and similar locations, but we will also perhaps soon be seeing quite a lot of moonlighters as many of these people move on in order to reacquire their tax dodging anonymity.

I wonder, therefore, how many of them will still be at the SNP's beck and call on the voters' roll come the next Holyrood election - at which point a significant slice of the decent, taxpaying majority will also have become totally disgusted with the SNP's votecatching cynicism?

 

This whole thing has tipped you over the edge. :crazy:  :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29461008

 

So Alex Salmond takes Scotland a further step closer to becoming a paradise for tax dodgers and scroungers whilst at the same time actively preventing Councils from recovering money which was actually due to them. As a result, next time you see a local library close its doors, just remember that the reason is this "thank you" from  Salmond to some of the "missing million" who went on to the voters' roll so they could vote Yes to the further public subsidy which, we were told, "only and independent Scotland" could throw at them.

Salmond is really inserting himself so far up the proletariat's backside that neither Marx nor Lenin can even see his feet any more!

I have no doubt that there will be a few from the Citizen Smith brigade who will want to follow this post up with a some now rather dated Sheridanesque cliches about the evils of the poll tax. But the reality is that those people who did not pay took that course of action at the expense of those of us who do meet our legal public obligations.

Having come on to the voters' roll to deliver unto Salmond that which they imagined was Salmond's, these people will now be completely bricking it at the sudden realisation that society now knows who they are so some of other areas of the Black Economy may well become difficult for them as well. Doubtless there will be lots of cheers tonight for Salmond in The Scheme and similar locations, but we will also perhaps soon be seeing quite a lot of moonlighters as many of these people move on in order to reacquire their tax dodging anonymity.

I wonder, therefore, how many of them will still be at the SNP's beck and call on the voters' roll come the next Holyrood election - at which point a significant slice of the decent, taxpaying majority will also have become totally disgusted with the SNP's votecatching cynicism?

 

This whole thing has tipped you over the edge. :crazy:  :blink:

 

A coherently argued response to the proposition that Salmond is pandering to a certain section of society which tends to contribute little whilst withdrawing much might have been more welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29461008

 

So Alex Salmond takes Scotland a further step closer to becoming a paradise for tax dodgers and scroungers whilst at the same time actively preventing Councils from recovering money which was actually due to them. As a result, next time you see a local library close its doors, just remember that the reason is this "thank you" from  Salmond to some of the "missing million" who went on to the voters' roll so they could vote Yes to the further public subsidy which, we were told, "only and independent Scotland" could throw at them.

Salmond is really inserting himself so far up the proletariat's backside that neither Marx nor Lenin can even see his feet any more!

I have no doubt that there will be a few from the Citizen Smith brigade who will want to follow this post up with a some now rather dated Sheridanesque cliches about the evils of the poll tax. But the reality is that those people who did not pay took that course of action at the expense of those of us who do meet our legal public obligations.

Having come on to the voters' roll to deliver unto Salmond that which they imagined was Salmond's, these people will now be completely bricking it at the sudden realisation that society now knows who they are so some of other areas of the Black Economy may well become difficult for them as well. Doubtless there will be lots of cheers tonight for Salmond in The Scheme and similar locations, but we will also perhaps soon be seeing quite a lot of moonlighters as many of these people move on in order to reacquire their tax dodging anonymity.

I wonder, therefore, how many of them will still be at the SNP's beck and call on the voters' roll come the next Holyrood election - at which point a significant slice of the decent, taxpaying majority will also have become totally disgusted with the SNP's votecatching cynicism?

 

This whole thing has tipped you over the edge. :crazy:  :blink:

 

 

It rather has, hasn't it, dd.  Given Lawrence says Charles has stature, I'm assuming you Inverness people know him......but  posting wise on this thread, he comes over, with his almost irrational hatred of Salmond and the SNP, like Johann Lamont in drag.

 

It has always seemed to me that the biggest tax-dodgers and scroungers in the UK are the big businesses, who get the biggest proportion of the benefits the UK pays out so they can cut their wage bills, and, in addition, have doors to elsewhere left open so they can remove their profits through them and avoid paying tax (which will, if the Tories get in in 2015 be reduced for them anyway, both as individuals and companies with the cut in corporation tax and the increase in allowances...while under 21's and the working poor etc will pay for bombing Iraq....not those who can afford it.)  But I am sure Charles will be able to disabuse me of this irrational notion that we are not Better Together. .

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is now 2 weeks since the outcome was announced and nearly all of the Yes/No signs, banners and posters etc have been taken down.  There's one notable exception which I drive past every day.

 

There's a billboard which for weeks had a Yes advert on it, and it still does, but ever since the result it has been overwritten with red spray paint:

 

"TREACHEROUS NO VOTING SCUMBAGS

F*** YER UK"

 

Makes me smile every time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is now 2 weeks since the outcome was announced and nearly all of the Yes/No signs, banners and posters etc have been taken down.  There's one notable exception which I drive past every day.

 

There's a billboard which for weeks had a Yes advert on it, and it still does, but ever since the result it has been overwritten with red spray paint:

 

"TREACHEROUS NO VOTING SCUMBAGS

F*** YER UK"

 

Makes me smile every time!

You should consider starting your own post-referendum, anti-Indy Blog - maybe call it 'Yngwies Over Scotland'! :smile:

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you think about the poll tax, it was a tax imposed as a result of due democratic process and it does seem a quite extraordinary bit of ill-judged political pettiness to make it illegal for councils to chase people who have failed in their legal obligation to pay it.  Having said that, it should be recognised that huge sums of money are lost to the public purse by businesses and the rich finding various ways to avoid paying tax.  Some of the things that can be wrapped up as legitimate business expenses are quite absurd.  Government should close some of the legal loopholes for tax avoidance and they should chase anyone, rich or poor who does not pay their taxes.  Particular effort should go into pursuing those who owe most, but enough should be pursued at the bottom end to make people think that tax evasion (or benefit fraud) is simply not worth the risk.  There is nothing vindictive in this approach.  Every penny not paid by the tax dodgers or claimed fraudulently by benefit cheats is a penny extra that the law abiding have to pay or the lost revenue is a contribution to cuts in public services.    

 

We look to our political leaders to uphold the law, not to protect those who cheat the rest of us.  It really is quite extraordinary that he should propose to ban councils from collecting taxes which have been devolved to them to collect.  Imagine the furore if income tax was devolved to the Scottish Government and then the UK Government were to make it illegal for the Scottish Government to pursue those who chose not to pay their tax bills!  Whilst the reality is that Councils are unlikely to be pursuing poll tax debts to any extent, it is the principle that is the issue here.  Legislating to prevent Councils from collecting debts from tax cheats is simply outrageous.

 

Salmond's proposal is probably intended as a fingers up to the Conservative Government, but in reality it is an affront to all decent law abiding citizen's.  It is a clear example of Salmond pursuing a  political agenda rather than doing what is good for Scotland.  Hopefully sufficient of Salmond's own party will have enough sense of public duty to ensure this absurd proposal is not written into legislation.  As for the man himself, this is further evidence that not only is he no longer fit to be First Minister, he is not even fit to be an MSP.  It is time for him to quit and spend more time on the golf course with his good mate Donald Trump.

 

..and the bringing of collection to an end after quarter of a century is also as a result of a democratic process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Given Lawrence says Charles has stature, I'm assuming you Inverness people know him......but  posting wise on this thread, he comes over, with his almost irrational hatred of Salmond and the SNP, like Johann Lamont in drag.

I thought Johann Lamont already was in drag? :lol:

But what a wonderful piece of hypocrisy there from someone inextricably linked with a movement which, like nationalists everywhere, has critically depended on demonisation (of Tories, "Westminster", Whitehall, big business, NO voters, even The English when they think they can get away with it etc etc) as a fundamental political strategy.

My intense dislike of the SNP and Nationalism goes back a very long way and, apart from political considerations, is firmly founded on the nature of many of the individuals these kinds of pressure groups tend to attract and the manner in which they go about their business. So I haven't been repeatedly remarking on here for nothing about Salmond incessantly bellowing aggressively at Holyrood or anyone else he can get in range.

As a result, a lot of what we saw in the referendum campaign from the Cybernat phase through to much of the later behaviour on the streets and after the result became known didn't surprise me in the least. Then of course we had the icing on the cake with the four albeit harmless roasters who got sacked as Highland count officials for high fiving each other at Yes votes and booing at NO votes. :crazy:

 

On walking down Castle Street on the Saturday evening after the vote I did notice a large bag of NO THANKS posters hanging on the door handle of the Better Together office. I later learned that local Yessers had volunteered to take these down as they went through the area removing their own copious insignia. I managed to boil this decision down to one or more of three possible reasons:

* A gesture of genuine reconciliation.

* A reluctance to remove their Yes placards, leaving NO in possession of the battlefield OR

* A recognition that Yes campaigners were actually best placed to remove NO placards, given the considerable practice they already had during the campaign itself :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legislation to stop collecting the poll tax was enacted years ago.  This new proposal is to prevent Councils from pursuing debt from people who owe the councils money.  Granted that if it is passed, it will also be a result of the democratic process but that is simply not the point.  The point is a matter of principle.  What this proposal does is to say to those who refused to pay that not only do they not have to pay, but that it will be illegal for Councils to ask for the debt to be honoured.  I can see people who did pay it now saying that if legislation is passed to say people do not have to pay it, their payments should be refunded retrospectively with interest.  The reality here is that the amount of money raised by Councils in pursuing outstanding debts is unlikely to be much more than the cost of pursuing it.  They might put a few letters out but if folk continue to refuse to pay (as they will) then the Councils will not be able to afford to pursue debts through the courts.  This is a proposal which the Government has not even bothered to discuss with the Councils before making the announcement.  It is a proposal which protects those who broke the law at the expense of those who faced up to their legal and community responsibilities. It is simply a vindictive, unnecessary and inappropriate proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

* A recognition that Yes campaigners were actually best placed to remove NO placards, given the considerable practice they already had during the campaign itself :laugh:

 

 

:lol:

 

Indeed, I do a lot of driving round Perthsire and Tayside and the vast majority of No stuff got vandalised, grafittied or removed, and the same would happen each time it was replaced. I can honestly say that even in strong No territory, I never saw a single Yes thing in the area meet that fate, not a single one one, but I'm sure it did happen in places like Glasgow.

 

I was actually driving through Aviemore one day during the campaign and noticed that (unblemished) Yes and No signs were sharing the very same lamposts. I thought it was kind of sweet, but it also struck that in that scenario it was a complete waste of time and money to produce, put up and take down these opposing signs, and it would have been better if the parties/volunteers had agreed on a truce and instead put their resources to better use like helping the needy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A year later the No Vote had a 33% lead over the Yes - I was right Dead in The Water

I was also right the SNP - Now have no leader , No money and No future.

 

One so aged and wise will no doubt see the broader sweep of history and realize that the referendum was a crucial stage in the independence process, not an end in itself but the beginning of the end of the union.

 

My only hope is that you will still be around to see that day.

 

Maybe by then you will have composed a single coherent sentence on CTO.

 

Hope springs eternal. :smile:

Personnal attacks again Grow up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy