Scottish independence

[peter.evans]

This is spot on. Salmond is more negative than anyone .He is somehow in with a chance of winning this despite his little Scotlander anti English campaign. That sums that lot up ! Anti English is what they are about, nothing more. Otherwise how the hell would these republicans in their right mind vote to drop out of the union ? On the major issues of currency, defence, Europe and the money Britain spent bailing the likes of RBS and others out , which was billions, logic would dictate Salmond simplycannot win so why else would he !?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

This is spot on. Salmond is more negative than anyone .He is somehow in with a chance of winning this despite his little Scotlander anti English campaign. That sums that lot up ! Anti English is what they are about, nothing more. Otherwise how the hell would these republicans in their right mind vote to drop out of the union ? On the major issues of currency, defence, Europe and the money Britain spent bailing the likes of RBS and others out , which was billions, logic would dictate Salmond simplycannot win so why else would he !?

But if the don't get a currency union they won't have to pay it 'cos the debts belong to / are underwritten by the Bank of England...............One think Salmond isn't is daft..thats for sure

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

On a positive note, if they do go independent, we might be able to repatriate Alan Brazil as an undesirable.

He will be an illegal non EU foreigner - do one!

 

[Gelsons Dad]

This is spot on. Salmond is more negative than anyone .He is somehow in with a chance of winning this despite his little Scotlander anti English campaign. That sums that lot up ! Anti English is what they are about, nothing more. Otherwise how the hell would these republicans in their right mind vote to drop out of the union ? On the major issues of currency, defence, Europe and the money Britain spent bailing the likes of RBS and others out , which was billions, logic would dictate Salmond simplycannot win so why else would he !?

But if the don't get a currency union they won't have to pay it 'cos the debts belong to / are underwritten by the Bank of England...............One think Salmond isn't is daft..thats for sure

That's not correct. They will have to take responsibility for their share of the debt with or without currency union. You can't simply walk away from your debt by renaming yourself. They will be in debt to the BoE and will default. They will then be a bankrupt state unable to borrow without huge costs.

 

[Gabriel]

People have grossly underestimated Salmond and confused anti-Westminster with anti-English. With the exception of the Herald and Sunday Herald, the 'Yes' campaign have been fighting against enormous media bias, a bias that has frankly been embarrassing to listen to and read. At the same time, the 'Yes' campaign has overturned an extraordinary lead for 'No' to leave the referendum on a knife edge, and the momentum firmly behind its sails.

As for the idea that this is some Conservative conspiracy to secure an infinite majority in Parliament, I consider that fanciful. One can only imagine the atmosphere at Balmoral on Sunday when Cameron met the Queen and explained that she might want to consider getting quotes from removal companies!

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

This is spot on. Salmond is more negative than anyone .He is somehow in with a chance of winning this despite his little Scotlander anti English campaign. That sums that lot up ! Anti English is what they are about, nothing more. Otherwise how the hell would these republicans in their right mind vote to drop out of the union ? On the major issues of currency, defence, Europe and the money Britain spent bailing the likes of RBS and others out , which was billions, logic would dictate Salmond simplycannot win so why else would he !?

But if the don't get a currency union they won't have to pay it 'cos the debts belong to / are underwritten by the Bank of England...............One think Salmond isn't is daft..thats for sure

That's not correct. They will have to take responsibility for their share of the debt with or without currency union. You can't simply walk away from your debt by renaming yourself. They will be in debt to the BoE and will default. They will then be a bankrupt state unable to borrow without huge costs.

Thats what they're threatening anyway............and how can one of the top twenty booming countries go bankrupt? You know the system...someone will buy off them / lend them money...in fact wouldn't the euro be improved if the scotties jumped in?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

But if the don't get a currency union they won't have to pay it 'cos the debts belong to / are underwritten by the Bank of England...............One think Salmond isn't is daft..thats for sure

That's not correct. They will have to take responsibility for their share of the debt with or without currency union. You can't simply walk away from your debt by renaming yourself. They will be in debt to the BoE and will default. They will then be a bankrupt state unable to borrow without huge costs.

Thats what they're threatening anyway............and how can one of the top twenty booming countries go bankrupt? You know the system...someone will buy off them / lend them money...in fact wouldn't the euro be improved if the scotties jumped in?

They won't be a top 20 country. rUK will drop to 5th The Jocks will come in around 60 and go down from their. They will be the Montenegro of the North!

 

[Skashion]

Blair is the only Labour PM elected by a majority in England in 64 years so it's no surprise you cherry pick his 3 election wins.

It's interesting that you go straight to criticising my argument when there are tories on this thread making completely false and more over very absolutist claims that there will never be a Labour government again, I point out that in the three most recent elections where a majority was won, Labour won a majority of English seats every single time, and rather than concede the point and admit that is a bad argument to make, you attack my factually correct argument even when contradicting an absolutist nonsense. Why? Do you just like to argue with my posts even when the argument is wrong? I know what you're angling at, I don't like Blair or New Labour. No, I don't, but then nor do most of the tories on this thread making this argument, and yet that kind of Labour party can still win power, and indeed, won the majority of English seats in the last three elections to produce a majority. If UKIP do get what they're currently polling, it is almost certain that a Labour a tiny smidgeon to the left of Blair's New Labour will take power again. For the record, I don't think UKIP will get what they are polling but considering their current strength, underestimating the prospect of future Labour governments could very soon leave a lot of egg on a lot of faces.

Anyway, onto the details of your post. No Prime Minister is elected, and you're not correct about your second assertion either. Labour won a landslide in 1966 which they won 285 English seats to the Conservative's 216 English seats and 10 others for an English majority of 59 seats. You're also not taking into account the fact that the Labour vote had been split since the 1980s, and, as mentioned above, the tories may well be about to find out what that can do to your prospects of winning seats.

 

[Chris in London]

Christmas is coming

 

[Blue Maverick]

Let them vote YES pull out all our troops and nuclear subs then invade them and use Scotland as a dumping ground for all the not rights and illegal immigrants we don't want.