Nicola Sturgeon

Coatigan said:
Why on earth would i want to talk about the border? what in my posts gave the impreasion i am getting drawn into making a case or getting into semantics?

Appreciate your clarifying your stance, on the union etc, and responding to the point i was making / drawing your attention to. I'm happy. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You called my points ‘extreme’. If you are happy to make flippant comments such as that and then when I explain why and how it isn’t extreme and is very much the truth, then look to duck the point itself, I think we are done here.
 
Ban-jani said:
You called my points ‘extreme’. If you are happy to make flippant comments such as that and then when I explain why and how it isn’t extreme and is very much the truth, then look to duck the point itself, I think we are done here.
Click to expand...

It is extreme, that you start from a stance that it is all England's to begin with, scotland owes it all to England. The currency, the nhs, the deficit etc etc. It is not. It is joint, because it is a union. There will be a split, and divvying up. If you honestly think you know exactly how that will play out, that is an extremity too. Im not claiming i do.

I was being genuine btw, and not sarcastic when i noted i appreciate you responding to the point i made, for clarity potentially lost in text.
 
Coatigan said:
It is extreme, that you start from a stance that it is all England's to begin with, scotland owes it all to England. The currency, the nhs, the deficit etc etc. It is not. It is joint, because it is a union. There will be a split, and divvying up. If you honestly think you know exactly how that will play out, that is an extremity too. Im not claiming i do.

I was being genuine btw, and not sarcastic when i noted i appreciate you responding to the point i made, for clarity potentially lost in text.
Click to expand...

But that wasn’t my point at all or what I was getting at at all. My point is that I don’t think Scotland can afford it when the economic realities hit, following independence.
 
Coatigan said:
It is nothing like 2016, and neither was 2014. there is and was plenty of detail, over 1000 pages, as well as a timeframe. You disagree with it, think it should be dealt with otherwise. That is yours to do. But your assertions are, imho, just as inaccurate and extreme as the ones you claim are. Neither you or i know for sure of course.

My point stands, the constant 'you, yours, our ours, we're not paying for you, you are taking the piss' is not unionist. It is 'know your place'-ist. And it is tedious.

You had the heating on longer, i had the washing machine on but that uses less, i only had a starter, you had a pudding. Scotland contributes more as well per head, and is a part of the success, both cultural and economic, that has built the union to what it is. So please think on this 'we are sponsoring you' attitude.
Click to expand...

That depends on how you split up the share of the North Sea oil. If you split it up according to population (which it should be, because the oil has been found in UK waters) then Scotland contributes less per head than the rest of the UK which makes the fact it receives the biggest share of UK funding especially perverse. But even if the SNP are naive enough to believe that the UK would let them walk away with 90% of revenue from North Sea oil, the oil is running out anyway and when it does, that'll be another dagger through the heart of the SNP because they won't be able to make these disingenuous arguments anymore.

The reality is, as someone from the North of England whose local council's had its funding cut by about 45% over the past 9 years, Scotland have never had it so good compared to all other regions and quite frankly are taking the piss out of the rest of the UK with the debts that they're racking up. Under the same logic, I should be happy to see Scotland leave but when you're of the opinion that we're the same country and Scotland is no different to Newcastle or Kent or Cardiff and that UK culture pretty much began in Orkney then I'd still hate for the SNP to get their way.
 
Fame Monster said:
That depends on how you split up the share of the North Sea oil. If you split it up according to population (which it should be, because the oil has been found in UK waters) then Scotland contributes less per head than the rest of the UK which makes the fact it receives the biggest share of UK funding especially perverse. But even if the SNP are naive enough to believe that the UK would let them walk away with 90% of revenue from North Sea oil, the oil is running out anyway and when it does, that'll be another dagger through the heart of the SNP because they won't be able to make these disingenuous arguments anymore.

The reality is, as someone from the North of England whose local council's had its funding cut by about 45% over the past 9 years, Scotland have never had it so good compared to all other regions and quite frankly are taking the piss out of the rest of the UK with the debts that they're racking up. Under the same logic, I should be happy to see Scotland leave but when you're of the opinion that we're the same country and Scotland is no different to Newcastle or Kent or Cardiff and that UK culture pretty much began in Orkney then I'd still hate for the SNP to get their way.
Click to expand...

At least that is a unionist stance, i'll give you that.

All councils have had cuts as far as i know, voting in a government that doesnt impose cuts and austerity would be a start.

Edit. btw it is legally treated as Scotland's oil, which is why it contributes more to the revenue, and why the Barnett formula gives back more 'per head'. Which is still a fraction back of what is contributed. If it helps you feel any better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.