Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But to answer the question, my answer is NO to independence. And most Scot's feel the same. The SNP have yet to have more than about a 35% of the population as a "Yes" in past public opinion polls. The best thing Cameron did was to force the SNP's hand with an earlier referendum than the SNP had planned. They have a long way to go to convince >50% of the population. Basically, it wont happen and this is a political side show that's wasting a load of time and money that could be spent by everyone on stuff that is likely to happen in the real world.

Add in Paxman and his "armoured train" loaded with 8% of the BofE gold reserve heading north etc. (actually add in the regular cliff faces of self-regard clashing as 'ec crosses swords with Paxo)


What's been, er, annoying about these "entertainments" is the exploitation of the cultural cringe factor, the playing on the sense that of course the poor old Scots couldn't handle the responsibilities of independence. Paxman and his eyebrows would make me want to vote yes (if I had a vote) just to stick it up that patrician disregard.


But overall, appeals to nationalism...too ugly, too late. Appeals to democratic accountability...yes of course. It all depends what you define as the relevant unit of population/nationhood, which I think is eventually a gut/heart decision.


Another thing. Say Labour does lose its block of Scottish MPs from Westminster, even as part of some sort of Devo Max arrangement. It looks like you then get a permanent English Tory majority, but given that possibility maybe we would see some re-balancing of party politics within England? Pipedream for a Friday lunchtime, obviously.

I thought Gordon sold of all the gold reserve :)


Ted Max Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Add in Paxman and his "armoured train" loaded with

> 8% of the BofE gold reserve heading north etc.

> (actually add in the regular cliff faces of

> self-regard clashing as 'ec crosses swords with

> Paxo)

>

> What's been, er, annoying about these

> "entertainments" is the exploitation of the

> cultural cringe factor, the playing on the sense

> that of course the poor old Scots couldn't handle

> the responsibilities of independence. Paxman and

> his eyebrows would make me want to vote yes (if I

> had a vote) just to stick it up that patrician

> disregard.

>

> But overall, appeals to nationalism...too ugly,

> too late. Appeals to democratic

> accountability...yes of course. It all depends

> what you define as the relevant unit of

> population/nationhood, which I think is eventually

> a gut/heart decision.

>

> Another thing. Say Labour does lose its block of

> Scottish MPs from Westminster, even as part of

> some sort of Devo Max arrangement. It looks like

> you then get a permanent English Tory majority,

> but given that possibility maybe we would see some

> re-balancing of party politics within England?

> Pipedream for a Friday lunchtime, obviously.

yeah the attractions of SNP, nationalism and the rest of it sit uneasy with me, but so do the counter-arguments amounting to "Scotland wouldn't cope"


I'm sure same was said about Ireland in all the years before independance (and it's current economic woes hardly make it unique)

If the scots take the debts of the RBS (run almost exclusively by a Scottish banker mafia) and the Bank of Scotland debts of HBOS (and the Bank of Scotland was largely responsible for HBOS toxic corporate loan book that nearly sunk Lloyyds) then I'm all in favour; altenatively if the SNP and large numbers of other Scottish people could stop blaming London and 'The City' for all their woes and TAKE SOOME FOOKING RESPONSIBILITY they can stay.


Numbers, Mr Ben, Snorky and The BarryBarry boys can all stay on licence as I'm very fond of them all.

I don't understand this.


???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>if the SNP and

> large numbers of other Scottish people could stop

> blaming London and 'The City' for all their woes

> and TAKE SOOME FOOKING RESPONSIBILITY they can

> stay.

>

>

That bit where the chap seemed to think that scotch types get spat on as they come off the train at padington/kings cross was a bit jarring wasn't it.

He might actually want to find out about English attitudes to the Scots before voting yay or nay on a ludicrous supposition of large scale racism.


That aside, of Galloway he is occasionally right even when his reasons for being right are wrong, stopped clock and all that. It is awful these days though, except when Will Self (who's often wrong even when his reasons for being wrong are right) or Ian Hislop are on.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I thought that re ULEZ, but actually other places do have similar schemes, eg Bristol. I got caught by this a couple of years ago when Google maps sent me through Bristol en route to somewhere else. Though I did manage to get the fine waived. And other places are apparently going to have them, eg Oxford. As I found when I was considering selling the car in Oxford. Which I think is a very good thing, but not helpful if your car isn't compliant  Also in order to sell it I would presumably have to get it into working order, so I'd have to buy a new battery anyway. I use mostly buses and trains already, for travelling both within and outside London.  That's why I rarely use the car except for transporting bulky/heavy items, or going to places which aren't easy to reach via public transport, or giving people a lift who are not very mobile. The problem with hiring a car to go to a festival, for example,  is that I'd be paying for it to sit in a field for several days. And it would be impossible, or at least very difficult,  to transport a tent and camping equipment there by public transport. Not that I've been to any festivals lately. I think I'm talking myself into keeping the car. I did do sums when ULEZ came in. I've had a Freedom Pass for over fifteen years, gulp 😂
    • We used to have local councillors posting on this forum - are there any who are still members?
    • I've never owned a car in the 25 years I've lived in London.  I would regard it as  a hopeless waste of money  I walk, get public transport and taxis for the rare occasions when public transport won't cut it. Anything large that needs to be transporting to or away from my property - well pretty much all shops deliver and for anything  else  there is always someone who willing do it for a small fee. If I need a car to go somewhere outside of London (you would be surprised at how little this issue occurs) then hire cars exist.
    • Hi, we're in a similar position with our old people carrier and did a look back at our usage and then looked at the costs for car clubs, taxis and car hire costs if we got rid of it. In our case the away trips to family, especially during school holidays, makes it cheaper to keep ours and pay ULEZ (the away trips is the big cost for hiring). We rarely use it for local trips and plan usage to aim for multiple purpose trips. We also share with our neighbours such as moving large items with our people carrier and share the ulez cost. Generally for low use alone it will not make financial sense to buy a newer car. Also, if you have a petrol car check its NOx output amount for ULEZ compliance as TFL wrongly categorised many older cars. Did this for neighbours 2001 car and it's ULEZ compliant when TFL originally said it was not (now fixed) and having the same issue with a 1997 petrol car.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...