• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Scotland Debate

Oh! And benefits cuts won't affect me either. Nor you Socketrocket, given your preoccupation with them.

Cuts to local authorities mean more council tax for you (thought you might have gathered that) You may find your winter fuel allowance and bus pass has vanished when you are of a certain age, you may also be paying for a visit to the Doctor or ANE . They wont affect me but I have been raised to stand on my own two feet rather than think its someone else's responsibility to house and feed me.
 
Last edited:
Anyone watch the Panorama benefits programme on London.
That was interesting, one guy was getting £44k a year to help pay for his accommodation and the upkeep of his 7 children.
He was working and earning £150pw
The council concerned were shifting all the poor folk out of London and sending them to Birmingham.
 
Another round of cuts are coming, for an indy Scotland or United Kingdom, I can't see how that can be disputed.We've all been part of the system that has grown the debt, we're all gonna be hit one way or another with the cuts.

Where the cuts are made is the big question, and whether the cuts made by a conservative led Westminster govt reflect the desires of Scotland ( post yes or no) is the question.There is a debate as to whether the Conservatives will win re-election or whether Labour will replace them (I personally think Conservatives win a majority-no way is England voting Milliband in) makes no real difference, both parties are mirror images of each other.

So, replace the convoluted tax system with something significantly easier to cut tax avoidance,cut spending on replacing trident,or cut the benefit system to out of work/can't work folk?What section of society represented above can represent themselves sufficiently to stave of the cuts?Corporations and their lobbiests?Or the folk unable to work?

I know there is a significant part of English folk who would agree that tax avoidance/replacing trident is a terrible idea, but unless you want to move to Scotland (and you're very welcome to do so), you're stuck with Westminster and the choices they make.Up here in Scotland we have the opportunity to remove ourselves from trident and a taxation system that almost encourages tax avoidance.So voting YES will allow us to decide on our govt, and replace that govt if they don't do what we want.Currently that option isn't available.
 
Another round of cuts are coming, for an indy Scotland or United Kingdom, I can't see how that can be disputed.We've all been part of the system that has grown the debt, we're all gonna be hit one way or another with the cuts.

Where the cuts are made is the big question, and whether the cuts made by a conservative led Westminster govt reflect the desires of Scotland ( post yes or no) is the question.There is a debate as to whether the Conservatives will win re-election or whether Labour will replace them (I personally think Conservatives win a majority-no way is England voting Milliband in) makes no real difference, both parties are mirror images of each other.

So, replace the convoluted tax system with something significantly easier to cut tax avoidance,cut spending on replacing trident,or cut the benefit system to out of work/can't work folk?What section of society represented above can represent themselves sufficiently to stave of the cuts?Corporations and their lobbiests?Or the folk unable to work?

I know there is a significant part of English folk who would agree that tax avoidance/replacing trident is a terrible idea, but unless you want to move to Scotland (and you're very welcome to do so), you're stuck with Westminster and the choices they make.Up here in Scotland we have the opportunity to remove ourselves from trident and a taxation system that almost encourages tax avoidance.So voting YES will allow us to decide on our govt, and replace that govt if they don't do what we want.Currently that option isn't available.

is that financially or physically if salmond has his way leaving us without a deterrent
 
is that financially or physically if salmond has his way leaving us without a deterrent

One follows the other,does it not?Without financing it, it physically doesn't exist, or if you don't physically have it, you don't need to finance it.I'm not sure I follow your thought process?

And why mention Salmond?, the removal of WMD's from Scotland is significantly bigger than one man.
 
We won't leave ourselves without a nuclear deterrent - think that's going to be a guarentee
 
We won't leave ourselves without a nuclear deterrent - think that's going to be a guarentee

You could be correct,and we might be going round in circles here, but what if Scotland does vote YES and demands that, given rUK isn't prepared to enter into a currency union, All nuclear submarines,missiles and warheads are removed from Scotland prior to our independence day, what does rUK do?

The actual subs can go to various places, the missiles could maybe be sent back to their owners in America, the warheads sent to Aldermaston, but where to put them altogether?There is no alternative.The suggestion that rUK will say 'tough, we're staying at Faslane' isn't realistic, you can't use American or French bases for various legalities, it will take too long to build an replacement so if rUK play hard ball with iScotland, you may well have to be without a nuclear deterrent.
 
You could be correct,and we might be going round in circles here, but what if Scotland does vote YES and demands that, given rUK isn't prepared to enter into a currency union, All nuclear submarines,missiles and warheads are removed from Scotland prior to our independence day, what does rUK do?

The actual subs can go to various places, the missiles could maybe be sent back to their owners in America, the warheads sent to Aldermaston, but where to put them altogether?There is no alternative.The suggestion that rUK will say 'tough, we're staying at Faslane' isn't realistic, you can't use American or French bases for various legalities, it will take too long to build an replacement so if rUK play hard ball with iScotland, you may well have to be without a nuclear deterrent.

You are going round in circles

Trident will stay - regardless of any currency union blah blah blah
 
No, it won't.But keep convincing yourself and hope No wins, you'll be in a for a big surprise if it doesn't.

Sorry but what exactly are you ( Scotland ) going to do - ship them out yourselves somewhere ?

Scotland will be "forced" to keep them exactly where they are - the US as part of NATO will want them exactly where they are - and do you really think that "IF" you vote yes that you are going to reject what the US and NATO say ? Sorry but not going to happen - it's not William Wallace times
 
Sorry but what exactly are you ( Scotland ) going to do - ship them out yourselves somewhere ?

Scotland will be "forced" to keep them exactly where they are - the US as part of NATO will want them exactly where they are - and do you really think that "IF" you vote yes that you are going to reject what the US and NATO say ? Sorry but not going to happen - it's not William Wallace times

This is incredible.A democratic country that has publicly and constantly been against WMD's being sited on their land, who have backed the removal of these weapons will be told that no, you will keep them there against the will of the nation because America said so?I know you honestly think this will happen, I know there is no convincing you otherwise, which makes me question your ability to rationalise democracy,decency and the right of nations.What you are suggesting is the single most undemocratic,north korea-esque type action I can think of.Only the unhinged could think this is a realistic course of action.You're mental if you think this is an option.
 
Lets look at it another way.America/NATO need a North Atlantic base, Iceland is the obvious place but Icelanders categorically refuse to have WMD's in their country.America tells Iceland, sorry, I know you don't want nukes but we're just gonna come along and put them there anyway...don't like it?Tough.

Aye.Right.
 
Sorry but what exactly are you ( Scotland ) going to do - ship them out yourselves somewhere ?

Scotland will be "forced" to keep them exactly where they are - the US as part of NATO will want them exactly where they are - and do you really think that "IF" you vote yes that you are going to reject what the US and NATO say ? Sorry but not going to happen - it's not William Wallace times

Where is 'the bangs head against door' smiley
 
This is incredible.A democratic country that has publicly and constantly been against WMD's being sited on their land, who have backed the removal of these weapons will be told that no, you will keep them there against the will of the nation because America said so?I know you honestly think this will happen, I know there is no convincing you otherwise, which makes me question your ability to rationalise democracy,decency and the right of nations.What you are suggesting is the single most undemocratic,north korea-esque type action I can think of.Only the unhinged could think this is a realistic course of action.You're mental if you think this is an option.

A deal will be made between Scotland , UK and US to keep Trident exactly where it is - what that deal will be who knows but a deal will be made. It will be a very "lucrative deal financially" for Scotland and they will stay there. Your newly elected government ( if there is a yes ) will do what is needed to get security financially.
 
Top