An Independent Scotland?

gman said:
“My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks.”
Alex Salmond


The truth cometh lol
Click to expand...

There may, or may not be some truth in this, 12 months ago there was a group of clearly underage drinkers sitting on the monument in the centre of Dumfermlin. They thought they were being discrete trying to hide their cans of Carlsberg Special Brew and Buckfast but due to their intoxication they were not very subtle. They were being coached and convinced that they should vote 'yes' for Scotland by a party member. "Fortunately for them they will be old enough to vote by then"

What a shocking state of affairs, I really regret not having my camera with me that day.
 
gman said:
“My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks.”
Alex Salmond


The truth cometh lol
Click to expand...

The above taken from an interview with Alistair Campbell on promoting Whisky sales abroad, just for clarity's sake.

Scotland has a huge problem with alcoholism, we're fighting it, the SNP are doing more than most to fight it, what's amusing about that?
 
Steep said:
The above taken from an interview with Alistair Campbell on promoting Whisky sales abroad, just for clarity's sake.

Scotland has a huge problem with alcoholism, we're fighting it, the SNP are doing more than most to fight it, what's amusing about that?
Click to expand...

Spin, wiggle, spin... that's all I see. We are back at the old "do no wrong". Imagine Cameron said that? I can certainly imagine. The context is irrelevant. The insult is clear and also slanderous to the majority including me, my family and friends.

So what is Salmond suggesting now? Westminster is holding Scotland back because a nation of drunks could do a much better job?

Last night I started watching an SNP conference he held in Aberdeen recently because I do like to keep an open mind. I don't think I even got halfway. It's was just grandiloquence to a patronising level - lots of rhetoric (I'm starting to loathe this word) with very little to back up his promises of "we will do this" and "we will do that" but nothing to back it up.

I would like to hear things like "we will create an extra 9,000 jobs in Scotland because we have promised contracts from major international companies including X, Y and Z who will build new manufacturing plants here and there" etc.

But that's not what you hear. Instead you get: "we will create thousands of jobs in Scotland"..... roar, applause, clapping, bagpipes.

It was almost as annoying as the ridiculous "belly yeahs" of Westminster during PM questions - but at least they are constantly having to come up with statistics and facts on the spot (obviously pre-prepared), which can be challenged by the opposition as to their authenticity.

I recently heard and I am now actually experiencing myself that English companies are demanding future contracts to be paid for in Sterling. Clearly they have no faith in the future currency of Scotland and its value. But if this demand become commonplace before the vote for Independence and Scotland is forced to have its own currency and it's valued less than the current UK Sterling - then you are going to have a very, very big problem on your hands because all these Scottish companies will have to make up the difference due to contractual obligations. I can see something like that bankrupting the country, if it's not already in such a financial position.
 
I do hope the yes camp realise they would lose their automatic qualification for Eurovision
 
Damn, hadn't thought of that.


And I had my stirring speech already too :(
 
There's no good reason for yes, and no good reason for no. All we have is a collection of parasitic, self interested, self serving "representatives" on both sides of the argument giving their unsupportable opinions and making promises that they'll break as soon as the vote is taken.

I suspect that for most people the decision will be made, 5 seconds before they vote, on the basis of an emotional, patriotic viewpoint, be that for or against.
 
Last time?
 
Here's Max Kaisers take on some of the reasons why we Scots want to get away from Westminster control.

It's NSFW, some of the language is a bit ripe - Max Kaiser is an American financial broadcaster? with a program on Russia Today.


If the content of this doesn't make you angry at Westminster there's no hope for you.
 
A 25-minute video? That's a big ask. What's the short version?
 
Vince Cable is a clown who got screwed by bankers and lied to us all about it when he sold the Royal Mail for far less than it was worth, basically.
 
Gordon Brown selling off the UK gold reserve at knock-down price was another gaff..
 
Steep said:
Vince Cable is a clown who got screwed by bankers and lied to us all about it when he sold the Royal Mail for far less than it was worth, basically.
Click to expand...
GeeJay57 said:
Gordon Brown selling off the UK gold reserve at knock-down price was another gaff..
Click to expand...
Fair points. And nothing like that would ever happen in an independent Scotland because.....?
 
StewartR said:
Fair points. And nothing like that would ever happen in an independent Scotland because.....?
Click to expand...

I think that things like that could easily happen in an independent Scotland. I'm not in favour of breaking up the UK, but as a resident of England, don't have a say..

Gordon Brown scrapping the banking regulations was also a pretty major cock up IMHO..
 
In an independent Scotland we'd have a chance to start fresh, to get away from the mafia that calls itself 'the old school tie' that infests Westminster. Westminster is too far gone to be fixed, the corruption and self interest have burrowed too deep for too long for anyone to ever be able to dig it out. Supposedly responsible ministers listen to their buddies and sharks who rake off the profits and leave us with all the debt.
If you listened to the video or read the Independent you'll know that the company (Lazard Asset Management) that advised Vince Cable to sell RM at 330p a share sold their allocation less than a week later making an £8+ million profit, on top of the 1.5 million they got paid for their advice. The British public were stiffed out of billions and that same company has been invited to handle all the up coming privatisations to boot.

I can't say for sure that an independent Scotland will not fall into the same trap but at least away from Westminster cronyism we stand a chance and that's worth voting for (at least for me)
 
Steep said:
I can't say for sure that an independent Scotland will not fall into the same trap but at least away from Westminster cronyism we stand a chance and that's worth voting for (at least for me)
Click to expand...

"Yawn" Just like a broken record!
 
If it's that boring to you, stop reading the thread.
 
If/when the Picts gain independence, can we deport all the bloody bagpipe players who provide noise pollution? PLEASE!!!
 
Steep said:
In an independent Scotland we'd have a chance to start fresh, to get away from the mafia that calls itself 'the old school tie' that infests Westminster. Westminster is too far gone to be fixed, the corruption and self interest have burrowed too deep for too long for anyone to ever be able to dig it out. Supposedly responsible ministers listen to their buddies and sharks who rake off the profits and leave us with all the debt. If you listened to the video or read the Independent you'll know that the company (Lazard Asset Management) that advised Vince Cable to sell RM at 330p a share sold their allocation less than a week later making an £8+ million profit, on top of the 1.5 million they got paid for their advice. The British public were stiffed out of billions and that same company has been invited to handle all the up coming privatisations to boot.

I can't say for sure that an independent Scotland will not fall into the same trap but at least away from Westminster cronyism we stand a chance and that's worth voting for (at least for me)
Click to expand...

Yes, you can replace them with the West of Scotland Labour mafia. Or maybe the Edinburgh private school mafia that runs finance in Edinburgh. If you really think that cronyism and graft doesn't exist in Scottish politics then you have been living under a rock for all your life. If you really believe that it wont become a greater part of Scottish politics after independence then you are naïve .

As for the IPO, all I can say is that you have spoken like someone who knows zip about finance or IPO's. Why should they not be paid for their advice? Do you work for free? IPO's are complex with all the laws surrounding them. Folks who know how to deal with them and ensure all the laws are complied with are in short supply and can therefore command high salaries.

Stiffed out of billions you say? This is just hindsight driven nonsense, designed to feed your sense of grievance. You calculate the value of the company based on accounting principles and add something more based on the prospects for the company. That's is what Lazard did. After the flotation, the price of a share will be based on what the investors think of the company and its prospects. Lazards couldn't know any more than you just how all the investors would value the company. (There is also such a thing as investor sentiment, often irrational, which helps to drive the price, either up or down. That can't be predicted and has nothing to do with accounting value of the company so can't be lost to the public.)

If you object to how much Lazard were paid, why don't you offer next time. You could offer services for free. I'm sure your hindsight driven expertise will ensure the public are not stiffed.... Or then again, maybe not.

Regards...

(You could have bought shares and made a profit as well by the way!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
GeeJay57 said:
Gordon Brown selling off the UK gold reserve at knock-down price was another gaff..
Click to expand...
He didn't sell it cheap, he sold it for its value at the time.

Steve
 
jakeblu said:
He didn't sell it cheap, he sold it for its value at the time.

Steve
Click to expand...
By announcing the sale well beforehand, the gold price dropped in anticipation.... Not handled as well as it should have been, but no news there..
 
Finste said:
Yes, you can replace them with the West of Scotland Labour mafia. Or maybe the Edinburgh private school mafia that runs finance in Edinburgh. If you really think that cronyism and graft doesn't exist in Scottish politics then you have been living under a rock for all your life. If you really believe that it wont become a greater part of Scottish politics after independence then you are naïve .
Click to expand...

Read my last line again.

Finste said:
As for the IPO, all I can say is that you have spoken like someone who knows zip about finance or IPO's. Why should they not be paid for their advice? Do you work for free? IPO's are complex with all the laws surrounding them. Folks who know how to deal with them and ensure all the laws are complied with are in short supply and can therefore command high salaries.
Click to expand...

No problem with them being paid the agreed amount, but they should not have been allocated shares as well, that's a clear conflict of interest and they made the most of it.

Finste said:
Stiffed out of billions you say? This is just hindsight driven nonsense, designed to feed your sense of grievance. You calculate the value of the company based on accounting principles and add something more based on the prospects for the company. That's is what Lazard did. After the flotation, the price of a share will be based on what the investors think of the company and its prospects. Lazards couldn't know any more than you just how all the investors would value the company. (There is also such a thing as investor sentiment, often irrational, which helps to drive the price, either up or down. That can't be predicted and has nothing to do with accounting value of the company so can't be lost to the public.)

If you object to how much Lazard were paid, why don't you offer next time. You could offer services for free. I'm sure your hindsight driven expertise will ensure the public are not stiffed.... Or then again, maybe not.

Regards...
Click to expand...

Not just my words, the words of other people who know a lot more than I do.

Finste said:
(You could have bought shares and made a profit as well by the way!)
Click to expand...

RM should never have been sold, I certainly wouldn't be willing to profit from it.
 
I have no problem with then being paid for their work my problem is this?


The damning report on the flotation revealed that 16 priority institutional investors were allocated £728million worth of Royal Mail shares (one of whom was Lazard Asset Management), while another 94 institutions were given £570million worth.

The 16 priority institutional investors paid between £2.50 and £3.30 per share.


Whereas the ordinary investor was limited to £750 of shares so yes we could have bought some shares and if sold at the right time would have made a whopping £650 profit before fees.


This pales into insignificance to the reported £8.2 million that Lazard’s made over and above their reported £1.5 million fee.


A National Audit Office report, published on April 1, concluded that the privatisation of Royal Mail short-changed the taxpayer by £1billion.


This is not hindsight the government choose to ignore advice that the share value should have been £4.50 - £5.


There were more than 700,000 applications for shares from retail investors. They have offered more than seven times the value of the shares allocated to them, which is around 30% of all the shares on offer.


To put this another way, individuals have put up a massive £4bn (more than the total value of the company 3.3bn) or so for shares allocated to them which are being priced at around £517m.


But yes the government were worried that the flotation would be undersubscribed.
 
dod said:
On both points, why not?
Click to expand...

I have never believed that essential services are better run by the private sector because well they are essential! and private sector owners have only one thing in mind, to make more profit. Private sector owners will attempt to increase profits at the expense of the service, especially in an area where there is little competition but they can't raise prices beyond an agreed point.

I don't wish to profit from something that I know is wrong and that will cause hardship for others.
 
Steep said:
In an independent Scotland we'd have a chance to start fresh
Click to expand...
And if the same happens in Scotland, can Scotland separate into regions and new countries? Following your logic then that's the correct course of action
 
It would be up to us to make sure there's no need for that and I know we'll make a darned sight better job of it than Westminster has.


We're working to fix problems that exist, you and others can only throw up what ifs and can'ts, never an actual solution or a genuine reason for us to stay.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not, but if you think it is then get on and start fixing.
 
It doesn't but then as I've already said I(we) don't think Westminster is fixable, hence we go it alone and do it our way.
 
No, read what I write and don't convert it into something I didn't.
 
Fair enough. I am never going to understand what your view point is. So will leave this for others to debate and wait and see the result in September.
 
The Highlands, because we're um.. higher.
 
Steep said:
In an independent Scotland we'd have a chance to start fresh, to get away from the mafia that calls itself 'the old school tie' that infests Westminster. Westminster is too far gone to be fixed, the corruption and self interest have burrowed too deep for too long for anyone to ever be able to dig it out.
...
I can't say for sure that an independent Scotland will not fall into the same trap but at least away from Westminster cronyism we stand a chance and that's worth voting for (at least for me)
Click to expand...
I can see where you're coming from here, and I sympathise, but unfortunately I can't help thinking you're being rather naive. I hope you have better reasons for supporting independence.

Yes, the Scottish Parliament has been relatively good at avoiding the sort of cronyism that we see at Westminster. (Or at least, it has been since you dumped Jack McConnell.) But the recent news of Alex Salmond toadying up to Rupert Murdoch is surely an indicator. At present, to be brutal, the Scottish Parliament doesn't matter very much. But posit an independent, wealthy Scotland with its oil, and suddenly the Scottish Parliament matters an awful lot; and that will create far more opportunities and incentives for businesses and politicians to "work together", "for the good of Scotland". Salmond won't be able to resist that. Who would?
 
Steep said:
If it's that boring to you, stop reading the thread.
Click to expand...

Why should I stop reading the thread?, I am just as interested in what happens to our country as you are!

the part I don't understand Hugh is that you feel the need to defend "NOTHING". it has not happened yet, your constant attacks of England and your blind defence or disregard of historic events will not make Scotland a better place. (People working together will do that)

Instead of winging about what you want Scotland to become why not try to put some of your energies into helping make the whole country a better place instead of this constant "ME ME ME" selfish drivel you like to spout!
(you cannot change the past and you cannot predict the future)

I love Scotland, I love the people, I love the freedom you get and feel whilst in Scotland but I cant help thinking that if everyone in Scotland was of the same mind as you Hugh then Scotland would be a dire place to be!
 
Ah so you're not quite as bored as you made out eh?

Defend Andrew? the only thing I've been defending is my right to self determination against increasingly bitter and misdirected 'attacks', misquotes and misconceptions. I have NEVER attacked England, I have not been blind to or been caught up in the past. My argument has always been for the better future of Scotland and my belief that Westminster cannot be fixed or at least will not be fixed until something cataclysmic happens because the majority of folk down South either cannot see or cannot be bothered to see it.

Whingeing? I suggest you go back and read what you typed in that post and tell me again which one of us is whingeing, I do not whinge. If you cannot beat the argument, attack the person is that it?

" I love the freedom you get and feel whilst in Scotland " it's an illusion Andrew, but one the Scottish government is working to beat. Wide open spaces? all owned by a tiny fraction of the population the many of whom are absentees. The land reform bill giving Scottish communities the right to buy the estates they live on is one huge step, one that Westminster would never have taken in a million years.

I give you the same challenge I made to HuntingMartians, come up with some positive argument for Scotland to stay, don't attack me for my belief, convince me I'm wrong Andrew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top