morag
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by morag
-
-
Cheers fringo! Yes, her "lung capacity" was quite astounding
-
Does anyone know where I can find the video on Youtube? Found it before (I can remember that it wasn't easy) - but forget how I found it.
She was a really good singer.
Thanks for any help! -
It's genuine. Not a false flag.
But "run" by a nutter with a very short attention span. Will be old news in a couple of weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE -
Wasn't the American independence movement all about "No taxation without representation"?
What the UK have got here is "Representation without taxation".
It's a very simple idea. You pay tax, you vote. And it's the perfect argument to use against those who don't like the idea of 16/17 year-olds voting.
No vote = no taxation. Start voting at 18? Then kids only start paying tax then too.
Otherwise people who don't have to live with the political consequences, are allowed to support policy decisions for the people who do.
A bit like people in the south-east of England having the power to impose the Poll Tax on just the Scots
-
Assuming that it's through the official Guide Dog Association, then, yes, it's definitely legit.
Re the payment bit. The Guide Dog people deal with all of the vets bills too (the dogs get the best of treatment - so it's not cheap). The payment is on top of all that - and covers any other expenses that you might incur - eg transport for the dog (you are encouraged to take the dog on public transport), doggy toys etc.
They are pretty thorough with reference checking (the dogs are worth a few bob). In my sister's case it took the best part of a year (I think that it had more to do with the GD people being understaffed). But once she got the OK, it all went extremely quickly (after waiting for so long, she was a bit surprised to have a dog so soon after).
Don't underestimate how hard it will be to let go of your dog after a year though. You'll have watched it grow from being a baby, and will probably have become VERY attached to the pup.
It's an amazingly fulfilling thing to do though.
-
My sister does this (now on puppy number 2).
Puppy arrived as a ball of fluff (6 or 8 weeks) and she will have him until he's about 1 year old (when "proper" training starts). All food is supplied by the Guide Dog people, and she gets a payment on top. The puppy has to attend training classes about once a fortnight (puppy walker has to attend too). Other than that, it is just socialising like you say. She already has 4(!) cats, which I thought might be a problem. In fact, it's actually a benefit (they want the puppy to become accustomed to other animals too).
She has previously had dogs, and this counted in her favour. So if you have a dog now, or have had dogs in the past, then you are the ideal walker.
It's a really worthwhile thing to do. Puppies need homes for a year, before they go on to training and become the eyes of a blind person.
It'll be hard when he goes - but my sister knows this - and knows that he is going on to do something very worthwhile.
Any questions, just ask (or message me).
-
How democratic, though? Currently Labour get far more than 50% of Scottish Westminster seats on less than 50% of the vote; the SNP didn't receive a majority of votes in the last Holyrood election, but still got a majority of seats. Representative politics in all but the purest proportional systems tends to turn pluralities into majorities, in order to make government more effective - but a referendum is different. That's why they're used, for clarity of position on an important constitutional point.
A very good point. A majority of seats is not enough. It must be a majority of votes cast.
And why this is a very good idea - even if it doesn't win (this might not appeal to you thorbotnic):
In effect, every election (Holyrood or Westminster) becomes a referendum of sorts. Initially (and probably for some years perhaps) it would be a losing position.
However, even in defeat it has one MAJOR benefit. It keeps Westminster honest (or as honest as is possible for them). If they even think about shafting the Scots again - we always hold the threat of voting for Independence. Better Together right
We all know (and some of us will never forget) what Westminster did to Scotland after the previous failed referendum!
-
For quite a while I have had more respect for the Tories than I have Labour, simply because they are honest about being c*nts. Labour hide their c*ntishness behind this façade of being 'the people's party'. They are anything but. For instance, the welfare reforms implemented by the Tories (the benefit cap, the bedroom tax etc.) had already been drawn up before Labour lost the 2010 GE; ESA was already operational.
The only thing Labour are 'about' these days is winning power, and they don't care how they do it. For this reason I would advise any Yes-minded people on here - and there are one or two - to join a pro-independence party and campaign like f*ck ahead of the 2015 GE to expose the Red Tories for the charlatans that they are.
-
Totally disagree.
It MUST be clearly stated on Page 1 of the SNP manifesto that a vote for them to govern, is a vote for them to govern in an independent Scotland (and I have complete faith that it will be).
Shit or bust perhaps.
But it has never been the SNP's intention to permanently govern in a UK region.
A fair fight was tried. Want an SNP government? Then it comes with Independence.
Don't want Independence? Then vote for your choice of despicable liars instead.
-
They did indeed.
But it was the people of Scotland who came out and voted en masse for more of the same.
-
A message for the young of Scotland.
You'll hear lots of talk in the coming weeks. "It was a biased media's fault", "Westminster is corrupt - and will go to any length to preserve their privilege".
These words may be true.
However, even if these people were all onside, there is one last obstacle to a better future for you.
The people of Scotland (specifically, the older generation).
The last few decades have been rather kind to them. And any change comes with the threat of losing what they have.
Normally, these people don't participate electorally (as evidenced by the usual turnout figures). However, as soon as they perceive a threat to THEIR future, they vote to deny you a better life.
That's democracy.
And I fear that until they shuffle off this mortal coil, or their personal circumstances become so bad that they vote for change, it will continue to be so.
You have 2 options:
Stay in Scotland and continue the good fight; or look elsewhere for a better life.Scotland = Scotland's people.
They have abandoned you (for their own selfish reasons).
-
Ye ken, I was greeting when I read that, exactly how I feel and I was doing the same !
Like Kumnio said, everyone who voted no has just let themselves and their country be raped!!!!
I'm gutted but, I'm glad to say I'm very proud of those who did vote YES and like myself done their own wee bit of campaigning for the cause!
I'm also glad to say I'm angry and we all need to find ways of fuelling that anger into something positive for future change!
Dinnae gie up, as an auld wummin in Wardieburn said to me yesterday, "we might lose the battle, the war's still to be won!!!!"
-
I'd like to see an SNP/Green alliance take on Labour for Westminster next year. Should they go under the Yes Scotland banner? Would save on printing costs...
-
No fukking rules. If were shafted next year then its game on. Stuff he nicities, fed up being shat on by Westminster.
Aye, forget all of this "once in a lifetime", "once in a generation" crap.
18 months. Give them a few months to implement "the vow" (which will do no more than make Holyrood a tax-collecting, cut-implementing stooge for Westminster).
And forget your "Edinburgh Agreements". Not worth the paper that they are written on. We are dealing with cheats and liars.
And enough of the nicey-nicey approach. We've done the positive stuff to death. It is easy to point to it/reference it.
Shout the currency options from the off. 1/ Currency Union with agreement; 2/ Currency Union with no agreement (and both options just being a temporary measure until....) 3/ Our own currency; or 4/ Adopt the Euro.
And if the Shitebag 55 still vote NO - we're fuct!
We are an international laughing stock now. The only COUNTRY of shitebags who voted against their own Independence.
I won't be going to Hampden for a while. Not just because I might end up standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a shitebag, but because I am ashamed to call myself Scottish today.
-
The Scottish horse has been led to water.
Sadly, it is still too scared to drink.
A few good kicks is needed to make it start drinking.
Unfortunately, I think Scotland's cowardice will be rewarded with a good thrashing.
Only then will Scotland enter the family of nations.
Not with head held high.
But with erse well skelpt!
Sad.
[Thank you Mr. Salmond for leading us to water. Sadly, only Mr. Cameron will make us drink.]
And thank you one and all who voted with hope over fear
-
The fact that Eddard is posting all over this topic belies the unfortunate truth for him.
Yes, there will probably be one or two people who will view an endorsement by Murdoch as a deal-breaker, and as a result they will change their vote from YES to NO.
A few.
However, this number will be dwarfed by the number of "soft" voters who will gain some courage from what they read in the press, even if it's just a headline. The fact that it is the highest-selling daily in Scotland is just a bonus.
And in the final week before voting, this is absolutely huge. Last week's Westminster storm, will be nothing compared to what they willl unleash this week. And having just one daily on-side will be massive.
This really is a case of "my enemy's enemy...."
All of those soft votes that have been enticed over to YES? It was always a worry, as Eddard fully understands, that they might, come the vote, drift back to the status quo.
They've just been thrown the mother of all comfort blankets.
Snowball time....
-
If what you said before the bolded bit is true then there is no debt 'history' to see. You're overall point is valid but it's not how credit generally works, which is why Scotland will probably pay a little extra %age on borrowings at the outset.
Easiest way is to honour what's apparently due and have a stronger hand when it comes to negotiating a better settlement in other areas of division of assets.
The pragmatic approach.
Legally, Scotland will have ZERO debt. However, morally, we do. We offer to pay our share (as we always have done). How much that share actually is will be determined by how reasonable are Westminster's negotiators.
The Scottish hand is strong.
-
If were going it alone, with no debt, we have to defend our currency position.
Anywhere between 25% - 75% of GDP currency resereves to do that, which we wont have.
Scary stuff.
Id rather join the euro if possible
In the short-term, I'd like to join the pound - if they'll have us
And you don't need cash to defend a currency. Cash is just paper, and can be printed at will.
What you need is something of value, that you can sell. Usually gold in colour. But if it's black, that will do just as well
There's absolutely nothing to worry about (apart from electors believing any of the guff in the MSM).
-
The debt is denominated in GBP. There is no possibility of default.
Laughing time.
Can Scottish banks print their own notes?
How much is our share? £200billion. Tenners do?
"But you can't just print money, it devalues your currency."
Sorry, what currency would that be?
-
Hopefully some unassuming No voters will head down to it on the back of that report...
Not that I would like to see anyone get hurt, but if they won't listen to accusations that the media is lying to them, then they might start listening when the media deliberately puts them in harm's way.
-
some people on Twitter complaining their kids were asked by researchers to say they were No or Undecided voters because they were having trouble finding enough to participate. This is in line with direct knowledge I have from Radio 5 live who had to do the same since they couldn't find enough 'No' audience members....
tough sh!t frankly.....
Oh it's much much worse than that though. Regardless of anyone's position in this debate.
One major benefit of having this debate at all, is that people who have been put off politics by the weekly braying emanating from the Westminster playground, have now become very engaged in how they are governed.
It's beyond shame that a young person's first experience of the political world - is to be asked to lie.
On the plus side, it's good that they are having their eyes opened at an early age. Welcome to British "democracy".
-
How can this one sided pish be countered and blown apart for exactly what it is?
Pretty easily. And the response should turn even more people to YES.
It all comes down to how these new powers are funded.
YES = revenue from natural resources + exisiting personal taxation.
NO = increased personal taxation (where does the oil revenue go do you reckon?).
Nobody likes paying taxes. NO think that they are being very clever here. If Scots want more powers, then let them personally pay for them (that should turn the Scottish electorate away from wanting expensive new powers they think).
However, these "new powers" can be paid for in another way. And Westminster won't like it.
-
the market nervousness is not about Scotland taking control of its own affairs. It is about the prospect of Scotland taking its assets out of Sterling and leaving the UK to its own mess... There is a possible scenario whereby the markets force the UK to not only accept the debt is theirs (which they have already done) but that they will play nice with currency...
this would almost guarantee a Yes vote but creates another risk for them - they can't go into a currency union negotiation having already agreed to one....
almost like they have taken huge political risks without thinking through all the possible consequences
+1
Just as I'd be really surprised if Westminster wasn't really prepared for post-referendum negotiations, I'd be equally surprised if currency speculators didn't already have plans in place to attack Sterling. For exactly the reasons Uproar states. Without the resources of Scotland to back up Sterling, and more importantly the debt of Sterling, it's an overvalued currency (despite what the naysayers here might say).
Osborne has a dilemma. Come out and say that there WILL be a CU after all, to kill off the speculation, and he only gives confidence to Scottish voters considering voting YES;
Come out and say that there WON'T be a CU, and he doesn't hand the YES campaign this advantage. But he does bolster those eyeing Sterling.
It's a quandary right enough. Who'll blink first? My money's on Osborne doing a Lamont (Norman). He'll stick to his guns, Sterling will be attacked, and once the vaults at the BoE are empty, Osborne will announce that there will be a CU after all.
Osborne, personally, won't be skint. But rUK will be.
And all of this will happen BEFORE September 18.
[it wouldn't surprise me either if there are some NO voters on here who are considering taking their slice of the Sterling pie too]
Scotland Supporters Clubs Overseas
in TA specific
Posted
I need a wee bit of help:
For the Virtual Kiltwalk next year, I will be showcasing Scots abroad.
I have managed to find a few Overseas Supporters Clubs using Google. But does anyone know of a pretty thorough list, or of any clubs in particular?
Cheers.
First time on here in years - it's changed a wee bit.