[Tycho]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Tycho may be talking out of his bottom but that just proves that his bottom...

Do explain... ? It's silly to say things like this if you don't have an opinion of your own don't you think?

[JohnS17]

(Original post by Tycho)
Biggest pile of drivel I've ever read, both in terms of your language skills and in terms of content.

First of all as this is hardly an english exam i don't particularly care about my standard of english whilst on tsr.

Also it just shows you that not only your arguement is flawed and that personally your quite immature you need to attack my grammer ect as you cant seem to construct a proper arguement. You just seem to make random conjecture to try and make your point which quite clearly looking at most peoples responses to your posts arent working.

I have given you articles from journalist quoting experts who know more about this subject than you or i hence unless you can make an argument with actual evidence then you should probably just give up as looking at most people's responses to your posts you are not winning anyone round with your arguement.

[JohnS17]

(Original post by kingsholmmad)
Jeez, is English entirely alien to you? Tycho may be talking out of his bottom but that just proves that his bottom talks better English than you do.

As i have already said when i have alot of information to put down i tend not to pay too much attention to spelling, grammer ect if you cant understand what i have wrote down in previous posts then you should probably spend more time trying to decipher them. If you don't want to do that ignore the post i didn't ask you to read it it was aimed at Tycho

[Nick100]

(Original post by Tycho)
Nuclear weapons are not required, it's nonsense. Look at other countries without nuclear warheads - they are not all being threatened by larger nuclear powers. The Cold War is over, and Scotland wasn't even involved in it anyway.

Firstly, during the Cold War the USSR did have plans to nuke various European countries in the event of a war. They intended to deploy nuclear weapons against targets in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium. They were not planning to nuke the targets in France and Britain despite their strategic value. Why do you think that might have been?

Secondly, the second largest party in Russia is the Communist Party and they want to see the re-establishment of the USSR and "restalinisation" of Russia. The Cold War may be over but it has the potential to start again. There are also maniacs in North Korea who plan to use nuclear weapons to conquer South Korea.

Thirdly, Scotland was involved in the Cold War. It had to be; a Soviet invasion of Europe would not have benefitted Scotland. Unless you mean that Scotland could have hid behind the UK and France like certain other countries did during the Cold War (and World War II for that matter).

Compare the state of the world in 1912 to the state of the world in 1952. We cannot predict the future; nuclear weapons are a necessary deterrent. Furthermore, if a World War broke out in a nuclear-weapon free world the great powers would immediately try to build nukes. We know this is the case because that is exactly what they did in World War II.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Tycho)
No I wouldn't expect you to, but it most certainly is hypocritical.

There's nothing hypocritical about saying, "we are a country who own WMDs and adhere to the laws regulating them, and in addition to this we want to stop rogue states like Iraq and North Korea gaining WMDs because they are likely to violate the laws regulating them." The United Kingdom is not morally comparable to Saddam's Iraq. Western democracies like us can be trusted with nukes; the necrocratic tyrants in Pyongyang can't. If you think that the United Kingdom can't be trusted to own WMDs without following international laws surrounding their ownership and use then that dispays a startling misunderstanding of geopolitics and the role of the UK in the world.

[Tycho]

(Original post by JohnS17)
First of all as this is hardly an english exam i don't particularly care about my standard of english whilst on tsr.

Also it just shows you that not only your arguement is flawed and that personally your quite immature you need to attack my grammer ect as you cant seem to construct a proper arguement. You just seem to make random conjecture to try and make your point which quite clearly looking at most peoples responses to your posts arent working.

I have given you articles from journalist quoting experts who know more about this subject than you or i hence unless you can make an argument with actual evidence then you should probably just give up as looking at most people's responses to your posts you are not winning anyone round with your arguement.

You might not care about your English, but I don't want to have to decipher hieroglyphics every time I read one of your posts. I'm not attacking your English for the sake of it.

Secondly, you are very naive if you think these so-called "experts" are always right. You can find almost any "expert" somewhere who will agree with you or try to back you up for their own political reasons. You can find one expert claiming something, and I could find another expert claiming something else. Clearly they can't both be right, and we must therefore make our own decisions on what we believe.

So now onto the BBC. The BBC are by no means as impartial as you'd like to think they are. Remember that the BBC are a British establishment, and they are keen to protect their own interests. Why do you think so many people in Scotland are not paying their tv license fee anymore in protest?

Finally, what "uncertainty" in the Scottish economy? It's nonsense. Businesses aren't going to start moving down south if Scotland become independent - to think so is just stupid. There is no logical business reason why this would happen, as an independent Scotland will be like any other independent country, most of which are coping perfectly well on their own. There would be no more "uncertainty" in the Scottish economy than there would be in the new English economy. If a business has some of their operations stationed in Scotland and they are making money, they are not going to go to the expense of moving all their operations down South just because the BBC tells them that they should be "uncertain".

Think about what you're reading in future before you make yourself look even more stupid please.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Nick100)
Firstly, during the Cold War the USSR did have plans to nuke various European countries in the event of a war. They intended to deploy nuclear weapons against targets in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium. They were not planning to nuke the targets in France and Britain despite their strategic value. Why do you think that might have been?

Secondly, the second largest party in Russia is the Communist Party and they want to see the re-establishment of the USSR and "restalinisation" of Russia. The Cold War may be over but it has the potential to start again. There are also maniacs in North Korea who plan to use nuclear weapons to conquer South Korea.

Thirdly, Scotland was involved in the Cold War. It had to be; a Soviet invasion of Europe would not have benefitted Scotland. Unless you mean that Scotland could have hid behind the UK and France like certain other countries did during the Cold War (and World War II for that matter).

Compare the state of the world in 1912 to the state of the world in 1952. We cannot predict the future; nuclear weapons are a necessary deterrent. Furthermore, if a World War broke out in a nuclear-weapon free world the great powers would immediately try to build nukes. We know this is the case because that is exactly what they did in World War II.

Nick, Scotland doesn't need these weapons. If Russia started a nuclear war with Scotland then it wouldn't really matter whether we had these for retaliation or not - we'd still all be wiped out. The only reason there is a perceived need for such weapons is because other countries have them, but if nobody had them then nobody would really feel the need to have them.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
There's nothing hypocritical about saying, "we are a country who own WMDs and adhere to the laws regulating them, and in addition to this we want to stop rogue states like Iraq and North Korea gaining WMDs because they are likely to violate the laws regulating them." The United Kingdom is not morally comparable to Saddam's Iraq. Western democracies like us can be trusted with nukes; the necrocratic tyrants in Pyongyang can't. If you think that the United Kingdom can't be trusted to own WMDs without following international laws surrounding their ownership and use then that dispays a startling misunderstanding of geopolitics and the role of the UK in the world.

Well I don't want to see countries like Iran having nuclear weapons either. I think the UK are quite responsible with their arsenal, I certainly don't think Iran would be. But that's not the point. We should be trying to make such countries see that there is no need for them to acquire warheads, and lead by example.

Remember though that we didn't find nuclear weapons in Iraq, and indeed it would appear that no such weapons existed. It does therefore tarnish the reputation of the UK (and the USA) as being powers which respect international law, when you consider that they invaded Iraq without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their work. Had they let the inspectors finish their work then we might have never made the mistake of invading Iraq. It's not hard to see why other countries see our foreign policy as having ulterior motives, and hence don't feel inclined to listen to us when we want them to disarm (or not arm) themselves. It's also hypocrytical that we expect other countries to obey international law, when in very recent years we have done exactly the opposite. And then it surprises us when they don't bother obeying it either.

[L i b]

(Original post by Tycho)
But no thanks to nuclear weapons on British soil. Do you really think that? We live in a time of unprecedented peace with the vast majority of nations not being nuclear powers. I'd like Scotland to join that list of nations.

Utterly irrelevant to your original point. You said that non-nuclear countries aren't being invaded willy-nilly. I suggested this is both because we live in a time of unprecedented peace and because they benefit from being under the various nuclear umbrellas of their allies.

I have already dismissed the idea that Britain should be nuclear-free on the grounds that it is strategically important to have at least one, preferably two, nuclear powers in Europe - and that I think Britain is undoubtedly the most responsible of the nuclear powers.

The bombs dropped during WWII were approximately equivalent to 15 kt of TNT. That's 15,000 tonnes of TNT.

The current American nuclear arsenal has weapons which are approximately equivalent to 20 Mt of TNT. That's 20,000,000 tonnes of TNT - which is 1333 times more powerful than those dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

We use nothing of that nature and, of course, weapons can be utilised in accordance with their target. That we (or, rather, a completely different country in your example) could blow up half the world does not undermine the point that a limited nuclear war could be conducted strategically.

However if we're going to compare the weapons of today with the weapons of the 1940s, it seems only proper to do so with conventional weapons too. The Allies utterly destroyed German cities through conventional bombing from the air. There is no doubt that, if this objective was seen as desirable, our modern conventional forces could equally flatten cities far more easily than the bombers of WWII could. Which is largely why I think nuclear disarmament is a crock: if we want to reap destruction, there are so many ways modern technology can help bring our desire to fruition.

Even then, we're still focusing on high-technology. Let's not forget possibly the most deadly weapon post-WWII costs less than a $100, was invented in the 1940s and is still very much in use today: the AK-47.

Again, this is naive. If -for example - Iran launched a nuclear warhead at New York City, it would rapidly turn into total war and the Americans would completely flatten everything in Iran - including their cities.

I'm not convinced of that at all. Firstly, there's no suggestion Iran could ever possess such a capacity, making your hypothetical scenario rather unbelievable. But let's imagine that did occur - as with anything, the US would be bound to respond proportionately, in a way that would minimise civilian deaths. Knocking out the enemy's nuclear capacity would be paramount.

Beyond that, regime change and other such objectives would be better achieved by conventional forces.

The Nazis certainly lost, but I wouldn't call the outcome a "win". Far too many innocent people from both sides died for it to be remotely acceptable that anyone could possibly go around and feel extremely pleased about what had unfolded. The only way to truly win a war is to never fight one in the first place. The real winners are those who can find political ways of sorting out their problems without having to resort to primitive violence.

There was no political means to sort out Adolf Hitler or indeed numerous other people we have fought against. All war may be a failure of diplomacy, but that does not mean it is a failing on both sides. Once it is clear that a diplomatic solution is impossible, then there's no point wasting time when the only option which remains is war.

If 'win' offends your sensibilities, may I then suggest 'victory'?

(Original post by Tycho)
The Cold War is over, and Scotland wasn't even involved in it anyway.

The UK, and thus Scotland, was heavily involved in the Cold War. Indeed, it was truly a World Cold War which impacted globally - even in the depths of sub-Saharan Africa it was felt.

[JohnS17]

(Original post by Tycho)
Secondly, you are very naive if you think these so-called "experts" are always right. You can find almost any "expert" somewhere who will agree with you or try to back you up for their own political reasons. You can find one expert claiming something, and I could find another expert claiming something else. Clearly they can't both be right, and we must therefore make our own decisions on what we believe.

First of all i'm perfectly aware that there are some experts that would disagree with these claims but you cant't argue with the point of Faslane. If the SNP get their way the up to 11,000 people can lose their job. Thats not even including the shipyards in Rosyth and on the Clyde.

(Original post by Tycho)
So now onto the BBC. The BBC are by no means as impartial as you'd like to think they are. Remember that the BBC are a British establishment, and they are keen to protect their own interests. Why do you think so many people in Scotland are not paying their tv license fee anymore in protest?

Are you joking you do know that despite the BBC being a state establishment it has rules on impartiality http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidel...y-introduction

(Original post by Tycho)
Finally, what "uncertainty" in the Scottish economy? It's nonsense. Businesses aren't going to start moving down south if Scotland become independent - to think so is just stupid. There is no logical business reason why this would happen, as an independent Scotland will be like any other independent country, most of which are coping perfectly well on their own. There would be no more "uncertainty" in the Scottish economy than there would be in the new English economy. If a business has some of their operations stationed in Scotland and they are making money, they are not going to go to the expense of moving all their operations down South just because the BBC tells them that they should be "uncertain".

Think about what you're reading in future before you make yourself look even more stupid please.

Your kidding me right??? well we would rely on being allowed to use the pound only with the BoE's permission which even if they consented we would have no say over borrowing, interest rates,QE ect. Hardly independent

We don't even know if we would be in the EU as Scotland would most likely be a secession state and not a succession state meaning that the Rest of the Uk could still be in Europe whilst Scotland are not.

This would mean that we would have to reapply for the EU thus having to join the Euro( cause that will just do wonders for the newly independent Scotland's economy).

We could even be blocked from entering by other EU countries.

Well the rest of the Uk would most likely be in the EU and would also retain the pound. Shipbuilding contract would migrate southwards along with all the other jobs related to being part of the Uk.

Hell even Michelle Mone threatened to move her company down south.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...dependent.html

Whats to say that isn't the start on an exodus down south were ther would be more economic stability.

So please mate how about you read up a bit more about the topic at had before commenting. As you can see not only are you failing to win anybody around with your arguement you also look incredibly ignorant on the subject as a whole.

[L i b]

(Original post by Tycho)
So now onto the BBC. The BBC are by no means as impartial as you'd like to think they are. Remember that the BBC are a British establishment, and they are keen to protect their own interests. Why do you think so many people in Scotland are not paying their tv license fee anymore in protest?

Well, firstly they're not. If that's a protest, it's one that no-one has noticed and is probably confined to a few people with tinfoil hats.

As for being 'a British establishment', so what? Do you think everything with 'British' in its title is inherently biased?

Finally, what "uncertainty" in the Scottish economy? It's nonsense. Businesses aren't going to start moving down south if Scotland become independent - to think so is just stupid. There is no logical business reason why this would happen, as an independent Scotland will be like any other independent country, most of which are coping perfectly well on their own. There would be no more "uncertainty" in the Scottish economy than there would be in the new English economy. If a business has some of their operations stationed in Scotland and they are making money, they are not going to go to the expense of moving all their operations down South just because the BBC tells them that they should be "uncertain".

The point here is that the vast majority of businesses think Scottish independence would be bad for them. That's why they'd move. I certainly wouldn't trust the SNP or Scottish Labour (far more lefty than UK Labour) to run an economy. I'd hope that the people of Scotland would eventually realise the problem and vote these people out, but that would take a generation or more.

[Nick100]

(Original post by Tycho)
Nick, Scotland doesn't need these weapons. If Russia started a nuclear war with Scotland then it wouldn't really matter whether we had these for retaliation or not - we'd still all be wiped out. The only reason there is a perceived need for such weapons is because other countries have them, but if nobody had them then nobody would really feel the need to have them.

But if we had weapons they wouldn't start a war in the first place. If we had no nuclear weapons they could attack us without any fear of retaliation.

And you say that the only reason there is a "percieved" need for nuclear weapons is because other countries have them; that is not the case. Israel, for example, has nuclear weapons because it is afraid of being invaded. In any case where a weaker nations faces a much stronger nation the weaker nation has a massive incentive to create weapons of mass destruction. In cases where the balance of power is even weapons of mass destruction are desirable as they could decide the fate of the war.

Another reason a country would pursue nuclear weapons is to conquer its enemies without suffering heavy casualties; this is why the USA dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.

Finally, in a world without nuclear weapons any country which then created a nuclear arsenal would be untouchable. It could pursue whatever goal it wanted with impunity.

[Tycho]

(Original post by JohnS17)
First of all i'm perfectly aware that there are some experts that would disagree with these claims but you cant't argue with the point of Faslane. If the SNP get their way the up to 11,000 people can lose their job. Thats not even including the shipyards in Rosyth and on the Clyde.

The weapons cost far more than the taxes of the people who work on them raise. Your argument is stupid.

(Original post by JohnS17)
Are you joking you do know that despite the BBC being a state establishment it has rules on impartiality http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidel...y-introduction

Eh? What planet are you actually on? Yes there are rules, but the BBC consistently bend the rules to suit their own political agenda.

(Original post by JohnS17)
Your kidding me right??? well we would rely on being allowed to use the pound only with the BoE's permission which even if they consented we would have no say over borrowing, interest rates,QE ect. Hardly independent

Biggest pile of garbage you've written so far, and that's saying something. The pound doesn't belong to the English you idiot. Look at the situation in Europe with the Euro and the European Central Bank. It doesn't change the fact that the countries in Europe are almost all operating independently of each other.

(Original post by JohnS17)
We don't even know if we would be in the EU as Scotland would most likely be a secession state and not a succession state meaning that the Rest of the Uk could still be in Europe whilst Scotland are not.

Bull**** Daily Record reader. Read something of sophistication before coming onto a public forum and showing the world how stupid you are. There's nothing wrong with a debate and difference of opinion, but you are simply regurgitating drivel from tabloid newspapers.

(Original post by JohnS17)
Hell even Michelle Mone threatened to move her company down south.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...dependent.html

Oh disaster... what on Earth will happen if Scottish women can no longer buy Michelle Mone underwear? Our economy will truly collapse!

(Original post by JohnS17)
Whats to say that isn't the start on an exodus down south were ther would be more economic stability.

England are welcome to an exodus of ignorant scaremongers like you from Scotland.

(Original post by JohnS17)
So please mate how about you read up a bit more about the topic at had before commenting. As you can see not only are you failing to win anybody around with your arguement you also look incredibly ignorant on the subject as a whole.

Quiet now, I've had enough of correcting your rubbish. I actually thought that Scotland wasn't too wee, too stupid, and too poor to run its own affairs, but when I see people like you I start to wonder if it might actually be too stupid.

[Tycho]

(Original post by L i b)
Well, firstly they're not. If that's a protest, it's one that no-one has noticed and is probably confined to a few people with tinfoil hats.

As for being 'a British establishment', so what? Do you think everything with 'British' in its title is inherently biased?

Lots of people are not in favour of paying their tv licenses because they feel the BBC coverage is biased. Some people stop paying, and others keep paying only because they respect the law.

Clearly not everything is biased, but the BBC is run by pro-unionists and is not as impartial as it ought to be.

(Original post by L i b)
The point here is that the vast majority of businesses think Scottish independence would be bad for them. That's why they'd move. I certainly wouldn't trust the SNP or Scottish Labour (far more lefty than UK Labour) to run an economy. I'd hope that the people of Scotland would eventually realise the problem and vote these people out, but that would take a generation or more.

Based on what? This is rubbish to the core. The vast majority of businesses are small to medium enterprises which rely on a locally-established clientele and locally-based contracts. If anything it would see the complete demise of their businesses if they were to move down South. Large businesses are generally already in England and Scotland. There is no logical reason why they would no longer continue to serve Scotland. And if Scotland was as pathetic and unworthy of business as you seem to think, why are the British establishment so keen to keep them in the Union... you have to wonder.

Apparently you've failed to notice the disaster that London Labour and the coalition have created? Despite the fact that other countries are showing growth, the UK is still in recession. Seems to me your Westminister MPs are failing big time.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Nick100)
But if we had weapons they wouldn't start a war in the first place. If we had no nuclear weapons they could attack us without any fear of retaliation.

And you say that the only reason there is a "percieved" need for nuclear weapons is because other countries have them; that is not the case. Israel, for example, has nuclear weapons because it is afraid of being invaded. In any case where a weaker nations faces a much stronger nation the weaker nation has a massive incentive to create weapons of mass destruction. In cases where the balance of power is even weapons of mass destruction are desirable as they could decide the fate of the war.

Another reason a country would pursue nuclear weapons is to conquer its enemies without suffering heavy casualties; this is why the USA dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.

Finally, in a world without nuclear weapons any country which then created a nuclear arsenal would be untouchable. It could pursue whatever goal it wanted with impunity.

I understand your view, and I agree with parts of it. But my concern is primarily for Scotland. What is more likely to cause Scotland problems in the future is not a nuclear threat. I imagine that money would be better spent on the NHS and education.

Many small countries throughout the world live happily and peacefully without nuclear weapons. I want Scotland to join that group. What the large powers like America, China, Russia etc do is their prerogotive.

If I lived in Israel then I suspect I'd be in favour of having a nuclear arsenal. I think they have a very good reason for having them, but I don't think Scotland does.

[Nick100]

(Original post by Tycho)
I understand your view, and I agree with parts of it. But my concern is primarily for Scotland. What is more likely to cause Scotland problems in the future is not a nuclear threat. I imagine that money would be better spent on the NHS and education.

The amount of money spent on nuclear weapons is insignificant compared to the amount spent on education and healthcare. They provide protection for the UK and its allies; they are necessary and money spent maintaining them is money well spent.

Many small countries throughout the world live happily and peacefully without nuclear weapons. I want Scotland to join that group. What the large powers like America, China, Russia etc do is their prerogotive.

This perfectly demonstrates my earlier point; the defence policy of the nationalists is to hide behind other countries. The countries which live "happily and peacefully without nuclear weapons" are defended by Britain, France and America. And what the major powers do (and "major powers" includes Britain and France, the third and fourth most powerful countries in the world) affects us all; it is not "their prerogotive".

If I lived in Israel then I suspect I'd be in favour of having a nuclear arsenal. I think they have a very good reason for having them, but I don't think Scotland does.

We do have a reason for having them because there are countries in world which would threaten our allies (and by extension us) and which hold nuclear armaments. As I pointed out earlier North Korea wants to conquer South Korea by any means necessary and the second largest party in Russia is a Stalinist party which wants to annex multiple EU members.

[JohnS17]

(Original post by Tycho)
The weapons cost far more than the taxes of the people who work on them raise. Your argument is stupid.

The whole point that despite the weapons costing more money than the people working on them would raise it creates jobs which if were not in existence would mean the goverment would face a steeper welfare bill. Hence your arguement is stupid

(Original post by Tycho)
Eh? What planet are you actually on? Yes there are rules, but the BBC consistently bend the rules to suit their own political agenda..

More conjecture i see. Give me an example when they have done such a thing. The BBC is a British establishment that is about as much as you have got right in this topic however it has no allegence to political party,class, political cause ect

(Original post by Tycho)
Biggest pile of garbage you've written so far, and that's saying something. The pound doesn't belong to the English you idiot. Look at the situation in Europe with the Euro and the European Central Bank. It doesn't change the fact that the countries in Europe are almost all operating independently of each other...

Erm as you can see the Euro was a bad idea. All 17 nations locked into a currency despite have completely different economies Greece's problems alongside the other PIIGS countries would be made alot easier if the could devaluate there currency.
They can't do this as they all have a currency countrolled by the ECB hence they can't devalue as the ECB is trying to work in the interests of all 17 nations clearly you don't know much about economics.
Also since the BoE would be the ones that set interest rates and dictate borrowing Scotland would hardly be independent.

(Original post by Tycho)
Bull**** Daily Record reader. Read something of sophistication before coming onto a public forum and showing the world how stupid you are. There's nothing wrong with a debate and difference of opinion, but you are simply regurgitating drivel from tabloid newspapers.

Oh disaster... what on Earth will happen if Scottish women can no longer buy Michelle Mone underwear? Our economy will truly collapse!

England are welcome to an exodus of ignorant scaremongers like you from Scotland.

Em no i'm not i am making a point and then giving factual examples the sources is of little importance as the woman in question has said this to numerous sources.
You seem not only have a poor grasp of economics but also your debating skills leave something to be desired.

(Original post by Tycho)
Quiet now, I've had enough of correcting your rubbish. I actually thought that Scotland wasn't too wee, too stupid, and too poor to run its own affairs, but when I see people like you I start to wonder if it might actually be too stupid.

My god do you know how much you talk out your A*S* you make random assertions without any proof, when someone actually provides proof for their arguement you attempt to pick holes in it which as you can see your obviously fail.

By speaking to you i see what is actually holding Scotland back people like you who seem to be unable of even planning or making alternative plans because your so narrow minded to see that these things that i have brought to your attention could actually happen.

I think that you are the stupid one mate

Also please do me a favour if your going to try and counter an argument please at the very least use some sources to back up your argument .

[Tycho]

(Original post by JohnS17)
The whole point that despite the weapons costing more money than the people working on them would raise it creates jobs which if were not in existence would mean the goverment would face a steeper welfare bill. Hence your arguement is stupid



More conjecture i see. Give me an example when they have done such a thing. The BBC is a British establishment that is about as much as you have got right in this topic however it has no allegence to political party,class, political cause ect



Erm as you can see the Euro was a bad idea. All 17 nations locked into a currency despite have completely different economies Greece's problems alongside the other PIIGS countries would be made alot easier if the could devaluate there currency.
They can't do this as they all have a currency countrolled by the ECB hence they can't devalue as the ECB is trying to work in the interests of all 17 nations clearly you don't know much about economics.
Also since the BoE would be the ones that set interest rates and dictate borrowing Scotland would hardly be independent.



Em no i'm not i am making a point and then giving factual examples the sources is of little importance as the woman in question has said this to numerous sources.
You seem not only have a poor grasp of economics but also your debating skills leave something to be desired.



My god do you know how much you talk out your A*S* you make random assertions without any proof, when someone actually provides proof for their arguement you attempt to pick holes in it which as you can see your obviously fail.

By speaking to you i see what is actually holding Scotland back people like you who seem to be unable of even planning or making alternative plans because your so narrow minded to see that these things that i have brought to your attention could actually happen.

I think that you are the stupid one mate

Also please do me a favour if your going to try and counter an argument please at the very least use some sources to back up your argument .

Read the first paragraph and decided not to read anymore. Not going to waste my time with such ignorance, sorry. Go get an education.

[Snagprophet]

I'd have thought England and Scotland would have their own little EU-style open borders, open businesses. We all speak the same language. Also, the bulk of Scotland is concentrated in central Scotland so it wouldn't be such a waste to have business links with this particular area of Scotland and the rest of England. I don't see how Scotland can keep using the pound if it's still controlled by England unless we benefit from it. We can also probably declare non-Bank of England notes as counterfeit as well, which would stab the nationalist identity in Scotland.

[JohnS17]

(Original post by Tycho)
Read the first paragraph and decided not to read anymore. Not going to waste my time with such ignorance, sorry. Go get an education.

I have an education and i'm heading off to uni in september. However it says alot about you and nationalists in general, when confronted with a credible argument you don't know how to reply you simply call it wrong without offering an alternative i take it you're taking a leaf out of Alex Samond's book.

How about you read up a bit more about a subject in which you are attempting to make a point about as just making assertions and then goin off on one when these assertions are disproved just won't do.

Also it makes you look like twit when you can't even be bothered to read my full post