FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Scotland

more power

Jump to newest
 

By *owayjose8 OP   Man
over a year ago

dundee

George Osborne said today that if we vote no they will give the Scottish Parliament more power hasn't he realised that if we vote yes we will have all the power not just what they decided is good enough for our country.he thinks that we are greedy Scots and if we hear the word more we will grab it.think again George

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Still voting NO

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge


"Still voting NO "
awwwww did you not fall for the cunning ploy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nope I don't have them braveheart tinted specs on am afraid ha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikerbob1957Man
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Nope I don't have them braveheart tinted specs on am afraid ha"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *cottishsexgoddessWoman
over a year ago

Glenrothes

No Braveheart tinted specs in this household, but it's going to be a Yes all the way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ngel HeartWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow


"No Braveheart tinted specs in this household, but it's going to be a Yes all the way."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hybutnaughtyoneWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow

heard it all before....and the government in 1979 made the same claims....and they reneged on their promises!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikerbob1957Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

The No campaign is a shambles and complacent. The Yes campaign is slick, well organised and seems to have an unlimited amount of cash at its disposal.

They still can't answer any questions though and rely on blind faith and a fingers crossed approach.

An example is British passports. There is nothing in the white paper to say what happens after they expire. I tried to search on the internet tonight for an answer as it affects my son and his employment prospects and it seems that there is no answer.

I wondered if you could keep your British passport as I was born British but no one knows and the question has been asked many times.

What happens to service personnel in tha Armed Forces or serving in a diplomatic role overseas if they were to lose their British citizenship. Is it even legal to strip me of my citizenship after all the noise over the Islamic terrorists wanting to come home?

So many questions. so few answers.

I genuinely fear for my country when I see so many people intending to vote with their hearts rather than their heads on this issue and putting all their faith in something as life changing as this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The No campaign is a shambles and complacent. The Yes campaign is slick, well organised and seems to have an unlimited amount of cash at its disposal.

They still can't answer any questions though and rely on blind faith and a fingers crossed approach.

An example is British passports. There is nothing in the white paper to say what happens after they expire. I tried to search on the internet tonight for an answer as it affects my son and his employment prospects and it seems that there is no answer.

I wondered if you could keep your British passport as I was born British but no one knows and the question has been asked many times.

What happens to service personnel in tha Armed Forces or serving in a diplomatic role overseas if they were to lose their British citizenship. Is it even legal to strip me of my citizenship after all the noise over the Islamic terrorists wanting to come home?

So many questions. so few answers.

I genuinely fear for my country when I see so many people intending to vote with their hearts rather than their heads on this issue and putting all their faith in something as life changing as this.

"

Well said

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lue4youCouple
over a year ago

Lanarkshire

Love the way the best of enemies all jump into bed with one and other in a frenzy of self interest,especially from good auld Gordy, suddenly Darlings best pal, why give us more power? when according to that wee bachle Lamont we as a race are not genetically programmed to make political decisions on our own.(At least she's recognized her own limitations) But hardly what we want leading us. Also love the way they're showing such altruistic tendencies in Westminster, wanting to give us power just to protect little us from falling off the edge of flat earth, just because they love us... I think not. It's time not to take gifts and platitudes, it's time to take the reigns for ourselves and decide our own destiny

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"George Osborne said today that if we vote no they will give the Scottish Parliament more power hasn't he realised that if we vote yes we will have all the power not just what they decided is good enough for our country.he thinks that we are greedy Scots and if we hear the word more we will grab it.think again George "

Actually, if you look at what was said, they are proposing to hand more power over to the Scottish Government by January of next year. This would mean that at the very least, they will be able to use these new powers 18 months sooner than if Independence were to go ahead but in reality, it'll be much, much longer.

You're banging on about having all the power, as the Nats have all along, but this way we would have many more powers to raise / lower taxes etc. without the MASSIVE set-up costs to establish an independent Scotland, without the HUGE length of time it'll take to do, without the uncertainty the next few years will bring while the SNP realises they can't deliver on half the stuff they've been braying about and without having to establish a further 20,000 public sectors jobs (which are non-revenue generating) in order to cope with the new infrastructure.

You also won't have all the power at all. What Salmond wants isn't Independence at all. He wants to determine Scotland future BUUUUUT kind of wants the fiscal security of the UK. Not really Independence is it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *976scottMan
over a year ago

North Lanarkshire


"George Osborne said today that if we vote no they will give the Scottish Parliament more power hasn't he realised that if we vote yes we will have all the power not just what they decided is good enough for our country.he thinks that we are greedy Scots and if we hear the word more we will grab it.think again George

Actually, if you look at what was said, they are proposing to hand more power over to the Scottish Government by January of next year. This would mean that at the very least, they will be able to use these new powers 18 months sooner than if Independence were to go ahead but in reality, it'll be much, much longer.

You're banging on about having all the power, as the Nats have all along, but this way we would have many more powers to raise / lower taxes etc. without the MASSIVE set-up costs to establish an independent Scotland, without the HUGE length of time it'll take to do, without the uncertainty the next few years will bring while the SNP realises they can't deliver on half the stuff they've been braying about and without having to establish a further 20,000 public sectors jobs (which are non-revenue generating) in order to cope with the new infrastructure.

You also won't have all the power at all. What Salmond wants isn't Independence at all. He wants to determine Scotland future BUUUUUT kind of wants the fiscal security of the UK. Not really Independence is it?"

Couldn't agree more! The figure of £200 million was quoted as the cost of setting us up as an independent country however it cost £120 million to make one Scottish police force! That's a much smaller task I would imagine!

The figures don't add up I don't think!

I was told today that voting No made me not patriotic! I would argue the opposite! I want what's best for my country and I have yet to be convinced that independence would be the best thing!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Scottish parliament had the power to raise or lower taxes but never exercised it !!!!

If you look in the manifesto of the SNP they are gonna introduce a local income tax to replace the Community Charge.

It will have to be administered from Edinburgh as the councils don't have the infrastucure to work out a local income tax.

So no matter which party is in power they are gonna make all the councils impose their policy's in each region in return for the cash that used to be raised and spent by the councils.

The first estimate was a 3 % income tax and there would be winners and loosers !!!!

Of course the accountants have stated that the real amount wound need to be 5.4 % local income tax.

Even if I work mine out at 4 % assuming they are both wrong I would be paying approx £ 1200 pounds more from my household.

That is not a big scare story from Westminster but from the SNP manifesto that Mizz Stugeon stated on tv was on the back boiler until the referendum was over !!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane DTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow ish

If its a yes on the 18th.

Remember it will be the SNP who decide on who negotiates for Scotland.

It will be an SNP derived agenda.

It will be an SNP written constitution.

It will be an SNP scottish government up until independence.

Do you really want those who gave us..

A single state police force.

Openly Armed police officers at ' minor incidents'

State guardians for our kids. (Go Google "Paranoid Parenting Independent" and read the article.

"Arguably, the most disturbing manifestation of the politicisation of parenting is the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act. This grotesque act empowers the state to appoint a "named person" for every child, from birth to the age of 18. The duty of this state-appointed named person will be to act as the child's guardian. Scotland's minister for Children and Young People, Aileen Campbell, thinks that this erosion of parental authority is OK and offers reassurance with the not very reassuring words that "we recognise that parents also have a role". "Also"? If the experience of the past 15 years is anything to go by, political intervention in child rearing is likely to become more prescriptive and intrusive."

The pending death of corroboration.

The Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill.

Oh and have so pissed off those who they would negotiate with that they'll lucky to be in the same time zone, never mind the same building.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll

According to the Scottish Governemnt website the "named person" is not quite at indicated above

This means...

Every child in Scotland will have a Named Person, whose job already

involves working with children. After birth where a midwife will have a

role the Named Person will normally be a health visitor until school age.

Thereafter to 18 (or when the child leaves school) the Named Person will

normally be a head,deputy head or guidance teacher.

They’ll be the first point of contact for children and families, and can be

called upon when there is a concern about a child’s or young person’s

wellbeing that is not easy to address.

So it is not quite the state child catcher turning up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane DTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow ish


"According to the Scottish Governemnt website the "named person" is not quite at indicated above

This means...

Every child in Scotland will have a Named Person, whose job already

involves working with children. After birth where a midwife will have a

role the Named Person will normally be a health visitor until school age.

Thereafter to 18 (or when the child leaves school) the Named Person will

normally be a head,deputy head or guidance teacher.

They’ll be the first point of contact for children and families, and can be

called upon when there is a concern about a child’s or young person’s

wellbeing that is not easy to address.

So it is not quite the state child catcher turning up"

Keep believing that.

Having had to fight the current system after 1 school nurse made false allegations against me, this combined with the loss of corroboration fills me with dread.

I can see some apologist saying in the future - "I'm sorry their dad took his life over those false allegations, but it's a price worth paying to promote the children's well being".

Not even the Soviets at their most paranoid enacted this sort of legislation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *976scottMan
over a year ago

North Lanarkshire

Alex Salmond has stated he wants to attach 25000 immigrants to Scotland ever year!!!

Before I'm labelled a nazi racist I should state that I have no issues with people coming to my country to work as long as they are the correct people and contribute to society by paying tax and integrating into our culture! I have a few friends who are in this category and let's face it us Scots have been known to do this in the past!

The issue I have is when people come here with no intention of working, they receive state assistance and free healthcare which I pay for from my taxes! I'm all for the fairer society but what's fair about that???

The benefits system was set up to help people who were sick or down on their luck! It's not a career choice! There is something fundamentally wrong with a country when people can loose money by starting to work! Again how is that fair?

An independent Scotland would require our own border force, security services and immigration to stop the wrong people flocking to our country! That will cost as well to set up! Think the Australians have the right idea! If your not going to offer our country something then you don't get in!

Rant over! Is this not a swinging site?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge


"According to the Scottish Governemnt website the "named person" is not quite at indicated above

This means...

Every child in Scotland will have a Named Person, whose job already

involves working with children. After birth where a midwife will have a

role the Named Person will normally be a health visitor until school age.

Thereafter to 18 (or when the child leaves school) the Named Person will

normally be a head,deputy head or guidance teacher.

They’ll be the first point of contact for children and families, and can be

called upon when there is a concern about a child’s or young person’s

wellbeing that is not easy to address.

So it is not quite the state child catcher turning up"
sorry but this sounds even worse I certainly dont want some government numpty having any say over my children they have a loving family and I dont need meddlesome halfwits in my kids life

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ikerbob1957Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

Now the Govenor of the Bank of England has killed off any notion of a currency union. He was addressing the TUC and said it was incompatible with soveignty.

How many more people does Wee Eck have to listen to before he finally gets the message - no currency union!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top