Scottish Independence

bobcoffee

So when the EU enforces Irish government to continue on a dogy contract with a spanish construction company (m50) for not keeping up to their end of the deal. That is drivel?

Yes the EU didn't get involved once, which is my point, they should have gotten involved it quite clear that having one of the worse deals going (afircan countries are comparison).
Along with violence, over handed security + garda involvement, human rights being chucked out the window.
Is something the EU DOES get involved with and since the lack of involvement I consider that a "sponsorship".

So I believe that Scotland will see similar corruption that we see (if we want to) everyday.
There politicians will just use loopholes and as long as big corporations are happy so will EU.
Why cause its a tiny population off some random Island which doesn't really hold much value/weight in the EU mindset.

Suppose history being written by the winners, is drivel too?

View

bobcoffee wrote: »

So when the EU enforces Irish government to continue on a dogy contract with a spanish construction company (m50) for not keeping up to their end of the deal. That is drivel?

What exactly are you going on about now?

The basis of all contract law is both parties have to fulfil their obligations and the courts are there to resolve any disputes. How did the courts rule in the case you are alluding to?

bobcoffee wrote: »

Yes the EU didn't get involved once, which is my point, they should have gotten involved

The EU has no power to get involved unless the member states of the EU have given it the legal competence to do so.

It isn't Superman, there to save us from the ills of us exercising our sovereignity. Instead, it is entirely up to us to do so wisely.

If you have problems with what you regard as "illegalities", the courts - both domestic and EU - are there to handle breeches of either sets of laws.

dlouth15

bobcoffee wrote: »

Why cause its a tiny population off some random Island which doesn't really hold much value/weight in the EU mindset.

I can understand this point of view. We might feel that we've been pushed around by the EU. I'm thinking here of the banking crisis as a prime example. But when you look into it, our politicians seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate quite unreasonable demands. Whilst I can't predict how Scotland will deal with the EU, there's no reason that they won't deal with an appropriate level of robustness when looking after their own interests.

First Up

View wrote: »

What exactly are you going on about now?

The basis of all contract law is both parties have to fulfil their obligations and the courts are there to resolve any disputes. How did the courts rule in the case you are alluding to?



The EU has no power to get involved unless the member states of the EU have given it the legal competence to do so.

It isn't Superman, there to save us from the ills of us exercising our sovereignity. Instead, it is entirely up to us to do so wisely.

If you have problems with what you regard as "illegalities", the courts - both domestic and EU - are there to handle breeches of either sets of laws.

There seems to be a few agendas running here, none of which has much to do with Scotland. Vague grumbles, incoherently expressed don't constitute an argument. Until posters can string a few sentences together that contain some facts and make some sense they are best ignored.

bobcoffee

so why you continuing on while not talk about either scotland but vague grumbles...

some of us don't need to right paragraphs to talk about things.

comparing scotland independence to Irelands corrupt independence and relating around oil is not so "out there" as you seem to think.
Since both have oil and one of scotland issues is also around their own oil reserves and having england controlling them.

While some here seem to believe we have a functioning government I do not and I know others don't either.
I can easily see scotland having their own corruption issues which wouldn't hold in England (not like they ain't got their own issues).
But since they went for independence new laws would have to be written up.
Which leaves room for new loopholes to be placed for greedy politicians.
Happens all the time, nama is perfect example of something illegal getting created.
Sure EU done report there recently on how they agree that what was done to Ireland was against human rights.. but it was done.. so....

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

so why you continuing on while not talk about either scotland but vague grumbles...

some of us don't need to right paragraphs to talk about things.

comparing scotland independence to Irelands corrupt independence and relating around oil is not so "out there" as you seem to think.
Since both have oil and one of scotland issues is also around their own oil reserves and having england controlling them.

While some here seem to believe we have a functioning government I do not and I know others don't either.
I can easily see scotland having their own corruption issues which wouldn't hold in England (not like they ain't got their own issues).
But since they went for independence new laws would have to be written up.
Which leaves room for new loopholes to be placed for greedy politicians.
Happens all the time, nama is perfect example of something illegal getting created.
Sure EU done report there recently on how they agree that what was done to Irelan
d was against human rights.. but it was done.. so....

Would I be correct in thinking that English is not your first language? If that is the case we can make allowances but some of what you write borders on gibberish and your grammar and spelling are atrocious. Maybe there are some good points buried in some of your posts but they are so badly written as to be next to impossible to follow.
Not meaning to give offence but you can't have a debate like that.

bobcoffee

yes you can, people can.
what you mean is YOU can't have a debate because grammar is not on par with YOUR standards.

how do I know that the above is something of just "stirring the pot".
well see if people are lost on things, genuinely lost on things they like to pick them out.
so that they can be found.
others however notice the lack of literature and try and play on that note to exempt them selves from looking like they are trying to do stuff that would normally violate the code of conduct.

If you would like people to stop talking giberish and vague grumbles you might want to look at a mirror.
I've tried to explain the connection between the two, you don't seem to see it, which is fine.
But making out that points are not valid because there not structured FOR YOU is just childs play.

Scotland in my opinion would be better off where they are but just use this "independence" to get a better footing within the British State.

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

yes you can, people can.
what you mean is YOU can't have a debate because grammar is not on par with YOUR standards.

how do I know that the above is something of just "stirring the pot".
well see if people are lost on things, genuinely lost on things they like to pick them out.
so that they can be found.
other however notice the lack of literature and try and play on that note to exempt them selves from looking like they are trying to do stuff that would normally violate the code of conduct.

I you would like people to stop talking giberish and vague grumbles you might want to look at a mirror.
I've tried to explain the connection between the two, you don't seem to see it, which is fine.
But making out that points are not valid because there not structured FOR YOU is just childs play.

Scotland in my opinion would be better off where they are but just use this "independence" to get a better footing within the British State.

I'm suggesting that if you want to get your point across you should take a bit more care in writing your posts. Do you even read them before you submit them?
Your audience might take you more seriously if you paid it respect by making sure you make some sort of sense.

A Dub in Glasgo

'Should Scotland Leave The United Kingdom?'



http://noscotland.net/

Maybe reverse psycology or a high-jacked poll :pac:

Iwasfrozen

bobcoffee wrote: »

yes you can, people can.
what you mean is YOU can't have a debate because grammar is not on par with YOUR standards.

how do I know that the above is something of just "stirring the pot".
well see if people are lost on things, genuinely lost on things they like to pick them out.
so that they can be found.
others however notice the lack of literature and try and play on that note to exempt them selves from looking like they are trying to do stuff that would normally violate the code of conduct.

If you would like people to stop talking giberish and vague grumbles you might want to look at a mirror.
I've tried to explain the connection between the two, you don't seem to see it, which is fine.
But making out that points are not valid because there not structured FOR YOU is just childs play.

Scotland in my opinion would be better off where they are but just use this "independence" to get a better footing within the British State.

I have to agree with First up, no disrespect but the general grammar, spelling and construction of your post are awful and it makes what you're trying to say very hard in follow. Actually I'm still not sure. Something about oil?

Iwasfrozen

I think an important issue that isn't being raised enough is what will happen to Britain's permanent seat on the UN security council? No doubt the UK will keep their seat but are the Scottish public being made aware of what a powerful position they'll be giving up.

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

'Should Scotland Leave The United Kingdom?'



http://noscotland.net/

Maybe reverse psycology or a high-jacked poll :pac:

Polls quoted by reputable sources (Scotsman, Guardian) show 12 point advantage for No side, and undecideds moving to No.
I'll take bets if anyone is up for it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think an important issue that isn't being raised enough is what will happen to Britain's permanent seat on the UN security council? No doubt the UK will keep their seat but are the Scottish public being made aware of what a powerful position they'll be giving up.

Permanent seat only because of the WMD stationed 40 miles from me. I think the Scottish people know full well the delusions of grandeur the UK has in world affairs!

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Permanent seat only because of the WMD stationed 40 miles from me. I think the Scottish people know full well the delusions of grandeur the UK has in world affairs!

The seats on the Security Council are based mostly on the winners of WW2. Anachronistic perhaps but nothing to do with whatever armoury sits down the Clyde.

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Permanent seat only because of the WMD stationed 40 miles from me. I think the Scottish people know full well the delusions of grandeur the UK has in world affairs!

The UK has a permanent seat because they were one of the victors in WWII.

Delusions of grandeur? Only a very foolish country would underestimate British power in the world. They have the most powerful military in Western Europe, the second most powerful Navy in the world and military bases in every continent. Their capital city is also one of the three world financial centres and they have historical influence in many of their former colonies.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The UK has a permanent seat because they were one of the victors in WWII.

Delusions of grandeur? Only a very foolish country would underestimate British power in the world. They have the most powerful military in Western Europe, the second most powerful Navy in the world and military bases in every continent. Their capital city is also one of the three world financial centres and they have historical influence in many of their former colonies.

Delusions of grandeur is correct, have you actually seen what the UK Government is doing to the military so that they can still pretend to be a world power? Insufficient boots, equipment and transport just so they can say 'we woz there'.

The whole sorry state of the 'Poppy Appeal' & 'Help for Heroes' tells you exactly what the UK Government thinks of their military personnel

bobcoffee

lolz, seriously.. so continuing the disrupt a thread for the sake of pretending to take the "high ground" awesome stuff guys.

This is Boards.ie and not debating in the oxford union.

If you can't follow simple english then maybe some classes might be needed?

For the last time I'm not posting here for you guys, if you don't see things the way I do then it is fine.
But accusing someone of not being able to string a sentence because it doesn't appeal to your standards is quite pathetic.

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Delusions of grandeur is correct, have you actually seen what the UK Government is doing to the military so that they can still pretend to be a world power? Insufficient boots, equipment and transport just so they can say 'we woz there'.

The whole sorry state of the 'Poppy Appeal' & 'Help for Heroes' tells you exactly what the UK Government thinks of their military personnel

Did you even read my post? The most powerful military in Western Europe, the 2nd largest Navy in the world, bases in every continent, historical influence in it's former colonies and London along with New York and Tokyo is one of three largest financial centres in the world.

The UK isn't deluding itself it acts as a Great Power and a regional power in Europe, as one would expect.

Godge

bobcoffee wrote: »

so why you continuing on while not talk about either scotland but vague grumbles...

some of us don't need to right paragraphs to talk about things.

comparing scotland independence to Irelands corrupt independence and relating around oil is not so "out there" as you seem to think.
Since both have oil ....

You lost me with the "both have oil" bit. Last time I checked, we have no oil coming ashore.

Yes, there is some planned for Mayo but that is a small find and has been planned for years but delayed by idiots. Apart from that, what commercial finds are you talking about?

And before you reply, what has it to do with Scotland and the EU, because I won't bother replying unless you explain it.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

Polls quoted by reputable sources (Scotsman, Guardian) show 12 point advantage for No side, and undecideds moving to No.
I'll take bets if anyone is up for it.

I'm betting on a no.

bobcoffee

germany is top brass in Europe and sets the flow of our markets.
The amount of money that country pumps into those around it is insane.
Europe would be screwed without it, however if England magically disappeared the negative effects would not be that bad at all.
It does get to hold some trump cards (financial center) but former colonies not going to mean anything.
Neither is having 2nd largest navy.

These days owning the world involves market direction and England can't play with the big boys anymore.
What it can do for an island is quite amazing don't get me wrong but it ain't what you seem to think.

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

germany is top brass in Europe and sets the flow of our markets.
The amount of money that country pumps into those around it is insane.
Europe would be screwed without it, however if England magically disappeared the negative effects would not be that bad at all.
It does get to hold some trump cards (financial center) but former colonies not going to mean anything.
Neither is having 2nd largest navy.

These days owning the world involves market direction and England can't play with the big boys anymore.
What it can do for an island is quite amazing don't get me wrong but it ain't what you seem to think.

How do you rate the chances of England magically disappearing? Germany does very well out of the EU and it is well worth it's while contributing to it's general well being.
Way back in this thread I said that those who want to see things from a local perspective will always find things to complain about. Those willing and able to see a bigger picture know that it is more complicated than that, but well worth the effort.

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

lolz still haven't figured out that its not all about YOU
There is no "target audience" and not trying to convince anyone one at all.
Actually haven't even tried at all.
Its quick comment for those that know, you clearly don't and it is fine.

Since some don't seem to know these things and google is for too complicated for some here ye go

How those it relate to Scotland, once again google strikes again with this

So why are you posting?
The oil will last until about 2055, with extraction costs rising steadily and considerably well before then. If the rush to independence is based on oil, it is a rush towards a cliff. Even the SNP doesn't peddle that one seriously.

bobcoffee

please were is this "rush" for independence coming from?

actually I would think scotland is better off staying where they are.
just because you expect someone to have a secret agenda and can't see it does not mean there is one.
Did I post something that upset you?
If grammar effects you that much you might want to try and repent on your own words.

"Way back in this thread I said that those who want to see things from a local perspective will always find things to complain about. Those willing and able to see a bigger picture know that it is more complicated than that, but well worth the effort"

in case you don't see it and need help.. local perspective = "correct grammer"... seeing bigger picture = "using grammar to be able to tell what people are talking about"

dlouth15

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think an important issue that isn't being raised enough is what will happen to Britain's permanent seat on the UN security council? No doubt the UK will keep their seat but are the Scottish public being made aware of what a powerful position they'll be giving up.

I think they will still have sufficient weight in world affairs to retain their seat, but the uncertainty might be a little troubling for them.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think they will still have sufficient weight in world affairs to retain their seat, but the uncertainty might be a little troubling for them.

Doubt it would be an issue. The UK would still exist, even if diminished.

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

Doubt it would be an issue. The UK would still exist, even if diminished.

I would broadly agree with that.

Scofflaw

Enough discussion of posters' grammar, thanks. If you really can't tell what someone is saying in a post, you don't have to reply, and you don't have to comment.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

Mod:

This isn't the grammar Nazi forum (luckily for me!), I've no problem understanding the posts on this thread, any more posts about grammar and spelling will be treated as attacking the poster and personal point scoring

bobcoffee wrote: »

lolz

I'd advise avoiding text speak type stuff, it's frowned on specifically in the charter.

Iwasfrozen

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think they will still have sufficient weight in world affairs to retain their seat, but the uncertainty might be a little troubling for them.

There's no question of them losing their seat. Russia didn't lose theirs when the Soviet Union split.