All Categories› Poker› Poker Chat

You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Scotland: With or Without?

2»

Comments

  • aussie09aussie09
    edited September 2014


    alex salmond argues that the many corporates which have stated they will leave scotland is compensated by the number that stay. 

    but this is nonsense.  it is the wrong balance. 

    it is not those who stay, it is the number of corporates outside scotland who in the event of a vote for independence say, "that is where we shall relocate our business to." 

    not one.



     
     
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ACEGOONERACEGOONER
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without?:
    T o start with you have to ask WHATS IN IT FOR THEM. as far as the SNP is concerned its  INDEPENDENCE for LABOUR, we send 42 MPs to westminster, so  LABOUR would find it difficult to gain a majority without their scottish MPs For the TORIES, they see scotland as the last vestigies of empire, something to control. then they fear the loss of influence, no more seat at the UN security council, they would thenbe seen for what they are, a small island in the north atlantic. TORIES want to leave the EU, but only to combat the rise of UKIP. then we have TRIDENT, a weapon system that cost £110 billion, but  WE CANNOT USE. They say its a DETTERENT, but it cannot stop anyone firing a missile at us,So it then becomes a  FIRST STRIKE WEAPON, with everyone saying we would never fire first, SO ITS USELESS. THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY 1/2 TRUTHS AND DOWNRIGHT LIES. on pensions for instance,  THEY ARE SAFE. then  START UP COSTS, they are a one off payment, about £500 million, but that is a ONE OFF. On the OIL various estimates say 30 to 50 years worth of oil left in the  NORTH SEA. however, the oil in the CLAIR RIDGE has never been tapped, because its in shallow waters off the clyde, and all westminster governments will not issue the licences to exploit those reserves, SOME TRILLION BARRELS. if they allowed drilling in the clyde, the whole area would have FULL EMPLOYMENT, including ship building, roads, etc. On the POUND, UK  GDP MINUS SCOTTISH GDP, would leave a massive loss to UK government, the cost of borrowing would go up, interest rates would rise, mortgages would go up.  WHEN 3 MAIN PARTIES, CBI,EVERY NEWS PAPER EVEN THE BBC, were on the side of NO, you must ask yourself WHATS IN IT FOR THEM ? I could go on for ever why scotland should be independent. but as the 14th richest country, we can and should stand alone, and show the way for others in these isles. Tory rule is at an end, I THINK THE ONLY BANKS TO CLOSE ARE FOOD BANKS. IMPORTANT NOTE. this is not anti-english, but  ANTI ENGLISH ESTABLISHMENT. With all the scandals, 2nd homes, house of lords, child abuse the establishment is rotton to the core, and it needs to be got rid off.
    Posted by bludreid11

    Could you honestly get more biaised. Most Scots are voting on the historical and political issues, there is also a religious slant to this as well. When you look at the most important thing ie the economy we are all better together. Look at it as a marriage of convenience if you like, but thats just the way things are. Opt out of the UK, and expect your country to lag behind the rest of us for years to come. Relying on oil is like putting all your eggs in one basket and that never pays. 

    There was a famous headline in the sun during the later stages of the 1992 general election saying something like if labour win tomorrow would the last person out of Britain turn the lights out. The sun is a naff paper granted, but it had a massive impact on the outcome of that particular election. Exactly the same applies to Scotland.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • aussie09aussie09
    edited September 2014


    scotland might be like phones4u.

    whilst aspiring to independence, uk business partners may simply stop trading.




     

     
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without?:
    Well the bookies seem to be favouring a no vote.... 2/9 for no and 1/3 for yes.
    Posted by F_Ivanovic

    1/33 the tie?

    Good old bookies ;)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited September 2014
    The idea of independence is a false one. 

    Look at it this way: an "independent" Scotland would be neighbour to a far more powerful country controlling almost all of it's transport and economic links to continental Europe. The vast majority of Scottish trade would be with this powerful neighbour and the vast majority of it's wealth dependent on its neighbour's decisions.

    The real question is whether Scots want to have their voice heard in the making of those decisions or merely to be subject to them. This isn't the 1500's and Scotland can't pretend that the power of London can be overcome by simply stating that it is no longer part of a union. London is the economic powerhouse for the whole of the UK and will continue to be if Scotland becomes independent. It will continue to influence all Scottish policies but, crucially, Scotland will no longer influence it.


    Alex Salmond would have Scots believe that they can dictate terms to the rest of the UK after a Yes vote. Let's get real: Scotland will not be in a position of power over its larger neighbour. If the UK decides that there will be no currency union, then there will be no currency union. If the Scots try to default on their share of the national debt as a result, the UK will be in a position to inflict serious economic harm on its new, weaker relation.


    "Independence" isn't possible now. Globalisation isn't just a word, it's the reality of how economies work. The only question for Scots is whether to reduce their influence over decisions that really matter and allow themslves to be tugged around by greater forces. 


    On a side note; There's an impression that the yes campaign has been hopeful and uplifting while the no campaign has been negative and downbeat. That's great PR from the Yes side, notably in the way that they keep pointing the finger saying that the other side is negative without offering any clear answers on what would happen post-independence.

    What do we really know about Scottish institutions, currency, foreign policy, relations with the EU/NATO/UN and bilateral relations with other countries? The Yes campaign offers few answers. Which campaign is really the negative, cynical one?



    One thing is for sure - Mel Gibson has a lot to answer for.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GELDYGELDY
    edited September 2014
    so Borinloner
    when the tories vote to leave the EU where does that leave Scotland? 
    Being a small part of the EU must be better than a larger part of an isolated UK?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without?:
    so Borinloner when the tories vote to leave the EU where does that leave Scotland?  Being a small part of the EU must be better than a larger part of an isolated UK?
    Posted by GELDY
    It's the same issue. Isolationism is stupid and pointless. It bolsters none of your own interests and only leaves you with a quietened influence.

    Besides that, there is no single Tory voice. It's not as though all Tories are rabidly euro-sceptic. Nor is it the case that the Conservative party will be making that decision for the UK.

    As for being a part of the EU, the Scots have no definitive answer on their status within the EU post-independence.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GELDYGELDY
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without?:
    In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without? : It's the same issue. Isolationism is stupid and pointless. It bolsters none of your own interests and only leaves you with a quietened influence. Besides that, there is no single Tory voice. It's not as though all Tories are rabidly euro-sceptic. Nor is it the case that the Conservative party will be making that decision for the UK. As for being a part of the EU, the Scots have no definitive answer on their status within the EU post-independence.
    Posted by BorinLoner

    it's a bit like poker isn't it. 
    We've seen the flop and we have the nut flush draw against top pair. We should probably fold but hey we've so much invested in this and ffs top pair ain't that great is it? 
    Do you fold knowing it's the safest option, or go for the flush given it has the potential to be the best result? 
    problem is we only have one hand to play, no chance of averaging over time. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without?:
    In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without? : it's a bit like poker isn't it.  We've seen the flop and we have the nut flush draw against top pair. We should probably fold but hey we've so much invested in this and ffs top pair ain't that great is it?  Do you fold knowing it's the safest option, or go for the flush given it has the potential to be the best result?  problem is we only have one hand to play, no chance of averaging over time. 
    Posted by GELDY
    It's more like seeing the flop, knowing your opponent has a pair and has gone all-in... do you call without even knowing your hand?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.