Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by decomm18

  1. Only the very brave out in Falkirk this morning. All side-streets completely choked up with drifts of snow
  2. There was a red warning for snow, back on Sunday December 19th 2010 - proof! But they're saying this is a 'new system' so perhaps that was the previous system
  3. Callendar Park flats in Falkirk, earlier on between showers. No-one out at all, except me and the dogs. Amazing dry cold, creaky snow, felt almost alpine.
  4. Pretty intense shower on A9 in Perthshire. Chose wrong day to drive daughter back to uni Aberdeen!
  5. Seems that both sides were up to this: I hope that appropriate enquiries include Mr Yousaf as well...
  6. Not quite, SS. Just under 45% of those who voted, so that's 45% of 85%, or just over 38% of the over-15 population. Clearly we can't definitively say what those who didn't bother to vote think about Indy, but surely if they weren't content with the status quo and remaining as part of the union, they'd have joined the ranks of yes supporters?
  7. I'm relieved, that's all. It was the wrong proposition from the politicians, too hurried, poorly considered, with fundamental flaws; and to be honest, letting down those grass-roots activists who worked so hard to support the 'Yes' campaign. There will be lessons to be learned for next time, and they're pretty clear lessons. I feel intense sympathy for everyone who threw themselves into the cause, and see themselves as defeated - but the success of their efforts - and of the No campaign too - is the degree of engagement of the Scottish people that has been achieved over the last month,
  8. I've not voted yet, but will be going later to add to the 'no' tally. Seems to be that upwards of 18% have already voted, and it's barely lunchtime! I've read a lot on social media about voters making a 'journey', mostly in the direction of yes. I haven't done that, but I have moved my stance, particularly in the last couple of months, as the extent of Scottish societal engagement in this referendum has become evident. A year ago I was a hard no - I believed that Scotland would never have the interest to be fully self-governing and to hold its leaders to account appropriately. However, I'v
  9. Andrew, although the last few weeks have been a bit of a shock to very many Scots, who tend to the unemotional and jokey self-deprecating type, I think it's been a good thing, showing us all that we are capable of engagement when it matters enough. But the closing stages of this extraordinary marathon, although dramatic, aren't cataclysmic. Afterwards, whatever happens, I think we'll all roll up the banners and put away the badges and go back to how it was before, in terms of getting on with one another, even those we've fallen out badly with over this. It might be a bit harder after a 'ye
  10. You and I are as one on this, CMD. As I posted several dozen pages back, I think Scottish independence should happen, but just in a more objective, planned and collaborative way, enabling preparation on both sides of the border, and a more considered approach to what we should be sharing long-term for the best for all parties. I think a small no win will deliver that, in the end, and both sides will - i hope - have learned lessons from what's happened since 2011. I hate this oppositional approach to politics, which has spilled over into this referendum and messed things up good and proper.
  11. It's not the Telegraph - it's ex-Naval people writing to the Telegraph. And sorry, not opinions, but fact. Something the white paper's short on
  12. I'm not happy, in fact I'm quite sad November, I was just passing Carstairs when I first posted, and about ten minutes out from Glasgow the second time. And those Virgin trains can be quite fast ;-). Now you'll be accusing me of speeding along the motorway to Glasgow because I'm now back in Falkirk. Faslane could be used to base-port a conventional naval force, no problem, although berthing-space would be an issue if the SDF got as much as it seems to expect to get (and we can argue about that too). What it's in no way suitable for is the back-office functions required to act - as is state
  13. Sorry November, on a train going through borders, so pretty flakey connection. You could say that I've got a 'working knowledge' of the subject. . Do you doubt me?
  14. No, nothing stopping a small naval presence being there - it's the proposal to use it for the HQ of the SDF that's barking for all of the reasons I gave. The west coast isn't the obvious place to base the navy, even because the main assets we're protecting are in the north sea, and our NATO support role will focus on the north sea as well. Nothing to do with shipbuilding. There's even an existing ammunitioning depot at Crombie on the Forth. Sorry I can't be positive, and perhaps that's because there's absolutely nothing to be positive about in the White Paper, in the defence section at le
  15. Not just the navy proposed to be there, remember. And in truth not even enough berthing-space for the numbers of small craft suggested. The land-side would be hopeless for the admin and support-services. built on slopes, no parking, huge specialist facilities aimed at submarines that would need lengthy decommissioning... I could go on. It's a joke really. Not thought through, like so much else in that white paper
  16. You ever been to Faslane, BFT? I think anyone who had been there would realise just how completely unsuitable it is for anything other than submarine support. The infrastructure, the topography and the geography is all wrong - along with the small matter of it being on the west coast rather than the east. Rosyth would be much better, IMHO. the very fact of Faslane being suggested shows the exceedingly poor understanding of the needs of the armed forces by those who look for a quick fix for the huge job-losses associated with the loss of the submarine support function on the Clyde.
  17. ...which will henceforth be paid by Scottish Government, because you'll no longer be (only) a UK citizen. The agreement is that SG will take over responsibility for all Scottish Pensions for those living in Scotland at Independence. So they'll pay even if you go down to live in England. DWP will be out of the picture entirely, except for those from rUK who emigrate to Scotland after Independence, which they'll pay in exactly the same way as UK pensioners in Spain.
  18. BUS, this is all political soundbites. DWP won't be paying pensions any more, will lose all involvement after Independence - Scottish Government have to fund all pensions from 2016 onwards. By start-up costs I mean the cost of replicating what DWP currently does for the whole UK, in Scotland as well. New offices, new (expensive) IT, new employees; all to be funded within Scotland. And the concern about the ageing population is just that - all of those pensioners' pensions being paid for by fewer young people's efforts.
  19. Yes, pensions have been assured, and it's been agreed that Scottish Government will be funding them! So ability to deliver future payment of pensions becomes the responsibility of Scottish Government, and nothing to do with DWP, who will be disappearing from Scotland along with all of the other rUK machinery of government. Ability to deliver will come from Scottish Government's ability (or inability) to make overall budgets balance. And don't get me started on start-up costs...
  20. There you go with the rose-tinted spectacles. The SNP future projections are all based on optimistic assumption, not on firmly-understood future costings. All of these things - benefits, pensions, the NHS - will have to be funded from a budget that will be squeezed at the mercy of international markets, the whim of big business and speculators, and fluctuations of oil-prices. You can't say what'll happen to interest- or mortage-rates, because there is no Plan B on currency - just Plans B, C,D, E etc. Pensions have not been 'assured' by DWP, because they'll be funded after Independence by Scott
  21. Scaremongering much BUS? I think everything in that letter is true, and absolutely good reasons to vote no if you're not seeing everything through rose-tinted spectacles.
  22. True, but in this case my laid-back biddable son has never stood up to his quite 'assertive' father before. However on this (son's a 'yes') he appears to feel strongly enough to have fuelled a series of increasingly bad-tempered arguments, including threats to leave home (!). On the other hand my feisty argumentative daughter who constantly goes head-to-head with her dad, agrees with him utterly on this - it's actually brought them together - and instead spends all her time bemoaning the stupidity of her (yes-supporting) friends at school. She's in sixth year and not shown any interest in pol
  23. Tell me about it. My husband and son are almost at the point of coming to blows over the subject. So much for a peaceful democratic evolution!
  24. I take your yes-voting granny and raise it. My 93 - yo mother is not only a firm no, but keeps arguing with my (yes-voting) brother on the subject. He's not for changing, but neither is she ;-).
  • Create New...