Alex Salmond: "Our vision of an independent Scotland is one of a country engaging fully with the EU and the broader international community, co-operating closely with our friends and neighbours in the UK".
Jackie Baillie: “He should spend less time telling us why he hates the UK and more time being honest about the consequences of separation. Maybe if the first minister had credible answers about what would replace the pound, how our pensions would be paid and what would happen to the funding for our schools and hospitals if we left the UK, his separatist campaign wouldn't be trailing so badly in the polls.”
|Aye shut yer ears Jackie, and put your ear plugs in.|
You could be all three wise monkeys if it were not for all the evil
that spews from your mouth.
Heaven give me strength.
OK Jackie. Mr Salmond is sick to the back teeth of having to explain this to slow learning MSPs...so I'll do it for him.
It's very simple. What will replace the pound is, er, the pound.
Cabinet ministers from the London government have admitted it would be economic madness not to share the currency from the point of view of English business if for nothing else. The governor of the bank of England has said he can make it work, but that the decision must be made by politicians.
In any case, economists have pointed out that we can use the pound whether the UK likes it or not. With their approval, we help pay off their massive debt; without it, we don’t.
How will our pensions be paid, Jackie? Well, once again, the British government has explained this when your attention was wandering. They have said that it is responsible for pension for everyone who has paid into the system (that's National INSURANCE for you; you pay in all your life, then you get something back, not much I agree, but something).
It has been said by ministers in the UK parliament.
It has been written by the DWP (the DWP for heaven’s sake) in letters to people who have asked what would happen to their pensions.
|Evil place, full of hatred|
From the minute we are independent our own government will be responsible for collecting taxes to pay pensions. Just like other countries do.
How would we fund our schools, etc? We would fund our schools and our hospitals and all the other things that we have to fund in the same way that every other country does.
I mean seriously, have you travelled, Jackie?
Have to been to Iceland, for example? Tiny place: population of Edinburgh. They have schools. Yes, they do. They have universities too. Their people are highly educated, for free. Even the right wing parties in Iceland laugh out loud at the idea that in a modern technological age people would have to pay fees to go to school and college. Most Icelanders speak 3 languages, some a deal more.
Have to been to Luxembourg? Tiny place: population of Edinburgh. They have a highly educated workforce and a brilliant health system. Their kids have to learn three languages just to live in their tiny country. And then they usually learn English on top.
|Oh look, a small northern independent country that has buildings|
University of Iceland
They have schools and hospitals and social security and all sort sf other things in other countries in Europe. Somehow, although it may be a mystery to you, they manage without the UK to show them how. It seems to me that Scots might be able to manage that themselves... you know, if Latvians and Italians and Danes can manage it, why not us. We aren't a sub-species.
Seriously Jackie. There are two possibilities. Either you are plain thick and you haven't understood all the answers that have been given and given and given again… or you are being deliberately obtuse and lying for Ed and David and now Nigel. You guys just love the the comfortable position that you are in any the likelihood of an aristocratic title at the end of a trough swilling career.
I hate to tell you, but in the eyes of “ordinary people” you don’t have a reputation for being particularly thick, so I guess… it seems like the second.
But while we have your attention, can we have an answer from you?
You've been asked this over and over again but you've never come up with a good answer.
Why is it that you support the spending of £100 billion on mass killing machines to be stationed near Scotland’s largest city, when Scots’ share of that money could abolish child poverty and starvation within a few months, close soup kitchens and give people a new start?
Surely it's not because you relish the idea that one day one of your mates will get an instruction from the USA to kill millions of people in Moscow?
If you won’t answer we must assume that in your book having “clout” is more important than miserable kids living in abject poverty. You and Mr Cameron. Two disgusting peas in a disgusting pod.