 |
Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | BTW, if there were a module in difficult question avoidance. Brayfart would have a phd. |
irony.irony.irony.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| landg wrote: | | 20 years of oil, thats the legacy some base the independence arguemnet on |
I don't think ANY supporter of independence bases independence on "20 years of oil". Apart from anything else, it's a meaningless statement. How long something lasts depends on how quickly you use it up. An independent Scotland would have a lot less reason to use it up quickly than the UK has. | landg wrote: | | while we (THE WORLD) are trying to get away from using the stuff |
And even without full independence yet, one country leading the world in seeking alternative energies is Scotland. | landg wrote: | | how f***ing stupid are some of you |
Are you getting somebody else to type your messages for you? The grammar and spelling in them isn't quite as bad as it used to be. You're getting help, aren't you? Or is it just that you're trying to lay off the drugs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shagpile
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 794
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Braveheart wrote: | | Dave Coull wrote: | | Braveheart wrote: | | our nationalist contributors |
Nationalism and support for independence are not the same thing. They overlap, but are far from identical. |
Whatever, they have not made their case very well...
| Braveheart wrote: | | They've got their government and it has failed in all respects.... |
"has failed in all respects"? | Quote: | | You are saying there's not one single thing they have got right? That's a bit sweeping. It sounds like the sort of exaggerated remark a spokesman for a rival political party would make, rather than the sort of thing that a less biased observer of the political scene would say. However, even if it was true that the present government by a particular political party "has failed in all respects", that would NOT disprove the case for independence, merely the case for that particular political party. And even if it was true that the present government by a particular political party "has failed in all respects", that would NOT disprove the case for democratic self-determination through a referendum in which people can vote for OR AGAINST independence. And even if it was true that the present government by a particular political party "has failed in all respects", people can vote for independence in a referendum, and still vote AGAINST that political party governing an independent Scotland, they can even vote against it conducting the independence negotiations. |
Sure. But the only sizeable party that wants indpendence and a referendum has failed to deliver its key promises. It has done some small things on bridge tolls, ferry fair subsides and other populist measures, but it has not passed one major bill, and it is hard not reach the conclusion that "big" policies as SFT and LIT and School Building and Class Size 18 and Abolishing Student Debt were promised without (to put it mildly) sufficient understanding of how they would be delivered. As a result, they have not been delivered. If they promise these things and don't deliver them, why believe their analysis and position on independence?
| Braveheart wrote: | | independence would be a disaster for the people and the economy of Scotland |
| Quote: | | Then you should welcome a referendum as the opportunity to try to convince your fellow citizens of this and vote accordingly. |
I have no fear of a referendum. But it is not necessary, or it is only necessary to assuage a minority who will never be assuaged anyway....
TBH, I would rather spend the time and money on other things (schools etc.) |
Bore, boring, bored!
Has this boring Weegie Cooncilor got anything actually relevant to contribute? ON HIS OWN THREAD!!!!!
He'll remind us of the thread topic when it suits.
80% of Scots want a referendum...... Liebour dinnae. Justification for that comes from the 'polls', they'll tell us that Scots don't want independence, so therefore no referendum........ even though 'polls' say 80% of Scots want a referendum, we're no gonnae get aine.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | 20 years of oil, thats the legacy some base the independence arguemnet on |
I don't think ANY supporter of independence bases independence on "20 years of oil". Apart from anything else, it's a meaningless statement. How long something lasts depends on how quickly you use it up. An independent Scotland would have a lot less reason to use it up quickly than the UK has. | landg wrote: | | while we (THE WORLD) are trying to get away from using the stuff |
And even without full independence yet, one country leading the world in seeking alternative energies is Scotland. | landg wrote: | | how f***ing stupid are some of you |
Are you getting somebody else to type your messages for you? The grammar and spelling in them isn't quite as bad as it used to be. You're getting help, aren't you? Or is it just that you're trying to lay off the drugs? |
with the policies brought forward by a labour led hollyrood.
drugs?
what's your excuse dave?
trepanation gone bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shagpile
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 794
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| landg wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | BTW, if there were a module in difficult question avoidance. Brayfart would have a phd. |
irony.irony.irony. |
No, no irony..... I'm being serious. Brayfart is a total prat as in; thick, stupid and twisted.
You are one of the peasants he wants to screw...... 'cause he's a coonsillor and he can dae that wi' a Liebour mandate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shagpile
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 794
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I want to go toe to toe with Brayfart......
He avoids me. ME; and I'm stupid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peasants, thick, scum, brits.
'they work for me'.
tbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
landg, no-one who is serious about it bases an argument for independence on oil alone. On the other hand, only a fool would ignore the oil. After all, it's the only thing keeping the UK afloat!
If you think oil is only used for burning, your understanding is even lower than I initially thought. Burning oil is a criminal waste of an extremely valuable chemical feedstock. Look around your room and try to imagine it without any plastics or artificial fibres. Try to imagine a world where pharmaceuticals could produce little more than aspirin.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1021
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Braveheart wrote: | | Alasdair wrote: | | But this is an arguement about how business and banks in particular operate. |
No it isn't. It's an argument about the economics of Scottish independence, and whether the failure of the Scottish banks shows the fragility of any post independence economy, and its exposure to failing banks. |
Yes it is. The arguements are inter-related, you cannot divide one from the other. There was an inherent failure in the manner in which the large banking operations failed, which was related to the international buying and selling of debt, i.e. how these business' were operated within the global marketplace and how they were regulated.
| bh wrote: | | Al wrote: | | Particularly relevant becomes the notion of the economic slave given that the cause of the collapse was seemingly the over-selling of a non-entity, namely debt |
Can't argue. Haven't a clue what this means. |
Drop the "economic slave" bit and work with the buying and selling of debt. Banks buy and sell debt both from each other and to end users, this money is nothing but an electronic creation, generally in most western economies it isn't supported by an equivilent level of real wealth. If you borrow, for example, £100,000 for a mortgage that money didn't exist until it was created by the bank, they then sell you this imaginery money and give it to the sellers bank. Your mortgage provider then owes the seller's bank £100,000. The whole thing is cyclical and the money doesn't really exist beyond the electronic world.
Generally speaking mortgage provider (or loans companies generally) have no legal right to create new money and so they are buying and selling debt.
| bh wrote: | | al wrote: | | We might hope that in an independent scotland things might be different ... |
The evidence is with me. |
In your opinion. Others have quoted other evidence an figures to the contrary. Their opinions are also valid.
| bh wrote: | | No nationalist politician or thinker gave the slightest inkling of disagreeing with the conduct of the Scottish banks before the crisis arose. In fact Alex Salmond gloried in the success of the Scottish banking and commercial sector, and boosted it, and his friendship with many of the key banking players, at every opportunity. |
Not strictly speaking tru, there are politicians who have voiced concerns in the past, however, your right insofar as no front benchers disagreed. Although you're wrong to single out Salmond, the knighthoods were being handed out by Labour and all politicians have schmoozed with big business and banks in particular.
| bh wrote: | | There is no evidence that an independent Scotland would (or indeed could in a global economy) have behaved significantly differently from the US or UK or other banking authorities. |
Of course it's difficult to prove an entirely theoretical position. we may however speculate that a future independent scotland would behave differently, perhaps to a greater extend than larger economies precisely due to the experience of smaller economies like Iceland and the damage that was done to them.
| bh wrote: | | Some nationalists might try to use the argument that an independent Scotland would have behaved differently, but they were not saying it last year ... |
No one was was saying it last year or the year before. Fortunately that should be behind us and we can look forward with a fresh perspective. Remember independence will nevr happen 'yesterday', but it might happen 'tomorrow'.
| Braveheart wrote: | | alasdair wrote: | | given the serious levels of debt in which the UK now finds itself how can it be argued that even the UK might survive a future event? |
Don't know. But it is very clear that an independent Scotland would not have survived this one, never mind a worse one.... |
Wouldn't it? Iceland still exists.
| bh wrote: | | al wrote: | | I disagree, some of the pro-independence contributions have been very good. |
point me to one that you think is very good. |
It's clear what I believe to be a good arguement may not chime with what you believe to be a good arguement, both sides are fairly entrenched in their positions. Hopefully I'm a bit more open-minded ... I do try.
_________________
My blog - http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com
My arts and crafts site http://madestuff.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
For those who bang on about the oil running out, may I recommend this article from the magazine Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com...m?id=squeezing-more-oil-edit-this
If you can't be bothered to read it, the basic premise is that our technological ability to extract oil is advancing all the time so our ability to recover more and more oil from existing reservoirs improves every day. We say today that half the recoverable oil under the North Sea has been produced, but the amount of recoverable oil increases daily.
Twenty years from now we could well be saying that there's only twenty years of production left. And twenty years after that the story will probably be the same.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Braveheart
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Alasdair"] | Braveheart wrote: | | Alasdair wrote: | | But this is an arguement about how business and banks in particular operate. |
No it isn't. It's an argument about the economics of Scottish independence, and whether the failure of the Scottish banks shows the fragility of any post independence economy, and its exposure to failing banks. |
| Alisdair wrote: | | The arguements are inter-related, you cannot divide one from the other. There was an inherent failure in the manner in which the large banking operations failed, which was related to the international buying and selling of debt, i.e. how these business' were operated within the global marketplace and how they were regulated. |
You can divide them. Easily. The Scottish banks failed just as other banks failed. There is no evidence that an independent Scotland would have or could have regulated Scottish banks any differently from how they were regulated. Even if they did regulate them differently, that is no guarantee that the Scottish banks would not have failed and will not fail in future.
It is the existence of the Scottish banks, the size of the Scottish banks and the certainty of bank failure that provides the exposure. The mechanism of the current or past or future failures is not relevant. History shows that banks fail an sometimes there is a systemic failure, such as we experiencing now. The Scottish banks would have failed at some time, and the exposure of the Scottish economy to the failure of the Scottish banks would have been and will be as we have seen: a bankrupting force in an economy of the size of Scotland's. So. An independent Scotland would have been bankrupted by the current banking crisis. If we continue to host large banks (and I think the SNP policy is that we should and I agree with that) then the next time they fail, Scotland will be bankrupted, unless we are part of the UK which factor saved us this time.
| bh wrote: | | al wrote: | | We might hope that in an independent scotland things might be different ... |
The evidence is with me. |
In your opinion. Others have quoted other evidence an figures to the contrary. Their opinions are also valid.
| bh wrote: | | No nationalist politician or thinker gave the slightest inkling of disagreeing with the conduct of the Scottish banks before the crisis arose. In fact Alex Salmond gloried in the success of the Scottish banking and commercial sector, and boosted it, and his friendship with many of the key banking players, at every opportunity. |
| Alasdair wrote: | | Not strictly speaking tru, there are politicians who have voiced concerns in the past, however, your right insofar as no front benchers disagreed. Although you're wrong to single out Salmond, the knighthoods were being handed out by Labour and all politicians have schmoozed with big business and banks in particular. |
| bh wrote: | | There is no evidence that an independent Scotland would (or indeed could in a global economy) have behaved significantly differently from the US or UK or other banking authorities. |
| Al wrote: | | Of course it's difficult to prove an entirely theoretical position. we may however speculate that a future independent scotland would behave differently, perhaps to a greater extend than larger economies precisely due to the experience of smaller economies like Iceland and the damage that was done to them. |
The context is an independent Scotland and the reference to Salmond is to illustrate that he would not have handled the banks any differently. Given his closeness to the main players, he may even have encouraged worse excesses.
| bh wrote: | | Some nationalists might try to use the argument that an independent Scotland would have behaved differently, but they were not saying it last year ... |
| Al wrote: | | No one was was saying it last year or the year before. |
My point exactly.
| Braveheart wrote: | | alasdair wrote: | | given the serious levels of debt in which the UK now finds itself how can it be argued that even the UK might survive a future event? |
Don't know. But it is very clear that an independent Scotland would not have survived this one, never mind a worse one.... |
| Al wrote: | | Wouldn't it? Iceland still exists. |
Ho ho
| bh wrote: | | al wrote: | | I disagree, some of the pro-independence contributions have been very good. |
point me to one that you think is very good. |
| Al wrote: | | It's clear what I believe to be a good arguement may not chime with what you believe to be a good arguement, both sides are fairly entrenched in their positions. Hopefully I'm a bit more open-minded ... I do try. |
I'm open minded too Alasdair. I believe the evidence. So if you think that you have seen a good argument, supported by evidence and logic, posted by the nationalists here, please point me to it.
_________________
Neither a nationalist nor a unionist be. http://braveheart-braveheartsblog.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1021
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bh wrote: | | Alisdair wrote: | | The arguements are inter-related, you cannot divide one from the other. There was an inherent failure in the manner in which the large banking operations failed, which was related to the international buying and selling of debt, i.e. how these business' were operated within the global marketplace and how they were regulated. |
You can divide them. Easily. The Scottish banks failed just as other banks failed. There is no evidence that an independent Scotland would have or could have regulated Scottish banks any differently from how they were regulated. Even if they did regulate them differently, that is no guarantee that the Scottish banks would not have failed and will not fail in future. |
There's no evidence of what never happened because it never happened. Just as there are no guarantee that a different regulatory system would avoid collapse there's no guarantee that it wouldn't.
I would suggest though that wehere banks were regulated to the extent that they could not lend more than they held then the crash would not have occurred other than in the event of their being a run on the bank.
| bh wrote: | | It is the existence of the Scottish banks, the size of the Scottish banks and the certainty of bank failure that provides the exposure. The mechanism of the current or past or future failures is not relevant. |
The mechinism is entirely relevant and relevant not only to Scottish banks but the banks in every country. It is the regulatory mechanism or absence thereof that allowed the banks to run up massive debt which they failed to manage. The failure of the regulatory system cannot not be laid at the feet of Salmond or any other Holyrood politiion because the powers do not lie there.
Of course that's not to say that they wouldn't have done the same. However, in the light of the fact that it has happened already and every nation that has been hit is or should be looking at the regulatory system then we can safely presume that any future independent Scottish parliament would be acutely aware of the risks and we would hope legislate differently to minimise the exposure.
| bh wrote: | | History shows that banks fail an sometimes there is a systemic failure, such as we experiencing now. The Scottish banks would have failed at some time, and the exposure of the Scottish economy to the failure of the Scottish banks would have been and will be as we have seen: a bankrupting force in an economy of the size of Scotland's. So. An independent Scotland would have been bankrupted by the current banking crisis. |
Yet these are elements which are now in the past and future regulation would hopefully account for these risks. Maybe the current banking crisis would have crippled scotland, yet there are other smaller countries whose banking sector has not been so badly hit.
| bh wrote: | | If we continue to host large banks (and I think the SNP policy is that we should and I agree with that) then the next time they fail, Scotland will be bankrupted, unless we are part of the UK which factor saved us this time. |
I don't know if this is SNP policy or not, I doubt the SNP will be a major political player in an indepdnent scotland. I believe that the problem with banks was not necessarily their size, rather it was the nature of their business, which was based on an economy of debt as I have discussed elsewhere.
A bank that spreads it's risks would be a far safer bet, and a bank that held assetts equivilent or greater than their debt would be far less likely to fail. It was the so-called 'toxic debt' that caused the problem, yet all debt mis-managed is ultimately a massive risk.
| bh wrote: | Don't know. But it is very clear that an independent Scotland would not have survived this one, never mind a worse one....
| Al wrote: | | Wouldn't it? Iceland still exists. |
Ho ho |
You may dismiss the point but Iceland continues to exist as an independent nation and whilst things may be 'difficult' at the moment I doubt that it is about to be absorbed by any other nation.
_________________
My blog - http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com
My arts and crafts site http://madestuff.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | For those who bang on about the oil running out, may I recommend this article from the magazine Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com...m?id=squeezing-more-oil-edit-this
If you can't be bothered to read it, the basic premise is that our technological ability to extract oil is advancing all the time so our ability to recover more and more oil from existing reservoirs improves every day. We say today that half the recoverable oil under the North Sea has been produced, but the amount of recoverable oil increases daily.
Twenty years from now we could well be saying that there's only twenty years of production left. And twenty years after that the story will probably be the same. |
You COULD say alot of things about oil and what would happen in an independent Scotland.
However, decisions need to be made based on the facts currently available not IF's, BUT's, and what COULD happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | For those who bang on about the oil running out, may I recommend this article from the magazine Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com...m?id=squeezing-more-oil-edit-this
If you can't be bothered to read it, the basic premise is that our technological ability to extract oil is advancing all the time so our ability to recover more and more oil from existing reservoirs improves every day. We say today that half the recoverable oil under the North Sea has been produced, but the amount of recoverable oil increases daily.
Twenty years from now we could well be saying that there's only twenty years of production left. And twenty years after that the story will probably be the same. |
You COULD say alot of things about oil and what would happen in an independent Scotland.
However, decisions need to be made based on the facts currently available not IF's, BUT's, and what COULD happen. |
I did read it and it's not IF'S, BUTS and What COULD happen.
It does show me you have little grasp of science and explains why you believe so much of the government produced gibberish you are so fond of quoting on this board.
You clearly lack the necessary skills of discernment required to back up your personal opinions about things.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu brąth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | For those who bang on about the oil running out, may I recommend this article from the magazine Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com...m?id=squeezing-more-oil-edit-this
If you can't be bothered to read it, the basic premise is that our technological ability to extract oil is advancing all the time so our ability to recover more and more oil from existing reservoirs improves every day. We say today that half the recoverable oil under the North Sea has been produced, but the amount of recoverable oil increases daily.
Twenty years from now we could well be saying that there's only twenty years of production left. And twenty years after that the story will probably be the same. |
You COULD say alot of things about oil and what would happen in an independent Scotland.
However, decisions need to be made based on the facts currently available not IF's, BUT's, and what COULD happen. |
I did read it and it's not IF'S, BUTS and What COULD happen.
It does show me you have little grasp of science and explains why you believe so much of the government produced gibberish you are so fond of quoting on this board.
You clearly lack the necessary skills of discernment required to back up your personal opinions about things. |
not if's and buts but could.
amounts to the same thing.
a lot of big fat IF's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear God, landg wants to show me the meaning of a the modal verbs in grammar.
He's insufflating early this evening.
Read the article (if you're still able to) and you might understand the posts.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu brąth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie wrote: | Oh dear God, landg wants to show me the meaning of a the modal verbs in grammar.
He's insufflating early this evening.
Read the article (if you're still able to) and you might understand the posts. |
I see you are still following Lang around the various threads.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deflect and deny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | For those who bang on about the oil running out, may I recommend this article from the magazine Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com...m?id=squeezing-more-oil-edit-this
If you can't be bothered to read it, the basic premise is that our technological ability to extract oil is advancing all the time so our ability to recover more and more oil from existing reservoirs improves every day. We say today that half the recoverable oil under the North Sea has been produced, but the amount of recoverable oil increases daily.
Twenty years from now we could well be saying that there's only twenty years of production left. And twenty years after that the story will probably be the same. |
Scottish Government report is gibberish? Well I never.
Are the French Government Reports any better Stevie?
You COULD say alot of things about oil and what would happen in an independent Scotland.
However, decisions need to be made based on the facts currently available not IF's, BUT's, and what COULD happen. |
I did read it and it's not IF'S, BUTS and What COULD happen.
It does show me you have little grasp of science and explains why you believe so much of the government produced gibberish you are so fond of quoting on this board.
You clearly lack the necessary skills of discernment required to back up your personal opinions about things. |
Why? Is anyone talking about science?
No I believe that oil is running out and oil fields further into the North Sea are difficult to reach. So if the technology already exists Stevie, please tell us what it is and why the rate of oil production has not increased?
So a Scottish Government report is gibberish? Ha ha The Scottish Report is fact not gibberish you speak. Please provide evidence on why it is gibberish?
Are the French Government reports any better Stevie?
Last edited by Ultra on Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear you have a consecutive running order dyslexia.
I posted before landg, he responded to me.
But more importantly, it shows that you think you can protect landg from the big bad terrible Stevie.
Well, having seen your inability to comprehend some simple science in this thread, you can't.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu brąth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
