pap Posted 10 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 10 September, 2014 Most of it after the Union of 1707 - including the entire Scottish Enlightenment. Somewhat diminishes the achievement of getting to 1707 as a coherent civilisation. Many didn't. Many weren't even born then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 10 September, 2014 Share Posted 10 September, 2014 I see George Galloway claims that the SNP has had him booted off Question Time tomorrow night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edprice1984 Posted 10 September, 2014 Share Posted 10 September, 2014 Comments made above stating that the No campaign have had a bounce since the poll at the beginning of the week doesn't suprise me. Often it will take a little bit of panic and chaos to bring out the waivering voters. Just seeing Salmond's smug face would probably do it for most 'undecided' voters, but it is one of the truths of politics and elections that people are generally far more conservative when actually voting compared to how they answer a pollster on the phone. The biggest issue facing the No campaign is getting the vote out on the day. If people expect a No vote to win, then a sizeable percentage may think it is wrapped up and not bother to head down to cast their ballot. The Yes team will be out in force, I also wouldn't be suprised to see some electoral fraud in places...this is only to be expected due to the high running emotions - it won't have any bearing on the outcome but it will still occur. For me the whole thing has been badly handled. If I had been in charge I wouldn't have allowed an Independence referendum in the first place. The SNP mandate isn't big enough, nor wide enough across the population of Scotland to have justified this. I still believe the No vote will succeed but it will be closer than many thought and it will have serious ramifications on the country afterwards. If the people of Scotland do vote Yes and become independent, I fully expect the SNP to be voted out and destroyed as a political party within 10 years. Careful for what you wish for, unstable currency union, no entry into the EU, no entry into NATO, huge loss of jobs in the two key sectors in Scotland - the financial sector and the oil industry within 20 years with little or no industrial sectors to take their place without wider UK investment. I wonder what the 21st Century Darien will be that leads them back in to Union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 10 September, 2014 Share Posted 10 September, 2014 Somewhat diminishes the achievement of getting to 1707 as a coherent civilisation. Many didn't. Many weren't even born then. A word and concept only invented in the Enlightenment - ie. after 1707. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Genuine question Batman, why are you so concened whether Scotland stay or go? Are yo pu Scottish or live in Scotland? Genuine questions, no agenda behind it Yo pu gets my vote. I reckon he's definitely a yo pu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 (edited) In a 'no' campaign far too dominated by narrow practical objections to Scottish independence I thought David Cameron's speech yesterday focusing instead on the emotional case for retaining the union was borderline brilliant. He's no Churchill of course, but Cameron can be a pretty decent orator when he puts his mind to it. That 'effing tories' speech - a speech directed at people who would never vote for his party in a month of Sunday's - was I think by far his finest moment in office. You can argue about money and technicalities all day long and not come to any definitive conclusion, but by comparing this vote to a bitter divorce and reminding the Scots what truly remarkable things we in the United Kingdom ("this family of nations") have achieved together the Prime Minister - at long last - has provided unionists with a readily understandable counter to the obvious 'Braveheart' style call of Scottish history. Dangerously late in the day alas, but it seems to me that only by appealing to both the head and the heart of the Scottish electorate might supporters of the union take some of the wind out of the SNP's all too full sails. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtpj_skOBuY Edited 11 September, 2014 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 RBS to pull out of Scotland if Scots vote 'Yes'. Personally I couldn't give a ****, only ever been to Scotland once, wasn't impressed, can't understand a lot of their accents and cost the restoration the union more than they're worth. Fingers crossed they vote 'yes'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 A word and concept only invented in the Enlightenment - ie. after 1707. Babylon and Rome say hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 CEO of John Lewis saying that the Scots may have higher retail prices, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Is the difference in sense of identity enough to warrant a separation? I would suggest no, but obviously that is a subjective question to which there is no 'correct' answer. The sense of identity is something each of us feel individually but has little bearing on how we wish the country to be run. That's why I would suggest that the values are a more important consideration. What team you support, your idols and your taste in music don't really impact on your values. I would agree that it isn't enough. But it's the combination of factors that I can understand. Perhaps simplistically: (Identity + Sense of disenfranchisement + Sense of oil revenue injustice + historic enmity) > Historic ties The Identity element of that combination of things simply goes to answer "Why Scotland? Why not Tooting?". You must consider that only fairly recently has power devolved to Holyrood. So although the figures may be startling, they are taken a bit out of context. The decisions by Westminster now have a much reduced direct impact on Scotland now. So the figures are perhaps best viewed as a reminder of how things used to be. That's very true, and I imagine that existing devolved decision making, plus the additional "Devo max" powers being discussed, will militate against independence for many. I couldn't really give a general consensus but my wife, a paid up union workplace rep is vehemently pro-union (of the UK). I think you have a very good point. An independent Scotland are much more likely to vote for a left leaning party than the UK as a whole. I would imagine this is why Labour have been losing so many voters to the Yes campaign. I also fear that the UK would jerk to the right without the weight of Scotland bringing towards centre. I'm not saying right wing is bad, but we don't want to end up like the US and have a right wing and a very right wing. Again, very true. A post-independent Scotland political map of the Untied Kingdom(sic) would likely be skewed blue - or at least as you say to the right. This should be a worry for everyone - even those of a blue hue. This would re-balance itself in time I'm sure, but potentially not for a worryingly long period of time. In the result as it is on my ballot. (I've used this username since joining some random little site about 12-13 years ago, for some reason I liked Dire Straits at the time...a less religious person you'd struggle to meet ) Thanks for sharing your perspective - really enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 In a 'no' campaign far too dominated by narrow practical objections to Scottish independence I thought David Cameron's speech yesterday focusing instead on the emotional case for retaining the union was borderline brilliant. He's no Churchill of course, but Cameron can be a pretty decent orator when he puts his mind to it. That 'effing tories' speech - a speech directed at people who would never vote for his party in a month of Sunday's - was I think by far his finest moment in office. You can argue about money and technicalities all day long and not come to any definitive conclusion, but by comparing this vote to a bitter divorce and reminding the Scots what truly remarkable things we in the United Kingdom ("this family of nations") have achieved together the Prime Minister - at long last - has provided unionists with a readily understandable counter to the obvious 'Braveheart' style call of Scottish history. Dangerously late in the day alas, but it seems to me that only by appealing to both the head and the heart of the Scottish electorate might supporters of the union take some of the wind out of the SNP's all too full sails. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtpj_skOBuY It was a good performance. Since Blair's year-on-year Oscar nominations during his time in office, I can't find it in myself to credit any politician with the humility to show their true self. Cameron came close yesterday for me. But the thought that he would let slip the term "effing" due to passion, is a stretch too far. He delivered it well, but to my mind a script writer and spin doctor put those words in his mouth; knowing that it would become known as that "effing Tories" speech, knowing that it would be watched and re-watched, and shared on social media, knowing that it would make a platform for his words to travel farther and resonate deeper than they otherwise would have done. Clever. I should say that it would be churlish to suggest that Cameron doesn't believe what he says, I'm sure he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 CEO of John Lewis saying that the Scots may have higher retail prices, Not to pick on you specifically, OldNick - but I have to say that stories like these are really depressing. Not so much because John Lewis may put up prices, or Standard Life may do the offs. Mainly because people thing that these things are actually important. We're discussing the break-up of a country and people are worried about knowingly paying more than the English for John Lewis tat. Like I said, depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Not to pick on you specifically, OldNick - but I have to say that stories like these are really depressing. Not so much because John Lewis may put up prices, or Standard Life may do the offs. Mainly because people thing that these things are actually important. We're discussing the break-up of a country and people are worried about knowingly paying more than the English for John Lewis tat. Like I said, depressing. It's the sort of things that matter to the people who are voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Not to pick on you specifically, OldNick - but I have to say that stories like these are really depressing. Not so much because John Lewis may put up prices, or Standard Life may do the offs. Mainly because people thing that these things are actually important. We're discussing the break-up of a country and people are worried about knowingly paying more than the English for John Lewis tat. Like I said, depressing.but the whole Scottish question comes down to one thing IMO finance. If they did not have oil there would be a guaranteed NO vote. Most people well all said and done look to what it is going to cost them. i understand a lot of people would like it to be about social justice, but when the push comes to shove it is how better or worse off they are going to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 It's the sort of things that matter to the people who are voting. Send them to the fkn Trafford Centre then. Let them declare independence there! but the whole Scottish question comes down to one thing IMO finance. If they did not have oil there would be a guaranteed NO vote. Most people well all said and done look to what it is going to cost them. i understand a lot of people would like it to be about social justice, but when the push comes to shove it is how better or worse off they are going to be. Think it's about loads more than that. It's about a country that doesn't feel as if its government represents its interests, and perhaps thinking they can make a better stab of it. It's not just about finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Most people well all said and done look to what it is going to cost them. i understand a lot of people would like it to be about social justice, but when the push comes to shove it is how better or worse off they are going to be. Very true. My dads family are from the broadly nationalist community in Belfast but whether they actually wanted to join with the Republic depended largely on how the UK and Irish economies were doing at the time. Jobs and income is what drives most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 RBS to pull out of Scotland if Scots vote 'Yes'. Personally I couldn't give a ****, only ever been to Scotland once, wasn't impressed, can't understand a lot of their accents and cost the restoration the union more than they're worth. Fingers crossed they vote 'yes'. LOL, brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Think it's about loads more than that. It's about a country that doesn't feel as if its government represents its interests, and perhaps thinking they can make a better stab of it. It's not just about finance. No government really represents my interests. I just will vote for the one who will hurt me financially the least. Iam one of societies payers in, and so unless the Government does something really terrible in my eyes i will sway towards the one who will leave me more to control my own destiny. That leaves me to put my own money to causes that i feel in touch with eg FB run and childrens charities or people i know who need help. I have many grievances with the Government, and most politicians as they are really only interested in getting power. Who they walk over never really worries them. My MP didnt return 2 calls i made when i needed assistance, my 1 vote wont matter if he gets in or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 You can't beat a good old fashioned conspiracy theory... http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/09/10/london-devious-plans-for-scotland-independence-referendum.html There is concern on both sides of the Scottish border that the British government might stage a terrorist incident a day or two before the September 18 referendum. Whatever might be planned would be designed to unite the entire UK in grieving just before the referendum, thus swinging Yes votes to the No column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 I saw one yes voter on the telly stating that scotland should not worry about not having full control over their currency (sterling) they will be fine as Germany dont have full control over the Euro and they have a great economy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Scottish Independence: how the Tories became pariahs. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-effing-tories-pariah-devolution Cameron admitted his party's pariah status in Scotland when he urged Scots not to vote yes simply "to kick the effing Tories". The unpopularity of the Conservatives is of course one of the most powerful factors driving the yes vote. Yet it is extraordinary to recall that as recently as October 1964 the Tories deemed it a disaster when the "Scottish Unionists" won only 24 seats, a loss of six, and secured only 41% of the vote across Scotland. By May 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections the party fell to an all-time low, winning 12% of its vote, down 2.7% on its 2007 constituency performance. This was in contrast to its performance in Wales, where it came second in the assembly for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Not to pick on you specifically, OldNick - but I have to say that stories like these are really depressing. Not so much because John Lewis may put up prices, or Standard Life may do the offs. Mainly because people thing that these things are actually important. We're discussing the break-up of a country and people are worried about knowingly paying more than the English for John Lewis tat. Like I said, depressing. Surely their 'never knowingly undersold' spiel would have to take a back seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Send them to the fkn Trafford Centre then. Let them declare independence there! Think it's about loads more than that. It's about a country that doesn't feel as if its government represents its interests, and perhaps thinking they can make a better stab of it. It's not just about finance. So how long until the North of England tries to up and leave then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 LOL, brilliant! It was a little tongue-in-cheek, but the sentiment that I actually am not that bothered remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 So how long until the North of England tries to up and leave then... Think it'll be awhile, if ever - although I can see the case for smaller units of governance. There are 5m people up there claiming they don't have adequate representation. Merseyside and Greater Manchester have around 4m living in them collectively. A huge problem is the capital being where it is, imo. Although not a fan of Manchester, there's a strong argument that people might not feel so distant from the Government and that more prosperity might find its way out of the South East if the capital was somewhere more central. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 , there's a strong argument that people might not feel so distant from the Government and that more prosperity might find its way out of the South East if the capital was somewhere more central. F&%k Off Pap - The money is fine down here, thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Scottish Independence: how the Tories became pariahs. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-effing-tories-pariah-devolution If the Tories are "pariahs" in Scotland with 412,855 Scottish votes in the 2010 general election, I wonder what word best describes the SNP who attracted 3% more votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Think it'll be awhile, if ever - although I can see the case for smaller units of governance. There are 5m people up there claiming they don't have adequate representation. Merseyside and Greater Manchester have around 4m living in them collectively. A huge problem is the capital being where it is, imo. Although not a fan of Manchester, there's a strong argument that people might not feel so distant from the Government and that more prosperity might find its way out of the South East if the capital was somewhere more central. Which is why investments such as HS2 are well worth it for those North of the Watford Gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11089388/North-Korea-backs-Scottish-independence.html Edited 11 September, 2014 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 If the Tories are "pariahs" in Scotland with 412,855 Scottish votes in the 2010 general election, I wonder what word best describes the SNP who attracted 3% more votes? Oh I love word quizzes, trousers. Is the word serfs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Which is why investments such as HS2 are well worth it for those North of the Watford Gap. Not convinced meself, mucker. That'll just draw more people to London, which let's be honest, isn't a problem that needs solving. I can get from Lime Street to Euston in 2 hours, 13 minutes on the train. It takes 1 hr and 42 minutes to get to Sheffield, and 2 hours 30 minutes to get to Derby. Think those are the kind of transport problems that need solving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Oh I love word quizzes, trousers. Is the word serfs? I just ask the questions. I'm not clever enough to know the answers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 I just ask the questions. I'm not clever enough to know the answers Still in the top 1% of all Tories, for that reason alone Most are happy enough with the smug feeling of faux social mobility when putting their crosses next to a Tory's name. "I'm middle class now, innit!" I'm with bletch. Fúcking serfs. Tory voters, not SNP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 The yes supporters are so full of it up here, they just despise those with a different view point friends are actually falling out with each other, The really tradegy of this whole referendum debate is that the media are just listening to those who shout the loudest, namely the salmond rent a mob supporters BBC Scoltland interviewers are a strange bunch The call the Krankies always by their christian names whislt the no leaders are always addresssed by their surnames This morning , when the news was on BBC SCotland they interviewd alex about RBS and Standard life potentially moving aspects on their investments to London Salmond said its not true I have a letter that was given to staff this morning , Mocked the content and said their will be no job losses he poo pooed every question put to him about this and said it was just the negative no politicians who were telling lies and spreading negativity as usual He also said he had spoken to some fund manger in aberdeen and he was assured there would be no impact oj jobs etc if some aspects were moved to London Salmond is one of the most arrogant and egotistical individuals you would ever want to meet Still , I can stop paying my membership to The Royal British Legion Scotland if it is a Yes vote, Im not going to join the new organisation The Scottish Legion if it is a Yes vote Salomnds cronies have said that it will still be called Royal British Legion and the legion will still be able to fly the Union Jack Thney just do not get it , They are going to be an independent country, no Longer British Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 The Queen is the head of state of loads of places which are not Britain. If the likes of Canada can have a Royal Canadian Navy (and other armed forces), why won't Scotland be able to? They're just talking about ripping up the Act of Union, not the Union of Crowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 The Queen is the head of state of loads of places which are not Britain. If the likes of Canada can have a Royal Canadian Navy (and other armed forces), why won't Scotland be able to? They're just talking about ripping up the Act of Union, not the Union of Crowns. where will they train, who will crew the ships? where will they get their support from? what will be their foreign policy? they want to be part of NATO, yet they want to be anti-nuclear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 where will they train, who will crew the ships? where will they get their support from? what will be their foreign policy? they want to be part of NATO, yet they want to be anti-nuclear? Not the point I was making at all. VW was specifically saying they wouldn't be able to have "Royal" anything. They will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Not the point I was making at all. VW was specifically saying they wouldn't be able to have "Royal" anything. They will. gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 He also said he had spoken to some fund manger in aberdeen and he was assured there would be no impact oj jobs etc if some aspects were moved to London That wouldn't be long time SNP supporter Martin Gilbert of Aberdeen Asset Management per chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 September, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Stop the press. I've found a Seumas Milne piece Alps will agree with. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/salmond-scotland-no-escape-tory-britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Salmond said its not true I have a letter that was given to staff this morning , Mocked the content and said their will be no job losses he poo pooed every question put to him about this and said it was just the negative no politicians who were telling lies and spreading negativity as usual He also said he had spoken to some fund manger in aberdeen and he was assured there would be no impact oj jobs etc if some aspects were moved to London This (deliberately) ignores half the story. 1) I'm sure that there would be an impact on jobs 2) Even if not a sigle job were affected he is totally ignoring the other factors related to companies relocating, not least corporation tax revenues Salmond is one of the most arrogant and egotistical individuals you would ever want to meet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Alex Hammond @skysportsalexh Blimey! Silk Sari impressive....tip one paced Surely he's got more important things on his plate than tweeting about horse racing?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Not convinced meself, mucker. That'll just draw more people to London, which let's be honest, isn't a problem that needs solving. I can get from Lime Street to Euston in 2 hours, 13 minutes on the train. It takes 1 hr and 42 minutes to get to Sheffield, and 2 hours 30 minutes to get to Derby. Think those are the kind of transport problems that need solving. It's a difficult one because although more people will be drawn to the capital to work, more people will be drawn to the country and the North to live, thus increasing the money spent in these areas and gentrifying some Midlands/Northern towns. I do agree there are better transport links needed all over mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingdomCome Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 the no leaders are always addressed by their surnames Now listen, darling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Asda are the latest to come out and say that a YES for scotland would mean higher prices north of the wall. AS said that is nonsense. He repeats that to all the business/oil/financial leaders who say they will move south and/or prices will go up in scotland not many big business have come out to say they will embrace a new scotland, as yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 (edited) The more I hear if the Yes vote goes through, Jobs will move south to England. That will help the unemployment figures and consequently the amount paid out in benefits in England. Do we get to repatriate anyone Scottish if they do not have a work visa, until they have joined the EU. If the resident Scots are allowed to stay with visas will they have to take the cricket test to prove their loyalty to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Edited 11 September, 2014 by mcjwills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 There are obviously greater costs in servicing a small population in a large and peripheral geographical area. No doubt businesses currently take a bit of a margin hit in servicing less well-connected areas (the West Country even?) which they accept as they are attempting to be seen as a national business and it is not worth the bad publicity in being seen to be trying it on. But when there are even further cross border costs involved: and at the moment we don't know what those costs will be - VAT, paperwork, standards, labelling? - we just don't know, why should they maintain cross border pricing. We certainly don't do it with France or Ireland etc. There may be very little difference beyond what is already observable - prices vary between different branches of Tescos or Wetherspoons sometimes - and competition should keep them to a minimum, but there will undoubtedly be some impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 It's strange that so many English people care so much about how much it will cost Scottish people to shop at Asda etc. I'm sure after a period of time, they will cope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 It's strange that so many English people care so much about how much it will cost Scottish people to shoplift at Asda etc. I'm sure after a period of time, they will cope. shut up tokyos, I'm still backing England for the win! Come On England! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 11 September, 2014 Share Posted 11 September, 2014 Nemo me impune lacessit Unless of course you change the price of an Asda tiger loaf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now