Phoenix

That is a perfectly valid answer in my opinion. There are many questions which cant be answered at this stage but at least both sides could be honest and say this.

My concerns over the Bank of England setting monetary policy comes from the way other monetary unions such as the EU already operate, the ECB in theory should treat all members of the Euro equally but in practise it will always help the stronger nations e.g. Germany or France possibly at the detriment of weaker nations such as Greece, Portugal or Ireland. Why do we think that the Bank of England will not prefer to help the south of England possibly to the detriment of Scotland? Also if your point of reference is Paul Kavanagh then is this really an unbiased opinion? "Check Hypothetical Harry go. A new currency would very unwelcome in my opinion. Some of the Yes camp (outwith the SNP) have mentioned this. They are in the minority and will have no influence. I’m guessing that you already know what the USSR’s pitfalls were. Please feel free to share your wisdom with less restraint, althought I do think it’s kind of irrelevant in the end. A vote for the SNP is a vote for the pound. Seemples." Was the personal dig at the start really necessary? You asked for questions and I asked them. I have no idea what happened with the break up of the USSR with regards to currency, it was a genuine question based on a recent change. Not all questions are loaded. As for the last statement, I thought that this referendum wasn't a 'vote for the SNP'. Statements like that show why the NO vote people assume that its only the SNP who want independence. Why would you be surprised if Scotland isn't allowed to borrow at the same rate as the UK? Credit history is built up over a long period of time, would a new state not have to earn a credit rating? Maybe they don't but I don't know that's why I asked the question.

So no answer to any of the questions then?

I honestly don't know which way I will vote. I believe that Scotland should be an independent country but I'm unsure of a lot of things, mostly to do with finance. It wasn't long ago that Ireland and Iceland were being held up as an example of how things would be ok if we were independent and look what's happened there.

Lets start with Finance then . What currency will we be using? Should we stay with the pound? Would there be any concerns about the currency in an independent country being 'run' by another country e.g. interest rates? If we look at the EU as an example, what is good for Germany or France might not be good for Spain or Greece. If the Bank of England has to make a decision and one way benefits Scotland but hurts England and vice versa what way do you think they will decide? Would a new currency be the answer? If so how much would that cost to set up and who would control this? Other countries have done this e.g. after the break up of USSR. What pitfalls did they find when dealing with these problems? When Scotland needs to borrow money (as every country does) at what % rate would we be borrowing at? Currently the UK borrows at roughly 2%, other countries in the EU can be up to 20%. At what rate would Scotland (having no 'credit history' with the markets) be borrowing at? Maybe these things have already been decided, if so please give us the facts.

Great website, so unbiased. How about just accepting that people have different opinions and just because you believe something to be correct it doesn't automatically make it correct. People on the other side of the debate also believe that they are correct. It's time for both sides to start dealing in facts and allowing us to make an informed decision based on these facts. Some of the crap on this thread just reminds me of listening to Old Firm fans argue over who is worse.

.

Isn't a merit award what you got at school for basically turning up? Sounds about right.

Remember the days when he was going to be sold for big money?

Probably discussing how good they are and how many games we were winning. Difference is that when the team isn't winning then people like to criticise any little detail. That's the nature of the internet

Yes to both of them. There will be a score and there will be an attendance.

Out of interest does anybody know if letting kids in free has seriously increased the number of kids coming to Firhill?

Thistle to score at least 2 goals tonight.

He has scored at least the same number of goals this year as our entire team have.

Why take advice from another failed Thistle manager?

Joe has a very valid point in my opinion. If we lose on tuesday then we could be in serious trouble.

Sometimes money can be short from month to month e.g. Unexpected bills. Buying a season ticket means you never have to miss a game for that reason. Or if you plan to go to all home games then a season ticket is worth the money. I dont understand the reasoning that season tickets should be bought simply to help the club out, knowing that you will not make it to enough games to break even. In my opinion the club is not a charity and isn't being run like one so why treat it like one? I for one would not buy a season ticket knowing that I was going to miss 5 or 6 games, but I may be interested in buying a 10 match block at the start of the season. Sad thing is that until the product on the park improves you wont see an increase in crowds but unless the crowds improve you wont see an improvement on the park. Glad it's not me who has to make these decisions.

Season tickets allow the club to work out a budget in advance, it allows players to be signed knowing that the money is there to pay them for the season. That's why season tickets are so important to the club. Any deal which gets more numbers into Firhill should be applauded but care should be taken not to devalue the season ticket so much that people decide not to get one.

Good to see the board acting quickly on this one and gaining sponsorship until the end of the season.

Once again you show a real lack of knowledge on this subject and prefer to pick and chose quotes from dubious sources. Britain claim on the Islands dates back to 1690. Argentina didn't exist as a country until 1816. Both France and Spain had claims on the island but both relinquised their claims (The Spanish claim is the basis of the Argentine claim but as you have already derided the opinion that " Britain's claim is based on the traditions of the now defunct British Empire" I assume you would also dismiss the Agentinian claim which is based on the traditions of the now defunct Spanish Empire) Far from being thrown off the Islands when Britain regained the Islands after invasion from the newly formed Argentina (for which the commander of the invasion was executed by the Argentinians) they were , according to a number of sources (but not being there myself I cant say for sure) encouraged to stay (person involved was called Matthew Brisbane if you actually want to learn some facts). If the only objection that you could find was the Foreign office documents which states "suggests that successive UK governments have considered the British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured negotiations" then I think the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is quite safe. Your whole argument seems to revolve around this myth that the British invaded a set of Islands that were owned by Argentina. Unless the Argentinians had a DeLorian and went back in time then this seems to be impossible. Your only other argument seems to be location. I'm sure you would have the same principles if America invaded Cuba. As for the Scottish debate your viewpoint seems to have switched from population to location as a principle of self determination. What will it be tomorrow? Lets be honest here, you couldn't care less about the Falkland Islands. The real reason for your defence of the Argentinian point of view is based on your hatred of Margaret Thatcher. As such this is my last post on the subject so as not to bore the rest of the forum. No point arguing with someone who has such as closed mind.

I fully agree things could have been sorted out earlier but in my opinion the military junta in Argentina was under so much pressure at home that they had to try an invasion to save their own necks back home. And although The USA tried to dissuade military action they actually blocked sales of arms to Argentina and provided military support to the UK during the conflict (as did the French) As for Grenada, it actually gained independance in 1974 so wasn't a British dependency when invaded by America.

I pointed out why the Falkland Islands were known(prior to 1982) If you choose to ignore this then this again proves your lack of debating skills. I can give reasons why the Islands were known before 1982, your figures were simply picked out of thin air (unless you can provide the info?) Feel free to "Cherry pick" my posts. You do know what cherry picking means though? Incase you don't I'll give you a definition "Cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." If you want to ignore the main points in a post just to show an incorrect viewpoint then feel free. You might even get a job as a headline writer for The Sun one day. As for the claim that my views on the Falklands are bigoted, moronic and narrow minded I can only assume that you believe that the United Nations holds those same bigoted, moronic and narrow minded views as they have the Islands on a list of Non-Self Governing Territories which under General Assembly Resolution 1514 states that " All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." Please tell me how being invaded by a forgein country allows the self determination of a country/ territory? The Falkland islanders choose to be British and have full British citizenship (first given in 1983 and then superceeded in 2002 which allowed all British Territories UK citizenship). If they chose to be Argentinian then they could be Argentinian that is democracy (but is unlikely as over 90% have full British citizenship, made up of 61.3% Falkland Islanders and 29% British i.e. citizens through birth or lineage) I'm really sorry but I still cant see any explanation why you favour self determination for one set of people but not for others? Perhaps I've just missed it, any chance of highlighting it or explaining it? All I've seen is that Scotland has 5.5M people and the Falkland Islands only have 3000 therefore there is some reason that they don't deserve the right of self determination (as set out by the UN). At what level of population do you think that a country/territory deserves the right to decide its own fate?

1. Yes you are right my post was "riddled" with the words ridiculous, narrow minded, bigoted and moronic. I described your post as ridiculous which I stand by as it was full of inacuraccies and lies. Your claim that 99.9% of British people had never heard of the Falklands is backed up by?????????. You blame the head of a nation for sending troops to liberate a dependency that has been invaded by a forgien force. You may not agree with the decision but the majority did both in Government at the time and in the next general election. Narrow minded, bigoted and moronic were used to describe people who fail to even consider the fact that other peoples opinion may be just a valid as theirs and are unwilling or unable to accept that. If you see yourself in either of those groups then the problem may lie with you and not others. 2. The Falkland Islands have for many years been a important point of navagation around Cape Horn and was used extensively in shipping. It was also involved in navel battles in both WW1(Battle of the Falkland Islands) and WW2 (Battle of the River Plate , So famous they even made a film of it) Again the fact that neither you nor a majority of the British public knew much about it is a lack of education not a lack of significance of the Islands. 3. Sorry the level of debate was set by the original poster who blamed the tories for the bonus paid to Stephen Hester despite the bonus actually being set by the previous government (which BJ has acknowledged) 4. The fact that you even type someones name says more about you than anybody else can. As I've said those who think that Thatcher was to blame for everything that is wrong in the world and that she some form of Anti- Christ are just as bad as those who claim that she was wonderful and never made a mistake in her life. I really feel sorry for people who see the world in that black and white way. 5. At what distance do we decide that people are worth defending? Is the Outer Hebrides too far from London or Edinburgh to care about? Had the Argentinians populated Bute in the 17th Century, been run by Argentina since then and had decided in numerous referendums that they wished to maintain their Argentine status then no I wouldn't be indignant about it because I believe that people have the right to self determination. I'm not the one being hypocritical here unless you are suddenly against the right of the Scots to hold their referendum? As for the highlighted part of your post. I assume you highlighted it to show a fact or to emphasise a point? As has been pointed out by a previous poster the Falkland Islanders recieved full British Citizenship in 1983 which actually means that over 90% of the population are actually British but don't let the facts get in the way of your point. As for the wishes of 5.5 million Scots being more important than the 3000 Falkland Islanders in the case of self determination. At what stage do the numbers make it viable? If Scotland only had 3 million people would it still be viable? 2M, 500000? I'll ask again, do you not find it hypocritical to support self determination for one group of people while denying another group the same right ( a criticism which could be made against all the political parties within the UK) Perhaps you can also point out where I have felt insulted? And if you believe that you were being insulted by any previous posts then you must think that you fell into one of the mindless, narrow minded or bigoted groups that I was discussing. Again If you can point out any personal abuse then I will happily delete it. I hope you will do the same e.g aficionados of auto eroticism, ya mad t*ry( which I'll take as a compliment), the idiot here is you.

Very true to say that full British citizenship was not granted until 1983, before that they were British Dependent territory citizens which although they had some rights they were not allowed the automatic right to live within the mainland UK. After the war the Islanders requested full British Citizenship which was granted bringing it in line with Gibralta. The basic facts of the war were that an outside nation invaded the dependency of another nation and as such went against the wishes of the population of the Islands. As for the statement that the "unneccessary waste of life was avoidable" should we have allowed Argentina to take the Islands by force and not attempt to regain them? Where does that thinking stop? If the Americans invade Cuba should the Cubans just accept it in order to save the unneccessary waste of life? As for Thatcher yes she did make the most of the invasion and used it to gain a landslide in the General Election but she could only have did that if the British Public were behind it and on this occasion they were.

Thanks for proving my point about the lack of debate. Perhaps you could point out the "banal name calling" in my previous post? And to follow up that insight with personal abuse just highlights the lack of debate on here. Simply because you didn't know where the Falkland Islands were previous to 1982 is not an indication that "no-one had even heard of the place". I'm quite sure maps were available and that the islands were on it. Perhaps you meant to say that the Islands were not at the front of the minds of the British public. Again I will try to keep the debate going as ask you why you feel the rights of the Falkland Islanders are less important than the rights of for instance Scottish people? Why does one group get the right to choose their own destiny in a referendum while denying the wishes of the Islanders to remain British?