Scottish Independence

[RyeSloan]

I think it's safe to assume a divorce costs both sides money...quite how much this one would cost is anybody's guess.

All the talk of 10% of this and 10% of that seems fanciful...let's be honest the UK Government doesn't really have a balance sheet like a private company does nor any real idea of its assets and liabilities (part of the bonus of being a government, you can get away with shoddy accounting) so gawd only knows where such negotiations would begin!

[over the line]

Seriously? With an immediate 10% increase in its national debt?

Well obviously an instant debt increase of 10% for rUK wouldn't be desirable, but with the way the national debt has ballooned over recent years, I don't think it would be an overly huge shock to the system. Where as imagine the rUK withdrawing all its facilities, and mechanisms for running a country: inland revenue, MOD, HM Customs, highways agency, DVLA etc. My hypothetical scenario was that at 8 am tomorrow, the wall went up and both countries were on their own. I think rUK would cope better, under those circumstances don't you?

But on a more realistic point, an iS would not be able to replace all the governmental mechanisms that the UK currently offers it, within an 18 month period. I think its accepted by both sides that an iS would still be reliant on rUK for certain facilities and governmental mechanisms, for several years and in some cases longer. There is just too much to do for it all to be done in 18 months realistically. So rUK will use these vital services and facilities as a powerful bargaining chip IMHO.

[over the line]

You ignored or missed my post. There is no "in time". The SNP haven't put a time limit on it.

I thought Alex Salmond gave an estimated date on the TV debate the other day? But they will obviously have to set out a realistic timetable won't they, because what is the alternative?

[over the line]

I think it's safe to assume a divorce costs both sides money...quite how much this one would cost is anybody's guess.

All the talk of 10% of this and 10% of that seems fanciful...let's be honest the UK Government doesn't really have a balance sheet like a private company does nor any real idea of its assets and liabilities (part of the bonus of being a government, you can get away with shoddy accounting) so gawd only knows where such negotiations would begin!

I agree. What is 10% of everything and what is 'everything' anyway and how do you break off 10% of it?

[over the line]

.

[Moulin Yarns]

And that seems reasonable. If they are to be moved from an iS, then they almost certainly will be. It will take what ever length it takes, as I can't imagine an iS telling them to do a rush job with nuclear weapons etc. So it sounds like this deal is partially done already and its not something that can be done lightly, or messed about with anyway. So that is my point really, how is it an ace card for negotiating with?


Would anybody like to explain what use the UK WMD is?

http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report?gclid=CM_E7fvfs8ACFabLtAodbBwANA

When would our 225 warheads be used? Who is the threat? Who is it aimed at deterring.

we have got 2% of the USA warheads, so really, why?

Remember the other name for WMD is MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction.

You fire yours and I'll fire mine, which is why they should be dismantled, like Canada did to theirs. Canada thought, what is the point, Russia has them and the USA has them, if either use them we are right in the middle so are f ucked regardless. Why do you think Netherlands or Denmark don't have them? There is no point for the same reason, with Russia and France and us all having them so if it kicked off they would be obliterated.

[over the line]

Would anybody like to explain what use the UK WMD is?

http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report?gclid=CM_E7fvfs8ACFabLtAodbBwANA

When would our 225 warheads be used? Who is the threat? Who is it aimed at deterring.

we have got 2% of the USA warheads, so really, why?

Remember the other name for WMD is MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction.

You fire yours and I'll fire mine, which is why they should be dismantled, like Canada did to theirs. Canada thought, what is the point, Russia has them and the USA has them, if either use them we are right in the middle so are f ucked regardless. Why do you think Netherlands or Denmark don't have them? There is no point for the same reason, with Russia and France and us all having them so if it kicked off they would be obliterated.

Well this is a completely different point to the one I was making. But a valid and interesting one none the less. The UK or rUK will be keeping nuclear weapons it would seem. It's just a question of where they will be kept isn't it? As you know I am more than happy to have them right here in Ellesmere Port :)

I personally would rather the UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent and never had to use them, as opposed to not having them and relying totally on the US for protection. I can see the argument for not having them, I just don't agree with it myself.

[ronaldo7]

Yes fair enough but my point still stands, what would an iS realistically do if the nukes weren't removed in time? That's not a confrontational question, I'm just curious to know?

If an iS does want the nukes removing, I'm sure a realistic timetable would be agreed, as I don't really see that there is any alternative for either party really? I don't see it as that much of a bargaining chip really.


Their's more than one way to skin a cat.

Do you remember the cod wars with Iceland?

The Royal Navy were rammed by Iceland fishing trawlers/patrol vessels, who were wanting an extension to their fishing waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars


You know that the Trident subs patrol for 12 weeks and then come back into faslane (HMS Neptune) again with the help of the local Pilot to guide them up the gare loch. Whose to say the entrance to the waters leading to Faslane could not be blocked or the Pilot's might be at home, rendering the Sub with no access to the port.

A wee trip doon to Devonport for the grumpy matelots, but the wives would be the ones to avoid at all costs:greengrin

[over the line]

Their's more than one way to skin a cat.

Do you remember the cod wars with Iceland?

The Royal Navy were rammed by Iceland fishing trawlers/patrol vessels, who were wanting an extension to their fishing waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars


You know that the Trident subs patrol for 12 weeks and then come back into faslane (HMS Neptune) again with the help of the local Pilot to guide them up the gare loch. Whose to say the entrance to the waters leading to Faslane could not be blocked or the Pilot's might be at home, rendering the Sub with no access to the port.

A wee trip doon to Devonport for the grumpy matelots, but the wives would be the ones to avoid at all costs:greengrin

Would certainly make for some interesting news stories anyway! :)

[ronaldo7]

Would certainly make for some interesting news stories anyway! :)

It won't need to happen mate. There will be normal discussions from both Governments when we vote YES.

[Moulin Yarns]

This is interesting, or annoying, depending on your point of view

http://scienceofindependence.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/it-is-likely-that-independence-will-bring-a-bigger-dividend-than-even-the-yes-campaign-predict/

[over the line]

It won't need to happen mate. There will be normal discussions from both Governments when we vote YES.

I totally agree with the normal discussion bit in the event of a Yes. As for the 'when we vote Yes', we will have to wait and see. :)

[Moulin Yarns]

I think it's safe to assume a divorce costs both sides money...quite how much this one would cost is anybody's guess.

All the talk of 10% of this and 10% of that seems fanciful...let's be honest the UK Government doesn't really have a balance sheet like a private company does nor any real idea of its assets and liabilities (part of the bonus of being a government, you can get away with shoddy accounting) so gawd only knows where such negotiations would begin!


We keep comparing it to a divorce, I would rather think of it as the slightly troublesome child thinking about leaving home. They know they will have to learn to stand on their own two feet, get their own bank account, maybe a mortgage, and court some girls to find the best partner (miss Norway is always popular :wink:) and at the same time they will need to keep in with Mum and Dad (England) and remember to be kind to little brother and sister (wales and NI) The bit that sort of suspends reality is where Mum and Dad don't want to let troublesome child go. :greengrin Maybe it is the £53bn pay check that he brings to the family home.

[over the line]

This is interesting, or annoying, depending on your point of view

http://scienceofindependence.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/it-is-likely-that-independence-will-bring-a-bigger-dividend-than-even-the-yes-campaign-predict/

I found it a little bit interesting and a little bit annoying.
:)

[over the line]

We keep comparing it to a divorce, I would rather think of it as the slightly troublesome child thinking about leaving home. They know they will have to learn to stand on their own two feet, get their own bank account, maybe a mortgage, and court some girls to find the best partner (miss Norway is always popular :wink:) and at the same time they will need to keep in with Mum and Dad (England) and remember to be kind to little brother and sister (wales and NI) The bit that sort of suspends reality is where Mum and Dad don't want to let troublesome child go. :greengrin Maybe it is the £53bn pay check that he brings to the family home.

I quite like the happy family picture you have painted there. Much nicer than the divorce analogies. :D I think this one could be a runner.............

[sauzee_4]

To be blunt, that's mince (and the type of misinformation that's common in the debate). The B of E has an obligation to consider all parts of the UK when setting interest rates. If that wasn't the case, they'd have raised them by now.

Post-independence, the B of E will still set rates for the UK. They just won't give a second thought to Scotland any longer.

Unless there's a currency union?

[Just Alf]

If an iS really wouldn't have any legal obligation to pay the debt, why is it even considering paying it? If the set up is as you suggest, its a bit like me moving house and before I leave the street I pay 10% of my neighbours mortgage for him. Why would I?

There's no "if" .... The UK Gov came out earlier this year and announced that they had the sole legal obligation to pay off the debt. As per an earlier post (CWG?) the reasoning is that ...
A) rUK take ownership of the debt and become the successor state, meaning treaties, NATO membership, EU etc all remain as is, the new iScotland would need to negotiate it all.

Or

B) both rUK and iScot have legal ownership meaning that the UK is disbanded and we now have 2 successor states both who would have to renegotiate all those treaties.


The reason (I'm surmising) that iScot is willing to support the ongoing payments is to ensure they get ownership of some of the assets?

PS I also agree the family scenario sounds better than the divorce one! :aok:

[steakbake]

Yeah, the divorce thing is bogus. It's funny how we imagine ourselves as equal partners in that relationship... it's not how our partner generally views it.

[Beefster]

Yeah, the divorce thing is bogus. It's funny how we imagine ourselves as equal partners in that relationship... it's not how our partner generally views it.

The rest of the UK doesn't view Scotland as an equal partner in the UK?

[Moulin Yarns]

The rest of the UK doesn't view Scotland as an equal partner in the UK?

It certainly wont if this comes true :greengrin

What a shame, Labour "fears" that they might come to Scotland

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-labour-tax-haven-fears-1-3523234


Being a tax haven hasn’t exactly hurt Monaco, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, OH AYE and PANAMA

[CropleyWasGod]

It certainly wont if this comes true :greengrin

What a shame, Labour "fears" that they might come to Scotland

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-labour-tax-haven-fears-1-3523234


Being a tax haven hasn’t exactly hurt Monaco, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, OH AYE and PANAMA

Personally, I don't think the SNP would follow through on the 3p cut, at least not in the short term.

However, if they do, and those companies decide to base themselves here, that has to be a good thing. The tax revenue lost by a 3p cut..... vs 17% of Google's profits.

:cb

[Fergus52]

Anyone else see the results of the RIC mass canvass?

Looks pretty promising for yes considering that the sample was way larger than any poll, albeit targetting working class areas.

Apologies if this has already been osted in the thread, just been on holiday for a week with limited .net access.

http://radicalindependence.org/2014/08/19/radical-independence-campaign-18k-canvass-sample-released/

[Hibrandenburg]

Tory MP Douglas Carswell has defected to UKIP, is this the start of a trend and does it increase the likelihood of the next UK government leaving the EU.

UKIP might not win the next election but they'll certainly have an influence on centre right policy.

[Hibrandenburg]

Anyone else see the results of the RIC mass canvass?

Looks pretty promising for yes considering that the sample was way larger than any poll, albeit targetting working class areas.

Apologies if this has already been osted in the thread, just been on holiday for a week with limited .net access.

http://radicalindependence.org/2014/08/19/radical-independence-campaign-18k-canvass-sample-released/

That certainly mirrors what I'm seeing!

:pray:

[marinello59]

The rest of the UK doesn't view Scotland as an equal partner in the UK?

I'm not so sure that the Greater London Authority sees the rest of the UK as an equal partner, let alone Scotland.

[JeMeSouviens]

Anyone else see the results of the RIC mass canvass?

Looks pretty promising for yes considering that the sample was way larger than any poll, albeit targetting working class areas.

Apologies if this has already been osted in the thread, just been on holiday for a week with limited .net access.

http://radicalindependence.org/2014/08/19/radical-independence-campaign-18k-canvass-sample-released/

It's an interesting straw in the wind, but when it comes to polling, bigger isn't better unless it's demographically accurate. This being the classic example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Literary_Digest#Presidential_poll

[Moulin Yarns]

A wee reminder of what is at stake in 3 weeks time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGFVabjHjw&index=14&list=RDgApwpSWAhbQ

[JimBHibees]

A wee reminder of what is at stake in 3 weeks time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGFVabjHjw&index=14&list=RDgApwpSWAhbQ

Tremendous and says it all IMO. The magnitude of this decision is massive and IMO it is the time to seize it.

What was the song that was being sung?

[Hibrandenburg]

A wee reminder of what is at stake in 3 weeks time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGFVabjHjw&index=14&list=RDgApwpSWAhbQ

That's an excellent wee film. Even if the politics doesn't interest you there's some breathtaking footage in there. Thanks.

[Just Alf]

A wee reminder of what is at stake in 3 weeks time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGFVabjHjw&index=14&list=RDgApwpSWAhbQ

"A pound spent in Croydon is far more value to the Country than a pound spent in Strathclyde" - Boris Johnson .... maybe a future UK PM!

God help us :rolleyes:

[Beefster]

The tax revenue lost by a 3p cut..... vs 17% of Google's profits.

As I'm sure you're aware, 17% of Google's declared UK profits would come in around £5m tops. If cutting corporation tax by 15% costs less than that, we're ****ed.

[CropleyWasGod]

As I'm sure you're aware, 17% of Google's declared UK profits would come in around £5m tops. If cutting corporation tax by 15% costs less than that, we're ****ed.

I'm sure you mean "more than". :greengrin

As I say, I can't see it happening in the short-term. Maybe later, to attract foreign companies, although that depends a lot on who's in power. I certainly don't see any move towards a "tax-haven" approach. That would be daft, IMO.

[Beefster]

I'm sure you mean "more than". :greengrin

As I say, I can't see it happening in the short-term. Maybe later, to attract foreign companies, although that depends a lot on who's in power. I certainly don't see any move towards a "tax-haven" approach. That would be daft, IMO.

Pah, missed that. I'm still confusing myself trying to sort it out!

[allmodcons]

Better Together in good form yesterday.

On the one hand, we had 130 Business Leaders expressing their concerns about industry prospests in an iScotalnd and then we had Brown & Darling (apparently they've kissed and made up) telling us this:-

"The biggest beneficiaries of the SNP's tax policy are the shareholders and directors of the privatised energy companies in Scotland. The beneficiaries of an independent Scotland are not the ordinary people of Scotland but the richest directors of the most profitable, privatised companies in Scotland".

Somebody must be lying?

[Beefster]

Somebody must be lying?


Why? The business leaders weren't referring to their own prospects AFAIK. They were talking about the businesses.

[allmodcons]

Why? The business leaders weren't referring to their own prospects AFAIK. They were talking about the businesses.

Must have escaped your notice, but if businesses prosper and make money individual shareholders are usually the main beneficiaries.

[Beefster]

Must have escaped your notice, but if businesses prosper and make money individual shareholders are usually the main beneficiaries.

So you're twisting it to suit your agenda. Fair enough.

PS If businesses prosper, the employees tend to prosper too.

[allmodcons]

So you're twisting it to suit your agenda. Fair enough.

PS If businesses prosper, the employees tend to prosper too.

What utter nonsense. Why can't you just argue the point without reverting to type and suggesting that everything is twisted to suit an agenda or weighted against you?

Read my original post. Business is saying an iScotland would be bad for them and Brown is quoted directly as saying:-

The beneficiaries of an independent Scotland are not the ordinary people of Scotland but the richest directors of the most profitable, privatised companies in Scotland".

He is completely contradicating the letter from the businesses supporting a 'No' vote.

[Beefster]

Read my original post. Business is saying an iScotland would be bad for them and Brown is quoted directly as saying:-

The beneficiaries of an independent Scotland are not the ordinary people of Scotland but the richest directors of the most profitable, privatised companies in Scotland".

He is completely contradicating the letter from the businesses supporting a 'No' vote.

"As job creators, we have looked carefully at the arguments made by both sides of the debate. Our conclusion is that the business case for independence has not been made."

One is saying the business/economic case hasn't been made.

One is saying that the rich will get richer.

Aren't they completely different things? Unless I'm missing some vital snippet of information that you have?

[allmodcons]

"As job creators, we have looked carefully at the arguments made by both sides of the debate. Our conclusion is that the business case for independence has not been made."

One is saying the business/economic case hasn't been made.

One is saying that the rich will get richer.

Aren't they completely different things? Unless I'm missing some vital snippet of information that you have?

Correct. You are missing something here.

[JeMeSouviens]

"As job creators, we have looked carefully at the arguments made by both sides of the debate. Our conclusion is that the business case for independence has not been made."

One is saying the business/economic case hasn't been made.

One is saying that the rich will get richer.

Aren't they completely different things? Unless I'm missing some vital snippet of information that you have?

You think there is no correlation between business success and shareholder value? :confused:

Anyhow, business sentiment not entirely one way:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-28960729

[Beefster]

You think there is no correlation between business success and shareholder value?

Right, this is my last post on the matter because it's becoming an exercise in futility and, despite the repeated implications otherwise, my IQ is actually above 75.

The businesspeople who signed the letter yesterday said "As job creators...". It's therefore IMHO safe to assume that they are thinking, at least in large part, in terms of job creation/retention (unless anyone has hard evidence to the contrary).

On the other hand, from what ODS posted, it appears that Gordon Brown was referring to a small subset of business people/owners/directors.

Again, IMHO, its a very, very long stretch to claim that one or the other is lying because of the two statements.

[JeMeSouviens]

Right, this is my last post on the matter because it's becoming an exercise in futility and, despite the repeated implications otherwise, my IQ is actually above 75.

The businesspeople who signed the letter yesterday said "As job creators...". It's therefore IMHO safe to assume that they are thinking, at least in large part, in terms of job creation/retention (unless anyone has hard evidence to the contrary).

On the other hand, from what ODS posted, it appears that Gordon Brown was referring to a small subset of business people/owners/directors.

Again, IMHO, its a very, very long stretch to claim that one or the other is lying because of the two statements.

Seriously? I'm not saying business people aren't happy/proud to create jobs but if you think that even turns up on the same page of priorities as shareholder value (and almost always these days, leadership incentives) then I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying ... :wink:

[danhibees1875]

A wee reminder of what is at stake in 3 weeks time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGFVabjHjw&index=14&list=RDgApwpSWAhbQ

In the last 100 years Scotland's vote has determined the outcome of the UK elections twice.

I've had a long day, could someone explain to me what that means?

One part of the debate that I'd certainly like to know more about is the political divide that exists between Scotland and England and exactly how often we do get the government we vote for. Does anyone have these stats to hand?

How frequently does the "winning party" in Scotland get elected?
If you removed the entirety of the Scottish votes, would the outcome differ?
If everyone who voted in Scotland could retrospectively change their vote to the party who cane second, how often would the government be subsequently changed?

[snooky]

In the last 100 years Scotland's vote has determined the outcome of the UK elections twice.

I've had a long day, could someone explain to me what that means?

One part of the debate that I'd certainly like to know more about is the political divide that exists between Scotland and England and exactly how often we do get the government we vote for. Does anyone have these stats to hand?

How frequently does the "winning party" in Scotland get elected?
If you removed the entirety of the Scottish votes, would the outcome differ?
If everyone who voted in Scotland could retrospectively change their vote to the party who cane second, how often would the government be subsequently changed?

This is the fundamental question for all referendum voters to ask themselves. All the other issues only cloud this main one, IMO.
Think democracy.

[Peevemor]

This is the fundamental question for all referendum voters to ask themselves. All the other issues only cloud this main one, IMO.
Think democracy.

:agree:

[danhibees1875]

This is the fundamental question for all referendum voters to ask themselves. All the other issues only cloud this main one, IMO.
Think democracy.
Do you happen to know the answer then? :wink:

:greengrin

[snooky]

Do you happen to know the answer then? :wink:

:greengrin

Naw, but I could have good guess :wink:

[Beefster]

How frequently does the "winning party" in Scotland get elected?

In the last 20 years, 75% of the time.

[Stranraer]

In the last 20 years, 75% of the time.

Do you ever question something the No campaign says? Ever?

[Beefster]

Do you ever question something the No campaign says? Ever?

The No campaign said that?

In any case, which bit do you have a problem with?

To be honest, I don't pay any attention to much that either side says other than through the threads on here. I am enjoying the repeated attempts to question my intelligence/thinking ability though.

[Stranraer]

The No campaign said that?

In any case, which bit do you have a problem with?

To be honest, I don't pay any attention to much that either side says other than through the threads on here.

I don't really have a problem and it's none of my business really I just wondered. When the UK gov. said Scotland would have to renegotiate 14,000 treaties for example...?

[Beefster]

I don't really have a problem and it's none of my business really I just wondered. When the UK gov. said Scotland would have to renegotiate 14,000 treaties for example...?

Never heard that before. When did they say that?

[JeMeSouviens]

Do you happen to know the answer then? :wink:

:greengrin

http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php

http://theweebluebook.com/assets/images/tory-govts.png


http://theweebluebook.com/assets/images/uk-govts.png

[danhibees1875]

In the last 20 years, 75% of the time.


http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php

http://theweebluebook.com/assets/images/tory-govts.png


http://theweebluebook.com/assets/images/uk-govts.png
Thanks boys! :Thumbsup:

[Stranraer]

Never heard that before. When did they say that?

Feb. last year

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/4818978/Ministers-wrong-on-treaty-toll.html

[over the line]

Thanks boys! :Thumbsup:


I make that 70% of the time (give or take a few months) over the last 20 years. Not far off Beefsters figures really.

[danhibees1875]

I make that 70% of the time (give or take a few months) over the last 20 years. Not far off Beefsters figures really.
I'd make it about 65% when looking at the last 20 years. :agree:

[over the line]

I'd make it about 65% when looking at the last 20 years. :agree:

Yeh about that figure, I've not looked at the exact dates. Not a bad percentage really is it? :)

[danhibees1875]

Yeh about that figure, I've not looked at the exact dates. Not a bad percentage really is it? :)
I just based it off the full years (13/20) so may be a bit off. It's not a great percentage either though, is it?

[snooky]

Yeh about that figure, I've not looked at the exact dates. Not a bad percentage really is it? :)

Question 2: How frequently would Scotland get the party it voted for if it was independent? 70%?

[over the line]

I just based it off the full years (13/20) so may be a bit off. It's not a great percentage either though, is it?

Oh I don't know, I think its a pretty good percentage (75, 70 or 65%) People vote for the Green party and Lib Dems and never get their way do they? (Not including the 'coalition', because the its just the Tories in reality isn't it?).

[Bristolhibby]

A a democrat, this is the overarching reason for voting Yes. It may make things difficult down here for me, but I believe it will force England (& Wales) to wake up to what it has become and galvanise the opposition.

It may IMO split the Tories as they individual MPs believe they can become big fish in right wing parties like UKIP.

Big changes are a comin' and it all hinges on the vote on the 18th.

J

[over the line]

Question 2: How frequently would Scotland get the party it voted for if it was independent? 70%?

But that is assuming all of Scotland wants the same, which it obviously doesn't. There are always going to be winners and losers, no one gets exactly what they want all the time.

[snooky]

But that is assuming all of Scotland wants the same, which it obviously doesn't. There are always going to be winners and losers, no one gets exactly what they want all the time.

You ol' weasel you :greengrin
The country of Scotland democratically would get the government it votes for.
Nice try though :wink:

[danhibees1875]

Oh I don't know, I think its a pretty good percentage (75, 70 or 65%) People vote for the Green party and Lib Dems and never get their way do they? (Not including the 'coalition', because the its just the Tories in reality isn't it?).
I see where you're coming from but for me that's a similar argument to that of many people in the north of England not voting Tory either. It's not about an independent individual, household or city. It's about Scotland as a collective nation.

I suppose the back and forthing of the debate is because it's a subjective matter and boils down to whether you'd rather see Scotland as a country or part of a country.

[JeMeSouviens]

Oh I don't know, I think its a pretty good percentage (75, 70 or 65%) People vote for the Green party and Lib Dems and never get their way do they? (Not including the 'coalition', because the its just the Tories in reality isn't it?).

Jesus wept. Look at the ****** picture! Picking 20 years is just hacking off the wee bit at the end that suits your argument. Post-war it's 30/68 = 44%, ie. woeful.

[over the line]

Jesus wept. Look at the ****** picture! Picking 20 years is just hacking off the wee bit at the end that suits your argument. Post-war it's 30/68 = 44%, ie. woeful.

I'm not sure that Jesus would weep over this like? :confused: But anyway, I was commenting on a post that was looking at the last 20 years. I don't know what the maths is for the last 300 years, but where do we draw the line? Plus 44% (if that I'd an accurate figure) is not that far off 50% is it, not exactly woeful is it?

[Stranraer]

Jim Murphy's outstanding performance in Dundee is sure to go viral :faf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOjBeyAaWQ

[CapitalGreen]

I'm not sure that Jesus would weep over this like? :confused: But anyway, I was commenting on a post that was looking at the last 20 years. I don't know what the maths is for the last 300 years, but where do we draw the line? Plus 44% (if that I'd an accurate figure) is not that far off 50% is it, not exactly woeful is it?

A democratic country should get the government it votes for 100% of time, anything less is woeful.

[Bristolhibby]

A democratic country should get the government it votes for 100% of time, anything less is woeful.

House of Lords, need I say more.

Donate enough money to a party become a Lord. No campaigning, no election, no democracy.

The House of Lords is an affront to democracy. Scotland has a chance to grasp democracy and keep it.

First Past The Post sucks too while I'm at it.

J

[over the line]

A democratic country should get the government it votes for 100% of time, anything less is woeful.

Hands up who voted for a coalition? :confused:

No one ever gets their own way all the time.

[CapitalGreen]

House of Lords, need I say more.

Donate enough money to a party become a Lord. No campaigning, no election, no democracy.

The House of Lords is an affront to democracy. Scotland has a chance to grasp democracy and keep it.

First Past The Post sucks too while I'm at it.

J

Or alternatively:

Be born, become a Lord.

[CapitalGreen]

Hands up who voted for a coalition? :confused:

No one ever gets their own way all the time.

You're struggling with this again aren't you.

It's about collective wants, not individual wants.

[Bristolhibby]

Or alternatively:

Be born, become a Lord.

Thankfully no more, but there's enough of them still there.

Also WTF are the Bishops in the House of Lords all about? Who do those ****ers represent? Not me!

From the Church of England website.

"There is no 'Bishops' Party' and as non-aligned members, their activities in the Upper House are not whipped.

Like other members of the Lords, they do not represent a parliamentary constituency, although their work is often closely informed by their diocesan role.

They sit as individual Lords Spiritual, and as such they have much in common with the independent Crossbenchers and those who are not party-affiliated.

Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

I'm sorry chums, GTF!

J

[Beefster]

Jesus wept. Look at the ****** picture! Picking 20 years is just hacking off the wee bit at the end that suits your argument. Post-war it's 30/68 = 44%, ie. woeful.

You seem to be becoming increasingly hysterical in the past few days, JMS. Not like you at all (and I'm not trying to wind you up).


A democratic country should get the government it votes for 100% of time, anything less is woeful.

You do know who votes in the UK general election, right?

Incidentally, the majority of Scots didn't want an SNP majority in 2011. Woeful.

[speedy_gonzales]

The country of Scotland democratically would get the government it votes for.

Much like the UK gets the government it votes for, and no doubt deserves?

That's the thing with democracy, it's all fair until we get something we don't want, then it's not!

As Charles the 1st said, "Democracy is the power of equal votes for unequal minds",,,,sounds like something Johann Lamont would mumble :wink:

[sauzee_4]

Jim Murphy's outstanding performance in Dundee is sure to go viral :faf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOjBeyAaWQ

Think the heckling is a shame here. People are allowed to give their opinion and this Jim Murphy chap should be allowed a bit more respect i think

Seperate question:
Why did the UK reject voting reforms a few years back?

[Bristolhibby]

Think the heckling is a shame here. People are allowed to give their opinion and this Jim Murphy chap should be allowed a bit more respect i think

Seperate question:
Why did the UK reject voting reforms a few years back?

Re the voting reforms. IMO it was to keep the status quo. And PR wasn't in the table. It would have lead to lore consensus politics (what we need IMO), that scared the big two who both need their moments (5 years) in the limelight.

J

[JeMeSouviens]

You seem to be becoming increasingly hysterical in the past few days, JMS. Not like you at all (and I'm not trying to wind you up).



You do know who votes in the UK general election, right?

Incidentally, the majority of Scots didn't want an SNP majority in 2011. Woeful.

I'm not sure about hysterical, irritable maybe? You've been a tad tetchy at times too if we're going to get pass remarkable. ;-)

[JeMeSouviens]

Survation poll coming out.

Y 47 (+4)
N 53 (-4)

Equals but not better than Survation's previous high for Y.

[over the line]

You're struggling with this again aren't you.

It's about collective wants, not individual wants.

So did the 'collective' vote for a coalition then? :confused:

Do we vote as a collective, or is it an individual choice?

[CapitalGreen]

So did the 'collective' vote for a coalition then? :confused:

Do we vote as a collective, or is it an individual choice?

Point me in the direction of somebody complaining they don't get their individual choice all of the time.

[over the line]

Point me in the direction of somebody complaining they don't get their individual choice all of the time.

Exactly my point. I'm glad we agree. :)

[danhibees1875]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576713/Expat-Scots-right-vote-independence-referendum-claims-denying-breach-human-rights.html

Possible delay on the vote until it's decided if expats should be allowed to vote according to this. (Just found it on Facebook, so apologies if it's wrong/ out of date).

[Peevemor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576713/Expat-Scots-right-vote-independence-referendum-claims-denying-breach-human-rights.html

Possible delay on the vote until it's decided if expats should be allowed to vote according to this. (Just found it on Facebook, so apologies if it's wrong/ out of date).

That's just wrong. I left Scotland 10 years ago and see no valid reason why I should have the right to vote in the referendum.

However I don't have the right to vote here and that really p***es me off !

[over the line]

.

[snooky]

House of Lords, need I say more.

Donate enough money to a party become a Lord. No campaigning, no election, no democracy.

The House of Lords is an affront to democracy. Scotland has a chance to grasp democracy and keep it.

First Past The Post sucks too while I'm at it.

J

No you don't.
IMO, getting shot of that den of unelected poseurs is worth a 'yes' vote in itself.

[Stranraer]

Think the heckling is a shame here. People are allowed to give their opinion and this Jim Murphy chap should be allowed a bit more respect i think

Seperate question:
Why did the UK reject voting reforms a few years back?

Maybe but I can completely understand why people don't respect a man with a voting record like his.

Also, I voted for AV but I don't know why it was rejected, maybe because FPTP is easier to understand. :wink:

[WindyMiller]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576713/Expat-Scots-right-vote-independence-referendum-claims-denying-breach-human-rights.html

Possible delay on the vote until it's decided if expats should be allowed to vote according to this. (Just found it on Facebook, so apologies if it's wrong/ out of date).


29th April mate.

[Beefster]

I'm not sure about hysterical, irritable maybe? You've been a tad tetchy at times too if we're going to get pass remarkable. ;-)

I'm a Hibs supporter in his 40's with a wife, kid, dog, mortgage, job and lawn that grows faster that triffids. 'A tad tetchy' is my default state.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm a Hibs supporter in his 40's with a wife, kid, dog, mortgage, job and lawn that grows faster that triffids. 'A tad tetchy' is my default state.

Hah, got all that, but 2 kids, and teenagers at that. :na na:

[JeMeSouviens]

Maybe but I can completely understand why people don't respect a man with a voting record like his.

Also, I voted for AV but I don't know why it was rejected, maybe because FPTP is easier to understand. :wink:

:agree:

He has always been a slimy Labour careerist. He was a couple of years ahead of me at Uni, edging his way up the greasy pole via the NUS, where he eventually became president. Imagine my surprise when he totally sold out his membership by supporting Nu-Lab's introduction of student fees. :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

That's just wrong. I left Scotland 10 years ago and see no valid reason why I should have the right to vote in the referendum.

However I don't have the right to vote here and that really p***es me off !

That can't be right, I know of 2 German nationals who are in Scotland for more than 6 months, are resident here at the time of the referendum and as European Citizens both are allowed to vote.

[Peevemor]

That can't be right, I know of 2 German nationals who are in Scotland for more than 6 months, are resident here at the time of the referendum and as European Citizens both are allowed to vote.

I think we're at cross purposes.

I think it's right that people currently living in Scotland have the right to vote (if they fulfill certain criteria).

I also think it's right that expats like myself do not have the right to vote.

However, I think it's wrong that I don't have the right to vote in France (eg. Presidential elections) even though I've lived, worked and paid taxes here for 10 years.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm a Hibs supporter in his 40's with a wife, kid, dog, mortgage, job and lawn that grows faster that triffids. 'A tad tetchy' is my default state.


:faf:

[Bristolhibby]

I think we're at cross purposes.

I think it's right that people currently living in Scotland have the right to vote (if they fulfill certain criteria).

I also think it's right that expats like myself do not have the right to vote.

However, I think it's wrong that I don't have the right to vote in France (eg. Presidential elections) even though I've lived, worked and paid taxes here for 10 years.

Can you vote in municipal elections? I presume you get to vote in EU elections.

I guess it must be a quirk of French democracy when it comes to presidential elections. Sadly I don't see it being a major issue to the majority of French.

Is it something that could be taken up through the EU as to me it seems like discrimination based on Nationality.

J

[Moulin Yarns]

I think we're at cross purposes.

I think it's right that people currently living in Scotland have the right to vote (if they fulfill certain criteria).

I also think it's right that expats like myself do not have the right to vote.

However, I think it's wrong that I don't have the right to vote in France (eg. Presidential elections) even though I've lived, worked and paid taxes here for 10 years.

That's what I meant, surely if you are resident then you should get the vote where you live and work. It begs the question why foreign nationals temporarily resident can vote here, but you, as a foreign national but permanently resident cant vote where you are. Bonkers!!

[Hibrandenburg]

Can you vote in municipal elections? I presume you get to vote in EU elections.

I guess it must be a quirk of French democracy when it comes to presidential elections. Sadly I don't see it being a major issue to the majority of French.

Is it something that could be taken up through the EU as to me it seems like discrimination based on Nationality.

J

I can vote in municipal elections over here and have even been given the vote in General elections. The last two general elections I was given the wrong ballot paper after the election supervisor just glanced at my name and photo on my passport whilst cross-checking it with my election letter.

:greengrin

[Peevemor]

Can you vote in municipal elections? I presume you get to vote in EU elections.

I guess it must be a quirk of French democracy when it comes to presidential elections. Sadly I don't see it being a major issue to the majority of French.

Is it something that could be taken up through the EU as to me it seems like discrimination based on Nationality.

J

I can vote in the municipal (only since 2011) and European elections. A "full" vote was a major issue in the run up to the last presidential elections. Hollande said he was up for it, then changed his mind at the last minute. Sarkozy during a televised debate said no, because there would be too many muslims (I nearly fell off my chaise-longue)!

[JeMeSouviens]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oWrSVz0ZLQw/U_98XFbO42I/AAAAAAAAAvM/aKKnRX8vwKM/s1600/cartoon.jpg

I must admit I was quite a bit of the way through the original before I realised it wasn't a spoof.

[Moulin Yarns]

I am watching and following this

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref

[7 Hills]

Not that the Scotland International team is high on my list of priorities for an Independent Scotland, but the article at the attached link is interesting nonetheless. http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140828/192417905/Scottish-No-Vote-Will-Lead-to-Questions-Over-Its-International.html

[Hibrandenburg]

http://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/10486898_10202572975468849_1040275314_n.mp4?oh=13c 90b829a67c55a8fcd6675ca77ace1&oe=5402A1B4&__gda__=1409447293_2f1c22a4f6aeabcbda0c6fd731aefda 8

[Future17]

http://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/10486898_10202572975468849_1040275314_n.mp4?oh=13c 90b829a67c55a8fcd6675ca77ace1&oe=5402A1B4&__gda__=1409447293_2f1c22a4f6aeabcbda0c6fd731aefda 8

That makes the vomit rise in my throat, but it's important to remember that those shown in that video are, I hope, in the minority. It would probably be very easy to make a video montage of intense, anti-English sentiment being expressed by residents of Scotland in all walks of life.

I has the "pleasure" of speaking to someone today who wanted the Electoral Commission to resign its role in the referendum because its bus shelter adverts which publicise the voting guide were "too Scottish" which meant they favoured a "Yes" vote. The person asked why the adverts depicted a tourist version of Scotland instead of a quaint, English village which would "make people vote no".

This person was not the first I've encountered who fits the stereotype of an anti-Scottish "No" voter. It seems impossible for them to understand that "No" voters are capable of loving Scotland (in all its beauty) just as much as "Yes" voters, despite the fact they claim to be on the "No" side. Don't get me wrong, I've also experienced this extreme paranoia from those on the "Yes" side, but all it does is exacerbate the elements of "debate" which ordinarily turn so many people away from politics.

I think part of the reason that "Yes" seems to be behind in the polls is that our culture all too often reinforces the negative connotations of where we currently are as a nation and it is very difficult to go against the tide to sell people on where we could be as an independent nation.

[speedy_gonzales]

Not very happy tonight, got a text from a mate saying well done on voting yes, I texts back asking WTF, he said my FaceBook profile said I was going to vote yes. This was news to me, turns out some innocuous link I clicked (funny vid) ended up adding a post to my profile stating I was going to an event on the 18th and voting YES. I'd seen this on other people's timeline and just assumed they were. Turns out it's just spam or some very clever cyber Nats. Not very happy as it gives the illusion that everyone on FB is voting yes,,,,

[Hibrandenburg]

Not very happy tonight, got a text from a mate saying well done on voting yes, I texts back asking WTF, he said my FaceBook profile said I was going to vote yes. This was news to me, turns out some innocuous link I clicked (funny vid) ended up adding a post to my profile stating I was going to an event on the 18th and voting YES. I'd seen this on other people's timeline and just assumed they were. Turns out it's just spam or some very clever cyber Nats. Not very happy as it gives the illusion that everyone on FB is voting yes,,,,

Think yourself lucky, I supposedly disposed of my socks in a very undignified manner.

[Glory Lurker]

Not very happy tonight, got a text from a mate saying well done on voting yes, I texts back asking WTF, he said my FaceBook profile said I was going to vote yes. This was news to me, turns out some innocuous link I clicked (funny vid) ended up adding a post to my profile stating I was going to an event on the 18th and voting YES. I'd seen this on other people's timeline and just assumed they were. Turns out it's just spam or some very clever cyber Nats. Not very happy as it gives the illusion that everyone on FB is voting yes,,,,


You are joking here, right? :confused:

[speedy_gonzales]

You are joking here, right? :confused:
I promise you I'm not, like I said, I got a text from a friend. Checked out my FB profile and right enough it said I was going to an event (on the 18th, voting YES etc). I've genuinely no idea how it got there, I thought I must have clicked something but on hindsight I wasn't even near a PC or on my phone when the post was made. I then had a look on my news feed and noticed a few other friends had the exact same post. When I messaged them about it, it turns out some were aware of it but others weren't.
Not exactly sure how it's happening, my profile has settings on it that prevent others tagging me at check-ins or in pics, would love to think it's something innocent but I still feel it's an underhanded way to behave through this referendum.

[Glory Lurker]

I promise you I'm not, like I said, I got a text from a friend. Checked out my FB profile and right enough it said I was going to an event (on the 18th, voting YES etc). I've genuinely no idea how it got there, I thought I must have clicked something but on hindsight I wasn't even near a PC or on my phone when the post was made. I then had a look on my news feed and noticed a few other friends had the exact same post. When I messaged them about it, it turns out some were aware of it but others weren't.
Not exactly sure how it's happening, my profile has settings on it that prevent others tagging me at check-ins or in pics, would love to think it's something innocent but I still feel it's an underhanded way to behave through this referendum.

Okay, i'll take your word for it. I find it a bit of a stretch though to think there's someone with the ability to hack Facebook and all they use it for is getting folk to say they're voting Yes. I'd at least get Maggie Gyllenhaal's page to have a post saying how much she fancies me! :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

The Better Together stand is doing a roaring trade in Pitlochry, 5 staff and NO interest by the public. :agree:

I'm thinking of giving them a visit later, just to get some answers, you understand. :wink:

I intend trying this approach

Imagine Scotland was already independent and we were about to have a referendum on whether to join a union with the rest of the UK.
Could the Pro-union side convince us that getting together would be better when we were told what would happen to Scotland after such a union? Some bullet points from the campaign…
-Your main Parliament will move 600 miles away, and your MPs will be in a tiny minority & will therefore have limited ability to effect policy on your behalf
-Scotland will get a government it didn’t vote for.
-All of your oil and gas revenues will be handed over to the treasury in London.
-Even though not 1 inch of track will touch Scottish soil your taxpayers will contribute £4.2bn to the HS2 project.
-Your taxpayers will also subsidise the crossrail project to the tune of £4.2bn
-The biggest nuclear weapons facility in Western Europe will be built on the river Clyde, just 30 miles from your largest city.
-Even though you only have 8.2% of the UK’s population you will contribute 9.9% of the UK’s total tax take yet will only receive 9.3% of that tax take back to spend in Scotland (you will lose £4.4bn per year to the UK treasury)
-You will devolve all of the economic levers you have used to shape your economy directly to London and will now only have control of 7% of your economy
-Even though 79% of Scottish MP's voted against it we will privitise your publicly owned mail service
-Even though 91% of Scottish MPs voted against the bedroom tax in your parliament, we will impose it.
-Even though 82% of Scottish MP's believed that a VAT increase would be detrimental to your economy, we will impose a VAT increase.
-You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised.
-Now and again you’ll get dragged into an illegal foreign war.
-An austerity budget will be imposed from London cutting jobs and threatening vital public services even though 81% of your MP's voted against the cuts.
-The financial regulation system will be so weak and so lax that your whole economy will be brought to the brink of collapse.
-The most weak and vulnerable in society, instead of getting the protection and support they deserve will be interrogated and humiliated in an effort to get them off the meagre levels of support to which they are entitled.

Ask yourself, would you vote for such a package?
Would you vote for that Better Together campaign?

[James.]

This poll should really read 231 for yes and 87 for no as I changed my mind a while back :greengrin

[Speedy]

The Better Together stand is doing a roaring trade in Pitlochry, 5 staff and NO interest by the public. :agree:

I'm thinking of giving them a visit later, just to get some answers, you understand. :wink:

I intend trying this approach

Imagine Scotland was already independent and we were about to have a referendum on whether to join a union with the rest of the UK.
Could the Pro-union side convince us that getting together would be better when we were told what would happen to Scotland after such a union? Some bullet points from the campaign…
-Your main Parliament will move 600 miles away, and your MPs will be in a tiny minority & will therefore have limited ability to effect policy on your behalf
-Scotland will get a government it didn’t vote for.
-All of your oil and gas revenues will be handed over to the treasury in London.
-Even though not 1 inch of track will touch Scottish soil your taxpayers will contribute £4.2bn to the HS2 project.
-Your taxpayers will also subsidise the crossrail project to the tune of £4.2bn
-The biggest nuclear weapons facility in Western Europe will be built on the river Clyde, just 30 miles from your largest city.
-Even though you only have 8.2% of the UK’s population you will contribute 9.9% of the UK’s total tax take yet will only receive 9.3% of that tax take back to spend in Scotland (you will lose £4.4bn per year to the UK treasury)
-You will devolve all of the economic levers you have used to shape your economy directly to London and will now only have control of 7% of your economy
-Even though 79% of Scottish MP's voted against it we will privitise your publicly owned mail service
-Even though 91% of Scottish MPs voted against the bedroom tax in your parliament, we will impose it.
-Even though 82% of Scottish MP's believed that a VAT increase would be detrimental to your economy, we will impose a VAT increase.
-You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised.
-Now and again you’ll get dragged into an illegal foreign war.
-An austerity budget will be imposed from London cutting jobs and threatening vital public services even though 81% of your MP's voted against the cuts.
-The financial regulation system will be so weak and so lax that your whole economy will be brought to the brink of collapse.
-The most weak and vulnerable in society, instead of getting the protection and support they deserve will be interrogated and humiliated in an effort to get them off the meagre levels of support to which they are entitled.

Ask yourself, would you vote for such a package?
Would you vote for that Better Together campaign?

I see posts in this style from both sides.

What they have in common is that they are so clearly biased that they lose credibility.

[Mr Grieves]

Just out of interest, have any former do not knows or anybody changed sides, based on the discussion on this thread?

[Beefster]

I see posts in this style from both sides.

What they have in common is that they are so clearly biased that they lose credibility.

They're also generally copied and pasted from somewhere else and not even the poster's words.

[Just Alf]

Just out of interest, have any former do not knows or anybody changed sides, based on the discussion on this thread?

Sort of... I was don't know / no'ish leaning. I dropped the no'ish bit quite quickly I guess, then have steadily shifted to a firmer and firmer yes. :agree:

[CapitalGreen]

They're also generally copied and pasted from somewhere else and not even the poster's words.

Heaven forbid.

[Hibrandenburg]

Just watched Salmond give Jim Murphy a verbal kicking on Sky News. Love him or hate him he's a smooth operator.

[Moulin Yarns]

They're also generally copied and pasted from somewhere else and not even the poster's words.


COPY AND PASTE ALERT

I am posting this from a self-declared 'undecided' billionaire businessman. I have posted some of his observations in the past as I think they help people get some unbiased perspective compared to News websites. If that is such a bad thing then I really worry about the future.




Last night I spent the evening in my old home town of New Cumnock at a ‘tattiefest’ – a music and tattie combo; they are still pretty inventive there!
The town, and ultimately my dad Campbell’s grocery store there, was decimated by the pit closures when the notion of a job for life finally ended as the nationalised pits, steel and shipbuilding industries collapsed.
So as the music skirled and the tatties were consumed inevitably the conversation turned to the Referendum and I think this is an important and positive aspect of this Referendum people are engaged, I also think that the debates that happen between friends and family are proving more productive than the claim and counter claim we get from our politicians more later. Unsurprisingly the discussion wasn’t led by Trident, Euro, EU membership or the currency, it was about how a yes or no vote could affect the daily lives there and rightly so.
If we go would the pension be safe, how many more jobs would be created, could there be new investment in New Cumnock and the surrounding areas and would we need a passport to get to the Yorkshire Dales? Will we still be able to afford free prescriptions, education and elderly care? And what if we stay with the UK what changes then; we’ve had three different offers of more powers but which one, or combination do we get and when?
All these points are absolutely bang on and require an answer, an answer I’m saddened to say I expect from neither camp. Business people like me are absolutely concerned with the currency issue as it will have a distinct and material impact on both rUK and Scotland, most people just want to know will I be better off, have more opportunity for my family in or out of the Union? It’s a good question.
Fundamentally sadly that brings us back to the currency question.
What saddens me most about this referendum is the willingness of both sides for brinkmanship, to play with normal people’s lives, the one’s who can’t up sticks if they don’t like the yes or no answer we offer on the 18th of September.
On the one hand we have Alex Salmond and John Swinney declaring that if we don’t negotiate a currency union we are not paying our share of the UK’s debts. There are two crucial points to note in that assertion.
The first is this, if we do agree to a currency union our public finances will in absolute terms be governed by the UK, or more precisely the Bank of England. Is that what Yes voters are signing up for because I am struggling hard to see how with such constraints Alex’s White Paper vision can be delivered on that basis – perhaps he could explain?
Secondly say we take the brinkmanship to the end point, fail to get a currency union and default on our debts. I think we all know when walking into a bank for a loan having just failed to pay off a massive debt elsewhere what the bank manager might say – countries are no different. To be extreme will the headline be ‘Scotland signs deal with Wonga for long-term capital requirements?’
Be assured if we go down that route the cost of capital will inflate markedly and thus we the taxpayer need either to generate more taxes, through building more successful businesses, or cut back on the very services Alex wants to protect.
So there are two positions set out by Alex both of which have very material consequences to the questions posed by the people of New Cumnock I talked to…
The people we democratically elected in the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties have united in saying no to a currency union in the hope of exposing the perils of Plan B.
But here’s the big question that exposes their duplicity in all of this – if they can unite to say no to currency union why is it they can’t unite to say yes to an agreed package of devolved powers: what is it we get if we tick no on the 18th of September. Answers please before the 18th Mr. Cameron, Clegg and Milliband.
On the one hand Alex wants us signing up for a walk in the fog with cliffs nearby, while Alistair and the unionists want us blindfolded knowing only what lies behind us and not in front of us.
Most undecided people I speak to say this – if it’s more of the same that’s not that appealing, the trouble is I don’t know what we will get if I vote no and I’m unclear if independence will make me better or worse off.
Curiously, to the point of playing with people’s lives, when Alex Salmond sat down with David Cameron to define the question we would be asked on the 18th of September, Alex asked for a second question – in essence do you want more devolution for Scotland? Cameron refused and to my mind cast the dice that now has brinkmanship on every side.

[Moulin Yarns]

This is just for a laugh, folks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KphfN-Bk7M

:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

They're also generally copied and pasted from somewhere else and not even the poster's words.

Hey, there's a great big world out there.:greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

They're also generally copied and pasted from somewhere else and not even the poster's words.

Probably I've banged on way too much on this thread already, but here's a hysterical post I wrote all in my own words to a no leaning friend, originally from England, hence the last para. Feedback welcome,even if it's just STFU. ;-)



This is my case for Yes with as much objectivity as I can muster.

In my view, the debate is happening in three strands:

1. Money - obviously important but essentially ends up a pointless argument.
2. Structure - this should be the main focus but usually gets drowned out by 1
3. Identity - the elephant in the room.

On 1, I think the fiscal position of Scotland in the UK is roughly neutral. More money goes in, more money comes out. More goes in because of oil but even ex-oil we are comfortably the 3rd best performing region of the UK behind only London and the SE. More comes out because of Barnett. This is completely accidental. Barnett was devised to allocate funds by population share but still uses multipliers derived in the 70s. Since then, Scotland’s population has been fairly flat, England’s has increased markedly.

Either way, we have a big adjustment to make. Either we become independent and face oil running out or we stay in the union and have to face the end of Barnett. It makes no logical sense to maintain it and in fact is detrimental to Wales and the English regions so there is inevitable pressure building to replace it. The only thing keeping that pressure on hold is a pragmatic desire to win the referendum (google Cameron’s comments on Barnett pre and post 2011, big difference). I think the same pragmatism will see it reduced gradually rather than suddenly withdrawn, just as the oil money will gradually taper rather than abruptly end. This assumes things continuing on a similar economic trajectory either way. Of course, I think we can do better under a more tailored structure but I don’t think things will change a lot in the short term, divergence will grow over time. The scare stories on one side and happy, sunlit uplands on the other are equally illusory. We had all the same stuff before the 97 referendum. The reality is I think things have got a wee bit better since then, or actually maybe just a wee bit different to England, in a way that has suited society here, but change is slow.

So either way, big challenges to live within our means, but of a fairly similar scale. We will have to either drive up tax revenue or have less to spend, whatever we decide in September. At least under independence we get to decide the balance of taxation vs spending for ourselves and get rid of any government that does something we end up not liking. If the situation was clear cut either way, it would be an easy win for that side and the referendum would’ve been a foregone conclusion months ago. Which is a shame, because there’s so much fog surrounding 1 that it takes up almost all the debate and I think what we should really be talking about is 2 …

The chance to have real accountable democracy in Scotland: a government that makes changes to attempt to improve the economy and reaps the rewards of an increased tax take or takes the punishment and is booted out. We’d also get a full parliament of the best politicians we produce. At the moment the standard is woeful as all the best Unionists head for Westminster where real power lies. We’re left with the SNP by default and a 3rd rate opposition. And they’d be focused full time on our problems and tailored solutions to them. With the best will in the word, a government in London can’t apply itself properly to solving Scottish issues, it has too much else to deal with. And because we’d be entering into a new venture, everything is up for grabs: do we want to continue the monarchy or be a republic? Have a military big enough to participate abroad or just a minimum defence? The sort of things that could never be changed in the UK can all be on the table post-independence in the years ahead, if we want.

Lastly 3, the subject which actually is a huge driver of the debate but nobody wants to talk about! Whether to be British or Scottish. “Yes" don’t want to be accused of being Nazis, “No" won’t bring it up because it’s a weak point, there just isn’t enough Britishness about to guarantee them a win. Fundamentally, if people feel Scottish and view Scotland as a country, it’s the natural order of things that we should run it ourselves. That’s how it works the world over.

It took me a long time to work out why the UK establishment wants to keep the union so much (subsidy junkies etc!) but that's about identity too. If you haven't seen it, watch Andrew Neil's documentary on the effects of independence on the remaining UK. It makes it all crystal clear. It's about staying a nuclear power, staying on the UN security council, maintaining the current position in table of G8 GDPs, not "losing" Scotland, keeping face.

You’ve lived here most of your adult life and are as much part of Scottish society as anyone. You are actually in the lucky position of being able to have a Scottish identity if you want without having to be saddled with the bloody football team! If you aren’t the best person to make the decisions about things that will shape your life, who is?

[JeMeSouviens]

... And a reply to a reply,on national identity ...

The fact that we can and do have multiple identities is obvious. However, looking at it from the other way round, I think it's also obvious that you can't sustain a successful state, at least not a democratic one, if the people don't buy into the idea of it. By which I mean the overwhelming number of the people have to feel they belong to the country and the country belongs to them. Look at the US, it has all sorts of identities going on within it of all sorts of racial and non-racial, ethnic, religious, policitical affiliations but they all accept their American-ness. The Swiss have distinct language blocs and a history involving violent sectarian conflict, but today they all feel Swiss. Ireland, on the other hand, has never reconciled the Unionists to living in Ireland or the nationalists of the north to living in Britain. They will always be living with inherent instability unless they can find a way for one or other of those populations to buy into a state they can all be content with.

When I go to England, I don't feel culturally dissimilar or unwelcome, but I don't feel it belongs to me, as I do visiting any part of Scotland. If Scotland is to have a long term future in the the UK, then the UK has to find a way to make Scots feel that it, rather than Scotland, should be their country. They don't have to lose their Scottish identity, people from Yorkshire and Cornwall are proud of those identities after all, but they do have to feel an allegiance to Britain over and above. It's not impossible, the second world war and its aftermath definitely fostered a common identity and is probably the high watermark of Britishness-including-Scotland since the Union. But that generation is disappearing and I don't see anything likely to happen that would have the same sort of effect today. I've seen numerous articles dismissing the state of the Tory party in Scotland as no different to the north of England. I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding. I think the larger part of the Scottish people actually felt they weren't just a party they disagreed with, they were a government without legitimacy north of the border. The only way to keep Scotland in the Union was to loosen the binding by devolving power but that's only been a short term fix. Here we are again, with the only way to keep Scotland in the Union being to loosen the binding still further. And even if that succeeds, we'll be back here again in another 10 years or so.

So, given a Yes vote, won't the situation just be reversed, with a large minority of British identifiers unhappy with their lot? I don't think so, for 3 reasons. A very large part of the No vote also has a Scottish identity: there are a lot of people who would support independence in an ideal world but have some personal situation that makes them perceive it as a risk. They will be on board once the decision is made. We're good at absorbing foreigners: Scotland has been built on waves of immigration and if you look at the census returns, Scottishness pervades all the arrivals bar those who have recently moved from inside the UK, ie. the people who didn't perceive themselves to be moving country. Lastly, we've already had an acid test, the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. It has been overwhelmingly accepted as our national parliament and even those who opposed its creation have got on with the business of making it work. I also think it's been a success and there is no better measure of that than the reduction in anti-English whingeing and the blaming of England for all our problems. It still exists but compared to 20 years ago, it's a shadow of its former self.

[Hibbyradge]

After all the deliberation, this is my postal vote;

13366

[Hibrandenburg]

This should see a few more don't knows move to YES!

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29003017

Footnote for Beefster: Warning!! Cut n Paste

[Moulin Yarns]

After all the deliberation, this is my postal vote;

13366


:thumbsup:

13368

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29003017

It just gets better, not together. :greengrin

[Stranraer]

Just read a good piece my Irvine Welsh in the Sunday Herald - talking about how people are concerned with the risks but when they are looking at the ballot paper will say **** it and vote Yes! I hope he's right.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29003017

It just gets better, not together. :greengrin

:rolleyes:

[PeeJay]

I can vote in municipal elections over here and have even been given the vote in General elections. The last two general elections I was given the wrong ballot paper after the election supervisor just glanced at my name and photo on my passport whilst cross-checking it with my election letter.

:greengrin

Haven't you failed to mention here that this is because you are a German national? Surely "Peevemor" cannot vote in France in a GE because he is a foreign national and not a "Froggie"!

I can vote in the municipals here, but not the GE ... still not a German after all these years - mind you, if Scotland votes yes, then I'm asking for the forms :greengrin

[marinello59]

After all the deliberation, this is my postal vote;

13366

The correct answer. :thumbsup:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Britain on highest level terrorism alert. I take it the Irish border is fully manned and all cars are bring checked. Otherwise, what exactly is border control?

[Stranraer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29003017

It just gets better, not together. :greengrin

"we are happy to join him make sure he stays safe" UKIP must have more money for bodyguards than the Labour party.

[Stranraer]

Britain on highest level terrorism alert. I take it the Irish border is fully manned and all cars are bring checked. Otherwise, what exactly is border control?

Yeah I'd say it has more to do with British nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29003017

It just gets better, not together. :greengrin

Bring it on, I can't wait to see how the rest of them can distance themselves from him, whilst agreeing with what he says.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yeah I'd say it has more to do with British nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.

Better Together claimed that there would be a border between Scotland and the Uk. If the Irish border remains open at a time like this, it's hard to believe there will be border controls if we vote yes.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29003017

It just gets better, not together. :greengrin

:rolleyes:

[Stranraer]

Better Together claimed that there would be a border between Scotland and the Uk. If the Irish border remains open at a time like this, it's hard to believe there will be border controls if we vote yes.

The Irish border serves no purpose and I look forward to the day that it doesn't exist but that's another debate. The Better Together campaign's claim on a border is ridiculous but then I'm getting used to their garbage leaflets that don't actually explain why Scotland is better off in the union. I guess that's why they are springing around with "No Thanks" badges now. There's less explaining to do.

[Hibrandenburg]

Haven't you failed to mention here that this is because you are a German national? Surely "Peevemor" cannot vote in France in a GE because he is a foreign national and not a "Froggie"!

I can vote in the municipals here, but not the GE ... still not a German after all these years - mind you, if Scotland votes yes, then I'm asking for the forms :greengrin

Neither am I, think I must have slipped under their radar somehow. Does that make me a sleeper?

[ronaldo7]

The pentland hills have Aye's.

13369

Absolutely magic.

[JeMeSouviens]

The pentland hills have Aye's.

13369

Absolutely magic.

The Hill-end of the Union. ;-)

[Stranraer]

The Hill-end of the Union. ;-)

Ah just seeing the words "end of the Union" made my day. Latest Survation poll has Yes at 47 and No at 53.

[PeeJay]

Neither am I, think I must have slipped under their radar somehow. Does that make me a sleeper?

Berlin and Wowi ... anything's possible here - well, not the airport obviously :greengrin

[Stranraer]

13389

The No campaign's latest poster is yet another insult, who comes up with this garbage?

[steakbake]

13389

The No campaign's latest poster is yet another insult, who comes up with this garbage?

M&C Saatchi, sanctioned by Douglas Alexander (Campaign Manager).

The same lot that used 'Are you thinking what we're thinking' and 'Labour isn't working...'. The masters of fear trying to be positive and this is the result...

As I see it, BT know they've gone too negative but their eggs are all in that basket with the expertise they've bought in.

Momentum is with an aspirational campaign. BT isn't about aspiration: it's about keeping things exactly as they are.

Looking forward to seeing a few polls this week. It's going to be very close.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yougov (the sun):

Y 47 (+4)
N 53 (-4)

Last Yougov also showed +4 swing to Y. N lead cut from 22 to 6 in under a month!

[Stranraer]

Yougov (the sun):

Y 47 (+4)
N 53 (-4)

Last Yougov also showed +4 swing to Y. N lead cut from 22 to 6 in under a month!

Excellent news, lets hope it continues!

[WindyMiller]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/no-lead-falls-to-6-points-in-scottish-referendum-poll/

[GlesgaeHibby]

Yougov (the sun):

Y 47 (+4)
N 53 (-4)

Last Yougov also showed +4 swing to Y. N lead cut from 22 to 6 in under a month!

Momentum firmly with yes. Undecided's going to yes at a rate of 2:1. Looks like a yes win is becoming ever more likely.

[stoneyburn hibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29010574

:faf:
I love my family, I'm saying no thanks.
BT have replaced the union flag with the saltire.

Keep em coming Alastair .

[The Baldmans Comb]

There is still a huge lot of work to do for the Yes campaign but Scotland would be a far better and a far happier place if it was run by the people who live and work here.

To the Undecided out there ask yourself what your politics are?.

If you want a slightly left of centre government on a market based economy then that is what you will get in an Independent Scotland as Labour and SNP will dominate with a chip in from Greens and Lib Dems on coalitions.

Otherwise you are going to get an amalgam of the Conservative party/UKIP and the now right of centre Labour party as they continually find new ways to ape the Tories.

[Phil D. Rolls]

M&C Saatchi, sanctioned by Douglas Alexander (Campaign Manager).

The same lot that used 'Are you thinking what we're thinking' and 'Labour isn't working...'. The masters of fear trying to be positive and this is the result...

As I see it, BT know they've gone too negative but their eggs are all in that basket with the expertise they've bought in.

Momentum is with an aspirational campaign. BT isn't about aspiration: it's about keeping things exactly as they are.

Looking forward to seeing a few polls this week. It's going to be very close.

Things could be about to get messy. They have nothing left to say. Cried wolf once too often IMO.

[CropleyWasGod]

Conspiracy theory no. 272.

Saatchi has to minimise his assets in his divorce from Nigella. What better way to devalue a company than to embark on a disastrous PR campaign for a client?

😈
:)

[Just Alf]

13389

The No campaign's latest poster is yet another insult, who comes up with this garbage?

I take it from this that they've run out of arguments to explain why we're better together then? :cb

[Stranraer]

I take it from this that they've run out of arguments to explain why we're better together then? :cb

I didn't hear any arguments in the first place as to why Scotland is better off in the union. I think that's why "No Thanks" is the new slogan, it means there is less explaining to do.

[JimBHibees]

A bit about the attack at Tynecastle last weekend.

Quite disgusting behaviour. Foulkes hates a quote, no one else they could have asked.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/yes-campaigners-attacked-by-mob-outside-tynecastle-1-3527125

[over the line]

A bit about the attack at Tynecastle last weekend.

Quite disgusting behaviour. Foulkes hates a quote, no one else they could have asked.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/yes-campaigners-attacked-by-mob-outside-tynecastle-1-3527125

Mindless thuggery, disgraceful behaviour! Exactly what point do they think they are proving and what do they hope to achieve with this act? Let's hope someone did get footage and the police are able to I D them. I can't stand bullies and thugs!

[Beefster]

A bit about the attack at Tynecastle last weekend.

Quite disgusting behaviour. Foulkes hates a quote, no one else they could have asked.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/yes-campaigners-attacked-by-mob-outside-tynecastle-1-3527125

Anyone else would have said exactly the same as Pishybreeks. The default answer from both sides when anything unsavoury happens is "Well, aye, that's awful but nothing to do with us, guv".

[Future17]

Anyone else would have said exactly the same as Pishybreeks. The default answer from both sides when anything unsavoury happens is "Well, aye, that's awful but nothing to do with us, guv".

Aye, but he could have stopped at "I deplore any physical violence but I think you have to be very careful about making claims about who is responsible". Instead he added "...I suspect it may be being exaggerated and twisted to create counter balance to the attacks Jim Murphy has had to suffer." He's gone beyond denying "No" campaign involvement to accusing people of lying.

Absolutely no issue with your defence of the "No" argument Beefster, but I feel you defending Foulkes here is a new low for this thread. :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

Aye, but he could have stopped at "I deplore any physical violence but I think you have to be very careful about making claims about who is responsible". Instead he added "...I suspect it may be being exaggerated and twisted to create counter balance to the attacks Jim Murphy has had to suffer." He's gone beyond denying "No" campaign involvement to accusing people of lying.

Absolutely no issue with your defence of the "No" argument Beefster, but I feel you defending Foulkes here is a new low for this thread. :greengrin

Yep it is amazing what strange bedfellows Better Together has created. :greengrin

[The Harp Awakes]

13389

The No campaign's latest poster is yet another insult, who comes up with this garbage?

Jeezo, that poster is cringeworthy. So by default, if you are intending voting yes, you don't love your family.

Are the no camp actually trying to win this referendum? Looks like their entire campaign is about to self-destruct.

[Stranraer]

Jeezo, that poster is cringeworthy. So by default, if you are intending voting yes, you don't love your family.

Are the no camp actually trying to win this referendum? Looks like their entire campaign is about to self-destruct.

I don't have a clue what they are playing at - their last TV advert was absolutely awful too. I've just read that Yes Scotland received £168,000 in donations in the last month while Better Together received no donations.

[JimBHibees]

Jeezo, that poster is cringeworthy. So by default, if you are intending voting yes, you don't love your family.

Are the no camp actually trying to win this referendum? Looks like their entire campaign is about to self-destruct.

Simply appalling.

[marinello59]

I don't have a clue what they are playing at - their last TV advert was absolutely awful too. I've just read that Yes Scotland received £168,000 in donations in the last month while Better Together received no donations.

It certainly shows in the literature we are getting through our letter boxes. The Yes campaign stuff is more plentiful and better quality.

[Moulin Yarns]

A view from over the seas. Malta to be precise. Copy and paste alert for those that don't want them.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140831/opinion/Will-Scotland-the-brave-make-it-.533778

[JimBHibees]

A view from over the seas. Malta to be precise. Copy and paste alert for those that don't want them.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140831/opinion/Will-Scotland-the-brave-make-it-.533778

Very good article and is very relevant to the decision coming up on the 18th.

[Hibrandenburg]

A view from over the seas. Malta to be precise. Copy and paste alert for those that don't want them.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140831/opinion/Will-Scotland-the-brave-make-it-.533778

Enjoyed that, thanks!

[Fergus52]

has anyone heard the american radio show's coverage on the indyref?

if you search #indyref on facebook and scroll down a bit it'll come up.

hearing an un-biased neutral's take on the debate is pretty eye opening in regards to the British media bias.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thanks for the link!



When George Borg Olivier made his formal request for Malta’s independence 50 years ago, he insisted that things would be better off if all decisions affecting Malta are made by the Maltese in the sole interest of Malta. Today we can say that he has been proved right, in spite of the many problems that we sometimes created unnecessarily for ourselves.

All the scaremongering about the value of our currency, about the impossibility of providing so many jobs, about the improbability of raising our standard of living and of not succeeding as a small island nation has evaporated into thin air, and we will be proudly celebrating our country’s 50 years of independence just when Scotland will be taking its historic decision.

:top marks

Is there a single example of a country that gained independence via self determination from within a larger state and has asked to go back?

[Bristolhibby]

Thanks for the link!




:top marks

Is there a single example of a country that gained independence via self determination from within a larger state and has asked to go back?

Texas

[snooky]

Texas

We have a winner! :greengrin (or in the case of Texas, a loser :wink:)

[7 Hills]

Texas

Texas didn't secede as an independent state; it became part of the Confederacy, adopting the themes of that entity.

[ronaldo7]

A view from over the seas. Malta to be precise. Copy and paste alert for those that don't want them.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140831/opinion/Will-Scotland-the-brave-make-it-.533778


I'm loving the pooling and sharing of resources on this thread. Keep posting the links please.:aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

Yep it is amazing what strange bedfellows Better Together has created. :greengrin

Perhaps so. This seems to be a popular refrain amongst some of the Yes supporters.

It does conjure up images of glass houses and stones though.

The Yes camp don't seem to be too hot in acknowledging that Brian Souter has put a significant sum of money their way.

This is the man who put a million pounds of his own money into trying to stop Section 28 being repealed.

I'm guessing (well, hoping) that most of the Yes supporters on here aren't rampant homophobes who want the law to treat gay people unfairly?

And I've also seen many, many links to the Wings over Scotland blog being posted and lauded on here.

This is the same blogger who wrote a lengthy piece blaming Hillsborough on the fans.

Hating gays and blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough. By that measure Ol' Pishybreeks doesn't seem so bad.......

[bawheid]

13389

The No campaign's latest poster is yet another insult, who comes up with this garbage?

Absolutely desperate stuff.

[Bristolhibby]

Texas didn't secede as an independent state; it became part of the Confederacy, adopting the themes of that entity.

It did secede, just from Mexico in 1836.

It joined the Union (USA) in 1846.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

So for 10 years there was a free state in North America.

J

[degenerated]

Perhaps so. This seems to be a popular refrain amongst some of the Yes supporters.

It does conjure up images of glass houses and stones though.

The Yes camp don't seem to be too hot in acknowledging that Brian Souter has put a significant sum of money their way.

This is the man who put a million pounds of his own money into trying to stop Section 28 being repealed.

I'm guessing (well, hoping) that most of the Yes supporters on here aren't rampant homophobes who want the law to treat gay people unfairly?

And I've also seen many, many links to the Wings over Scotland blog being posted and lauded on here.

This is the same blogger who wrote a lengthy piece blaming Hillsborough on the fans.

Hating gays and blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough. By that measure Ol' Pishybreeks doesn't seem so bad.......
You're correct in that Brian Souter is not someone yes should have associated themselves with and should have declined his money.
However, and here's the whataboutery, no has registered campaigners such as holocaust denier Alistair McConnachie, the Britannica Party, the Orange order and Ian Taylor of Vitol fame. Without wishing to appear like I'm condoning souters views because I find him abhorrent, those listed above are seriously vile organisations/individuals.

[7 Hills]

It did secede, just from Mexico in 1836.

It joined the Union (USA) in 1846.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

So for 10 years there was a free state in North America.

J

I know that, but your original point was that Texas elected to rejoin a union which it had previously left to become an independent state. Which it clearly didn't. :greengrin

[Future17]

I don't have a clue what they are playing at - their last TV advert was absolutely awful too. I've just read that Yes Scotland received £168,000 in donations in the last month while Better Together received no donations.

Better Together have declined further donations as they have reached their spending limit of £1.5 million.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're correct in that Brian Souter is not someone yes should have associated themselves with and should have declined his money.
However, and here's the whataboutery, no has registered campaigners such as holocaust denier Alistair McConnachie, the Britannica Party, the Orange order and Ian Taylor of Vitol fame. Without wishing to appear like I'm condoning souters views because I find him abhorrent, those listed above are seriously vile organisations/individuals.

I agree with that. Bammers on both sides.

[Stranraer]

Better Together have declined further donations as they have reached their spending limit of £1.5 million.

:aok: cheers I wasn't aware of that. Just back from a Yes meeting, there wasn't a huge turnout but we managed to persuade a few undecided voters which is a positive.

[Bristolhibby]

I know that, but your original point was that Texas elected to rejoin a union which it had previously left to become an independent state. Which it clearly didn't. :greengrin

Touché

[JeMeSouviens]

Perhaps so. This seems to be a popular refrain amongst some of the Yes supporters.

It does conjure up images of glass houses and stones though.

The Yes camp don't seem to be too hot in acknowledging that Brian Souter has put a significant sum of money their way.

This is the man who put a million pounds of his own money into trying to stop Section 28 being repealed.

I'm guessing (well, hoping) that most of the Yes supporters on here aren't rampant homophobes who want the law to treat gay people unfairly?

And I've also seen many, many links to the Wings over Scotland blog being posted and lauded on here.

This is the same blogger who wrote a lengthy piece blaming Hillsborough on the fans.

Hating gays and blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough. By that measure Ol' Pishybreeks doesn't seem so bad.......

Agree re Souter but unbelievably rich coming from the side who contain not only an entire party that opposed repeal but were actually the authors of the bloody thing in the first place.

Remember when you speak for BT that includes your new chums!

Will check re Wings.

[JimBHibees]

Really enjoyed the stv debate. Thought Patrick hardie and nicola sturgeon were very good. The more I see these debates the more I think No has lost the debate and are running on empty.

[DaveF]

Perhaps so. This seems to be a popular refrain amongst some of the Yes supporters.

It does conjure up images of glass houses and stones though.

The Yes camp don't seem to be too hot in acknowledging that Brian Souter has put a significant sum of money their way.

This is the man who put a million pounds of his own money into trying to stop Section 28 being repealed.

I'm guessing (well, hoping) that most of the Yes supporters on here aren't rampant homophobes who want the law to treat gay people unfairly?

And I've also seen many, many links to the Wings over Scotland blog being posted and lauded on here.

This is the same blogger who wrote a lengthy piece blaming Hillsborough on the fans.

Hating gays and blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough. By that measure Ol' Pishybreeks doesn't seem so bad.......

Is that the same Section 28 which the conservative party voted against repealing? You know, those same folk who are very much Better Together?

[Mibbes Aye]

Agree re Souter but unbelievably rich coming from the side who contain not only an entire party that opposed repeal but were actually the authors of the bloody thing in the first place.

Remember when you speak for BT that includes your new chums!

Will check re Wings.

I don't speak for BT, have never claimed to, I speak solely for myself.

I've don't think I've mentioned Souter on this thread before (although I think I've posted elsewhere), only brought it up because the Yes camp do seem to like portraying the No camp as sullied because it includes the Conservatives (hence my comment about glass houses and stones).

[Stranraer]

Perhaps so. This seems to be a popular refrain amongst some of the Yes supporters.

It does conjure up images of glass houses and stones though.

The Yes camp don't seem to be too hot in acknowledging that Brian Souter has put a significant sum of money their way.

This is the man who put a million pounds of his own money into trying to stop Section 28 being repealed.

I'm guessing (well, hoping) that most of the Yes supporters on here aren't rampant homophobes who want the law to treat gay people unfairly?

And I've also seen many, many links to the Wings over Scotland blog being posted and lauded on here.

This is the same blogger who wrote a lengthy piece blaming Hillsborough on the fans.

Hating gays and blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough. By that measure Ol' Pishybreeks doesn't seem so bad.......

Do you have a link to Wings' comments on Hillsborough? I'm not doubting that he said it I just want to see his comments.

[Mibbes Aye]

Is that the same Section 28 which the conservative party voted against repealing? You know, those same folk who are very much Better Together?

They introduced it. They shouldn't have IMO.

I'm not clear if you're suggesting that makes it okay for the Yes camp to take the financial support of Brian Souter. Is that what you're suggesting? Does that make it okay?

[DaveF]

They introduced it. They shouldn't have IMO.

I'm not clear if you're suggesting that makes it okay for the Yes camp to take the financial support of Brian Souter. Is that what you're suggesting? Does that make it okay?

Erm, No. Did you see me attempting to defend it?

I was merely pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your post. I'm pretty sure BT have received donations from people with unsavoury views as will YES. If it's got to the stage where no supporters are attempting to fling this kind of mud around then the worry must really be setting in.

[DaveF]

They introduced it. They shouldn't have IMO.

I'm not clear if you're suggesting that makes it okay for the Yes camp to take the financial support of Brian Souter. Is that what you're suggesting? Does that make it okay?

And they (Scottish Tories) also opposed it's repeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm

[Mibbes Aye]

Do you have a link to Wings' comments on Hillsborough? I'm not doubting that he said it I just want to see his comments.

This was the original blog. (http://wosland.podgamer.com/no-justice-for-the-96/)

I wasn't aware of this until I dug it out but he seemed to get into some fight on Twitter afterwards with the sister of one of the 96 and called the surviving Liverpool fans c***s.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Really enjoyed the stv debate. Thought Patrick hardie and nicola sturgeon were very good. The more I see these debates the more I think No has lost the debate and are running on empty.

All six of the participants handled themselves well. Was held in a much more friendly manner than Salmond and Darling. Thought the real stand out was Elaine C Smith. An ordinary Scot, speaking the case for Yes. Party politics out the window, social justice at the heart of it.

Ruth Davidson hopeless as ever. Bringing up Ukraine as an example of why not to get rid of nuclear weapons. Putin is heading for Scotland next!!!

[Stranraer]

This was the original blog. (http://wosland.podgamer.com/no-justice-for-the-96/)

I wasn't aware of this until I dug it out but he seemed to get into some fight on Twitter afterwards with the sister of one of the 96 and called the surviving Liverpool fans c***s.

:aok: cheers, I'll take a look.

[Mibbes Aye]

Erm, No. Did you see me attempting to defend it?

I was merely pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your post. I'm pretty sure BT have received donations from people with unsavoury views as will YES. If it's got to the stage where no supporters are attempting to fling this kind of mud around then the worry must really be setting in.

Whoa, backtrack please.

This all started with a Yes supporter saying the No camp had some dodgy members (i.e Foulkes)

I said that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones as the Yes camp likewise had some unsavoury types in its folds.

As I acknowledged to Degenerated, bammers on both sides.

So tell me where the "...utter hypocrisy" in that is?

[JeMeSouviens]

They introduced it. They shouldn't have IMO.

I'm not clear if you're suggesting that makes it okay for the Yes camp to take the financial support of Brian Souter. Is that what you're suggesting? Does that make it okay?

No it's not. Is it ok for labour to jointly campaign using Tory money?

[JeMeSouviens]

Have checked re wings and Hillsborough. Typical views of the uninformed. Given that several tried to inform him afterwards, pretty much unforgivable.

[7 Hills]

Really enjoyed the stv debate. Thought Patrick hardie and nicola sturgeon were very good. The more I see these debates the more I think No has lost the debate and are running on empty.

They were. But for me - Elaine C. Smith was Pure Dead Brilliant! She really should go into politics full-time!

[Mibbes Aye]

Have checked re wings and Hillsborough. Typical views of the uninformed. Given that several tried to inform him afterwards, pretty much unforgivable.

It feels like he thrives on the conflict/attention.

Anyway, I don't think he is representative of the Yes camp. I do think Souter's views are shared more widely but that will be Yes, No and don't cares I imagine.

[Mibbes Aye]

No it's not. Is it ok for labour to jointly campaign using Tory money?

Were you not telling me off before for conflating the SNP with the Yes campaign? :greengrin

[7 Hills]

Touché

13403

:wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Were you not telling me off before for conflating the SNP with the Yes campaign? :greengrin

Probably. ;-) Now answer the question!

[ronaldo7]

They were. But for me - Elaine C. Smith was Pure Dead Brilliant! She really should go into politics full-time!

:agree: Should we all just vote labour and then go to the back of the bus and shut up...WELL IT'S NO HAPPENING.

Brilliant Elaine.

[mikewynne]

Good article in the Guardian making some very valid, simple points:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

[Moulin Yarns]

Good article in the Guardian making some very valid, simple points:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland


Beat me to it. I posted the same argument, but in my own inadequate words, at the weekend, and somebody told me not to copy and paste, even though I had just copy and pasted from my own word document. (Maybe you know who you are, but maybe not :wink: )

Really good article in a National (UK wide paper)

[Moulin Yarns]

Did anybody in Edinburgh recognise the guy in the back row who rambled a long question near the end of the debate last night?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10629664_743703839028911_7967953985183662522_n.jpg ?oh=6678cd37e6860e002f40d72ee0368465&oe=546E2201&__gda__=1415903152_de70b0b2d69753ee036c40be45820fc 4

[JimBHibees]

Erm, No. Did you see me attempting to defend it?

I was merely pointing out the utter hypocrisy of your post. I'm pretty sure BT have received donations from people with unsavoury views as will YES. If it's got to the stage where no supporters are attempting to fling this kind of mud around then the worry must really be setting in.

Couldn't agree more. They have no argument beyond what is your plan b.

[JimBHibees]

Did anybody in Edinburgh recognise the guy in the back row who rambled a long question near the end of the debate last night?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10629664_743703839028911_7967953985183662522_n.jpg ?oh=6678cd37e6860e002f40d72ee0368465&oe=546E2201&__gda__=1415903152_de70b0b2d69753ee036c40be45820fc 4

That makes sense the way he mumbled incoherently without asking a question. Is he a councillor?

[Tyler Durden]

They were. But for me - Elaine C. Smith was Pure Dead Brilliant! She really should go into politics full-time!

I find it difficult to believe anyone thought Elaine C Smith came out of that debate well. Shown to be peddling lies again about life expectancy, asking not to answer questions first, unsure whether she supported the white paper or what a Yes vote meant to it.... Also unable to give any real substance to how iscotland improves social justice. Nonsense to deny Labour delivered the Parliament also....

What was she good at?

Overall I did think it was a much better format with respect shown by all contributors.

[marinello59]

I find it difficult to believe anyone thought Elaine C Smith came out of that debate well. Shown to be peddling lies again about life expectancy, asking not to answer questions first, unsure whether she supported the white paper or what a Yes vote meant to it.... Also unable to give any real substance to how iscotland improves social justice. Nonsense to deny Labour delivered the Parliament also....

What was she good at?

Overall I did think it was a much better format with respect shown by all contributors.

She's not a slick career politician with a party machine behind her. Ignore the fact she is a celebrity, she was talking as an ordinary punter who is passionate about this. That's where she did well.

[JeMeSouviens]

From an oil and gas recruitment site:

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1039/scottish-west-coast-untapped-oil-and-gas-reserves-worth-trillions/

No obvious signs that oilandgaspeople.com is a yes-friendly hotbed of freeedom-yelling deluded Nazis, but I'm sure we'll find that out soon if it turns out to be the case. :wink:

[southfieldhibby]

Did anybody in Edinburgh recognise the guy in the back row who rambled a long question near the end of the debate last night?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10629664_743703839028911_7967953985183662522_n.jpg ?oh=6678cd37e6860e002f40d72ee0368465&oe=546E2201&__gda__=1415903152_de70b0b2d69753ee036c40be45820fc 4

Rod Petrie moonlights for The NHS? He's a hungry one,eh?

[Phil D. Rolls]

It seemed to me that every advantage they offered for being in the UK, related to something we could do better if we controlled our own economy. Their real argument seems to be that we aren't good enough to manage.

[southfieldhibby]

Interesting comparison with NI

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/would-anyone-care-if-northern-ireland-left-union

[marinello59]

From an oil and gas recruitment site:

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1039/scottish-west-coast-untapped-oil-and-gas-reserves-worth-trillions/

No obvious signs that oilandgaspeople.com is a yes-friendly hotbed of freeedom-yelling deluded Nazis, but I'm sure we'll find that out soon if it turns out to be the case. :wink:

There is nothing new there. The potential off the west Coast has been reported again and again in the press. There is no big secret. Even with the lowest estimates from the No side we have a massive advantage over most countries in the world when we become Independent.

[Hibrandenburg]

It seemed to me that every advantage they offered for being in the UK, related to something we could do better if we controlled our own economy. Their real argument seems to be that we aren't good enough to manage.

Their whole argumentation is built around fear of the unknown. Me personally I'm scared of the known, possible withdrawal from the EU, UKIP, PM Boris J or Scots not having self determination.

The step into the unknown excites me, similar to leaving home, changing jobs, getting married, having a kid or buying a house. All those things were major changes in my life that carried a certain amount of wariness about the unknown but I'm glad as hell I did them. Don't adhere to the fear.

[ronaldo7]

Did anybody in Edinburgh recognise the guy in the back row who rambled a long question near the end of the debate last night?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10629664_743703839028911_7967953985183662522_n.jpg ?oh=6678cd37e6860e002f40d72ee0368465&oe=546E2201&__gda__=1415903152_de70b0b2d69753ee036c40be45820fc 4

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=801979879833645&id=307256019306036

Ex Labour councillor working for the Nhs at the Western General.

He's fully entitled to be asking his questions just like the rest.

[JeMeSouviens]

Recently retired UK ambassador to NATO, Dame Mariot Leslie declares for Yes:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/scottish-referendum-former-uk-ambassador-nato-vote-yes

[Phil D. Rolls]

Their whole argumentation is built around fear of the unknown. Me personally I'm scared of the known, possible withdrawal from the EU, UKIP, PM Boris J or Scots not having self determination.

The step into the unknown excites me, similar to leaving home, changing jobs, getting married, having a kid or buying a house. All those things were major changes in my life that carried a certain amount of wariness about the unknown but I'm glad as hell I did them. Don't adhere to the fear.

I am at that stage now. The No campaign just stuck their fingers in their ears and say the union is working, and that all we have to do is vote Labour and it will all be OK.

Meanwhile, Darling has started acting like a man that's been offered a job by Salmond; wee Joanne Lament, is still trying to say "youse dae whit yer telt"; Curran growls and barks, and Jimmy Murphy is just barking.

Labour have made their biggest ever mistake, and they will take a long time to get back in power anywhere.

[JimBHibees]

From an oil and gas recruitment site:

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1039/scottish-west-coast-untapped-oil-and-gas-reserves-worth-trillions/

No obvious signs that oilandgaspeople.com is a yes-friendly hotbed of freeedom-yelling deluded Nazis, but I'm sure we'll find that out soon if it turns out to be the case. :wink:

As important in that report was this part which is complete news to me. I would have thought Yes would have been talking that up big time given the source of the report.

"This activity is supported by the Bank of Scotland’s recent report predicting the need for 37,000 new jobs over the next two years in support of the current Scottish oil boom".

[JimBHibees]

It seemed to me that every advantage they offered for being in the UK, related to something we could do better if we controlled our own economy. Their real argument seems to be that we aren't good enough to manage.

Agree the more and more I see these debates the more I think they are running out of any argument at all. The currency one seems to have been answered as they arent going on about it as much.

[Stranraer]

I am at that stage now. The No campaign just stuck their fingers in their ears and say the union is working, and that all we have to do is vote Labour and it will all be OK.

Meanwhile, Darling has started acting like a man that's been offered a job by Salmond; wee Joanne Lament, is still trying to say "youse dae whit yer telt"; Curran growls and barks, and Jimmy Murphy is just barking.

Labour have made their biggest ever mistake, and they will take a long time to get back in power anywhere.

I really hope this turns out to be the case. Labour are a joke of a political party and I despise them.

[WestEndHibee]

Their whole argumentation is built around fear of the unknown. Me personally I'm scared of the known, possible withdrawal from the EU, UKIP, PM Boris J or Scots not having self determination.

The step into the unknown excites me, similar to leaving home, changing jobs, getting married, having a kid or buying a house. All those things were major changes in my life that carried a certain amount of wariness about the unknown but I'm glad as hell I did them.Don't adhere to the fear.

:agree:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=pZgu0KichKE&app=desktop


"Just simply voting yes the problem isn't solved,
but you can't change the world taking no risk at all"

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=pZgu0KichKE&app=desktop


"Just simply voting yes the problem isn't solved,
but you can't change the world taking no risk at all"

Catchy :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

:agree:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=pZgu0KichKE&app=desktop


"Just simply voting yes the problem isn't solved,
but you can't change the world taking no risk at all"

C'mon Guys, make it go viral :thumbsup:

[sadtom]

Did anybody in Edinburgh recognise the guy in the back row who rambled a long question near the end of the debate last night?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10629664_743703839028911_7967953985183662522_n.jpg ?oh=6678cd37e6860e002f40d72ee0368465&oe=546E2201&__gda__=1415903152_de70b0b2d69753ee036c40be45820fc 4

Billy Fitz.
No' a bad lad fer a yam.
Its usually gorgeous Gus he gets mistaken for.

[WindyMiller]

Texas

Nuff sad.

[Hibrandenburg]

Thanks for the link!




:top marks

Is there a single example of a country that gained independence via self determination from within a larger state and has asked to go back?

Crimea?

[ballengeich]

Crimea?

I don't think Crimea was ever independent. It was transferred from Russia to Ukraine within the Soviet Union.

I've read that the rulers of Belarus are considering asking to join up with Russia again.

[hibbypostie]

I don't think Crimea was ever independent. It was transferred from Russia to Ukraine within the Soviet Union.

I've read that the rulers of Belarus are considering asking to join up with Russia again.


yes but WHO wrote it?

[Moulin Yarns]

I am surprised that my computer is still in one piece after watching this

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/03/nigel-farage-accuses-alex-salmond-of-stirring-up-nationalism-and--anti-english-hatred_n_5759044.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[Phil D. Rolls]

I am surprised that my computer is still in one piece after watching this

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/03/nigel-farage-accuses-alex-salmond-of-stirring-up-nationalism-and--anti-english-hatred_n_5759044.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I'm sure the last thing Farage would like to happen is for an angry mob to demonstrate at his forthcoming Scottish appearance. I'm surprised he would say such things, as stuff like this is certain to inflame. It's as if he wants news cameras to show the English what a great guy he is when he stands up to those upstarts in JockLand.

The sort of "humour" we're used to hearing from English rugby fans, and BBC commentators.

[WestEndHibee]

I'm sure the last thing Farage would like to happen is for an angry mob to demonstrate at his forthcoming Scottish appearance. I'm surprised he would say such things, as stuff like this is certain to inflame. It's as if he wants news cameras to show the English what a great guy he is when he stands up to those upstarts in JockLand.

The sort of "humour" we're used to hearing from English rugby fans, and BBC commentators.


I know that the campaign groups already have things planned for Farage's visit. The last thing they want is to be painted as a baying mob so I assume they have some sort of peaceful protest planned.

The man is an absolute cretin and the UK parties pandering to UKIP voters was one of my big reasons for switching to Yes.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I know that the campaign groups already have things planned for Farage's visit. The last thing they want is to be painted as a baying mob so I assume they have some sort of peaceful protest planned.

The man is an absolute cretin and the UK parties pandering to UKIP voters was one of my big reasons for switching to Yes.

He is also a **** stirrer, and I hope Police Scotland are keeping an eye on his plans.

Maybe he'd be willing to take part in a debate in place of Dave?

[NAE NOOKIE]

The likes of Farage and Boris Johnson are the most dangerous type of politician. Both are affable characters who at face value seem decent enough people. Farage presents that c'mon doon the pub for a pint with me persona and Johnson presents that sort of lovable bumbling ex public schoolboy persona that Hugh Grant has made a career out of.

The truth is that both of them are clever right wing zealots who's public face belies the hatefulness of their ideologies.

Forget what Farage had to say about independence in the TV clip and read what he had to say in the text underneath it. His opinion on the situation in the Middle East was more indicative of how he thinks. He wanted a more "Judeo - Christian" approach to facing up to the threat of an Islamic State in Iraq ....... totally ignoring the fact that the majority of folk suffering at the hands of IS are in fact themselves Muslim.

What is it he would like? ..... some sort of modern day medieval crusade against muslims with no thought given to the complexities of that religion? A Christian holy war?

His view of Britain is a very idealised English one of Cricket on the village green on a warm Sunday afternoon with little blond boys and girls chasing butterflies on the boundary as their mums prepare tea and scones in the pavilion. In the background the village band gently plays Jerusalem. What should worry folk is that the other side of that 19th century picture of bliss was a background of workers with no rights, social exclusion and grinding poverty.

There is a very real chance that by the end of the decade the likes of Farage and Johnston will be calling the shots at the very top of English, if not UK politics. Forget scaremongering by Better Together ............ That's a prospect which scares the bejeezus out of me.

[JeMeSouviens]

The Guardian seems to be momentarily forgetting to be just a Unionist propaganda machine this week. We've had the Monbiot article (a No vote would be self-harm), yesterday's report on the ex-Nato ambassador voting Yes and today:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/04/british-military-mulls-implications-vote-scottish-independence


There is a developing consensus that Scotland and the remaining UK would have to cooperate closely – or negotiate "connectivity" is how it is described in Whitehall, if only for the obvious reason that Scotland's geographic position is strategically important. Colin Fleming, a Scottish defence and security academic, put it this way in a recent edition of the Chatham House thinktank journal, International Affairs: "There is no reason why Scotland would not provide a modern, flexible, defence force capable of securing Scottish territory and playing its part in the broader security of the British Isles as a whole."

[JeMeSouviens]

The likes of Farage and Boris Johnson are the most dangerous type of politician. Both are affable characters who at face value seem decent enough people. Farage presents that c'mon doon the pub for a pint with me persona and Johnson presents that sort of lovable bumbling ex public schoolboy persona that Hugh Grant has made a career out of.

The truth is that both of them are clever right wing zealots who's public face belies the hatefulness of their ideologies.

Forget what Farage had to say about independence in the TV clip and read what he had to say in the text underneath it. His opinion on the situation in the Middle East was more indicative of how he thinks. He wanted a more "Judeo - Christian" approach to facing up to the threat of an Islamic State in Iraq ....... totally ignoring the fact that the majority of folk suffering at the hands of IS are in fact themselves Muslim.

What is it he would like? ..... some sort of modern day medieval crusade against muslims with no thought given to the complexities of that religion? A Christian holy war?

His view of Britain is a very idealised English one of Cricket on the village green on a warm Sunday afternoon with little blond boys and girls chasing butterflies on the boundary as their mums prepare tea and scones in the pavilion. In the background the village band gently plays Jerusalem. What should worry folk is that the other side of that 19th century picture of bliss was a background of workers with no rights, social exclusion and grinding poverty.

There is a very real chance that by the end of the decade the likes of Farage and Johnston will be calling the shots at the very top of English, if not UK politics. Forget scaremongering by Better Together ............ That's a prospect which scares the bejeezus out of me.

Johnson is yet another Eton/Oxford boy. Don't get me wrong, it would be inverted snobbery to suggest an Eton/Oxford boy shouldn't get to the top if he deserves it but we have an Eton/Oxford PM and the only 2 credible candidates to succeed him as leader of the "natural party of government" (as they like to style themselves) are Osbourne (Eton/Oxford) and Johnson (Eton/Oxford).

I mean, seriously?

[WestEndHibee]

The Guardian seems to be momentarily forgetting to be just a Unionist propaganda machine this week. We've had the Monbiot article (a No vote would be self-harm), yesterday's report on the ex-Nato ambassador voting Yes and today:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/04/british-military-mulls-implications-vote-scottish-independence


This week has been really interesting. A lot of the papers have reduced the amount of unionist propaganda and a lot of great articles have been writted because of this, we even have salmond editing the Daily Ranger!

[NAE NOOKIE]

Johnson is yet another Eton/Oxford boy. Don't get me wrong, it would be inverted snobbery to suggest an Eton/Oxford boy shouldn't get to the top if he deserves it but we have an Eton/Oxford PM and the only 2 credible candidates to succeed him as leader of the "natural party of government" (as they like to style themselves) are Osbourne (Eton/Oxford) and Johnson (Eton/Oxford).

I mean, seriously?

Cameron has even faced criticism from within his own party for promoting the 'old boy network' in his cabinets.

Like you I couldn't care less what accent someone has or where they went to school .... but there is no doubt that the ethos promoted at the likes of Eaton and Harrow accepts and presumes that its pupils are destined for higher things in business and politics .... the aforementioned old boy network certainly doesn't harm their prospects.

Having said all that you couldn't find a more privileged background than Tony Ben and look how he turned out. Its a persons politics that matter, not his background.

[JeMeSouviens]

This week has been really interesting. A lot of the papers have reduced the amount of unionist propaganda and a lot of great articles have been writted because of this, we even have salmond editing the Daily Ranger!

... and again in the Graun:


While politicians on both sides seek to make bold assertions now before the vote is in, economists reckon the reality of a yes vote would prompt compromises and above all a will to calm markets and the public with some pretty swift decisions.

Rob Wood, chief UK economist at the private bank Berenberg and a former Bank of England economist, sums this up: “We expect that London and Edinburgh would reach a deal on the outlines of a velvet divorce quickly in the event of a yes vote. A long, noisy negotiation would drag out uncertainty and the short-term pain, which would suit no one.”

All this common sense will never catch on!

[JeMeSouviens]

Meanwhile, the normally grumpy Alan Cochrane in the Torygraph moves from positively indignant to defcon-irascible with this total sense of humour failure. :wink:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11073598/Alex-Salmond-Meet-the-bully-behind-the-mask.html

Trivial you might think, but Stalin started with licquorice too you know! :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

Has anybody seen a poll produced after the debate this week?

No, thought not, yet the audience was apparently chosen by IPSOS/MORI.

I find that rather strange that a polling organisation which was a party to the debate have not published a poll. YOUGOV were quick to bring out the Poll result after the Salmond/Darling debates, so where is it?

:confused:

[JeMeSouviens]

Meanwhile 3 (yes, count them!) of Scotland's distinguished former Secretaries of State for Scotland (whose combined efforts against devolution turned it from a 50-50 in 79 to a landslide in 97) weigh in with a heart rending letter to all of us ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11071132/Three-former-Scottish-Secretaries-warn-independence-would-lead-to-decades-of-pain-and-aggravation.html


Memo to BTNT: if you can't even let the current Tory PM loose on Scots for fear of losing votes, what the hell are you letting these 3 chumps above the parapet for? :confused:

[JeMeSouviens]

Has anybody seen a poll produced after the debate this week?

No, thought not, yet the audience was apparently chosen by IPSOS/MORI.

I find that rather strange that a polling organisation which was a party to the debate have not published a poll. YOUGOV were quick to bring out the Poll result after the Salmond/Darling debates, so where is it?

:confused:

Yougov's poll was published a week after the debate. Rumours are rife that (Yes friendly) Panelbase have been polling again and people are putting tomorrow's guest editorship by Salmond of the Record and that together to come up with a load of nods and winks. :wink: (Possibly over 50 of them. :wink:)

[NAE NOOKIE]

A bit about the attack at Tynecastle last weekend.

Quite disgusting behaviour. Foulkes hates a quote, no one else they could have asked.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/yes-campaigners-attacked-by-mob-outside-tynecastle-1-3527125

Like Hibs the Yams I would imagine have a fair spread of YES, NO and undecided.

It seems to me that there is a small element around Gorgie who think that their politics and idea of patriotism should be reflected by their view of the club they support ....... I.E. I'm in the 'no' camp coz I'm a Jambo and we as a support fly the Union flag at games.

Its the same ballpark as being persuaded to vote 'no' or 'yes' because your favourite actor or sportsman has declared for that side. FFS follow your own heart or read the evidence .... don't make decisions based on what team you follow or what star you like.

I am positive these neds are not representative of Hearts supporters in general any more than Hibbies beating up no campaigners would be of me.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Meanwhile 3 (yes, count them!) of Scotland's distinguished former Secretaries of State for Scotland (whose combined efforts against devolution turned it from a 50-50 in 79 to a landslide in 97) weigh in with a heart rending letter to all of us ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11071132/Three-former-Scottish-Secretaries-warn-independence-would-lead-to-decades-of-pain-and-aggravation.html


Memo to BTNT: if you can't even let the current Tory PM loose on Scots for fear of losing votes, what the hell are you letting these 3 chumps above the parapet for? :confused:

OMG !!!! ... What an utter pile of misty eyed Ertha Kitt full of drivel, historical revisionism and contradictions from 3 political midgets.

The drivel:

Apparently the genius of Scottish inventors, scientists and writers would have died on the vine without the UK because Scotland just wouldn't have had the "global reach"

The contradiction:

They accuse the Nationalistic YES campaign of being hateful and insular, while the Patriotic NO campaign is forward looking and positive ... a campaign which has become a byword for negativity. That's right guys & gals .. if you are thinking YES you are by definition an unpatriotic bigot

And the downright historical revisionism:

Apparently 300 years ago our forebares decided to join the union after due consideration of its benefits to the Scottish people and Scotland's place in the world.

No mention of the fact that Scotland had been nearly bankrupted by the greed of the great and the good of the day, in a failed New World venture, and that in order to save their own asses not to mention fortunes, they resurrected the idea of union with England which had been part of the English agenda for some time. Following the lining of the right Scottish pockets and not a little coercion we had a union. Prompting Burns famous verse ..... you know the one.

The riots in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland following the news coming out reflects the only part played by the people of Scotland in the process. Hardly the picture painted by the 3 wise monkeys.

[ronaldo7]

Scottish members of the RMT union back Independence.:aok:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/scottish-independence-rmt-union-backs-yes-vote-1-3531501#.VAh68P8584A.twitter

[ronaldo7]

Jeanne Freeman putting Andrew Neil in his place.


http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/04/ttip-and-the-scottish-nhs/

[JimBHibees]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/scottish-independence-rmt-union-backs-yes-vote-1-3531501

Good news.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Jeanne Freeman putting Andrew Neil in his place.


http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/04/ttip-and-the-scottish-nhs/

That was impressive :agree:

[ronaldo7]

2 weeks until we vote and they're just coming to terms with the thought of a Yes vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/calls-to-postpone-uk-general-election-scots-independence?CMP=twt_gu