Scottish Independence

[steakbake]

Where's the base load coming from?

Directly under Westminster - fuelled by the turning of the hands of Big Ben. Had we voted Yes in September, they'd nip down to the Guy Fawkes Suite in the basement and throw the switch to plunge everywhere from Gretna to Lerwick into prehistoric darkness.

[Moulin Yarns]

Where's the base load coming from?

Currently it is nuclear, but check the government own projection. Renewable energy will be the largest supplier by 2020 (not that I believe their projections :wink: )

All my post was pointing out that was we need to move towards renewables while existing fossil and nuclear is phased out. And, it is not as pie in the sky as some would have you believe. Where there is a will there's a way. :greengrin


A quick check at the report "Zero Carbon Britain 2030" gives the following projected energy mix.

Offshore wind 73%
Onshore wind 9%
Wave and tidal 9.5%
Biomass 4%
Bio gas (methane) 3%
Nuclear 0.9%
Hydro 0.9%
Solar PV 0.5%

totals 100.8% to allow the UK to become a net exporter of energy. It is also planned to be able to store more energy for peak demand (super size AA batteries)

[One Day Soon]

Directly under Westminster - fuelled by the turning of the hands of Big Ben. Had we voted Yes in September, they'd nip down to the Guy Fawkes Suite in the basement and throw the switch to plunge everywhere from Gretna to Lerwick into prehistoric darkness.

True in one sense given the vast fracking-related energy opportunity in England.

[Mibbes Aye]

Directly under Westminster - fuelled by the turning of the hands of Big Ben. Had we voted Yes in September, they'd nip down to the Guy Fawkes Suite in the basement and throw the switch to plunge everywhere from Gretna to Lerwick into prehistoric darkness.

I've been in certain parts of Lanarkshire in marching season - they're already there :wink: :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Currently it is nuclear, but check the government own projection. Renewable energy will be the largest supplier by 2020 (not that I believe their projections :wink: )

All my post was pointing out that was we need to move towards renewables while existing fossil and nuclear is phased out. And, it is not as pie in the sky as some would have you believe. Where there is a will there's a way. :greengrin


I'm really not sure that is correct though. You have to have a base load supply for those periods when the wind isn't blowing, the seas isn't churning etc. That means you cannot phase out all fossil and nuclear. Time to recognise nuclear as a relatively clean fuel desperately needed in the fight to lower our carbon emissions.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm really not sure that is correct though. You have to have a base load supply for those periods when the wind isn't blowing, the seas isn't churning etc. That means you cannot phase out all fossil and nuclear. Time to recognise nuclear as a relatively clean fuel desperately needed in the fight to lower our carbon emissions.

See my edit. A prominent report suggests otherwise, wind is variable, but plentiful, just not always in the same place. If it isn't windy at Griffin, it probably is at Soutra.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm really not sure that is correct though. You have to have a base load supply for those periods when the wind isn't blowing, the seas isn't churning etc. That means you cannot phase out all fossil and nuclear. Time to recognise nuclear as a relatively clean fuel desperately needed in the fight to lower our carbon emissions.

There's an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth there.

Our desire for cheap energy, our insatiable need to have the tumble dryer and the dishwasher going while we go on our tablet, even though we're on our laptop and the plasma telly is on in the background, and the lights are on all round the house and the heating is on when we could actually don a jumper, all these things are the problem but we don't like to acknowledge them.

As long as we don't we will need nuclear. Even if we do, we will probably need nuclear.......

[One Day Soon]

See my edit. A prominent report suggests otherwise, wind is variable, but plentiful, just not always in the same place. If it isn't windy at Griffin, it probably is at Soutra.


I'll have a look and do a wee bit digging too. I suspect those figures are capacity rather than either consumption or reliability - two very different things.

'probably' doesn't cut it where energy supply is concerned though, you have to be able to flick a switch and know the power will be there.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'll have a look and do a wee bit digging too. I suspect those figures are capacity rather than either consumption or reliability - two very different things.

'probably' doesn't cut it where energy supply is concerned though, you have to be able to flick a switch and know the power will be there.

As I said earlier, and backed up by the report figures, Offshore wind is reliable due to thermal flow. If you can explain when there won't be some wind blowing somewhere in the UK at any one time then I will accept wind is totally not feasible. (I have my own doubts about onshore wind, but that's a different story)

[snooky]

There's an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth there.

Our desire for cheap energy, our insatiable need to have the tumble dryer and the dishwasher going while we go on our tablet, even though we're on our laptop and the plasma telly is on in the background, and the lights are on all round the house and the heating is on when we could actually don a jumper, all these things are the problem but we don't like to acknowledge them.

As long as we don't we will need nuclear. Even if we do, we will probably need nuclear.......

Reminds me of a story Chris Difford (Squeeze) told about taking his dad to New York City.
Viewing the Big Apple on an evening boat trip, his dad said "What a waste of electricity."
Hey, my type of guy!

[Mibbes Aye]

Reminds me of a story Chris Difford (Squeeze) told about taking his dad to New York City.
Viewing the Big Apple on an evening boat trip, his dad said "What a waste of electricity."
Hey, my type of guy!

:greengrin

Kudos as well for getting a mention of Squeeze into the thread, that came out of leftfield. I suspect appreciation of them is a common denominator for a bunch of us. Maybe they can provide a middle ground for us all :greengrin

[Stranraer]

I'm a tad behind on this thread so can we be sure nobody thinks there was a conspiracy? Just wondering about that video that showed a guy with a bag of Yes polling cards. I take it he was a hoax himself?

[Peevemor]

I would be ecstatic if some huge conspiracy was uncovered and the poll result overturned, but the guy in the van with the poly bag looks like a basket case to me. In any case, if they were real ballot papers, why were none of them creased from having been folded?

[johnbc70]

I'm confused, are you referring to Blair Jenkins the official head of the Yes campaign or to Alex Salmond the de facto head of the Yes campaign?

I was referring to Blair Jenkins and Hiberlin was reply to my post but he thought I was meaning AS.

[JeMeSouviens]

Hope it all works out ok for you fella. What line of work are you in?

Thanks (and to MA). I write software. Payoff isn't bad and there does seem to be work around so think we'll be ok.

MA, although I can't claim any insight into Yes strategy, will get round to answering eventually.

[over the line]

Thanks (and to MA). I write software. Payoff isn't bad and there does seem to be work around so think we'll be ok.

MA, although I can't claim any insight into Yes strategy, will get round to answering eventually.

Fingers crossed you get a new job asap. You write software ay, impressive. I cann beerly rite enlglash!!! ;):)

[snooky]

I would be ecstatic if some huge conspiracy was uncovered and the poll result overturned, but the guy in the van with the poly bag looks like a basket case to me. In any case, if they were real ballot papers, why were none of them creased from having been folded?

Though I'm one who believes that there was skulduggery in the vote counting, the man in the van's claim seems very dodgy.
Even if he's legit, anybody could have photocopied a 100 ballot papers, crossed them, then stuck them in a bin.
Afterwards call a stool pigeon and - bingo! - there you go, 'evidence' of corruption.
Naw, no' buying that one - too easy to set up.

[One Day Soon]

Though I'm one who believes that there was skulduggery in the vote counting, the man in the van's claim seems very dodgy.
Even if he's legit, anybody could have photocopied a 100 ballot papers, crossed them, then stuck them in a bin.
Afterwards call a stool pigeon and - bingo! - there you go, 'evidence' of corruption.
Naw, no' buying that one - too easy to set up.

Seriously? On what basis?

[One Day Soon]

I'm a tad behind on this thread so can we be sure nobody thinks there was a conspiracy? Just wondering about that video that showed a guy with a bag of Yes polling cards. I take it he was a hoax himself?


I'm curious as to why why you appear to believe in self determination for Scotland but not the Falklands?

[Peevemor]

Seriously? On what basis?

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but even since before the vote, I had a feeling that the UK establishment (not necessarily Westminster) would do whatever was necessary to preserve the status quo - but as I've said before, maybe I watch too many films. :greengrin:

[Moulin Yarns]

Though I'm one who believes that there was skulduggery in the vote counting, the man in the van's claim seems very dodgy.
Even if he's legit, anybody could have photocopied a 100 ballot papers, crossed them, then stuck them in a bin.
Afterwards call a stool pigeon and - bingo! - there you go, 'evidence' of corruption.
Naw, no' buying that one - too easy to set up.

Police asked him to come forward. He hasn't as far as I know.

[Hibrandenburg]

I was referring to Blair Jenkins and Hiberlin was reply to my post but he thought I was meaning AS.

Correct, apologies but the point stands.

[steakbake]

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but even since before the vote, I had a feeling that the UK establishment (not necessarily Westminster) would do whatever was necessary to preserve the status quo - but as I've said before, maybe I watch too many films. :greengrin:

It's not like it electoral fraud hasn't happened before in the UK. I think some shifty things did go on but nowhere near the scale required to rig the result.

I'm pretty convinced the Glenrothes by-election a few years ago had something dodgy going on and probably in the order of enough to swing it. Postal voting is wide open to it as is the actual process itself - walk in, polling card or not, no ID needed, no checks: just turn up and say a name and address.

I think we're kidding ourselves to think that everything political is conducted completely above board. The honours system and peerages for one is mostly a measly mechanism for rewarding favours with a few dinner ladies, minor celebs and local Somebodies for us peasants to get all dewy eyed about.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it works both ways and has no real basis or truth behind it.

I've spoken a fair number of people who voted yes to get rid of nukes, to get all our energy by green methods and eradicate poverty. None of which were likely.

:rolleyes:

For general discussion we might benefit from relaxing the rules of what evidence can be led.

[johnbc70]

Correct, apologies but the point stands.

Not really, your still saying you saw bias while the man who was completely immersed in it and would have had media consultants and media agencies scrutinising everything that was going on never saw it. Maybe you saw what you wanted to see?

[Hibrandenburg]

Not really, your still saying you saw bias while the man who was completely immersed in it and would have had media consultants and media agencies scrutinising everything that was going on never saw it. Maybe you saw what you wanted to see?

So Salmond wasn't immersed in it? :confused:

[johnbc70]

So Salmond wasn't immersed in it? :confused:

I was talking about Jenkins who made a statement saying no media bias. So I was referring to BJ (unfortunate initials) not Salmond. Still point is BJ said no bias you say there was, who in your opinion was better qualified to pass judgement if there was bias or not - your good self or the Head of the Yes campaign?

[Hibrandenburg]

I was talking about Jenkins who made a statement saying no media bias. So I was referring to BJ (unfortunate initials) not Salmond. Still point is BJ said no bias you say there was, who in your opinion was better qualified to pass judgement if there was bias or not - your good self or the Head of the Yes campaign?

Neither, Alex Salmond was probably even better placed.

That said, me not living in Scotland and having to rely almost solely on the media for my information, it could be argued that I had a better oversight of what was happening in the media without being distracted from the sideshows going on around. Therefore to answer your question, me. :greengrin

[Monopolyguy]

i don't abhor the Nationalist movement, it's not personal. Like most folk I've got friends and family who were vehemently Yes and some who were absolutely No. I do have a problem with nationalism generally though, as I've posted before I think it's a distasteful ideology based on the politics of difference and based on the nurturing of resentment.

Are you not concered with the growing rise of British nationalism thats seems to be have gaining a bit of monentum every year then? Does the rise of UKIP and the further shift to right (And with that, more flag waving nationalism) that the three other parties will take to get potential UKIP voters to sway to them not concern you at all?

[steakbake]

Are you not concered with the growing rise of British nationalism thats seems to be have gaining a bit of monentum every year then? Does the rise of UKIP and the further shift to right (And with that, more flag waving nationalism) that the three other parties will take to get potential UKIP voters to sway to them not concern you at all?

Quite apart from UKIP's electoral threat, the problem is that whereas parties used to try to outdo each other in the central ground, they are now involved in a very unsightly battle for rightwing views on immigration and Europe, crackdowns, threats and numbers games - not forgetting the much championed tragedy of moves to axe various human rights laws.

[Peevemor]

It's not like it electoral fraud hasn't happened before in the UK. I think some shifty things did go on but nowhere near the scale required to rig the result.

I'm pretty convinced the Glenrothes by-election a few years ago had something dodgy going on and probably in the order of enough to swing it. Postal voting is wide open to it as is the actual process itself - walk in, polling card or not, no ID needed, no checks: just turn up and say a name and address.

I think we're kidding ourselves to think that everything political is conducted completely above board. The honours system and peerages for one is mostly a measly mechanism for rewarding favours with a few dinner ladies, minor celebs and local Somebodies for us peasants to get all dewy eyed about.

I still don't understand the lack of an exit poll. When was the last time this happened on the day of a major vote (and this was probably the most important vote in UK electoral history)?

[One Day Soon]

I still don't understand the lack of an exit poll. When was the last time this happened on the day of a major vote (and this was probably the most important vote in UK electoral history)?


Was there not an opinion poll taken late on polling day and published soon after? I love the conspiracist stuff though. It's absolutely bonkers but it does make things more fun to have people either promoting it or believing it. In pretty much any context.

[ronaldo7]

Your camp were blaming the local press regardless!

Get your message right, stop scaring people and you might have a chance.

Why do you think 55% of Scottish voters said no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bYajHIcXMk&feature=youtu.be

Enjoy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Your camp were blaming the local press regardless!

Get your message right, stop scaring people and you might have a chance.

Why do you think 55% of Scottish voters said no?

I thought the head of BTs communications had already admitted they consciously ran a negative campaign? things like border crossings, the pound, and Strictly, and Standard Life, and Tunnocks tea cakes, and Asda, and....

im sure the irony will be lost on you though.

[ronaldo7]

I thought the head of BTs communications had already admitted they consciously ran a negative campaign? things like border crossings, the pound, and Strictly, and Standard Life, and Tunnocks tea cakes, and Asda, and....

im sure the irony will be lost on you though.

He did.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/better-together-campaign-chief-we-would-have-struggled-to-wi#3lu0cke

Anyway onto better things...Which area have each of the yessers branched out into?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29630077

[Phil D. Rolls]

He did.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/better-together-campaign-chief-we-would-have-struggled-to-wi#3lu0cke

Anyway onto better things...Which area have each of the yessers branched out into?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29630077

So, let me get this clear, was it the case that Yes made the No voters afraid, and BT made them even more afraid. Or was it the other way round. Or is it he case that the majority of people are risk averse and were always going to be too frightened to change anything? :confused:

[RyeSloan]

So, let me get this clear, was it the case that Yes made the No voters afraid, and BT made them even more afraid. Or was it the other way round. Or is it he case that the majority of people are risk averse and were always going to be too frightened to change anything? :confused:

People are risk adverse....why would you not be in such circumstances? It's hardly the equivalent of putting on a £10 acca is it?

Also I don't think there is any disputing that the BT was negative....when the other side is promoting substantial change it's always going to be the case that you point out the risks of that change and in some cases exaggerate that risk, when you are in an argument that's a reasonably normal course of events.

What YES had to do was to effectively counter those arguments and promote the positive impact of the changes proposed. You tell me if you think that was done effectively....

[Phil D. Rolls]

People are risk adverse....why would you not be in such circumstances? It's hardly the equivalent of putting on a £10 acca is it?

Also I don't think there is any disputing that the BT was negative....when the other side is promoting substantial change it's always going to be the case that you point out the risks of that change and in some cases exaggerate that risk, when you are in an argument that's a reasonably normal course of events.

What YES had to do was to effectively counter those arguments and promote the positive impact of the changes proposed. You tell me if you think that was done effectively....



I do believe that when people are faced with a change or proving they can't change, they go looking for the proof.

I don't think Yes managed to convince people that there would be a smooth transition. I'm not convinced there could be one, when negotiation would inevitably form part of the process.

I was also surprised at how much they sat on their hands when provoked. It suggests to me that Salmond the gradualist thought they had more to lose by a fractious campaign than thy had to gain.

I personally think the gradualist approach is the correct one. Keep showing the benefits of controlling our own affairs, take in more control, make sure we do it better etc.

[johnbc70]

Neither, Alex Salmond was probably even better placed.

That said, me not living in Scotland and having to rely almost solely on the media for my information, it could be argued that I had a better oversight of what was happening in the media without being distracted from the sideshows going on around. Therefore to answer your question, me. :greengrin

Are you in sales? You should be!

[RyeSloan]

I do believe that when people are faced with a change or proving they can't change, they go looking for the proof. I don't think Yes managed to convince people that there would be a smooth transition. I'm not convinced there could be one, when negotiation would inevitably form part of the process. I was also surprised at how much they sat on their hands when provoked. It suggests to me that Salmond the gradualist thought they had more to lose by a fractious campaign than thy had to gain. I personally think the gradualist approach is the correct one. Keep showing the benefits of controlling our own affairs, take in more control, make sure we do it better etc.

Surely the Ref was Salmond's end game in his gradualist approach though?

In any case I agree, and don't think there are many that don't, that a gradual controlled
Devolution of power is the smartest route forward....from the outset a Devo max solution was clearly in the huge majority, rather bizarre therefore that in the end that was the only option that wasn't on the ballot paper but will possibly
be the outcome of the vote!

[Peevemor]

Surely the Ref was Salmond's end game in his gradualist approach though?

In any case I agree, and don't think there are many that don't, that a gradual controlled
Devolution of power is the smartest route forward....from the outset a Devo max solution was clearly in the huge majority, rather bizarre therefore that in the end that was the only option that wasn't on the ballot paper but will possibly
be the outcome of the vote!

How could anyone vote for a Devo max option unless the details were carved in stone?

One of the uncertainties of full independence was the question of currency. Even though the most likely outcome would have been a shared currency, BT were doing their "it's ma baw" thing, even though it isn't entirely theirs.

A Devo max option would have caused even more doubt as Westminster wouldn't have been able to agree the details.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Surely the Ref was Salmond's end game in his gradualist approach though?

In any case I agree, and don't think there are many that don't, that a gradual controlled
Devolution of power is the smartest route forward....from the outset a Devo max solution was clearly in the huge majority, rather bizarre therefore that in the end that was the only option that wasn't on the ballot paper but will possibly
be the outcome of the vote!

The referendum result is a great bargaining tool for anybody who wants more powers. If I was Salmond I'd be pretty pleased with what has been promised.

[RyeSloan]

How could anyone vote for a Devo max option unless the details were carved in stone? One of the uncertainties of full independence was the question of currency. Even though the most likely outcome would have been a shared currency, BT were doing their "it's ma baw" thing, even though it isn't entirely theirs. A Devo max option would have caused even more doubt as Westminster wouldn't have been able to agree the details.

How could anyone vote for independence if it wasn't cast in stone?

My post was more an mildly ironic observation that the outcome of the vote may well be the option that wasn't on the ballot paper...nothing more than that really.

[RyeSloan]

The referendum result is a great bargaining tool for anybody who wants more powers. If I was Salmond I'd be pretty pleased with what has been promised.

Hmm maybe....he could easily have pushed for more powers (the discussions were already ongoing) without a full scale 2 year Indy campaign.

I agree tho that the vote has probably speeded up that process but at the same time you could suggest we lost 2 years working on that because of the Indy ref.

To be fair tho it's certainly a half decent consolation prize from Salmond's pov so your probably right that he's pretty pleased to see more powers now at the forefront but he failed in his ultimate goal so doubt he's too chuffed to be honest.

[Peevemor]

How could anyone vote for independence if it wasn't cast in stone?

It was the nature of the beast. The Yes campaigners could only promote how things could work, but couldn't make the assumption that the SNP, for example, would form the 1st government of an iScotland.


My post was more an mildly ironic observation that the outcome of the vote may well be the option that wasn't on the ballot paper...nothing more than that really.

That's fair enough, but there was a fair amount of discussion about whether Devo max should have been an option on the ballot papers.

[Peevemor]

Hmm maybe....he could easily have pushed for more powers (the discussions were already ongoing) without a full scale 2 year Indy campaign.

I agree tho that the vote has probably speeded up that process but at the same time you could suggest we lost 2 years working on that because of the Indy ref.

To be fair tho it's certainly a half decent consolation prize from Salmond's pov so your probably right that he's pretty pleased to see more powers now at the forefront but he failed in his ultimate goal so doubt he's too chuffed to be honest.

Nothing's been agreed yet.

[steakbake]

Nothing's been agreed yet.

Depends what prize we win, too. If it's the Labour version, then we're not much further forward.

...we could still end up with a speedboat.

[JeMeSouviens]

AllModCons?

JeMeSouviens?

Ronaldo7?

GoldenFleece?

Hiberlin?

I know you're not all SNP members but you were Yes supporters.

What do you think went wrong with the Yes strategy, given there must have been a strategy to win the vote?

What would you have done differently?

Firstly, I must say that I think getting the Yes vote to 45% is a substantial achievement and while of course it is a defeat, I think the normalisation of independence as a realistically achievable goal in the future is the most significant step down the slippery slope since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

Secondly, I think it would be a huge mistake for Yes to attempt to answer "why the 55% voted No?" as a single question as if you can come up with a single answer to convert all of them. That 55% No encompasses a wide range of attitudes, I suspect significantly wider than the 45% Yes. My view is that pre-ref Scotland could be split roughly in 3: 1/3 committed to indy, 1/3 committed against indy and 1/3 sceptical but at least willing to consider it. The 1/3 who I think will always be against indy consists mainly of those with a deep attachment to the concept of Britain: immigrants to Scotland from rUK who didn't think they were moving country, those brought up in the era of WW2 and its aftermath when Britain really did unite against a common external enemy and what's left of old style Protestant unionism (the Orange vote). None of that 1/3 will ever be persuadable, the "social union" chat and not rocking the boat over monarchy etc. is (imo) more about appealing to people who might worry about some kind of post-ref Brit backlash than any of those likely to do the backlashing.

So, Yes and No were really playing for that middle 1/3. Hence No didn't bother appealing to core Britishness, and Yes didn't bother with (much) Scottish flag waving. I think you can further break down the middle 1/3 and, while I don't have any real feeling for the proportions, it contains such groups as: the "Not Yets" who think Scotland might end up independent but would rather get there in smaller steps, natural compromisers; the "It'll Never Works" who will cynically find fault with any proposition and assume we are doomed to failure whatever; the "All Right Jacks" who don't care much either way about politics or the constitution, just their personal bottom line and the "Radicals and Tree Huggers" who might not be naturally disposed towards independence but could view it as a means to an end.

I know this is off-topic re your question but I think No's strategy of betting everything on risk aversion was the right thing for all of the NYs, INWs and ARJs, they just did far too much of it far too early. I think they thought they had such an easy task that Yes would be completely killed off early doors and all they had to do was finish off that pesky bayoneting and pick out nice balloons for the party. In the end, they pushed a fair chunk of NYs and probably even some of the more cantankerous INWs into the arms of Yes. Agreeing a common and well thought out devo+ strategy plus a lot more talk around the positivity of sharing would have secured the NYs and, if done suitably fluffily, also a fair number of RTHs. Shutting up would probably have got the INWs, leaving a last month or so of negativity to round up the ARJs.

On the Yes side (back on topic, phew), the Greens/RIC did a tremendous job on the RTHs, the downside of that being in doing so they probably alienated a fair number of ARJs. My view is that Yes went too far in downplaying risk and was not nearly negative enough about staying in the union. They did end up going negative with the NHS spending angle and I think that paid off. I would've gone much harder on the "you're getting an unfettered austerity Tory government next year" (because let's face it, we are) and rather than playing Barnett as a "big bad westmonsters want to hurt us" story, I'd have gone with a clear and concise explanation of how Barnett works and why it has accidentally ended up as it is. Furthermore, that not ending Barnett is a bribe to Scotland to forsake independence, is obviously unfair to Wales and N England and as such is unsustainable and any future UK government will have to address these issues by ending it (because they do and they will).

My other complaint with Yes is that I think they should have been grasping the nettle of setting out in much clearer detail what the risks of independence are how they planned to mitigate them, pre-emptively in front of No if possible. The lack of explanation around the currency mystifies me, that boil was allowed to fester far too long when the alternatives to £ in CU were obviously well known and arguable. Fair enough, stick to your negotiating position but it's not unreasonable to explain your backup!

[The Modfather]

Suprise surprise....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29739085

[marinello59]

Suprise surprise....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29739085

It would be a surprise if the top secret oil field that all the major oil executives rushed to Shetland from all over the world to secretly discuss with David Cameron had been announced* but this is just business as usual. And very good news. It's nice that the Central Belt are now paying attention to the nations economic powerhouse in the North East though :greengrin

*The top secret one that had already been announced prior to the laughable Facebook campaign.

[Betty Boop]

Johann Lamont to stand down .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29765415

[snooky]

It would be a surprise if the top secret oil field that all the major oil executives rushed to Shetland from all over the world to secretly discuss with David Cameron had been announced* but this is just business as usual. And very good news. It's nice that the Central Belt are now paying attention to the nations economic powerhouse in the North East though :greengrin

*The top secret one that had already been announced prior to the laughable Facebook campaign.

"You didn't need to have a Cluedo set to know someone has been clubbed with the lead piping in the library," he (David Cameron) said. (re. Euro bill)

Or in the referendum polling stations, eh, David? :kettle:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Johann Lamont to stand down .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29765415

I will miss her, but I'm confident they can get somebody just as useless in to entertain us. I'd say people respect Ruth Davidson more than Lamont.

[marinello59]

"You didn't need to have a Cluedo set to know someone has been clubbed with the lead piping in the library," he (David Cameron) said. (re. Euro bill)

Or in the referendum polling stations, eh, David? :kettle:

And your point is?

[snooky]

And your point is?

Dinny worry yersel, I ken what I mean. :nerd:

[Moulin Yarns]

Jobs are secure if you vote to remain part of the United Kingdom according to businesses like Standard Life.

That will be why they are cutting 1000 jobs at a time when the economy is recovering to 2007 levels.

[Beefster]

Jobs are secure if you vote to remain part of the United Kingdom according to businesses like Standard Life.

That will be why they are cutting 1000 jobs at a time when the economy is recovering to 2007 levels.

That's a complete misrepresentation of what Standard Life said IMHO. It's not the first time on this thread that someone has stooped to using job losses to try to score points though.

[steakbake]

That's a complete misrepresentation of what Standard Life said IMHO. It's not the first time on this thread that someone has stooped to using job losses to try to score points though.

No indeed, but it's a point that has been appropriated by both sides.

[degenerated]

That's a complete misrepresentation of what Standard Life said IMHO. It's not the first time on this thread that someone has stooped to using job losses to try to score points though.
Golden fleece used it on a football forum. Better together used it as part of a campaign strategy and propogated their lie, unquestioned, through their media lapdogs.

I am sure even the most blinkered of unionists can see the difference

[steakbake]

I am sure even the most blinkered of unionists can see the difference

I'm not so sure.

[Moulin Yarns]

Jobs are secure if you vote to remain part of the United Kingdom according to businesses like Standard Life.

That will be why they are cutting 1000 jobs at a time when the economy is recovering to 2007 levels.


That's a complete misrepresentation of what Standard Life said IMHO. It's not the first time on this thread that someone has stooped to using job losses to try to score points though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569114/Standard-Life-threatens-quit-Scotland-voters-independence-putting-5-000-jobs-risk.html

Does it say 'Vote yes and we will move our business south of the border' or not?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-300388/Insurance-company-axe-1-000-jobs.html

18% of the Edinburgh jobs to go. Sounds like bad management to me for a company that made a post tax profits in 2013 of £466m.

[Beefster]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569114/Standard-Life-threatens-quit-Scotland-voters-independence-putting-5-000-jobs-risk.html

Does it say 'Vote yes and we will move our business south of the border' or not?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-300388/Insurance-company-axe-1-000-jobs.html

18% of the Edinburgh jobs to go. Sounds like bad management to me for a company that made a post tax profits in 2013 of £466m.

No, Standard Life didn't say that and I'm not sure what your Daily Mail link is supposed to prove. Equally, they didn't say "Vote No and we'll never lose another job.".

You're using/gloating about the actual loss of jobs, the majority of which will be in Edinburgh and possibly include users of this board, to try and score a few points about the result of the referendum. If you're comfortable doing that, go for it but, by the same token, I'm entitled to let you know what I think about it.

[Moulin Yarns]

No, Standard Life didn't say that and I'm not sure what your Daily Mail link is supposed to prove. Equally, they didn't say "Vote No and we'll never lose another job.".

You're using/gloating about the actual loss of jobs, the majority of which will be in Edinburgh and possibly include users of this board, to try and score a few points about the result of the referendum. If you're comfortable doing that, go for it but, by the same token, I'm entitled to let you know what I think about it.

The link is quite clear, INHO, but not yours, that if the business had been moved, the jobs would have moved as well. What would you have expected? All the pension business move to England but the staff that used to do that work stay in Scotland and twiddle their thumbs?

I am pointing out that Standard Life are making huge profits, and cutting jobs, in spite of remaining part of the United Kingdom they held so precious.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, Standard Life didn't say that and I'm not sure what your Daily Mail link is supposed to prove. Equally, they didn't say "Vote No and we'll never lose another job.".

You're using/gloating about the actual loss of jobs, the majority of which will be in Edinburgh and possibly include users of this board, to try and score a few points about the result of the referendum. If you're comfortable doing that, go for it but, by the same token, I'm entitled to let you know what I think about it.

Why can't people not be allowed to be angry at SL for making it seem they'd desert scotland?

[Beefster]

Why can't people not be allowed to be angry at SL for making it seem they'd desert scotland?

Folk can be angry about whatever they want. That wasn't what I was objecting to though.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Folk can be angry about whatever they want. That wasn't what I was objecting to though.

Fair enough.

[Gus]

The link is quite clear, INHO, but not yours, that if the business had been moved, the jobs would have moved as well. What would you have expected? All the pension business move to England but the staff that used to do that work stay in Scotland and twiddle their thumbs?

I am pointing out that Standard Life are making huge profits, and cutting jobs, in spite of remaining part of the United Kingdom they held so precious.

Where are these job losses? Genuine question as they have just hired alot of staff.

[Gus]

Why can't people not be allowed to be angry at SL for making it seem they'd desert scotland?

Be angry at alot of companies then would people not? Have people stopped shopping in Asda after they made a statement did they not?

[Moulin Yarns]

Where are these job losses? Genuine question as they have just hired alot of staff.

Don't shoot the messenger

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-300388/Insurance-company-axe-1-000-jobs.html

[Gus]

Don't shoot the messenger

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-300388/Insurance-company-axe-1-000-jobs.html

No need to shoot the messenger, you have done that yourself with an article which is 5 years out of date ,:na na:

Sandy Crombie hasn't been Standard Life Chief Executive for about 5 years. These job losses were correct at the time but a tad out of date.

Back to the drawing board for the Standard Life haters

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Be angry at alot of companies then would people not? Have people stopped shopping in Asda after they made a statement did they not?

Didnae expect to see Yoda posting on this thread.

[Gus]

Didnae expect to see Yoda posting on this thread.

:faf:
:thumbsup:

[ronaldo7]

Some decent polls out just now. I'll go for the 5 year package.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-66-back-new-referendum-1-3590293#.VFPG0eNTvEg.twitter

[Hibrandenburg]

Some decent polls out just now. I'll go for the 5 year package.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-66-back-new-referendum-1-3590293#.VFPG0eNTvEg.twitter

The baw bags should have voted YES in the first place. We've not learnt anything new since the referendum so why the change of heart?

[degenerated]

The baw bags should have voted YES in the first place. We've not learnt anything new since the referendum so why the change of heart?
Maybe they did :stirrer:

[marinello59]

Some decent polls out just now. I'll go for the 5 year package.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-66-back-new-referendum-1-3590293#.VFPG0eNTvEg.twitter

Why don't they report this stuff in the main stream media. :greengrin

The momentum seems to be carrying on.

[ronaldo7]

Why don't they report this stuff in the main stream media. :greengrin

The momentum seems to be carrying on.

Scotsman journos having a change of heart:rolleyes: after all the job losses/amalgamations. Oh ****, another cheap shot:wink:

[marinello59]

Scotsman journos having a change of heart:rolleyes: after all the job losses/amalgamations. Oh ****, another cheap shot:wink:

I did ask for that one.:greengrin

[Mon Dieu4]

Just watched Sarwar on the news, he's just said he remembers the 80s when people said Labour were finished, if he remembers that much about politics when he was 5 years old then its a real shame he's stepped down:rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

The baw bags should have voted YES in the first place. We've not learnt anything new since the referendum so why the change of heart?

We've learned that there's an extra 100 years of oil revenue. We've learned that HBoS are about to shed thousands of jobs. We've learned that the Australian owners of the Clydesdale Bank who warned us about the consequences of voting yes are about to flog the bank in any case. We've learned that, despite being deemed unsafe in many countries, the central belt is going to be fracked up. We've learned that Labour think that the NHS is under threat after all. We've learned that the Bank of England had plans in place to keep Sterling stable in the event of a Yes vote. We've learned that Better Together thought they'd lose the vote unless their campaign was based solely on scaremongering.

We haven't learned very much about further devolved powers, but I think we all know what to expect.

[lucky]

We've learned that there's an extra 100 years of oil revenue. We've learned that HBoS are about to shed thousands of jobs. We've learned that the Australian owners of the Clydesdale Bank who warned us about the consequences of voting yes are about to flog the bank in any case. We've learned that, despite being deemed unsafe in many countries, the central belt is going to be fracked up. We've learned that Labour think that the NHS is under threat after all. We've learned that the Bank of England had plans in place to keep Sterling stable in the event of a Yes vote. We've learned that Better Together thought they'd lose the vote unless their campaign was based solely on scaremongering.

We haven't learned very much about further devolved powers, but I think we all know what to expect.

But you've not learned that the seperatists lost. There bigger issues to be dealt with rather than another referendum

[Peevemor]

But you've not learned that the seperatists lost. There bigger issues to be dealt with rather than another referendum

Wrong on both counts.

[steakbake]

Just watched Sarwar on the news, he's just said he remembers the 80s when people said Labour were finished, if he remembers that much about politics when he was 5 years old then its a real shame he's stepped down:rolleyes:

He comes across as a right roaster at the best of times. Saw him do an interview on the Sunday politics a couple of weeks ago. A more evasive, deflecting and soundbite conscious politician you're not likely to find. Perfect for the current Scottish Labour Party. Sorry, Labour Party in Scotland.

[Hibrandenburg]

We've learned that there's an extra 100 years of oil revenue. We've learned that HBoS are about to shed thousands of jobs. We've learned that the Australian owners of the Clydesdale Bank who warned us about the consequences of voting yes are about to flog the bank in any case. We've learned that, despite being deemed unsafe in many countries, the central belt is going to be fracked up. We've learned that Labour think that the NHS is under threat after all. We've learned that the Bank of England had plans in place to keep Sterling stable in the event of a Yes vote. We've learned that Better Together thought they'd lose the vote unless their campaign was based solely on scaremongering.

We haven't learned very much about further devolved powers, but I think we all know what to expect.

Ok, I've learnt nothing new. :greengrin

It was all out there to see, just a lot of people didn't want to see.

I've moved on, fortunately I don't have to live under British occupation anymore :whistle:

[Beefster]

Wrong on both counts.

Scotland doesn't have more pressing issues than another referendum less than two months after a definitive result? If you really think that, do you think the fact that you're not faced with our problems on a daily basis affects your viewpoint?

[Peevemor]

Scotland doesn't have more pressing issues than another referendum less than two months after a definitive result? If you really think that, do you think the fact that you're not faced with our problems on a daily basis affects your viewpoint?

He didn't say pressing issues, he said bigger issues - theres a huge difference. For me the biggest problem Scotland faces is Westminster rule.

[over the line]

Ok, I've learnt nothing new. :greengrin

It was all out there to see, just a lot of people didn't want to see.

I've moved on, fortunately I don't have to live under British occupation anymore :whistle:

Well not strictly true........ there are still about 25000 British soldiers based in Germany......... so you kind of do live under British occupation. ;):)

[Beefster]

He didn't say pressing issues, he said bigger issues - theres a huge difference. For me the biggest problem Scotland faces is Westminster rule.

The question was asked about six weeks ago of the Scottish electorate and they disagreed with you. No-one has to change their beliefs but I disagree that something settled recently is a bigger issue than ongoing problems like kids living in poverty. I want to see politicians putting their efforts into making what we actually voted for better.

[Hibrandenburg]

Well not strictly true........ there are still about 25000 British soldiers based in Germany......... so you kind of do live under British occupation. ;):)

They haven't got a say in government though so it means nowt. If the Germans wanted rid of them then they'd be gone next week.

Anyway there's over 300 000 Germans living in the UK so they've got that covered anyway :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

The question was asked about six weeks ago of the Scottish electorate and they disagreed with you. No-one has to change their beliefs but I disagree that something settled recently is a bigger issue than ongoing problems like kids living in poverty. I want to see politicians putting their efforts into making what we actually voted for better.

The question was asked amid a campaign of blatant lies and fear mongering that have now been exposed as such. How do you feel about that?

[Phil D. Rolls]

The question was asked about six weeks ago of the Scottish electorate and they disagreed with you. No-one has to change their beliefs but I disagree that something settled recently is a bigger issue than ongoing problems like kids living in poverty. I want to see politicians putting their efforts into making what we actually voted for better.

:agree:

[Peevemor]

The question was asked about six weeks ago of the Scottish electorate and they disagreed with you. No-one has to change their beliefs but I disagree that something settled recently is a bigger issue than ongoing problems like kids living in poverty. I want to see politicians putting their efforts into making what we actually voted for better.

If you're meaning the main Westminster parties then you're kidding yourself on. The Tories don't give a toss about Scotland other than oil/fracking revenues and strategic positions for military installations and we've seen over the past week the importance of Scottish opinion for London Labour.

Out of the 3 main parties in Scotland, who do you think is working for the best deal for the Scots? How do you think that can be achieved?

(I'll give you a clue, the answer doesn't lie in London).

[Moulin Yarns]

The question was asked about six weeks ago of the Scottish electorate and they disagreed with you. No-one has to change their beliefs but I disagree that something settled recently is a bigger issue than ongoing problems like kids living in poverty. I want to see politicians putting their efforts into making what we actually voted for better.


Paying £200 a head for a dinner party in Glasgow to see their London Leader accept the resignation of the assistant manager of the local office certainly helped show how much the Labour Party are doing to address the ongoing problems like kids living in poverty.

Go figure?

[marinello59]

Paying £200 a head for a dinner party in Glasgow to see their London Leader accept the resignation of the assistant manager of the local office certainly helped show how much the Labour Party are doing to address the ongoing problems like kids living in poverty.

Go figure?

All political parties have fund raising functions like that. It's the nature of politics, go figure.
What's the SNP doing to address the ongoing issue of child poverty?

[Peevemor]

All political parties have fund raising functions like that. It's the nature of politics, go figure.
What's the SNP doing to address the ongoing issue of child poverty?

Erm, apart from asking that employment and welfare powers be fully devolved?

Unless that happens then they'll always have one arm tied behind their back.

[marinello59]

Erm, apart from asking that employment and welfare powers be fully devolved?

Unless that happens then they'll always have one arm tied behind their back.

They should have and could have done better with the powers we already have. For the time being simply saying it's all the fault of big bad Westminster won't do. Targeting money to where it was needed rather than middle class vote winning giveaways would be a start. And how about releasing the Councils from the council tax freeze , the biggest losers on that one are the less well off who depend more on Council services. Or how about giving people more power at a local level to take the decisions which affect their own communities instead of the centralist power hogging at Holyrood that the SNP seem to prefer.
I was gutted by the No vote and I hope we get something very close to a federal UK as I really believe that is the way forward but for now the SNP should get on with the job we elected them to do, run the country to the best of it's ability. Maybe they could start by taking a looking again at the child care changes we were only going to get by voting Yes.

[Moulin Yarns]

All political parties have fund raising functions like that. It's the nature of politics, go figure.
What's the SNP doing to address the ongoing issue of child poverty?


I wouldn't know, I'm not a member of the SNP. But....

In order to ensure a fairer and more equal society.. A citizen’s income – a universal payment sufficient to cover the basic costs of living – should replace means testing for benefits.
The majority of people work in ordinary jobs, but the unrealistic minimum wage means that in-work poverty remains a serious problem, as is the excessive pay and bonus culture amongst some Chief Executives. As well as increasing the minimum wage to the level of a living wage, I think there should be maximum wage ratios in the public sector and, ultimately, throughout the private sector.
I would protect older people by investing in housing and providing a Citizens’ Pension at a genuinely liveable level, and would use the benefits system to recognise the role of volunteers and carers in our society.

How we achieve all that with the current political systems, i don't know, other than elect parties who believe in social justice and equality. In other words, not any of the main parties.

[Moulin Yarns]

They should have and could have done better with the powers we already have. For the time being simply saying it's all the fault of big bad Westminster won't do. Targeting money to where it was needed rather than middle class vote winning giveaways would be a start. And how about releasing the Councils from the council tax freeze , the biggest losers on that one are the less well off who depend more on Council services. Or how about giving people more power at a local level to take the decisions which affect their own communities instead of the centralist power hogging at Holyrood that the SNP seem to prefer.
I was gutted by the No vote and I hope we get something very close to a federal UK as I really believe that is the way forward but for now the SNP should get on with the job we elected them to do, run the country to the best of it's ability. Maybe they could start by taking a looking again at the child care changes we were only going to get by voting Yes.


Amen to that.

[marinello59]

I wouldn't know, I'm not a member of the SNP. But....

In order to ensure a fairer and more equal society.. A citizen’s income – a universal payment sufficient to cover the basic costs of living – should replace means testing for benefits.
The majority of people work in ordinary jobs, but the unrealistic minimum wage means that in-work poverty remains a serious problem, as is the excessive pay and bonus culture amongst some Chief Executives. As well as increasing the minimum wage to the level of a living wage, I think there should be maximum wage ratios in the public sector and, ultimately, throughout the private sector.
I would protect older people by investing in housing and providing a Citizens’ Pension at a genuinely liveable level, and would use the benefits system to recognise the role of volunteers and carers in our society.

How we achieve all that with the current political systems, i don't know, other than elect parties who believe in social justice and equality. In other words, not any of the main parties.

You've probably visited this site already but there's some good stuff on here.

http://www.allofusfirst.org/

[degenerated]

They should have and could have done better with the powers we already have. For the time being simply saying it's all the fault of big bad Westminster won't do. Targeting money to where it was needed rather than middle class vote winning giveaways would be a start. And how about releasing the Councils from the council tax freeze , the biggest losers on that one are the less well off who depend more on Council services. Or how about giving people more power at a local level to take the decisions which affect their own communities instead of the centralist power hogging at Holyrood that the SNP seem to prefer.
I was gutted by the No vote and I hope we get something very close to a federal UK as I really believe that is the way forward but for now the SNP should get on with the job we elected them to do, run the country to the best of it's ability. Maybe they could start by taking a looking again at the child care changes we were only going to get by voting Yes.
Councils are free to increase council tax if they wish to do so, the caveat being that the support from holyrood to effect the freeze will be stopped to any councils who wish to do this.

The power to address this perceived non redistributive policy is with our councils should they wish to take action.

Wasn't it also a Scottish Labour policy to freeze council tax?

[Moulin Yarns]

You've probably visited this site already but there's some good stuff on here.

http://www.allofusfirst.org/


I'm wearing one of their t shirts today. :agree:

[marinello59]

Councils are free to increase council tax if they wish to do so, the caveat being that the support from holyrood to effect the freeze will be stopped to any councils who wish to do this.

The power to address this perceived non redistributive policy is with our councils should they wish to take action.

Wasn't it also a Scottish Labour policy to freeze council tax?

Yes, Council could go it alone and increase Council taxes but if they went to go against Holyroods carrot and stick policy then any rise would need to be much larger to offset the funding withdrawn.
I cant remember if it was Labour policy when they were in power at Homyrood but it makes no difference to me, I have just as much contempt for them as I do for the SNP. Its simply a bad policy and wrapping it up in the Saltire doesn't make it any better.

[marinello59]

I'm wearing one of their t shirts today. :agree:

:thumbsup:

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/01/scotland-vote-independence-poll-yougov

[Moulin Yarns]

:thumbsup:


I've changed my Signature :agree:

[RyeSloan]

Erm, apart from asking that employment and welfare powers be fully devolved? Unless that happens then they'll always have one arm tied behind their back.

Ahh the classic if only we had the powers argument.

When will people realise that governments are largely incapable of solving such things? Often their interventions just lead to more imbalance and less progression.

Do you really believe then SNP are any different from most major parties in the UK in that if they had all the powers that they could possibly want they would somehow transform Scotland into a land of full employment and zero (relative) child poverty?

Maybe if they hadn't wasted millions on keeping Prestwick open they could have made a start? Fact is governments tinker and meddle telling their population they know better when in reality they rarely do.

[lord bunberry]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/01/scotland-vote-independence-poll-yougov

These polls leave the snp with a real dilemma. Do they include an independence referendum as a manifesto commitment for the 2016 election and risk the backlash that will come from the media and the unionist parties, or do they go with what the percieved wishes of the majority of the country. If these polls continue to show that people want another referendum then it could cost the snp votes not to include it.

[steakbake]

Interesting you mention a media backlash... why would they want to backlash against something which has a democratic mandate? Oh I know... they like to get involved in politics as much as the politicians.

[lord bunberry]

Interesting you mention a media backlash... why would they want to backlash against something which has a democratic mandate? Oh I know... they like to get involved in politics as much as the politicians.

I was thinking more about the print media but I agree there would be a certain amount of derision from political commentators on tv.

[Peevemor]

Ahh the classic if only we had the powers argument.

When will people realise that governments are largely incapable of solving such things? Often their interventions just lead to more imbalance and less progression.

Do you really believe then SNP are any different from most major parties in the UK in that if they had all the powers that they could possibly want they would somehow transform Scotland into a land of full employment and zero (relative) child poverty?

Maybe if they hadn't wasted millions on keeping Prestwick open they could have made a start? Fact is governments tinker and meddle telling their population they know better when in reality they rarely do.

As I'm sure you'll agree, a problem such as child poverty cannot be tackled in isolation. A more holistic approach is required and, with the best will in the world, a Westminster government will never do what's right specifically for the Scottish economy. I'd hope that a Scottish government with (at least) a decent level of devolved power, would be able to make some inroads on these issues.

[#FromTheCapital]

These polls leave the snp with a real dilemma. Do they include an independence referendum as a manifesto commitment for the 2016 election and risk the backlash that will come from the media and the unionist parties, or do they go with what the percieved wishes of the majority of the country. If these polls continue to show that people want another referendum then it could cost the snp votes not to include it.

The UK government wouldn't allow another referendum so soon anyway. Going to be at least another 15-20 years until the next one and it's going to take more than a yougov poll to change that.

[#FromTheCapital]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/01/scotland-vote-independence-poll-yougov

Just a thought on this. If scotland had voted yes in September, there's every chance that a similar poll would have shown that the majority wanted back in the union. Its like when you make a significant purchase and afterwards you wonder if it was the right choice.
Would it matter at all if this had been the case? No chance. So I don't see why this should matter.

[Peevemor]

Just a thought on this. If scotland had voted yes in September, there's every chance that a similar poll would have shown that the majority wanted back in the union. Its like when you make a significant purchase and afterwards you wonder if it was the right choice.
Would it matter at all if this had been the case? No chance. So I don't see why this should matter.

I don't think so. Had there been a Yes result, nothing would have happened yet to enable people to judge it's effects.

As it stands, the BT crew have already been exposed as lying self protectionists .

[#FromTheCapital]

I don't think so. Had there been a Yes result, nothing would have happened yet to enable people to judge it's effects.

As it stands, the BT crew have already been exposed as lying self protectionists .

Perhaps not but it going back to the buyers regret example - it's entirely possible. It goes without saying that some (most? ;-)) of the yes campaigns promises would have been exposed as bull**** at some point, although I agree that it would perhaps be further down the line before people could properly judge.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't think so. Had there been a Yes result, nothing would have happened yet to enable people to judge it's effects.

As it stands, the BT crew have already been exposed as lying self protectionists .

Do you think they'd be sitting back and saying "fair enough, let us know what we can do to help?"

[Peevemor]

Do you think they'd be sitting back and saying "fair enough, let us know what we can do to help?"

The official scaremongering would have stopped as Westminster would have gone flat out to ensure continued confidence in the UK until the separation of the countries. In addition, the main parties would have been preparing their manifestos to convince us how great an iScotland would be under their governance.

[lord bunberry]

The UK government wouldn't allow another referendum so soon anyway. Going to be at least another 15-20 years until the next one and it's going to take more than a yougov poll to change that.

There's nothing they could realistically do to stop us having one. They could refuse to acknowledge it I suppose but that would lead to more problems.
Imo this will go one of two ways, either the support for independence will drop in time and it will fade into the background again, or the pressure will increase and we will have a situation were the majority of people vote for proIindependence party's, forcing another referendum and the whole thing starts again.

[McIntosh]

I appreciate it must be very difficult for the secessionist to accept that they lost the popular vote. However what is disturbing is the propagation of the stab-in-the-back myth, the notion, widely believed in ‘Yes’ circles, that the vote was not lost but was instead betrayed by vested interests, the Labour party and the BBC. The SNP government leaders have denounced the ‘Better together’ campaign as liars and fools they are as good as calling them "September Criminals".

The Nationalist are making this myth an integral part of their official narrative of the plebiscite, portraying the work of the ‘Better together’ as a stab in the back of the Scottish people by politicians determined to put party interests above those of the nation. The SNP propaganda machine depicts the Labour Party as a morass of corruption and moral degeneracy it rejects the notion that it completed failed to address the decisive economic arguments because to do so would mean it would have to face the reality that it took a vacuous position on this critical issue. Better to propagate the myth than address this reality.

[Stranraer]

I appreciate it must be very difficult for the secessionist to accept that they lost the popular vote. However what is disturbing is the propagation of the stab-in-the-back myth, the notion, widely believed in ‘Yes’ circles, that the vote was not lost but was instead betrayed by vested interests, the Labour party and the BBC. The SNP government leaders have denounced the ‘Better together’ campaign as liars and fools they are as good as calling them "September Criminals".

The Nationalist are making this myth an integral part of their official narrative of the plebiscite, portraying the work of the ‘Better together’ as a stab in the back of the Scottish people by politicians determined to put party interests above those of the nation. The SNP propaganda machine depicts the Labour Party as a morass of corruption and moral degeneracy it rejects the notion that it completed failed to address the decisive economic arguments because to do so would mean it would have to face the reality that it took a vacuous position on this critical issue. Better to propagate the myth than address this reality.

They were in power in London for 13 years so it's not about what the SNP portray them as, it's about what they did in their time in office. They are rightly taking a pounding in the polls for joining up with the Tories and Liberals for a very negative campaign.

I better watch what I say, last time I said I wanted them to take a beating in the polls I was accused of advocating violence :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

I wish the Conservative Party would stop putting temptation in my way. :wink:

https://www.conservatives.com/survey/

Oh, alright then, if I must :greengrin

[McIntosh]

They were in power in London for 13 years so it's not about what the SNP portray them as, it's about what they did in their time in office. They are rightly taking a pounding in the polls for joining up with the Tories and Liberals for a very negative campaign.

I better watch what I say, last time I said I wanted them to take a beating in the polls I was accused of advocating violence :rolleyes:

It is great that you do not let the facts get in the way of your analysis. At the last General election, after thirteen years of Government Labour vote in Scotland was sustained. As for the 'negative' campaign it is only that if you ignore the economic argument. As has been stated previously the secessionists lost the vote because they could not address the economic arguments in a coherent and convincing manner.

I do not consider your advocating of a labour defeat offensive what I find completely offensive is your Argentine flag as a signature. It is remarkable that you consider the rights of the Falkland islanders to self determination as unimportant. You may have forgotten but the invasion of the Island in 1982 was at the behest of a Fascist dictatorship with the most appalling human rights record. It is amazing that you want human rights for some but not for all.

[Mon Dieu4]

I appreciate it must be very difficult for the secessionist to accept that they lost the popular vote. However what is disturbing is the propagation of the stab-in-the-back myth, the notion, widely believed in ‘Yes’ circles, that the vote was not lost but was instead betrayed by vested interests, the Labour party and the BBC. The SNP government leaders have denounced the ‘Better together’ campaign as liars and fools they are as good as calling them "September Criminals".

The Nationalist are making this myth an integral part of their official narrative of the plebiscite, portraying the work of the ‘Better together’ as a stab in the back of the Scottish people by politicians determined to put party interests above those of the nation. The SNP propaganda machine depicts the Labour Party as a morass of corruption and moral degeneracy it rejects the notion that it completed failed to address the decisive economic arguments because to do so would mean it would have to face the reality that it took a vacuous position on this critical issue. Better to propagate the myth than address this reality.

They are all a bunch of chancers who definetly worked in their own interests, Lloyds banking group has announced that over the next 3 years they will reduce their staff by 9,000 people, these roles will be within Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Branches as Halifax are not effected in it, you can deduce from that Lots of Scottish people are about to lose their jobs, the Government still owns 25% of Lloyds so must have know about this when the referendum was taking place, but they still harped on about Independence and the job losses that would occur, this from a company who said they were neutral on the whole issue but let Cameron give a better together speech in one of their headquarters.

Add to that the whole oil is about to run out, oh wait you've voted no, well surprise we just found another 100 years worth

This was all scaremongering at the highest level and had people worried for their money and jobs

I am in no means a conspiracy nut, raving nationalist or mental but no one will ever be able to convince me that the goverment, companies and majority of the media were not all in cahoots to make sure their agenda was met, sad thing is I can't believe some people don't see right through it.

[McIntosh]

They are all a bunch of chancers who definetly worked in their own interests, Lloyds banking group has announced that over the next 3 years they will reduce their staff by 9,000 people, these roles will be within Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Branches as Halifax are not effected in it, you can deduce from that Lots of Scottish people are about to lose their jobs, the Government still owns 25% of Lloyds so must have know about this when the referendum was taking place, but they still harped on about Independence and the job losses that would occur, this from a company who said they were neutral on the whole issue but let Cameron give a better together speech in one of their headquarters.

Add to that the whole oil is about to run out, oh wait you've voted no, well surprise we just found another 100 years worth

This was all scaremongering at the highest level and had people worried for their money and jobs

I am in no means a conspiracy nut, raving nationalist or mental but no one will ever be able to convince me that the goverment, companies and majority of the media were not all in cahoots to make sure their agenda was met, sad thing is I can't believe some people don't see right through it.

I do not know if there was a conspiracy or not but the fundamental issue which was not adequately addressed was the currency. When there is a question over this type of issue a flight of capital inevitably takes place. It is that that would have damaged the Scottish economy on a more sustained and more protracted level than threats real or notional from companies.

[Peevemor]

I do not know if there was a conspiracy or not but the fundamental issue which was not adequately addressed was the currency. When there is a question over this type of issue a flight of capital inevitably takes place. It is that that would have damaged the Scottish economy on a more sustained and more protracted level than threats real or notional from companies.

A common currency (Sterling) would have been the outcome. This would have been every bit as necessary for rUK as for iScotland and would have been agreed/announced almost immediately had there been a Yes result. The treasury/Bank of England also had contingency plans in place to prop up the pound in the result of a Yes vote.

However, Westminster did their "it's my baw" thing with the pound prior to the referendum as this suited perfectly their campaign tactic (I wouled have typed "tactics" but they only had one!).

[Stranraer]

It is great that you do not let the facts get in the way of your analysis. At the last General election, after thirteen years of Government Labour vote in Scotland was sustained. As for the 'negative' campaign it is only that if you ignore the economic argument. As has been stated previously the secessionists lost the vote because they could not address the economic arguments in a coherent and convincing manner.

I do not consider your advocating of a labour defeat offensive what I find completely offensive is your Argentine flag as a signature. It is remarkable that you consider the rights of the Falkland islanders to self determination as unimportant. You may have forgotten but the invasion of the Island in 1982 was at the behest of a Fascist dictatorship with the most appalling human rights record. It is amazing that you want human rights for some but not for all.

Fine by me, be offended all you want - it takes a lot to make me cry.

Well done on pointing out that Labour did well in Scotland in 2010. However, they are not going to do so well in 2015. As I say, I won't be in the country, however, Labour will lose in Scotland because of their toxic alliance in the referendum and will lose in England because they are completely (and rightly) distrusted on the economy.

[McIntosh]

Fine by me, be offended all you want - it takes a lot to make me cry.

Well done on pointing out that Labour did well in Scotland in 2010. However, they are not going to do so well in 2015. As I say, I won't be in the country, however, Labour will lose in Scotland because of their toxic alliance in the referendum and will lose in England because they are completely (and rightly) distrusted on the economy.

In relation to your first sentence it doesn't take much reading your blogs :wink: Secondly as you only became interested in politics at 22 remember Harold Wilson's maxim, "a week is a long time in politics" - six months is an eternity. It is a pity that apologist for fascism like you only see the world in a microcosm of your own creation. Sad indeed.

[#FromTheCapital]

@SkyNews: Alistair Darling To Stand Down As Labour MP http://t.co/yGmmQe1z7v

[McIntosh]

@SkyNews: Alistair Darling To Stand Down As Labour MP http://t.co/yGmmQe1z7v I wonder if Labour are going to bulk up the quality of their candidates for Holyrood. They have got a poor bunch currently.

[Stranraer]

In relation to your first sentence it doesn't take much reading your blogs :wink: Secondly as you only became interested in politics at 22 remember Harold Wilson's maxim, "a week is a long time in politics" - six months is an eternity. It is a pity that apologist for fascism like you only see the world in a microcosm of your own creation. Sad indeed.

I didn't "become interested in politics at 22" and I ask that you take back the accusation that I am in anyway a fascist.

[degenerated]

I wonder if Labour are going to bulk up the quality of their candidates for Holyrood. They have got a poor bunch currently.
They need a clear out, shifting the better together mob from Westminster to holyrood ain't gonna work. Alistair darling is another roaster who's viewed as a Tory lickspittle.

[McIntosh]

I didn't "become interested in politics at 22" and I ask that you take back the accusation that I am in anyway a fascist.

Well you will have to correct your blog, the one you have now taken down. In relation to be an apologist for a fascist regime, if the cap fits wear it.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Well you will have to correct your blog, the one you have now taken down. In relation to be an apologist for a fascist regime, if the cap fits wear it.

This thread is taking an interesting turn.

[Stranraer]

Well you will have to correct your blog, the one you have now taken down. In relation to be an apologist for a fascist regime, if the cap fits wear it.

I haven't ever been and never will be an apologist for any fascist regime.

I can only think you have turned this thread completely on it's head because you know as well as I do, that Labour are going to take a kicking in 2015 and that if Murphy is elected it will be a certainty.

[McIntosh]

I haven't ever been and never will be an apologist for any fascist regime.

I can only think you have turned this thread completely on it's head because you know as well as I do, that Labour are going to take a kicking in 2015 and that if Murphy is elected it will be a certainty.

Well lets analyse what you are saying. You have located yourself in a narrative where the rights of one state (Argentina) are superior to the rights of the local population (Falkland Islanders). In doing so you completely disregarding both the human rights of the Falkland Islanders and their rights to self-determination. If this was not bad enough you have completely wiped out the fact that the invasion of 1982 was at the behest of one of the most venal and evil fascist regimes that this World has had the misfortune to endure. You should hide your head in shame.

Secondly you make a lot of presumptions about which party I support, I am a wee bit more left wing than Labour or the SNP though that would not be hard.

[JeMeSouviens]

Just a thought on this. If scotland had voted yes in September, there's every chance that a similar poll would have shown that the majority wanted back in the union. Its like when you make a significant purchase and afterwards you wonder if it was the right choice.
Would it matter at all if this had been the case? No chance. So I don't see why this should matter.

Actually it's very rare to see polls reversing a result within a short time of the vote. There's usually a bandwagon or honeymoon effect where people get on board with the winner.

[JeMeSouviens]

The question was asked about six weeks ago of the Scottish electorate and they disagreed with you. No-one has to change their beliefs but I disagree that something settled recently is a bigger issue than ongoing problems like kids living in poverty. I want to see politicians putting their efforts into making what we actually voted for better.

Both the SNP and Greens are doing exactly that. They've both sent big hitters to Smith and are pushing for powers they want within a UK framework. You can hardly expect every activist to get over the indyref result so quickly but I've been pleasantly surprised by the pragmatism from the leadership. Gum bumping minimal.

[#FromTheCapital]

Actually it's very rare to see polls reversing a result within a short time of the vote. There's usually a bandwagon or honeymoon effect where people get on board with the winner.

In a general election perhaps, but this is completely different. It's not like there was a 'winner' as such, people just said no to the nationalists. From a personal point of view, it was more of a relief than jubilation.

[JeMeSouviens]

In a general election perhaps, but this is completely different. It's not like there was a 'winner' as such, people just said no to the nationalists. From a personal point of view, it was more of a relief than jubilation.

Maybe. I agree it doesn't really matter. It's politically impossible to call another indyref without either a good few years going by or some cataclysmic event like brexit.

Still interesting though. Independence as an achievable aspiration definitely not killed off, which was my big fear at the start of the campaign when polls were 65-35 or worse!

[#FromTheCapital]

Maybe. I agree it doesn't really matter. It's politically impossible to call another indyref without either a good few years going by or some cataclysmic event like brexit.

Still interesting though. Independence as an achievable aspiration definitely not killed off, which was my big fear at the start of the campaign when polls were 65-35 or worse!

Yes it's definitely not been killed off, which was most likely David Cameron's hope and intention when he agreed to it in 2012 - and refused the devo max option on the ballot paper.
If/when the next one comes around it will be with a different generation and a different set of circumstances. I have to say though, if they couldn't get the people to say yes this time - on the back of a recession, Tory government in power and many other factors in their favour then I'm not sure if it will ever happen. However I'm sure lessons have been learned from the campaign just gone and they'll take a different approach next time - hell they might even convince me ;-)

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes it's definitely not been killed off, which was most likely David Cameron's hope and intention when he agreed to it in 2012 - and refused the devo max option on the ballot paper.
If/when the next one comes around it will be with a different generation and a different set of circumstances. I have to say though, if they couldn't get the people to say yes this time - on the back of a recession, Tory government in power and many other factors in their favour then I'm not sure if it will ever happen. However I'm sure lessons have been learned from the campaign just gone and they'll take a different approach next time - hell they might even convince me ;-)

I did read (but can't find it now) a study saying it was easier to get people to vote through constitutional change in good economic times rather than bad when folk are more hung up on their personal finances. You could imagine other things that could help: the eurozone sorting out fiscal oversight, Catalunya becoming independent within the EU, the jump being smaller from a more powerful devolved parliament, etc.

[johnbc70]

Going by Sturgeons thinking on the EU referendum, if we have another Scottish Independence referendum would all the council regions have to vote in the same way for the result to stand?

[JeMeSouviens]

Going by Sturgeons thinking on the EU referendum, if we have another Scottish Independence referendum would all the council regions have to vote in the same way for the result to stand?

Has anybody been going round telling the council regions that they're "countries" in "a family of nations"?

[johnbc70]

Has anybody been going round telling the council regions that they're "countries" in "a family of nations"?

No, but is the principal not very similar? What if in the next referendum Glasgow and Edinburgh carried the Yes vote over the line but all other parts of the country voted No. She would say tough luck to the other parts of the country. As we have only very recently agreed as a nation we want to remain part of the UK then we should accept the result of the UK?

[Glory Lurker]

No, but is the principal not very similar? What if in the next referendum Glasgow and Edinburgh carried the Yes vote over the line but all other parts of the country voted No. She would say tough luck to the other parts of the country. As we have only very recently agreed as a nation we want to remain part of the UK then we should accept the result of the UK?

I was very frustrated when intelligent folk I knew came out with this same line, johnbc70. No doubt you are very intelligent as well! The principle is not the same. Scotland is a unitary political entity. It does not sub-divide below that so, yes, you would say tough luck to other parts of the country (although hopefully an independent Scotland would (will!) recognise the need for some form of devolution to the islands and possibly the north).

As for what Sturgeon is doing, it is a different argument. She is saying that Scotland - as a unitary political entity - is best served by remaining in the EU so is looking at the line she is taking as being a way, in her opinion, of representing Scotland's best interests. You don't have to agree with that to, hopefully, see the logic?

[Hibrandenburg]

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/

Reminds me of those videos you see when a bunch of Arabs are dancing around on burning Israeli/American flags :greengrin

[over the line]

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/

Reminds me of those videos you see when a bunch of Arabs are dancing around on burning Israeli/American flags :greengrin

I have to say that one puts my effigy of him to shame! He went up well enough though! :D

[degenerated]

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/

Reminds me of those videos you see when a bunch of Arabs are dancing around on burning Israeli/American flags :greengrin
Pretty embarrassing stuff indeed. Could you imagine the faux outrage from the unionists and loyalists if someone in Scotland burned an effigy of David Cameron or ed millibland.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Pretty embarrassing stuff indeed. Could you imagine the faux outrage from the unionists and loyalists if someone in Scotland burned an effigy of David Cameron or ed millibland.

Cringeworthy, not worthy of the nation that gave us the Levellers. Not such a beautiful day in Lewes.

[degenerated]

Cringeworthy, not worthy of the nation that gave us the Levellers. Not such a beautiful day in Lewes.
And also the nation that gave us Morris dancing and bullseye. Now we're talking culture :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Pretty embarrassing stuff indeed. Could you imagine the faux outrage from the unionists and loyalists if someone in Scotland burned an effigy of David Cameron or ed millibland.

Salmond's reply was class though!

http://fbcdn-video-e-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xpa1/v/t42.1790-2/1555111_806673119391175_1184248235_n.mp4?oh=e8d668 b29f015eec958f985c2a9003b0&oe=545CE866&__gda__=1415391481_0149361f9c0bb36b4d2d35bc2f93ade e

[Glory Lurker]

I'm with the man himself on this - not bothered about the Eck effigies, but utterly disgusted to the point of fury at poor Nessie getting the treatment. Not at all a supporter of UDI, but I don't know that we have a choice in the face of this. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm with the man himself on this - not bothered about the Eck effigies, but utterly disgusted to the point of fury at poor Nessie getting the treatment. Not at all a supporter of UDI, but I don't know that we have a choice in the face of this. :greengrin

We have to, for Nessies sake.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/strictly-come-dancing/11220503/Are-Scottish-Nationalists-voting-for-Judy-Murray-to-undermine-Strictly-Come-Dancing.html

And we're being told to let it rest. :faf:

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/strictly-come-dancing/11220503/Are-Scottish-Nationalists-voting-for-Judy-Murray-to-undermine-Strictly-Come-Dancing.html

And we're being told to let it rest. :faf:


It's called sweet revenge :greengrin

[The Modfather]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/strictly-come-dancing/11220503/Are-Scottish-Nationalists-voting-for-Judy-Murray-to-undermine-Strictly-Come-Dancing.html

And we're being told to let it rest. :faf:

Is that a spoof article?

[over the line]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/strictly-come-dancing/11220503/Are-Scottish-Nationalists-voting-for-Judy-Murray-to-undermine-Strictly-Come-Dancing.html

And we're being told to let it rest. :faf:

Ha, what a wierd article, funny though. I think a daily star "journalist" has broken into the telegraph office and hijacked a column!

[Moulin Yarns]

I never bought into the conspiracy theories, but....

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/woman-arrested-over-referendum-ballot-theft-claims-1-3601057

[Future17]

I never bought into the conspiracy theories, but....

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/woman-arrested-over-referendum-ballot-theft-claims-1-3601057

But what? Even the footage posted online of what had been "found" was simply of blank ballot papers and tendered ballot papers.

For once, literally a genuine case of nothing to see here.

[Hibrandenburg]

Bazinga!

http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-considers-pulling-4bn-clyde-frigate-contract-1-3602708

[degenerated]

Bazinga!

http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-considers-pulling-4bn-clyde-frigate-contract-1-3602708
Considering sourcing them abroad? I remember bitter together claiming we couldn't get mod work in an iscotland because we would be "abroad"

The shafting and broken promises have been entirely predictable.

The Labour and unionist party must be proud that they spearheaded the campaign of fear mongering and sophistry on behalf of their Tory bed fellows. Let's hope this isn't forgotten at the ballot boxes in May.

[over the line]

I never bought into the conspiracy theories, but....

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/woman-arrested-over-referendum-ballot-theft-claims-1-3601057

I don't see how stealing blank ballot papers would improve either sides chances of a positive outcome.

[over the line]

Bazinga!

http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-considers-pulling-4bn-clyde-frigate-contract-1-3602708

It would certainly be very sad if the contract goes abroad. Let's hope it is just a bargaining lever, rather than a real prospect.

[lord bunberry]

Bazinga!

http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-considers-pulling-4bn-clyde-frigate-contract-1-3602708

Cameron must be pissing himself laughing, he can do what he wants and everyone will blame Labour

[degenerated]

Cameron must be pissing himself laughing, he can do what he wants and everyone will blame Labour
Labour chose to do his bidding for him.

[lord bunberry]

Labour chose to do his bidding for him.

They did and every time another promise is broken by Cameron it's Labour who become more unpopular. I have to admit he's played an absolute blinder.

[Hibrandenburg]

Considering sourcing them abroad? I remember bitter together claiming we couldn't get mod work in an iscotland because we would be "abroad"

The shafting and broken promises have been entirely predictable.

The Labour and unionist party must be proud that they spearheaded the campaign of fear mongering and sophistry on behalf of their Tory bed fellows. Let's hope this isn't forgotten at the ballot boxes in May.

Because it was so predictable I'm not even annoyed. I'm just resigned to the inevitability that those who didn't see through it at the time either don't give a toss about it now or will have forgotten it come the election.

[lucky]

The ships will be built on the Clyde. The MOD have confirmed this it was in the News at Ten. But carry on blaming the No voters. Makes a changes from blaming Westminster

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30032217#?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

[DaveF]

The ships will be built on the Clyde. The MOD have confirmed this it was in the News at Ten. But carry on blaming the No voters. Makes a changes from blaming Westminster

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30032217#?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

If that's true then its good news, BUT the previous comments were based on an article out before this one, hence the comments.

Or do you expect people to comment on things yet to happen :rolleyes:

[Beefster]

If the vote had been conclusively for independence, I can imagine the posters jumping on every possible story about "broken promises" (which usually turn out to be nothing of the sort) with glee would be amongst the first to call me out for not coping very well with the result if I was doing the same thing in reverse.

[lord bunberry]

If the vote had been conclusively for independence, I can imagine the posters jumping on every possible story about "broken promises" (which usually turn out to be nothing of the sort) with glee would be amongst the first to call me out for not coping very well with the result if I was doing the same thing in reverse.

It's not really about the vote, more the consequences of the result. Labour are taking a right kicking at the moment (some of which is self inflicted) despite being the victors. At this stage there must be lots of people who voted no who are questioning that decision.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've just read a very interesting post by a GP on who is the true voice of the left.


At a dinner party the other day, a leftie friend was in despair. With Labour all over the place and the Liberal Democrats branded as traitors, who was she to vote for? To me, the answer was obvious. I'm not a leftie, far from it. But if I was, I'd be vociferously campaigning for the Green Party. And even though I won't be voting for them, I think the Greens' exclusion from the TV debates is a scandal.

Being on the political left should mean opposing inequality. It should mean wanting to protect valuable recourses (whether the environment or public services) from the rigours of the market. Realistically, you have to accept lower economic growth if the payoff is greater fairness. Above all, it means valuing the common good over the individual.
Socialists used to believe that theirs was a superior way of generating wealth. They thought that capitalism was inefficient as well as unfair. Putting the main engines of the economy under the control of the state was supposed to make them work better. Today, no one thinks that. The idea that iPhones, coriander and mortgages would be better provided by the government than by Apple, Tesco or HSBC respectively is laughable. The ambition of the Labour Party is not to improve capitalism, but merely to mitigate a few of its harsher effects by redistributing some of the money it generates. Sadly, the money has run out and any Labour government would be faced by the same heinous choices as the current Coalition. With a man as weak as Ed Miliband in charge, Labour should be praying they lose next May.
Greens don't have that problem. As the Post Growth project shows, they don't believe in more economic growth at all. In any case, the Green Party is not going to form the next Government so its ideals and those of their voters are safe from becoming a train wreak after a collision with reality. But that does not mean ideals don't matter. If your principles are precious to you, they have to be proclaimed from the rooftops, not stirred into a grubby compromise.
A lesson of modern politics is that ideas go from the unthinkable to mainstream with alarming rapidity. Back in 2001, even the Tories, like everyone else, specifically ruled out any changes to immigration policy. Now, regrettably, it's the only thing anyone can talk about. The UK had no minimum wage until 1997 but no one is suggesting we get rid of it. It is not hard to imagine that the Green campaign for a Living Wage will have the same success. Likewise, their policy of a 20 mph urban speed limit could quickly become a no-brainer. And if (unlike me), you think climate change is an existential threat, only the Greens are actually willing to do anything significant about it. Some of their radical tax and welfare ideas such as a land value tax and a basic income also deserve a hearing.
If you believe in drastic reform, you have to vote for it. The disengagement espoused by Russell Brand won't change anything. The Greens scoring ten or fifteen percent in a general election, together with a scatter of seats in the university towns, would make the established parties take notice. Even if mainstream politicians would, rightly, reject most Green policies as unworkable or worse, they'd have to ensure that their own programmes really did improve fairness. Just look at the way UKIP polling fifteen percent has forced the Tories to co-opt the kippers' agenda.
There is one further reason to vote Green: it is hard to imagine that anyone is involved in the Green Party for personal advantage. I have a higher opinion of politicians than most people. But even I have been appalled at the way corrupt MPs like Chris Huhne and Denis MacShane have been so shameless even after being jailed for their crimes. A few more uncompromising idealists, like Baroness Jenny Jones, in Parliament might even help enhance the stature of the honest majority of politicians.



So there you have, forget Labour, a party in the middle of a muddle, forget SNP a party relevant in Scotland but with minimal powers at Westminster (EU fisheries talks? On you go Lord whoever, rather than a nasty NAT). No, A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Equal society the Left Labour used to believe in.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Apologies to the Floyd:

If it wasn't for the Scots
Being a subservient lot
The yards would still be open on the Clyde

Tell me Labour is it so
I really need to know
Is this why democracy died?

What have we come to (Jimmy)
What have we become?

[Betty Boop]

Apologies to the Floyd:

If it wasn't for the Scots
Being a subservient lot
The yards would still be open on the Clyde

Tell me Labour is it so
I really need to know
Is this why democracy died?

What have we come to (Jimmy)
What have we become?

Did you watch Broadmoor last night ? Absolutely fascinating ! :top marks

[Phil D. Rolls]

Did you watch Broadmoor last night ? Absolutely fascinating ! :top marks

No, but I'll check it out on catch up. :aok:

[Hibrandenburg]

If the vote had been conclusively for independence, I can imagine the posters jumping on every possible story about "broken promises" (which usually turn out to be nothing of the sort) with glee would be amongst the first to call me out for not coping very well with the result if I was doing the same thing in reverse.

No, because to do otherwise would be accepting that lying to the electorate is ok.

[Betty Boop]

No, but I'll check it out on catch up. :aok:

Do you know it took five years to make ?

[lord bunberry]

There's a new newspaper being launched tomorrow called The National. It will be the only daily newspaper to support independence.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/tomorrow-the-national-a-new-daily-paper-for-scotland.25941314

[marinello59]

There's a new newspaper being launched tomorrow called The National. It will be the only daily newspaper to support independence.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/tomorrow-the-national-a-new-daily-paper-for-scotland.25941314

You know how I rather tediously kept banging on about newspapers following public opinion rather than setting it as their primary purpose is to make money.
This is Exhibit A. :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

You know how I rather tediously kept banging on about newspapers following public opinion rather than setting it as their primary purpose is to make money.
This is Exhibit A. :greengrin

It will at least provide a bit of balance to the print media. I'm going to give it a go tomorrow as I haven't bought a newspaper for a couple of years and I mss it sometimes

[ronaldo7]

It will at least provide a bit of balance to the print media. I'm going to give it a go tomorrow as I haven't bought a newspaper for a couple of years and I mss it sometimes

Snap.:greengrin

[marinello59]

It will at least provide a bit of balance to the print media. I'm going to give it a go tomorrow as I haven't bought a newspaper for a couple of years and I mss it sometimes

I'll be buying it as well, hope it takes off.

[Hibrandenburg]

You know how I rather tediously kept banging on about newspapers following public opinion rather than setting it as their primary purpose is to make money.
This is Exhibit A. :greengrin

Newspapers influencing opinion and newspapers targeting groups with certain opinions aren't mutually exclusive.

[marinello59]

]Newspapers influencing opinion [/B]and newspapers targeting groups with certain opinions aren't mutually exclusive.

But I have consistently said that the Scottish electorate as a whole are too clever to let a newspaper editorial influence them ,they are more than capable of making up their own minds based on the available facts.
This newspaper won't change many minds will it? It will largely appeal to people who want to read opinions pieces they agree with. It's all about circulation figures.

[Hibrandenburg]

But I have consistently said that the Scottish electorate as a whole are too clever to let a newspaper editorial influence them ,they are more than capable of making up their own minds based on the available facts.
This newspaper won't change many minds will it? It will largely appeal to people who want to read opinions pieces they agree with. It's all about circulation figures.

To believe that newspapers don't influence opinion would also suggest that propaganda doesn't work and the whole advertising industry is based on a lie. That last one would throw up an interesting question, if advertising doesn't work then what propaganda made so many marketing savvy corporations believe the hype enough to part with trillions every year?

[marinello59]

To believe that newspapers don't influence opinion would also suggest that propaganda doesn't work and the whole advertising industry is based on a lie. That last one would throw up an interesting question, if advertising doesn't work then what propaganda made so many marketing savvy corporations believe the hype enough to part with trillions every year?

They follow political opinion. Always have, always will. They play to their audience.

[Hibrandenburg]

So Mandy from Chester who buys paper A because it has a pullout TV Guide and doesn't really understand politics won't be influence by the collateral brainwashing she's receiving on a daily basis?

People buy newspapers for many reasons and I'd wager that the papers political allegiances is way down the list of priorities as to why they buy any particular paper. I really do think you're over estimating the intelligence of many people, there are still many out there who think what they see in print is the gospel, ah the gospel, now there's another fine example of people being influenced by what they read.

[marinello59]

W
So Mandy from Chester who buys paper A because it has a pullout TV Guide and doesn't really understand politics won't be influence by the collateral brainwashing she's receiving on a daily basis?

People buy newspapers for many reasons and I'd wager that the papers political allegiances is way down the list of priorities as to why they buy any particular paper. I really do think you're over estimating the intelligence of many people, there are still many out there who think what they see in print is the gospel, ah the gospel, now there's another fine example of people being influenced by what they read.


I might have been brainwashed by the press not to believe that they have that much influence. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Seems my mobile agrees with me and keeps double posting to get maximum effect :greengrin

[steakbake]

They follow political opinion. Always have, always will. They play to their audience.

That'll be why politicians fall over themselves to cosy up to media editors and owners.

[marinello59]

That'll be why politicians fall over themselves to cosy up to media editors and owners.

Do you vote based on what the papers tell you? Or do you make your own decisions based on the available facts?

[Hibbyradge]

Do you vote based on what the papers tell you? Or do you make your own decisions based on the available facts?

Who controls the available "facts"?

I don't know how many people are influenced by newspaper editorials on any given day, but they definitely shape public opinion in the medium and long terms at least.

The 1992 Sun headline "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights" is credited with giving Major his unexpected victory, at least in part.

It's also a well researched fact, that people are inclined to believe what they see in writing. In fact, this is to the extent that we commit to things that we wrote ourselves!

Don't underestimate the influence of the press and the media.

[steakbake]

Do you vote based on what the papers tell you? Or do you make your own decisions based on the available facts?

Me personally, I vote according to how I see things, my own political stand point etc.

Does everyone? No, probably not at all. Many people aren't interested in politics until it's time to vote. Then the media narrative is important...

You're being naive to think that the way events are portrayed in the media is just a benign reflection of how the public sees it.

[marinello59]

Me personally, I vote according to how I see things, my own political stand point etc.

Does everyone? No, probably not at all. Many people aren't interested in politics until it's time to vote. Then the media narrative is important...

You're being naive to think that the way events are portrayed in the media is just a benign reflection of how the public sees it.

I think the vast majority of people do that. Dismissing a large percentage of the Scottish electorate as being incapable of making up their own minds just doesn't sit well with me.

I didn't say anything about the media being a benign reflection. The wants to back winners. Look at Murdoch. A Tory backer until Labour looked like winning then backed them. SNP looked like winning in Scotland so the Scottish Sun backed them. The referendum was too close to call so they effectively hedged their bets. Newspapers owners don't take principled political stands , they take stands designed to sell newspapers above all else. The Herald aren't launching The National to change public opinion, they are doing it as there is a market for it because some people like to read articles they largely agree with already.

[lord bunberry]

I think the vast majority of people do that. Dismissing a large percentage of the Scottish electorate as being incapable of making up their own minds just doesn't sit well with me.

I didn't say anything about the media being a benign reflection. The wants to back winners. Look at Murdoch. A Tory backer until Labour looked like winning then backed them. SNP looked like winning in Scotland so the Scottish Sun backed them. The referendum was too close to call so they effectively hedged their bets. Newspapers owners don't take principled political stands , they take stands designed to sell newspapers above all else. The Herald aren't launching The National to change public opinion, they are doing it as there is a market for it because some people like to read articles they largely agree with already.

It's not necessarily reading articles I already agree with, it's also being able to read about things that are happening but being ignored by other papers.

[steakbake]

I think the vast majority of people do that. Dismissing a large percentage of the Scottish electorate as being incapable of making up their own minds just doesn't sit well with me.

I didn't say anything about the media being a benign reflection. The wants to back winners. Look at Murdoch. A Tory backer until Labour looked like winning then backed them. SNP looked like winning in Scotland so the Scottish Sun backed them. The referendum was too close to call so they effectively hedged their bets. Newspapers owners don't take principled political stands , they take stands designed to sell newspapers above all else. The Herald aren't launching The National to change public opinion, they are doing it as there is a market for it because some people like to read articles they largely agree with already.

I didn't say there was anything wrong in not being politically active or the like. Some people simply just don't think constantly about how they'd vote until it's upon them. I wouldn't say that's dismissive. If anything, they've got more going on in their lives than the likes of you and I!

Of course, the Murdoch example is a good one, but why do politicians spent their energies trying to seek their backing?

The PM meets with senior editors frequently. Journos generally recycle spin into stories. The all important 'what's the angle?'

Newspapers have editorial leanings based on their baseline political viewpoint. Even if Labour were to come out with the most sensible policy, could you see the Express/Mail/Telegraph publishing a story about it which didn't in some way try to pull it apart?

Another example: the rise of UKIP. The media narrative: the outsider party, a charismatic leader, populist policies and approach. Before they even had an elected MP, the BBC were wanting to parachute them into debates.

UKIP have taken up offices at Millbank on the run up to the election. The same place where political journos hot desk. Convenient coincidence, or an important pitch to get their messages across?

[marinello59]

I didn't say there was anything wrong in not being politically active or the like. Some people simply just don't think constantly about how they'd vote until it's upon them. I wouldn't say that's dismissive. If anything, they've got more going on in their lives than the likes of you and I!

Of course, the Murdoch example is a good one, but why do politicians spent their energies trying to seek their backing?

The PM meets with senior editors frequently. Journos generally recycle spin into stories. The all important 'what's the angle?'

Newspapers have editorial leanings based on their baseline political viewpoint. Even if Labour were to come out with the most sensible policy, could you see the Express/Mail/Telegraph publishing a story about it which didn't in some way try to pull it apart?

Another example: the rise of UKIP. The media narrative: the outsider party, a charismatic leader, populist policies and approach. Before they even had an elected MP, the BBC were wanting to parachute them into debates.

UKIP have taken up offices at Millbank on the run up to the election. The same place where political journos hot desk. Convenient coincidence, or an important pitch to get their messages across?

How about, newspapers have editorial leanings based on their target audience. The Telegraph will always rip Labour policy apart because they know their readers are mainly Tory backers and will lap it up. The Guardian does the same for Labour voters. The Express and Mail are just bonkers.
As for UKIP, their rise is more down to the failures of the mainstream parties to recognise that they were totally out of touch with the voters than anything the newspapers did.
We're not going to agree though are we? In fact I think I am on my own with this one. Maybe if I started my own newspaper....................:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

How about, newspapers have editorial leanings based on their target audience. The Telegraph will always rip Labour policy apart because' they know their readers are mainly Tory backers and will lap it up. The Guardian does the same for Labour voters. The Express and Mail are just bonkers.
As for UKIP, their rise is more down to the failures of the mainstream parties to recognise that they were totally out of touch with the voters than anything the newspapers did.
We're not going to agree though are we? In fact I think I am on my own with this one. Maybe if I started my own newspaper....................:greengrin

Just put everyone else on your ignore list and you'll have 100% harmony. :greengrin

[marinello59]

Just put everyone else on your ignore list and you'll have 100% harmony. :greengrin

I'd only start arguing with myself.:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

I'd only start arguing with myself.:greengrin

:greengrin

[steakbake]

I'd only start arguing with myself.:greengrin

Haha seems like a chicken and egg comundrum.

Right, what's the next thing we've got to sort out?

[Peevemor]

Haha seems like a chicken and egg comundrum.

Right, what's the next thing we've got to sort out?

What comes first, the M or the N? :dunno:

[over the line]

Haha seems like a chicken and egg comundrum.

Right, what's the next thing we've got to sort out?

It was definitely the egg that came first btw.

[CropleyWasGod]

It was definitely the egg that came first btw.

Was the egg male, like?

[over the line]

Was the egg male, like?

Not sure, why?

[snooky]

One thing the referendum taught me is to view the media with much more scepticism.
The BBC in particular was shown up for what it really was, with Nick Robinson's shenanigans being just the tip of the iceberg.
Trust is built up over years and years but can be lost in a few seconds - or in this case, one referendum.
I look back with some concern on how my previous views on many local & world stories were 'nurtured' by the Beeb and indeed, the media as a whole.

Liars! Liars! Pants on fires!

[degenerated]

One thing the referendum taught me is to view the media with much more scepticism.
The BBC in particular was shown up for what it really was, with Nick Robinson's shenanigans being just the tip of the iceberg.
Trust is built up over years and years but can be lost in a few seconds - or in this case, one referendum.
I look back with some concern on how my previous views on many local & world stories were 'nurtured' by the Beeb and indeed, the media as a whole.

Liars! Liars! Pants on fires!
I learnt about the BBC after an anti Nazi demo in London in 1993. It kicked off pretty big time but when I got home next morning and saw the BBC footage it had been cut and pasted to show a completely different perspective on what had happened and was totally out of sequence with what I had just seen with my own eyes (from a superb vantage point on top of a fence)

They are not to be trusted and are no more than a state propaganda tool.

[JimBHibees]

One thing the referendum taught me is to view the media with much more scepticism.
The BBC in particular was shown up for what it really was, with Nick Robinson's shenanigans being just the tip of the iceberg.
Trust is built up over years and years but can be lost in a few seconds - or in this case, one referendum.
I look back with some concern on how my previous views on many local & world stories were 'nurtured' by the Beeb and indeed, the media as a whole.

Liars! Liars! Pants on fires!

Agree their coverage was putrid and one sided. The researcher from WOS University was spot on and had to endure the BBC putting pressure on him to change his research.

[over the line]

One thing the referendum taught me is to view the media with much more scepticism.
The BBC in particular was shown up for what it really was, with Nick Robinson's shenanigans being just the tip of the iceberg.
Trust is built up over years and years but can be lost in a few seconds - or in this case, one referendum.
I look back with some concern on how my previous views on many local & world stories were 'nurtured' by the Beeb and indeed, the media as a whole.

Liars! Liars! Pants on fires!

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation. Who would have thought they may take the side of Britain in a referendum to disband Great Britain?!?!? ;):)

[CropleyWasGod]

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation. Who would have thought they may take the side of Britain in a referendum to disband Great Britain?!?!? ;):)
Who would have thought that an avowedly impartial news organisation would take any political stance?

[over the line]

Who would have thought that an avowedly impartial news organisation would take any political stance?

It would be wrong of them to side with an individual political party I agree, but I think it is obvious they would lean toward the UK in this particular referendum. It's the old turkeys voting for Christmas thing isn't it?

[snooky]

It would be wrong of them to side with an individual political party I agree, but I think it is obvious they would lean toward the UK in this particular referendum. It's the old turkeys voting for Christmas thing isn't it?

"... would lean toward..."?

Surely you mean bending over so far in the direction of the 'No' vote that it was doing cartwheels.

A total disgrace to democracy.

[#FromTheCapital]

The BBC reports to the whole of Britain, not just scotland. It was not in the best interests of Britain to split, or Scotland either going by the result.
Would Scotland have voted yes if the bbc had kept out of it? Absolutely no chance. The reason for the no vote was that there was not a robust argument for voting yes. The cringeworthy protest outside the BBC HQ did not help matters at all, just reinforced the perception of the yes campaigns mob mentality.

[steakbake]

Who would have thought that an avowedly impartial news organisation would take any political stance?

When it comes to impartiality, they're hardly the Red Cross.

Cringing when put under pressure to show the DEC Gaza appeal video? Spinning for Blair during the Iraq War?

To me it seems unbelievable that they aren't influenced by Westminster, given that the links between their Director Generals and politics in the main and their dependence on the License Fee.

It's a self preservation racket.

[over the line]

When it comes to impartiality, they're hardly the Red Cross.

Cringing when put under pressure to show the DEC Gaza appeal video? Spinning for Blair during the Iraq War?

To me it seems unbelievable that they aren't influenced by Westminster, given that the links between their Director Generals and politics in the main and their dependence on the License Fee.

It's a self preservation racket.

I think it is almost impossible to be totally impartial, its not in human nature. People and organisations are bound to have views and take sides, especially with something as close to home and momentus as the potential breaking up of the UK. I am presuming that the majority of the BBC staff would have voted No if given the chance, so that is bound to come through in their product isn't it?

[JeMeSouviens]

Hearty lolz ...

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/scottish-labour-despair/29709

[Moulin Yarns]

The Smith Commission

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_11_14_smithcommission.pdf

or as it looks at first skim reading the vow so watered down it is more like a hope and a prayer.

Never mind, my local branch party meeting last night was choosing candidates to stand at next May General Election and tonight the launch of the local Common Weal.

September woke the monster and the monster will be restless.



Switch on the light and see what Scotland can be. (Alan Bissett)

[hibs0666]

Smith Commission report is out, quite an easy read.

https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf

[Moulin Yarns]

Smith Commission report is out, quite an easy read.

https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf

Aye, 28 pages, the first 12 of which waffle on about the role of the Smith Commission.

#underwhelmed





Switch on the light and see what Scotland can be. (Alan Bissett)

[lord bunberry]

Does this mean that the Scottish Parliament will have control over fracking licenses?

[Sergio sledge]

Does this mean that the Scottish Parliament will have control over fracking licenses?

Looks like it. Good news IMHO.

[CropleyWasGod]

Looks like it. Good news IMHO.

Isn't it the case, though, that all of this has to be voted thorugh by the UK Parliament?

So, if HMG of the day (and it would be part of the Queen's Speech for the NEXT parliament) didn't like the proposals, or bits of it, they could bump them.

Or have I got that wrong?

[lord bunberry]

Isn't it the case, though, that all of this has to be voted thorugh by the UK Parliament?

So, if HMG of the day (and it would be part of the Queen's Speech for the NEXT parliament) didn't like the proposals, or bits of it, they could bump them.

Or have I got that wrong?
You're right, it has to be voted on by the Westminster parliament.

[lord bunberry]

Looks like it. Good news IMHO.

It is, I'm quite surprised tbh.

[Moulin Yarns]

Does this mean that the Scottish Parliament will have control over fracking licenses?

What are the SNP views on Fracking? According to a report on an energy committee meeting in March the SNP reduced the buffer zone recommended, and refused to support a restoration fund be set up.

The only party totally opposed to Fracking is the Scottish Green Party.

[hibs0666]

Aye, 28 pages, the first 12 of which waffle on about the role of the Smith Commission.

#underwhelmed




It looks a very reasonable outcome - agreed by all parties including the nats - that will give us a stable constitutional settlement for the foreseeable future as per the will of the people.

What's not to like? :thumbsup:

[lord bunberry]

What are the SNP views on Fracking? According to a report on an energy committee meeting in March the SNP reduced the buffer zone recommended, and refused to support a restoration fund be set up.

The only party totally opposed to Fracking is the Scottish Green Party.

It's my understanding that the SNP is opposed to fracking without consultation and the agreement of the local people were the fracking will take place.

[lord bunberry]

It looks a very reasonable outcome - agreed by all parties including the nats - that will give us a stable constitutional settlement for the foreseeable future as per the will of the people.

What's not to like? :thumbsup:

It's less than we were promised before the referendum, it's nowhere near a federal system that brown talked about.

[JimBHibees]

It's less than we were promised before the referendum, it's nowhere near a federal system that brown talked about.

Also pretty much a wish list that needs to be voted through by in the main a gaggle of MP's opposed to it.

[ronaldo7]

70% of Taxes and 85% of Welfare stay at Westminster, however we do get control of our road signs.:rolleyes:

Devo Max...No
Home Rule...No
Federalism...No

As usual we'll be given the crumbs from their table and Scottish Labour will lap it up.

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/smith-powers-not-all-that-was-promised-but-could-help-fight-cuts/

Looks like a few logs will be going on the fire in the coming months.

[lucky]

Form my perspective I'm disappointed that the BTP are going to be devolved as it will lead to them being abolished. Also the rail powers are not enough. Should also had employment and welfare laws fully devolved. But this is what the 5 parties agreed. So I'm not buying the crocodile tears of the SNP & Greens.

[hibs0666]

It's less than we were promised before the referendum, it's nowhere near a federal system that brown talked about.

Seems like the nationalist parties are happy with the proposed settlement.

[Just Alf]

Form my perspective I'm disappointed that the BTP are going to be devolved as it will lead to them being abolished. Also the rail powers are not enough. Should also had employment and welfare laws fully devolved. But this is what the 5 parties agreed. So I'm not buying the crocodile tears of the SNP & Greens.


I know where you're coming from but I'm guessing that in the real world of trying to get a 5 way (?) agreement everyone is going to have to, rightly, bend a bit on what they wanted?

[Moulin Yarns]

Seems like the nationalist parties are happy with the proposed settlement.

There is only one Nationalist' party and I think there are reservations

[Moulin Yarns]

It's my understanding that the SNP is opposed to fracking without consultation and the agreement of the local people were the fracking will take place.

As I said, only the Scottish Green Party are opposed to fracking.

Off to the Common Weal meeting

[ronaldo7]

What's happened since September 18th then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPwXp3K-NKY&feature=youtu.be

Succinct and to the point, although some minor errors.

[ronaldo7]

Form my perspective I'm disappointed that the BTP are going to be devolved as it will lead to them being abolished. Also the rail powers are not enough. Should also had employment and welfare laws fully devolved. But this is what the 5 parties agreed. So I'm not buying the crocodile tears of the SNP & Greens.

The STUC are underwhelmed. It seems wrong that Labour are on opposite sides from the STUC, but as they've driven their red bus so far to the right in recent years, it doesn't really surprise me. #REDTORIES

http://www.stuc.org.uk/news/1119/stuc-on-smith-commission-proposals

I also wonder if the Branch office will be slapped down on Air passenger Duty from the Imperial masters:wink:

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/103720970204/letter-from-ed-balls-michael-dugher-and-chuka

[lucky]

The STUC are underwhelmed. It seems wrong that Labour are on opposite sides from the STUC, but as they've driven their red bus so far to the right in recent years, it doesn't really surprise me. #REDTORIES

http://www.stuc.org.uk/news/1119/stuc-on-smith-commission-proposals

I also wonder if the Branch office will be slapped down on Air passenger Duty from the Imperial masters:wink:

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/103720970204/letter-from-ed-balls-michael-dugher-and-chuka

Red Tories always make me laugh, history can't be rewritten from 1979. The Nats gave us Thatcher.

Graham Smith said the powers were not enough. But I was not happy with the STUC submission either. But this is all about opinions. Separatists were never going to happy but the DFM Swinney agreed with this. But his new boss then slaughtered it. Hypocrites!!!

[hibs0666]

Red Tories always make me laugh, history can't be rewritten from 1979. The Nats gave us Thatcher.

Graham Smith said the powers were not enough. But I was not happy with the STUC submission either. But this is all about opinions. Separatists were never going to happy but the DFM Swinney agreed with this. But his new boss then slaughtered it. Hypocrites!!!

So much for the nats backing the will of the people.

[NAE NOOKIE]

So much for the nats backing the will of the people.

Has that changed from accepting then.

[ronaldo7]

Red Tories always make me laugh, history can't be rewritten from 1979. The Nats gave us Thatcher.

Graham Smith said the powers were not enough. But I was not happy with the STUC submission either. But this is all about opinions. Separatists were never going to happy but the DFM Swinney agreed with this. But his new boss then slaughtered it. Hypocrites!!!

Red Tories make me laugh too:wink:

All 5 parties had to go into the negotiations knowing they'd not get everything they wanted. We've got some powers for the parliament however you can't tell me they are either "Extensive", or are as near Federalism or Home rule as you'll get.

You might be happy with power over new road signs, but for me, "THE VOW" has not been delivered, and so we keep the logs on the fire.

It seems strange to find the STUC, and Lynn Henderson from the PCS can see that the commission has not delivered, but we have the London party office in Scotland determining that everything is rosy and the Vow has been delivered.


Lynn Henderson, Scottish secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union
"In the drive to find a compromise amongst the five political parties, the commission missed the real cry from amongst the many detailed submissions and opinions of the Scottish public for adequate powers to redress growing taxation and welfare inequalities and to create a fairer Scotland.

"The tax and fiscal opportunities in the agreement are partial, making the reality of meaningful tax redistribution limited.

"We welcome the additional welfare and employability provision devolved, but capping benefits to UK levels in effect retains existing poverty and inequality traps for the most vulnerable in Scotland."

[steakbake]

Some things to welcome but not nearly devo max or federalism in any sense.

In the past few days we've had a Damascene conversion in the Labour Party from being against devolving income tax to now being for it. And the ever politburoesque Sarwar telling us that it's the will of the people and the will of the Labour Party.

It's pretty much playing about the edges - nothing of much substance in it. Yet the BBC breathlessly tell us in the main news that it's "sweeping new powers" in their main headline. Neutrality would dictate that the headline should be that a range of new powers is proposed and leave the politicians and the people to decide whether they're "sweeping" or not.

Not sure what other reaction the SNP are supposed to have. The Tories are delighted with their sleight of hand, the LibDems are just happy to still be just about relevant enough to have a horse in the race. This isn't about the voters, this is about what they can just about get away with so it's voted for in parliament. (Failure to do so would/will hand the initiative to the pro-independence parties).

I suspect there'll be a few more twists and turns...

[Beefster]

Despite the Deputy First Minister signing off on the agreement, the SNP were never going to claim to back it and were always going to claim that it wasn't enough. Doing otherwise would destroy their (defeated) case for independence. It was the same when devolution was proposed in the late 90's IIRC.

[marinello59]

As I said, only the Scottish Green Party are opposed to fracking.

Off to the Common Weal meeting

And they might be the ones that are wrong. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

And they might be the ones that are wrong. :greengrin

when the water supply becomes polluted don't complain :wink:

[marinello59]

when the water supply becomes polluted don't complain :wink:

Don't you mean if? Nothing has been scientifically proved either way yet has it?
Imagine if somebody wanted to start drilling for the first time out in the North sea now. We'd be getting hit with stories about the risk of our coastlines being permanently awash with oil.

[lucky]

Red Tories make me laugh too:wink:

All 5 parties had to go into the negotiations knowing they'd not get everything they wanted. We've got some powers for the parliament however you can't tell me they are either "Extensive", or are as near Federalism or Home rule as you'll get.

You might be happy with power over new road signs, but for me, "THE VOW" has not been delivered, and so we keep the logs on the fire.

It seems strange to find the STUC, and Lynn Henderson from the PCS can see that the commission has not delivered, but we have the London party office in Scotland determining that everything is rosy and the Vow has been delivered.


Lynn Henderson, Scottish secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union
"In the drive to find a compromise amongst the five political parties, the commission missed the real cry from amongst the many detailed submissions and opinions of the Scottish public for adequate powers to redress growing taxation and welfare inequalities and to create a fairer Scotland.

"The tax and fiscal opportunities in the agreement are partial, making the reality of meaningful tax redistribution limited.

"We welcome the additional welfare and employability provision devolved, but capping benefits to UK levels in effect retains existing poverty and inequality traps for the most vulnerable in Scotland."

I know Lyn and her partner Dave Moxham assistant General Secretary of STUC well. Both are Labour Party members. But just because some trade unions are unhappy with the smith commission does not mean they all are. I've said previous posts that on policing & railways it went too far & not far enough. Your being completely subjective only mentioning road signs. For the record I would have a federal UK. But for that to happen we need powers distributed across England , Walse and Norther Ireland. Once that has happened further moves towards federalism can take place

[Moulin Yarns]

Don't you mean if? Nothing has been scientifically proved either way yet has it?
Imagine if somebody wanted to start drilling for the first time out in the North sea now. We'd be getting hit with stories about the risk of our coastlines being permanently awash with oil.

No of course it hasn't. :rolleyes:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/21/3581800/duke-fracking-waste-tracker/

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/07/central-california-aquifers-contaminated-billions-gallons-fracking-wastewater

Shall I stop now?

[marinello59]

No of course it hasn't. :rolleyes:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/21/3581800/duke-fracking-waste-tracker/

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/07/central-california-aquifers-contaminated-billions-gallons-fracking-wastewater

Shall I stop now?

Keep going all day if you want. There will be areas where Fracking may well be quite safe. I'm just saying keep an open mind which seems to be SNP policy as well. . We all want to run giant TV's etc so the energy has to come from somewhere to keep things moving and it won't all come from renewables.

[Moulin Yarns]

Keep going all day if you want. There will be areas where Fracking may well be quite safe. I'm just saying keep an open mind which seems to be SNP policy as well. . We all want to run giant TV's etc so the energy has to come from somewhere to keep things moving and it won't all come from renewables.

The energy has to come from somewhere, and here's the thing, Renewables are the largest provider of energy in Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30211139

If I was in a position of influence there is a very simple policy that I would introduce to make us even more self sufficient in renewable energy, but, unfortunately I'm not.

[ronaldo7]

I know Lyn and her partner Dave Moxham assistant General Secretary of STUC well. Both are Labour Party members. But just because some trade unions are unhappy with the smith commission does not mean they all are. I've said previous posts that on policing & railways it went too far & not far enough. Your being completely subjective only mentioning road signs. For the record I would have a federal UK. But for that to happen we need powers distributed across England , Walse and Norther Ireland. Once that has happened further moves towards federalism can take place

I know Labour party members too:greengrin Some of them even voted for Independence:agree: