Scottish Independence

[James.]

Noam Chomsky has backed a Yes vote in September. Surely the most prominent political thinker to put their view forward so far.

Personally, I shall be voting Yes. I was a firm believer in the Union however the negativity of the Better Together campaign coupled with the vision the Yes campaign have put forward has really made a difference. The grassroots campaigning of Yes has been incredible! Exciting times.

[marinello59]

Yes has stronger support among men than women (men Y +1, women N +7) and the strongest Yes age segment is 25-34 (Y +3), so I guess football forums ought to be fairly fertile Yes territory. (Figures from latest ICM poll for the Scotsman.)

Fair point.

[BarneyK]

Noam Chomsky has backed a Yes vote in September. Surely the most prominent political thinker to put their view forward so far.

Personally, I shall be voting Yes. I was a firm believer in the Union however the negativity of the Better Together campaign coupled with the vision the Yes campaign have put forward has really made a difference. The grassroots campaigning of Yes has been incredible! Exciting times.

It's the grassroots campaign that I'm really enjoying. :agree:

[Alex Trager]

Yes has stronger support among men than women (men Y +1, women N +7) and the strongest Yes age segment is 25-34 (Y +3), so I guess football forums ought to be fairly fertile Yes territory. (Figures from latest ICM poll for the Scotsman.)

I've compared three polls for uni, over about a year and a half. The women have stayed the biggest group likely to vote no, and interestingly it was men 34-60, roughly, that were constantly the highest percentage of yes.

[lucky]

Jim Sillars speaking at the celebration of Margo's life today said that come a minute past ten on the 18/09/14 that all of Scotland must be united. He also said that she wanted both sides must be respectful of each other's views. I wonder if that will catch on Hibs.net

[hibsbollah]

Noam Chomsky has backed a Yes vote in September. Surely the most prominent political thinker to put their view forward so far.

Personally, I shall be voting Yes. I was a firm believer in the Union however the negativity of the Better Together campaign coupled with the vision the Yes campaign have put forward has really made a difference. The grassroots campaigning of Yes has been incredible! Exciting times.

To be fair, Chomsky was always going to back the side that offers most challenge to US military hegemony, as he would say.

The debate has been better than I expected, to be honest. One assumption that keeps getting wheeled out that id like to see challenged more often is 'independence would forever banish the tories/their ilk from power in scotland'. Although the Conservative brand is pretty toxic in Scotland, its not a massive assumption to make that independence might paradoxically, result in a new resurgence of right wing ideas in what is after all a fairly conservative (small c), risk averse and traditional country. Our history of voting for left leaning parties might have more to do with west central Scotland post industrial tribalism and hostility to Westminster elite, than to widespread support for radical socialist ideas.

As for me, i'm still undecided as to what to vote. Anyway, Closer poll numbers=Higher turnout=Good for Democracy.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Jim Sillars speaking at the celebration of Margo's life today said that come a minute past ten on the 18/09/14 that all of Scotland must be united. He also said that she wanted both sides must be respectful of each other's views. I wonder if that will catch on Hibs.net

It already has caught on to Hibs.net, in the form of debate. Ok you are in the minority on this thread but if you are going to post that we should vote no so that we have an influence at Westminster as to where ours troops go, then you are going to get replies.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27159618

The CBI is to attempt to reverse its position as a registered campaigner against Scottish independence.




Haw Haw

[JimBHibees]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27159618

The CBI is to attempt to reverse its position as a registered campaigner against Scottish independence.




Haw Haw

The most interesting thing about that story was BBC suspending their membership to retain their supposed neutral position, really. :rolleyes:

[steakbake]

The most interesting thing about that story was BBC suspending their membership to retain their supposed neutral position, really. :rolleyes:

A suitably embarrassing climb down by CBI whose agenda had been seized by that McMillan fella as their director. They've made a mistake in not remaining suitably neutral, possibly damaging their standing.

McMillan has appeared in Labour Party political broadcasts before.

[stoneyburn hibs]

BBC, CBI now neutral because they tell us they are :rolleyes:

[Saorsa]

BBC, CBI now neutral because they tell us they are :rolleyes:You dinnae believe them? :greengrin

[Saorsa]

Your spot on. I generally pop into this thread just to how it's going. Originally it was fairly balanced but now it's shout down the no supporters. But what does interest me is how the poll on here is so out of sync with all other polls on the independence. It would appear that Hibs support is more inclined to support separation based on this. Not sure what other fans websites are saying.get the violins out


So if Scotland is independent will Blair and his like not intervene in the Middle East? Course not. It was the Scottish MPs that stopped cameron bombing Syria. Without the Scots the UK and USA would have bombed Syria. I'd rather stop it than say it happened but not in my name. It's crucial that we continue to influence UK and western foreign policy. But we can only do that by having Scots at Westminster. Before any starts about that idea failed on Iraq, I accept that, but let's ensure no further unnecessary wars take placeThe idea failed in Iraq? Lets just ignore that then because it disnae suit your argument. Labours Scottish MP's stopped **** all, what stopped Cameron this time was rebellion by his party and the fib dems, **** all tae dae with Scottish labour MPs. Scottish MP's will stop nowt if English MP's vote for it. You keep believing in that/their importance in the scheme of things though :aok:

[Saorsa]

Jim Sillars speaking at the celebration of Margo's life today said that come a minute past ten on the 18/09/14 that all of Scotland must be united. He also said that she wanted both sides must be respectful of each other's views. I wonder if that will catch on Hibs.netTry it then?

[stoneyburn hibs]

You dinnae believe them? :greengrin

We should believe everything the BBC tells us i thought, they constantly tell us they are impartial. I pay their wages.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27159618

The CBI is to attempt to reverse its position as a registered campaigner against Scottish independence.




Haw Haw

beep beep CBI reversing

[lucky]

Try it then?

Read your own posts. Then come back to me

[Saorsa]

Read your own posts. Then come back to menah, I wouldnae bother :aok:

[lucky]

get the violins out

The idea failed in Iraq? Lets just ignore that then because it disnae suit your argument. Labours Scottish MP's stopped **** all, what stopped Cameron this time was rebellion by his party and the fib dems, **** all tae dae with Scottish labour MPs. Scottish MP's will stop nowt if English MP's vote for it. You keep believing in that/their importance in the scheme of things though :aok:

Why would any get the violins out. Rather childish post. As for Iraq, I protested on the streets along with 1000s of others. But this debate is not about the past but how we see the future.

[Saorsa]

Why would any get the violins out. Rather childish post. As for Iraq, I protested on the streets along with 1000s of others. But this debate is not about the past but how we see the future.You protested? What good did you dae? Did you stop it? Nope! You really have overestimated your importance. I believe it was you that brought it up as a shining example of the value of Scottish MP's at westminster. Better IMO if we were never involved in it. Westminster and the MPs/governments there can carry on as poodles of the US if that is what they want and join in/start as many illegal wars as they want, Scotland IMO would be better off out of it.

[CropleyWasGod]

One thing I haven't yet seen discussed, here or anywhere else.

As a country of 5.5m, we have four levels of Government. IMO, that's at least one too many.

Given that the main policies that affect people's everyday lives (health, education, social services, transport) are dealt with at Holyrood, and (if you believe UKIP) 75% of political decisions that affect the UK are taken in Brussels and Strasbourg..... what relevance does Westminster have for Scotland nowadays?

A useful side-poll might be "if we were allowed to get rid of 1 of the 4 (or 3, ignoring local councils), what would you prefer?"

[lucky]

You protested? What good did you dae? Did you stop it? Nope! You really have overestimated your importance. I believe it was you that brought it up as a shining example of the value of Scottish MP's at westminster. Better IMO if we were never involved in it. Westminster and the MPs/governments there can carry on as poodles of the US if that is what they want and join in/start as many illegal wars as they want, Scotland IMO would be better off out of it.

So what did you do about it? I like many took to the streets my own MP resigned from the cabinet. I can't see how I think I'm over estimating my "importance". The war in Iraq was wrong. I'm not defending. But stated that Scottish MPs helped stop Cameron getting approval of our parliament to bomb Syria. I never claimed it was just Labour MPs. As for shinning example I never used Iraq ,try reading posts before using them in an debate.

[Saorsa]

So what did you do about it? I like many took to the streets my own MP resigned from the cabinet. I can't see how I think I'm over estimating my "importance". The war in Iraq was wrong. I'm not defending. But stated that Scottish MPs helped stop Cameron getting approval of our parliament to bomb Syria. I never claimed it was just Labour MPs. As for shinning example I never used Iraq ,try reading posts before using them in an debate.Maybe you should try reading them, the shining example bit was sarcasm. You're right you never used it Iraq, you tried tae sweep it under the carpet as it failed and because it didnae fit you're argument of the value of Scottish MPs at westminster were as Syria fitted it better so you used that, even then that vote was defeated by rebel tories.

[marinello59]

You protested? What good did you dae? Did you stop it? Nope! You really have overestimated your importance. I believe it was you that brought it up as a shining example of the value of Scottish MP's at westminster. Better IMO if we were never involved in it. Westminster and the MPs/governments there can carry on as poodles of the US if that is what they want and join in/start as many illegal wars as they want, Scotland IMO would be better off out of it.

Did you get out and support the anti-war movement or did you dismiss it at the time as a vast amount of ordinary people over estimating their own importance? It may not have prevented the war in Iraq but it certainly brought people power back in to the mainstream. The same sort of power that seems to be driving us closer to a Yes vote in Scotland. Your comments are unfair and not just to Lucky.

[Beefster]

You protested? What good did you dae? Did you stop it? Nope! You really have overestimated your importance. I believe it was you that brought it up as a shining example of the value of Scottish MP's at westminster. Better IMO if we were never involved in it. Westminster and the MPs/governments there can carry on as poodles of the US if that is what they want and join in/start as many illegal wars as they want, Scotland IMO would be better off out of it.

So are you advocating voting for independence because public protests against a potential government decision will always work or because a Scottish government will never do anything that needs to be protested against?

We've had the "Vote for independence to get rid of the Tories as we always vote for Labour" and now we seem to be getting "Vote for independence so that that Labour lot won't do stuff that some folk don't like". All the while "Don't vote no because of the SNP", I might add.

[Moulin Yarns]

So are you advocating voting for independence because public protests against a potential government decision will always work or because a Scottish government will never do anything that needs to be protested against?

We've had the "Vote for independence to get rid of the Tories as we always vote for Labour" and now we seem to be getting "Vote for independence so that that Labour lot won't do stuff that some folk don't like". All the while "Don't vote no because of the SNP", I might add.

Here is a REALLY GOOD reason to vote for independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27163263

[Beefster]

Here is a REALLY GOOD reason to vote for independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27163263

How's that a reason to vote for independence? Council rents have stayed lower under the current arrangement.

Aside from that, this type of argument is predicated on the current Scottish government staying in power in perpetuity. I'd prefer not to subsidise prescriptions for folk that can afford it, including myself. Is that a reason to vote for staying in the UK?

[ronaldo7]

Not seen much on here about our ex PM and his Pensions intervention.

Good work by Wings and Guido Fawkes blog on how much he's cost the ordinary working person, and the Guido blog searching the truth about Brown's nose in the trough.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-theres-no-more-to-be-said/?utm_content=bufferc6ccf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Brown's raid on pensions has cost the people £118 Billion...So far

And the Wee Ginger Dug on the CBI

http://linkis.com/wp.me/dOmJg

[lucky]

One thing I haven't yet seen discussed, here or anywhere else.

As a country of 5.5m, we have four levels of Government. IMO, that's at least one too many.

Given that the main policies that affect people's everyday lives (health, education, social services, transport) are dealt with at Holyrood, and (if you believe UKIP) 75% of political decisions that affect the UK are taken in Brussels and Strasbourg..... what relevance does Westminster have for Scotland nowadays?

A useful side-poll might be "if we were allowed to get rid of 1 of the 4 (or 3, ignoring local councils), what would you prefer?"

Euro Parliament for me. Also time power was devolved back to councils from Holyrood. But in a iScotland are we going to only have one chamber? That gives too much control to the government.

[CropleyWasGod]

Euro Parliament for me. Also time power was devolved back to councils from Holyrood. But in a iScotland are we going to only have one chamber? That gives too much control to the government.

So are you happy to pay Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MP's to either (a) vote on issues that don't affect their constituents or (b) bar them from voting on those issues, thereby rendering them part-time?

[Beefster]

So are you happy to pay Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MP's to either (a) vote on issues that don't affect their constituents or (b) bar them from voting on those issues, thereby rendering them part-time?

Didn't we have this debate in 1997?

Or are you arguing that we should have independence because, since we all voted for devolution, our representatives in Westminster have less power?

[CropleyWasGod]

Didn't we have this debate in 1997?

Or are you arguing that we should have independence because, since we all voted for devolution, our representatives in Westminster have less power?

We are now 17 years on, though.

Now that we have our own parliament, the question of "what is Westminster for?" (which is the main thrust of my post) is much more relevant IMO.

I'm not arguing one way or another. I am asking the question.

[Beefster]

We are now 17 years on, though.

Now that we have our own parliament, the question of "what is Westminster for?" (which is the main thrust of my post) is much more relevant IMO.

We are but the situation hasn't changed in any significant manner IMHO. An argument could be made for the English having a parliament too and the UK parliament being solely for UK-wide legislation and regulation but you seem to be arguing that we're over-represented (by having a say on English matters, e.g., their NHS).

We're far less represented in the EU (< 1% of the MEPs). The argument earlier was about staying out of the affairs of the Middle East and we should leave the UK to make sure we do. Yet Cathy Ashton probably has more to do with the Middle East than any UK politician. No-one is screaming that we leave the EU bizarrely.

P.S. I'm pro-EU too.

[Moulin Yarns]

Euro Parliament for me. Also time power was devolved back to councils from Holyrood. But in a iScotland are we going to only have one chamber? That gives too much control to the government.

I agree with more power to local government, but do you really want a second chamber like the House of Lords? Unelected, hereditary bunch??? REALLY?

[Beefster]

I agree with more power to local government, but do you really want a second chamber like the House of Lords? Unelected, hereditary bunch??? REALLY?

I don't wish to speak for Lucky but a second chamber doesn't have to be unelected. In fact, the vast majority of them are elected.

[PeeJay]

We are now 17 years on, though.

Now that we have our own parliament, the question of "what is Westminster for?" (which is the main thrust of my post) is much more relevant IMO.

I'm not arguing one way or another. I am asking the question.


Westminster exercises control over constitutional matters, UK defence and national security, UK foreign policy, immigration & nationality, UK economic & monetary policy, energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear power, employment legislation, social security, various aspects of transport, including railways, safety and regulation, and it also oversees matters of data protection, broadcasting, gambling and even the National Lottery - it's not quite really redundant is it?

I'm all for devolving power throughout the regions of the UK, mainly to benefit the regions and spread some of the wealth and influence around the country - too much is concentrated in Westminster/London much to the detriment of other parts of the UK. I believe devolution and devolved powers to further regions would strengthen the UK, but independence will only weaken the UK and probably present Scotland with problems it may find to be insurmountable ...

... an example of a country well run with a mixture of devolved and centralised powers is the one I've lived in most of my life ... it's not a bad concept, a republic!

[Saorsa]

Westminster exercises control over constitutional matters, UK defence and national security, UK foreign policy, immigration & nationality, UK economic & monetary policy, energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear power, employment legislation, social security, various aspects of transport, including railways, safety and regulation, and it also oversees matters of data protection, broadcasting, gambling and even the National Lottery - it's not quite really redundant is it?

I'm all for devolving power throughout the regions of the UK, mainly to benefit the regions and spread some of the wealth and influence around the country - too much is concentrated in Westminster/London much to the detriment of other parts of the UK. I believe devolution and devolved powers to further regions would strengthen the UK, but independence will only weaken the UK and probably present Scotland with problems it may find to be insurmountable ...

... an example of a country well run with a mixture of devolved and centralised powers is the one I've lived in most of my life ... it's not a bad concept, a republic!... of course it would. Care tae tell us what these insurmountable problems would be that would be unique tae Scotland existing as a country that dinnae happen anywhere else in the world in any other country?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Interesting article in the Daily Mail today about Colin & Chris Weir who won £160,000,000 on the lottery a few years back.

Apparently they have given circa 3 million quid to the SNP in the last few years, which according to the article means the Better together campaign are not playing on a level playing field due to this injection of cash into the Yes camp.

The paper stops short of a nasty personal attack on the couple, probably because they are a shining example of how to conduct yourself after a slice of luck like they had. But apparently it is 'sinister' that the SNP approached the Weirs following their win. Even though both are life long nationalists and Mr Weir had actually stood as an SNP candidate in the 1987 general election.

Given that most of the press in this country is to the right .... or far right in the case of the DM and in the Better together camp, the Weirs money is probably helping to level out what would be an uneven fight.

Reading between the lines it is almost as if the Daily Mail is trying to paint the Weirs as a couple of simpletons who are being taken advantage of by the big bad Yes campaign ........ very far from the truth I am sure and grist to the mill for those of us who get the impression that there is an element in the Better together camp who take a very patronising view of anybody who might have the misguided view that Scotland could be a successful independent country ....... pat on the heid ... dinnae be silly.

I am and always have been in the Yes camp .......... As far as I can see the folk running the Better together campaign are our biggest asset, not least of all the scaremongering, threatening, patronising Daily Mail http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/thumbs%20up.gif

I also find it interesting that with all of the big hitters the Better together folk claim to have on side they cant match a paltry 3 million quid ...... perhaps their commitment to the cause doesn't extend to their wallets

[CropleyWasGod]

Westminster exercises control over constitutional matters, UK defence and national security, UK foreign policy, immigration & nationality, UK economic & monetary policy, energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear power, employment legislation, social security, various aspects of transport, including railways, safety and regulation, and it also oversees matters of data protection, broadcasting, gambling and even the National Lottery - it's not quite really redundant is it?

I'm all for devolving power throughout the regions of the UK, mainly to benefit the regions and spread some of the wealth and influence around the country - too much is concentrated in Westminster/London much to the detriment of other parts of the UK. I believe devolution and devolved powers to further regions would strengthen the UK, but independence will only weaken the UK and probably present Scotland with problems it may find to be insurmountable ...

... an example of a country well run with a mixture of devolved and centralised powers is the one I've lived in most of my life ... it's not a bad concept, a republic!

Didn't suggest that it was redundant, and I know it isn't, of course. In a way, I am trying to provoke debate on the current worth of Westminster to the general population of Scotland.

In your (comprehensive, thank you) list, you mention economic policy and defence. One might argue that those decisions are taken elsewhere these days.

[Northernhibee]

I keep hearing how the no campaign is supposedly negative and fearmongerers - it's a load of tripe.

I believe strongly that a Tory government is no good for Britain - last two elections I have voted Socialist.

Soon we will get an opportunity to vote the Conservatives out. The last few years have been a bit of a trough for the UK as we have seen the global credit crunch and recession create tension. It's true that the majority of Scotland did not vote for the Tories - but the majority of the rest of the UK did not vote Tory either! The yes campaign do not have a plan as to how they'd stop an anomality like that happening again as it can happen in the vast majority of democratic voting set-ups. To suggest that Scotland would be different is nonsense.

As a No voter I am very proud of Scotland and Scotland's unique identity and to suggest that we aren't a strong enough nation to stand on our own two feet and assert that as part of the UK is offensive to me. We are a fantastic country of compassion and understanding and as long as I can remember have worked together with the UK to move forward and improve ourselves. We give as much as we take and both Scotland and the UK is stronger for our identity. We already have localized government in Hollyrood but have the backup of being part of the highly respected UK and part of the largest trading market in the world, the EU. Scotland is well liked in the United Kingdom and well liked in the European Union, the United Kingdom certainly isn't 'cramping our style' for want of a better phrase.

If Scotland votes no in the referendum and we get devolution plus we will have even more power to decide our own destiny without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, the Tories are terrible but not only do Scotland want the Tories out but so do most other people within the UK as well. To suggest that we throw away the strong identity of Scotland that we have built over the last decades and centuries as part of the UK that we can be proud of because the Tories are in power is ridiculous.

The no campaign are interested in what brings us together, in working together to build a better, stronger Scotland through improved trading opportunities and to bringing extra powers to Hollyrood through devolution plus, to give us more opportunities to decide who represents us in Hollyrood, in Westminster and in Brussels. We want the power of choice, we want the power of localized government and we want to ensure that we continue to be a proud nation as part of a proud UK and proud EU.

To suggest that is anything other than positive is ludicrous.

[Scouse Hibee]

Serious question................I wonder how many folk will allow their dislike of everything English to be the only factor in making their decision to vote YES

[Peevemor]

Serious question................I wonder how many folk will allow their dislike of everything English to be the only factor in making their decision to vote YES

In any election or referendum, a great many people vote without having a scooby what they're voting for.

[Mr White]

Serious question................I wonder how many folk will allow their dislike of everything English to be the only factor in making their decision to vote YES

Everytime the english commentators mention 1966 during the world cup, the gap between yes and no will narrow... the further you get, independence becomes more likely :greengrin

[Glory Lurker]

Serious question................I wonder how many folk will allow their dislike of everything English to be the only factor in making their decision to vote YES


Serious answer - really not very many.

[Northernhibee]

I also feel that the fact that a Tory government is in Westminster just now is influencing a lot of people and has given the Yes campaign a lot to scaremonger about. We will soon get a chance to vote them out and the majority of people in the UK do not want the Tories in power. That's democracy in action.

[Phil D. Rolls]

We are now 17 years on, though.

Now that we have our own parliament, the question of "what is Westminster for?" (which is the main thrust of my post) is much more relevant IMO.

I'm not arguing one way or another. I am asking the question.

When you consider how much London has grown the answer is probably obvious.

[degenerated]

I also feel that the fact that a Tory government is in Westminster just now is influencing a lot of people and has given the Yes campaign a lot to scaremonger about. We will soon get a chance to vote them out and the majority of people in the UK do not want the Tories in power. That's democracy in action.

The vast majority of Scotland have never wanted them, yet we seem to suffer their social and economic vandalism far too often. What's democratic about that.

[Northernhibee]

The vast majority of Scotland have never wanted them, yet we seem to suffer their social and economic vandalism far too often. What's democratic about that.

That as part of the UK elections everyone gets the opportunity to vote and the party that wins the most seats wins the election.

Basic democracy in action.

[degenerated]

That as part of the UK elections everyone gets the opportunity to vote and the party that wins the most seats wins the election.

Basic democracy in action.

Except that a whole country has effectively no part in the decision making process as to how it's governed and by whom.

[Northernhibee]

Except that a whole country has effectively no part in the decision making process as to how it's governed and by whom.

Garbage, Scotland gets to vote in the UK elections too. On that argument should Newcastle be pushing for independence too?

[steakbake]

When you consider how much London has grown the answer is probably obvious.

In the future, it will make sense for London to have full devolution.

[degenerated]

When did Newcastle become a country?

[Northernhibee]

When did Newcastle become a country?
They're still an area that by your logic doesn't decide who gets power, what's the difference?

If Scotland didn't get to vote in the UK elections you'd have a point, otherwise you don't.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Serious question................I wonder how many folk will allow their dislike of everything English to be the only factor in making their decision to vote YES

Serious question.... Why do the English constantly think we are concerned with what they think?

[stoneyburn hibs]

I also feel that the fact that a Tory government is in Westminster just now is influencing a lot of people and has given the Yes campaign a lot to scaremonger about. We will soon get a chance to vote them out and the majority of people in the UK do not want the Tories in power. That's democracy in action.

Disney matter who we vote for in a UK election in Scotland, that's democracy NOT in action.

[Just Alf]

They're still an area that by your logic doesn't decide who gets power, what's the difference?

If Scotland didn't get to vote in the UK elections you'd have a point, otherwise you don't.

I think north east England should have some form of devolution/federal self government as well as Scotland .... Just because they aren't voting for a party that would give them that chance won't stop me taking the chance for Scotland. (I've already stated my preference is to remain in UK but have proper federalism with just Defence etc being centrally governed)

[allmodcons]

Garbage, Scotland gets to vote in the UK elections too. On that argument should Newcastle be pushing for independence too?

Unlike Scotland, there is no appetite for 'Independence' in Newcastle or for that matter the North East of England.

There is not even serious support for an assembly in the North East of England. In 2004 (48% turnout) 78% rejected the establishment of a regional assembly in the North East of England.

For you to draw comparisons with Scotland and Newcastle beggars belief.

Who's talking garbage?

[Beefster]

Except that a whole country has effectively no part in the decision making process as to how it's governed and by whom.

Over 35% of Scotland voted for the Lib Dems or Tories in 2010.

By comparison, 55% of Scots didn't vote for an SNP government in 2011.

I'm not sure the point you're making. Everyone gets a vote, everyone gets a say.

[Scouse Hibee]

Serious question.... Why do the English constantly think we are concerned with what they think?

We have a winner I just knew it wouldn't take long!

[degenerated]

Over 35% of Scotland voted for the Lib Dems or Tories in 2010.

By comparison, 55% of Scots didn't vote for an SNP government in 2011.

I'm not sure the point you're making. Everyone gets a vote, everyone gets a say.

But just under 65% decided they didn't want either of those parties. And in reality it was 83% of voters who didn't want the Tories as I'm sure few of the lib dem voters expected their shameless behaviour in aligning themselves to the Tories.


Whilst the 55% voted other than snp in 2011 the snp still polled 14% more than their closest rival so I have not a clue what comparison it is you are trying to make here. Scotland got the government it chose in that election, we got the government that the south of England chose for us in 2010.

[RyeSloan]

In any election or referendum, a great many people vote without having a scooby what they're voting for.

But uniquely in this one everyone is being asked to vote for something that no one has a scooby what they are actually voting for or against.

[Beefster]

But just under 65% decided they didn't want either of those parties. And in reality it was 83% of voters who didn't want the Tories as I'm sure few of the lib dem voters expected their shameless behaviour in aligning themselves to the Tories.


Whilst the 55% voted other than snp in 2011 the snp still polled 14% more than their closest rival so I have not a clue what comparison it is you are trying to make here. Scotland got the government it chose in that election, we got the government that the south of England chose for us in 2010.

You said 'a whole country' has no say in the decision-making process. I was pointing out that everyone had a vote and over a third of those actually voted for the current government. So your statement was patently false.

The majority of people didn't want an SNP Scottish government. Scotland voted for some type of coalition or minority government. We didn't get that.

I'm not complaining about either result btw. That's democracy. It's a bit inconsistent to be complaining about one result where a majority didn't vote for something and then defending another where the majority didn't vote for something though.

Incidentally, when you vote for a party, you're giving them a mandate to make decisions to get themselves in power. That's why the SNP went into coalition with the Tories in Dumfries and Galloway. Presumably that's shameful and means that the SNP can't be trusted?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18070305

[stoneyburn hibs]

We have a winner I just knew it wouldn't take long!

No really, you trot it out every once in a while.

[Saorsa]

But uniquely in this one everyone is being asked to vote for something that no one has a scooby what they are actually voting for or against.Really? I ken what I'm voting for thanks. It's the one thing for me trumps all the rest and I'll take what happens with the rest as it comes and I predict it winnae be the doomsday scenarios painted by the be tory together campaign. Plenty countries have gone their ain way recently, plenty countries prosper without a union with England. Scotland will have a currency, Scotland will have a vibrant economy, naebody (Europe or the rest of the world) will turn their backs on Scotland were there will be money tae be made. That only happens in the minds of westminster and unionist scaremongers. I will be voting YES and nothing anybody says or does will change that. I believe in Scotland as a nation and I believe that the Scottish people should control their ain affairs and their ain destiny, that's what matters tae me above all the rest and that's what I'm voting for.

You may no ken what you're voting for but stick tae speaking for yersel :aok:

[PeeJay]

... of course it would. Care tae tell us what these insurmountable problems would be that would be unique tae Scotland existing as a country that dinnae happen anywhere else in the world in any other country?


... Well, I might care to if you can point me to the part of my post in which I said the problems would be unique to Scotland and that they don't happen anywhere else? If you actually read my post, you will see that I didn't say that, did I?
Anyway ... first things first, there's a wee matter of football with them to deal with today, much more worrying matter than this ... :greengrin

[Saorsa]

That didnae read right (too early :greengrin ), pub for 11 so it'll need tae be later.



as you say there a fitba match tae be won and a team tae be supported :scarf: so I'll no be back 'til at least the morn.

[PeeJay]

That didnae read right (too early :greengrin ), pub for 11 so it'll need tae be later.



as you say there a fitba match tae be won and a team tae be supported :scarf: so I'll no be back 'til at least the morn.

:greengrin... and there was me trying to work out what you were meaning so I could reply ... enjoy the game ... hope my stream works... here's to a victory (3-1):flag:

[hibsbollah]

as you say there a fitba match tae be won and a team tae be supported :scarf: so I'll no be back 'til at least the morn.

Its a matter of record that Hibs have never lost a derby under an independent Scotland :agree: that should swing the floating voters. ..

[lucky]

CWU latest union to back the No campaign.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said: "We are recommending a 'no' vote to our Scottish members in September's Scottish Independence Referendum. This decision is based on a need for unity against austerity and the barrage of cuts from the Coalition Government and the SNP in Scotland.

[Saorsa]

CWU latest union to back the No campaign.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said: "We are recommending a 'no' vote to our Scottish members in September's Scottish Independence Referendum. This decision is based on a need for unity against austerity and the barrage of cuts from the Coalition Government and the SNP in Scotland.goodo

[Glory Lurker]

CWU latest union to back the No campaign.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said: "We are recommending a 'no' vote to our Scottish members in September's Scottish Independence Referendum. This decision is based on a need for unity against austerity and the barrage of cuts from the Coalition Government and the SNP in Scotland.


Is the CWU against re-nationalisation of the Royal Mail? Crazy times!

[lucky]

Is the CWU against re-nationalisation of the Royal Mail? Crazy times!

Daft question, but they have doubts over the SNP claims in the white paper over nationalisation of Royal Mail as it lacks detail. They made statements around universal postal service and cross border pensions. Further details on their website

[lucky]

goodo

As someone is clearly intelligent and has good grip of Vocabulary you do let yourself down with some of your posts. Like the fact you have taken time to change your username into Gaelic word for Freedom was think of changing mine to Aontacht: Unity

[Saorsa]

As someone is clearly intelligent and has good grip of Vocabulary you do let yourself down with some of your posts. Like the fact you have taken time to change your username into Gaelic word for Freedom was think of changing mine to Aontacht: UnityI had a reply typed out for this, it was an honest reply, it was a fair one too, I hope.​But i clicked on the X button on the tab and closed it by mistake. I'll have a go again tomorrow if I mind. The gist of it was about agreeing tae disagree and hoping that we can all live with the result however it goes. I dinnae think I'm an unreasonable person, I just have my views, I doubt they'll ever change. It's a passionate subject, I said/say things I shouldnae, I may dae it again, I cannae promise otherwise (that would be a lie) I'm no unique in that I dinnae think, others dae it as well, I guess we'll see where it goes.

[lucky]

I had a reply typed out for this, it was an honest reply, it was a fair one too, I hope.​But i clicked on the X button on the tab and closed it by mistake. I'll have a go again tomorrow if I mind. The gist of it was about agreeing tae disagree and hoping that we can all live with the result however it goes. I dinnae think I'm an unreasonable person, I just have my views, I doubt they'll never change. It's a passionate subject, I said/say things I shouldnae, I may dae it again, I cannae promise otherwise (that would be a lie) I'm no unique in that I dinnae think, others dae it as well, I guess we'll see where it goes.

Great post, it's something we all can agree on. We all want a fairer mor just country just have a different view on how that can be achieved. Come the 19/9/14 we must move forward together. If it's a Yes, I'll be campaigning supporting for the best settlement we can get. If it's a No, then the fight goes on for more powers to Scotland and trying to get a fairer just UK

[JeMeSouviens]

CWU latest union to back the No campaign.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said: "We are recommending a 'no' vote to our Scottish members in September's Scottish Independence Referendum. This decision is based on a need for unity against austerity and the barrage of cuts from the Coalition Government and the SNP in Scotland.

It's a bit unfair to blame the SNP for austerity cuts when they don't control their budget? (Other than have the option to vary income tax in a manner so inefficient that nobody, Lab or Nat, has ever used it.)

[RyeSloan]

Really? I ken what I'm voting for thanks. It's the one thing for me trumps all the rest and I'll take what happens with the rest as it comes and I predict it winnae be the doomsday scenarios painted by the be tory together campaign. Plenty countries have gone their ain way recently, plenty countries prosper without a union with England. Scotland will have a currency, Scotland will have a vibrant economy, naebody (Europe or the rest of the world) will turn their backs on Scotland were there will be money tae be made. That only happens in the minds of westminster and unionist scaremongers. I will be voting YES and nothing anybody says or does will change that. I believe in Scotland as a nation and I believe that the Scottish people should control their ain affairs and their ain destiny, that's what matters tae me above all the rest and that's what I'm voting for. You may no ken what you're voting for but stick tae speaking for yersel :aok:

The definition what the independent country is in relation to the question in the vote is where?

You are clearly in favour of controlling out own destiny, whatever that means, yet how can that ever be the case in a monetary union? A monetary union that may or may not happen btw. How can that be the case within the confines of the EU? A member of which we may or may not be. The list of unknowns regarding what independence actually means in the context being put to the vote is vast and largely unanswered or unanswerable until after the vote...that's what I meant by no one, not even the most ardent YES voter, having any scooby as to what their vote will actually mean on the day they cast their vote.

[marinello59]

The definition what the independent country is in relation to the question in the vote is where?

You are clearly in favour of controlling out own destiny, whatever that means, yet how can that ever be the case in a monetary union? A monetary union that may or may not happen btw. How can that be the case within the confines of the EU? A member of which we may or may not be. The list of unknowns regarding what independence actually means in the context being put to the vote is vast and largely unanswered or unanswerable until after the vote...that's what I meant by no one, not even the most ardent YES voter, having any scooby as to what their vote will actually mean on the day they cast their vote.

It will mean that any decisions to be made about currency, EU membership etc will be made by ourselves and negotiations entered in to on that basis. Voting Yes on it's own changes nothing, it will simply be the starting point.

[JeMeSouviens]

The definition what the independent country is in relation to the question in the vote is where?

You are clearly in favour of controlling out own destiny, whatever that means, yet how can that ever be the case in a monetary union? A monetary union that may or may not happen btw. How can that be the case within the confines of the EU? A member of which we may or may not be. The list of unknowns regarding what independence actually means in the context being put to the vote is vast and largely unanswered or unanswerable until after the vote...that's what I meant by no one, not even the most ardent YES voter, having any scooby as to what their vote will actually mean on the day they cast their vote.

Fundamentally it's about sovereignty.

At the moment, Scotland has none. We have achieved a very unlikely self determination by a convoluted route involving the SNP winning an overall majority in a parliament designed to stop them doing so and the Tories granting a referendum only because they thought they could tactically squeeze it into a Yes/No binary that they couldn't lose and shut down Scottish nationalism for the foreseeable. Oops.

The point is that we have no right to this vote and if we vote "No" we may never get another chance, even if political pressure for it were to build again in the same way.

Compare to the UK in the EU: the UK has voluntarily pooled a certain amount of sovereignty with the other members but, crucially, retains the power to withdraw at any time. Scotland in a monetary union with rUK would be the same. Anyway, it's a far cry from being constrained by a monetary framework that necessitates agreeing sensible fiscal limits to entirely subsuming your country into a heavily centralised unitary state.

[ronaldo7]

It's to stop this happening, again, and again, and again.

When we are at the top table, we can then speak for ourselves instead of someone forgetting what was agreed.:rolleyes:

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9108-uk-minister-admits-breaking-gm-crops-agreement-with-scottish-government

[RyeSloan]

It will mean that any decisions to be made about currency, EU membership etc will be made by ourselves and negotiations entered in to on that basis. Voting Yes on it's own changes nothing, it will simply be the starting point.

That's kind of my point....a yes vote merely starts a ball rolling but no one has any idea where the ball will end up or the consequences of the route it will take.

I totally get why people will vote for that but it doesn't detract from the point that no one can actually say what a yes vote will actually end up resulting in or indeed (to reference another response) how much sovereignty will be gained.

Probably my ignorance but has there been any promise on the people getting a vote on approving a final negotiated position following a yes vote in September?

[Ross4356]

I keep hearing how the no campaign is supposedly negative and fearmongerers - it's a load of tripe.

I believe strongly that a Tory government is no good for Britain - last two elections I have voted Socialist.

Soon we will get an opportunity to vote the Conservatives out. The last few years have been a bit of a trough for the UK as we have seen the global credit crunch and recession create tension. It's true that the majority of Scotland did not vote for the Tories - but the majority of the rest of the UK did not vote Tory either! The yes campaign do not have a plan as to how they'd stop an anomality like that happening again as it can happen in the vast majority of democratic voting set-ups. To suggest that Scotland would be different is nonsense.

As a No voter I am very proud of Scotland and Scotland's unique identity and to suggest that we aren't a strong enough nation to stand on our own two feet and assert that as part of the UK is offensive to me. We are a fantastic country of compassion and understanding and as long as I can remember have worked together with the UK to move forward and improve ourselves. We give as much as we take and both Scotland and the UK is stronger for our identity. We already have localized government in Hollyrood but have the backup of being part of the highly respected UK and part of the largest trading market in the world, the EU. Scotland is well liked in the United Kingdom and well liked in the European Union, the United Kingdom certainly isn't 'cramping our style' for want of a better phrase.

If Scotland votes no in the referendum and we get devolution plus we will have even more power to decide our own destiny without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, the Tories are terrible but not only do Scotland want the Tories out but so do most other people within the UK as well. To suggest that we throw away the strong identity of Scotland that we have built over the last decades and centuries as part of the UK that we can be proud of because the Tories are in power is ridiculous.

The no campaign are interested in what brings us together, in working together to build a better, stronger Scotland through improved trading opportunities and to bringing extra powers to Hollyrood through devolution plus, to give us more opportunities to decide who represents us in Hollyrood, in Westminster and in Brussels. We want the power of choice, we want the power of localized government and we want to ensure that we continue to be a proud nation as part of a proud UK and proud EU.

To suggest that is anything other than positive is ludicrous.

Just to clarify you are saying the Better Together campaign has NOT been negative or scaremongering?

[ronaldo7]

CWU latest union to back the No campaign.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said: "We are recommending a 'no' vote to our Scottish members in September's Scottish Independence Referendum. This decision is based on a need for unity against austerity and the barrage of cuts from the Coalition Government and the SNP in Scotland.


Taken from the link below.

Although CWU is backing No at a national British level, branches across the country can take their own position. The Scotland Number Two branch, based in Edinburgh, decided to back Yes Scotland at its AGM in March – and will be campaigning for Yes in the months running up to the referendum.

Sensible lads/lassies those Auld Reekie Posties.

http://tradeunionsforyes.net/2014/04/28/cwu-member-my-unions-reasons-for-supporting-no-are-vague-to-say-the-least/

[Ross4356]

That's kind of my point....a yes vote merely starts a ball rolling but no one has any idea where the ball will end up or the consequences of the route it will take.

I totally get why people will vote for that but it doesn't detract from the point that no one can actually say what a yes vote will actually end up resulting in or indeed (to reference another response) how much sovereignty will be gained.

Probably my ignorance but has there been any promise on the people getting a vote on approving a final negotiated position following a yes vote in September?

No and I don't believe this has ever been seriously put forward

[JeMeSouviens]

That's kind of my point....a yes vote merely starts a ball rolling but no one has any idea where the ball will end up or the consequences of the route it will take.

I totally get why people will vote for that but it doesn't detract from the point that no one can actually say what a yes vote will actually end up resulting in or indeed (to reference another response) how much sovereignty will be gained.

Probably my ignorance but has there been any promise on the people getting a vote on approving a final negotiated position following a yes vote in September?

How much sovereignty will be gained - 100%. Your question is really how much will then be shared with external partners such as rUK or the EU? However, no matter how much or how little, it will always remain 100% in our hands to decide how much or how little is shared with whoever at whatever time.

I believe the final section of the Edinburgh agreement, "decisive and respected outcome", is intended to rule out calls for a further referendum post-Yes and negotiation from the Unionist side or a post-No neverendum style follow up from the Nats.


Co-operation
30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the
Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of
mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two
governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum
that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are
committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it
is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Glory Lurker]

Northernhibee, nice to get a temperate view from you on the subject for once :greengrin:aok:


I keep hearing how the no campaign is supposedly negative and fearmongerers - it's a load of tripe.

I believe strongly that a Tory government is no good for Britain - last two elections I have voted Socialist.

Soon we will get an opportunity to vote the Conservatives out. The last few years have been a bit of a trough for the UK as we have seen the global credit crunch and recession create tension. It's true that the majority of Scotland did not vote for the Tories - but the majority of the rest of the UK did not vote Tory either! True, but if only 16% of the UK voted Tory (as Scotland did) there would be no chance of a Tory government. The UK figure was double that. Agreed, that's still less than 50% (!), but first past the post is also a problem. That's not going to go away. The yes campaign do not have a plan as to how they'd stop an anomality like that happening again as it can happen in the vast majority of democratic voting set-ups. To suggest that Scotland would be different is nonsense This is an interesting one. Nobody is saying that Tories could never get in in Scotland, it just looks almost impossible due to their unpopularity. However, if Scotland wants a Tory government, it'll get a Tory government. That's the big difference. Independence gives us control over who governs us. (I hope it's not the Tories, too!)

As a No voter I am very proud of Scotland and Scotland's unique identity and to suggest that we aren't a strong enough nation to stand on our own two feet and assert that as part of the UK is offensive to me Is anyone saying this? Is the argument not the opposite - we are giving more to the UK than we get back, both financially and democratically? We are a fantastic country of compassion and understanding and as long as I can remember have worked together with the UK to move forward and improve ourselves. We give as much as we take and both Scotland and the UK is stronger for our identity. We already have localized government in Hollyrood but have the backup of being part of the highly respected UK and part of the largest trading market in the world, the EU. We'd still be part of the EU. I am not sure how respected the UK is across the world (we're not too popular in the EU), but I don't think it's relevant - even if the UK is respected, how does that help people in Scotland? Scotland is well liked in the United Kingdom and well liked in the European Union, the United Kingdom certainly isn't 'cramping our style' for want of a better phrase.

If Scotland votes no in the referendum and we get devolution plus we will have even more power to decide our own destiny without throwing the baby out with the bathwater There is no guarantee at all that we'll get any more devolution. There is no package on offer. Even if the unionist parties could overcome their big differences (internally as well as between each other) about what should be offered, we'd still be relying on the proposal surviving the Westminster process. It's not going to happen. Yes, the Tories are terrible but not only do Scotland want the Tories out but so do most other people within the UK as well. To suggest that we throw away the strong identity of Scotland that we have built over the last decades and centuries as part of the UK that we can be proud of because the Tories are in power is ridiculous. Our identity could only be enhanced if we choose independence. The Tory-avoidance argument is only one of loads of reasons to vote "Yes". It is by no means the only reason to go for it!

The no campaign are interested in what brings us together, in working together to build a better, stronger Scotland through improved trading opportunities Where and how is this being offered? and to bringing extra powers to Hollyrood through devolution plus They're not..., to give us more opportunities to decide who represents us in Hollyrood, in Westminster and in Brussels How?. We want the power of choice, we want the power of localized government and we want to ensure that we continue to be a proud nation as part of a proud UK and proud EU.

To suggest that is anything other than positive is ludicrous.

[ronaldo7]

I missed this when it was announced.

The Independent living fund for disabled people, enabling them live in the community rather than residential care.

It is being closed by the UK Government in 2015.

The Scottish Government will keep the fund running after this date and re-open it to new users.

One of the many reasons why I'm voting YES.

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scottish-Independent-Living-Fund-b69.aspx

[RyeSloan]

How much sovereignty will be gained - 100%. Your question is really how much will then be shared with external partners such as rUK or the EU? However, no matter how much or how little, it will always remain 100% in our hands to decide how much or how little is shared with whoever at whatever time. I believe the final section of the Edinburgh agreement, "decisive and respected outcome", is intended to rule out calls for a further referendum post-Yes and negotiation from the Unionist side or a post-No neverendum style follow up from the Nats.

Ahh ok so we get a vote on an undefined concept but no vote on the defined outcome. Great.

[allmodcons]

I keep hearing how the no campaign is supposedly negative and fearmongerers - it's a load of tripe.

“A load of tripe” – You seriously believe that the No campaign has been positive and (to date) has not concentrated on scaremongering and negativity? If so, you must be in a minority of 1.


I believe strongly that a Tory government is no good for Britain - last two elections I have voted Socialist.

You voted Socialist at the last 2 elections? The only ‘Socialist’ parties I know of support Independence (i.e. - SSP and SPS). If you meant to say you voted Labour, then you really are having a laugh calling them Socialist.


Soon we will get an opportunity to vote the Conservatives out. The last few years have been a bit of a trough for the UK as we have seen the global credit crunch and recession create tension. It's true that the majority of Scotland did not vote for the Tories - but the majority of the rest of the UK did not vote Tory either! The yes campaign do not have a plan as to how they'd stop an anomality like that happening again as it can happen in the vast majority of democratic voting set-ups. To suggest that Scotland would be different is nonsense.

The most recent UK polls are suggesting that this is highly unlikely. Of course, we could all vote Labour and get the ‘Socialist’ Government you crave. Their record in Government for the 13 years from 1997 – 2010 speaks volumes of their socialist credentials under that great left wing thinker, Tony Blair. Maybe this time round they’ll get rid of that pillar of the establishment and pinnacle of the class system, the unelected House of Lords.


As a No voter I am very proud of Scotland and Scotland's unique identity and to suggest that we aren't a strong enough nation to stand on our own two feet and assert that as part of the UK is offensive to me. We are a fantastic country of compassion and understanding and as long as I can remember have worked together with the UK to move forward and improve ourselves. We give as much as we take and both Scotland and the UK is stronger for our identity. We already have localized government in Hollyrood but have the backup of being part of the highly respected UK and part of the largest trading market in the world, the EU. Scotland is well liked in the United Kingdom and well liked in the European Union, the United Kingdom certainly isn't 'cramping our style' for want of a better phrase.

Why would any of this change in an iScotland? IMO we’d still be part of the EU. With regard to your comments about the UK being highly respected in the EU, I'm afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree there.


If Scotland votes no in the referendum and we get devolution plus we will have even more power to decide our own destiny without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, the Tories are terrible but not only do Scotland want the Tories out but so do most other people within the UK as well. To suggest that we throw away the strong identity of Scotland that we have built over the last decades and centuries as part of the UK that we can be proud of because the Tories are in power is ridiculous.

Nobody is offering what you call devolution plus. To add insult to injury we have the latest offer (muddle) on ‘more powers’ from the Labour Party!! Would you care to explain to me how these proposals are going to work in practice and, perhaps, elaborate as to how they’ll get past Westminster?

Scottish identity is not enhanced by being part of the UK it is diminished. Are you arguing that the creation of an Independent Scotland would diminish Scottish identity?

Getting rid of the Tories is, for me, one very good reason for voting Yes, but it is by no means the only reason.


The no campaign are interested in what brings us together, in working together to build a better, stronger Scotland through improved trading opportunities and to bringing extra powers to Hollyrood through devolution plus, to give us more opportunities to decide who represents us in Hollyrood, in Westminster and in Brussels. We want the power of choice, we want the power of localized government and we want to ensure that we continue to be a proud nation as part of a proud UK and proud EU.

To suggest that is anything other than positive is ludicrous.

Can you please substantiate these comments with some hard facts (i.e. – Where’s the evidence of improved trading opportunities? Where’s the evidence of extra powers? What exactly is, and who is offering, ‘Devolution Plus’? Who’s proposing to give us more opportunities on deciding who represents us in Scotland, the UK and the EU?) or can I assume these are just some of things you’d like to see as an individual, not something on offer from any political party, but just your own take on what you HOPE might happen in the event of a No vote.

[Mibbes Aye]

I missed this when it was announced.

The Independent living fund for disabled people, enabling them live in the community rather than residential care.

It is being closed by the UK Government in 2015.

The Scottish Government will keep the fund running after this date and re-open it to new users.

One of the many reasons why I'm voting YES.

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scottish-Independent-Living-Fund-b69.aspx


Your post isn't accurate.

The ILF is UK-wide and is being closed down, but the funding and decision-making about allocating the monies is being devolved, in Scotland to the SG and in England to the local authorities.

[ronaldo7]

Your post isn't accurate.

The ILF is UK-wide and is being closed down, but the funding and decision-making about allocating the monies is being devolved, in Scotland to the SG and in England to the local authorities.

The Independent Living Fund (ILF) is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body
of the Department for Work and Pensions. It was created in 1988 when direct
payments could not be made by local authorities to enable disabled people to
purchase their own support.
Due to changes within the adult care system, the ILF will be closing on 30 June 2015.
From 1 July 2015, the funding and responsibility of your ILF care and
support needs will transfer to local authorities in England and the devolved
administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We will continue to support you until June 2015, providing you still meet our
conditions.

According to the link in my previous post the funding is being devolved and added to by £5.5M. It has been closed to new users since 2010 and will now be re-opened to new users when the SG get the go ahead in 2015.

[Mibbes Aye]

The Independent Living Fund (ILF) is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body
of the Department for Work and Pensions. It was created in 1988 when direct
payments could not be made by local authorities to enable disabled people to
purchase their own support.
Due to changes within the adult care system, the ILF will be closing on 30 June 2015.
From 1 July 2015, the funding and responsibility of your ILF care and
support needs will transfer to local authorities in England and the devolved
administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We will continue to support you until June 2015, providing you still meet our
conditions.

Which is a long-winded copy'n'paste version of what I said :greengrin

The inference from your original post was that it was being shut down by the UK Government but the Scottish Government had decided to keep it going. The reality is that the UK Government is devolving it, both in Scotland and England.

[ronaldo7]

Which is a long-winded copy'n'paste version of what I said :greengrin

The inference from your original post was that it was being shut down by the UK Government but the Scottish Government had decided to keep it going. The reality is that the UK Government is devolving it, both in Scotland and England.

And the extra £5.5M for new users in Scotland??:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

And the extra £5.5M for new users in Scotland??:greengrin

It risks going off-topic but I think the £5.5m being added to this new Scottish ILF (SILF) raises more questions than answers.

First of all, the reality is that since the late eighties and increasingly from the late nineties there has been a shift away from residential care for people with disabilities, towards models where people have tenancies. This is to the extent that in many local authorities, residential care provision is minimal. In part this isn't just about the philosophy of supporting people to be more independent - it is generally cheaper for the public purse to support someone in a tenancy, even if they have relatively complex needs. In short, where people are in residential care it's more likely that this reflects that they have very complex needs that can only adequately be met in a residential care setting.

What the article doesn't illustrate is whether English local authorities are putting new money into ILF or not - I wouldn't be surprised if some put far more in pro rata, conversely some may not. Regardless, it would be misleading because local authorities have a responsibility to meet the needs of people with disabilities within a framework of eligibility criteria and if funding wasn't coming through ILF it would have to be met from local authority budgets, if the purpose was to avoid the use of residential care.

I think the big question is around these local authority budgets, given how tightly-squeezed they are from the growing gap between what councils have to spend and what demands there are on their services. Scottish Government has enforced a Council Tax freeze that exacerbates this budget gap but for which they take credit - many would argue that the Council Tax freeze benefits the affluent over the vulnerable, given they are more dependent on social care services.

With that in mind, why doesn't the Scottish Government distribute the £5.5m to the local authorities to supplement their social care budgets, rather than creating its own body, with its own administrative costs. SG has been accused of centralising power and control in the past and while I've never been overly convinced, this seems like a clear case.

The argument for reducing those additional administrative costs is all the more pertinent given what the £5.5m would actually achieve. Given the levels of need and consequent support required by people who are in residential care, this money wouldn't actually go that far, even if there was a local authority contribution. We are talking tens not hundreds IMO, and it will be less if money is being swallowed up to run this new structure, which doesn't seem to be needed and arguably is only being created to provide good publicity in the run-up to the referendum.

In short, I don't find it convincing.

[ronaldo7]

It risks going off-topic but I think the £5.5m being added to this new Scottish ILF (SILF) raises more questions than answers.

First of all, the reality is that since the late eighties and increasingly from the late nineties there has been a shift away from residential care for people with disabilities, towards models where people have tenancies. This is to the extent that in many local authorities, residential care provision is minimal. In part this isn't just about the philosophy of supporting people to be more independent - it is generally cheaper for the public purse to support someone in a tenancy, even if they have relatively complex needs. In short, where people are in residential care it's more likely that this reflects that they have very complex needs that can only adequately be met in a residential care setting.

What the article doesn't illustrate is whether English local authorities are putting new money into ILF or not - I wouldn't be surprised if some put far more in pro rata, conversely some may not. Regardless, it would be misleading because local authorities have a responsibility to meet the needs of people with disabilities within a framework of eligibility criteria and if funding wasn't coming through ILF it would have to be met from local authority budgets, if the purpose was to avoid the use of residential care.

I think the big question is around these local authority budgets, given how tightly-squeezed they are from the growing gap between what councils have to spend and what demands there are on their services. Scottish Government has enforced a Council Tax freeze that exacerbates this budget gap but for which they take credit - many would argue that the Council Tax freeze benefits the affluent over the vulnerable, given they are more dependent on social care services.

With that in mind, why doesn't the Scottish Government distribute the £5.5m to the local authorities to supplement their social care budgets, rather than creating its own body, with its own administrative costs. SG has been accused of centralising power and control in the past and while I've never been overly convinced, this seems like a clear case.

The argument for reducing those additional administrative costs is all the more pertinent given what the £5.5m would actually achieve. Given the levels of need and consequent support required by people who are in residential care, this money wouldn't actually go that far, even if there was a local authority contribution. We are talking tens not hundreds IMO, and it will be less if money is being swallowed up to run this new structure, which doesn't seem to be needed and arguably is only being created to provide good publicity in the run-up to the referendum.

In short, I don't find it convincing.

Fair comment.

[Beefster]

In preparation for independence, Salmond is sucking up to the right people. What a statesman.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-has-a-certain-admiration-for-putin-1-3390695

[southfieldhibby]

Your post isn't accurate.

The ILF is UK-wide and is being closed down, but the funding and decision-making about allocating the monies is being devolved, in Scotland to the SG and in England to the local authorities.

It's being closed, with the Scottish Govt stepping in to stop it's closure in Scotland by creating the Scottish Independent Living Fund.The rest of The UK have to rely on local authorities to make up the short fall, and most of them have already said they can't afford the additional strain on their budget...they're not getting additional funding from central govt.

This shows a distinct difference in priorities between Westminster and Holyrood, where we seem to be keen to continue helping the most vulnerable people in society and the current crop in Westminster looking to cast them off.It's the single most obvious reason to vote yes I've seen so far.

And those who condemn the decision with one sentence then back Better Together with the next are hypocritical in the extreme, as their No vote endorses this type of policy making....a system that will accept billions in tax avoidance but remove £400 million from societies weakest.Disgusting.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/independent-living-fund-disabled

[marinello59]

It's being closed, with the Scottish Govt stepping in to stop it's closure in Scotland by creating the Scottish Independent Living Fund.The rest of The UK have to rely on local authorities to make up the short fall, and most of them have already said they can't afford the additional strain on their budget...they're not getting additional funding from central govt.

This shows a distinct difference in priorities between Westminster and Holyrood, where we seem to be keen to continue helping the most vulnerable people in society and the current crop in Westminster looking to cast them off.It's the single most obvious reason to vote yes I've seen so far.

And those who condemn the decision with one sentence then back Better Together with the next are hypocritical in the extreme, as their No vote endorses this type of policy making....a system that will accept billions in tax avoidance but remove £400 million from societies weakest.Disgusting.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/independent-living-fund-disabled

Maybe the SNP administration could have dropped the Tory style Council Tax freeze and let the people who actually deliver the services control the budget and decide what's best. You know , devolving power instead of adding to the ever increasing list of centralist power grabs.
Yes to an independent Scotland, no to the SNP.

[green glory]

In preparation for independence, Salmond is sucking up to the right people. What a statesman. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-has-a-certain-admiration-for-putin-1-3390695

David Cameron appealed for Putin to oppose Scottish Independence. Distinctly worse I'm sure you'll agree.

[Beefster]

It's being closed, with the Scottish Govt stepping in to stop it's closure in Scotland by creating the Scottish Independent Living Fund.The rest of The UK have to rely on local authorities to make up the short fall, and most of them have already said they can't afford the additional strain on their budget...they're not getting additional funding from central govt.

This shows a distinct difference in priorities between Westminster and Holyrood, where we seem to be keen to continue helping the most vulnerable people in society and the current crop in Westminster looking to cast them off.It's the single most obvious reason to vote yes I've seen so far.

And those who condemn the decision with one sentence then back Better Together with the next are hypocritical in the extreme, as their No vote endorses this type of policy making....a system that will accept billions in tax avoidance but remove £400 million from societies weakest.Disgusting.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/independent-living-fund-disabled

That's two posters have said that (or similar) in the last day or so. I'd have thought that it is actually a very good advertisement for devolution.

[Hibrandenburg]

In preparation for independence, Salmond is sucking up to the right people. What a statesman.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-has-a-certain-admiration-for-putin-1-3390695

How in heaven's name can you construe that as sucking up?

I suppose if you only read the headline then you could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion but I can't believe anyone would be so thick as not to see through the weak attempt at trying to sell more newspapers by taking a whole conversation and highlighting a small part to fit their own agenda. What a sorry rag that is.

[Beefster]

How in heaven's name can you construe that as sucking up?

I suppose if you only read the headline then you could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion but I can't believe anyone would be so thick as not to see through the weak attempt at trying to sell more newspapers by taking a whole conversation and highlighting a small part to fit their own agenda. What a sorry rag that is.

I think I've been criticised before for taking light-hearted comments seriously.

I'm not thick enough to make sweeping generalisations about folk that I don't know though.

[RyeSloan]

How in heaven's name can you construe that as sucking up? I suppose if you only read the headline then you could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion but I can't believe anyone would be so thick as not to see through the weak attempt at trying to sell more newspapers by taking a whole conversation and highlighting a small part to fit their own agenda. What a sorry rag that is.

Yest he hardly condemns him does he...admiring him restoring Russian pride...by crushing political and media opponents, riding roughshod over human rights and stoking unrest in former USSR countries is hardly to be admired no matter what spin you put on it.

[lucky]

I think I've been criticised before for taking light-hearted comments seriously.

I'm not thick enough to make sweeping generalisations about folk that I don't know though.

It has been widely report by most media outlets so hardly have ago at the Scotsman. But it does appear anyone or anything that says against independence or Salmond gets shouted down and insulted

[marinello59]

How in heaven's name can you construe that as sucking up?

I suppose if you only read the headline then you could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion but I can't believe anyone would be so thick as not to see through the weak attempt at trying to sell more newspapers by taking a whole conversation and highlighting a small part to fit their own agenda. What a sorry rag that is.

Salmond has lapped up the praise that goes with being labelled the cleverest political operator in Scotland for years now. It's looked like his radar has been failing him for a while now though. No matter what the papers etc have said about this he has made a rather large political gaffe here so why shoot the messenger? I can only assume that you labelled those who revelled in Joan Lamont's 'wee things' gaffe, as too thick to see through the weak attempts to sell newspapers in that case as well.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think I've been criticised before for taking light-hearted comments seriously.

I'm not thick enough to make sweeping generalisations about folk that I don't know though.

Neither would I.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yest he hardly condemns him does he...admiring him restoring Russian pride...by crushing political and media opponents, riding roughshod over human rights and stoking unrest in former USSR countries is hardly to be admired no matter what spin you put on it.

Your words not his.

[Hibrandenburg]

Salmond has lapped up the praise that goes with being labelled the cleverest political operator in Scotland for years now. It's looked like his radar has been failing him for a while now though. No matter what the papers etc have said about this he has made a rather large political gaffe here so why shoot the messenger? I can only assume that you labelled those who revelled in Joan Lamont's 'wee things' gaffe, as too thick to see through the weak attempts to sell newspapers in that case as well.

The headline really does take liberties with what he actually said though or do you seriously believe that AS idolizes Putin?

[One Day Soon]

How in heaven's name can you construe that as sucking up?

I suppose if you only read the headline then you could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion but I can't believe anyone would be so thick as not to see through the weak attempt at trying to sell more newspapers by taking a whole conversation and highlighting a small part to fit their own agenda. What a sorry rag that is.

Hmm, a bullying narcissist with no real or effective opposition in a remorselessly centralising state obsessed by nationalist pride and not averse to running a rigged Referendum all the while painting the worst possible picture of his immediate neighbours as right wing nutters while interfering in their affairs and threatening to hold them to ransom over energy. Which is which again?

It is staggering, utterly staggering that he can express any admiration whatsoever given that he did so in the full knowledge of a) their brutal record on homosexual rights and institutionalised racism, b) a forced Referendum in a separate sovereign state stitched up so that both questions mean either separation or separation and c) the nature of their 'democratic' system.

What, exactly, does he admire about someone presiding over all this? How can anyone support his view on this?

[hibsbollah]

Hmm, a bullying narcissist with no real or effective opposition in a remorselessly centralising state obsessed by nationalist pride and not averse to running a rigged Referendum all the while painting the worst possible picture of his immediate neighbours as right wing nutters while interfering in their affairs and threatening to hold them to ransom over energy. Which is which again?

It is staggering, utterly staggering that he can express any admiration whatsoever given that he did so in the full knowledge of a) their brutal record on homosexual rights and institutionalised racism, b) a forced Referendum in a separate sovereign state stitched up so that both questions mean either separation or separation and c) the nature of their 'democratic' system.

What, exactly, does he admire about someone presiding over all this? How can anyone support his view on this?

An astonishingly stupid intervention from the jowly one. Even stating conditional admiration for Putin is ridiculous, given the current situation.

Im not sure if it will do him that much electoral damage though, especially if he insists he was deliberately misinterpreted by the nasty old Scotsman. However, He's got plenty of good headlines coming his way shortly; tonight's Panorama on the Care Home abuse scandal is a useful reminder of what a total shambles the deregulated anarchic English care system is, and the Nats will make plenty of capital out of it. Also UKIP are going to do spectacularly well in the euro elections down south in a few weeks, (voting intention polls today;UKIP 38% Labour 27% Tories 18%)raising the spectre of European isolationism at the worst possible time for the No campaign.

I think 'Yes' will be ahead in the polls by the end of May.

[One Day Soon]

An astonishingly stupid intervention from the jowly one. Even stating conditional admiration for Putin is ridiculous, given the current situation.

Im not sure if it will do him that much electoral damage though, especially if he insists he was deliberately misinterpreted by the nasty old Scotsman. However, He's got plenty of good headlines coming his way shortly; tonight's Panorama on the Care Home abuse scandal is a useful reminder of what a total shambles the deregulated anarchic English care system is, and the Nats will make plenty of capital out of it. Also UKIP are going to do spectacularly well in the euro elections down south in a few weeks, (voting intention polls today;UKIP 38% Labour 27% Tories 18%)raising the spectre of European isolationism at the worst possible time for the No campaign.

I think 'Yes' will be ahead in the polls by the end of May.


Since the start of the 'campaign' it has been a perfect storm for the Yes side in almost every regard. And yet they are still behind by 4 points.

Quite unbelievably Ed Miliband and Labour are in a stronger position in the polls to win the next UK election than Yes are to win the Referendum.

I doubt they will be ahead at the end of May. If they are I think they have a bigger problem than if they were three or four points behind. Being ahead would concentrate a lot of undecided minds. It is interesting that not all SNP voters appear to support independence.

[hibsbollah]

Since the start of the 'campaign' it has been a perfect storm for the Yes side in almost every regard. And yet they are still behind by 4 points.

Quite unbelievably Ed Miliband and Labour are in a stronger position in the polls to win the next UK election than Yes are to win the Referendum.

I doubt they will be ahead at the end of May. If they are I think they have a bigger problem than if they were three or four points behind. Being ahead would concentrate a lot of undecided minds. It is interesting that not all SNP voters appear to support independence.

I take the point about a Yes lead 'concentrating undecided minds'. You'd prefer to be on the shoulder of the front runner going into the last lap, than be struggling to hold on to a narrow lead (clumsy sporting metaphor warning). Still, it doesn't change the fact that the No campaign need to up their game. Something seismic is definitely happening with UKIP in England which might have a bigger influence than what happens politically up here.

[lucky]

If Scotland goes for independence does Scotland get more MEPs? I'm not overly keen on EU membership but having only 6 MEPs represent us seems very low.

[marinello59]

The headline really does take liberties with what he actually said though or do you seriously believe that AS idolizes Putin?

No I don't think he idolises Putin. Did somebody say that he did? It's a gaffe just like Lamont's was. Do you really believe that she thought Trident etc were insignificant matters?

Edit. The headline says 'A certain Admiration.'' Which he did express.

[marinello59]

If Scotland goes for independence does Scotland get more MEPs? I'm not overly keen on EU membership but having only 6 MEPs represent us seems very low.

Ireland has 12 MEPs if that could be taken as a guide.

[Alex Trager]

Never mind if salmond is admiring Putin cause it is a not a vote about salmond in September. People realise this and can do with salmond what they wish if they vote yes. Or indeed no

[JeMeSouviens]

No I don't think he idolises Putin. Did somebody say that he did? It's a gaffe just like Lamont's was. Do you really believe that she thought Trident etc were insignificant matters?

Edit. The headline says 'A certain Admiration.'' Which he did express.

To be fair, the interview was given before the Ukraine situation really developed, certainly well before Crimea and so on. Having said that, I don't personally buy the myth of Salmond being untouchable. By Holyrood standards maybe, but for all the Unionist parties, that's at least 2nd division.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's being closed, with the Scottish Govt stepping in to stop it's closure in Scotland by creating the Scottish Independent Living Fund.The rest of The UK have to rely on local authorities to make up the short fall, and most of them have already said they can't afford the additional strain on their budget...they're not getting additional funding from central govt.

This shows a distinct difference in priorities between Westminster and Holyrood, where we seem to be keen to continue helping the most vulnerable people in society and the current crop in Westminster looking to cast them off.It's the single most obvious reason to vote yes I've seen so far.



I'm sorry but your post is inaccurate and misleading too and frankly, I think it's offensive to try and make political capital out of mistruths about some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The money that was being spent on ILF is being given to English local authorities and to the Scottish Government. That is simply not the same as what you said in your opening paragraph.

There's actually a very good debate to be had about the impact of shifting ILF funding and whether it should sit with Scottish Government or the local authorities. It's a shame that in this case it seems some in the Yes campaign want to hijack it and turn it into anti-UK propaganda. I'm not sure what that says for their regard for people with disabilities.

[ronaldo7]

I'm sorry but your post is inaccurate and misleading too and frankly, I think it's offensive to try and make political capital out of mistruths about some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The money that was being spent on ILF is being given to English local authorities and to the Scottish Government. That is simply not the same as what you said in your opening paragraph.

There's actually a very good debate to be had about the impact of shifting ILF funding and whether it should sit with Scottish Government or the local authorities. It's a shame that in this case it seems some in the Yes campaign want to hijack it and turn it into anti-UK propaganda. I'm not sure what that says for their regard for people with disabilities.

My original post about ILF (although not worded well), was meant to bring to the attention of people viewing this thread that the SG were re-opening the scheme to "New Users". A decision that I, along with many other people will support and be thankful for.

It has been closed to "New users" since 2010 by the UK government.

The bit in bold is so far off the mark.

[Mibbes Aye]

My original post about ILF (although not worded well), was meant to bring to the attention of people viewing this thread that the SG were re-opening the scheme to "New Users". A decision that I, along with many other people will support and be thankful for.

It has been closed to "New users" since 2010 by the UK government.

The bit in bold is so far off the mark.

To be honest I don't think I was thinking of you when I typed it. You made your original post, I responded to it with my thoughts as to why it wasn't necessarily a good thing and you responded very fairly :aok:

[One Day Soon]

To be fair, the interview was given before the Ukraine situation really developed, certainly well before Crimea and so on. Having said that, I don't personally buy the myth of Salmond being untouchable. By Holyrood standards maybe, but for all the Unionist parties, that's at least 2nd division.


I'm afraid that's completely untrue. Salmond knew exactly what was going on in the Crimea when he gave the interview expressing his admiration for Putin.

The interview was on March 14th. The situation in Ukraine and Crimea had been developing since November of last year, if not before. By 14th March the rigged Crimean referendum had already had its two questions publicly set out in which both choices meant separation from Ukraine. When he gave those views he and all the rest of the world knew exactly what was going on in Crimea.

And that's not adddressing all the other issues going on in that country which people were equally well aware of.

[One Day Soon]

Never mind if salmond is admiring Putin cause it is a not a vote about salmond in September. People realise this and can do with salmond what they wish if they vote yes. Or indeed no

I have seen this view articulated several times now and it is clearly part of a very deliberate Yes strategy to try to divorce Salmond and the SNP from the choice in September. Presumably because he switches off a significant group of voters.

Given that.....

we are having this Referendum because of Salmond
his administration authored the White Paper on which we are supposed to make a judgment on how to vote
he would lead any separation negotiations
he is leading the Yes campaign (despite whatever may be said about the puppets in the formal campaign)
he is making the most visible speeches and calling all the major policy decisions
he would undoubtedly be the First Minister of initially a quasi independent and then a fully separate state
the Yes position on currency, EU, public finances and international relations/foreign policy are all a matter of simply his word - and therefore his judgement and trust in him - in the absence of anything concrete

.....I would say that this Referendum is absolutely a vote about Salmond as much as it is about separation.

To pretend otherwise is either to lie or, being charitable, to misunderstand.

[ronaldo7]

I have seen this view articulated several times now and it is clearly part of a very deliberate Yes strategy to try to divorce Salmond and the SNP from the choice in September. Presumably because he switches off a significant group of voters.

Given that.....

we are having this Referendum because of Salmond
his administration authored the White Paper on which we are supposed to make a judgment on how to vote
he would lead any separation negotiations
he is leading the Yes campaign (despite whatever may be said about the puppets in the formal campaign)
he is making the most visible speeches and calling all the major policy decisions
he would undoubtedly be the First Minister of initially a quasi independent and then a fully separate state
the Yes position on currency, EU, public finances and international relations/foreign policy are all a matter of simply his word - and therefore his judgement and trust in him - in the absence of anything concrete

.....I would say that this Referendum is absolutely a vote about Salmond as much as it is about separation.

To pretend otherwise is either to lie or, being charitable, to misunderstand.


We are having this referendum because the people of Scotland voted in an Independence party in a landslide victory. Your comment in bold only goes to confirm the point Mahone was making.

We've had the love bombing from dan saff, we've had the scare stories, we're now into the smear tactics.

A bit to go yet.

[One Day Soon]

We are having this referendum because the people of Scotland voted in an Independence party in a landslide victory. Your comment in bold only goes to confrim the point Mahone was making.

You are missing the point completely (or deliberately). Without Salmond there would have been no SNP majority.

We've had the love bombing from dan saff, we've had the scare stories, we're now into the smear tactics.

What smear tactics are you referring to?

A bit to go yet.

And I notice you have deliberately avoided addressing all the other points.

[Alex Trager]

I have seen this view articulated several times now and it is clearly part of a very deliberate Yes strategy to try to divorce Salmond and the SNP from the choice in September. Presumably because he switches off a significant group of voters.

Given that.....

we are having this Referendum because of Salmond
his administration authored the White Paper on which we are supposed to make a judgment on how to vote
he would lead any separation negotiations
he is leading the Yes campaign (despite whatever may be said about the puppets in the formal campaign)
he is making the most visible speeches and calling all the major policy decisions
he would undoubtedly be the First Minister of initially a quasi independent and then a fully separate state
the Yes position on currency, EU, public finances and international relations/foreign policy are all a matter of simply his word - and therefore his judgement and trust in him - in the absence of anything concrete

.....I would say that this Referendum is absolutely a vote about Salmond as much as it is about separation.

To pretend otherwise is either to lie or, being charitable, to misunderstand.


Well personally I think that is an extremely ignorant view to hold. Wherein all your points are excellent and spot on the money the fact is in two years time we could rid ourselves of salmond.

Salmond won't be here forever whereas the decision will be. That is the fundamental difference. That is the reason this is not a vote for SNP or Salmond.

Anyone that can't see that I feel for

[Alex Trager]

And I notice you have deliberately avoided addressing all the other points.

I grasp your reasoning about Salmond being the instigator that doesn't make it a vote for Salmond. As I said he can be gone as early as 2016. Just like he could be gone as early as 2016 in a No vote

[ronaldo7]

And I notice you have deliberately avoided addressing all the other points.

He's not a one man band, it's a movement:greengrin. BT have been having a go at him as they know he's not liked by a section of the country. It's politics. His comments were unwise to say the least, but let's not pretend you are not trying to drag him down with the many scare stories emanating from the MSM.

[easty]

We are having this referendum because the people of Scotland voted in an Independence party in a landslide victory. Your comment in bold only goes to confrim the point Mahone was making.

We've had the love bombing from dan saff, we've had the scare stories, we're now into the smear tactics.

A bit to go yet.

Exactly. A Yes vote isn't a vote for Salmond, it's a vote for independence.

There wil be Scottish parliament election in 2016, and that will determine who has the power in a (hopefully) independent Scotland.

To claim otherwise is a very poor attempt at argument.

[Beefster]

I have seen this view articulated several times now and it is clearly part of a very deliberate Yes strategy to try to divorce Salmond and the SNP from the choice in September. Presumably because he switches off a significant group of voters.


To claim otherwise is a very poor attempt at argument.

Yet it doesn't stop folk arguing with one breath "Don't vote based on Salmond/the SNP" before the next breath "Let's vote for independence and get rid of Gideon/Farage/Dave/etc".

[Hibrandenburg]

I have seen this view articulated several times now and it is clearly part of a very deliberate Yes strategy to try to divorce Salmond and the SNP from the choice in September. Presumably because he switches off a significant group of voters.

Given that.....

we are having this Referendum because of Salmond
his administration authored the White Paper on which we are supposed to make a judgment on how to vote
he would lead any separation negotiations
he is leading the Yes campaign (despite whatever may be said about the puppets in the formal campaign)
he is making the most visible speeches and calling all the major policy decisions
he would undoubtedly be the First Minister of initially a quasi independent and then a fully separate state
the Yes position on currency, EU, public finances and international relations/foreign policy are all a matter of simply his word - and therefore his judgement and trust in him - in the absence of anything concrete

.....I would say that this Referendum is absolutely a vote about Salmond as much as it is about separation.

To pretend otherwise is either to lie or, being charitable, to misunderstand.

Nice try!

[lucky]

Whilst the referendum is not directly about Salmond and the SNP in the event of a yes vote they would be the most likely to form the Scottish government. Therefore it's only correct to question both Salmond and the SNP policies. Whilst I accept that independence is for life the future of many lives will be effected by the settlement and the policies of the first government. I don't accept that people will vote independence then vote for different party. I believe it will be at least 10 years before we see a different Nationalist party and a different Labour Party. Whilst many in both have broadly similar views on a range of subjects, years of bitter political fighting will stop the formation of new Scottish parties. There are many on the left of the SNP that can't wait to ditch Salmond, Russell, Swinney. In fact John Mason MSP told a meeting I was at that the white paper was only for day 1 and left wing republicans plan huge changes. He did hint that Rossanne Cunningham would be their leader. Now that is a scary thought.

[easty]

Yet it doesn't stop folk arguing with one breath "Don't vote based on Salmond/the SNP" before the next breath "Let's vote for independence and get rid of Gideon/Farage/Dave/etc".

That in itself is a poor argument.

Anybody claiming a vote for independance is a vote for Salmond is just as wrong as anybody saying you should vote for independance in order to 'rid ourselves' of X, Y or Z.

I'll quite happily shoot someone down for being an idiot if they come across all pro-independence, but when you speak to them all they have to say is "I hate the tories".

[RyeSloan]

Your words not his.

His quoted words are "He&rsquo;s restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing."

I suggested a few ways in which Putin has managed that...there are plenty of others as well, all just as unsavoury as the rest.

I actually struggle to find anything good in the way Putin has went about restoring Russian pride or indeed the type of pride he is restoring. Yet Salmond is insisting that no matter what the outcome must be a good thing.

Putins reign in Russia, his manipulation and disregard of the law to suit his own objectives, his often brutal and suppressive regime and the outcome of that should be condemned not admired or considered a "good thing".

[hibsbollah]

His quoted words are "He&rsquo;s restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing."

I suggested a few ways in which Putin has managed that...there are plenty of others as well, all just as unsavoury as the rest.

I actually struggle to find anything good in the way Putin has went about restoring Russian pride or indeed the type of pride he is restoring. Yet Salmond is insisting that no matter what the outcome must be a good thing.

Putins reign in Russia, his manipulation and disregard of the law to suit his own objectives, his often brutal and suppressive regime and the outcome of that should be condemned not admired or considered a "good thing".

:agree:
To add to that:

'I think Putin's more effective than the press he's given'
'I can see why he carries support in Russia''
'He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing'.


The 'taken out of context' argument isnt going to wash. Worrying comments, regardless of how earlier sentences 'contextualised' them.
He knew what he was saying.

[Alex Trager]

Yet it doesn't stop folk arguing with one breath "Don't vote based on Salmond/the SNP" before the next breath "Let's vote for independence and get rid of Gideon/Farage/Dave/etc".

Both are a matter of fact. If you vote for independence you get rid if these guys. If you vote for independence you can also vote to get rid of salmond.

You could easily say let's vote yes to get rid of salmond.

I agree wherein it is narrow-minded to say that you will vote based on a person, but it is the reality of the situation. People come, or go, with a vote like this. However it must be stressed that it is a temporary thing. Hence why it is narrow-minded to vote either way due to a party/person.

[MyJo]

I have seen this view articulated several times now and it is clearly part of a very deliberate Yes strategy to try to divorce Salmond and the SNP from the choice in September. Presumably because he switches off a significant group of voters.

Given that.....

we are having this Referendum because of Salmond
his administration authored the White Paper on which we are supposed to make a judgment on how to vote
he would lead any separation negotiations
he is leading the Yes campaign (despite whatever may be said about the puppets in the formal campaign)
he is making the most visible speeches and calling all the major policy decisions
he would undoubtedly be the First Minister of initially a quasi independent and then a fully separate state
the Yes position on currency, EU, public finances and international relations/foreign policy are all a matter of simply his word - and therefore his judgement and trust in him - in the absence of anything concrete

.....I would say that this Referendum is absolutely a vote about Salmond as much as it is about separation.

To pretend otherwise is either to lie or, being charitable, to misunderstand.

1 we are having a referendum because the people of Scotland voted the SNP (a party founded on gaining independence for Scotland decades ago) into power at the last election.

2 it was made clear that the white paper was how an independent Scotland would operate in the result of a yes vote based on an SNP government. If we vote yes and elect labour into government after independence then the information in the white paper is irrelevant because labour would have their own policies they intend to implement but as the other parties in holyrood are so focused on a negative campaign of telling us how bad independence would be for Scotland they have not given any indication of what they would do if elected as the first independent Scottish government to compare to the white paper.

3 in the result of a yes vote then negotiations on separation from the uk would involve all of the Scottish parties to ensure the best deal for Scotland is achieved, this has also been made clear by salmond before.

4 your right, he is leading the yes campaign, he is the Scottish first minister and leader of a party that wants independence but your not being asked to vote on if you like Alex or Dave better or even who you want to run our country, simply if you would rather we went it alone or continued to be ruled from afar by a government we have little say in choosing in reality.

5 he is our first minister, he is the most high profile politican in Scotland so of course he is visible and making speeches, that's his bloody job. As for the policy decisions, they are only relevant if we stick with a SNP government post-separation so if you don't like his policies then vote for someone else and let them run our country or vote no and let Westminster decide on the policies we have?

6 he's going to be the first minister of a devolved Scottish government until the next election anyway, independence isn't going to change that fact but then he will only remain first minister if people vote for them, unless your worried salmond might instil a dictatorship over Scotland once we are independent?

7 we only have his word to go on because no other party is telling us what they would do or negotiate for if we vote yes, they are too focused on scaremongering and telling us how much worse off we will be or how we aren't capable of running the country by ourselves

[Hibrandenburg]

1 we are having a referendum because the people of Scotland voted the SNP (a party founded on gaining independence for Scotland decades ago) into power at the last election.

2 it was made clear that the white paper was how an independent Scotland would operate in the result of a yes vote based on an SNP government. If we vote yes and elect labour into government after independence then the information in the white paper is irrelevant because labour would have their own policies they intend to implement but as the other parties in holyrood are so focused on a negative campaign of telling us how bad independence would be for Scotland they have not given any indication of what they would do if elected as the first independent Scottish government to compare to the white paper.

3 in the result of a yes vote then negotiations on separation from the uk would involve all of the Scottish parties to ensure the best deal for Scotland is achieved, this has also been made clear by salmond before.

4 your right, he is leading the yes campaign, he is the Scottish first minister and leader of a party that wants independence but your not being asked to vote on if you like Alex or Dave better or even who you want to run our country, simply if you would rather we went it alone or continued to be ruled from afar by a government we have little say in choosing in reality.

5 he is our first minister, he is the most high profile politican in Scotland so of course he is visible and making speeches, that's his bloody job. As for the policy decisions, they are only relevant if we stick with a SNP government post-separation so if you don't like his policies then vote for someone else and let them run our country or vote no and let Westminster decide on the policies we have?

6 he's going to be the first minister of a devolved Scottish government until the next election anyway, independence isn't going to change that fact but then he will only remain first minister if people vote for them, unless your worried salmond might instil a dictatorship over Scotland once we are independent?

7 we only have his word to go on because no other party is telling us what they would do or negotiate for if we vote yes, they are too focused on scaremongering and telling us how much worse off we will be or how we aren't capable of running the country by ourselves


:top marksEspecially the bit in bold. Some would even have us believe we're in danger of becoming a Russian satellite state due to Eck's right wing Putin allegiance. :faf:

[Beefster]

Both are a matter of fact. If you vote for independence you get rid if these guys. If you vote for independence you can also vote to get rid of salmond.

You could easily say let's vote yes to get rid of salmond.

I agree wherein it is narrow-minded to say that you will vote based on a person, but it is the reality of the situation. People come, or go, with a vote like this. However it must be stressed that it is a temporary thing. Hence why it is narrow-minded to vote either way due to a party/person.

If you don't vote for independence, you can vote to get rid of the Tories.

[Alex Trager]

If you don't vote for independence, you can vote to get rid of the Tories.

True. However die to the size of our population it is unlikely that it will pass. Our vote has only been worthwhile every 4.5 times in the last eighteen votes. Staggering that anyone would vote no

[southfieldhibby]

It's being closed, with the Scottish Govt stepping in to stop it's closure in Scotland by creating the Scottish Independent Living Fund.The rest of The UK have to rely on local authorities to make up the short fall, and most of them have already said they can't afford the additional strain on their budget...they're not getting additional funding from central govt.




I'm sorry but your post is inaccurate and misleading too and frankly, I think it's offensive to try and make political capital out of mistruths about some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The money that was being spent on ILF is being given to English local authorities and to the Scottish Government. That is simply not the same as what you said in your opening paragraph.



OK, I've had another scout about after your reply to see if I could see anything that confirms that the funds from ILF is being distributed to local councils in England/Wales/NI instead of just being closed down.And I can't find anything to back up your statement,so I stand by my opinion that the ILF has been closed, the funding is not being given directly to local councils to use and my statement is correct and yours isn't, unless you can show me otherwise?

So, the Scottish Govt is funding SILF and English councils will have to either not provide it or source the funds from their existing budgets....imo.

[marinello59]

:top marksEspecially the bit in bold. Some would even have us believe we're in danger of becoming a Russian satellite state due to Eck's right wing Putin allegiance. :faf:

Absolutely nobody has said anything like that other then those who can't defend what our First Minister said so resort to ridiculing everybody else. Your glorious leader made a political gaffe, the type of thing you would happily jump all over if made by the leader of any other political party. Looks like many here are totally unable to concede that point.

[hibsbollah]

:top marksEspecially the bit in bold. Some would even have us believe we're in danger of becoming a Russian satellite state due to Eck's right wing Putin allegiance. :faf:

How DO you account for what he said about Russia? Or do you think he didnt say it all? :dunno:

[ronaldo7]

Absolutely nobody has said anything like that other then those who can't defend what our First Minister said so resort to ridiculing everybody else. Your glorious leader made a political gaffe, the type of thing you would happily jump all over if made by the leader of any other political party. Looks like many here are totally unable to concede that point.

When you agree to an interview with the sexed up dossier man, then you leave yourself open to interpretation. Salmond should have known better:agree:

I bet Alistair Campbell was on the blower to his mates straight after the interview asking when it should be released.:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Can any of the BT guys help out please.

I've been trying to find a meeting in which the BT people will put forward the case for the Union, and answer questions from the body of the kirk.

Do any of you guys know where I can find any??

I've been on the BT website and they are having canvassing stuff and telephone canvassing but no meetings.

I was at a Yes meeting last week(first time) which had a mixed audience, and it made for a healthy debate.

[Hibrandenburg]

Absolutely nobody has said anything like that other then those who can't defend what our First Minister said so resort to ridiculing everybody else. Your glorious leader made a political gaffe, the type of thing you would happily jump all over if made by the leader of any other political party. Looks like many here are totally unable to concede that point.

And statements like your glorious leader is not ridicule? Like already mentioned his statement has been taken fully out of context and I'm sure my glorious leader would love to explain himself but I doubt he'll be given the chance because that wouldn't help sell newspapers.

[Hibrandenburg]

How DO you account for what he said about Russia? Or do you think he didnt say it all? :dunno:

Not my job to account for what Salmond said, it's his. Doubt the Scotsman would be interested in his explanation though.

[hibsbollah]

Not my job to account for what Salmond said, it's his. Doubt the Scotsman would be interested in his explanation though.

Well you've got me there :greengrin I wasnt expecting that response.

If you honestly aren't a tiny bit intrigued as to what politicians say they believe in you may as well pick a name out of a hat and get any random man or woman to run the country. Or let the guys with the best guns do it.

[allmodcons]

Well you've got me there :greengrin I wasnt expecting that response.

If you honestly aren't a tiny bit intrigued as to what politicians say they believe in you may as well pick a name out of a hat and get any random man or woman to run the country. Or let the guys with the best guns do it.

This, from a pro Independence supporter, is written far more eloquently than I could manage but, for me, provides an alternative to the some of the ***** being served up by MSM. For the record, some of posts on here regarding Alex Salmond's comments about Putin are breathtakingly hypocritical. Have a check back through the Scottish Independence thread and see the constant moans and groans from Unionists whinging about Nationalists 'playing the man and not the ball' and then take a read of the comments made about Alex Salmond by his opponents. You really couldn't make it up.



For the record I am disgusted by the actions of Vladimir Putin. He manipulated the constitution to keep himself in power, he implicitly endorses the killing of journalists, he supresses gays and is both flouting international law and threatening a European war over Ukraine. If I were asked today for my view, that is what I would say with the caveat that his style of leadership plays to an instinct in the Russian psyche that warms to ‘strong’ leadership and feels more confident with him in the Kremlin.

Salmond may have slipped when he tried for balance in his reported remarks to GQ but does anyone think Salmond is anti-gay – having just brought in gay marriage – that he supresses opposition, silences journalists or threatens war? This retrospective tirade sounds like the last one…what was it?…his hotel expenses. I suspect that people who haven’t even read what he said are baying for blood because ‘he’s siding with Putin’.

I am I suppose being an apologist for him since, on reading his remarks, it is clear to me what he was trying to impart but you have to try to find the real meaning first. And the truth as we know is that across our media there is virtually no one prepared to do that. However, when that bias extends to ignoring George Roberton’s call for Putin and Russia to be included in NATO in order to treat them as a friendly nation in a formal defence alliance, you have wonder why not. Robertson is going much further than Salmond’s off-the-cuff remarks and proposing sharing our national defence so much do we trust Putin.

Why is there no mention of the British approach to Putin to back their fight against Scottish independence? That too goes much further than Salmond by proposing a political alliance with Putin. Are neither of these points relevant?

And in case you’ve forgotten, other leaders have been happy to endorse Vladimir more heartily than Salmond.

Tony Blair said he was ‘open and forward looking and a moderniser’. Obama says he did ‘extraordinary work’ for the Russian people. Sarkozy said he was a ‘courageous, determined man capable of accepting and understanding.’

And, sorry Vladimir, but here’s George Bush: ‘I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country…I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.’

What the current torrent of criticism reveals is a lack of even an attempt to understand what he was trying to say and in so doing further reveals the implied suggestion that Salmond agrees with Putin. Did anyone suggest that was the case with any of the above incidences of praise or requests for help from other people? Of course, not. They were just doing what statesmen do. But Salmond doesn’t qualify for membership of that club. In fact that’s exactly what Magnus Linklater wrote…not the words of a statesman. So, Magnus, George Robertson IS a statesman?

I think Salmond is the victim of his own success. If he wasn’t so good, they wouldn’t try so hard to bring him down. Nobody really bothers attacking Johann, do they? They just let her do it all by herself. The underlying message to Salmond is Do Nothing. Don’t Speak. Ignore the Media. Turn down Interviews. In other words, take the Russian option and suppress all opinions. Whatever you say becomes ammunition even as it leaves your mouth.

Pitiful, really.

[Hibrandenburg]

Well you've got me there :greengrin I wasnt expecting that response.

If you honestly aren't a tiny bit intrigued as to what politicians say they believe in you may as well pick a name out of a hat and get any random man or woman to run the country. Or let the guys with the best guns do it.

Of course I'm intrigued as to what politicians say, it's better than stand-up sometimes. :greengrin. What doesn't interest me is the construed interpretation of others who have their own agenda. Posting a link to an intentionally distorted newspaper report and then giving it the fantastical subtitle of "Salmond sucking up to Putin" really takes the level of this debate to a new low point. It's hard to take someone's point of view serious after posts like that but it's nothing new from the "Nut Campaign". :wink:

I'd also like to clarify my viewpoint on Salmond, I think he's a Yam fud who spouts a load of pish but also talks quite a lot of sense. It just happens that he's the leader of the campaign for independence and therefore an important vehicle to that end. Like many on here I believe he'll be dumped out on his erchie at the first Scottish general election.

[allmodcons]

Of course I'm intrigued as to what politicians say, it's better than stand-up sometimes. :greengrin. What doesn't interest me is the construed interpretation of others who have their own agenda. Posting a link to an intentionally distorted newspaper report and then giving it the fantastical subtitle of "Salmond sucking up to Putin" really takes the level of this debate to a new low point. It's hard to take someone's point of view serious after posts like that but it's nothing new from the "Nut Campaign". :wink:

I'd also like to clarify my viewpoint on Salmond, I think he's a Yam fud who spouts a load of pish but also talks quite a lot of sense. It just happens that he's the leader of the campaign for independence and therefore an important vehicle to that end. Like many on here I believe he'll be dumped out on his erchie at the first Scottish general election.

As a politician, I like Salmond :tin hat: .

Like any other human being, he's made, and will continue to make, mistakes but, in the scheme of things, his judgement is usually pretty good.

FWIW, I couldn't give a toss about his sporting allegiances.

If Scotland votes Yes, IMO he will be the first First Minister of an Independent Scotland.

[Hibrandenburg]

As a politician, I like Salmond :tin hat: .

Like any other human being, he's made, and will continue to make, mistakes but, in the scheme of things, his judgement is usually pretty good. '

FWIW, I couldn't give a toss about his sporting allegiances.

If Scotland votes Yes, IMO he will be the first First Minister of an Independent Scotland.

No need for the tin hat, I just can't stand his smug Yam pus. Apart from your views on sporting allegiances I could happily accept all your views in your post. :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Whilst the referendum is not directly about Salmond and the SNP in the event of a yes vote they would be the most likely to form the Scottish government. Therefore it's only correct to question both Salmond and the SNP policies. Whilst I accept that independence is for life the future of many lives will be effected by the settlement and the policies of the first government. I don't accept that people will vote independence then vote for different party. I believe it will be at least 10 years before we see a different Nationalist party and a different Labour Party. Whilst many in both have broadly similar views on a range of subjects, years of bitter political fighting will stop the formation of new Scottish parties. There are many on the left of the SNP that can't wait to ditch Salmond, Russell, Swinney. In fact John Mason MSP told a meeting I was at that the white paper was only for day 1 and left wing republicans plan huge changes. He did hint that Rossanne Cunningham would be their leader. Now that is a scary thought.

I agree with most of that apart from your timescale. How are the SNP going to stay together for more than one term with those sorts of internal tensions?

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm afraid that's completely untrue. Salmond knew exactly what was going on in the Crimea when he gave the interview expressing his admiration for Putin.

The interview was on March 14th. The situation in Ukraine and Crimea had been developing since November of last year, if not before. By 14th March the rigged Crimean referendum had already had its two questions publicly set out in which both choices meant separation from Ukraine. When he gave those views he and all the rest of the world knew exactly what was going on in Crimea.

And that's not adddressing all the other issues going on in that country which people were equally well aware of.

Fair enough, my idea of the timings was a bit out. Actually, Putin has done far worse things than the annexation of the Crimea and the current government in Ukraine ain't exactly squeaky clean. This is quite a good bit of background:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-west-hot-air-hypocrisy-crimea-russia

This doesn't detract from Salmond's gaffe. For a supposedly uber-operator, he puts his foot right in it at times.

[hibsbollah]

This, from a pro Independence supporter, is written far more eloquently than I could manage but, for me, provides an alternative to the some of the ***** being served up by MSM. For the record, some of posts on here regarding Alex Salmond's comments about Putin are breathtakingly hypocritical. Have a check back through the Scottish Independence thread and see the constant moans and groans from Unionists whinging about Nationalists 'playing the man and not the ball' and then take a read of the comments made about Alex Salmond by his opponents. You really couldn't make it up.



For the record I am disgusted by the actions of Vladimir Putin. He manipulated the constitution to keep himself in power, he implicitly endorses the killing of journalists, he supresses gays and is both flouting international law and threatening a European war over Ukraine. If I were asked today for my view, that is what I would say with the caveat that his style of leadership plays to an instinct in the Russian psyche that warms to ‘strong’ leadership and feels more confident with him in the Kremlin.

Salmond may have slipped when he tried for balance in his reported remarks to GQ but does anyone think Salmond is anti-gay – having just brought in gay marriage – that he supresses opposition, silences journalists or threatens war? This retrospective tirade sounds like the last one…what was it?…his hotel expenses. I suspect that people who haven’t even read what he said are baying for blood because ‘he’s siding with Putin’.

I am I suppose being an apologist for him since, on reading his remarks, it is clear to me what he was trying to impart but you have to try to find the real meaning first. And the truth as we know is that across our media there is virtually no one prepared to do that. However, when that bias extends to ignoring George Roberton’s call for Putin and Russia to be included in NATO in order to treat them as a friendly nation in a formal defence alliance, you have wonder why not. Robertson is going much further than Salmond’s off-the-cuff remarks and proposing sharing our national defence so much do we trust Putin.

Why is there no mention of the British approach to Putin to back their fight against Scottish independence? That too goes much further than Salmond by proposing a political alliance with Putin. Are neither of these points relevant?

And in case you’ve forgotten, other leaders have been happy to endorse Vladimir more heartily than Salmond.

Tony Blair said he was ‘open and forward looking and a moderniser’. Obama says he did ‘extraordinary work’ for the Russian people. Sarkozy said he was a ‘courageous, determined man capable of accepting and understanding.’

And, sorry Vladimir, but here’s George Bush: ‘I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country…I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.’

What the current torrent of criticism reveals is a lack of even an attempt to understand what he was trying to say and in so doing further reveals the implied suggestion that Salmond agrees with Putin. Did anyone suggest that was the case with any of the above incidences of praise or requests for help from other people? Of course, not. They were just doing what statesmen do. But Salmond doesn’t qualify for membership of that club. In fact that’s exactly what Magnus Linklater wrote…not the words of a statesman. So, Magnus, George Robertson IS a statesman?

I think Salmond is the victim of his own success. If he wasn’t so good, they wouldn’t try so hard to bring him down. Nobody really bothers attacking Johann, do they? They just let her do it all by herself. The underlying message to Salmond is Do Nothing. Don’t Speak. Ignore the Media. Turn down Interviews. In other words, take the Russian option and suppress all opinions. Whatever you say becomes ammunition even as it leaves your mouth.

Pitiful, really.

That's a skilful, but not particularly honest, riposte by the author. A lot of diversions and straw men.


Ask yourself the following question; 'Assuming you believe that Salmond doesn't genuinely support the policies of Vladimir Putin, do you agree that choosing to do an interview with Tony Blair's former spin doctor in The Scotsman, in which he gave three distinct statements that could be construed by a reasonable person as giving conditional support to Vladimir Putin's Government, was a poor political decision?'. Yes or No.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to why Yes supporters can't admit he's dropped a bollock on this one.

[allmodcons]

Whilst the referendum is not directly about Salmond and the SNP in the event of a yes vote they would be the most likely to form the Scottish government. Therefore it's only correct to question both Salmond and the SNP policies. Whilst I accept that independence is for life the future of many lives will be effected by the settlement and the policies of the first government. I don't accept that people will vote independence then vote for different party. I believe it will be at least 10 years before we see a different Nationalist party and a different Labour Party. Whilst many in both have broadly similar views on a range of subjects, years of bitter political fighting will stop the formation of new Scottish parties. There are many on the left of the SNP that can't wait to ditch Salmond, Russell, Swinney. In fact John Mason MSP told a meeting I was at that the white paper was only for day 1 and left wing republicans plan huge changes. He did hint that Rossanne Cunningham would be their leader. Now that is a scary thought.

I've seen some nonsense written on here, but this is right up there with the best of the worse.
I take it this all happened when you were fast asleep in your bed!

[Hibrandenburg]

As a politician, I like Salmond :tin hat: .

Like any other human being, he's made, and will continue to make, mistakes but, in the scheme of things, his judgement is usually pretty good.

FWIW, I couldn't give a toss about his sporting allegiances.

If Scotland votes Yes, IMO he will be the first First Minister of an Independent Scotland.

No need for the tin hat, I just can't stand his smug Yam pus. Apart from your views on sporting allegiances I'd agree with all of your post. :wink:

[allmodcons]

That's a skilful, but not particularly honest, riposte by the author. A lot of diversions and straw men.


Ask yourself the following question; 'Assuming you believe that Salmond doesn't genuinely support the policies of Vladimir Putin, do you agree that choosing to do an interview with Tony Blair's former spin doctor in The Scotsman, in which he gave three distinct statements that could be construed by a reasonable person as giving conditional support to Vladimir Putin's Government, was a poor political decision?'. Yes or No.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to why Yes supporters can't admit he's dropped a bollock on this one.

No problem HB. It was without doubt a poor political decision. IMO AS was unwise getting drawn in to an interview with AC.


Yes or No? Do you think the comments by AS deserve the level of coverage and, indeed, amount of outrage they're receiving in MSM?

[marinello59]

And statements like your glorious leader is not ridicule? Like already mentioned his statement has been taken fully out of context and I'm sure my glorious leader would love to explain himself but I doubt he'll be given the chance because that wouldn't help sell newspapers.

You can't make up your own mind on this then? Do you have to wait for Salmond to explain himself first? Did he or did he not commit a political gaffe here?

[marinello59]

That's a skilful, but not particularly honest, riposte by the author. A lot of diversions and straw men.


Ask yourself the following question; 'Assuming you believe that Salmond doesn't genuinely support the policies of Vladimir Putin, do you agree that choosing to do an interview with Tony Blair's former spin doctor in The Scotsman, in which he gave three distinct statements that could be construed by a reasonable person as giving conditional support to Vladimir Putin's Government, was a poor political decision?'. Yes or No.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to why Yes supporters can't admit he's dropped a bollock on this one.

Oi. I'm a Yes supporter and I think he made a big error with this one. :greengrin

[allmodcons]

You can't make up your own mind on this then? Do you have to wait for Salmond to explain himself first? Did he or did he not commit a political gaffe here?

Political gaffe? Yes.

Quantum leap to friend and supporter of the advancement of the Russia Empire? No.

[marinello59]

Political gaffe? Yes.

Quantum leap to friend and supporter of the advancement of the Russia Empire? No.

Aye, a gaffe.
Just like Lamont's 'wee things' statement was a gaffe but the SNP and the media made the most of it. I guess if the SNP can give it out then they have to learn to take it back as well.
Anyway.....does it really have anything to do with voting Yes or No?

[Hibrandenburg]

You can't make up your own mind on this then? Do you have to wait for Salmond to explain himself first? Did he or did he not commit a political gaffe here?

Yes he dropped a bollock, but not nearly as big as the construed hype the MSM would have us believe. I've no problem making my own interpretation of what he said and I'm sure it would be similar to his. However the twisted interpretations made by supporters of the Nut Campaign are simply ridiculous.

[hibsbollah]

No problem HB. It was without doubt a poor political decision. IMO AS was unwise getting drawn in to an interview with AC.


Yes or No? Do you think the comments by AS deserve the level of coverage and, indeed, amount of outrage they're receiving in MSM?



I don't know what MSM is (I googled it and aside from it being a cure for arthritis I'm none the wiser:greengrin), but assuming you mean the national media in Scotland, probably yes, the story has received a reasonable level of coverage. If they cancel all BBC programming tonight to report live from Salmonds home or something I might change my mind :greengrin If Patrick Harvie, or another Yes supporting politician had made the same comments it would be equally stupid but less damaging. (personally i would prefer it if we had a political journalistic culture that cared about policy over personality, but that's not the real world).

[lucky]

I've seen some nonsense written on here, but this is right up there with the best of the worse.
I take it this all happened when you were fast asleep in your bed!

I can tell you now 100% that the comments I've attributed to John Mason are 100% accurate. He made these comments whilst addressing ASLEF political forum in the Scottish parliament in front of around 30 people.

I can accept you disagree with my politics but I don't kindly to you calling me a liar.

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't know what MSM is (I googled it and aside from it being a cure for arthritis I'm none the wiser:greengrin), but assuming you mean the national media in Scotland, probably yes, the story has received a reasonable level of coverage. If they cancel all BBC programming tonight to report live from Salmonds home or something I might change my mind :greengrin If Patrick Harvie, or another Yes supporting politician had made the same comments it would be equally stupid but less damaging. (personally i would prefer it if we had a political journalistic culture that cared about policy over personality, but that's not the real world).

Mainstream Scottish media.

[hibsbollah]

Mainstream Scottish media.

Thanks. Not sure I'll be using it very often mind you.

[marinello59]

Yes he dropped a bollock, but not nearly as big as the construed hype the MSM would have us believe. I've no problem making my own interpretation of what he said and I'm sure it would be similar to his. However the twisted interpretations made by supporters of the Nut Campaign are simply ridiculous.

What about the 'twisted interpretations' made by the Yes campaign over Lamont's wee things gaffe? Or was that justified?

[Hibrandenburg]

What about the 'twisted interpretations' made by the Yes campaign over Lamont's wee things gaffe? Or was that justified?

She doesn't have bollocks :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

What about the 'twisted interpretations' made by the Yes campaign over Lamont's wee things gaffe? Or was that justified?

Yes, it was over elaborated.

[lucky]

Salmond calls Scotland A Nation of drunks. Is this another one of this gaffes or is what he thinks of us a nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799661/Salmond-forced-to-clarify-nation-of-drunks-comment.html

[Hibrandenburg]

Salmond calls Scotland A Nation of drunks. Is this another one of this gaffes or is what he thinks of us a nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799661/Salmond-forced-to-clarify-nation-of-drunks-comment.html

:faf: If he goes to his own toilet he'll be accused of pishing on Scotland.

[hibsbollah]

Salmond calls Scotland A Nation of drunks. Is this another one of this gaffes or is what he thinks of us a nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799661/Salmond-forced-to-clarify-nation-of-drunks-comment.html

Its in the Telegraph so unfortunately I cant use my newly learnt MSM acronym.

But looking at the text of what was actually said, this one DOES look like a bit of mischief making by the media.

[marinello59]

Salmond calls Scotland A Nation of drunks. Is this another one of this gaffes or is what he thinks of us a nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799661/Salmond-forced-to-clarify-nation-of-drunks-comment.html

I think that's slightly different. An unfortunate use of words whilst making a serious and (IMHO) valid point. A minor gaffe if you like.

[marinello59]

:faf: If he goes to his own toilet he'll be accused of pishing on Scotland.


:greengrin

[Beefster]

True. However die to the size of our population it is unlikely that it will pass. Our vote has only been worthwhile every 4.5 times in the last eighteen votes. Staggering that anyone would vote no

My vote in a Scottish election has exactly the same worth as my vote in a UK election. I'm one person in a constituency of 50,000 voters.

I love the bit in bold though.

[ronaldo7]

Salmond calls Scotland A Nation of drunks. Is this another one of this gaffes or is what he thinks of us a nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799661/Salmond-forced-to-clarify-nation-of-drunks-comment.html

15 all:greengrin

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-friendly-plea-to-ben-riley-smith-of.html

For those that didn't hear FMQs today, the new labour pin up boy...Ben Riley-Smith has an article following it today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10800917/First-Ministers-Questions-live.html

I've picked this bit out and wonder if the BT guys will follow the money...

Salmond also brings up a new piece of information in this Putin debate. He alleges that Ian Taylor, the boss of Vitol and £500,000 donor to the pro-UK Better Together campaign, has links with a controversial individual on America's "banned list". He suggests Lamont should call for an apology over that.

I wonder what those links are then:rolleyes:

And more BBC impartiality

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9128-bbc-wipes-labour-peers-putin-nato-invite-from-news-bulletins

[Hibrandenburg]

Its in the Telegraph so unfortunately I cant use my newly learnt MSM acronym.

But looking at the text of what was actually said, this one DOES look like a bit of mischief making by the media.

Ach Bollah, use your imagination man.

Main Stream Media

:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Yes Glasgow Big Debate.

http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/events/2965662

[Alex Trager]

My vote in a Scottish election has exactly the same worth as my vote in a UK election. I'm one person in a constituency of 50,000 voters.

I love the bit in bold though.

I recognise it has as much worth as anyone else in the uk etc but in general as a population it is only effective in every 4.5 votes. That's way too many times that our countries vote goes missing if you ask me. Based on that the bit in bold was said.

[Alex Trager]

My vote in a Scottish election has exactly the same worth as my vote in a UK election. I'm one person in a constituency of 50,000 voters.

I love the bit in bold though.

So if we, as a country, wanted rid of the Tories, which on the whole we do, we are a hell of a lot more likely to get it if we are independent. Or indeed if they are the better party we can get them in.

[Hibrandenburg]

So if we, as a country, wanted rid of the Tories, which on the whole we do, we are a hell of a lot more likely to get it if we are independent. Or indeed if they are the better party we can get them in.

The Tories will be back in an independent Scotland, they'll just be dancing to our tune instead of that of the home counties.

[CropleyWasGod]

So if we, as a country, wanted rid of the Tories, which on the whole we do, we are a hell of a lot more likely to get it if we are independent. Or indeed if they are the better party we can get them in.

Can't see that we will get rid of them.

The Tories will be fairly represented in an independent Scotland, in the same way they are fairly represented at Holyrood just now. That's one of the better (IMO) aspects of the voting system we have, that Tory voters in Scotland have a voice. They don't really have one in Westminster.

Not sure if I'm telling all Tories to vote yes here....:greengrin

[Alex Trager]

The Tories will be back in an independent Scotland, they'll just be dancing to our tune instead of that of the home counties.


Can't see that we will get rid of them.

The Tories will be fairly represented in an independent Scotland, in the same way they are fairly represented at Holyrood just now. That's one of the better (IMO) aspects of the voting system we have, that Tory voters in Scotland have a voice. They don't really have one in Westminster.

Not sure if I'm telling all Tories to vote yes here....:greengrin

What I meant was we have more of a say if we want them or not.

It is applicable to all parties

[JeMeSouviens]

Salmond calls Scotland A Nation of drunks. Is this another one of this gaffes or is what he thinks of us a nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799661/Salmond-forced-to-clarify-nation-of-drunks-comment.html

Eventually, they do give a quote:


"I promote whisky I do it on the argument that it’s a quality drink, has a worldwide cachet and that its recent great success in markets like China is about social emulation and authenticity, not cheapness.

"My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks. You’ll never be able to say it is healthy and life giving, but you can say it’s authentic and high quality."

It might not be worded with brilliant clarity but as he says:

1. "I promote whisky"

and

2. "you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks"

It is simple logic that he isn't calling Scotland a nation of drunks.

It seems fairly clear (to me) that this is in fact an argument against the SWA's opposition to minimum pricing.

Then again, it seemed fairly clear to me what Johann Lamont meant by "we're not genetically programmed to make decisions".

Great quality debate we're getting this week. Sigh.

[Mibbes Aye]

OK, I've had another scout about after your reply to see if I could see anything that confirms that the funds from ILF is being distributed to local councils in England/Wales/NI instead of just being closed down.And I can't find anything to back up your statement,so I stand by my opinion that the ILF has been closed, the funding is not being given directly to local councils to use and my statement is correct and yours isn't, unless you can show me otherwise?

So, the Scottish Govt is funding SILF and English councils will have to either not provide it or source the funds from their existing budgets....imo.


Ooooh, get you with the disbelief and the throwing down the gauntlet :greengrin

I'm not sure why I should make an effort seeing as you don't seem to have bothered - and I am minded of cognitive development in infancy where at a certain age children eventually grasp that just because they can't see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist :greengrin

But let's take your premise that the ILF money has been scrapped by the UK government and the Scottish government are putting it in themselves while the English local authorities are being left to find it themselves. Let's think that through.......

First up, the Scottish Government press release specifically says that the ILF funding is being devolved to Scottish Government. This has to be read as the money is being passed on to SG. But maybe you don't quite believe that?.......

The press release also says that the SG is adding £5.5m to SILF. If it had been scrapped and the SG was entirely funding SILF don't you think they would take the credit for coming up with all the money?

Bear in mind that ILF expenditure in Scotland is around the £50m mark. Are you seriously suggesting that SG is issuing a press release that says it is finding £5.5m of new money when in actual fact it is stumping up £55m of new money? Seriously??!!

The answer is of course "no". Scottish Government aren't finding the money for the current ILF expenditure, they are having it given to them, devolved to them, by the UK government.

This is exactly the same as what is happening with the English local authorities. They have the money devolved to them. Unless.......are you seriously suggesting that the UK government is giving Scotland the money but not England? Seriously??!! You don't think that would have received some press attention??!!

But no doubt you want something written by someone else, rather than me :greengrin

I'm not going to post a link because it seems clear that you didn't really look that hard :greengrin but if you Google something along the lines of "ILF", "England" and "transfer" or the likes, one of the top hits will be a Parliamentary briefing note placed in the House of Commons Library for MPs that handily summarises all that's happened over the last few years. I trust that meets any reasonable person's idea of credibility.

Once you've read through the background and got to the present day you will find this quote.

"...Funding will be devolved to each local authority and to the devolved Administrations on the basis of the pattern of expenditure in 2014-15"

If that's not enough for you, read on in the brief as it touches on the issue of ring-fencing. Ring-fencing refers to the policy and practice whereby central government funding is given to local authorities or devolved administrations but has to be used for a specific purpose, with expenditure and outputs/outcomes reported back to central government. The brief makes it clear that UK government is choosing not to ring-fence the money. It wouldn't need to mention whether ring-fencing applies were it not passing the money on through its funding settlement to local authorities and the devolved administrations.

If you have the patience to wait a couple of years, the likes of Community Care and the various national disability rights organisations and advocacy groups will likely publish benchmarking information of how the various English local authorities have dealt with receiving the funding directly, from June 2015, and to what extent they have chosen to continue ring-fencing it etc. It will be interesting reading. Who knows, maybe that will convince you?

Anyway, over to you. I think the ILF issue is a worthy debate in its own right but I don't like inaccuracy and I don't like the idea that some or any in the Yes camp are manipulating the issue to try and make political capital. I find the idea shameful TBH.

[Beefster]

So if we, as a country, wanted rid of the Tories, which on the whole we do, we are a hell of a lot more likely to get it if we are independent. Or indeed if they are the better party we can get them in.

If I want my government of choice, I'd be better claiming independence for East Lothian. I don't have the Scottish government I want or the UK government I want. I see that as being democracy though.

In a UK election, the UK gets what it votes for. In a Scottish election, Scotland gets what it votes for, in an East Lothian election, East Lothian gets what it votes for, in a household election, we all get what Mrs Beefster votes for.

[One Day Soon]

If I want my government of choice, I'd be better claiming independence for East Lothian. I don't have the Scottish government I want or the UK government I want. I see that as being democracy though.

In a UK election, the UK gets what it votes for. In a Scottish election, Scotland gets what it votes for, in an East Lothian election, East Lothian gets what it votes for, in a household election, we all get what Mrs Beefster votes for.


Yes, Mrs One Day Soon operates the same system of democracy.

I gather we are to have the same credit rating as Botswana if we separate according to credit ratings agency Moodys. An 'A' rating rather than the 'AAA' of the UK. That following another boot in the baws from S&P saying we risk an Icelandic banking crisis.

I have a very low opinion of these agencies but I know our Nat and Yessir colleagues rate them very highly from contributions earlier in this thread. So it will be interesting to see how they will turn logic on its head and dismiss these reports where they were earlier welcoming the views of the same people as an affirmation of Comrade Salmond's ambitions.

[Alex Trager]

If I want my government of choice, I'd be better claiming independence for East Lothian. I don't have the Scottish government I want or the UK government I want. I see that as being democracy though.

In a UK election, the UK gets what it votes for. In a Scottish election, Scotland gets what it votes for, in an East Lothian election, East Lothian gets what it votes for, in a household election, we all get what Mrs Beefster votes for.

You should get that last system sorted out man

[Hibrandenburg]

If I want my government of choice, I'd be better claiming independence for East Lothian. I don't have the Scottish government I want or the UK government I want. I see that as being democracy though.

In a UK election, the UK gets what it votes for. In a Scottish election, Scotland gets what it votes for, in an East Lothian election, East Lothian gets what it votes for, in a household election, we all get what Mrs Beefster votes for.

And in a European election we get what the Germans vote for.

[green glory]

And in a European election we get what the Germans vote for.

Scotland has 6 MEPs, Denmark which has only a slightly larger population has 13. As part of the UK we're poorly represented in Europe.

[allmodcons]

Aye, a gaffe.
Just like Lamont's 'wee things' statement was a gaffe but the SNP and the media made the most of it. I guess if the SNP can give it out then they have to learn to take it back as well.
Anyway.....does it really have anything to do with voting Yes or No?


According to the Scottish Daily Mail it's a major factor in the Yes/No vote :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, newspapers and journalists are very good at moaning about the 'quality of the debate' then they go and print pants like this!

http://wingsoverscotland.com/take-my-breath-away/#more-54329

[marinello59]

According to the Scottish Daily Mail it's a major factor in the Yes/No vote :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, newspapers and journalists are very good at moaning about the 'quality of the debate' then they go and print pants like this!

http://wingsoverscotland.com/take-my-breath-away/#more-54329

I think they have a real problem here in that the really important debate is not being lead by the political establishment but it's happening at a grass roots level with the multi headed Yes campaign in particular engaging more with the ordinary voter than any of our party political animals are.

[allmodcons]

I think they have a real problem here in that the really important debate is not being lead by the political establishment but it's happening at a grass roots level with the multi headed Yes campaign in particular engaging more with the ordinary voter than any of our party political animals are.

:agree:

[allmodcons]

Salmond calls Scotland A Nation of drunks. Is this another one of this gaffes or is what he thinks of us a nation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799661/Salmond-forced-to-clarify-nation-of-drunks-comment.html

How ironic that a Labour Party Member wants to highlight the Daily Telegraph as a newspaper worthy of our attention.


My vote in a Scottish election has exactly the same worth as my vote in a UK election. I'm one person in a constituency of 50,000 voters.

I love the bit in bold though.

At the risk of being a little pedantic, given that you have a list vote in a Scottish Election, this is not completely correct.



I can tell you now 100% that the comments I've attributed to John Mason are 100% accurate. He made these comments whilst addressing ASLEEP political forum in the Scottish parliament in front of around 30 people.

I can accept you disagree with my politics but I don't kindly to you calling me a liar.

FWIW, I didn't call you a liar. Merely suggested you must dreaming:wink:

[Beefster]

According to the Scottish Daily Mail it's a major factor in the Yes/No vote :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, newspapers and journalists are very good at moaning about the 'quality of the debate' then they go and print pants like this!

http://wingsoverscotland.com/take-my-breath-away/#more-54329

This is the sort of pish I hate. The Daily Mail and your nationalist website are right in their preferred way of spinning things.

From the concrete answers to the poll, 58% said 'no' and 42% said 'yes'.

If you include those who didn't give a preference then your website is right (I.e. a 14% lead for the 'no's). This is still a bigger gap than has been suggested in other recent polls. The 12% who didn't give a preference will include those who genuinely have not decided but also those who say they will not vote.

If I asked 100 people if continuous-time Markov chains were a good way to model systems and get performance measures, you might get 6% saying yes, 1% saying no and 93% saying "WTF?". It would still be fair to argue that six times more people thought that they were than didn't.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dAtFdw2.jpg

[allmodcons]

This is the sort of pish I hate. The Daily Mail and your nationalist website are right in their preferred way of spinning things.

From the concrete answers to the poll, 58% said 'no' and 42% said 'yes'.

If you include those who didn't give a preference then your website is right (I.e. a 14% lead for the 'no's). This is still a bigger gap than has been suggested in other recent polls. The 12% who didn't give a preference will include those who genuinely have not decided but also those who say they will not vote.

If I asked 100 people if continuous-time Markov chains were a good way to model systems and get performance measures, you might get 6% saying yes, 1% saying no and 93% saying "WTF?". It would still be fair to argue that six times more people thought that they were than didn't.

I'm impressed you think it is 'my' nationalist website.
To be fair, WOS are comparing the latest YouGov poll with previous YouGov polls, which seems entirely reasonable to me.

[One Day Soon]

Yes, Mrs One Day Soon operates the same system of democracy.

I gather we are to have the same credit rating as Botswana if we separate according to credit ratings agency Moodys. An 'A' rating rather than the 'AAA' of the UK. That following another boot in the baws from S&P saying we risk an Icelandic banking crisis.

I have a very low opinion of these agencies but I know our Nat and Yessir colleagues rate them very highly from contributions earlier in this thread. So it will be interesting to see how they will turn logic on its head and dismiss these reports where they were earlier welcoming the views of the same people as an affirmation of Comrade Salmond's ambitions.


Anyone........?

[WindyMiller]

To be fair, Chomsky was always going to back the side that offers most challenge to US military hegemony, as he would say.

The debate has been better than I expected, to be honest. One assumption that keeps getting wheeled out that id like to see challenged more often is 'independence would forever banish the tories/their ilk from power in scotland'. Although the Conservative brand is pretty toxic in Scotland, its not a massive assumption to make that independence might paradoxically, result in a new resurgence of right wing ideas in what is after all a fairly conservative (small c), risk averse and traditional country. Our history of voting for left leaning parties might have more to do with west central Scotland post industrial tribalism and hostility to Westminster elite, than to widespread support for radical socialist ideas.

As for me, i'm still undecided as to what to vote. Anyway, Closer poll numbers=Higher turnout=Good for Democracy.


I've a feeling the "One Nation" Tories of the 60's will see a resurgence in an Independent Scotland. I remember my mother voting for Macmillan, and she always claimed "we'd never had it so good".

[JeMeSouviens]

This is the sort of pish I hate. The Daily Mail and your nationalist website are right in their preferred way of spinning things.

From the concrete answers to the poll, 58% said 'no' and 42% said 'yes'.

If you include those who didn't give a preference then your website is right (I.e. a 14% lead for the 'no's). This is still a bigger gap than has been suggested in other recent polls. The 12% who didn't give a preference will include those who genuinely have not decided but also those who say they will not vote.

If I asked 100 people if continuous-time Markov chains were a good way to model systems and get performance measures, you might get 6% saying yes, 1% saying no and 93% saying "WTF?". It would still be fair to argue that six times more people thought that they were than didn't.

Don't think anyone's complaining about the inclusion or exclusion of DKs? The No lead from September to now with YouGov is either +30 to +14 (ex DKs) or +34 to +16 (inc DKs). Either way slightly more than halved. Do the math. :wink:

The complaints are pretty straightforward:

1. The DM claims "support for the union soars" when it's actually -1% since prior YouGov poll.
2. It puts the (actually non-existent, see above) improvement down to Salmond's Putin gaffe when the survey was done before that hit the news.

Actually it's just as well for No that complaint 2 is there, because they must be hoping the Putin story gets a bit of traction sharpish. They haven't had a bounce for a good while now.

ScotGoesPop blog poll of polls (average No lead from the last published poll from each of YouGov, MORI, Panelbase, Survation, ICM, TNS/BMRB) ...


Sep 2013 - 21.6%
Sep 2013 - 21.4%
Sep 2013 - 19.4%
Oct 2013 - 18.8%
Oct 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 18.2%
Nov 2013 - 18.4%
Nov 2013 - 18.0%
Dec 2013 - 17.0%
Dec 2013 - 16.8%
Dec 2013 - 16.4%
Jan 2014 - 14.4%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 15.2%
Feb 2014 - 15.0%
Feb 2014 - 15.5%
Feb 2014 - 15.5%
Feb 2014 - 13.7%
Feb 2014 - 13.3%
Feb 2014 - 14.2%
Mar 2014 - 14.2%
Mar 2014 - 14.5%
Mar 2014 - 14.5%
Mar 2014 - 14.7%
Mar 2014 - 13.8%
Mar 2014 - 13.0%
Mar 2014 - 12.5%
Apr 2014 - 12.5%
Apr 2014 - 12.7%
Apr 2014 - 12.7%
Apr 2014 - 12.3%
Apr 2014 - 11.4%
May 2014 - 11.2%

[WindyMiller]

I also feel that the fact that a Tory government is in Westminster just now is influencing a lot of people and has given the Yes campaign a lot to scaremonger about. We will soon get a chance to vote them out and the majority of people in the UK do not want the Tories in power. That's democracy in action.



I agree to an extent, but, when the choice between the THREE main parties is fag-paper thin, you can see why your average Scot doesn't have much belief in Westminster being the answer.

[allmodcons]

Yes, Mrs One Day Soon operates the same system of democracy.

I gather we are to have the same credit rating as Botswana if we separate according to credit ratings agency Moodys. An 'A' rating rather than the 'AAA' of the UK. That following another boot in the baws from S&P saying we risk an Icelandic banking crisis.

I have a very low opinion of these agencies but I know our Nat and Yessir colleagues rate them very highly from contributions earlier in this thread. So it will be interesting to see how they will turn logic on its head and dismiss these reports where they were earlier welcoming the views of the same people as an affirmation of Comrade Salmond's ambitions.

Comrade Bremner here (no relation of the great Des).

Moodys are, of course, only one credit rating agency. As you know, others have predicted higher credit ratings for an iScotland.

You are wrong about the UK. Moodys rate the UK Aa1 not Aaa, so an iScotland is predicted to be 2 notches below the UK, with an iScotland in a position to achieve a better credit over time.

You are also wrong about Botswana. Moodys rate them A2 (negative outlook).

So, realistically, they are predicting we will be on par with countries like the Czech Republic and Estonia.

As to the S&P reference, I have to say I haven't seen this, however, a lot has been learned from the 2008 banking crisis. Financial regulation in an iScotland, or anywhere else for that matter, will be key to ensuring that we do not encounter a similar scenario arising in the future. For me, however, this is a complete red herring in that I do not see a crisis of this magnitude occurring again (possibly ever) but certainly not in the next 50 years, by which time I’m confident an iScotland will have an established, stable and thriving economy.

The example of Iceland amazes me. The country has a population of 320,000 so is not really the best comparison for an iScotland. What's more, Iceland has handled the banking crisis more effectively than the UK with the country producing the fastest recovery on record since 2011. Proof, if needed, that small economies are often able to act quicker and more effectively in a crisis.

On a final point, why is that a large number of small Independent Nation States regularly populate the top 10 most highly rated countries in the world and what makes you think that Scotland or it's people are incapable of achieving economic success on a par with other small Independent European countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria or Norway? All of whom I hasten to add are rated Aaa by Moodys.

[Just Alf]

Scotland has 6 MEPs, Denmark which has only a slightly larger population has 13. As part of the UK we're poorly represented in Europe.

Aye but we get more bang for our buck as the UK government also represents us.....

oh wait..... http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/04/27/uk-government-ignores-scotlands-opposition-gm-crops-eu/

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes, Mrs One Day Soon operates the same system of democracy.

I gather we are to have the same credit rating as Botswana if we separate according to credit ratings agency Moodys. An 'A' rating rather than the 'AAA' of the UK. That following another boot in the baws from S&P saying we risk an Icelandic banking crisis.

I have a very low opinion of these agencies but I know our Nat and Yessir colleagues rate them very highly from contributions earlier in this thread. So it will be interesting to see how they will turn logic on its head and dismiss these reports where they were earlier welcoming the views of the same people as an affirmation of Comrade Salmond's ambitions.

1. Moody's has the UK a notch below AAA
2. Moody's said Scotland would get A and "investment grade" initially but would expect this to improve over time. Everyone starts with a credit card on a lower limit until they establish a record of payment.
3. This assumes Scotland agreeing to underwrite a portion of the rUK's debt (which the UK treasury has already stated will stay with rUK) and that that would have a negative impact on credit rating.
4. Why Botswana? Why not the Czech Republic or Israel? I know next to nothing about Botswana and suspect neither do you. Did you single it out as a mainly black, African nation?
5. S&P said Scotland would get AAA.

[Beefster]

I'm impressed you think it is 'my' nationalist website.
To be fair, WOS are comparing the latest YouGov poll with previous YouGov polls, which seems entirely reasonable to me.

It seems like everyone wants to put a positive spin on everything.

"The latest poll has the lead down to x points this week. Woo hoo."

"The latest poll has the lead up to y points this week." "Well, their one last month had it at (y+z) points. I know there have been other polls in between but let's not count those any more".


4. Why Botswana? Why not the Czech Republic or Israel? I know next to nothing about Botswana and suspect neither do you. Did you single it out as a mainly black, African nation?

Personally, I think that's a bit low and unworthy of you, JMS.

[JeMeSouviens]

Personally, I think that's a bit low and unworthy of you, JMS.

Perhaps it is. I would understand selecting say, Zimbabwe, a well known economic basket case, if Scotland was predicted to have a similar credit rating. Ok, then ODS, why pick Botswana?


Incidentally, here's what the CIA say about Botswana:


Formerly the British protectorate of Bechuanaland, Botswana adopted its new name upon independence in 1966. More than four decades of uninterrupted civilian leadership, progressive social policies, and significant capital investment have created one of the most stable economies in Africa. Mineral extraction, principally diamond mining, dominates economic activity, though tourism is a growing sector due to the country's conservation practices and extensive nature preserves. Botswana has one of the world's highest known rates of HIV/AIDS infection, but also one of Africa's most progressive and comprehensive programs for dealing with the disease.

It sounds like leaving British rule hasn't done them any harm at all. :agree:

[One Day Soon]

Comrade Bremner here (no relation of the great Des).

Moodys are, of course, only one credit rating agency. As you know, others have predicted higher credit ratings for an iScotland.

Well yes, I think I mentioned that in my post.

You are wrong about the UK. Moodys rate the UK Aa1 not Aaa, so an iScotland is predicted to be 2 notches below the UK, with an iScotland in a position to achieve a better credit over time.

S&P rate the UK as AAA. However for comparison purposes you are right that Moody's put the UK at AA1. This means that the UK is at the top and Scotland at the bottom. That's a poor swap from where we are currently as the UK.

You are also wrong about Botswana. Moodys rate them A2 (negative outlook).

Again it varies depending upon agency but you are right about Moody's. I heard about the Moody's report on GMS while driving in to work this morning and Botswana was quoted in that piece.

So, realistically, they are predicting we will be on par with countries like the Czech Republic and Estonia.

Yes - and that's well down on the rating we have now as part of the UK.

As to the S&P reference, I have to say I haven't seen this, however, a lot has been learned from the 2008 banking crisis. Financial regulation in an iScotland, or anywhere else for that matter, will be key to ensuring that we do not encounter a similar scenario arising in the future. For me, however, this is a complete red herring in that I do not see a crisis of this magnitude occurring again (possibly ever) but certainly not in the next 50 years, by which time I’m confident an iScotland will have an established, stable and thriving economy.

Fine except that the one we have just endured seemed to catch everyone by surprise too. The nature of these things is that they don't get spotted and acted on in advance.

The example of Iceland amazes me. The country has a population of 320,000 so is not really the best comparison for an iScotland. What's more, Iceland has handled the banking crisis more effectively than the UK with the country producing the fastest recovery on record since 2011. Proof, if needed, that small economies are often able to act quicker and more effectively in a crisis.

Did they not take the Yam approach to sorting out their business problems? You are contradicting yourself here - are they not the best comparison for Scotland or are they proof that small economies are better?

On a final point, why is that a large number of small Independent Nation States regularly populate the top 10 most highly rated countries in the world and what makes you think that Scotland or it's people are incapable of achieving economic success on a par with other small Independent European countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria or Norway? All of whom I hasten to add are rated Aaa by Moodys.


Do small independent nation states (what kind of nation state is there other than independent ones?) not populate the top and bottom ends of charts?

[One Day Soon]

1. Moody's has the UK a notch below AAA - Correct, see above
2. Moody's said Scotland would get A and "investment grade" initially but would expect this to improve over time. Everyone starts with a credit card on a lower limit until they establish a record of payment. - So we are worse off right away
3. This assumes Scotland agreeing to underwrite a portion of the rUK's debt (which the UK treasury has already stated will stay with rUK) and that that would have a negative impact on credit rating. - Not sure what your point is here. They say if we don't cover our share we will pay a credit availablity and interest price.
4. Why Botswana? Why not the Czech Republic or Israel? I know next to nothing about Botswana and suspect neither do you. Did you single it out as a mainly black, African nation? - What would be the relevance of it being a "mainly black, African nation"? I mentioned Botswana because that was the country named in the GMS report on Radio Scotland at about 7am this morning. If you'd like to apologise for implying racist intent on my part I think that would be appropriate.
5. S&P said Scotland would get AAA. - They did. That was the point of my post

See above.

[yeezus.]

How ironic that a Labour Party Member wants to highlight the Daily Telegraph as a newspaper worthy of our attention.



At the risk of being a little pedantic, given that you have a list vote in a Scottish Election, this is not completely correct.




FWIW, I didn't call you a liar. Merely suggested you must dreaming:wink:

Can't stand this aspect of the campaign, can we please have a newspaper link suggested without a bloody backlash on that papers political stance!?

[JeMeSouviens]

- They did. That was the point of my post

See above.

Ok. I apologise unreservedly for implying your motivation was at all racist.

I am uncomfortable, however, with GMS picking Botswana at random. I tend to think that their motivation was to belittle the economic strength of Scotland in the same way that Andrew Marr does when he speaks of a potential independent currency as "groats". The implication clearly being of somewhere poor and backward. Anyway the groat was a coin, we don't call sterling "farthings". I suspect someone assumed there would be an association made between the general poverty of sub-saharan africa and an iScotland.

[hibsbollah]

Ok. I apologise unreservedly for implying your motivation was at all racist.

I am uncomfortable, however, with GMS picking Botswana at random. I tend to think that their motivation was to belittle the economic strength of Scotland in the same way that Andrew Marr does when he speaks of a potential independent currency as "groats". The implication clearly being of somewhere poor and backward. Anyway the groat was a coin, we don't call sterling "farthings". I suspect someone assumed there would be an association made between the general poverty of sub-saharan africa and an iScotland.

Botswana is (or used to be, when I was an undergraduate about twenty years ago) a case study in successful African development post Empire. Maybe its a compliment? :dunno:

[One Day Soon]

Ok. I apologise unreservedly for implying your motivation was at all racist.

I am uncomfortable, however, with GMS picking Botswana at random. I tend to think that their motivation was to belittle the economic strength of Scotland in the same way that Andrew Marr does when he speaks of a potential independent currency as "groats". The implication clearly being of somewhere poor and backward. Anyway the groat was a coin, we don't call sterling "farthings". I suspect someone assumed there would be an association made between the general poverty of sub-saharan africa and an iScotland.


Apology accepted completely.

I think I found where GMS got it from. The Scotsman report on the Moody's research mentions Botswana and says that the original Moody's research makes the comparison. I have tried to access the original Moody's report from their website but it sits behind a paywall unfortunately.

I don't really like to go on second or third hand reporting and - as with the excellent NIESR reports on currency etc earlier this year - I prefer to be able to read what the experts have been saying rather than accept either the media interpretation or the slaverings of Yes or BT. We'll just have to wait until the report itself becomes accessible. The point stands though that we are being asked to trade-in a pretty much top of the table UK credit rating for a pretty much bottom of the table credit rating instead.

I don't agree with you on the Groat. If we end up separating and we didn't get the pound - which we wouldn't and Moody's are pretty clear on that too - then the Groat is actually a prime contender for the name of any Scottish currency that we might need to float. It isn't pejorative at all really. I don't get why you think the Groat would conjure up images of somewhere poor and backward, unless it is because it sounds a bit like goat.....

[ronaldo7]

Can any of the BT guys help out please.

I've been trying to find a meeting in which the BT people will put forward the case for the Union, and answer questions from the body of the kirk.

Do any of you guys know where I can find any??

I've been on the BT website and they are having canvassing stuff and telephone canvassing but no meetings.

I was at a Yes meeting last week(first time) which had a mixed audience, and it made for a healthy debate.

Anyone...

[ronaldo7]

A decent piece about the BBCBI and how low they can stoop in the Indy Ref.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/bbc-propaganda-hits-new-all-time-low/

[ronaldo7]

Sunday Herald comes out for YES.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news

[Glory Lurker]

Sunday Herald comes out for YES.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news


Like.

[James.]

Sunday Herald comes out for YES.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news


The Herald has had some of the most insightful, balanced and sensible articles on the referendum to date - from both sides of the debate.

I'm delighted to see it has came to a very sound conclusion :agree:

[7 Hills]

Sunday Herald comes out for YES.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news


YAAASSSSS!!!!!!:jmcp:

[Peevemor]

A good few years ago, a couple I know were on the train back from Glasgow and spotted a guy they knew sitting at a table in their carriage with 3 other people. When they asked him what he'd been up to, he said something along the lines of "well it's quite hush-hush - the Herald are bringing out a Sunday edition and we had a big meeting today to decide what to call it." To which my mate replied jokingly "What? Like the Sunday Herald?"

Cue embarrassed silence...

Anyway, 'mon the weegies!

[Saorsa]

Sunday Herald comes out for YES.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news:applause: :saltireflag

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/2014/5/1399149163-883.jpg

[green glory]

Yesterday's Super Saturday at Gilmerton. Around 250 people turned out for leafleting and canvassing.

I do a bit canvassing and it rarely seems to drop below 60% in favour of a Yes vote, once the undecideds are taken out. Loads of Yes groups in and around Edinburgh always grateful for the slightest bit of help.

Yes Edinburgh North and Leith
Yes Edinburgh Central
Yes Edinburgh West etc etc.


12518

[marinello59]

Sunday Herald comes out for YES.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news

I've said several times over the course of this thread that newspapers don't lead opinion, they follow it. This is the clearest sign yet that there is now real momentum behind the Yes vote. This really is good news.

[lucky]

I've said several times over the course of this thread that newspapers don't lead opinion, they follow it. This is the clearest sign yet that there is now real momentum behind the Yes vote. This really is good news.

The Sunday Herald backed the SNP in the last election so it's no surprise they have taken this decision. I'm sure the 23000 weekly readership will be thrilled. But you could bet your last £1 that if they had come out for the No campaign then lots would calling for a boycott of the Glasgow rag.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Don't know if anybody else has posted on it, but whether you are in the yes or no camp have a look at Allan Massie's article in the Mail on Sunday. This rant disguised as a possible future scenario following a yes vote is described as "a brilliant imagining of life after the union" by the paper.

What it is, is a litany of the range of 'punishments' Scotland can expect after a yes vote ....... This apparently well respected journalist and writer of historical novels has painted a picture so bleak it is hard to believe that Scotland will be able to maintain diplomatic relations with the UK following a yes vote .... never mind come to a mutually beneficial and civilized agreement of our relationship with each other after September.

His "imagining" it seems to me is the mindset of a minority of little Englanders who are getting ready to teach these 'uppity' Jocks a bloody lesson for daring to leave the Emipire. Mr Massie was brought up in Scotland from the age of about two or something and I am sure would describe himself as 'a proud Scot'

But that's my problem with him ......... if he truly believes that what he has written in his article is close to accurate why the hell would he want to continue to have allegiance to a United Kingdom which would be prepared to treat his fellow Scots in such a shameful and spiteful manner post independence?

His UK it would appear will do everything in its power post September to grind Scotland into the dirt .... not because it has to, but because it wants to.

If that's true then bring it on ........ Better an enemy you can identify as an enemy than a sneaky ***ker who is pretending to be your friend.

Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday ........... Once again persuading me that YES is the only way to go.

[marinello59]

The Sunday Herald backed the SNP in the last election so it's no surprise they have taken this decision. I'm sure the 23000 weekly readership will be thrilled. But you could bet your last £1 that if they had come out for the No campaign then lots would calling for a boycott of the Glasgow rag.

This decision will resonate far beyond their readership.
I take your point about a paper coming out for No. You may be right but if nothing else, the Herald's decision may see the MSM acronym binned. I hope. :greengrin

[bawheid]

The Sunday Herald backed the SNP in the last election so it's no surprise they have taken this decision. I'm sure the 23000 weekly readership will be thrilled. But you could bet your last £1 that if they had come out for the No campaign then lots would calling for a boycott of the Glasgow rag.

Comes across as sour grapes tbh.

Don't think I've posted on this thread yet. I started as a don't know, likely no. As the debate has progressed I'm now a definite yes. The No campaign has been negative, patronising and unengaging. You can't do this, you shouldn't do that.

The momentum is all with Yes, and that's how things will continue IMO unless Better Together can find another card to play. They've pretty much played their hand already and we've got months to go.

[ronaldo7]

The Sunday Herald backed the SNP in the last election so it's no surprise they have taken this decision. I'm sure the 23000 weekly readership will be thrilled. But you could bet your last £1 that if they had come out for the No campaign then lots would calling for a boycott of the Glasgow rag.

Some figures here on the readership of the SOS and Sunday Herald. Figures for both have been dropping as with most newspaper groups. Online is the way ahead.

http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/05/04/the-scottish-independence-debate-goes-colourful/

[ronaldo7]

The Sunday Herald backed the SNP in the last election so it's no surprise they have taken this decision. I'm sure the 23000 weekly readership will be thrilled. But you could bet your last £1 that if they had come out for the No campaign then lots would calling for a boycott of the Glasgow rag.

Isn't it fantastic that the individual Editors of the Herald Group have the authority to make their own decisions without fear or favour. The Herald today comes out and says it's staying Neutral.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/sunday-herald-declares-support-for-yes-vote.24133073

Contrast that against the collusion of the WM Government http://www.weourselves.com/herald-blows-lid-clean-off-camerons-covert-operations/

And to balance things out, a nice piece from Jon Snow

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/visceral-hatred-westminister-politics/23805

[Saorsa]

Isn't it fantastic that the individual Editors of the Herald Group have the authority to make their own decisions without fear or favour. The Herald today comes out and says it's staying Neutral.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/sunday-herald-declares-support-for-yes-vote.24133073

Contrast that against the collusion of the WM Government http://www.weourselves.com/herald-blows-lid-clean-off-camerons-covert-operations/

And to balance things out, a nice piece from Jon Snow

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/visceral-hatred-westminister-politics/23805Westminster government deceiving and/or lying tae the Scottish people? Really! :eek: I'm shocked :agree:

see http://i57.tinypic.com/10zocpg.gif

[hibsbollah]

Isn't it fantastic that the individual Editors of the Herald Group have the authority to make their own decisions without fear or favour. The Herald today comes out and says it's staying Neutral.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/sunday-herald-declares-support-for-yes-vote.24133073

Contrast that against the collusion of the WM Government http://www.weourselves.com/herald-blows-lid-clean-off-camerons-covert-operations/

And to balance things out, a nice piece from Jon Snow

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/visceral-hatred-westminister-politics/23805

Good piece from Jon Snow.

Of course, theres been a lot of support on the Left for more devolution within England, and more accountability, but whenever it has come in front of the regional electorate they've rejected it. (Prescott's pet project of regional assemblies). As someone who's spent a good part of my life in the North East of England, where there's probably an equal amount of hostility to Westminster government as in Scotland, I genuinely couldnt believe they voted against it. It seemed to have been painted as creating more bureaucracy and more politicians, and people were probably voting against that. However, I believe its only a matter of time before England starts to devolve powers away from London.

[ronaldo7]

Good piece from Jon Snow.:agree:

Of course, theres been a lot of support on the Left for more devolution within England, and more accountability, but whenever it has come in front of the regional electorate they've rejected it. (Prescott's pet project of regional assemblies). As someone who's spent a good part of my life in the North East of England, where there's probably an equal amount of hostility to Westminster government as in Scotland, I genuinely couldnt believe they voted against it. It seemed to have been painted as creating more bureaucracy and more politicians, and people were probably voting against that. However, I believe its only a matter of time before England starts to devolve powers away from London.

As long as the Scots remember what's happened in the past when the London lads(whatever their colour) have promised something, and not delivered.

From the piece...
As for the consequences of a No vote, the size of the yes vote is bound to force Westminster to look to maximum devolution (termed “Devo Max”) – passing everything bar Foreign Affairs, Defence and fiscal policy to Edinburgh. Yet the No campaign rarely mentions such an event. And the three Westminster parties who so willingly came together to reject a currency union with Scotland should independence dawn, have steadfastly refused to come together to pledge “Devo Max”.

Increasingly it looks as if such an all-party pledge might be the only way to erode the yes vote. Yet it is a move I discussed with many with whom I spoke. A good many said they did not trust Westminster to deliver it.

It's YES or no.

[yeezus.]

Sunday Herald comes out for YES.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news

Hardly a surprise, the Sunday Herald has been publishing pro-independence stories for a year. Still won't make a difference to September's result.

[marinello59]

Hardly a surprise, the Sunday Herald has been publishing pro-independence stories for a year.

No, no they haven't. The MSM publishes nothing that could possibly be construed as pro-independence. :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Hardly a surprise, the Sunday Herald has been publishing pro-independence stories for a year. Still won't make a difference to September's result.

That glass ball should be useful on Saturday...What's the score going to be?:greengrin

[yeezus.]

That glass ball should be useful on Saturday...What's the score going to be?:greengrin

:thumbsup: 3-0 mate!

[WindyMiller]

After the wall to wall coverage of Gordon Brown's statements regarding pensions, it was interesting to come across this. http://wingsoverscotland.com/more-uncertainty-dispelled/





Unfortunately it's not been covered nearly as much! :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

After the wall to wall coverage of Gordon Brown's statements regarding pensions, it was interesting to come across this. http://wingsoverscotland.com/more-uncertainty-dispelled/





Unfortunately it's not been covered nearly as much! :rolleyes:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27309215

[WindyMiller]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27309215


Wall to wall?

Hardly.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gordon+brown+on+scottish+pensions&oq=gordon+brown+on+scottish&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.14239j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=gordon+brown+on+scottish+pensions&tbm=nws

[lucky]

I'd vote yes if it meant 3 points on Saturday. Surely President Salmond can arrange it as everything wonderful in his world if we vote yes

[Saorsa]

I'd vote yes if it meant 3 points on Saturday. Surely President Salmond can arrange it as everything wonderful in his world if we vote yesI'll also vote yes if we get 3 points. :wink:

[Glory Lurker]

I'd vote yes if it meant 3 points on Saturday. Surely President Salmond can arrange it as everything wonderful in his world if we vote yes

I think that Salmond would be very circumspect about having done this. It would go down like a lead balloon if word got out that he had personally arranged the outcome of a game. As such, I don't think he'd shout this from the rafters, but Lucky if we do win tomorrow I think you will just have to accept that it is down to the divine intervention of my Glorious Leader, who I am humbled to serve, and vote Yes! :greengrin :thumbsup:

[lucky]

I think that Salmond would be very circumspect about having done this. It would go down like a lead balloon if word got out that he had personally arranged the outcome of a game. As such, I don't think he'd shout this from the rafters, but Lucky if we do win tomorrow I think you will just have to accept that it is down to the divine intervention of my Glorious Leader, who I am humbled to serve, and vote Yes! :greengrin :thumbsup:

Your reply actually made me laugh. Mon the Hibs:hibees.

[Moulin Yarns]

On phone so can't post link but great news that Better Together co-ordinate has joined Yes Scotland as he sees a Yes as the only way to a fairer Scotland

[ronaldo7]

On phone so can't post link but great news that Better Together co-ordinate has joined Yes Scotland as he sees a Yes as the only way to a fairer Scotland

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/no-campaign-organiser-defects-yes :aok:

"My decision to vote and campaign for a Yes vote came as I was sitting in a room in a large house discussing Better together strategy with representatives from parties I have nothing in common with, parties that represent privilege, greed and the status quo, notions completely at odds with my Labour background.

Says it all really.

Vote yes to get the Labour party back.:wink:

[hibsbollah]

A strange statement. The size of the house his meeting was taking place in should be immaterial to his decision to switch sides, I would have thought :dunno: Plenty of people with big houses in the Yes campaign too!

[Beefster]

I can only imagine the hay that would be made if it was revealed that 80% of the funding for the No campaign was coming for two extremely wealthy individuals.

We'd be hearing all about greed, self-interest, the elite etc etc etc.

[ronaldo7]

I can only imagine the hay that would be made if it was revealed that 80% of the funding for the No campaign was coming for two extremely wealthy individuals.

We'd be hearing all about greed, self-interest, the elite etc etc etc.


Imagine the hay that would be made if it was revealed that the grass roots No campaign (No Borders) was actually a London Financier. #followthemoney

No Borders a grass roots campaign:rolleyes:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/bbc-propaganda-hits-new-all-time-low/

[yeezus.]

Imagine the hay that would be made if it was revealed that the grass roots No campaign (No Borders) was actually a London Financier. #followthemoney

No Borders a grass roots campaign:rolleyes:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/bbc-propaganda-hits-new-all-time-low/

The song was terrible by the way :wink:

[WindyMiller]

Imagine the hay that would be made if it was revealed that the grass roots No campaign (No Borders) was actually a London Financier. #followthemoney

No Borders a grass roots campaign:rolleyes:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/bbc-propaganda-hits-new-all-time-low/


Astro-turfing!

[ronaldo7]

The song was terrible by the way :wink:

:agree:


Astro-turfing!

:greengrin