Alistair Darling

[Canongatehibs]

What an absolute out of touch fanny of a human being. Here's hoping his party get humiliated and annihilated next year.
Thunderbird Fanny man.

[One Day Soon]

What an absolute out of touch fanny of a human being. Here's hoping his party get humiliated and annihilated next year.
Thunderbird Fanny man.

Erm, ok then if you say so.

[marinello59]

Thunderbird Fanny man.

I shouldn't but....:faf:

[sleeping giant]

I shouldn't but....:faf:

:faf:

[Scottie]

I shouldn't but....:faf:

:hilarious


:faf:

I suppose I shouldn't either but. :faf:

[cabbageandribs1875]

and may his fav football club go the same way as the Scottish Labour Party....downwards


http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2991270.1373045297!/image/409559103.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/409559103.jpg

[JimBHibees]

and may his fav football club go the same way as the Scottish Labour Party....downwards


http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2991270.1373045297!/image/409559103.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/409559103.jpg

Does he support Hearts didnt realise that? Can definitely remember seeing him at ER late 80s/90s or so on the terracing though probably there was an election on at the time :greengrin

[Canongatehibs]

and may his fav football club go the same way as the Scottish Labour Party....downwards


http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2991270.1373045297!/image/409559103.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/409559103.jpg

I told you so.

[Swedish hibee]

and may his fav football club go the same way as the Scottish Labour Party....downwards


http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimage/1.2991270.1373045297!/image/409559103.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/409559103.jpg

I knew there was another reason apart from the obvious to why I didn't trust or like this awful man... sigh :idiot:

[O'Rourke3]

He hung about with a lot of Hibees when the local Politburo drank in the Artisan 81/82 when I worked there.

[Sir David Gray]

Does he support Hearts didnt realise that? Can definitely remember seeing him at ER late 80s/90s or so on the terracing though probably there was an election on at the time :greengrin

No idea if he supports them or not but Tynecastle is within his constituency which is probably the main reason for this picture.

[(((Fergus)))]

Wiped the floor with a very childish Salmond IMO, but some of his scaremongering was a bit OTT:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1YNgv-Z5m4

[BOB MARLEYS DUG]

Guys a bellend. End of.

[Stranraer]

What an absolute out of touch fanny of a human being. Here's hoping his party get humiliated and annihilated next year.
Thunderbird Fanny man.

Not sure about your description. I met once and studied at University with his son. Darling came across as very boring.

I do hope Labour lose Scottish seats next year though :aok:

[CB_NO3]

Wiped the floor with a very childish Salmond IMO, but some of his scaremongering was a bit OTT:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1YNgv-Z5m4

He lied through the skin of his teeth and the No punters fell for it. First lie was the currency union. An independent Scotland would have always used the £. The next lie was the amount of oil available. They have just conveniently found another 640 million barrels 75 miles north of Shetland. The next lie was the NHS. He told us it was at risk in an independent Scotland, then his party tweeted the other day there, that its at more risk under tory rule.

The biggest lie of them all, was he stated we are Better Together when in fact the retirement age looks set to go to 70 very soon and Scotland's budget will be slashed by 5 billion next year while he gets his 11% pay rise.

[Beefster]

He lied through the skin of his teeth and the No punters fell for it. First lie was the currency union. An independent Scotland would have always used the £. The next lie was the amount of oil available. They have just conveniently found another 640 million barrels 75 miles north of Shetland. The next lie was the NHS. He told us it was at risk in an independent Scotland, then his party tweeted the other day there, that its at more risk under tory rule.

The biggest lie of them all, was he stated we are Better Together when in fact the retirement age looks set to go to 70 very soon and Scotland's budget will be slashed by 5 billion next year while he gets his 11% pay rise.

Whether some of those were lies depends on your interpretation/persuasion.

No SNP lies?

[(((Fergus)))]

Whether some of those were lies depends on your interpretation/persuasion.

No SNP lies?

My problem with Salmond was that he failed, dismally, to come up with a convincing lie about sterling. It was suicide to stonewall a question on something so fundamental.

[allmodcons]

Whether some of those were lies depends on your interpretation/persuasion.

No SNP lies?


You'll never know will you.

[allmodcons]

Wiped the floor with a very childish Salmond IMO, but some of his scaremongering was a bit OTT:


It would be safe to assume that you never watched the second of the live TV debates between Salmond & Darling.



My problem with Salmond was that he failed, dismally, to come up with a convincing lie about sterling. It was suicide to stonewall a question on something so fundamental.

It would be safe to assume that you never watched the second of the live TV debates between Salmond & Darling.

[Phil D. Rolls]

My problem with Salmond was that he failed, dismally, to come up with a convincing lie about sterling. It was suicide to stonewall a question on something so fundamental.

Except he did, and closed the gap in the polls so dramatically that we were then visited by the Three Amigos, Deutsche Bank, Gordon Brown, some thinly veiled threats about defence, the moving of brass plaques to London addresses, oh and we were told that we might not make the Rio Olympics.

The information was there for anybody able to see beyond the massive distractions created by Project Fear.

[Beefster]

You'll never know will you.

So we can determine that the No campaigns warnings of the risks of independence were lies without experiencing independence but everything promised by the Yes campaign is a great unknown because we didn't experience independence?

[(((Fergus)))]

Except he did, and closed the gap in the polls so dramatically that we were then visited by the Three Amigos, Deutsche Bank, Gordon Brown, some thinly veiled threats about defence, the moving of brass plaques to London addresses, oh and we were told that we might not make the Rio Olympics.

The information was there for anybody able to see beyond the massive distractions created by Project Fear.

I said MY problem with Salmond, i.e. he did not succeed in creating a lie - or revealing a truth - about the currency that convinced ME. And I know many other people who also felt that question had been sidestepped, embarrassingly so.

[(((Fergus)))]

It would be safe to assume that you never watched the second of the live TV debates between Salmond & Darling.




It would be safe to assume that you never watched the second of the live TV debates between Salmond & Darling.

In the second debate Salmond did indeed succeed in setting off Darling's speech impediment but, as always with Salmond, it was through the use of rhetorical devices (and basic trolling) rather than honest, reasoned arguments.

[Jack]

Whether some of those were lies depends on your interpretation/persuasion.

No SNP lies?

This is the Darling thread, SNP lies can maybe be found and debated on another thread :-)

[allmodcons]

So we can determine that the No campaigns warnings of the risks of independence were lies without experiencing independence but everything promised by the Yes campaign is a great unknown because we didn't experience independence?

We will never know the ifs, whats and maybes of Independence because we didn't vote for it.

We should, however, be able to determine if the 'No' camp are true to their word on more powers for Holyrood and a more socially just UK post a 'No' vote.

[Geo_1875]

We will never know the ifs, whats and maybes of Independence because we didn't vote for it.

We should, however, be able to determine if the 'No' camp are true to their word on more powers for Holyrood and a more socially just UK post a 'No' vote.

And we also have history to judge the value of Westminster promises. I can't believe people looked at the record of countless governments of all hues and thought "They're just so much more believable than the SNP".

[Phil D. Rolls]

I said MY problem with Salmond, i.e. he did not succeed in creating a lie - or revealing a truth - about the currency that convinced ME. And I know many other people who also felt that question had been sidestepped, embarrassingly so.

Fair enough, I think the doubt over currency must have been influential. It would be interesting to get Salmond's take on it.

[emerald green]

Does he support Hearts didnt realise that? Can definitely remember seeing him at ER late 80s/90s or so on the terracing though probably there was an election on at the time :greengrin

If he does, that's something he has in common with Salmond.

[lobster]

What an absolute out of touch fanny of a human being. Here's hoping his party get humiliated and annihilated next year.
Thunderbird Fanny man.

Superb :aok:

[snooky]

What an absolute out of touch fanny of a human being. Here's hoping his party get humiliated and annihilated next year.
Thunderbird Fanny man.

:aok:

Actually, I feel sorry for his caterpillars. :cb

[adhibs]

Pretty sure its been said previously on here he attended easter road in the 80's...

[(((Fergus)))]

Fair enough, I think the doubt over currency must have been influential. It would be interesting to get Salmond's take on it.

Not only that. The fact that Salmond didn't seem to think it was important to have clarity on that issue - or at least to provide clarity to the electorate - led me to question his judgement generally as well as his honesty as regards his true objectives.

[Winston Ingram]

My problem with Salmond was that he failed, dismally, to come up with a convincing lie about sterling. It was suicide to stonewall a question on something so fundamental.

His approach to that question was ****in terrifying. The question itself was a major vote swinger but his shouty, stick his fingers in his ears, la la la swung a lot more.

The man is still our First Minister

[cabbageandribs1875]

It would be safe to assume that you never watched the second of the live TV debates between Salmond & Darling.




It would be safe to assume that you never watched the second of the live TV debates between Salmond & Darling.


i've still got the two 'debates', still not watched either of them :) but i think it was universally agreed that wee eck salmond owned darling after the 2nd one :agree: why on earth someone can say otherwise is quite baffling

[Winston Ingram]

Not only that. The fact that Salmond didn't seem to think it was important to have clarity on that issue - or at least to provide clarity to the electorate - led me to question his judgement generally as well as his honesty as regards his true objectives.

I've no doubt he did think it was important but it was too late to admit he was wrong on such a massive issue which appears they hadn't even considered.

I say appeared because surely if they had considered it they could have come up with a more viable alternative in that time. It looked to me that they'd taken this as a given. How he's avoided heat on it beggars belief

[cabbageandribs1875]

Does he support Hearts didnt realise that? Can definitely remember seeing him at ER late 80s/90s or so on the terracing though probably there was an election on at the time :greengrin


i honestly can't understand football fans that change their colours jb, no loyalty :greengrin


I told you so.

we already knew :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

His approach to that question was ****in terrifying. The question itself was a major vote swinger but his shouty, stick his fingers in his ears, la la la swung a lot more.

The man is still our First Minister

Salmond stated several times what the approach to currency would be and even offered several alternatives. His downfall was he couldn't prove that BT were lying about Scotland being able to use the pound. But lie they did.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not only that. The fact that Salmond didn't seem to think it was important to have clarity on that issue - or at least to provide clarity to the electorate - led me to question his judgement generally as well as his honesty as regards his true objectives.


His approach to that question was ****in terrifying. The question itself was a major vote swinger but his shouty, stick his fingers in his ears, la la la swung a lot more.

The man is still our First Minister


Salmond stated several times what the approach to currency would be and even offered several alternatives. His downfall was he couldn't prove that BT were lying about Scotland being able to use the pound. But lie they did.

I felt it was unclear, until Darling said that we could use the pound. Significantly, yes really closed the gap after that. I'm puzzled as to why some people are saying the issue wasn't clarified - it was. However, it was maybe too late to convince the people who didn't want to trust Salmond.

[Peevemor]

His approach to that question was ****in terrifying. The question itself was a major vote swinger but his shouty, stick his fingers in his ears, la la la swung a lot more.

What was he meant to do? BT were giving it the big "it's our baw" (even if part of it belongs to Scotland) but they would have looked pretty stupid had there been a Yes result as rUK would have had their ball but nobody to play with. Refusal of a common currency would have been bad for rUK's economy - iScotland would have been their biggest trading partner and it would have made total sense to share the pound.


The man is still our First Minister


Until November.

[Tyler Durden]

Salmond stated several times what the approach to currency would be and even offered several alternatives. His downfall was he couldn't prove that BT were lying about Scotland being able to use the pound. But lie they did.

Nonsense. The Yes position on this was ridiculous, particularly the fact they took Darlings quote of "of course they could use the pound" in the 2nd debate to be some kind of concession. The "Panama" solution was never a solution pure and simple

The lack of understanding amongst the electorate was a joke but actually benefitted the SNP which is why Salmond reverted to shouting rather than debating the real issue - a currency union if agreed would not work. Any financially literate person can see that and no doubt it played a part in Edinburgh overwhelmingly rejecting independence.

The 3 main parties said it would not happen. Most people can see that was a stance during the campaign. It's not lies. Again it's no different to various tactics used by Yes during the campaign.

People need to grow up and get into the real world.

[One Day Soon]

Salmond stated several times what the approach to currency would be and even offered several alternatives. His downfall was he couldn't prove that BT were lying about Scotland being able to use the pound. But lie they did.


No he didn't. He asserted that the UK would just share the pound with us despite that fact that all three main parties and the Governor of the Bank of England and several other international commentators said they couldn't or wouldn't. And when it was made clear that the only basis on which we could share the pound in currency union was one in which we ceded control over taxation levels and public spending levels he failed to engage with that. He didn't either refute it or make explicit what degree of control he would be prepared to give away. The reason he didn't do that was because ceding control over tax and spend rips apart the notion of 'independence' that we were being sold.

Of course Darling pointed out in the debate that we could use the pound - just as we could use any other currency in the world we liked - but using it in every day purchases is not the same as controlling it. Without a currency that is backed up by a central bank you have no control over the strength or weakness of your currency, or what interest rate will apply to suit the purposes of your economy, or what inflation rate you will aim to manage. Business understood that and so did so many of the commentators.

Using the pound without sharing its control, without owning it, without a currency union (what we have now in fact) is like saying 'I don't have a car but my neighbour is going to allow me to use his. He will be driving it, he will be deciding where it goes, for how long and when and also when it comes back. But I can sit in it and go with him.' Great for those occasions when your neighbour is going for the weekly shopping, but you're utterly ****ed for those times when you need to go to the doctor or the hospital in a hurry but your neighbour isn't in, or he needs to go somewhere else just as important at the same time.

If you really think that Salmond offered several alternatives I'd like to know what they were.

[Peevemor]

Nonsense. The Yes position on this was ridiculous, particularly the fact they took Darlings quote of "of course they could use the pound" in the 2nd debate to be some kind of concession. The "Panama" solution was never a solution pure and simple

The lack of understanding amongst the electorate was a joke but actually benefitted the SNP which is why Salmond reverted to shouting rather than debating the real issue - a currency union if agreed would not work. Any financially literate person can see that and no doubt it played a part in Edinburgh overwhelmingly rejecting independence.

The 3 main parties said it would not happen. Most people can see that was a stance during the campaign. It's not lies. Again it's no different to various tactics used by Yes during the campaign.

People need to grow up and get into the real world.

Erm...


Also last week Professor Danny Dorling explained this great market pressure looming on George Osborne.
He said that the UK is one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Scotland, he explained, is asset rich and would have offshore income to ensure a transition into global markets.
The rest of the UK would appear vulnerable – like a boat in stormy seas without an anchor. This would potentially lead to capital flight from the City of London and investors ditching the pound sterling.
According to Dorling, a full scale review of Westminster’s financial position would call into question their ability to finance current debt. Scotland’s above average Gross Domestic Product holds down the UK debt/GDP ratio. This would increase by 11% after Scottish independence. (See Table 2 (http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-uks-debt-burden))
So with the threat to London’s currency and financial institutions, where will Osborne turn?
The obvious answer is a currency union. The need for economic stability, offshore revenue to support the pound sterling and financial services security will all be best served by an agreement to support a single currency.
Anything less would be an “act of economic vandalism” as forewarned by Professor Anton Muscatelli.



http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/market-pressure-builds-on-george-osborne-to-confirm-currency-union/

[Beefster]

Erm...

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/market-pressure-builds-on-george-osborne-to-confirm-currency-union/

If I had the inclination, I could find the polar opposite view from an actual economist and I probably wouldn't need to quote a website whose sole reason for existence is to campaign for one side or the other.

[One Day Soon]

What was he meant to do? BT were giving it the big "it's our baw" (even if part of it belongs to Scotland) but they would have looked pretty stupid had there been a Yes result as rUK would have had their ball but nobody to play with. Refusal of a common currency would have been bad for rUK's economy - iScotland would have been their biggest trading partner and it would have made total sense to share the pound.



Until November.


Scotland exports 70% of its product to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK exports 10% of its product to Scotland. There is no way that the fiscal enormity of sharing the pound with a separate country would have been driven or delivered by these numbers. Any increase in costs for rUK businesses caused by Scotland being outside the pound- eg within the Euro - would simply have been passed on to Scottish consumers of rUK imports via price rises.

The only way you get to currency union - maybe - is by Scotland sharing control with rUK on taxation and public spending. How does that materially differ from the current position? Even then it is not clear that it would be in the interests of rUK to do so.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nonsense. The Yes position on this was ridiculous, particularly the fact they took Darlings quote of "of course they could use the pound" in the 2nd debate to be some kind of concession. The "Panama" solution was never a solution pure and simple

The lack of understanding amongst the electorate was a joke but actually benefitted the SNP which is why Salmond reverted to shouting rather than debating the real issue - a currency union if agreed would not work. Any financially literate person can see that and no doubt it played a part in Edinburgh overwhelmingly rejecting independence.

The 3 main parties said it would not happen. Most people can see that was a stance during the campaign. It's not lies. Again it's no different to various tactics used by Yes during the campaign.

People need to grow up and get into the real world.


Funny that, because, without checking, I'm fairly sure that several 'financial experts' on Hibs.net were speaking out for the Yes campaign.

[Moulin Yarns]

If I had the inclination, I could find the polar opposite view from an actual economist and I probably wouldn't need to quote a website whose sole reason for existence is to campaign for one side or the other.


Maybe the Financial times will convince you then?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8bf832a8-b984-11e3-b74f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EPGdXYaW

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Inquiries/Professor_Anton_Muscatelli.pdf

Is that what you want? proper evidence.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Look, can we get back on topic, is Alistair Darling a good bloke, or a ****? The rest needs to wait until I've had my cereal, hoovered the kids, and read this nice article on Millport in the People's Friend. There's only so many hours in a day etc....

[Peevemor]

If I had the inclination, I could find the polar opposite view from an actual economist and I probably wouldn't need to quote a website whose sole reason for existence is to campaign for one side or the other.

And I in turn could look out the others that I seen, including one written by an impartial Nobel prize winning economist, arguing the case for a currency union. It was largely predicted that in the event of a Yes result there would have been a u-turn made by Westminster re. a currency union. However, in the run up to the referendum, they just kept saying no no no no as this suited their campaign tactics perfectly.

[CropleyWasGod]

Nonsense. The Yes position on this was ridiculous, particularly the fact they took Darlings quote of "of course they could use the pound" in the 2nd debate to be some kind of concession. The "Panama" solution was never a solution pure and simple

The lack of understanding amongst the electorate was a joke but actually benefitted the SNP which is why Salmond reverted to shouting rather than debating the real issue - a currency union if agreed would not work. Any financially literate person can see that and no doubt it played a part in Edinburgh overwhelmingly rejecting independence.

The 3 main parties said it would not happen. Most people can see that was a stance during the campaign. It's not lies. Again it's no different to various tactics used by Yes during the campaign.

People need to grow up and get into the real world.

So anyone who accepted your view is financially literate, and those who don't aren't?

[emerald green]

I knew there was another reason apart from the obvious to why I didn't trust or like this awful man... sigh :idiot:

I seem to recall Salmond posing in a very similar photograph not that long ago, maroon and white scarf draped round his neck, with season tickets I think outside PBS with a view to "bigging up" his favourite club. A club he remained silent about as regards the shameful way it had "operated" for years.

He was a big admirer of Fred the Shred too I've heard, as Fred ran RBOS into the ground.

I distrust politicians generally, but out of the two (Salmond or Darling) I know which one I don't trust or like the most, and it isn't Alistair Darling.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I seem to recall Salmond posing in a very similar photograph not that long ago, maroon and white scarf draped round his neck, with season tickets I think outside PBS with a view to "bigging up" his favourite club. A club he remained silent about as regards the shameful way it had "operated" for years.

He was a big admirer of Fred the Shred too I've heard, as Fred ran RBOS into the ground.

I distrust politicians generally, but out of the two (Salmond or Darling) I know which one I don't trust or like the most, and it isn't Alistair Darling.

So, if they are both Yams, then the thing that bugs you most is the RBS connection? Nothing wrong with that, but what was Darling (ex Chancellor of the Exchequer) doing when RBS went tits up?

[johnbc70]

Erm...




http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/market-pressure-builds-on-george-osborne-to-confirm-currency-union/

Using a pro yes website to back up your points is kinda pointless. What else do you expect it to say?

[Beefster]

Maybe the Financial times will convince you then?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8bf832a8-b984-11e3-b74f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EPGdXYaW

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Inquiries/Professor_Anton_Muscatelli.pdf

Is that what you want? proper evidence.

My point was more about how some real experts said a currency union was beneficial to both and some real experts said it wasn't.

[Moulin Yarns]

Using a pro yes website to back up your points is kinda pointless. What else do you expect it to say?

I've already provided independent sources to the same information.


Maybe the Financial times will convince you then?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8bf832a8-b984-11e3-b74f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EPGdXYaW

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Inquiries/Professor_Anton_Muscatelli.pdf

Is that what you want? proper evidence.

It is all a bit pointless now though, as we know that both the Conservative government and Labour opposition are hell bent on a further £25 billion in cuts, with council house tenants and young people claiming housing benefit to be targeted.

The national debt is still expected to rise from the current £1.2 trillion to over £1.5 trillion by 2018, government borrowing already double what it said when elected. This costs the UK £50 billion a year in interest.

But everything is rosy, because Scotland voted to remain a party to this lunatic spiral of debt and austerity.

OH AYE, SOURCES... TORY RAG


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10552822/George-Osborne-targets-25-billion-more-in-spending-cuts.html

[CropleyWasGod]

My point was more about how some real experts said a currency union was beneficial to both and some real experts said it wasn't.

Agreed.

It's been said that, if you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. :greengrin

[Peevemor]

Using a pro yes website to back up your points is kinda pointless. What else do you expect it to say?

Where else would I find this stuff - the BBC?, the rest of the main stream media? Don't make me laugh.

Why don't you look at the credentials of the guys quoted in the piece instead of automatically writing them off because of the header at the top of the web page?

[emerald green]

So, if they are both Yams, then the thing that bugs you most is the RBS connection? Nothing wrong with that, but what was Darling (ex Chancellor of the Exchequer) doing when RBS went tits up?

Not really. I could recite a list as long as my arm about the things that "bug me" (your words, not mine) about Salmond. I was simply making an observation about BOTH Darling & Salmond having posed outside Tynecastle, as if that made Darling a bad man or something! :rolleyes:

I generally keep out of discussions / arguments about politics because I know it's usually pointless. I was well advised when growing up never to get involved in arguments about politics, religion or football! Yet here I am. :rolleyes: I've decided to reply to your post, but I will bow out after this.

It's because politics, like religion, is a very emotive subject IMHO and people often hold very deep and entrenched views. One just has to look around the world we live in to see the mess it's in, and the divisions caused due to these entrenched political and religious views. The last thing we need is to have these divisions brought to our own doorstep.

I've never claimed to be an expert on the banking crisis, of which the collapse of RBOS was a part, but was Alistair Darling not heavily involved in trying to maintain some financial stability during the banking crisis by ensuring the UK taxpayers / BOE bailed out the banks? Something an independent Scotland may not have been able to do?

No doubt you will have your answer ready to contradict me.

[Tyler Durden]

So anyone who accepted your view is financially literate, and those who don't aren't?

Ok that was poorly worded. Rather than me repeat the same points, I think ODS's post at 8.42 sums up the rationale, feel free to pick that apart if you wish.

My post was more aimed at the suggestion that BT had lied as they continually claimed a union would not happen but then Darling said "of course we could use the £" and this was viewed by many as a concession or vindication of the Yes argument - it was clearly nothing of the sort.

See also the common Yes view that Salmond had "smacked down" Nick Robinson talking about the banks apparent scare mongering. Salmond doesn't answer Robinsons question, instead going on a rant about mechanics of corporation tax and suggesting it was a move of brass plaques. Conveniently he ignores the banking levy or capital allocation implications etc, the very real reasons that the banks would move.

The majority of voters IMO did not understand these important factors and many were swung to Yes as they saw Salmond getting one over the misleading bbc. Yet according to the likes of Hiberlin, Yes were cheated by lies.

It's all part of the game and Salmond is certainly a pro

[Moulin Yarns]

Not really. I could recite a list as long as my arm about the things that "bug me" (your words, not mine) about Salmond. I was simply making an observation about BOTH Darling & Salmond having posed outside Tynecastle, as if that made Darling a bad man or something! :rolleyes:

I generally keep out of discussions / arguments about politics because I know it's usually pointless. I was well advised when growing up never to get involved in arguments about politics, religion or football! Yet here I am. :rolleyes: I've decided to reply to your post, but I will bow out after this.

It's because politics, like religion, is a very emotive subject IMHO and people often hold very deep and entrenched views. One just has to look around the world we live in to see the mess it's in, and the divisions caused due to these entrenched political and religious views. The last thing we need is to have these divisions brought to our own doorstep.

I've never claimed to be an expert on the banking crisis, of which the collapse of RBOS was a part, but was Alistair Darling not heavily involved in trying to maintain some financial stability during the banking crisis by ensuring the UK taxpayers / BOE bailed out the banks? Something an independent Scotland may not have been able to do?

No doubt you will have your answer ready to contradict me.

I'll do better than contradict you, I'll give you chapter and verse. :greengrin


That is a huge myth.

The UK treasury/taxpayer bailed out all UK banks to the tune of £124 bn What seems to escape most people is that the US Federal Reserve pumped £640 bn into the UK Banks at the same time.

Over and over again we hear from anti-independence campaigers (especially failed former Chancellor Alastair Darling) that an independent Scotland could not have afforded to bail out the Scottish banks. After all, Alastair knows best! He was in charge when they collapsed!
His argument relies on the assertion that banks are bailed out by the taxpayers of the country in which the institution is headquartered. This simply isn't true.
Next time you hear someone say an independent Scotland could not have afforded the banking bail out, remember how the US Federal Reserve bailed out Barclays to the tune of £552.32bn. Ask them if they think Scotland would have made the same bank regulation mistakes as the city of London led Westminster government? It is a fact that the contribution of an independent Scotland's taxpayers to any bank bail-out that may or may not have been required in an independent Scotland would have been the same as it has been with Scotland part of the UK.
80% of the peak losses at RBS stemmed from its London-based businesses. The financial crisis shows us that bailing out the banks - like reinsurance - is a risk that is globe in nature and shared between countries, and any tales about Scotland having to accept the burden all by itself are pure myth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon-macintyrekemp/scottish-independence-bank-bailout_b_4895234.html

[emerald green]

I'll do better than contradict you, I'll give you chapter and verse. :greengrin


That is a huge myth.

The UK treasury/taxpayer bailed out all UK banks to the tune of £124 bn What seems to escape most people is that the US Federal Reserve pumped £640 bn into the UK Banks at the same time.

Over and over again we hear from anti-independence campaigers (especially failed former Chancellor Alastair Darling) that an independent Scotland could not have afforded to bail out the Scottish banks. After all, Alastair knows best! He was in charge when they collapsed!
His argument relies on the assertion that banks are bailed out by the taxpayers of the country in which the institution is headquartered. This simply isn't true.
Next time you hear someone say an independent Scotland could not have afforded the banking bail out, remember how the US Federal Reserve bailed out Barclays to the tune of £552.32bn. Ask them if they think Scotland would have made the same bank regulation mistakes as the city of London led Westminster government? It is a fact that the contribution of an independent Scotland's taxpayers to any bank bail-out that may or may not have been required in an independent Scotland would have been the same as it has been with Scotland part of the UK.
80% of the peak losses at RBS stemmed from its London-based businesses. The financial crisis shows us that bailing out the banks - like reinsurance - is a risk that is globe in nature and shared between countries, and any tales about Scotland having to accept the burden all by itself are pure myth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon-macintyrekemp/scottish-independence-bank-bailout_b_4895234.html

Thanks for that. As I said in my earlier post I'm no expert on the banking crisis.

The Huffington Post. A liberal/left commentary outlet based in the USA. I'm sure they are completely impartial in their analysis and commentaries. :greengrin

[johnbc70]

Where else would I find this stuff - the BBC?, the rest of the main stream media? Don't make me laugh.

Why don't you look at the credentials of the guys quoted in the piece instead of automatically writing them off because of the header at the top of the web page?

So you say the BBC and the main stream media are bias so would not look there, yet your happy to look at a pro Yes website which is not bias because.......?

I have said this all along that for every nobel prize, oscar winner, gold medalist, world cup winner that one side can produce the other side can produce another. It all comes down to opinion and what a certain individual believes as nobody could prove anything in an iScotland or rUK scenario as they did not exist. I quoted Alan Greenspan on a thread and was told that as he did not predict the financial crisis (who did by the way) his view was irrelevant....so credentials goes out the window for some people when they have the nerve to disagree with what some people say. He was only described as the most powerful man in the world but what does he know, he dared to speak out against Yes so he must be ignored. Lets also ignore the EU Commission President who said Scotland would not get into the EU, but again what does he know, he is only in charge of the EU and actually makes decisions.

So yes lets look at credentials but some are happy to dismiss credentials very quickly when it goes against what they believe in.

So Alistair Darling must be a pretty credential guy then if he was in one of the most senior roles in the UK government and possibly one of the most senior roles in the world economy and helped steer the world through the crisis.

So credentials seem to suit when they support the Yes view but it works both ways, and I think this is why Yes failed as they did not listen, they ignored what the experts and decision makers were saying and said 'wait and see, it will be just fine'

[Moulin Yarns]

Thanks for that. As I said in my earlier post I'm no expert on the banking crisis.

The Huffington Post. A liberal/left commentary outlet based in the USA. I'm sure they are completely impartial in their analysis and commentaries. :greengrin


Aye, thank F eck it isn't the BBC.:greengrin

[johnbc70]

I'll do better than contradict you, I'll give you chapter and verse. :greengrin


That is a huge myth.

The UK treasury/taxpayer bailed out all UK banks to the tune of £124 bn What seems to escape most people is that the US Federal Reserve pumped £640 bn into the UK Banks at the same time.

Over and over again we hear from anti-independence campaigers (especially failed former Chancellor Alastair Darling) that an independent Scotland could not have afforded to bail out the Scottish banks. After all, Alastair knows best! He was in charge when they collapsed!
His argument relies on the assertion that banks are bailed out by the taxpayers of the country in which the institution is headquartered. This simply isn't true.
Next time you hear someone say an independent Scotland could not have afforded the banking bail out, remember how the US Federal Reserve bailed out Barclays to the tune of £552.32bn. Ask them if they think Scotland would have made the same bank regulation mistakes as the city of London led Westminster government? It is a fact that the contribution of an independent Scotland's taxpayers to any bank bail-out that may or may not have been required in an independent Scotland would have been the same as it has been with Scotland part of the UK.
80% of the peak losses at RBS stemmed from its London-based businesses. The financial crisis shows us that bailing out the banks - like reinsurance - is a risk that is globe in nature and shared between countries, and any tales about Scotland having to accept the burden all by itself are pure myth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon-macintyrekemp/scottish-independence-bank-bailout_b_4895234.html

Is there not a difference to the money used to buy shares in the banks, for example the £40BN the UK government used to buy a stake in RBS, and the money the fed pumped into the 'system' for banks to use for short term funding. I think you are not comparing apples with apples here, but I might be wrong. I do know the US fed has 0% stake in RBS while the UK government has a stake worth 10's billions of pounds in RBS. Barclays has a market capitalisation of £37BN so how the fed bailed them out to the tune of £552BN (more than 10 times the worth of the company) is confusing. As I say I think this is the money that was pumped into the system not the banks to help with short term funding so we are not comparing the same thing here.

[johnbc70]

I've already provided independent sources to the same information.



OH AYE, SOURCES... TORY RAG
[/SIZE]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10552822/George-Osborne-targets-25-billion-more-in-spending-cuts.html




[/FONT]

So the Telegraph is a Tory Rag but the FT is an outstanding example of independent reporting. Surely not because one supports your cause and the other disagrees with you. This was the problem with the Yes campaign I am afraid, anything pro yes is hailed as the gospel yet anything with a No slant or criticism is immediately dismissed as irrelevant for various reasons.

[Moulin Yarns]

So the Telegraph is a Tory Rag but the FT is an outstanding example of independent reporting. Surely not because one supports your cause and the other disagrees with you. This was the problem with the Yes campaign I am afraid, anything pro yes is hailed as the gospel yet anything with a No slant or criticism is immediately dismissed as irrelevant for various reasons.

Using both the Telegraph and FT (both supporters of the No Better Together, Thanks, campaign) to highlight the financial plight facing everybody in the UK, is not, I would have thought, being selectively 'pro Yes'. If anything I have used anti-independence media to highlight why it might have been better to go it alone and leave the rUK to pick up the pieces.

Under the current government and a possible Labour one next year the UK faces another £25 bn of cuts to spending, and it is the young, and tenants of Social Housing, that look likely to be worse off as a result. As reported in the Telegraph.

[Peevemor]

So you say the BBC and the main stream media are bias so would not look there, yet your happy to look at a pro Yes website which is not bias because.......?

I didn't say that I wouldn't look there. I said I wouldn't find it there. Spot the difference?


I have said this all along that for every nobel prize, oscar winner, gold medalist, world cup winner that one side can produce the other side can produce another. It all comes down to opinion and what a certain individual believes as nobody could prove anything in an iScotland or rUK scenario as they did not exist. I quoted Alan Greenspan on a thread and was told that as he did not predict the financial crisis (who did by the way) his view was irrelevant....so credentials goes out the window for some people when they have the nerve to disagree with what some people say. He was only described as the most powerful man in the world but what does he know, he dared to speak out against Yes so he must be ignored. Lets also ignore the EU Commission President who said Scotland would not get into the EU, but again what does he know, he is only in charge of the EU and actually makes decisions not like
So yes lets look at credentials but some are happy to dismiss credentials very quickly when it goes against what they believe in.

Yes Barroso (EU Commission President) said it would be "difficult, if not impossible" for Scotland to enter the EU. Where was the one place he said this - yup on the BBC!

However he "had previously made clear he thought an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership as a “new nation” but had not suggested such an application might be rejected"

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ad3dd392-96fb-11e3-809f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3EPhyinjW


So Alistair Darling must be a pretty credential guy then if he was in one of the most senior roles in the UK government and possibly one of the most senior roles in the world economy and helped steer the world through the crisis.

Sounds like Vlad and submarines to me! Trying to avoid the crisis in the first place would have been good. In France, for example, there are far stricter regulations imposed on the banks and their 'boom & bust' cycles are generally far less violent as a result.


So credentials seem to suit when they support the Yes view but it works both ways, and I think this is why Yes failed as they did not listen, they ignored what the experts and decision makers were saying and said 'wait and see, it will be just fine'


I think Yes failed because a lot of No voters simply didn't listen. How do you explain the way the 65s+ voted? Had they listened they would have known that their pension were, at very least, guaranteed.

[emerald green]

How do you explain the way the 65s+ voted? Had they listened they would have known that their pension were, at very least, guaranteed.

Quite the contrary IMHO. I believe No voters listened very carefully indeed, and simply did not believe the SNP especially when their leader simply refused (or could not) answer questions such as the currency an independent Scotland would use, or the approach to individual taxation, especially around savings and pensions, to name just a couple of things. To gamble the future of one's country, given the degree of uncertainty that existed in people's minds would have been reckless to say the least.

AS was scapegoating the Union to credulous, vulnerable and impressionable people who didn't know any better.

It's very disrespectful and condescending to single out over 65s for the way they voted. Whilst being correctly worried about the security of their pensions, that was not the only issue that people over 65 considered, by a long chalk, before marking their ballot papers with a resounding No.

[johnbc70]

The BBC reported what Barrosa said, as did many others. Not sure the point your making here.

Anyway we were talking about credentials as you seemed to place significance on this so do you think the likes of Greenspan is to be ignored or all the other people who came out and pointed gaping holes in the Yes campaign. None of them had any credentials at all?

BNP Paribas are Frances biggest bank and they had a little bit of trouble did they not and need a bailout? Ok not as much as others but still needed intervention. As for predicting the crisis well these things happen in the big bad world but I am sure if we were independent someone from the SNP (John Swinney maybe) would have seen it coming and saved the day.

Again another disrespectful dig to blame the No voters for not listening, maybe someone needs to look a bit closer to home before accusing others of not listening. If a No supporter showed you a black bit of paper you would try and convince them its white!

[Moulin Yarns]

Quite the contrary IMHO. I believe No voters listened very carefully indeed, and simply did not believe the SNP especially when their leader simply refused (or could not) answer questions such as the currency an independent Scotland would use, or the approach to individual taxation, especially around savings and pensions, to name just a couple of things. To gamble the future of one's country, given the degree of uncertainty that existed in people's minds would have been reckless to say the least.

AS was scapegoating the Union to credulous, vulnerable and impressionable people who didn't know any better.

It's very disrespectful and condescending to single out over 65s for the way they voted. Whilst being correctly worried about the security of their pensions, that was not the only issue that people over 65 considered, by a long chalk, before marking their ballot papers with a resounding No.

I'll let Peevemor answer for himself,but I will pick you up on one point. Why was there worry about the security of Pensions? Every british citizen is entitled to the state pension, regardless of where they live, be it London, Edinburgh, Lisbon or Erinsborough.

So why were those already drawing their pensions worried? misinformed perhaps? Being spun an untruth by the No Better Together, thanks side of the debate, including the media? The answers were available, but they were more prepared to believe what they were being told by the BBC, Scotsman, Daily Record etc, rather than actually pick up the phone to the DWP and ask.

I think the Yes campaign was weak in not getting several points across that would have blown huge holes in the negative campaign of NO, and got caught up in having to repeatedly answer the same question on currency over and over again. We would have used the pound, by the way, in case you missed that one.:wink:

[johnbc70]

I'll let Peevemor answer for himself,but I will pick you up on one point. Why was there worry about the security of Pensions? Every british citizen is entitled to the state pension, regardless of where they live, be it London, Edinburgh, Lisbon or Erinsborough.

So why were those already drawing their pensions worried? misinformed perhaps? Being spun an untruth by the No Better Together, thanks side of the debate, including the media? The answers were available, but they were more prepared to believe what they were being told by the BBC, Scotsman, Daily Record etc, rather than actually pick up the phone to the DWP and ask.

I think the Yes campaign was weak in not getting several points across that would have blown huge holes in the negative campaign of NO, and got caught up in having to repeatedly answer the same question on currency over and over again. We would have used the pound, by the way, in case you missed that one.:wink:

Remind me was that using the pound in or out of a currency union? Very important point to many.

[Beefster]

I'll let Peevemor answer for himself,but I will pick you up on one point. Why was there worry about the security of Pensions? Every british citizen is entitled to the state pension, regardless of where they live, be it London, Edinburgh, Lisbon or Erinsborough.

Entitlement is almost exclusively on NI contributions.

Presumably, if Scotland had become independent, we'd have stopped paying NI to the UK exchequer and our entitlement to a UK pension would stop accruing. Scotland would have needed to take responsibility for future state pension accrual.

[johnbc70]

While I do enjoy this we are going around in circles here repeating points again and again. Iam as guilty as everyone but would be good to move on.

[Peevemor]

The BBC reported what Barrosa said, as did many others. Not sure the point your making here.

Many other reported what was said on a BBC interview. It all came from one source.


Anyway we were talking about credentials as you seemed to place significance on this so do you think the likes of Greenspan is to be ignored or all the other people who came out and pointed gaping holes in the Yes campaign. None of them had any credentials at all?

I have no more hang-ups than the next person over credentials.


BNP Paribas are Frances biggest bank and they had a little bit of trouble did they not and need a bailout? Ok not as much as others but still needed intervention. As for predicting the crisis well these things happen in the big bad world but I am sure if we were independent someone from the SNP (John Swinney maybe) would have seen it coming and saved the day.

BNP Paribas' particular problems weren't the same as those that lead to the global crisis.


Again another disrespectful dig to blame the No voters for not listening, maybe someone needs to look a bit closer to home before accusing others of not listening. If a No supporter showed you a black bit of paper you would try and convince them its white!

Of course not and there was no disrespect intended on my part. There were people that had valid reasons for voting no and I respect that, but BT and their pet media lied about pensions and I think the vast majority of the over 65s who voted no were influenced by this.

[Peevemor]

Entitlement is almost exclusively on NI contributions.

Presumably, if Scotland had become independent, we'd have stopped paying NI to the UK exchequer and our entitlement to a UK pension would stop accruing. Scotland would have needed to take responsibility for future state pension accrual.

... and they'd also have recovered the ongoing NI/pension contributions (or their equivalent).

I stopped paying UK contributions 10 years ago and now contribute in France. My state pension will be an accumulation of both.

[emerald green]

I'll let Peevemor answer for himself,but I will pick you up on one point. Why was there worry about the security of Pensions? Every british citizen is entitled to the state pension, regardless of where they live, be it London, Edinburgh, Lisbon or Erinsborough.

So why were those already drawing their pensions worried? misinformed perhaps? Being spun an untruth by the No Better Together, thanks side of the debate, including the media? The answers were available, but they were more prepared to believe what they were being told by the BBC, Scotsman, Daily Record etc, rather than actually pick up the phone to the DWP and ask.

I think the Yes campaign was weak in not getting several points across that would have blown huge holes in the negative campaign of NO, and got caught up in having to repeatedly answer the same question on currency over and over again. We would have used the pound, by the way, in case you missed that one.:wink:

Would we? I don't think I missed that one. :confused: However, it's very reassuring to learn this from you on Hibs.net GF. :greengrin

We could go around in circles debating these issues until doomsday, and for the reasons I explained in an earlier post, I don't usually get involved in discussions on politics or religion. You clearly have a certain viewpoint which I respect, but disagree with. I just hope that you can respect mine too.

Time for me to bow out. :bye:

[Moulin Yarns]

Would we? I don't think I missed that one. :confused: However, it's very reassuring to learn this from you on Hibs.net GF. :greengrin

We could go around in circles debating these issues until doomsday, and for the reasons I explained in an earlier post, I don't usually get involved in discussions on politics or religion. You clearly have a certain viewpoint which I respect, but disagree with. I just hope that you can respect mine too.

Time for me to bow out. :bye:


You are going to have to enlighten me why, if Scotland had voted for Independence, we wouldn't have used the pound?

My own preference would have been a separate Scottish currency, but, the pound would have continued to be the currency used until the new currency could replace it. That has never been in doubt, so your suggestion that we wouldn't have used the pound is more confusing.

And you never explained why you think there was a worry about pensions.

[emerald green]

You are going to have to enlighten me why, if Scotland had voted for Independence, we wouldn't have used the pound?

My own preference would have been a separate Scottish currency, but, the pound would have continued to be the currency used until the new currency could replace it. That has never been in doubt, so your suggestion that we wouldn't have used the pound is more confusing.

And you never explained why you think there was a worry about pensions.

OK GF, one last time, fair enough?

This is a summary of an article which appeared in The Guardian. Not a "Tory rag". This perhaps gives an insight into some people's thinking.

Leaders of the three main political parties, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems, following the Treasury review, made it clear that a currency union could only be formed if an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK formed a banking union, a fiscal union, and a political agreement that would come close to a political union. This would be unacceptable to the rest of the UK (the majority).

The shadow chancellor said "what we have now seen after the turbulence of the last few years (of the euro) is a pretty unattractive prospect for Scotland. More than that it would require joining a more onerous banking union, a big fiscal union, political integration. So that option is off the table.

What is he (Alex Salmond) doing? He is trying to say somehow Scotland can be independent, break from the rest of the UK, but still use the pound Sterling. That would require a banking union, a fiscal union, a political union.

There is a fundamental intellectual problem for Alex Salmond. He wants to break from the UK but also keep the pound even if that means a closer relationship to the UK. You can't have your cake and eat it."

Now I'm sure you will have your riposte to this, but I'm not inclined to continue this debate if that's OK. It's time for all of us in Scotland to try to work together to heal the divisions that have been opened up in our country as a result of the referendum, which many people did not want or ask for BTW. I presume you would agree with that?

The worries over the security of people's pensions is another issue, but I'm really not inclined to go into that as well. These have been well documented elsewhere I'm sure.

Many of the issues debated during the referendum, and how people decided to vote, boiled down to a lot of uncertainty (rightly or wrongly) in people's minds over things like currency and pensions and fiscal matters. These were not the only issues however that people considered before casting their votes. There were many more.

Time to go. :bye:

[Peevemor]

OK GF, one last time, fair enough?

This is a summary of an article which appeared in The Guardian. Not a "Tory rag". This perhaps gives an insight into some people's thinking.

Leaders of the three main political parties, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems, following the Treasury review, made it clear that a currency union could only be formed if an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK formed a banking union, a fiscal union, and a political agreement that would come close to a political union. This would be unacceptable to the rest of the UK (the majority).

The shadow chancellor said "what we have now seen after the turbulence of the last few years (of the euro) is a pretty unattractive prospect for Scotland. More than that it would require joining a more onerous banking union, a big fiscal union, political integration. So that option is off the table.

What is he (Alex Salmond) doing? He is trying to say somehow Scotland can be independent, break from the rest of the UK, but still use the pound Sterling. That would require a banking union, a fiscal union, a political union.

There is a fundamental intellectual problem for Alex Salmond. He wants to break from the UK but also keep the pound even if that means a closer relationship to the UK. You can't have your cake and eat it."

Now I'm sure you will have your riposte to this, but I'm not inclined to continue this debate if that's OK. It's time for all of us in Scotland to try to work together to heal the divisions that have been opened up in our country as a result of the referendum, which many people did not want or ask for BTW. I presume you would agree with that?

The worries over the security of people's pensions is another issue, but I'm really not inclined to go into that as well. These have been well documented elsewhere I'm sure.

Many of the issues debated during the referendum, and how people decided to vote, boiled down to a lot of uncertainty (rightly or wrongly) in people's minds over things like currency and pensions and fiscal matters. These were not the only issues however that people considered before casting their votes. There were many more.

Time to go. :bye:

Fiscal union? Scotland already has, and has been promised more, tax raising powers, so it's entirely possible even within the union to have an 'imbalance' North and South of the border.

As for "the problems with people's pensions being well documented elsewhere" - I doubt it as there wouldn't have been any.

[emerald green]

Fiscal union? Scotland already has, and has been promised more, tax raising powers, so it's entirely possible even within the union to have an 'imbalance' North and South of the border.

As for "the problems with people's pensions being well documented elsewhere" - I doubt it as there wouldn't have been any.

According to you. Forgive me if I don't find that in the least bit reassuring.

[Peevemor]

According to you. Forgive me if I don't find that in the least bit reassuring.

OK, what were the problems?

[Phil D. Rolls]

According to you. Forgive me if I don't find that in the least bit reassuring.

What would reassure you on the subject?

[emerald green]

OK, what were the problems?


What would reassure you on the subject?

Sorry guys, I've stated a couple of times already on this thread that I usually don't get involved in arguments about politics and/or religion, but I've been drawn into this debate (albeit civilized so far) really against my better judgement.

We clearly disagree on the subject being discussed, and I would like to leave it at that. I'm not side stepping the question. Honest. You can believe me or not. That's your choice.

I've already said to another poster that I respect his opinion, but disagree with it. I asked if he in turn respects mine, but he has yet to answer.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry guys, I've stated a couple of times already on this thread that I usually don't get involved in arguments about politics and/or religion, but I've been drawn into this debate (albeit civilized so far) really against my better judgement.

We clearly disagree on the subject being discussed, and I would like to leave it at that. I'm not side stepping the question. Honest. You can believe me or not. That's your choice.

I've already said to another poster that I respect his opinion, but disagree with it. I asked if he in turn respects mine, but he has yet to answer.

Fair play. :aok:

[One Day Soon]

I'll let Peevemor answer for himself,but I will pick you up on one point. Why was there worry about the security of Pensions? Every british citizen is entitled to the state pension, regardless of where they live, be it London, Edinburgh, Lisbon or Erinsborough.

So why were those already drawing their pensions worried? misinformed perhaps? Being spun an untruth by the No Better Together, thanks side of the debate, including the media? The answers were available, but they were more prepared to believe what they were being told by the BBC, Scotsman, Daily Record etc, rather than actually pick up the phone to the DWP and ask.

I think the Yes campaign was weak in not getting several points across that would have blown huge holes in the negative campaign of NO, and got caught up in having to repeatedly answer the same question on currency over and over again. We would have used the pound, by the way, in case you missed that one.:wink:

Is there any chance we can debate this stuff without these really hackneyed labels being thrown about? It's just dull.

[emerald green]

Fair play. :aok:

Cheers PDR. :aok:

[cabbageandribs1875]

Look, can we get back on topic, is Alistair Darling a good bloke, or a ****? The rest needs to wait until I've had my cereal, hoovered the kids, and read this nice article on Millport in the People's Friend. There's only so many hours in a day etc....


he's a bare-faced lying Asterisk :agree: fact and end of

[Peevemor]

Sorry guys, I've stated a couple of times already on this thread that I usually don't get involved in arguments about politics and/or religion, but I've been drawn into this debate (albeit civilized so far) really against my better judgement.

We clearly disagree on the subject being discussed, and I would like to leave it at that. I'm not side stepping the question. Honest. You can believe me or not. That's your choice.

I've already said to another poster that I respect his opinion, but disagree with it. I asked if he in turn respects mine, but he has yet to answer.

So the BT pension stuff was total BS then?

[emerald green]

So the BT pension stuff was total BS then?

Nice try. :yawn:

[Peevemor]

Nice try. :yawn:

Sorry for boring you, it's just that if you look at the voting demographics I reckon this particular lie was what won the referendum for No. From what I can see it's totally unsubstantiated (an official statement was made to this effect), yet the majority of the media continued with the scaremongering.

[RyeSloan]

Sorry for boring you, it's just that if you look at the voting demographics I reckon this particular lie was what won the referendum for No. From what I can see it's totally unsubstantiated (an official statement was made to this effect), yet the majority of the media continued with the scaremongering.

Peev...maybe just maybe you can concede at least to some degree that it was the fact that Yes could not convincingly evidence that voting for independence would not have caused huge uncertainty that resulted in a No?

Uncertainty on a whole raft of fronts. Some may have been unfounded, some understated.

Millions of people had their own reasons for voting No...and a lot of them will have done so due to the lack of detail on pretty much anything you can think of (apart maybe which side of the road we would drive on!)

That lack of detail and ability to provide reassurance that the upheaval would have been worthwhile was not the No campaigns doing it was a fundamental weakness of Yes.

Can you then at least then concede that, to some degree at least, the result was caused by the Yes failures in that area rather claiming that it was one specific lie from No?

[johnbc70]

Peev...maybe just maybe you can concede at least to some degree that it was the fact that Yes could not convincingly evidence that voting for independence would not have caused huge uncertainty that resulted in a No?

Uncertainty on a whole raft of fronts. Some may have been unfounded, some understated.

Millions of people had their own reasons for voting No...and a lot of them will have done so due to the lack of detail on pretty much anything you can think of (apart maybe which side of the road we would drive on!)

That lack of detail and ability to provide reassurance that the upheaval would have been worthwhile was not the No campaigns doing it was a fundamental weakness of Yes.

Can you then at least then concede that, to some degree at least, the result was caused by the Yes failures in that area rather claiming that it was one specific lie from No?

Good luck.

[Peevemor]

There are obviously things that the yes campaign could have done better, but in saying that the media bias meant they were on a hiding to nothing from the outset. I don't think anyone could seriously disagree.

I agree that a Yes result would undoubtedly have caused uncertainty and personally I think the real benefits of an iScotland would only start being felt maybe 8-10 years from now.
Obviously living abroad, this would have little practical effect on my day-to-day life, so maybe it's easy for me to sit here shouting and bawling and telling everybody what they should have done, but I genuinely believe that the people of Scotland have missed out on a great opportunity and I can guarantee that I would have been even noisier had I still been in Edinburgh. Just look at the news over the past couple of days - fracking rights and going to war. Is this what the majority of Scots want? Well tough, because "we've" voted to let the London controlled parties decide for us.

You speak about uncertainty? The only thing certain for me is that Westminster will continue to force through policies that don't sit well with the mindset of the majority of Scots.

[Mibbes Aye]

There are obviously things that the yes campaign could have done better, but in saying that the media bias meant they were on a hiding to nothing from the outset. I don't think anyone could seriously disagree.

I agree that a Yes result would undoubtedly have caused uncertainty and personally I think the real benefits of an iScotland would only start being felt maybe 8-10 years from now.
Obviously living abroad, this would have little practical effect on my day-to-day life, so maybe it's easy for me to sit here shouting and bawling and telling everybody what they should have done, but I genuinely believe that the people of Scotland have missed out on a great opportunity and I can guarantee that I would have been even noisier had I still been in Edinburgh. Just look at the news over the past couple of days - fracking rights and going to war. Is this what the majority of Scots want? Well tough, because "we've" voted to let the London controlled parties decide for us.

You speak about uncertainty? The only thing certain for me is that Westminster will continue to force through policies that don't sit well with the mindset of the majority of Scots.

I'm sure you have access to Le Google :greengrin

I found a YouGov poll from the last couple of days that said Scots were 49-37 Yes-No in terms of airstrikes. A good few don't knows admittedly. That's slightly less Yes than the national polling, but not by a significant degree. The daughter of the murdered Scotsman was on Scottish TV news last night though, backing airstrikes, I suspect that would shift a few 'don't knows' but that's just an opinion.

Fracking-wise, I think polls show that people aren't keen north or south of the border.

There's no real division between people in Perth and Peterborough on these issues. No real division between folk in Fife and Falmouth.

[Peevemor]

I'm sure you have access to Le Google :greengrin

I found a YouGov poll from the last couple of days that said Scots were 49-37 Yes-No in terms of airstrikes. A good few don't knows admittedly. That's slightly less Yes than the national polling, but not by a significant degree. The daughter of the murdered Scotsman was on Scottish TV news last night though, backing airstrikes, I suspect that would shift a few 'don't knows' but that's just an opinion.

Fracking-wise, I think polls show that people aren't keen north or south of the border.

There's no real division between people in Perth and Peterborough on these issues. No real division between folk in Fife and Falmouth.

In your opinion, would fracking have been permitted in an independent Scotland?

[Mibbes Aye]

In your opinion, would fracking have been permitted in an independent Scotland?

Yes.

Unless something catastrophic happens in the interim as a consequence, I think any of the likely parties in power would allow some form of fracking, despite what they may have said to date.

[Peevemor]

Yes.

Unless something catastrophic happens in the interim as a consequence, I think any of the likely parties in power would allow some form of fracking, despite what they may have said to date.

Even though there wouldn't be the same urgency for the potential revenue in an iScotland due to the oil revenues? I'd hope that, as in other countries, permission would be withheld until such time that the environmental impact was studied in depth and extraction methods improved.

[Mibbes Aye]

Even though there wouldn't be the same urgency for the potential revenue in an iScotland due to the oil revenues? I'd hope that, as in other countries, permission would be withheld until such time that the environmental impact was studied in depth and extraction methods improved.

That's the point, I believe there would be the urgency because the question of oil revenues was so unresolved.

Even if there was clarity about what the share would actually be, the SNP were talking about being business-friendly through cutting tax on business. That's where our oil revenue comes from, it's not the government that extracts and sells the oil, we get oil money from a government tax on businesses!

Throw in the fluctuations in oil prices and the fact that it's finite, so everyone knows we have to move away from it. How can you guarantee a stability of income? And when you're suggesting that 15% of your operating budget is based on a guess at that income, then you are vulnerable.

This isn't about the rights and wrongs of fracking. I don't know as much about it as I would like but instinctively it concerns me. Yet if I was trying to balance the books in an independent Scotland and I was facing a £2bn shortfall in my budget dues to a fluctuation in oil prices what would I do?

Close hospitals or grant some fracking licences?

We both know the answer I suspect.

[RyeSloan]

There are obviously things that the yes campaign could have done better, but in saying that the media bias meant they were on a hiding to nothing from the outset. I don't think anyone could seriously disagree. I agree that a Yes result would undoubtedly have caused uncertainty and personally I think the real benefits of an iScotland would only start being felt maybe 8-10 years from now. Obviously living abroad, this would have little practical effect on my day-to-day life, so maybe it's easy for me to sit here shouting and bawling and telling everybody what they should have done, but I genuinely believe that the people of Scotland have missed out on a great opportunity and I can guarantee that I would have been even noisier had I still been in Edinburgh. Just look at the news over the past couple of days - fracking rights and going to war. Is this what the majority of Scots want? Well tough, because "we've" voted to let the London controlled parties decide for us. You speak about uncertainty? The only thing certain for me is that Westminster will continue to force through policies that don't sit well with the mindset of the majority of Scots.

Think that's as close as I'm going to get ;-)

Believe it or not I agree re the missed opportunity. I said right at the start that the independence being proposed was such a watered down, half baked affair that Salmond (yes he was the main architect of the plan) had chosen the wrong path.

A clear and ambitious break from the UK, the monarchy, the pound, the tangled web of tax laws, the EU, the whole bloody shebang now that would have been a much more appealing prospect...in the end what was offered (a strange guddle that could not be clearly articulated even by its biggest proponents, as Salmond's performance in the debates showed) many people simply believed (rightly or wrongly) it wasn't worth it.

Honestly I think your fixation on blaming a biased press and scaremongering is really missing the point. The proposition itself wasn't strong enough, if it was we would have had a yes vote no matter what the hootsman or Brown or the BBC or big business said.

[CapitalGreen]

I found a YouGov poll from the last couple of days that said Scots were 49-37 Yes-No in terms of air strikes

So a majority of Scots didn't back them then?

[Mibbes Aye]

So a majority of Scots didn't back them then?

Nothing gets past you, eh? :greengrin

The point was that there's little difference in attitude between Scots and English on these matters, a few percentage points either way, so it seems disingenuous to suggest that there is.

[ronaldo7]

Nothing gets past you, eh? :greengrin

The point was that there's little difference in attitude between Scots and English on these matters, a few percentage points either way, so it seems disingenuous to suggest that there is.

Ahem!

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2014/september/scottish-people-most-sceptical-on-fracking,-survey-shows.aspx

http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/scottish-most-sceptical-fracking-survey-

[Mibbes Aye]

Ahem!

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2014/september/scottish-people-most-sceptical-on-fracking,-survey-shows.aspx

http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/scottish-most-sceptical-fracking-survey-

Ahem yourself.

You've put up two links but they're both about the one survey. Are you claiming that's a breadth of research?

Regardless, are you really arguing it shows a significant difference in attitude between Scots and English? The fracking polls seem to show a bias against fracking generally, perhaps stronger in Scotland but it's not as if the responses are that different.

It's clutching at straws to make up differences between Scots and English folk that don't actually exist.

We said 'No', will you accept the sovereign will of the Scottish people? :wink: :greengrin

[stoneyburn hibs]

Yes.

Unless something catastrophic happens in the interim as a consequence, I think any of the likely parties in power would allow some form of fracking, despite what they may have said to date.

I'd say yes like you, because the TV people will tell us it's ok. Not a dig at you.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'd say yes like you, because the TV people will tell us it's ok. Not a dig at you.

Thanks, and take your point :agree:.

If I'm picking you up right I think you're correct, there are a number of conflicting agendas when it comes to something like energy policy and arguably any choice has implications, whether from going with them or not going with them.

i also think there's a societal acceptance around ducking very difficult questions, and the questions about what we want to pay or sacrifice for secure energy supply are very difficult. Combine that with what would be a very aggressive yet persuasive lobbying campaign around fracking and we could see those polls shift.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Thanks, and take your point :agree:.

If I'm picking you up right I think you're correct, there are a number of conflicting agendas when it comes to something like energy policy and arguably any choice has implications, whether from going with them or not going with them.

i also think there's a societal acceptance around ducking very difficult questions, and the questions about what we want to pay or sacrifice for secure energy supply are very difficult. Combine that with what would be a very aggressive yet persuasive lobbying campaign around fracking and we could see those polls shift.


It wouldn't be a difficult question or even thought of as a sacrifice if joe public was fed by the MSM that it would bring their energy bills down, or even stay the same for a while.

[RyeSloan]

Thanks, and take your point :agree:. If I'm picking you up right I think you're correct, there are a number of conflicting agendas when it comes to something like energy policy and arguably any choice has implications, whether from going with them or not going with them. i also think there's a societal acceptance around ducking very difficult questions, and the questions about what we want to pay or sacrifice for secure energy supply are very difficult. Combine that with what would be a very aggressive yet persuasive lobbying campaign around fracking and we could see those polls shift.

Societal? Try Political...Britains energy policy is a total mess and has been for years.

Alleged green friendly policies that cost a fortune for little or no benefit (unless you happen to own land for windmills or have a suitable house to bet paid to put solar panels on them), closing of coal power stations with no thought as to what generating capacity will replace it, opposition party promising price controls at exactly the time we need to be encouraging investment not making it even more of an unknown, proposing to pay companies not to use energy, increasing use of STOR and now DSBR..

Still it could be worse, we could be Germany...

Ahh a bit off topic I know but efficient and cheap energy is a huge factor in economic growth yet parties of all stripes have failed to put in place sensible polices to make that happen while at the same time banging in about austerity and cuts.

Frankly I find it all a bit bizarre and just one more reason I find it hard to believe what any politician says no matter what party they come from...they are ALL too interested in the sound bite and the next vote rather than focussing on what needs to be done long term.

[lucky]

Think that's as close as I'm going to get ;-)

Believe it or not I agree re the missed opportunity. I said right at the start that the independence being proposed was such a watered down, half baked affair that Salmond (yes he was the main architect of the plan) had chosen the wrong path.

A clear and ambitious break from the UK, the monarchy, the pound, the tangled web of tax laws, the EU, the whole bloody shebang now that would have been a much more appealing prospect...in the end what was offered (a strange guddle that could not be clearly articulated even by its biggest proponents, as Salmond's performance in the debates showed) many people simply believed (rightly or wrongly) it wasn't worth it.

Honestly I think your fixation on blaming a biased press and scaremongering is really missing the point. The proposition itself wasn't strong enough, if it was we would have had a yes vote no matter what the hootsman or Brown or the BBC or big business said.

Got agree, I might have had a different view on referendum if it was independence we were being offered