Independence referendum

Share

Poll

How will you vote?

[ 8 ]
50% [50%] 
[ 8 ]
50% [50%] 

Total Votes: 16
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:45 pm

The currency may be argued to death as it is all argumentative depending on the post referendum stance of rUK, but the debt isn't, that, like Trident, is a card Scotland holds in negotiations.

I'm not arguing that devo max wouldn't be a good thing, but it wont happen, they have to get it passed and it wont be, it is akin to an election promise, if the NO vote wins it will give some excuse like they tried to get it passed, it didn't get voted through, oh dear, anyways..........

If you are unhappy with what we have just now and you take away their extremely flimsy devo max promise what have you left, believing them that change can come from Westminster in a BT UK, or an independent Scotland will bring change. I believe the latter.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:12 pm

BasilF wrote:Incidentally I caught a clip of Nigel Farage on the TV the other night - what is the guy on?

It really is a eye opener that the referendum is nothing to do with Scottish independence but all about membership or the EU?

Sorry?

Scary that UKIP could be part of the next coalition that forms a UK Govt.

Something to think about, if the UK comes out of the EU they will lose billions from American banks currently based in Britain, they are already drawing up plans to move to Ireland. Scotland in the EU would be able to attract them here too. The media just print stories of investors that MAY leave an independent Scotland, I haven't seen any stories from the media telling us this leading up to the referendum.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:24 pm

A couple of things form the SNP propagander sheet....

But instead of that huge surplus, Scotland is part of a UK with a massive £1.4 trillion debt - our population share of the debt is approximately £118 billion.

In short, membership of the UK for the last 32 years has left Scotland anywhere from £180 billion to £250 billion worse off than it would have been as an independent country. Thanks to Westminster we’re massively in debt, where we should have had money in the bank.

There’s no point crying over spilt milk - that’s all in the past. (Although the vast subsidy Scots have paid to the UK could still play a big part in reducing how much of the UK’s debt Scotland takes on in independence negotiations - see Chapter 5) But the fundamental economic facts making Scotland stronger than the UK are the same now as they’ve been for the last 40 years, as the Financial Times observed.


And

Scotland generated roughly £57bn in tax and had £64.5bn spent on it. But that extra spending isn’t a generous gift from the UK - it’s borrowing, taken out by the UK government in Scotland’s name. It’s not money from the rest of the UK, it’s money from international banks - it becomes part of the massive debt referred to above, and Scotland has to pay it back.

For me the indication is pretty clear that the debt will still be ours; not the UK's in isolation to be carried by the last member in.

moving on I'm not sure why you think Devo max is flimsy; Cameron has had a scare, no doubt about it, its pretty clear that he thought there would be a clear majority in favour of the union hence DM wasn't offered as an option at the outset. If Scotland return a NO vote with a thin majority he will be well aware that failure to deliver will doubtless lead to another referendum further down the line - basically he can't take the chance and neither can Labour.

A YES vote leaves us in Salmond's brave new world which hasn't been that impressive up until now.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:10 pm

There is an established principle; I can't remember what it is called but it is with regard to that part of an existing state (the UK for example) which remains after a part of that state (Scotland for example) decides to go independent. The principle is that the remaining part of the existing state (rUK for example) is entitled to hold on to the assets (the £ backed by the BofE for example) and is likewise solely responsible for any liabilities (the UK national debt for example).

This is why the No campaign has said "you can't have the £" because the assets of the BofE could be withheld from Scotland (Salmond mentioned this in the debate when Darling finally agreed that Scotland COULD use the £ if it chose to do so) but in withholding those assets the rUK would then become liable for the entire debt (this has also been mentioned but I can't recall which programme it was in & the No campaigner involved had every opportunity to say it was false but didn't). Do you seriously think the rUK government would be allowed to agree that Scotland could walk away from its share of the debt? I don't & that is why I believe there will be a formal currency union (in the event of a Yes vote...which I fervently hope for, whilst expecting the opposite).

In terms of what you have quoted...the references to Scotland are with regard to Scotland's CURRENT standing as part of the UK, not with regard to where Scotland would find itself after a Yes vote.

With regard to membership of the EU, Scotland is currently a member on the UK ticket; there is no mechanism in place for kicking iScotland out & insisting on reapplication - they could of course invent one but that would probably cause more issues than accepting that as we are essentially in already we should stay that way.

I didn't see the Farage thing you are referring to but I assume from your post that he is saying that the referendum is actually about EU membership? That will be because Cameron is planning a referendum of his own on whether the UK should remain in the EU, I'm not sure which side Cameron is on but I don't think its "better together" in this instance, which would be pretty ironic.

Why do you keep insisting that it is Salmond's brave new world? It would only be his brave new world if he wins the 1st iScotland parliamentary elections; which is by no means certain.

You started your "no thanks" position by saying your accent (yes you do have an accent, we all do) led some obnoxious folk to think you were English & that experience had turned you away from a possible Yes to a definite No...your posts since then suggest far more to it than that.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:24 pm

Liviforever wrote:The currency may be argued to death as it is all argumentative depending on the post referendum stance of rUK, but the debt isn't, that, like Trident, is a card Scotland holds in negotiations.

I'm not arguing that devo max wouldn't be a good thing, but it wont happen, they have to get it passed and it wont be, it is akin to an election promise, if the NO vote wins it will give some excuse like they tried to get it passed, it didn't get voted through, oh dear, anyways..........

If you are unhappy with what we have just now and you take away their extremely flimsy devo max promise what have you left, believing them that change can come from Westminster in a BT UK, or an independent Scotland will bring change. I believe the latter.

This very point was made gently by Jackie Bird this evening talking to Darling; he of course obfuscated some non-committal answer.

Interesting that since the bias accusations against the BBC they have bent over backwards to try & appear impartial...tonight they gave both Darling & Salmond equal air time on Reporting Scotland. Yet Jackie spent most of the interview with Darling relaxed in her seat, asking pointed questions gently & allowing Darling to answer virtually uninterrupted; then she spent a fair chunk of the interview with Salmond leaning forward & asking questions aggressively & interrupting regularly. At one point sitting back with her arm slung across the back of her chair with a look on her face that screamed "do you really expect us to believe that?"

The highlight of both interviews was the reference to a leaked document which says the SNP is cutting its budget for the NHS by in excess of £400,000; Darling of course thought this was wonderful as it proved the "lie" that the NHS is safer in iScotland; Salmond meanwhile calmly pointed out that the whole thing only happened because of decisions made by Westminster thus proving the point that the NHS would be safer in iScotland...Jackie had to reluctantly accept this; it was then referred to later by a No supporter & credit to the BBC correspondent who pointed out that Salmond had explained the situation clearly.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:58 am

Didn't see that interview Bertie, watched the one with David Dimbleby separately interviewing Brown and Salmond, and thought it was fair. Brown kept doing that creepy smile.affraid  Laughing

Brown was full of shit trying to say he always wanted the devo max vote and has been talking it up the last two years, refusing to accept it was just two weeks ago he came on the scene with it.

The debt was acknowledged as the BoE's liability after Dimbleby pinned Brown on it (fecker kept deflecting the question) but said we'd have a reputation as defaulters. So basically we can't be forced to take on the debt as an independent Scotland (as it isn't ours) but according to the BT parties our rep will be in tatters. When Salmond had that thrown at him with Darling he replied we haven't any debt so can't be defaulting on it.

In any case the fact is we can walk away debt free if we so choose but we'll offer to take some on as part of negotiations over the assets. What it would come down to is this, the rUK would have to knock back our offer to take some of the debt, or come to some compromise over assets. It'll be their decision whether they want to take it all on or accept our offer.

After that interview I wouldn't believe Gordon Brown if he told me the grass was green.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:19 am

BasilF wrote:
[i]moving on I'm not sure why you think Devo max is flimsy; Cameron has had a scare, no doubt about it, its pretty clear that he thought there would be a clear majority in favour of the union hence DM wasn't offered as an option at the outset. If Scotland return a NO vote with a thin majority he will be well aware that failure to deliver will doubtless lead to another referendum further down the line - basically he can't take the chance and neither can Labour.

A YES vote leaves us in Salmond's brave new world which hasn't been that impressive up until now.

Because there are too many people in Westminster not wanting to give us devo max powers and it wont go through, despite the BT promises. Secondly, it isn't even a devo max on offer, it is as Salmond said, not even a devo plus, and it wont happen.

It has only been put out there as a last minute desperate bid to take some of the YES votes away, the ones that aren't happy with how things are, and up until maybe a couple of months ago hadn't been persuaded to vote YES but have finally had enough.

However it is flim flam and wont happen, just like the LibDems promise on student fees.

A YES vote gives us 18 months of negotiations then an election to vote for a Scottish independent government, one that will be voted in by the people of Scotland to put our interests first, not Westminsters.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:49 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:There is an established principle; I can't remember what it is called but it is with regard to that part of an existing state (the UK for example) which remains after a part of that state (Scotland for example) decides to go independent. The principle is that the remaining part of the existing state (rUK for example) is entitled to hold on to the assets (the £ backed by the BofE for example) and is likewise solely responsible for any liabilities (the UK national debt for example).

This is why the No campaign has said "you can't have the £" because the assets of the BofE could be withheld from Scotland (Salmond mentioned this in the debate when Darling finally agreed that Scotland COULD use the £ if it chose to do so) but in withholding those assets the rUK would then become liable for the entire debt (this has also been mentioned but I can't recall which programme it was in & the No campaigner involved had every opportunity to say it was false but didn't). Do you seriously think the rUK government would be allowed to agree that Scotland could walk away from its share of the debt? I don't & that is why I believe there will be a formal currency union (in the event of a Yes vote...which I fervently hope for, whilst expecting the opposite).

In terms of what you have quoted...the references to Scotland are with regard to Scotland's CURRENT standing as part of the UK, not with regard to where Scotland would find itself after a Yes vote.

With regard to membership of the EU, Scotland is currently a member on the UK ticket; there is no mechanism in place for kicking iScotland out & insisting on reapplication - they could of course invent one but that would probably cause more issues than accepting that as we are essentially in already we should stay that way.

I didn't see the Farage thing you are referring to but I assume from your post that he is saying that the referendum is actually about EU membership? That will be because Cameron is planning a referendum of his own on whether the UK should remain in the EU, I'm not sure which side Cameron is on but I don't think its "better together" in this instance, which would be pretty ironic.

Why do you keep insisting that it is Salmond's brave new world? It would only be his brave new world if he wins the 1st iScotland parliamentary elections; which is by no means certain.

You started your "no thanks" position by saying your accent (yes you do have an accent, we all do) led some obnoxious folk to think you were English & that experience had turned you away from a possible Yes to a definite No...your posts since then suggest far more to it than that.

Bit strapped for time at the moment so apologies for the brief reply.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the national debt thing - from the economists I've listened to there's no way Scotland can get away debt free without reputational damage. The passages from the propaganda sheet did not imply that the case could be different in the case of independence and in fact implied the opposite.

Scotland is not a member of the EU; they are not listed in EU membership; the UK is however. Leaving the UK will undoubtedly mean leaving the EU - its not a case of being kicked out because Scotland was never a member in the first case.

It will certainly be Salmond's brave new world for at least five years which is the time necessary for the civil service to prepare for independence - irrespective of whatever promises the polititians make of eighteen months the senior civil servants I've dealt with have said categorically that there's no way a country can be ready in that time.

With regard to accent we were taught to use received pronunciation (RP) with no regional dialecs whatsoever. However my concern and move to, and hardening on the "NO" vote has been as a result of the growing racism against many people I know - for me I've been called far worse having worked in many countries around the world but I am now nearing retirement age so it has little affect on me. I do find it sad however that the atitude of so many seems to have degraded so badly over the last eight months or so and put a lot of that at the feet of Salmond and his jingoism. One of the cleaners at my work originated from Leeds but has been here many years; she felt forced to move out of her flat with her daughter because of the abuse she was receiving from the woman "downstairs" who called her an English bitch whenever she saw her - this is no longer an isolated incident and the authorities seemed reluctant or unable to do anything about it.

The rifts being generated now are going to be almostr impossible to heal; irrespective of the vote we now have a divided country and, whatever the result, that won't go away.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:11 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:
Liviforever wrote:The currency may be argued to death as it is all argumentative depending on the post referendum stance of rUK, but the debt isn't, that, like Trident, is a card Scotland holds in negotiations.

I'm not arguing that devo max wouldn't be a good thing, but it wont happen, they have to get it passed and it wont be, it is akin to an election promise, if the NO vote wins it will give some excuse like they tried to get it passed, it didn't get voted through, oh dear, anyways..........

If you are unhappy with what we have just now and you take away their extremely flimsy devo max promise what have you left, believing them that change can come from Westminster in a BT UK, or an independent Scotland will bring change. I believe the latter.

This very point was made gently by Jackie Bird this evening talking to Darling; he of course obfuscated some non-committal answer.

Interesting that since the bias accusations against the BBC they have bent over backwards to try & appear impartial...tonight they gave both Darling & Salmond equal air time on Reporting Scotland. Yet Jackie spent most of the interview with Darling relaxed in her seat, asking pointed questions gently & allowing Darling to answer virtually uninterrupted; then she spent a fair chunk of the interview with Salmond leaning forward & asking questions aggressively & interrupting regularly. At one point sitting back with her arm slung across the back of her chair with a look on her face that screamed "do you really expect us to believe that?"

The highlight of both interviews was the reference to a leaked document which says the SNP is cutting its budget for the NHS by in excess of £400,000; Darling of course thought this was wonderful as it proved the "lie" that the NHS is safer in iScotland; Salmond meanwhile calmly pointed out that the whole thing only happened because of decisions made by Westminster thus proving the point that the NHS would be safer in iScotland...Jackie had to reluctantly accept this; it was then referred to later by a No supporter & credit to the BBC correspondent who pointed out that Salmond had explained the situation clearly.

Not sure about BBC bias; Alistair Darling got a very aggressive interview on Newsnight the other week but handled it very well despite repeated attempts to try and trip him up. Pretty much every lunchtime for about the last week whenever I've gone into the canteen Salmond or Sturgeon have been on the television - an incredible amount of airtime but still spouting the same rabble rousing.

Every election one party or another brings up the BBC/media bias thing; normally because they’re falling behind in the points. Salmond doesn’t make it easy for himself by repeatedly failing to answer questions and instead prefers to continue to try the “that’s in the white paper on…” blabber. If I tried that one in my working life I wouldn’t be working very long – but Salmond is apparently untouchable.

On the question of the NHSS there are huge questions I would like to ask about the Scottish governments handling; for example when given over £4 million by the National Opportunities fund to improve cardiac care in Scotland - instead of fitting out a number of angiography labs they decided to create a mailshot to tell everyone how they should improve their diet and give up smoking. Alternatively what about the Scottish Distinction Awards Service - an area where NHSS consultants can award themselves tens of thousands of pounds in recognition that they spent more time working for the NHS than for their private practice? Alternatively something closer to home; how about the degrading of St John's hospital service and moving much of the critical care areas to Edinburgh so that the consultant surgeons can still maintain their private practices in the new town?

Don't get me wrong; there are many things we do better on NHSS rather than the rest of the UK; one in particular is the Central Care records with the decision that people wanting to be excluded had to opt out rather than the English/Welsh alternative of having to agree to be in it. Surely it makes sense that if you are in another part of the country and need urgent medical care then the care provider can immediately access your health records and find out, for example, if you are allergic to penicillin - in England for example they would have to contact your local health authority if you weren't on the record and if you were unconscious that's a bit of a problem.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:56 am

Liviforever wrote:
Because there are too many people in Westminster not wanting to give us devo max powers and it wont go through, despite the BT promises. Secondly, it isn't even a devo max on offer, it is as Salmond said, not even a devo plus, and it wont happen.

It has only been put out there as a last minute desperate bid to take some of the YES votes away, the ones that aren't happy with how things are, and up until maybe a couple of months ago hadn't been persuaded to vote YES but have finally had enough.

However it is flim flam and wont happen, just like the LibDems promise on student fees.

A YES vote gives us 18 months of negotiations then an election to vote for a Scottish independent government, one that will be voted in by the people of Scotland to put our interests first, not Westminsters.

Saying it won't happen because people in Westminster don't want it doesn't wash - I could counter with at least have the population in Scotland don't want independence so that won't happen - the people of Shetland want to be excluded from Scotland - The Border and D&G are too reliant on business south of the border to want to be separated etc. etc.

As I said earlier in the event of a "yes" vote the administrative process to independence will take years and certainly longer than the ridiculous eighteen months that Salmond suggested - this would likely carry us into the next election - what would happen then? If my civil servant associates are correct (and they are 100% more believable that Salmond based on facts rather than “ambitions”) and the road to independence takes five years to be done properly what then?

No doubt that would be in the White paper?

I am aware that this might sound like I’m having a go at you and Bertie; that is certainly not my intention; I am always happy to engage in debate with people with contrary views (even if they are fundamentally flawed Wink ).
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:51 pm

BasilF wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:There is an established principle; I can't remember what it is called but it is with regard to that part of an existing state (the UK for example) which remains after a part of that state (Scotland for example) decides to go independent. The principle is that the remaining part of the existing state (rUK for example) is entitled to hold on to the assets (the £ backed by the BofE for example) and is likewise solely responsible for any liabilities (the UK national debt for example).

This is why the No campaign has said "you can't have the £" because the assets of the BofE could be withheld from Scotland (Salmond mentioned this in the debate when Darling finally agreed that Scotland COULD use the £ if it chose to do so) but in withholding those assets the rUK would then become liable for the entire debt (this has also been mentioned but I can't recall which programme it was in & the No campaigner involved had every opportunity to say it was false but didn't). Do you seriously think the rUK government would be allowed to agree that Scotland could walk away from its share of the debt? I don't & that is why I believe there will be a formal currency union (in the event of a Yes vote...which I fervently hope for, whilst expecting the opposite).

In terms of what you have quoted...the references to Scotland are with regard to Scotland's CURRENT standing as part of the UK, not with regard to where Scotland would find itself after a Yes vote.

With regard to membership of the EU, Scotland is currently a member on the UK ticket; there is no mechanism in place for kicking iScotland out & insisting on reapplication - they could of course invent one but that would probably cause more issues than accepting that as we are essentially in already we should stay that way.

I didn't see the Farage thing you are referring to but I assume from your post that he is saying that the referendum is actually about EU membership? That will be because Cameron is planning a referendum of his own on whether the UK should remain in the EU, I'm not sure which side Cameron is on but I don't think its "better together" in this instance, which would be pretty ironic.

Why do you keep insisting that it is Salmond's brave new world? It would only be his brave new world if he wins the 1st iScotland parliamentary elections; which is by no means certain.

You started your "no thanks" position by saying your accent (yes you do have an accent, we all do) led some obnoxious folk to think you were English & that experience had turned you away from a possible Yes to a definite No...your posts since then suggest far more to it than that.

Bit strapped for time at the moment so apologies for the brief reply.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the national debt  thing - from the economists I've listened to there's no way Scotland can get away debt free without reputational damage. The passages from the propaganda sheet did not imply that the case could be different in the case of independence and in fact implied the opposite.

Scotland is not a member of the EU; they are not listed in EU membership; the UK is however. Leaving the UK will undoubtedly mean leaving the EU - its not a case of being kicked out because Scotland was never a member in the first case.

It will certainly be Salmond's brave new world for at least five years which is the time necessary for the civil service to prepare for independence - irrespective of whatever promises the polititians make of eighteen months the senior civil servants I've dealt with have said categorically that there's no way a country can be ready in that time.

With regard to accent we were taught to use received pronunciation (RP) with no regional dialecs whatsoever. However my concern and move to, and hardening on the "NO" vote has been as a result of the growing racism against many people I know - for me I've been called far worse having worked in many countries around the world but I am now nearing retirement age so it has little affect on me. I do find it sad however that the atitude of so many seems to have degraded so badly over the last eight months or so and put a lot of that at the feet of Salmond and his jingoism. One of the cleaners at my work originated from Leeds but has been here many years; she felt forced to move out of her flat with her daughter because of the abuse she was receiving from the woman "downstairs" who called her an English bitch whenever she saw her - this is no longer an isolated incident and the authorities seemed reluctant or unable to do anything about it.

The rifts being generated now are going to be almostr impossible to heal; irrespective of the vote we now have a divided country and, whatever the result, that won't go away.  

No point in reviewing the same old ground when you won't accept it; despite the fact both sides accept it & as LF mentioned earlier Gordon Brown finally admitted it....which basically means you don't believe either the yes or no camps on this...I guess the debt is all yours Laughing

It will only be Salmond's BNW if he is elected as the first PM of iScotland; whenever that is & if the process takes longer than 18 months there will still be an election for the "devolved parliament" we have just now before 5 years are up.

The biggest jingoistic comments bordering on racism is the No camp telling us that if we go independent then family & friends south of the border become foreigners as if that was something to be ashamed of...my mum was a foreigner, so is my missus, just because they are foreigners doesn't make them strangers or unloveable; it is a completely irrelevant point. The thing about the cleaner from Leeds...was she offended because she was called English or bitch? Surely the latter is more offensive? I'm sure she was proud to be English (& rightly so for that matter).

The "rifts being generated now" are in my view not as bad as we are being led to believe & are yet another scaremongering tactic of the no camp.

All in all we will just have to wait & see what the result of the vote is & despite my wholehearted desire for a Yes, sadly I fear we will get a No. Then we can wait with bated breath to hear what wonderful new powers will be coming our way...then IF we get them, the Welsh & Northern Irish will kick off because they will want increased powers too. More likely they will amount to empty promises as usual & it will be interesting to see the scenarios that unfold regarding the NHS & jobs etc etc etc.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:57 pm

The BBC bias by the way was NOT trotted out by the Yes campaign; an independent study carried out by a professor at UWoS (Ayr) reviewed newspaper & TV articles & presented his findings, which the media chose to ignore, initially anyway.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:22 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:No point in reviewing the same old ground when you won't accept it; despite the fact both sides accept it & as LF mentioned earlier Gordon Brown finally admitted it....which basically means you don't believe either the yes or no camps on this...I guess the debt is all yours Laughing

It will only be Salmond's BNW if he is elected as the first PM of iScotland; whenever that is & if the process takes longer than 18 months there will still be an election for the "devolved parliament" we have just now before 5 years are up.

The biggest jingoistic comments bordering on racism is the No camp telling us that if we go independent then family & friends south of the border become foreigners as if that was something to be ashamed of...my mum was a foreigner, so is my missus, just because they are foreigners doesn't make them strangers or unloveable; it is a completely irrelevant point. The thing about the cleaner from Leeds...was she offended because she was called English or bitch? Surely the latter is more offensive? I'm sure she was proud to be English (& rightly so for that matter).

The "rifts being generated now" are in my view not as bad as we are being led to believe & are yet another scaremongering tactic of the no camp.

All in all we will just have to wait & see what the result of the vote is & despite my wholehearted desire for a Yes, sadly I fear we will get a No. Then we can wait with bated breath to hear what wonderful new powers will be coming our way...then IF we get them, the Welsh & Northern Irish will kick off because they will want increased powers too. More likely they will amount to empty promises as usual & it will be interesting to see the scenarios that unfold regarding the NHS & jobs etc etc etc.

My last comment on the debt thing; I'm not sure that Gordon (butcher of the pension funds) Brown is an absolute authority on the subject. I go by what other economists say however they can also all not agree on the subject Certainly its not as black and white as the SNP would have you believe.

Why is pointing out that someone from another country is a foreigner be deemed as racist; surely its a geographical fact? If they live in the country then does that change? There are almost a million Scottish pensioners in the English West Country (strangely it was not uncommon for me, doing some work in Exeter, to be able to hold a conversation about the sugar boat in the Clyde or the alternate pelting of the old firm busses by kids at Port Glasgow in the 60's) - as "foreigners" will they be entitled to the Scottish state pension or will it be the British one? Or will it depend in which country they paid their national insurance?

I think the cleaner objected most to the aggressive nature of the abuse - I note what you say about she should be proud of the tag "English" but I'm not sure that people south of the border have such an identity. Having worked in many areas of England there tends to be a regional identity tied to an area or city (e.g. Geordie; scouser etc.) but not one for the country of England. They don't have their own national anthem (you really can't count "Jerusalem") and the cross of St. George tends to be more associated with ultra right racist organisations; NI Unionists or football hooligans. Likewise I would suggest that more people could tell you when St. Andrews day was that St Georges despite there being ten time the residents in the area of England.

The rift is a statement of fact both sides are becoming more and more entrenched and the result of the referendum won't change that. How can that be scare mongering; do you suggest that in the event of a "no" vote then the "YES" campaigners will simply accept the outcome and that will be the end of the matter? Will the racism and bigotry disappear over-night? In the event of a "Yes" will everyone unite and try and make it work? There has been an increasing amount of animosity from both sides - that's not going to disappear. It hasn't in any other country that I can think of. Unfortunately we have shown on numerous occasions that we are a people that can harbour grudges for many centuries - this can be one more thing to go on the pseudo religious divide etc. etc.


Last edited by BasilF on Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : defective keyboard :))
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:04 pm

Bertie Bassett wrote:The BBC bias by the way was NOT trotted out by the Yes campaign; an independent study carried out by a professor at UWoS (Ayr) reviewed newspaper & TV articles & presented his findings, which the media chose to ignore, initially anyway.


Not just the BBC. Saw this the other day with Bonnie Greer bringing the biased reporting up.


BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:28 pm

Liviforever wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:The BBC bias by the way was NOT trotted out by the Yes campaign; an independent study carried out by a professor at UWoS (Ayr) reviewed newspaper & TV articles & presented his findings, which the media chose to ignore, initially anyway.


Not just the BBC. Saw this the other day with Bonnie Greer bringing the biased reporting up.


But surely not interviewing the head of Aberdeen Asset Management isn't being biased; he's indicated that he's staying so that's the status quo i.e. not news. Not interviewing the heads of all the organisations that are going to move to Scotland in the event of a Yes vote or all those planning to move out of Scotland in the even of a "no" vote would be.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:13 pm

BasilF wrote:
Liviforever wrote:
Bertie Bassett wrote:The BBC bias by the way was NOT trotted out by the Yes campaign; an independent study carried out by a professor at UWoS (Ayr) reviewed newspaper & TV articles & presented his findings, which the media chose to ignore, initially anyway.


Not just the BBC. Saw this the other day with Bonnie Greer bringing the biased reporting up.


But surely not interviewing the head of Aberdeen Asset Management isn't being biased; he's indicated that he's staying so that's the status quo i.e. not news. Not interviewing the heads of all the organisations that are going to move to Scotland in the event of a Yes vote or all those planning to move out of Scotland in the even of a "no" vote would be.

It isn't giving any balance, that is what she's saying. All we get is negativity and fear when there are positive stories not being put out to balance it up, that is showing a bias to one side.

Oh and you've just proven our point by saying they are planning to move, as that's the way these stories are being put out there by the media. Not everyone was saying they were moving, or if indeed any, they were saying they had plans in place if they needed to move. That is only them being sensible, as until after negotiations have gone on in the next 18 months they don't know what an independent Scotland holds for them.

So we have some companies saying they MAY move, but will have to wait and see, that are all over the media in big headlines saying they WILL move, and others that are saying they DEF WONT move which are being ignored, and you see that as fair coverage?

Even NO voters I know have said the media have been influenced by Westminster and it is embarrassing how they've run their campaign.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:53 pm

[quote="Liviforever]It isn't giving any balance, that is what she's saying. All we get is negativity and fear when there are positive stories not being put out to balance it up, that is showing a bias to one side.

Oh and you've just proven our point by saying they are planning to move, as that's the way these stories are being put out there by the media. Not everyone was saying they were moving, or if indeed any, they were saying they had plans in place if they needed to move. That is only them being sensible, as until after negotiations have gone on in the next 18 months they don't know what an independent Scotland holds for them.

So we have some companies saying they MAY move, but will have to wait and see, that are all over the media in big headlines saying they WILL move, and others that are saying they DEF WONT move which are being ignored, and you see that as fair coverage?

Even NO voters I know have said the media have been influenced by Westminster and it is embarrassing how they've run their campaign.[/quote]

If you were reporting on a conflict somewhere in the world surely you'd talk about number of casualties; not those that got away without a scratch?

But if you did a piece on unemployment it would be acceptible to interview an unemployed person; would you also interview someone who had been in the same job for 30 years. You may interview someone who was just starting a new job or even someone leaving school and searching for a new job but why on earth would you interview a traffic warden from Blairgowrie for example (assuming they even exist) who'd been there forever?

There are probably tens of thousands or companies of all sizes in Scotland that probably won't (or can't) move. Their inaction will not affect emplyment numbers companies leaving and companies coming (or growing and taking more staff on) certainly well.

The content of what they were saying wasn't biased even if the way they were saying it (headlines) was but that's the media for you and tabloids in particular.
avatar
Liviforever

Posts : 3436
Join date : 2014-06-10
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Liviforever on Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:34 pm

I'm beginning to think you're at it Basil, a blind man could see the media has been biased over this referendum in favour of the BT campaign.

Here's something to ponder if you haven't yet voted, as I said their devo max promise holds no water.

Thu, 18/09/2014 - 17:18  



A new poll of Westminster MPs published today confirms a ‘substantial majority’ of Tories want to change the Barnett Formula – cutting Scotland’s budget by £4bn every year.

The poll by Dods found that 83 per cent of Tory MPs – alongside 78 per cent of Lib Dems and 41 per cent of Labour MPs would back the substantial cuts to Scotland’s budget – making a mockery of the transparent claims made by the Westminster party leaders earlier this week.

These changes to the Barnett Formula which Westminster MPs are backing would cut Scotland’s budget by £4bn – with devastating effects on the NHS and other vital public services.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/sep/majority-mps-back-%C2%A34bn-cuts-scots-budget
The majority of Westminster MP's don't want us having more powers, in fact they want us to have less.
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:19 am

BasilF wrote:
Why is pointing out that someone from another country is a foreigner be deemed as racist; surely its a geographical fact?

Why is pointing out that your cleaner was English deemed offensive? Surely it is a fact of birth? (I note you mentioned that she objected most to the aggression being shown which is a sad indictment on the moron who verbally abused (by use of the word bitch) her) But I could also ask why is referring to a "black person" as "black" racist? Surely it is a statement of fact?

But in these ridiculously over PC times that's exactly how both of the above are perceived. I have a number of Ghanaian friends & they are quite "black" in appearance; but that is down to the amount of melanin the have & doesn't lessen their value as human beings in any way shape or form. If I was to describe them I could tell you their, height, build, hairstyle but if they were standing next to "white" friends of similar height, build & hairstyle the easiest way I could tell you how to distinguish which one I meant would be to mention whether the person I was referring to was "black" or "white". Now I dare say that wouldn't be classed as racist but if they were NOT my friends & I thought they were of questionable reputation I might add an insult after the "colour" & suddenly I'm a racist.

The point I was making was that the No camp were using the term "foreigner" like it was a bad thing; it was as if being "foreign" meant you weren't as good as a Brit; which is jingoistic, condescending & bordering on racist.

Anyway...that's the end of the matter, the polls are closed & I have no doubt we will wake up on Friday morning to find that nothing has changed; I predict a 53%-47% in favour of "No".
avatar
Bertie Bassett

Posts : 1925
Join date : 2014-07-25
Location : Livingston

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Bertie Bassett on Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:24 am

On the issue of doing a piece on unemployment you would focus on the unemployed...of course you would it is about unemployment; however the reporting on the referendum is about TWO opposing views thus it should be BALANCED & IMPARTIAL reporting, not weighted in favour of one side or the other.
avatar
Lexi Collector
Admin

Posts : 781
Join date : 2014-06-10
Age : 23

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Lexi Collector on Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:24 am

Absolutely heartbroken. Even North Lanarkshire voted yes.

I have nothing but pure contempt for the majority of the West Lothian public, but this is what happens when you share a council area with places like Armadale and Whitburn. Fuck them all.
avatar
Lexi Collector
Admin

Posts : 781
Join date : 2014-06-10
Age : 23

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Lexi Collector on Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:27 am

Livingston should become independent from West Lothian, IMO. Can guarantee Livingston was at least 60% yes.

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:25 am

Bertie Bassett wrote:
BasilF wrote:
Why is pointing out that someone from another country is a foreigner be deemed as racist; surely its a geographical fact?

Why is pointing out that your cleaner was English deemed offensive? Surely it is a fact of birth? (I note you mentioned that she objected most to the aggression being shown which is a sad indictment on the moron who verbally abused (by use of the word bitch) her)  But I could also ask why is referring to a "black person" as "black" racist? Surely it is a statement of fact?

But in these ridiculously over PC times that's exactly how both of the above are perceived. I have a number of Ghanaian friends & they are quite "black" in appearance; but that is down to the amount of melanin the have & doesn't lessen their value as human beings in any way shape or form. If I was to describe them I could tell you their, height, build, hairstyle but if they were standing next to "white" friends of similar height, build & hairstyle the easiest way I could tell you how to distinguish which one I meant would be to mention whether the person I was referring to was "black" or "white". Now I dare say that wouldn't be classed as racist but if they were NOT my friends & I thought they were of questionable reputation I might add an insult after the "colour" & suddenly I'm a racist.

The point I was making was that the No camp were using the term "foreigner" like it was a bad thing; it was as if being "foreign" meant you weren't as good as a Brit; which is jingoistic, condescending & bordering on racist.

Anyway...that's the end of the matter, the polls are closed & I have no doubt we will wake up on Friday morning to find that nothing has changed; I predict a 53%-47% in favour of "No".

You know Bertie we are almost on agreement. From my view describing someone as "black" is not offensive unless it is deemed to be or unless the person receiving the comment deems it to be. In my experience people of Asian descent will object to being referred to as black or indeed any reference to skin colour (strangely and people from Pakistan do not particularly object to being called Indian but those of Indian descent really object to the other way around – I’ll quite happily go out for an Indian meal despite being well aware that about 80% or restaurants are owned by people of Pakistan or Bangladesh descent) whereas for afro Caribbean people it is often used in a positive way to describe a culture etc.

I mentioned that the cleaner was of English origins because, as far as I am aware, that is the only reason she was being picked on. She’s a really quiet private person so it’s difficult to imagine it could be anything else but then I don’t know the entire story.

If you want to know about PC going wild…. One of my colleagues was doing some work for a charitable institution recently. In a meeting with one of their executives he was talking about Improvements to web access etc. in their drop in centres etc. and mentioned about audio visual capabilities for “blind people”.

The executive stopped what she was doing and told him “you’re not allowed to use that phrase anymore; its ‘visually impaired people’”
Gobsmacked he thanked her and then asked her “can you remind me what the ‘B’ in your organisation’s logo of RNIB stand for?”

BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:29 am

Lexi Collector wrote:Livingston should become independent from West Lothian, IMO. Can guarantee Livingston was at least 60% yes.

Which particular part of Livingston is that? of all the people I know in Livingston only two have indicated voting Yes and one of those was because he feared a Westminster backlash.


BasilF

Posts : 46
Join date : 2014-09-09

Re: Independence referendum

Post by BasilF on Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:31 am

Liviforever wrote:I'm beginning to think you're at it Basil, a blind man could see the media has been biased over this referendum in favour of the BT campaign.

I'm sorry you feel that way; I point out that the basis for your arguement was flawed and we end up with figer pointing and name calling?

Sponsored content

Re: Independence referendum

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:40 pm