Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jack D and coke]

Have we ever debated why political heavyweights like Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, John Reid, Douglas Alexander, Charles Kennedy, Ming Campbell and Danny Alexander stand with Better together and the Union. IMO its because their vast experience tells them that remaining within the UK is best for Scotland and the UK. Why else?

Kennedy and Campbell I'll give you. The rest are arseholes IMO. Just because people have different opinions doesn't make them right and you wrong. These people believe in the union though and they're entitled to that belief.

[systemx]

 

 

 

Are you denying this? The guy was readmitted into Labour and became Midlothian convener until a few years ago.

 

Never said he was an MP. Go and read my original piece.

 

For your Sam Campbell I give you Tom Trotter currently Haddington SNP councillor and former Maister of the East Lothian county lodge.

[Das Root]

Has Campbell Gunn been sacked yet?

 

 

C'mon! The man's name set it up for you, and you used "sacked" instead

[Das Root]

Have we ever debated why political heavyweights like Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, John Reid, Douglas Alexander, Charles Kennedy, Ming Campbell and Danny Alexander stand with Better together and the Union. IMO its because their vast experience tells them that remaining within the UK is best for Scotland and the UK. Why else?

 

 

Because they're all London based MPs and wouldn't have a job? You might not agree, but I doubt any of the above would want to shift from Westminster to Edinburgh and given Brown was PM, no chance he would say anything else beyond "UK OK".

Edited June 14, 2014 by Das Root

[Gizmo]

Have we ever debated why political heavyweights like Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, John Reid, Douglas Alexander, Charles Kennedy, Ming Campbell and Danny Alexander stand with Better together and the Union. IMO its because their vast experience tells them that remaining within the UK is best for Scotland and the UK. Why else?

 

All members of Unionist parties who have enjoyed all the house flipping, expenses claiming, juicy pension and subsidised booze and food perks of being an MP at Westminster. No doubt the non-peers amongst them will be hoping their services to BT will get them onto the 300 quid a day gravy train. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

 

fortunately according to most polls the vast majority of SCOTS dont think this, more dont want this than do, and a damned lot couldn't give twa hoots about any politician including the SCOTS ones.

 

guess this leaves you in a minority of "pesky scots lacking the temerity and bullied" by someone/thing the majority of us cant see.

 

[modedit]

 

Polls are just polls - they cannot predict the level of turnout nor what the momentum will be closer to the date. They are narrowing though to the point you simply cannot claim "the vast majority" hold one position.

 

People do give "twa hoots" about this - it is a very, very important question and the level of engagement I've seen is beyond anything I've witnessed in my lifetime where the norm has been a very disaffected, apathetic response to politics from the electorate. There are grassroots campaigns across the country, people out canvassing every day and meetings/debates being held in town and village halls several times a week. Various political and aspirational societies have sprung up like Radical Independence and The Common Weal and the blogosphere and social networking is alive with voices from both sides of the debate - informed debate and argument takes place regularly on those pages, often with a level of discussion and writing that shames the main stream media. You may pretend not to give a hoot (when it's patently obvious where your opinion lies) but many, many people do.

 

There are plenty recent posts on this thread that shows I am not alone in my view of the behaviour of the ikes of Osborne, Cameron etc preaching down to us that has been a regular feature of the BT campaign. Parachuting in to tell us why we need the UK infrastructure to deal with that troublesome oil or to spread another (often already debunked) scare story.

 

Hell, even the NO leaning Scotsman sees it, not sure why you can't:

 

 

[ToYouToMe]

Good to know I share a country with people whose vision for said country extends to their pension pot.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

 

Because they're all London based MPs and wouldn't have a job? You might not agree, but I doubt any of the above would want to shift from Westminster to Edinburgh and given Brown was PM, no chance he would say anything else beyond "UK OK".

 

They are Scottish based MPs. None are in London constituencies. They work in London.

 

I'd happily welcome all to Holyrood of yes won, would strengthen a piss poor pot of MSPs.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Or, alternatively, the current housing bubble being fuelled by Westminster is a bad thing and when the UK leaves the EU we will be really goosed. What for housing values then?

 

It's a yin and yang argument. The same fears can be used by both sides.

 

A policy backed by the current administration up here and likely to continue on in an independent Scotland as house ownership and that bubble is a driver in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. So where's the difference?

 

 

JK Rowling is a writer, not an economist. The deference to celebrity opinion is really weird, I'd rather listen to experts like Joseph Stieglitz. I mean, even unionists (at least publicly) say that Scotland can be a successful independent country, it's whether people in Scotland want the responsibility to make it one. Some people seem scared about what might happen because they're being offered a choice to do something different.

 

I feel some people are a bit naive when it comes to business and politics; do they seriously think that companies and countries will stop doing business with Scotland PURELY because it votes for independence? That'd they'd see it as some sort of slight, or is it because they erroneously think Scotland is underpinned by Westminster? It's a remnant of a 19th century cap doffing mindset.

 

She's entitled to her opinion as much as Cummings, Bisset, Cox and Riddoch. None of them are economists and they've had a huge presence in the media for yes.

I don't think it's fear, it's concern over savings, mortgages and the like. People won't vote yes till they believe here's a security in it. Clearly, as stands, many don't think there is,

[JamboX2]

 

There is no vile personal abuse. There is no attack on her character. There is no accusation of her being a liar. There is no attempt by Gunn to spin the story.

You do not have to be in an elected office to be a politician. Nobody called her a politician anyway they merely stated that she was politiclly active. The people you list are not the media, they are writers. The quote you offer from Wings is not accurate either in its content or meaning.

 

So why did the politician stuff become a major issue? IMO she isn't one, I think a party secretary is an activist. A representative is a politician. I never quoted wings. I referenced them by paraphrasing. And they did have to correct the article later for inaccuracy by saying she was related to some high up councillor.

 

Again wings showed itself to be amateurish and lacking any real independent research, I do not get why it's popular at all. To me it's childish and ott in its tone and pretty poor in analysis. Always looking for a conspiracy.

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt here is Gunn's e-mail. "You are no doubt aware that the mother of two who described herself as a "normal person" in the Telegraph today is actually a member of Labour's shadow cabinet and daughter in law of former Lord Provost of Glasgow Pat Lally." I cannot accept the inferences you, Ms Lamont and the union compliant media have drawn from this e-mail are in any way sensible but maybe you are aware of further communications not known to me.

 

You do realise that she is not in anyway related to Pat Lally, that is a lie. Why a senior press advisor done cack all research ther is beyond me if he was being honest and not trying to spin. Ms Lally is a labour activist, and a divisor to the shadow cabinet, that does not make her a politician, which IMO is someone who is in elected office.

[Alba gu Brath]

Danny Alexander a political heavyweight?

 

 

Yeah, he's just sort of... flabby.

[Alba gu Brath]

Some relief from the Gunn non-scandal. BBC involved in another bias row. News from the Scotsman of all places. Poor BT. Can expect Gunn to continue quietly in his job now.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/better-together-film-made-in-bbc-studio-1-3444021

 

BBC Scotland was last night embroiled in a major row over its impartiality amid concerns it flouted its own editorial and commercial guidelines by allowing a Better Together cinema advertisement to be filmed at its headquarters using the corporation?s in-house crew.

The Scotsman can reveal that the advert ? shown on screens nationwide as part of the pro-Union group?s campaign ahead of the independence referendum ? was produced at a studio in the BBC?s Pacific Quay base in Glasgow normally used for quiz shows.

The filming, described by Better Together as a ?commercial arrangement? between a sub-contracted production company and the BBC, appears to fall foul of a number of the broadcaster?s internal guidelines.

The rules warn of damage to the corporation?s standing if it is seen to be associated with ?inappropriate? third parties such as political parties and lobbying organisations.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Some relief from the Gunn non-scandal. BBC involved in another bias row. News from the Scotsman of all places. Poor BT. Can expect Gunn to continue quietly in his job now.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/better-together-film-made-in-bbc-studio-1-3444021

 

BBC Scotland was last night embroiled in a major row over its impartiality amid concerns it flouted its own editorial and commercial guidelines by allowing a Better Together cinema advertisement to be filmed at its headquarters using the corporation?s in-house crew.

The Scotsman can reveal that the advert ? shown on screens nationwide as part of the pro-Union group?s campaign ahead of the independence referendum ? was produced at a studio in the BBC?s Pacific Quay base in Glasgow normally used for quiz shows.

The filming, described by Better Together as a ?commercial arrangement? between a sub-contracted production company and the BBC, appears to fall foul of a number of the broadcaster?s internal guidelines.

The rules warn of damage to the corporation?s standing if it is seen to be associated with ?inappropriate? third parties such as political parties and lobbying organisations.

 

"Some relief from Salmond's refusal to sack someone who should be sacked" = an attack on Better Together

 

 

[TheMaganator]

I see the Pope & Hilary Clinton have intervened now too

[curriehearts]

Some relief from the Gunn non-scandal. BBC involved in another bias row. News from the Scotsman of all places. Poor BT. Can expect Gunn to continue quietly in his job now.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/better-together-film-made-in-bbc-studio-1-3444021

 

BBC Scotland was last night embroiled in a major row over its impartiality amid concerns it flouted its own editorial and commercial guidelines by allowing a Better Together cinema advertisement to be filmed at its headquarters using the corporation?s in-house crew.

The Scotsman can reveal that the advert ? shown on screens nationwide as part of the pro-Union group?s campaign ahead of the independence referendum ? was produced at a studio in the BBC?s Pacific Quay base in Glasgow normally used for quiz shows.

The filming, described by Better Together as a ?commercial arrangement? between a sub-contracted production company and the BBC, appears to fall foul of a number of the broadcaster?s internal guidelines.

The rules warn of damage to the corporation?s standing if it is seen to be associated with ?inappropriate? third parties such as political parties and lobbying organisations.

 

I nearly fell over seeing this in the front page of The Scotsman. Not a lot to it is my view but fills another slow newsday.

 

Inside the paper the usual Unionist stuff, so not worth buying it except for the cryptic crossword!!

 

Any coverage of Wee Eck saying he wants manufacturing to grow by 30% in 15 years and Darling saying No Thanks!!

[Gizmo]

I see the Pope & Hilary Clinton have intervened now too

 

I don't see why you find it amusing. Are you so rigidly held to your position that you readily accept Cameron wheeling out a string of people across the globe to deign to tell us what to do? Do you enjoy being dictated to?

 

Who next?

 

Harry Styles from 1D?

Bart Simpson?

Bette Midler?

Madonna?

Pitbull?

Suzanne Collins?

Lady Gaga?

 

This is NOT a question for random authors, pop stars or politicians from other countries.

 

If they actually had something substantive to add to the discussion then fine, but they don't. They simply paraphrase the same PR guff asked of them by Cameron (I don't include Rowling in this since she lives in Scotland and has a right to her opinion on a matter that affects her).

 

I'll say it again, call me Dave needs to man up, come up here and prove once and for all why we should stay. Stop getting other people to do your dirty work.

 

Still I suppose I should welcome it as it does more to get people's heckles up here than it will ever convince voters to move towards NO.

 

And, when the question is essentially about self-determination, it actually reinforces that concept when the opposition think we need to be treated like children and told what to do by others.

[coconut doug]

So why did the politician stuff become a major issue? IMO she isn't one, I think a party secretary is an activist. A representative is a politician. I never quoted wings. I referenced them by paraphrasing. And they did have to correct the article later for inaccuracy by saying she was related to some high up councillor.

 

Again wings showed itself to be amateurish and lacking any real independent research, I do not get why it's popular at all. To me it's childish and ott in its tone and pretty poor in analysis. Always looking for a conspiracy.

 

 

 

You do realise that she is not in anyway related to Pat Lally, that is a lie. Why a senior press advisor done cack all research ther is beyond me if he was being honest and not trying to spin. Ms Lally is a labour activist, and a divisor to the shadow cabinet, that does not make her a politician, which IMO is someone who is in elected office.

The politician stuff is an issue because she claimed to be "ordinary". She is in the shadow cabinet and the policy review committee. The clue is in the word. She is invoved in policy and is thus political. She "represents" a non geographical constituency (the disabled). Being unelected does not exclude her from being a politician in this country. There are many members of the House of Lords who are in the cabinet. Even the ones who are not, consider themselves political. All this will change though, come independence.

 

Here is what you said about Wings "Wings ran an article on this inaccurate information, to which he later added a note later saying we are now unsure if she is related to Pat but she's still in Labour" You were telling us what Wings said and so you were quoting it. The fact that you did not use quotation marks does not necessarily mean you are not quoting. You told us what wings was "saying". You were not rephrasing something and retaining the meaning, you were at best mistaken. In any case Wings did not say or even imply what you claim.

 

Wings did not say that being in Labour necessarily make you a politician or a political activist as you claim, but did claim that being a member of the shadow cabinet and policy review committee does. The standard of spelling, grammar, syntax, and accuracy of reporting on Wings is amongst the best i have seen. It is difficult to misunderstand what is written there. The man is a pedant. I think Wings should be read more often and more carefully though, especially if you want to find out how the main stream media distort things around the independence debate.

 

I think your notion that somebody lied cannot be substantiated. An erroneous statement was made but that does not necessarily constitute a lie. There is no accusation from Gunn, just a challenge to the statement that Ms Lally was an "ordinary person". The notion that she is "ordinary" is at least arguable. Quite how Ms Lally's relationships or otherwise impinges with her ordinaryness is difficult to quantify but i imagine it was done to suggest an unhealthy nepotistic element in the Labour party or at least an element of indoctrination. Nevertheless the statement that she was related to Pat Lally was obviously going to be exposed immediately and would have no political value for the yes side. It was clearly a mistake, both factually and strategically, and a very fundamental one at that, but not a lie. If it is a lie then Gunn would have to be even more stupid than he appears to be and that would be no mean feat, given that he was the political editor of the Sunday Post..

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I can foresee so much rancour should No win come September. The most ardent Yes fans will be looking for revenge on any perceived No supporter in any way shape or form.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I don't see why you find it amusing. Are you so rigidly held to your position that you readily accept Cameron wheeling out a string of people across the globe to deign to tell us what to do? Do you enjoy being dictated to?

 

Who next?

 

Harry Styles from 1D?

Bart Simpson?

Bette Midler?

Madonna?

Pitbull?

Suzanne Collins?

Lady Gaga?

 

This is NOT a question for random authors, pop stars or politicians from other countries.

 

If they actually had something substantive to add to the discussion then fine, but they don't. They simply paraphrase the same PR guff asked of them by Cameron (I don't include Rowling in this since she lives in Scotland and has a right to her opinion on a matter that affects her).

 

I'll say it again, call me Dave needs to man up, come up here and prove once and for all why we should stay. Stop getting other people to do your dirty work.

 

Still I suppose I should welcome it as it does more to get people's heckles up here than it will ever convince voters to move towards NO.

 

And, when the question is essentially about self-determination, it actually reinforces that concept when the opposition think we need to be treated like children and told what to do by others.

That's the difference between the two camps. You feel like you're being dictated to.

People supporting the Union does not equate to them telling you what to do.

It's all a little chippy IMO

You've no interest in what Cameron has to say. We've been over it a hundred times on here. The Yes camp want Cameron up here because it'll be good for them & allow Salmond to make this a battle against the Tories. The No camp don't want it for the same reasons.

 

Be honest about it. You don't want him here because you think he's got a duty to do so or whatever. You think it'll be good for your camp.

[coconut doug]

Has Jim Sillars tracked down the rancorous, hot headed Yes supporters?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-campaigner-claims-mi5-is-leading-dirty-tricks-campaign-9535799.html

[curriehearts]

That's the difference between the two camps. You feel like you're being dictated to.

People supporting the Union does not equate to them telling you what to do.

It's all a little chippy IMO

You've no interest in what Cameron has to say. We've been over it a hundred times on here. The Yes camp want Cameron up here because it'll be good for them & allow Salmond to make this a battle against the Tories. The No camp don't want it for the same reasons.

 

Be honest about it. You don't want him here because you think he's got a duty to do so or whatever. You think it'll be good for your camp.

 

I don't care if it has been discussed a thousand times. It is the Organ Grinder who sets the future vision for Scotland, not his monkeys.

If a No vote materialises I want to know what my PM's way forward is for the 8% of his country. His 'heavyweights' in Scotland can talk all they want but they do not hold the power.

[2NaFish]

 

Be honest about it. You don't want him here because you think he's got a duty to do so or whatever. You think it'll be good for your camp.

 

It can be both. Given cameron's actions so far i'd say he's obliged to.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

It can be both. Given cameron's actions so far i'd say he's obliged to.

Fair enough. For me his obligation is to do what's best for the UK - that means staying well clear of a debate with Salmond IMO

[Patrick Bateman]

It can be both. Given cameron's actions so far i'd say he's obliged to.

 

It's a really awkward one for unionists, that's for sure. He's deeply unpopular in Scotland and has zero democratic mandate, yet he leads a government that makes huge decisions that effect Scotland. As the no side is uncomfortable in dealing with realities and certainties, they're desperate to avoid conceding what this referendum is about; Westminster rule or self-rule. This makes Cameron look very, very weak. I'm surprised labour aren't pushing for it too, given how unlikely they are to win the 2015 westminster election as things stand.

[2NaFish]

Fair enough. For me his obligation is to do what's best for the UK - that means staying well clear of a debate with Salmond IMO

 

Well that's just a cop out. He was various obligations, to simply list another obligation, which is a rather woolly one anyway, doesnt trump his obligation to represent his position properly.

 

And how does that fit with your assertion that Yes campaigners miss the point when they say they are being dictated to. Surely you must see that by pre-empting the will of the voters and refusing to have a debate because it wouldn't back the union is to jump the gun. It's to say that the only valid opinion that can be entertained in the public sphere by the people who represent all of us are the ones already accepted by the establishment. Saying it's acceptable for the PM to ditch an obligation because it might help the concerns of one side of a referendum is to help the other side. If you're going to be partisan you need to be able to back it up, and if Cameron isnt going to back it up then you can't have a go at Yes campaigners who feel they are being treated as less worthy. Cameron is dishing it out but not taking it.

 

Cameron is obliged to have a full part in the referendum if he is to have any part in it.

Edited June 14, 2014 by 2NaFish

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

It's a really awkward one for unionists, that's for sure. He's deeply unpopular in Scotland and has zero democratic mandate, yet he leads a government that makes huge decisions that effect Scotland. As the no side is uncomfortable in dealing with realities and certainties, they're desperate to avoid conceding what this referendum is about; Westminster rule or self-rule. This makes Cameron look very, very weak. I'm surprised labour aren't pushing for it too, given how unlikely they are to win the 2015 westminster election as things stand.

 

The democratic mandate is UK wide for Westminster, not Scotland. It's like saying Salmond's mandate comes from Glasgow NAND has no right to rule in Edinburgh or Shetland (hypothetically speaking).

 

What should Labour be pushing sorry? Independence?

[Gizmo]

I can foresee so much rancour should No win come September. The most ardent Yes fans will be looking for revenge on any perceived No supporter in any way shape or form.

 

Nonsense. Stop buying into the No Thanks propaganda. Yes-minded people have been attacked more than No-minded (poll in the Express, don't have link to hand) yet No Thanks will seize on pathetic things like 4 wee stickers = vandalism or some shadow cabinet member getting called out for pretending to have no political affiliation. Message not working - smear the messengers. Hence the coining of the "C" word to describe YES minded posters with an online presence.

 

Be honest about it. You don't want him here because you think he's got a duty to do so or whatever. You think it'll be good for your camp.

 

Cameron is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK. It is NOT his job to undermine Scotland at every turn via proxies whilst at the same-time maintaining his "it's for the Scots to decide" charade. Two-faced hypocrite. What is he offering for us to stay, will he protect the block grant or will he, as is predicted, lop 4 billion off it to help pay for his profligacy with the economy? How can he claim we are better together when his very Westminster government has done more to erode the living standards of Scots (and the rest of the UK) and pushed more children and families over the poverty line? Why does he believe our EU membership could be in jeopardy when he is promising a referendum on that very question?

 

We deserve to ask these questions via our own elected representative, our First Minister, and get answers - it's not good enough for No Thanks to claim the status quo and suggest only a YES vote results in uncertanties.

 

And yeah, of course it would be good for the Independence campaign if he debated. You know it, I know it. And why? Because he is a weak debater and more importantly, his arguments are easily dismantled. It's why you don't want him - or anyone from No Thanks - to stay behind, after pompously talking down to us, to field questions.

 

He is also poison to the 'No Thanks' campaign, as evidenced by the last poll which showed a majority YES result when voting intentions viz-a-viz Cameron/Tories remaining in power after the next election were polled.

 

The closer to voting day, the more I expect YES to focus on that horrible spectre of the Tories retaining power - perhaps in an unholy coalition with UKIP (who are surely going to benefit from the filletting the lib dems will receive at the ballot box) It should hopefully give YES the wee push it needs to cement a majority in the vote rather than just scrape over the line.

 

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Nonsense. Stop buying into the No Thanks propaganda. Yes-minded people have been attacked more than No-minded (poll in the Express, don't have link to hand) yet No Thanks will seize on pathetic things like 4 wee stickers = vandalism or some shadow cabinet member getting called out for pretending to have no political affiliation. Message not working - smear the messengers. Hence the coining of the "C" word to describe YES minded posters with an online presence.

 

 

 

Cameron is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK. It is NOT his job to undermine Scotland at every turn via proxies whilst at the same-time maintaining his "it's for the Scots to decide" charade. Two-faced hypocrite. What is he offering for us to stay, will he protect the block grant or will he, as is predicted, lop 4 billion off it to help pay for his profligacy with the economy? How can he claim we are better together when his very Westminster government has done more to erode the living standards of Scots (and the rest of the UK) and pushed more children and families over the poverty line? Why does he believe our EU membership could be in jeopardy when he is promising a referendum on that very question?

 

We deserve to ask these questions via our own elected representative, our First Minister, and get answers - it's not good enough for No Thanks to claim the status quo and suggest only a YES vote results in uncertanties.

 

And yeah, of course it would be good for the Independence campaign if he debated. You know it, I know it. And why? Because he is a weak debater and more importantly, his arguments are easily dismantled. It's why you don't want him - or anyone from No Thanks - to stay behind, after pompously talking down to us, to field questions.

 

He is also poison to the 'No Thanks' campaign, as evidenced by the last poll which showed a majority YES result when voting intentions viz-a-viz Cameron/Tories remaining in power after the next election were polled.

 

The closer to voting day, the more I expect YES to focus on that horrible spectre of the Tories retaining power - perhaps in an unholy coalition with UKIP (who are surely going to benefit from the filletting the lib dems will receive at the ballot box) It should hopefully give YES the wee push it needs to cement a majority in the vote rather than just scrape over the line.

 

2 issues:

 

1. The SNP framed this a decision for scots by scots and to be debated by scots. Cameron ticks none of these boxes. Precedent also says this is right, in 1979 and 1999 the main protagonists were scots on both sides. The Prime Minister was not directly involved day to day. Why? Because he had no seat in Scotland and had no democratic interest in it directly as a Scottish representative.

 

2. The answers you'll get are those of what the SNP want in the future and the Tories want in the future. Not full answers or a breadth of opinions, frankly neither appeal to me. Why not open the debate up to the LibDems, Greens, Labour and the rest to offer the breath of opinions we should hear from this.

 

 

[TheMaganator]

Watch from 1hr23

 

The SNP stopping Prof Thomkins from giving evidence because they don't like what he's saying.

 

The SNP are a disgrace.

[Patrick Bateman]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-overpays-for-uk-debt-1-3185848

 

?64.1 Billion. That's what unionists mean when they talk about 'pooling and sharing' resources. Scotland's wealth sent to Westminster so they can build Crossrail, HS2 and any manner of infrastructure projects that don't benefit Scotland in any way. That's the 'solidarity' argument realised; apparently it's right that money Scotland earns is spent to benefit others, whilst simultaneously telling us that we're not sustainable. It's disgusting, really.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Has Jim Sillars tracked down the rancorous, hot headed Yes supporters?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-campaigner-claims-mi5-is-leading-dirty-tricks-campaign-9535799.html

 

Jim Sillars is right of course Mi5 and special branch will be practicing their dark arts it's their job to protect those that run the country .

 

After hearing what they got up to during the miners strike , fake picket gangs causing mischief making strikers look bad , paid off Scargils right hand man as an informer .

 

I would not be shocked to hear a big terror scare during weeks before the poll .

 

Mind the troops were put on the streets on the eve of the big anti war march .

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Nonsense. Stop buying into the No Thanks propaganda. Yes-minded people have been attacked more than No-minded (poll in the Express, don't have link to hand) yet No Thanks will seize on pathetic things like 4 wee stickers = vandalism or some shadow cabinet member getting called out for pretending to have no political affiliation. Message not working - smear the messengers. Hence the coining of the "C" word to describe YES minded posters with an online presence.

 

 

 

Cameron is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK. It is NOT his job to undermine Scotland at every turn via proxies whilst at the same-time maintaining his "it's for the Scots to decide" charade. Two-faced hypocrite. What is he offering for us to stay, will he protect the block grant or will he, as is predicted, lop 4 billion off it to help pay for his profligacy with the economy? How can he claim we are better together when his very Westminster government has done more to erode the living standards of Scots (and the rest of the UK) and pushed more children and families over the poverty line? Why does he believe our EU membership could be in jeopardy when he is promising a referendum on that very question?

 

We deserve to ask these questions via our own elected representative, our First Minister, and get answers - it's not good enough for No Thanks to claim the status quo and suggest only a YES vote results in uncertanties.

 

And yeah, of course it would be good for the Independence campaign if he debated. You know it, I know it. And why? Because he is a weak debater and more importantly, his arguments are easily dismantled. It's why you don't want him - or anyone from No Thanks - to stay behind, after pompously talking down to us, to field questions.

 

He is also poison to the 'No Thanks' campaign, as evidenced by the last poll which showed a majority YES result when voting intentions viz-a-viz Cameron/Tories remaining in power after the next election were polled.

 

The closer to voting day, the more I expect YES to focus on that horrible spectre of the Tories retaining power - perhaps in an unholy coalition with UKIP (who are surely going to benefit from the filletting the lib dems will receive at the ballot box) It should hopefully give YES the wee push it needs to cement a majority in the vote rather than just scrape over the line.

I'm judging it on what I read online. Honestly, I think some of them will spontaneously combust if people have the temerity to vote No.

 

 

[jack D and coke]

In a football sense the Yes campaign is a typically Scottish side up against the unionists who are playing like some continental team who are exaggerating every contact, feigning injury and trying to get people booked and sent off. Appealing to the referee with the imaginary card.

[ToYouToMe]

In a football sense the Yes campaign is a typically Scottish side up against the unionists who are playing like some continental team who are exaggerating every contact, feigning injury and trying to get people booked and sent off. Appealing to the referee with the imaginary card.

 

In a nutshell.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Boab]

I see the Pope & Hilary Clinton have intervened now too

 

Hilary Clinton is an arsehole so no great swing on her views....the Pope however could sway people regardless of how veiled his statement actually was.

[TheMaganator]

In a football sense the Yes campaign is a typically Scottish side up against the unionists who are playing like some continental team who are exaggerating every contact, feigning injury and trying to get people booked and sent off. Appealing to the referee with the imaginary card.

[IMA MAROON]

In a football sense the Yes campaign is a typically Scottish side up against the unionists who are playing like some continental team who are exaggerating every contact, feigning injury and trying to get people booked and sent off. Appealing to the referee with the imaginary card.

 

It is funny you should say that as lots of Yes voters think it is a Scotland v England game.

[JamboX2]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-overpays-for-uk-debt-1-3185848

 

?64.1 Billion. That's what unionists mean when they talk about 'pooling and sharing' resources. Scotland's wealth sent to Westminster so they can build Crossrail, HS2 and any manner of infrastructure projects that don't benefit Scotland in any way. That's the 'solidarity' argument realised; apparently it's right that money Scotland earns is spent to benefit others, whilst simultaneously telling us that we're not sustainable. It's disgusting, really.

 

Is that ?64.1 billion from Scotland?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Is that ?64.1 billion from Scotland?

The article peddles assumptions as facts. Typical rubbish from Gordon.

[Gizmo]

In a football sense the Yes campaign is a typically Scottish side up against the unionists who are playing like some continental team who are exaggerating every contact, feigning injury and trying to get people booked and sent off. Appealing to the referee with the imaginary card.

 

Bang on.

 

http://www.scotsman....-debt-1-3185848

 

?64.1 Billion. That's what unionists mean when they talk about 'pooling and sharing' resources. Scotland's wealth sent to Westminster so they can build Crossrail, HS2 and any manner of infrastructure projects that don't benefit Scotland in any way. That's the 'solidarity' argument realised; apparently it's right that money Scotland earns is spent to benefit others, whilst simultaneously telling us that we're not sustainable. It's disgusting, really.

 

It's like that across the "service charges" we are charged for by Westminster. All rounded up - like the ?2 billion spent on defence v the ?3 billion + charged to us. Add that up over that service charge and that's a lovely little earner for Westminster to spend in the south of England.

 

I'm sure we'll benefit from HS2 just like we benefited from the billions spent on the channel tunnel link which was going to run all the way to Edinburgh.

 

Incidentally the figures aren't assumption since they are based on official Government figures (and don't get me started on the 'experimental' method HM Revenue and Customs adopted to reduce Scotland's share of oil revenue based on the maritime boundaries as they did when assessing down our Corporation Tax revenue likewise.

[jambos are go!]

In a football sense the Yes campaign is a typically Scottish side up against the unionists who are playing like some continental team who are exaggerating every contact, feigning injury and trying to get people booked and sent off. Appealing to the referee with the imaginary card.

Well thats how to libel the rest of Europe in a nutshell. Edited June 14, 2014 by jambos are go!

[jack D and coke]

Well thats how to libel the rest of Europe in a nutshell.

It was meant to be a bit of a fun mate. I wasn't having big digs.

[SE16 3LN]

Jim Sillars is right of course Mi5 and special branch will be practicing their dark arts it's their job to protect those that run the country .

 

After hearing what they got up to during the miners strike , fake picket gangs causing mischief making strikers look bad , paid off Scargils right hand man as an informer .

 

I would not be shocked to hear a big terror scare during weeks before the poll .

 

Mind the troops were put on the streets on the eve of the big anti war march .

You believe all this?

[Patrick Bateman]

Here's an interesting piece on the potential for Atlantic oil - http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/11/the-real-state-of-scotlands-oil-and-gas-reserves/

 

Quite why unionists want Scotland to not have the right to spend every penny it earns is beyond me. Justifying it in terms of access to embassies or an admirable but ultimately naive belief in 'solidarity' just doesn't cut it.

[Rick Grimes]

Interested to see how that piece will be rubbished...

[coconut doug]

Jim Sillars is right of course Mi5 and special branch will be practicing their dark arts it's their job to protect those that run the country .

 

After hearing what they got up to during the miners strike , fake picket gangs causing mischief making strikers look bad , paid off Scargils right hand man as an informer .

 

I would not be shocked to hear a big terror scare during weeks before the poll .

 

Mind the troops were put on the streets on the eve of the big anti war march .

You have reminded me of when Edinburgh city police provided a couple of young Scottish Nationalists with detonators, wires and kid on explosives back in the 1950's. A documentary was made on the BBC Gaelic channel i think but i can't find any reference to it now. The perpetrators went to jail iirc. This took place at the time post boxes were being altered because of their Elizabeth 2nd logos. I wonder if anybody else knows anything about this.

[jambos are go!]

 

Here's an interesting piece on the potential for Atlantic oil - http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/11/the-real-state-of-scotlands-oil-and-gas-reserves/

 

Quite why unionists want Scotland to not have the right to spend every penny it earns is beyond me. Justifying it in terms of access to embassies or an admirable but ultimately naive belief in 'solidarity' just doesn't cut it.p

Let me rubbish or should I say cherish this paper. Cherish because it contains the most memorable and hilarious evidence in the entire independence debate IMO:

 

"A Mr S Fisher says ' the biggest oil reserves in the world lie to the west of lewis'. "

[Independence]

Let me rubbish or should I say cherish this paper. Cherish because it contains the most memorable and hilarious evidence in the entire independence debate IMO:

 

"A Mr S Fisher says ' the biggest oil reserves in the world lie to the west of lewis'. "

 

I don't expect to read any of this in our very biased media, controlled from England or elsewhere.

 

At least I can buy the Sunday Herald tomorrow. Quite shocking that the Scottish media is so biased with its propaganda and I stopped buying them years ago. I do not wish just 'yes (positive)' articles but I do wish...balanced reporting! The 'No (negative)' camp are now turning corrupt as they get more and more concerned that people living in Scotland are seeing through the propaganda and realising that we have the right to self-determination and to control ourselves!

[jambos are go!]

 

 

 

I don't expect to read any of this in our very biased media, controlled from England or elsewhere.

 

At least I can buy the Sunday Herald tomorrow. Quite shocking that the Scottish media is so biased with its propaganda and I stopped buying them years ago. I do not wish just 'yes (positive)' articles but I do wish...balanced reporting! The 'No (negative)' camp are now turning corrupt as they get more and more concerned that people living in Scotland are seeing through the propaganda and realising that we have the right to self-determination and to control ourselves!

surely the cartoonists can have a ball with the legend that is Mr Stirling.

[Cade]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/14/better-together-mistakes-scottish-independence

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/14/better-together-mistakes-scottish-independence

 

Surely you should be happy with the state of play then, unlike McKenna?