Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[ToadKiller Dog]

 

 

Baffles me why Scottish Labour don't back independence. They will never be in power anywhere again.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

Seems Scottish Labour want to stand with their Unionists allies Britain first and the BNP to keep the Union .

http://wingsoverscotland.com/friends-and-enemies/

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Seems Scottish Labour want to stand with their Unionists allies Britain first and the BNP to keep the Union .

http://wingsoverscotland.com/friends-and-enemies/

 

I don't think Sarwar means he has much truck with the BNP, UKIP or Britian First. I don't think any reasoned interpretation associates him with that. I think his defeat nationalism is as much directed at the right wing as it is at the SNP. Nationalists in two different ways.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Baffles me why Scottish Labour don't back independence. They will never be in power anywhere again imo.

 

SNP will continue to command a third of the vote here. And unless you can win the South East of England you have no chance at Westminster. They won't.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

London's GLA, Wales, numerous English councils, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow.. All under some form of Labour control. The SNP won't control a 3rd of the vote if yes happens, if what many SNP voters say they will disperse after their desire is realised. Them it's open game IMO.

 

Scottish Labour back the UK because they believe in political union with the wider British Isles. As they do the EU. Power within said unions is open to debate.

[TheMaganator]

Sad to see Ukip finally getting some kind of recognition here. Not a surprise given the massive publicity campaign by the BBC on their behalf. Some perspective needed though.

 

 

Also:

53.7% of rUK voted either UKIP or Tory.

54.9% of Scotland voted either SNP or Labour.

Damn the BBC constantly giving UKIP publicity!

 

Seriously though - if you think that UKIP are popular because they got some media time then you completely misunderstand the situation.

[TheMaganator]

And whilst we're throwing out stats:

 

SNP: 28.9% of vote

UKIP+Tory 27.6% of vote

 

But the Tories & UKIP aren't popular here though. We must vote Yes to keep them out.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Damn the BBC constantly giving UKIP publicity!

 

Seriously though - if you think that UKIP are popular because they got some media time then you completely misunderstand the situation.

 

Would that be Tasmina "The Tory" Sheikh they wanted elected?

[TheMaganator]

http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-indicate-shipyard-closure-event-scottish-yes-vote/

BAE say shipyards will likely close if we vote Yes.

[TheMaganator]

Would that be Tasmina "The Tory" Sheikh they wanted elected?

Exactly

[ToadKiller Dog]

 

 

 

Would that be Tasmina "The Tory" Sheikh they wanted elected?

 

The very lady who started her political career as a member of the Labour Party .

 

 

 

[jack D and coke]

Subsidised celts....

http://archive.today/4l4rA

[TheMaganator]

http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/

 

A great piece on the UKIP success & how it will affect the SNP from Prof Tomkins, Public Law at Glasgow Uni

[TheMaganator]

Subsidised celts....

http://archive.today/4l4rA

 

A Neil Hamilton piece from December 2010?

 

Is Hamilton not the disgraced bankrupt ex-MP? Why on earth would something he wrote in 2010, or anytime for that matter, bother you? There are some English people who think we are subsidy junkies - so what? We have our fair share of wallopers with 'interesting' views on the English - it doesn't make them right.

[TheMaganator]

One thing he forgets to mention about these results is that yet again the SNP has won an Election in Scotland and that whatever way he wants to portray the result it cannot be ignored. There is a very large part of our society that wants independence from the UK and that makes the political landscape very different on both sides of the border.

 

There could be 100 elections between now and September 18^th and support for the SNP will not alter.

 

Nobody in the Yes/SNP community will do anything to rock the boat prior to the referendum. That is why Alex Neil and Kenny Macaskill are still in their positions when under normal circumstances they would have been shuffled away. That is also why you can count on a couple of fingers those who support independence have criticised the SNP since 2011. This is not a normal period in politics.

 

The first real test for the SNP will come post-Sept 18^th if there is a No vote. If there is a Yes vote they will be a shoe-in for the first election but will likely start to fade away after that IMO.

 

There are the hard-liners who want an independent Scotland. They have been about 1/3 of the population for a while. The soft Yes voters will fade away if there is a No vote IMO. I am hoping the hard-liners lose interest after a No vote when they realise their cause is lost for a generation.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/27/uk-cinema-chains-ads-scottish-independence-referendum

Following a string of complaints - cinemas will no longer be showing referendum ads before films.

 

I didn't get to see any of them but I'm not sure I'd have wanted to in the cinema. It's good to get a break from it all now and then

[Patrick Bateman]

The british government has, once again, lied to Scotland about the 'costs' of independence, according to the Financial Times. I don't understand how unionists can brush off things like this; they deliberately suppressed Scotland's oil wealth for political ends, for decades, and now this?

 

[jambos are go!]

 

The british government has, once again, lied to Scotland about the 'costs' of independence, according to the Financial Times. I don't understand how unionists can brush off things like this; they deliberately suppressed Scotland's oil wealth for political ends, for decades, and now this?

 

This is a claim by a Professor reported in but not attributable to the Financial Times. The FT also quotes contrary opinions and your interpretaion is seriously flawed IMO.

[jack D and coke]

This pair of jokers are going hammer and tongs Scotland tonight just now. What a couple of slavers, they can barely let each other or John Mackay speak.

[TheMaganator]

This pair of jokers are going hammer and tongs Scotland tonight just now. What a couple of slavers, they can barely let each other or John Mackay speak.

I saw they were on & went to my bed. After that last 'debate' I couldn't bare it

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

This pair of jokers are going hammer and tongs Scotland tonight just now. What a couple of slavers, they can barely let each other or John Mackay speak.

 

I thought it was alright - it was moderated much better than the debates were. I was pleasantly surprised.

 

Is anyone checking out the new BBC offering, Scotland 2014? That's twice now I've switched over to Scotland Tonight. First because Keith Vaz appeared; and now because of a feature called 'Top Trending' ( ). I wish they hadn't scrapped Newsnicht.

[curriehearts]

This is a claim by a Professor reported in but not attributable to the Financial Times. The FT also quotes contrary opinions and your interpretaion is seriously flawed IMO.

 

The bit in the article that amuses me is the. 'Don't focus on the ?2.7bn figure we inserted into the briefing paper'. Ie, we went for a headline and have been caught inflating numbers.

Unfortunately in a rush to show the 'cost' (or is it an investment?) of independence Danny rushes out poorly calculated work. I am never sure whether I rate Danny (Alexander that is - not Wilson!) but none of us would be happy in our workplace if this was issued in our name as some poor basic assumptions used.

 

 

[ToYouToMe]

http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-indicate-shipyard-closure-event-scottish-yes-vote/

BAE say shipyards will likely close if we vote Yes.

 

Because none have ever closed under the Union.....

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Alfred]

 

 

 

Because none have ever closed under the Union.....

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

I'm also guessing that they won't want to bid for any Scottish Defence contracts?

[jack D and coke]

 

 

I'm also guessing that they won't want to bid for any Scottish Defence contracts?

Are you kidding? Scotland won't have any money to do anything!! We'd likely run out of money and bump them cos we'll be so skint! God man nobody will touch Scotland are you mental????

[Alfred]

 

 

Are you kidding? Scotland won't have any money to do anything!! We'd likely run out of money and bump them cos we'll be so skint! God man nobody will touch Scotland are you mental????

 

Ah.... Yes.... I'd forgotten that bit!

[jack D and coke]

 

 

Ah.... Yes.... I'd forgotten that bit!

Well Danny Alexander is in Scotland today just to remind you

[Gizmo]

This is a claim by a Professor reported in but not attributable to the Financial Times. The FT also quotes contrary opinions and your interpretaion is seriously flawed IMO.

 

Rubbish. This is the Westminster report being rubbished by the very Professor who's figures they based their lazy figures on - basically by the entirely unscientific method of multiplying one figure by 180. If they base their skewed and incorrect figures on his work then I'd expect he'd be in a much better place to know just how inaccurate and downright dishonest their calculations are.

 

?150 million set-up costs (according to the Professor) v a mind-boggling ?2.7 billion! It's not like the figures are even close enough to account for the difference being a small margin of error.

 

So what is it? Shambolic incompetence or deliberate dishonesty?

[jack D and coke]

Atlantic oil?

https://word-view.officeapps.live.com/wv/mWord.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efacebook%2Ecom%2Fdownload%2Ffile%5Fpreview%2Ephp%3Fid%3D907037049323475%26time%3D1401263298%26metadata&access_token=1475982364%3AAVLT%5F3wfgDQe35GjSrXEqnG0rvOHb4TlE4%5FlRaX16aPxdw&title=SCOTTISH%20ATLANTIC%20MARGIN%20OIL%20AND%20GAS%20ARTICLE%2Edocx&wdMobileHost=2

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Rubbish. This is the Westminster report being rubbished by the very Professor who's figures they based their lazy figures on - basically by the entirely unscientific method of multiplying one figure by 180. If they base their skewed and incorrect figures on his work then I'd expect he'd be in a much better place to know just how inaccurate and downright dishonest their calculations are.

 

?150 million set-up costs (according to the Professor) v a mind-boggling ?2.7 billion! It's not like the figures are even close enough to account for the difference being a small margin of error.

 

So what is it? Shambolic incompetence or deliberate dishonesty?

Interesting that you're bothered by this, but not the totally uncosted child care proposals being touted in the White Paper.

 

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/05/28/separate-currency-most-likely/

 

Barclays saying seperate currency is best way forward.

[jack D and coke]

Some Tweets from Dunleavy himself...

 

[Gizmo]

Interesting that you're bothered by this, but not the totally uncosted child care proposals being touted in the White Paper.

 

http://money.aol.co....cy-most-likely/

 

Barclays saying seperate currency is best way forward.

 

A lot easier to afford child care if we are shelling out only ??150 million and not ?2.7 billion in set-up costs!

 

Deflect all you want but we are being routinely lied to by Project Fear Better Together. Anyone who stops to wonder why can only reach one conclusion; the truth is not terribly palatable or beneficial to any case they could make for the Union hence the continued obfuscation, lies, distorted figures and the lack of any positive message whatsoever.

 

Why isn't there, instead of a fear-mongering and wildly inaccurate paper on the cost of separation from BT, a paper showing the benefits of remaining within the Union? Where is the positive case for this Union if it so enriches our lives?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Gizmo

[jack D and coke]

Scottish Government Papers detailing some financial strengths....

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/-5-billion-increase-in-revenues-by-2029-ce5.aspx

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Scottish Government Papers detailing some financial strengths....

http://news.scotland...y-2029-ce5.aspx

 

Not being funny but isn't that using taxpayers money to promote an independence agenda?

[jambos are go!]

Rubbish. This is the Westminster report being rubbished by the very Professor who's figures they based their lazy figures on - basically by the entirely unscientific method of multiplying one figure by 180. If they base their skewed and incorrect figures on his work then I'd expect he'd be in a much better place to know just how inaccurate and downright dishonest their calculations are.

 

?150 million set-up costs (according to the Professor) v a mind-boggling ?2.7 billion! It's not like the figures are even close enough to account for the difference being a small margin of error.

 

So what is it? Shambolic incompetence or deliberate dishonesty?

My response is an accurate critique of the spin put on the article by Patrick Bateman and is not rubbish. IMO.

[jack D and coke]

 

Not being funny but isn't that using taxpayers money to promote an independence agenda?

Guess so. Where else would they release the figures though?

[Patrick Bateman]

Not being funny but isn't that using taxpayers money to promote an independence agenda?

 

Which is exactly what Whitehall has done, so I don't see what the problem is. The Scottish Government were given a landslide mandate by the Scottish electorate and independence is their flagship policy.

 

On a side note, it's funny to see people with ZERO economic experience or qualification pretend they know more about Scotland's economic ability and potential than Alex Salmond, a man with an economics degree and who worked as an accountant for years.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Which is exactly what Whitehall has done, so I don't see what the problem is. The Scottish Government were given a landslide mandate by the Scottish electorate and independence is their flagship policy.

 

The "problem" is the way it is written. It is written in such a way to imply that a Yes vote has already been obtained. Still, I'm sure it passes the civil service code so all good.

 

On a side note, it's funny to see people with ZERO economic experience or qualification pretend they know more about Scotland's economic ability and potential than Alex Salmond, a man with an economics degree and who worked as an accountant for years.

 

Oh come on! Long-term economic forecasts could be made by John Maynard Keynes or some bloke down the pub and they are as equally likely to be correct. The great thing for politicians making those sort of forecasts is that no one will write them down and hold them to account on them 20 odd years in the future.

[Ulysses]

Guess so. Where else would they release the figures though?

 

A party political broadcast?

 

Leaving out the spin, what the piece says is that the Yes campaign believes that certain things would happen after independence. It doesn't say that they would, and doesn't provide any evidence that they would. But if they did, then after a period of 13 years the Exchequer position would be ?5 billion better off. It reminds me of some of Bertie Ahern's fantasy Exchequer forecasting during Ireland's "Celtic Tiger".

 

Even if you accept all of that would turn out to be true - it might, or it might not - it still wouldn't deal with the real probability that an independent Scotland's government would have to pursue a harsher austerity programme than the rUK in order to balance the books, maintain core public services, keep the IMF away from the door and make Scotland's Exchequer fit for the task of building an "oil fund" at some future date.

 

You can only spend the same money once. You can't pay out or borrow for "free mince" and still have the money for an oil fund.

[IMA MAROON]

Guess so. Where else would they release the figures though?

 

It doesn't bother you because you want us to separate but folk that want us to stay together don't want their money spent on the Yes campaign.

 

Nothing is going to stop them, they'll just carry on regardless.

[jack D and coke]

 

It doesn't bother you because you want us to separate but folk that want us to stay together don't want their money spent on the Yes campaign.

 

Nothing is going to stop them, they'll just carry on regardless.

I didn't say it didn't bother me but I don't agree with a lot of things my governments spend my tax money on. Where would you like me to start?

[jack D and coke]

 

It doesn't bother you because you want us to separate but folk that want us to stay together don't want their money spent on the Yes campaign.

 

Nothing is going to stop them, they'll just carry on regardless.

And I've never said I want us to seperate either. The only certainly in this referendum is I won't vote No. I might not vote Yes but i 100% won't vote No. Before the referendum campaigning began I wasn't particularly unhappy with things and I've read things from the beginning with an open mind. I'm not always convinced by the Yes campaign and Salmond and Sturgeon etc get on my tits at times but so do most politicians, they're pretty much all complete snakes but people like Darling and Alexander an countless others who have spent the last two years running their country down will never get my vote or be forgiven but the day after the result is announced I'll accept it and move on. I hope there's not another in my lifetime either I couldn't stand this again it's actually life draining.

[Boris]

It doesn't bother you because you want us to separate but folk that want us to stay together don't want their money spent on the Yes campaign.

 

Nothing is going to stop them, they'll just carry on regardless.

 

And Danny Alexander is funded by who exactly?

[flecktimus]

And Danny Alexander is funded by who exactly?

 

It could be curtains for Danny Alexander at the next election

 

Poll paid for by Lord Oakeshott in Danny Alexander constituency

 

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/icm-poll-snp-on-course-to-oust-danny.html

[ToadKiller Dog]

 

 

It could be curtains for Danny Alexander at the next election

 

Poll paid for by Lord Oakeshott in Danny Alexander constituency

 

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/icm-poll-snp-on-course-to-oust-danny.html

 

Yup will be a quick move up to Lord Alexander after a general election .

 

He made a tidy sum off the tax payer during the house flipping years so won't struggle .

[curriehearts]

A party political broadcast?

 

Leaving out the spin, what the piece says is that the Yes campaign believes that certain things would happen after independence. It doesn't say that they would, and doesn't provide any evidence that they would. But if they did, then after a period of 13 years the Exchequer position would be ?5 billion better off. It reminds me of some of Bertie Ahern's fantasy Exchequer forecasting during Ireland's "Celtic Tiger".

 

Even if you accept all of that would turn out to be true - it might, or it might not - it still wouldn't deal with the real probability that an independent Scotland's government would have to pursue a harsher austerity programme than the rUK in order to balance the books, maintain core public services, keep the IMF away from the door and make Scotland's Exchequer fit for the task of building an "oil fund" at some future date.

 

You can only spend the same money once. You can't pay out or borrow for "free mince" and still have the money for an oil fund.

 

After leaving out the spin and Bertie Ahern's fantasy, I'm not quite sure how you ended up with your analysis being a real probability?

[jambos are go!]

And I've never said I want us to seperate either. The only certainly in this referendum is I won't vote No. I might not vote Yes but i 100% won't vote No. Before the referendum campaigning began I wasn't particularly unhappy with things and I've read things from the beginning with an open mind. I'm not always convinced by the Yes campaign and Salmond and Sturgeon etc get on my tits at times but so do most politicians, they're pretty much all complete snakes but people like Darling and Alexander an countless others who have spent the last two years running their country down will never get my vote or be forgiven but the day after the result is announced I'll accept it and move on. I hope there's not another in my lifetime either I couldn't stand this again it's actually life draining.

Perhaps you can put some meat on you rhetoric about Darling and Alexander running down Scotland for folk on here to consider. They might then compare and contrast that with what you said on here on the 19th of May in considering direct evidence of putting Scotland down

 

'That's incorrect IMO. The union will remain because the scots are frightened and have believed the scare stories that we will suffer almost collapse without England propping us up, that is the truth of the matter. It's is deeply, deeply ingrained that we would be nothing and have nothing without England's money. I still hear it almost every conversation that crops up and we just don't believe in ourselves unfortunately.

 

I don't think I've ever truly believed it would happen we are a fairly timid country really. No real balls when it matters in any situation. We like to think we're hard but give us a real chance to make our way in the world and we go cowering under England's apron it's pretty embarrassing. People will invent all sorts of reasons for No when it's really theyre afraid of not having England to back is up because we believe we'd be skint. Their fans will rip the utter pish out of us when we play them towards the end of the year I'm already cringeing.

 

I think the reality of the chance we had will only sink in in maybe 5 years or so when I'm sure a lot of people will regret not taking it. A chance that probably won't come again or at least I hope not in my lifetime I couldn't stand anymore of the all the self loathing'

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

Edited May 28, 2014 by jambos are go!

[Ulysses]

 

After leaving out the spin and Bertie Ahern's fantasy, I'm not quite sure how you ended up with your analysis being a real probability?

 

I've explained a couple of times earlier in the thread why it is highly unlikely that an independent Scotland can square all the circles that some Yes voters (many of them on this thread) seem to think can be squared.

 

Could an independent Scotland have an oil fund? Not if it blows the money on populist freebies for the electorate. Surely it doesn't matter because of oil? Well actually it does, because right now with all the oil counted into the figures you'd still be in a worse deficit position than the rUK. Then you have to factor in the increased cost of borrowing - either because the markets won't trust a borrower who welshes on its debts or because you have to increase borrowing to build up the ?35 billion plus war chest needed to peg your currency to Sterling.

 

With that array of factors, you have two choices: plan or hope.

 

You can hope that people are naive enough to believe that an extra ?5 billion that might possibly be built on to the Exchequer balance over 13 years will make a serious difference - if it happens at all. You can hope that oil prices rocket and then hope to persuade the middle classes whose inflated pump prices and heating bills are subsidising "free mince" for everyone else that it's all in the national interest. You can hope that it all works out - and hope that if it doesn't you can somehow find a way of blaming London or Brussels.

 

Or you can plan. You can recognise that in order to earn your independence you don't take chances, you make choices. You can choose to prioritise investment in your economy and environment over subsidies for your pet interest groups. You can choose to make the sacrifices needed to balance your onshore Exchequer books now so that you can build a sovereign wealth fund for the future no matter what happens to oil reserves or prices. You can decide that you will do whatever has to be done to ensure that it all works out - and not assume that London or Brussels owe you the slightest favour while you're doing so.

 

I have not given one single reason for anyone not to vote Yes, and I am not arguing that they shouldn't. But I am most certainly arguing that Yes supporters should leave out the guff about voting Yes because somehow that will make Scotland a lefty feel-good haven compared to England. Why on Earth do you think your middle classes are voting No? If you thought the purpose of independence was to shag your bank account senseless you'd do the same.

[jack D and coke]

Perhaps you can put some meat on you rhetoric about Darling and Alexander running down Scotland for folk on here to consider. They might then compare and contrast that with what you said on here on the 19th of May in considering direct evidence of putting Scotland down

 

'That's incorrect IMO. The union will remain because the scots are frightened and have believed the scare stories that we will suffer almost collapse without England propping us up, that is the truth of the matter. It's is deeply, deeply ingrained that we would be nothing and have nothing without England's money. I still hear it almost every conversation that crops up and we just don't believe in ourselves unfortunately.

 

I don't think I've ever truly believed it would happen we are a fairly timid country really. No real balls when it matters in any situation. We like to think we're hard but give us a real chance to make our way in the world and we go cowering under England's apron it's pretty embarrassing. People will invent all sorts of reasons for No when it's really theyre afraid of not having England to back is up because we believe we'd be skint. Their fans will rip the utter pish out of us when we play them towards the end of the year I'm already cringeing.

 

I think the reality of the chance we had will only sink in in maybe 5 years or so when I'm sure a lot of people will regret not taking it. A chance that probably won't come again or at least I hope not in my lifetime I couldn't stand anymore of the all the self loathing'

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

I don't really know what you want me to add tbh. I think Darling and Alexander have played on the fears tbh and most people swallow it. I stand by pretty much everything I've posted on this thread. Some of it might seem pish to you and sometimes I post in frustration but I 100% believe that it's fear that makes people not want to go indy whether that be currency fears, defence fears, fears that the SNP are nazis etc etc etc and Darling and Alexander among others have played on it repeatedly. Some of the garbage I've listened to from people who will vote No is truly laughable but by the same token I've listened to complete nonsense from Yes supporters too. Darling has compared Scotland to a tinpot South American economy and Alexander practically screams we're skint from every pore and we need English taxpayers money and I find it degrading personally. If you believe they aren't making us look like a bunch of no good ungrateful spongeing torn faced disasters then that's your prerogative.

 

It's ok to disagree with me mate I'm fine with it.

[curriehearts]

I've explained a couple of times earlier in the thread why it is highly unlikely that an independent Scotland can square all the circles that some Yes voters (many of them on this thread) seem to think can be squared.

 

Could an independent Scotland have an oil fund? Not if it blows the money on populist freebies for the electorate. Surely it doesn't matter because of oil? Well actually it does, because right now with all the oil counted into the figures you'd still be in a worse deficit position than the rUK. Then you have to factor in the increased cost of borrowing - either because the markets won't trust a borrower who welshes on its debts or because you have to increase borrowing to build up the ?35 billion plus war chest needed to peg your currency to Sterling.

 

With that array of factors, you have two choices: plan or hope.

 

You can hope that people are naive enough to believe that an extra ?5 billion that might possibly be built on to the Exchequer balance over 13 years will make a serious difference - if it happens at all. You can hope that oil prices rocket and then hope to persuade the middle classes whose inflated pump prices and heating bills are subsidising "free mince" for everyone else that it's all in the national interest. You can hope that it all works out - and hope that if it doesn't you can somehow find a way of blaming London or Brussels.

 

Or you can plan. You can recognise that in order to earn your independence you don't take chances, you make choices. You can choose to prioritise investment in your economy and environment over subsidies for your pet interest groups. You can choose to make the sacrifices needed to balance your onshore Exchequer books now so that you can build a sovereign wealth fund for the future no matter what happens to oil reserves or prices. You can decide that you will do whatever has to be done to ensure that it all works out - and not assume that London or Brussels owe you the slightest favour while you're doing so.

 

I have not given one single reason for anyone not to vote Yes, and I am not arguing that they shouldn't. But I am most certainly arguing that Yes supporters should leave out the guff about voting Yes because somehow that will make Scotland a lefty feel-good haven compared to England. Why on Earth do you think your middle classes are voting No? If you thought the purpose of independence was to shag your bank account senseless you'd do the same.

 

Ah - with you now and what you say makes much more sense to me.

Like life and the UK financial challenge it is all about choices and the requirement to run a balanced budget and keep the markets happy for funding.

[Ulysses]

 

Ah - with you now and what you say makes much more sense to me.

Like life and the UK financial challenge it is all about choices and the requirement to run a balanced budget and keep the markets happy for funding.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of Yes supporters don't see it that way - and when the realities are brought to their notice they either get defensive or else deflect.

 

As regards your remark about "the UK financial challenge", the reality is that the "independent Scotland financial challenge" would be every bit as severe, and there is a real probability it would be worse - so adding to the problem by engaging in the kind of fantasy economic and budgetary policies favoured by some Yes supporters is not wise.

[JamboGraham]

John Swinney was interviewed this morning on the radio and said several times that the 'start up' figures issued by Alexander et al were wrong and misleading.

 

A number of times the interviewer invited Mr Swinney to settle the argument and present the accurate figures.

 

He jumped and squirmed and ducked the answer.

 

I am getting thoroughly sick of both sides in this argument. There are risks for both sides, please be honest and acknowledge them. There are questions where the answers will not be known until after the referendum, please be honest and acknowledge this, do not say it all will be great, or will all be awful. Give us your best interpretation of what is likely to happen, not the most extreme outcome.

 

Pathetic campaign from both sides so far. I have always felt that this decision was too important for the short term views of all politicians who can't see further than the next election.

 

Pitiful!