Scottish Independence

[Dotini]

Scots have to decide who is being more truthful: their own lying Scottish politicians, who promise eternal prosperity and happiness after independence, or the liars from Westminster.

Whatever choice the Scots make, there are difficult times ahead for Scotland, for the UK, and for Europe as a whole.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I agree, Westminster is nothing but a house of liars (so are most, if not all parliaments), but would you mind explaining why in this case Westminster are liars? So far they seemed to only have been incompetent, there hasn't been much actual lying on their part from what I've seen.

 

[Dotini]

I agree, Westminster is nothing but a house of liars (so are most, if not all parliaments), but would you mind explaining why in this case Westminster are liars? So far they seemed to only have been incompetent, there hasn't been much actual lying on their part from what I've seen.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scottish-...-about-giving-scots-more-power-094418768.html

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...rth-of-north-sea-oil-admits-former-chancellor

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...ers-to-issue-indy-price-scares#comment-219915

 

[Touring Mars]

Meanwhile, former SNP leader and devout nationalist and Yes campaigner Jim Sillars (who was sitting two seats away from me on the train on Monday #irrelevant #whocares) has threatened to nationalise BP in the event of a Yes vote. Way to attract investment in North Sea oil and gas, Jim... http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

 

[Liquid]

SNP declares one party state. Salmond to be Chieftain Fo' Life An' Naebody Cannae Say Otherwise.

 

[Brend]

My favorite part about this whole thing is the exposition of the apparently non-existent bias I've come to realize from the BBC these past 2 years.

The best came last night when Nick Robinson and his cronies pretending that Salmond didn't absolutely monster him in a question he asked. Also, breaking the law in their hellbent purge of the oh-so-horrible-but-not-a-threat 'Yes' vote.

In all honesty, let what happens happen. This politics malarky is just a farce.

Democracy? Ha, ok.

 

[Touring Mars]

You've seen that 20 second clip going around Facebook too?

I'm asking all my friends who have shared that clip of Nick Robinson's report on yesterday's conference at the EICC if they have seen the full report (which is about 5 minutes in total), and whether or not they still find it so outrageous.

No-one has answered me yet.

 

[Brend]

You've seen that 20 second clip going around Facebook too?

I'm asking all my friends who have shared that clip of Nick Robinson's report on yesterday's conference at the EICC if they have seen the full report (which is about 5 minutes in total), and whether or not they still find it so outrageous.

No-one has answered me yet.

20 seconds?

So yes, I find it so outrageous, that a respected reporter(loooooool) would haggle in a political conference.

 

[Dotini]

The Nick Robinson report

 

[Brend]

'And then they said, they didn't see me as a threat!'

 

[Touring Mars]

The Nick Robinson report

Yes, that's the clip I'm talking about. It's gone viral on Facebook, and people are apparently outraged at the fact that it appears to show the BBC censoring or at least giving a misleading impression of what actually happened... but, it's only a 20 second clip from a report that actually lasts around 5 minutes and was shown all night on BBC News 24, and the significant content of the report comes after the clip has ended. But no-one that has shared this clip appears to notice (or care) that this clip itself is completely misleading and is being used out of context.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, that's the clip I'm talking about. It's gone viral on Facebook, and people are apparently outraged at the fact that it appears to show the BBC censoring or at least giving a misleading impression of what actually happened... but, it's only a 20 second clip from a report that actually lasts around 5 minutes and was shown all night on BBC News 24, and the significant content of the report comes after the clip has ended. But no-one that has shared this clip appears to notice (or care) that this clip itself is completely misleading and is being used out of context.

I think you'll find a fair amount of complaints in to the BBC about the twit Robinson.

But your complaint is about the Facebook culture? Or the culture in general which steeps itself in lies and deception?

 

[Liquid]

An irony I think is lost on many people is that the Jacobite Rebellion was a Tory movement. Today it's much easier to point at the lack of support the Conservatives have in Scotland, or indeed look at any current status quo and not bother with the history behind these things.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think you'll find a fair amount of complaints in to the BBC about the twit Robinson.

But your complaint is about the Facebook culture? Or the culture in general which steeps itself in lies and deception?

My complaint is that that clip you posted, complete with a completely unfair synopsis/comment by the person who originally posted it (on Facebook), has since been shared by thousands of people, along with a slew of comments expressing outrage at how the BBC supposedly 'ignored' Salmond's 7 minute long response to Nick Robinson's questions - many of whom have subsequently made a complaint against the BBC about it.

The problem is, people are looking at that 20 second clip and basing their outrage on that alone (and the false assertion that this was all Robinson had to say on the matter), rather than commenting on what else Robinson said in his report, which did include more of what Salmond had to say, including the fact that Salmond believes the BBC should face an investigation for leaking market sensitive information - a very strong allegation indeed. Infact, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of those sharing that clip on Facebook don't realise (and/or simply don't care) that there is far more to Robinson's report than this short excerpt, and quite frankly have no business commenting on it unless they can say they've seen the whole thing.

 

[Dotini]

My complaint is that that clip you posted, complete with a completely unfair synopsis/comment by the person who originally posted it (on Facebook), has since been shared by thousands of people, along with a slew of comments expressing outrage at how the BBC supposedly 'ignored' Salmond's 7 minute long response to Nick Robinson's questions - many of whom have subsequently made a complaint against the BBC about it.

The problem is, people are looking at that 20 second clip and basing their outrage on that alone (and the false assertion that this was all Robinson had to say on the matter), rather than commenting on what else Robinson said in his report, which did include more of what Salmond had to say, including the fact that Salmond believes the BBC should face an investigation for leaking market sensitive information - a very strong allegation indeed. Infact, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of those sharing that clip on Facebook don't realise (and/or simply don't care) that there is far more to Robinson's report than this short excerpt, and quite frankly have no business commenting on it unless they can say they've seen the whole thing.

Well obviously we need to see the whole thing.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well obviously we need to see the whole thing.

Apparently not... that's kind of my point - the Yes campaign contain a large number of people who believe that the 'Establishment' needs to be brought down, and that the BBC are at the forefront of it.

 

[Brend]

Apparently not... that's kind of my point - the Yes campaign contain a large number of people who believe that the 'Establishment' needs to be brought down, and that the BBC are at the forefront of it.

The full report still had a strange skew on it when I seen it. The almost depressing tone of the reporter narrating the scenes just didn't really seem that bothered about if he answered or not.

 

[Dotini]

Apparently not... that's kind of my point - the Yes campaign contain a large number of people who believe that the 'Establishment' needs to be brought down, and that the BBC are at the forefront of it.

Heh heh. There's no doubt the BBC are near the head of the establishment. But there's no way it can be brought down. Mere Scottish independence can't do that.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here's the full transcript of what Jim Sillars, the former SNP leader, said today:

“The No camp fear mongering has had an effect on me – instead of retiring on 19th. September, I am staying in. This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.

The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.

BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.

As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.

As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.

As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.

What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.”

And we are still expected to believe that Yes Scotland and the SNP are not bullying/intimidating anyone who dares to speak out against them??

John Lewis committed the sin of suggesting that they may have to put some prices up if Scotland is no longer part of the UK...

Standard Life is one of the most successful companies in Scotland but for legal and business reasons, it has announced that it will register it's HQ in England in the event of a Yes vote.

The comments about the banks - not quite so bad, but then, Scotland's financial services sector is worth more to the Scottish economy than North Sea oil... it may well be a smart idea to break up the banks, but this is hardly the way to go about announcing it!

As for nationalisation of BP and the North Sea oil companies... well... I'm not sure what to make of that other than it might prove to be a very costly statement indeed. At a time when securing investment in North Sea oil and gas is at such a critical juncture, surely this kind of blatant threat will not go down well at all.

 

[Dotini]

Scotland stands at the threshold of long-cherished political break with the Kingdom. Former leaders of the Labor Party like Brown who encouraged devolution have changed their tune on you.

Now, with economic worries giving you the pre-race jitters, you give up the whole game?

 

[Touring Mars]

Devolution and independence are completely different - Brown has never been in favour of independence as far as I am aware.

 

[Famine]

I don't really get how being governed by an establishment of rich, lip-service Socialist Scots in Holyrood is in any way more meaningful than being governed by an establishment of rich, Tories (or, as is supposed after the next general election, lip-service Socialist) English in Westminster - particularly for Scots for whom Edinburgh is so far away it may as well be on Omicron Persei 8.

Is it okay to have a bunch of wasteful, lying charlatans in charge if their accents are quite like yours, but not if they're quite different?

 

[GTP_Ingram]

Is it okay to have a bunch of wasteful, lying charlatans in charge if their accents are quite like yours, but not if they're quite different?

Based what clogs up my Facebook feed on a daily basis from Yes voters, yes. Honestly, you've pretty much summed up their thoughts perfectly in one sentence.

Case in point, the second comment here:

 

[jackargent]

I'm off
I have rarely seen su

Apparently not... that's kind of my point - the Yes campaign contain a large number of people who believe that the 'Establishment' needs to be brought down, and that the BBC are at the forefront of it.

Just like to say (as a yes voter - who has changed from a lifelong no in the past year) the BBC has always been my first port of call when I need to know what is going on.
I have been appalled by their one sided reporting of this referendum. They have consistently given more prominence to "no friendly" stories.

I am very saddened by this.

Here's the full transcript of what Jim Sillars, the former SNP leader, said today:



And we are still expected to believe that Yes Scotland and the SNP are not bullying/intimidating anyone who dares to speak out against them??

John Lewis committed the sin of suggesting that they may have to put some prices up if Scotland is no longer part of the UK...

Standard Life is one of the most successful companies in Scotland but for legal and business reasons, it has announced that it will register it's HQ in England in the event of a Yes vote.

The comments about the banks - not quite so bad, but then, Scotland's financial services sector is worth more to the Scottish economy than North Sea oil... it may well be a smart idea to break up the banks, but this is hardly the way to go about announcing it!

As for nationalisation of BP and the North Sea oil companies... well... I'm not sure what to make of that other than it might prove to be a very costly statement indeed. At a time when securing investment in North Sea oil and gas is at such a critical juncture, surely this kind of blatant threat will not go down well at all.

Just for balance, are you saying that the UK establishment & the no campaign are not "bullying/intimidating " potential yes voters?

Do you think all the sudden rush of statements from businesses that we have seen since the yes campaign began to look as if it could win are just them expressing their freely held views and it is pure coincidence that they just happen to be feeling to need to speak out at the same time?

 

[Roger the Horse]

@jackargent, you've already been told off about rapid consecutive posting. Please don't do it.

Anyway, it seems as if confidence in the yes campaign is waning somewhat. Apparently support for it has fallen in the polls.

 

[jackargent]

I don't really get how being governed by an establishment of rich, lip-service Socialist Scots in Holyrood is in any way more meaningful than being governed by an establishment of rich, Tories (or, as is supposed after the next general election, lip-service Socialist) English in Westminster - particularly for Scots for whom Edinburgh is so far away it may as well be on Omicron Persei 8.

Is it okay to have a bunch of wasteful, lying charlatans in charge if their accents are quite like yours, but not if they're quite different?

I certainly wouldn't be voting yes, famine, if my sights weren't set just a wee bit higher than that.

 

[Famine]

I certainly wouldn't be voting yes, famine, if my sights weren't set just a wee bit higher than that.

I don't doubt it but it turns out that most of the time when you vote, a politician wins.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

SNP declares one party state. Salmond to be Chieftain Fo' Life An' Naebody Cannae Say Otherwise.

That's what happens when you take advice from witches you meet on a blasted heath.

 

[Rallywagon]

I don't doubt it but it turns out that most of the time when you vote, a politician wins.

As an American that just watched an amendment that nearly 80% of Americans wanted to pass, fail when it got to congress, let me tell you how much of that vote matters. Maybe things are different across the pond, but I imagine that the UK's parliament and our congress run very parallel.

 

[Touring Mars]

Just for balance, are you saying that the UK establishment & the no campaign are not "bullying/intimidating " potential yes voters?

Yes. Look Jack, there's a world of difference between asking someone to express their views or their intentions, and telling a company what consequences they will face if they don't shut up. Also, whether they've been asked to speak up or not is a moot point - they have a duty to tell their customers, shareholders and employees what they intend to do. It's not bullying or intimidation in any way, shape or form. I ask you in return, do you really think that companies such as Standard Life and Scottish Widows - two of the most successful companies in Scotland - are trying to bully Yes voters?? Standard Life has officially adopted a position of neutrality on independence, and yet has announced that it intends to move some operations to England in the event of a Yes vote. Jim Sillars is trying to say that the slew of big companies who are coming out and saying what they intend to do, or what the likely consequences of a Yes vote will be on their businesses, are trying to 'subvert the democratic process'. The boss of Iceland summed this up perfectly by saying that this is complete "bollocks". Sillars made a direct threat to Standard Life, as well as urging a boycott against John Lewis, and, most staggeringly of all, issued a threat to nationalise BP, the largest investor in North Sea oil and gas. That is intimidation.

Do you think all the sudden rush of statements from businesses that we have seen since the yes campaign began to look as if it could win are just them expressing their freely held views and it is pure coincidence that they just happen to be feeling to need to speak out at the same time?

I don't know what news sources you've been looking at over the last two years, but this is completely false. BP have been warning against the likely consequences of a Yes vote for ages - most of the other businesses are simply expressing their intentions (not even their opinions). And if it is all a UK government plot to get people to scare Yes voters, then do you honestly believe that Europe's largest investment bank are in on it too?

There's a point where you have to wake up and smell the coffee, Jack. Unpalatable facts are not scaremongering. Freely expressing one's opinion or one's intentions is not bullying. Warning people of the possible consequences of a Yes vote is not intimidation. Telling businesses that they face a "day of reckoning" when the SNP have "the power" to do so very much is. Even Yes Scotland have attempted to distance themselves from these unbelievable remarks, yet Salmond and the top brass of the SNP have not.

edit: Salmond now has at least attempted to back-pedal somewhat on what Sillars has said, albeit whilst mostly agreeing with him.