Scotland Debate

[Stuey01]

So some people are allegedly making up their mind on what's best for the future of their country based on the fact they were a mildly irritated by a TV advert? Riiiiiiiight.
Personally I think a yes vote is disastrous for everyone, Scotland and the UK (no I will not use "rUK", it was is and will be UK whatever the result).
I fear it may happen, based largely on an anti-English vote rather than a pro-Scottish one, which is kinda sad.

 

[FairwayDodger]

It's not only the English BC that is talking tripe but Jackie Bird got in on the scaremongering act tonight.

Disgraceful stuff but a tactic that seems very prevalent by the corporation............anyone would think that certain Parties have a say in what is broadcast.......

[video=youtube;WY64-t3QbcA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY64-t3QbcA[/video]

Utter tripe!

I am fed up with all the "bias" nonsense the yes folk are trotting out. This video states that Mark Carney never used the phrase "Independent Scotland" and then shows a clip in which HE SAYS EXACTLY THAT PHRASE!!!!!!! It then tries to split hairs over the difference between "sovereignty" and "independence"? Aye right!

What Jackie Bird said was a perfectly valid interpretation of Mark Carney's statement and certainly the same meaning that I get from his words.

Stop attacking people who disagree with independence and maybe try addressing the valid concerns they have.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Because he is the leader of his party and she is someone down the lower order of the nationalists.

So No voters are in bed with the Tory's then it looks like the Yes campaign are in bed with the SNP.

No that cannot be right, the yes guys, that's those that live anywhere including the odd one who may live in Scotland say on here they arnt SNP supporters.

But Salmond has debated Darling twice?

I believe i mentioned before about the Islands wanting independence themselves, and was shot down.

This backs me up a little, and if true, is a big risk post YES?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-tell-Alex-Salmond-We-might-stay-with-UK.html

They'd be entirely welcome in my opinion, but if the under current to this is oil, if they left Scotland to continue being part of rUK post YES, they'd not have much oil.International law would treat them as an enclave of rUK with waters upto 12 miles from land, so not much oil.

Yet again an example of poor reporting from the media, just like the half reporting from Carney yesterday, RBS today and Standard Life as well.And The BBC constantly.

It's really quite disheartening.The media, with possibly two exceptions, have gone so ott negative and inaccurate they better hope for a NO victory as they'll be seen as laughing stocks otherwise.What's happened to impartial reporting, to investigative journalism?

 

[FairwayDodger]

It's really quite disheartening.The media, with possibly two exceptions, have gone so ott negative and inaccurate they better hope for a NO victory as they'll be seen as laughing stocks otherwise.What's happened to impartial reporting, to investigative journalism?

Just because Salmond et al can spin black into white doesn't mean the media have to follow suit.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Utter tripe!

I am fed up with all the "bias" nonsense the yes folk are trotting out. This video states that Mark Carney never used the phrase "Independent Scotland" and then shows a clip in which HE SAYS EXACTLY THAT PHRASE!!!!!!! It then tries to split hairs over the difference between "sovereignty" and "independence"? Aye right!

What Jackie Bird said was a perfectly valid interpretation of Mark Carney's statement and certainly the same meaning that I get from his words.

Stop attacking people who disagree with independence and maybe try addressing the valid concerns they have.

Carney made it perfectly clear all the economic requirements are in place, both north and south of the border for a CU, he did claim that it is not compatible as the unionist parties refuse to consider it, which is their choice.

Here's a question for you Fairway Dodger as you have been consistent and calm in your views.

Scotland votes YES next week. Salmond convenes a team cross party to negotiate with Westminster.He asks for a CU and they say No. Team Scotland ;-) have to decide, do we accept a proportion of the debt without access to a central bank?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Senior guy from Aberdeen Asset Management on R5L just before 9am. Didn't seem too fussed if there was to be a YES - said Scotland would be a successful country. Seemed also to say that a move of RBS Registered Head Office to London wouldn't make that much difference as most of the main functions are there already.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Just because Salmond et al can spin black into white doesn't mean the media have to follow suit.

I'm not talking about politicians here, I'm talking about journalism.

RBS/Standard Life: The two main ones have all said today that in the event of YES winning and no CU being in place, they'll move their head offices ( and some aspects of operations) out of Scotland.Significantly different to the story being reported by the media on the whole.

The Telegraph: Shetland/Orkney might want to stay with rUK so you'll have no oil.A complete fabrication of the facts, but the average person on the street isn't as engaged as a few so they'll take that as fact, it's not fact, it's an out and out lie.

John Lewis this very morning: in a few years there might be a slight price differential between Scotland/England : BBC prices to rise in an indy Scotland.A complete fabrication on what the guy said.

There's loads of other examples.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Carney made it perfectly clear all the economic requirements are in place, both north and south of the border for a CU, he did claim that it is not compatible as the unionist parties refuse to consider it, which is their choice.

I listened carefully to what he said more than once and I couldn't align it with folk were saying he said. I was in truth a little confused - he seemed to me to say that everything was in place for a CU but a CU wouldn't work without the involvement of rUK - that confused me. Maybe he said things were in place that would enable it to work; economies of two countries were very similar; common interest rates etc etc; any Bank of England decision re interest rates would most likely be OK for Scotland - but to make it work required the commitment of rUK to CU to make it work.

All in all it didn't feel like Carney was given a NO to CU - but I'm not sure TBH

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I'm not talking about politicians here, I'm talking about journalism.

RBS/Standard Life: The two main ones have all said today that in the event of YES winning and no CU being in place, they'll move their head offices ( and some aspects of operations) out of Scotland.Significantly different to the story being reported by the media on the whole.

The Telegraph: Shetland/Orkney might want to stay with rUK so you'll have no oil.A complete fabrication of the facts, but the average person on the street isn't as engaged as a few so they'll take that as fact, it's not fact, it's an out and out lie.

John Lewis this very morning: in a few years there might be a slight price differential between Scotland/England : BBC prices to rise in an indy Scotland.A complete fabrication on what the guy said.

There's loads of other examples.

Totally spot on there Adi.
Dodger, I understand what you are saying and actually agree on a lot of it.

The way the John Lewis interview was reported on BBC national news was disgraceful.

I have always trusted BBC national news until the last few months, lazy biased reporting on their part seem to be the norm now. Sky News is much more balanced.
Folk down south must realise that this unbalanced TV reporting and the fact that only one National British newspaper is pro Union is fueling the Yes Vote for many.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm not talking about politicians here, I'm talking about journalism.

RBS/Standard Life: The two main ones have all said today that in the event of YES winning and no CU being in place, they'll move their head offices ( and some aspects of operations) out of Scotland.Significantly different to the story being reported by the media on the whole.

The Telegraph: Shetland/Orkney might want to stay with rUK so you'll have no oil.A complete fabrication of the facts, but the average person on the street isn't as engaged as a few so they'll take that as fact, it's not fact, it's an out and out lie.

John Lewis this very morning: in a few years there might be a slight price differential between Scotland/England : BBC prices to rise in an indy Scotland.A complete fabrication on what the guy said.

There's loads of other examples.

I heard the John Lewis (CE?) this morning on the radio. To me the only concern the guy had was that having separate Scotland and rUK would make it a bit more difficult for the company to maintain it's common pricing where it wanted to do so, and key objective for all JL 'partners' - common working terms and conditions. But he still said they had plans for expanding there operations in Scotland and did not make any suggestion whatsoever that these would be impacted by a YES

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I listened carefully to what he said more than once and I couldn't align it with folk were saying he said. I was in truth a little confused - he seemed to me to say that everything was in place for a CU but a CU wouldn't work without the involvement of rUK - that confused me. Maybe he said things were in place that would enable it to work; economies of two countries were very similar; common interest rates etc etc; any Bank of England decision re interest rates would most likely be OK for Scotland - but to make it work required the commitment of rUK to CU to make it work.

All in all it didn't feel like Carney was given a NO to CU - but I'm not sure TBH

you have to hope that Carney is a smart guy and chooses his words very carefully.He was very specific, a CU won't work.The reason he gave was that Westminster rules it out.That's the reason.The only reason.Everything else is in place.Salmond has accepted he'd have to concede setting interest rates, working on the basis that BoE won't do something to harm Scotland that would also harm England.

I'm seriously fed up with the reporting by the main stream, where most folk rely on opinion forming information.It's gross dereliction of duty and nearly Pravda style control of the media by the owners,the govt and the civil service.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Here's a question for you Fairway Dodger as you have been consistent and calm in your views.

Scotland votes YES next week. Salmond convenes a team cross party to negotiate with Westminster.He asks for a CU and they say No. Team Scotland ;-) have to decide, do we accept a proportion of the debt without access to a central bank?

Glad you winked after that "Team Scotland" comment, I'd have pounced on that....

I think that is a tough question, to be honest. It certainly seems wrong that iScotland would have to take a share of debt without also retaining the benefits of the central bank. However, morally, a proportion of that debt is ours and should be accepted as such. I also think it would be a very bad start for a newly independent country to "default" on its debts even if it can produce a technical argument justifying the decision.

So, yes, I wouldn't be happy about it but we should accept the debt.

 

[Dodger]

Anyone hear AS on Radio Scotland at 8.30 this morning showing the 'BBC' up for yet another bit of disgracefully lazy journalism?

Wiped the floor.

Their bias is becoming embarrassing. Anyone would think someone is pulling their strings....

 

[FairwayDodger]

I'm not talking about politicians here, I'm talking about journalism.

RBS/Standard Life: The two main ones have all said today that in the event of YES winning and no CU being in place, they'll move their head offices ( and some aspects of operations) out of Scotland.Significantly different to the story being reported by the media on the whole.

The Telegraph: Shetland/Orkney might want to stay with rUK so you'll have no oil.A complete fabrication of the facts, but the average person on the street isn't as engaged as a few so they'll take that as fact, it's not fact, it's an out and out lie.

John Lewis this very morning: in a few years there might be a slight price differential between Scotland/England : BBC prices to rise in an indy Scotland.A complete fabrication on what the guy said.

There's loads of other examples.

Haven't heard the Shetland or John Lewis stories... (not sure how I've missed them actually) . But what you stated as the RBS/Standard Life statements are exactly what I've heard reported.

EDIT: actually, just saw the "and some aspects of operations" bit. That's not what the BBC were reporting this morning. I heard on Radio Scotland that the RBS announcement did not affect operations or jobs in Scotland.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Glad you winked after that "Team Scotland" comment, I'd have pounced on that....

I think that is a tough question, to be honest. It certainly seems wrong that iScotland would have to take a share of debt without also retaining the benefits of the central bank. However, morally, a proportion of that debt is ours and should be accepted as such. I also think it would be a very bad start for a newly independent country to "default" on its debts even if it can produce a technical argument justifying the decision.

So, yes, I wouldn't be happy about it but we should accept the debt.

OK, so lets take it a step further (based on yes winning).Scotland no longer has the £ as part of a CU but we're obliged to take 9% of the debt, lets say for the sake of argument £135,000,000,000...thats £135 Billion of debt we had no say of accumulating, but that's beside the point.

So are we entitled to a % of all the assets of rUK?From military stuff to gold to foreign embassies and the like?Or do we have to take on debt accrued without any discussion with Holyrood, no access to a £ we've assisted in creating or central bank we founded and no split of the assets we've invested in?

I'm not having a go btw, I'm just want to know what the opinion is if we vote yes

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not talking about politicians here, I'm talking about journalism.

Many 'journalists' are would-be politicians. There are plenty of politicians that started out as journalists.

However, imo, that's not what any 'proper' front-person should be doing/saying. That's for the 'panel' to debate - or the guest to push. It's also the editorial team that's at fault, not necessarily the front-person.

 

[FairwayDodger]

OK, so lets take it a step further (based on yes winning).Scotland no longer has the £ as part of a CU but we're obliged to take 9% of the debt, lets say for the sake of argument £135,000,000,000...thats £135 Billion of debt we had no say of accumulating, but that's beside the point.

So are we entitled to a % of all the assets of rUK?From military stuff to gold to foreign embassies and the like?Or do we have to take on debt accrued without any discussion with Holyrood, no access to a £ we've assisted in creating or central bank we founded and no split of the assets we've invested in?

I'm not having a go btw, I'm just want to know what the opinion is if we vote yes

The bit in bold is one of the many "yes" conceits that annoys me. The westminster government is our government too, we voted for it even if the party we individually voted for didn't win. Much of the debt was run up under the Labour government, which I DID vote for and I assume was a government that even hardened nats would concede Scotland broadly supported.

Anyway. Yes to debt, yes to a share of the assets.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

The bit in bold is one of the many "yes" conceits that annoys me. The westminster government is our government too, we voted for it even if the party we individually voted for didn't win. Much of the debt was run up under the Labour government, which I DID vote for and I assume was a government that even hardened nats would concede Scotland broadly supported.

Anyway. Yes to debt, yes to a share of the assets.

I concede your first point, they were elected democratically.I disagree with many of the choices taken, but that's democracy at work.

To your last sentence, excellent! Is the £ an asset? Must be.Anyway, here's a twitter account that's good fun...obviously pro-yes but based on figures obtained from Westminster/Holyrood

https://twitter.com/AssetScotland

fill yer boots!

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Many 'journalists' are would-be politicians. There are plenty of politicians that started out as journalists.

However, imo, that's not what any 'proper' front-person should be doing/saying. That's for the 'panel' to debate - or the guest to push. It's also the editorial team that's at fault, not necessarily the front-person.

With TV I'll agree on that.Paper journalism I'm less convinced.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

you have to hope that Carney is a smart guy and chooses his words very carefully.He was very specific, a CU won't work.The reason he gave was that Westminster rules it out.That's the reason.The only reason.Everything else is in place.Salmond has accepted he'd have to concede setting interest rates, working on the basis that BoE won't do something to harm Scotland that would also harm England.

Yes - this is indeed exactly as I understood what he said. The bit that confused me 'logically' was stating a CU won't work because Westminster rule it out. But a CU won't exist if Westminster rule it out? But of course there is nothing to stop an iScotland working towards CU - but these CU attempts will fail for as long as Westminster rule it out. And that's why a CU won't work - it won't work because it won't happen unless Westminster is willing. I think.