Scotland Debate

[CheltenhamHacker]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/alex-salmond-treasury-bbc-rbs-scottish-independence

This one is rather more serious though....being swept under the carpet by our neutral Civil Servants though...just not cricket old boys.

ONce again DfT, and I don't want you to think I'm just noting it's you, it is coincidence, but this is yet another attack by YES, over how something is said, not what is said.

I may have missed it, but has AS replied even briefly to what was in the RBS announcement, or has he focused on how it was reported?

 

[One Planer]

ONce again DfT, and I don't want you to think I'm just noting it's you, it is coincidence, but this is yet another attack by YES, over how something is said, not what is said.

I may have missed it, but has AS replied even briefly to what was in the RBS announcement, or has he focused on how it was reported?

Very good point IMO.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

So not allowed to speak for the NO campaign?

Where did I say that ?

 

[patricks148]

quite a fair bit of miss information going on the news.

Last night Ch4 ran a story about the highlands and said "in Inverness the majority of the population was on benefits"

Unemployment here is lower than the national Average.... we do have a lot of pensioners though.. maybe that's what they meant??

 

[DCB]

Heard from a staunch Lib Dem activist about some of the goings on in town at the moment. He's been involved in elections many times as a supporter of his party. He's done the advertising/poster work for many years. He said there was always an unwritten rule that you didn't remove or deface another parties signage during an election campaign. This time it is different. He's trying to help the No campaign and anything they have been putting up is either removed, altered to remove the NO or replaced entirely by Yes signage. Seems that we've entered a new era in politics where anything goes.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

ONce again DfT, and I don't want you to think I'm just noting it's you, it is coincidence, but this is yet another attack by YES, over how something is said, not what is said.

I may have missed it, but has AS replied even briefly to what was in the RBS announcement, or has he focused on how it was reported?

He gave Nick Robinson a lengthy reply and pointed out the errors in some of his previous comments.
LLoyds headquarters etc.

The big issue as he said was the leaking of sensitive financial information from the British Treasury to a BBC source.
Please don't tell me that you think that was right and proper.

 

[One Planer]

quite a fair bit of miss information going on the news.

Last night Ch4 ran a story about the highlands and said "in Inverness the majority of the population was on benefits"

Unemployment here is lower than the national Average.... we do have a lot of pensioners though.. maybe that's what they meant??

According to the last UK census, one in five of Scotland's population claims to have a disability or long term health condition.

In a population of a shade over 5 million that works out to, about, one million people.

Granted, not all of them are in Inverness, but that is a significant proportion of the Scottish populous claiming benefit of some kind.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

What is the West Lothian question if a no vote ?

Did you really not know about the West Lothian question given you have taken such an interest in the debate. The WL has been around for decades (courtesy of Tam Dalyell) and has been one of the basic debated conundrums when Home Rule has been discussed.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

He gave Nick Robinson a lengthy reply and pointed out the errors in some of his previous comments.
LLoyds headquarters etc.

The big issue as he said was the leaking of sensitive financial information from the British Treasury to a BBC source.
Please don't tell me that you think that was right and proper.

Haven't seen that reply, so thank you for that. Still not sure that he is answering the questions, or just simply pointing our errors but as I haven't seen it I won't comment.

Yes, I can see how that is a big issue, but in the grand scheme of things, it's fairly insignificant. It's not right and proper, but it's disconcerting how much they focus on the how and not the what. If he backed himself, he would be making much more of how he will resolve the issues that are raised, not throwing his toys out of the pram about journalists being biased or such like. He comes across as a paranoid man, and that doesn't do his campaign any good.

 

[chrisd]

Where did I say that ?

So he is allowed to?

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Re: Galloway. Jim Murphy was pencilled in to go along with Ruth Davidson last night, but Better Together swapped him for Dode.Incredible that they took that chance, which has backfired as much as possible.He was getting laughed/jeered/booed by a majority of the crowd, and he lost the rag.Why would BT do that? Murphy would have been much,much better received.

There have been suggestions by folk there that Galloway, after his WWII rant compared The SNP to Thew Nazi party but The BBC editied it out.I think Galloway is too smart to play that card, but it's gaining momentum...lets see what happens today.

Oh, I know what's happening today, Nigel is back in town.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Haven't seen that reply, so thank you for that. Still not sure that he is answering the questions, or just simply pointing our errors but as I haven't seen it I won't comment.

Why answer a question based up a false or inaccurate premis? - first seek to correct the false premis. A new question based upon an accurate premis can then be asked and an answer sought,

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Re: Galloway. Jim Murphy was pencilled in to go along with Ruth Davidson last night, but Better Together swapped him for Dode.

Ah I suspect you'll have lost most folks there (hopefully I get it )

Clue to confused - think big gangly borders Scottish rugby player

 

[CMAC]

Lets be honest. Anything that remotely harms the YES campaign is deemed scandalous, unacceptable and scaremongering.

exactly!

the main protagonists on here are acting exactly like the YES Campaign, attacking the delivery and presentation over the subject matter- deflection rather than decisions.

doon frae troon is one of the worst and your posts are childlike in their attacks. You are embarrassing yourself.

The YES campaign WILL lose, mark my words. A few tiny polls and a some loud mouthed ignoramuses will not win over common sense and decency.

The lies and fantasies regurgitated last night by that vile Sturgeon woman and her ridiculous Green sidekick were an insult to intelligent people. Galloway and Davidson spoke about facts and YES didnt like it (just like a few on here last night) so they attack by inference. Cheap and nasty.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Why answer a question based up a false or inaccurate premis? - first seek to correct the false premis. A new question based upon an accurate premis can then be asked and an answer sought,

Why not do both?

How hard would it to answer along the lines of

"What you actually mean is XXXX, as that is what the situation actually is. In response to that, the YES vote proposes YYYYYYY"

 

[CMAC]

Re: Galloway. Jim Murphy was pencilled in to go along with Ruth Davidson last night, but Better Together swapped him for Dode.Incredible that they took that chance, which has backfired as much as possible.He was getting laughed/jeered/booed by a majority of the crowd, and he lost the rag.Why would BT do that? Murphy would have been much,much better received.

There have been suggestions by folk there that Galloway, after his WWII rant compared The SNP to Thew Nazi party but The BBC editied it out.I think Galloway is too smart to play that card, but it's gaining momentum...lets see what happens today.

Oh, I know what's happening today, Nigel is back in town.

I must have watched a different programme- recorded it so watched that again and its crystal clear the boos were from the YES voters at the front left (looking out), but I suppose thats a typical YES reaction, see one thing and twist it into something bigger. Why let the truth get in the way eh!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Did you really not know about the West Lothian question given you have taken such an interest in the debate. The WL has been around for decades (courtesy of Tam Dalyell) and has been one of the basic debated conundrums when Home Rule has been discussed.

I also found it incredulous that someone who has debated long and hard on this thread was unaware of such a basic game changer as Tam's West Lothian question.

 

[Foxholer]

Haven't seen that reply, so thank you for that. Still not sure that he is answering the questions, or just simply pointing our errors but as I haven't seen it I won't comment.

Yes, I can see how that is a big issue, but in the grand scheme of things, it's fairly insignificant. It's not right and proper, but it's disconcerting how much they focus on the how and not the what. If he backed himself, he would be making much more of how he will resolve the issues that are raised, not throwing his toys out of the pram about journalists being biased or such like. He comes across as a paranoid man, and that doesn't do his campaign any good.

Here's an article and opinion - that pretty much reflects mine on the matter. Unusual source for me too!

http://www.theguardian.com/business...independence-banks-shift-lloyds-rbs-slow-leak

But I think AS's strategy of 'sticking to the policy of 'The White Paper' is a better one than replying to every detailed challenge - he'd be snowed under with minutae if he did that and he hasn't actually got the answers anyway as most of them are 'to be negotiated'!

And 'not answering the question' is one of the most essential skills of a politician anyway!

 

[patricks148]

According to the last UK census, one in five of Scotland's population claims to have a disability or long term health condition.

In a population of a shade over 5 million that works out to, about, one million people.

Granted, not all of them are in Inverness, but that is a significant proportion of the Scottish populous claiming benefit of some kind.

its not the majority though is it, even county wide...????

As for Inverness you are more or less saying that the CH4 claim is correct? the population of Inverness is 60,000 more or less so we have over 40K of the population on benefits is laughable.

maybe they are counting children (child benefit ) and Pensioners ???

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

its not the majority though is it, even county wide...????

As for Inverness you are more or less saying that the CH4 claim is correct? the population of Inverness is 60,000 more or less so we have over 40K of the population on benefits is laughable.

maybe they are counting children (child benefit ) and Pensioners ???

Pensioners are on benefits! If you had a town full only with pensioners, it would require a lot of payments?