Here is the link exposing Darling that I was refering to, I had posted it on the Spurs board. http://wingsoverscotland.com/alistair-darling-lie-bingo/
[video=youtube;TN7nvWvPWro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TN7nvWvPWro[/video] This is the video aberdeen.
You see I don't think I twist any of your arguments - in fact I don't even try to refute them as I just do not accept that the Yes campaign has made the case they need to make. When have I ever put words in your mouth? I asked my brother in Aberdeen his view on the Scottish media and he say it is fairly balanced. I tend to think the media in England gives more than full coverage to the Yes side. Perhaps we all see the media when it opposes our own views - in my experience when the media is criticized for bias by both sides it is about right. I have a very simple argument. The Union has been successful for 300 years so to replace it you need to be sure of what you are doing as you are playing with the lives of future generations - you cannot afford to get it wrong and then say - whoops, my mistake. The Yes campaign are relying on a currency union - laying aside the doubts that have been cast on that, if they got it how could it work once the two economies diverge - that is why the Euro does not work - economies have to be tied together with one political master to work - I was taught that in my Economics degree 40 years ago The Yes campaign also have no idea on how the EU will pan out, when and if they can get membership - and if they do whether they will be forced to adopt the Euro. All I hear is that to question those points is negative - but it is not - they are real concerns and have to have answers. I have heard no convincing answer on those points from the Yes campaign - just "trust us" everyone else will agree to our negotiations. Were it so easy - in my business life I found negotiations rarely go exactly the way you want them to.
Read post 240, Norm Morrow worked this stuff in the USA in the 1970's, its nothing new. BP make very nice videos but they are totally marketing/PR hype, nothing new or interesting. Before they stick it int a video it has to be of no advantage to hold confidential, the confidential stuff is interesting, it's what Wood is alluding to in the report about collaboration, it takes decades to implement technology because operators are so reserved but by collaborating we might just get technology implemented before its too late (as soon as you decommission the hubs).
OK read it aberdeen, and tbh I will put this question aside as it is obviously far more complicated than it first appears. I will remember some good advice from Bertrand Russell: When the experts disagree the laymen would be best advised to withold his judgement. That's what I will do.
It seems to me that the Yes campaign cannot lose. If there is a No vote, they will carry on nagging away to get a new vote. If there is a Yes vote and Scotland becomes the economic, socialist and democratic powerhouse the Yes campaign claim, then they have been right all along. But if there is a Yes vote but Scotland becomes the Greece of the north, it will all be the fault of Tories/Westminster/English/EU/Americans/WMD - take your pick.
http://scotspolitics.com/independence/why-im-voting-no-for-scottish-independence When I look at other countries in the world seeking independence or revolution, I compare them to Scotland, writes KAYLEIGH MARIE QUINN, and I feel that our lack of rebellion suggests we’re not really fussed. In Palestine and Tibet people are on the streets fighting for their voices to be heard, marching for the rights of their people, and in some cases dying for independence. In Scotland we’re bickering on Twitter or telling the Yes Scotland/Better Together campaigners in the street to bugger off because we’ve got to get our M&S Two Can Dine for £10 dinner before all the good sides go. Tens of thousands of us are undecided on our independence answer and we’re shouted down every time we attempt to discuss it. In the spirit of things, I’ve highlighted a few of my personal reasons for answering the independence question with a hearty “naw”. I don’t believe in our politicians Firstly, Alex Salmond doesn’t seem to have any idea what he’s going to do with independence. He just wants it, like me with an iPad. So, instead of voting for independence, let’s just all chip in and buy him an iPad with a £10 giftcard so he can watch Braveheart on his train back to Strichen. We don’t have the right calibre of politicians to lead an independent state; our Deputy FM and other SNP politicians have childishly ignored the assertions from the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso that Scotland would have to re-apply for membership to the European Union. They dismiss his comments as “scaremongering tactics” from Better Together campaigners. Amidst the screeching and bellowing of FMQs, I have yet to hear a solid statement on what kind of political country independent Scotland will be, other than “yeah, Scandinavia, let’s be like that!” In an ideal world, I’d like that but if we really believed we could be like Scandinavian states then there would be little argument or opposition to independence. Whilst we have similar resources to Norway, we don’t have the years of stockpiling our revenue and they don’t have a deficit share like ours. We will also have to adhere to the European Union’s Maastricht Quota – which would tie up our finances for public services and welfare considerably. We’d face far greater austerity than we do now. Who Will Protect Us? Independent Scotland would be vulnerable as we do not have the population (or thanks to Maastricht Quota-related austerity, the finances) to build a sustainable and efficient Scottish Defence. The Scottish troops who serve in the army, air and naval services now are British Troops who have sworn service to Queen and country – that country being Britain. As for Monarchy, I wouldn’t put it past Alex Salmond to appoint himself Head of State. All Hail Queen Eck. Let’s Look At Ireland Ah, the Republic of Ireland, an example of independence from Britain from a country with a similar population, economy and produce. They are also, economically speaking, jiggered. Yes, we have oil – we are estimated to be awarded 91% of revenue from North Sea oil – but Norway and Russia have only recently come to agreement on the division of oil revenue in the Barents Sea after decades of negotiation and we will also be awarded our share of the deficit to pay off. Every Penny is a Prisoner – But What Are 100 Pennies? With our finances running through the Bank of England, how can we be an independent state? Without our own currency, we have no security or bailout once the inevitable nature of capitalism takes us into recession in another few decades time. Using the pound would mean that Scotland has no central bank, thereby putting everyone’s savings, mortgages and finances at risk. On the other hand, with our own currency, we’re giving up the most successful currency in history, risking our stability thanks to uncertainty from other nations, and taking on the burden of the Euro. So there you have it – a few of my reasons for voting No. Before the cybernats go calling me a scaremonger, I’d like to ask how can we avoid ‘scaremongering’ when the reality of independent Scotland is so scary? Especially with SNP in charge, playing politics with our country, our jobs, our lives, our families and our home. Shouting down opposing voices in the debate isn’t going to help – we live in a democracy, after all. Quite level headed really.
Not at all really. The thrust of this is twofold - 1) a personal attack on a political leader which, based on his performance over the last seven years as First Minister, is entirely unwarranted - and an attack from an organisation whose main tactic throughout has been, you guessed it, personal attacks on the opposition. 2) Scaremongering. Quite how anyone who has followed the lead up to this referendum from the outset can blithely drop the accusation at every juncture is frankly unbelievable. The whole of the BT campaign has been centred around negativity - 'world leaders' have been primed and trotted out to tell Scots what they can't do, as have celebrities, falsely claimed 'common folk' (who en masse turned out to have hidden connections and vested interests), and failed one-trick ponies like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling who have repeatedly brought up ridiculous lies in public, in spite of them having been publicly acknowledged as lies. As for the claim that the thought of an independent Scotland is scary - the alternative is far closer to the truth and far scarier. The three main political parties have all pledged to chop the pocket money they allow Scotland by £6 bn in 2015/16, for starters - that's the scary truth, as that will directly affect Welfare, Health and Education in the country. The clarion call from Westminster is that the UK is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet 20% of the Scottish population are officially living below the poverty line, over one million people have been consigned to a twice weekly trudge to their nearest foodbank - if their local DSS will refer them - or watch their families starve . Quite how anyone in their right minds can say that that is Better Together is beyond my understanding - and no matter what happens in the event of a vote for independence - at least the country as a whole can say we tried to break the stranglehold that was dragging us down. It's not just about economics, it's nothing at all to do with ego trips - it's all about self respect and self determination. And doing it peacefully as opposed to rioting in the streets as happens elsewhere in the world.
I have no wish to agree with you Spurf although as you say we can and generally are being polite. If though the Yes campaign deserve to win they have to be able to answer the two fundamental questions about currency and the EU. As they cannot - and will not - they cannot be given the vote they seek.
Whether you agree with Kayleigh Marie Quinn or not (and I don't particularly) she puts her unsupported argument in a clear manner. She has identified some points and expresses her concerns. Yes, there is a very personal attack on Alex Salmond (and you really have to wonder what has driven that) and some of her conclusions are fanciful, some may not be. Of course her view point can be shot down, as can all. Whether Scotland can prosper as an independent nation remains to be seen, and if the vote doesn't go that way this time how long will it be before the Yes campaign regroups and starts manoeuvring for another vote. Is this a "once in a lifetime" or a be all and end all no more chances opportunity.
The two fundamental questions about the EU and the currency have been answered over and over again. Currency: Sterling will be used, either with or without the co operation of the rUK. The arguments as to why it is in the interests of the UK to have currency union have been set out in great detail. EU again this has been answered many many times. There is no mechanism to expell 5.5 million EU members for expressing their democratic rights. This would be against all the the EU stands for. plus many other self interest reasons for wanting Scotland to remain in the EU. Claiming that these questions have not been answered is pure politics and is the position of Better Together. They know that a definite answer to this question is only possible when negotiations take place between the two governments of Scotland and rUK after a YES vote. As with the EU the only one who can ask this question at the moment is the UK government and for obvious political reasons they decline to do so, after the YES vote the EU will be able to talk directly with Scotland. What is the plan A of the Labour , Tory, and Liberal parties in the event of a YES vote? They will not tell us until after the vote.
If the vote goes against independence what will happen to the SNP? The Scottish people will have given, at the United Kingdom level, their raison d'etre a bit of a blooded nose. I fully appreciate at a "national" level they have Scottish interests at the centre of everything they do, and how we need a political party like that for England, but will their position in a United Kingdom be weakened in favour of political groupings who wish to work together for the betterment of the whole, and not the current occupiers of the Houses of Parliament who are intent on keeping their status intact.
This is the positive that comes out of this referrendum whatever the result. The discussion on the UK is opened up, like never before and this debate will continue. What is for sure is that in the long run UK will have to change, but just how remains to be seen.
Just suppose Scotland does vote for independence and the EU does allow Scotland to join immediately will they not open themselves up to legal action from nations who have been following a strict application process trying to align themselves with the various EU requirements and strictures to enable them to join; and even worse what happens if Scotland is allowed immediate access and is then found to be delinquent at certain entry gateways and the application was pushed through? There maybe no mechanism for expelling 5.5 million people, but on the other hand there is also no mechanism to allow immediate accession. From both viewpoints just because it hasn't happened before doesn't preclude it from happening now.
Sure but common sense tells you that a way will be found for a smooth passage to the EU. Scotland already complies will all the requirments of membership. All of this has been explored. It is simply in the interests of the EU and Scotland to find a way. 160,000 EU citizens already work in Scotland they would have to be expelled, 60,000 EU universtity students would suddenly need to pay fees. Spains major fishing area would suddenly be out of bounds. These and other factore make it political suicide to NOT have Scotland in the EU.
Please check your figures!! Over a million people trudging to foodbanks in Scotland, the UK figure is 500,000 who's scaremongering, exaggerating? 20% below poverty line, again I find this incredible.
Just checking Scottish government poverty stats, a bit damning for the SNP as they were dropping under labour and big Eck has stabilized to now increasing. Now you know I'm no labour supporter and I'll bet he blames it on Westminster.....
To a certain extent most of this 'Scotland and the EU' debate is supposition. There is no precedent to this problem of what to do with a member state of the EU in the event of a breakup. There is no official answer - because the question has not been raised by Cameron. The 'No' camp argue that breaking away from a member state automatically means simultaneously leaving the EU - comments from Barruso and Van Pompuy appear to support this, whereas Juncker appears to be taking a different tone (at least unofficially). None of this is clear enough for Salmond to be taking the stance on this which he is. There is however no precedence for expelling nations from the EU - Algeria (1962) and Greenland were completely different cases because neither of them wanted EU membership.
Why would Scotland expel 160.000 EU citizens? I am sure a special visa could be arranged for them, with a suitable price for companies based in England. Fees will be paid for EU students now why change that arrangement. Fees could be paid from a different source. Was this fee charging designed to annoy the English anyway? When have Spanish fishermen respected other nations territorial waters? Scotland will have no or very little marine power to stop them.
