FREEDOM!!!! [2]

I call it tactical blackmail.

Well, they did succed with the whole AV referendum thing. And David Cameron used to work in PR.

So it's maybe not so strange that is the tactic they use.

I can see how some of this could be called scaremongering, but some of it seems obvious to me.

For example, even if it's taken for granted that nobody's going to be expelled from the EU in the long run, isn't it also obvious that both an independent Scotland and the RUK (or whatever you call what remains of the union) will have to renegotiate their positions in the EU based on their significantly reduced population and resources?

That's the way it's always worked among the states and territories here. Idaho and Delaware just don't have the influence that California or New York do, and if a small territory were to split off a larger one (Oregon Territory split to form Oregon State and Washington Territory for example) it would be taken for granted that there would need to be a lot of scrutiny and negotiations before statehood could be accepted.

How is this different?

  David

There is no difference David, or shouldn't be.

The SNP position is quite sensible- they say there will be a period of negotiation on our terms of membership- this will happen during the same time period set aside for negotiating with RUK.

During the negotiating period we would still be part of the UK as we would not be independent then, so still covered in terms of EU by still being part of the UK.
When we become independent hopefully we will have concluded all negotiations and will then join as a new country.

The No campaign however are trying to imply that Scotland would be left 'out in the cold' during the negotiating period and would not be a member.
They also insist we would have to adopt the euro, which is untrue as even if we wanted too we couldn't right away, as we have to join a monetary system first and as a new country we would have no debt history.

Essentially the SNP say the negotiations will work in the end because Scotland wants to be a member, has been for 40 years and Europe wants our resources inside rather than out.

And the No campaign say it will be a torturous long drawn out process during which we will have no protections and we will be forced to adopt things we dont want too and there is no guarantee we would be accepted in the end.


The irony is as a member state Westminster can just ask the EU what the most likely scenario is- but they refuse to do so under the excuse of not negotiating before the referendum, as leaving it uncertain and in the dark plays into the No campaign Project Fear strategy.

Crafty gits ! I never have & never will trust anyone who calls himself a polititian, but, we've no choice but be led round by the nose by them    And as for saying we voted him or her in, well, what about people like me who didnt or who abstained ?

Is it just me or does the reporting on the BBC about independence seem suspect. See what you think.

The last few days have been a good example.
A large well respected poll showed that support for Independence had grown by 6 percent. Putting it at 48%
The only place this was reported as front page news was the Scottish Sun.
The BBC buried in a side link on the Scottish news homepage. Yet just days before they had a main page piece about how the polls had stayed firmly stuck at support for yes in the mid-30% range.

Now yesterday the Governor of the Bank of England gave a much anticipated speech about the prospect of a currency union should Scotland vote Yes.

It was a very fair and balanced speech. He pointed out that there would need for it to work to be settled agreement on several areas including tax boundaries, spending agreements and shared risk and assets.
But if those were settled he saw no reason for it not to be feasible.

Now the BBC I have noticed have a sneaky habit- they react to a story with an anti yes drama filled headline initially, then later they tone the headline down to something a bit more representative but still favouring the no position.

Here's the example, yesterday this was the immediate headline that was the response to this balanced speech-

"Carney warns Scots over Pound Plan"

An hour or so ago they changed it to this-

"Scottish independence: Carney says Scots currency plan may lead to power loss"

Another interesting facet is the difference in how the BBC political editors have responded.
The face of the BBC political editing is Nick Robinson, he is the main and most well known political editor- here's some of what his article said-

"There are two words and one warning that really matter in today's speech by the Governor of the Bank of England.
Mark Carney spoke of the "clear risks" involved if an independent Scotland tries to carry on using the pound.
The governor has confirmed their warnings that for an independent Scotland to share the pound it would first have to reach agreement with what's left of the UK on the levels of tax, spending and borrowing - involving what Mr Carney called "ceding of national sovereignty".
The man who's in charge of the pound has just made it more likely that Scots voters will think about what he called the "clear risks" of replicating the chaos in the eurozone - in Greece or Spain or Portugal - when they are told "Don't worry, after independence you'll be able to use the pound just as you are now".
A warning of a risk that could cost people money - there are few things more toxic for those trying to persuade voters to take a step into the unknown."


Remember this was in fact a very balanced speech that did not favour one side over the other, although you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise on the BBC 'impartial' coverage.

However dig into the BBC Scotland political editors blog, the well respected Brian Taylor, and you find a quite different tone-

"According to Labour, the governor's remarks mean the SNP plan is "falling apart". The Tories see it "in tatters".
In more constrained voice, the Treasury said it proved their view that a currency union would be "highly unlikely", prompting a renewed demand for a Plan B from Alex Salmond.
Why, they ask, should Scotland risk independence - especially if it would involve reinstating banking and financial institutions which are already in place?
Why bother? And why, they ask further, would voters in England agree to underpin Scottish banks post independence?
Up jump the Nationalists with a range of points.
The governor met Mr Salmond this morning and promised to continue the technical discussions which have taken place between the Bank of England and Scottish government officials.
Mr Carney, they point out, noted that there can be considerable advantages in a currency union in promoting trade and well-being, provided the rules are in place and implemented.
Further, the nationalists argue that they anticipated the points raised by the governor.
They were addressed in the Fiscal Commission report, commissioned by the Scottish government.
Hence, the plan for a fiscal stability pact whereby London and Edinburgh would agree to place limits on spending and debt.
And why bother? Because, argue nationalists, independence would give Scotland control of tax policy, employment policy, social security, oil and gas revenues and immigration among other matters.
Because, further, a common currency with a stability pact would be in the interests of both Scotland and England, post independence.
To emphasise, Mark Carney was neither ostensibly condemning independence nor praising it.
He said the Bank of England would work within whatever circumstances arose, within guidelines laid down by elected politicians.
That studiedly neutral stance and his technocratic approach - addressing issues arising without complaint or political grandstanding - probably allowed both sides to discern gains for their cause in the governor's address.'

The question is, if the BBC is not biased in its coverage of the Referendum then why do you have to dig into the blog of the Scottish political editor to find a balanced view, and why is the English political editors very biased take on the speech the one featured and linked to the main story with the scary headline?

Of course it is suspect. When I was women's editor during a nationl election I got the shock of my life. I hd written many articles for front page and it seemed clear sailing and then I had to cover the last rally of the campaigns I wrote it up and was shocked the next day when I was told that I had to go downstairs to a place I was not familiar with and see the Publisher. I never knew that the actual publisher was located in our tiny city and in our actual building. I had received accolades from him and offers to buy my work from a certain university so I was not prepared for what followed.
He spoke quietly to me and told me to change the entire story with a certain bias. I said how could I , it was not the truth, none of what he said to do. I was very naïve at the time. He told me to go and get it done and I told the main editor who was known for his hard stand on truth. He looked at me sadly and said we had been bought out by the likely winner of the election and I had to do it or be fired.
I could not so I was in a position where I had to quit. So I decided to go freelance. I did and one day I heard a woman crying in the street and people ignored her and went into their houses. I ran up to her street and she begged me in Italian if I would find out the truth about the death of her husband, how he had been a gentle good man who just wanted to find out the truth of something and had been found dead in a trash bin outside a hotel.People fled from me like I had the plague. Then while I was doing research I ran into the mayor. He had always treated me well and kind. He remarked he had heard that I was doing this research. I was astounded, and replied yes. He told me to stop it or I would find myself dead. I stared t him and will never forget his smile and the hardness of his eyes.
It was then after the murder of my friend who was too nosey that I grew up and understood that so many things were tied up in politics and all that we saw and read was determined by the very top and no one would believe us anyway. But I thought if the common people would just do their research and vote their hearts we would win out. And sometimes they do. But it seems to be part of a plan and it is all smoke and mirrors. So I rarely believe anyone and try to vote for the lesser of the evils and try to swim against the tide from there. I was never the same again somehow.

If it were not for the fact that you are speaking truthfully, someone might think they are reading a film script, To much surrounds us that is corrupt, hushed up & threatening. Its a sick,sad world & Im not proud to be human. My eyes have seen enough & my ears have heard enough.

Maybe the best way to make sense of it is to go and watch an episode of "Yes, Minister."   

The BBC has a reputation for impartialiality but when it comes down to something so close to home it may have broken down somewhat. All newspapers have a bias I dont think you can eradicate it but people just read between the lines if its not overt. But English people can't vote on Scottish Indipendence so no matter how seemingly and subtly negative it gets it shouldnt affect the Scottish voters as they probably read Scottish newspapers (I presume) with news coverage that upholds their opinions, I am sure the different factions of Scottish newspapers have a strong bias either way as well. the only problem might be the dont knows. But I am sure its more for English Readers leaning towards the no vote rather than trying to affect Scottish peoples opinions.

I think that's the thing though, as far as I have gathered from Petty. That most of the Scottish media also are for a no vote because of their political placement.

So the people who are going to vote are getting a very one sided argument from the media.   

The BBC has a reputation for impartialiality- Figg

I have always thought so and up till this I have never had reason to question their reporting before in regard to impartiality- but its getting pretty bad in their reporting on this matter.

"it shouldnt affect the Scottish voters as they probably read Scottish newspapers (I presume) with news coverage that upholds their opinions"- Figg

"most of the Scottish media also are for a no vote because of their political placement"- Blue


Sadly Blue is right, expect its not most its all.
There are exactly zero press supporting independence tv or print.
The closest is the Scottish Sun who support the SNP as the devolved government but do not support independence.

Given every story, every report, every press release made about independence comes to the public via an a cross the board negative pro union press its amazing the polling is moving more in favour of independence at all.

More than at any other point in my life, with the whole of the news media coming from just one perspective, the BBC needs to be impartial and fair- and its not being.

If I should venture a guess, Petty, I would say the onesidedness of the message from both the media and UK politicians might be having the opposite effect of the intended one.

People do seem to be suspicious of an obviously biased one sided arguement.

I hope so Blue.

That speech about keeping the pound is a good example.

Given the 'warnings' he gave about the need for prior agreement on debt and borrowing were outlined in the SNP White Paper on fiscal policy, were there any pro Indy press we could be reading headlines like "Carney confirms SNP Plan".

Interestingly, after initially being spun by everyone as a huge victory for the No campaign, despite the actual facts of the speech not supporting this, all todays Scottish press has dumped the story, having done their damage- it doesnt make a single front page in Scotland today, presumably as they might have to reveal what he actually said and how that chimes with the SNP plan for keeping the pound anyway.

Is there online media that you'd consider more balanced than the old-school press?

Not that I have found.
There are plenty of sites that are in favour of Yes online, but they are biased the other way.

Brian Taylor, the BBC Scotland political editor is the only one I still have some trust in.
But most of the time you have to go looking for his stuff. Although he does these days get more time on BBC Scotland TV News when its domestic politics.

That's really too bad. Somebody needs to give the moderates a voice, or the whole thing is likely to melt down into name-calling and stone-throwing (rather like the American two party system  )

Only in Scotland    -



"Police Scotland have apologised to the distributors of Buckfast for asking a shopkeeper to stop selling the tonic wine.
The force has agreed not to include the product in any bottle-marking scheme unless it has established "reasonable grounds" for doing so.
Buckfast's lawyers took a case against what was Strathclyde Police to the Court of Session in February 2013.
They complained that officers had encouraged some retailers to attach police stickers to bottles of Buckfast.
The system, known as bottle marking, allows the police to trace bottles associated with crime back to the store from which they were purchased.
After almost a year of legal argument, the two sides have settled the case without any judgment being made by the court.
Police Scotland, which took over Strathclyde's responsibilities in April 2013, has apologised to Buckfast.
It also apologised for any "distress or inconvenience" caused.
In a written undertaking, Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawson said the police "will not request licensed retailers, situated anywhere in Scotland, to cease stocking for sale Buckfast Tonic Wine".
A Police Scotland spokesperson said: "we can confirm there has been an amicable settlement between Police Scotland and the owners of Buckfast"
Buckfast contains 15% alcohol by volume and the same amount of caffeine in each bottle as in eight cans of Coke. . - BBC Scotland

It's got caffeine too? Sounds like Four Loko, yet significantly worse. And the FDA banned Four Loko in the US a couple years ago.

Well that explains why when I tried to sent a bottle to Halfy they told me it was illegal! Wimps!   

And the dirty tactics continue-

"A FOREIGN Office department ostensibly set up to promote the Scottish Government's interests is being used against it in the independence referendum, diplomatic cables have revealed.
The Devolution Unit, created by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2012 to deliver abroad the "utmost co-operation", now appears to be at the heart of Westminster's anti-independence drive, amassing hostile reactions from overseas.
It is understood the FCO has contacted the governments of China, Russia, the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the 28 EU nations about the Scottish referendum in a global search for allies who might oppose independence.
One recent cable showed UK embassies being ordered to forward a Westminster paper critical of independence "to their host governments and other local contacts" and then feed their comments back to the Devolution Unit "ASAP".
It would help the Unionist cause if countries raised their concerns about an independent Scotland joining international bodies such as the EU and Nato.
The action is in spite of Prime Minister David Cameron insisting that September's poll is purely "a debate between Scots" - the argument he uses for refusing to debate with Alex Salmond.
The Sunday Herald has already revealed two examples of Westminster discussing independence with foreign governments.
In December, Downing Street's Scotland adviser Andrew Dunlop and a Cabinet Office official flew to Madrid to discuss the referendum with Mariano Rajoy's government.
With the visit coming soon after Rajoy had undermined the SNP by warning an independent Scotland would be left outside the EU, Alex Salmond accused the Spanish prime minister of plotting a "stitch-up" with Cameron.
The Sunday Herald also revealed how Russia's top news agency had reported Cameron's office was "extremely interested" in getting president Vladimir Putin's support for a No vote."- the Herald

Well its taken its time to get through all the legislation and scrutiny but Scotland finally today passed same sex marriages into law, a good day for the country.

Well done Scotland! Let's hope your government doesn't drag its feet for as long as England and Wales has on actually implementing the new law, though.

Edit: I'd forgotten how many bullshit limitations the England and Wales law put on gay marriage too.  Fuck that.  Go Scotland!

Odd intervention by the head of BP in the independence today, he raised 'concerns' about the sterling zone saying "there was a question mark" over the currency.

I say odd because BP only just committed to new investments in Scottish oil running well past 2016, 10billion worth to be exact, the largest investment they have ever made in North Sea Oil- which is an odd thing for a company apprently worried about the currency to do.

Another reason for suspicion is the NO campaign against devolution in the 70's largely reduced the yes vote by prompiting prominent business leaders to speak out about 'uncertainties'. This all sounds very similar- and given my above post about the info disclosed by the Freedom of Information Act its hard to view these things without an air of suspicion.