FREEDOM!!!! [2]

It's quite interesting to see how some opinions seem roughly divided on national lines. Alex Salmond seem to be an example. - Blue

I am not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean opinion about him is divided on national lines, or that his opinions are along national lines?

Well, there seems to be some difference in his image in England and Scotland. From what I've gathered at least. While he's more widely seen in a positive light in Scotland, there seems to be a more suspicious attitude about him from people on the other side of the border.

That's just in broad general lines though, reality is of course a whole lot more complicated.

Thanks for clarifying that Blue.

I think a lot of thats down to how English news sources report on it.

For decades (and even still) the press in England present the notion that Scotland only exists on English subsides- despite this been proved wrong over and over and even Cameron himself publicly saying it is not the case and that there is no reason Scotland could not financially manage on its own, he just thinks its better in the Union.

"Mr Cameron said the case for the UK was about "our future as well as our past".
"I have no time for those who say there is no way Scotland could go it alone," he said.
"The real question is whether it should."- BBC



In the end results are what matter, and since the SNP came to power in the devolved parliament there have been visible tangible results, a clear set of ideals and goals- everyone knows the direction the SNP want to go in, knows what there aims are and what their achievements have been so far- there is a clarity of purpose and vision ahead with the SNP which has been woefully lacking elsewhere in UK politics where parties seem to be more reacting to events than following any sort of plan.

The Tories are a good example of this- Cameron doesnt want the UK to leave the EU as he knows it would be financially and diplomatically difficult at best (he has already said he will campaign to stay in), the only reason he has offered a referendum on it at all is as a reaction to UKIP- no UKIP no referendum. Its not part of some grand vision, its not part of a plan, its purely a reaction to the fear UKIP is stealing Tory votes. And thats a poor way to run a country.

Yo mate !

It might surprise you that I too am a 'left of centre' old fashioned socialist 'dinosaur'. I appreciate that you want 'freedom',  but I say its not for the reason you outline about the 'lack of democracy' in your country. Jason, you already have 'freedom', but I say because things are not to your party's liking, you want to force a split irrevocably from the union because after this is accomplished it's the best way you're going to 'keep' power within a smaller, separate country. Unfortunately, part of Democracy Is losing and working harder to convince those who don't agree with you that you have better ideas... So because, as I said above, you haven't managed this, you're going all out to split the union up instead.

Now here's my Case in point. I live in mid staffs. Now Up until 3 years ago, for the 28 previous, it was the safest labour seat in the country because of its Labour-voting miners. Now because of their guaranteed votes, the constituency and councils at ALL levels acted as they pleased and did nothing to improve housing, schools, opportunities for business, social development and so on, so the situation came that we in Staffordshire were effectively being ruled under a virtual hard left socialist Diktat whilst being oppressed nationally by Thatcher ! When she was finally ousted and Blair came in, there was STILL no change to how they acted. Come 2010 and they got kicked out at constituency level, they still end up controlling, through the now elderly mining vote, my district council which they currently mis-manage with the lib dems, (including no council tax freeze for me even when I'm unemployed which I can't pay) so I'm stuck with them. So every time they come to my door for my vote, like last week,  I give them a hard time about my hard times and they simply bugger off until the next time.

Now I have to put up with that, because that's democracy and until my views become the prevailing one, I'm stiffed. So I have to say that your party needs to look to what it's people need in these hard times and leave it out until things are better and then maybe take advantage. You get enuff money from Westminster to be able to get free prescriptions and stuff like that at the moment, so you're ahead of the game unlike in England where we're being squeezed until the pips squeak ! And as I said, I'm not saying as you say I do, that 'you've never had it so good'. That's up to you how to feel, but certainly in these times, isn't it better to stick together until the whole planet turns the corner as it were ? I certainly don't see how you can do a better job governing in these times than the UK one. Unless of course, as I think, you'll govern simply by using EU money rather than your 'allowance' to finance it until you can carve out some trade and purpose of your own. But in that case will ALL your new citizens appreciate that in the future ?

I dont have a party. I voted SNP at the last Scottish election because I thought they had done  a good job running a minority administration prior to that.
That the SNP won in a landslide indicates I was not alone in that perception.

I voted Lib Dem at the last general election (for the first time ever) solely because I could not vote for Labour as they stand and I dont agree with the Tories and there is no point sending SNP minister to Westminster.

Given the Libs went on to betray most of the principles they stood for in their manifesto and got in bed with the Tories I would not vote for them again- which leaves no party at Westminster I feel I can vote for.
A choice of none seems like  a democratic deficit to me.
As does 17 years of Tory rule when they came last here in every single election.

As I mentioned you complained about Blair- imagine you had to put up with him even though everyone in your country voted against him.
I cant imagine you would be too pleased at that or feel that your voice was been fairly heard.

Whats the point of voting if your neighbour can simply overwrite it?- you may as well not bother, it wont make any difference anyway- if you take the Scottish votes out of the elections of the past nothing changes, they made no difference at all, we get whoever England votes for and there is not a thing we can do to change that as it stands, and that cannot be democratically good.


"You get enuff money from Westminster to be able to get free prescriptions and stuff like that at the moment"

See the vid above- we put in more than we get back- Scotland has  a budget surplus but we dont see it, as it works at the moment all revenue raised in Scotland goes directly to Westminster who then give us a handout to spend which is slightly less than the money we put in.

We have the free stuff you mention because of how the SNP work the money- it means cuts elsewhere as we cant raise any more money ourselves, we only get what Westminster gives us each year to spend according to the Barnett Formula- the only freedom we have is in deciding where we spend it. And nor is it 'free' it comes out of the money we get from Westminster, which in turn comes from the money we raised here in taxes ect- we pay for it. Nothing is ever free!

Imagine England had to hand all its revenue over to Brussels, and then Brussels gave you a slightly smaller sum back to spend each year and you could not raise any revenue yourselves as you are not allowed, and even if you did it would only go straight to Brussels anyway and you wouldn't see it back- would you be happy with that arrangement?
I doubt it.

I found this to be very interesting- an Englishman in Scotland-

Todays political cartoon from the Scotsman newspaper-

Blimey I thought for a second Cameron might have at least learned that the scaremongering and bullying tactics dont work and pushing the YES numbers up, then a Unionist spokesperson says this-

"Dr Azeem Ibrahim claimed that the British government may build a border post to guard against the threat of terrorist attacks because independence for Scotland could lead to intelligence failures.
"There is a high probability that there will be a border constructed between Scotland and England and there will be border checks and this has been articulated to me from the highest levels of the MoD.
"Actually a former Secretary of Defence told me that is more than likely to actually happen because the rest of the UK simply cannot be open to any sort of vulnerabilities."- BBC

Um, so why are there no such borders between the UK now and Ireland, a separate independent country? Or the Isle of Man for that matter?

I thought this nonsense and level of debate had been put to rest, but no, here it is again.  

And still they scheme and plot and act like devious bastards-

"The Foreign & Commonwealth Office has again been accused of meddling in the referendum, after it emerged that the British Embassy in Madrid has been urging newspapers in Spain to publish criticisms of Scottish independence.
A letter published this month in the Tenerife News included a request from Simon Montague, the embassy's director of communications, in which he urged the title to print a Home Office press release about the "challenges" if Scotland left the UK."- The Herald



Odd how far they will go to try to hang onto a country they like to portray as only existing on the good will of English wealth!

 

Is this being widely reported? If it is, I can only see it having the opposite of the desired effect.

And shouldn't the diplomatic core hols themselves slightly apolitical when it comes to internal affairs? Not how the real world works, I know.

No, most of the press, being Unionist are not reporting on it.

But I have noticed a slight increase in these sort of stories coming more to light. Can but hope as the polls narrow the press feel more obliged to reveal this sort of stuff- sadly though I suspect the UK government will instead apply, as one business leader who was subjected recently to it, put it 'the black arts' on more people to cover it up.

There is precedent for this- in the 70's devolution debate the government covered up a paper commissioned into Scotland (it only came to light when the paper was released under the 20 year rule) which described Scotland as having 'an embarrassing burden of wealth'.
It was deemed by the government not to be in the UK interests to release it, as the believed devolution as not in the UK interest.
Thats part of the problem, the current govt doesnt believe Independence is in the UK interest- so under the official secrets act they can do all sorts of dodgy lying stuff then cover up on the bass they are acting in the best interest of the UK.

Strange, that strikes me as something that could be a huge political scandal. Particualirly as David Cameron has been so clear on the fact that he would not get involved.

But when the media is so biased in one direction that's the kind of thing that just doesn't get properly reported, I guess.

Under normal circumstances the press would have a field day with a PM getting caught out using government agencies in this way against his own stated position- but so biased is our media in favour of the Union you have to hunt online just to find the story as only the Herald in printed press covered the story.

BBC Scotland havent even mentioned it.

I do feel for you with your media situation.   It's almost a bit of a joke to talk about a free press when it's that biased. And that's not even mentioning your libel laws or Levinson.   

Though what do you expect when most of the world media is owned by four different people.

There are plans to invest in a Hydro Electric plant in my bit of the country by a Spanish firm who specialise in Hydro.
The investment however s long term as the Spanish company have just finished a similar project in Spain which took seven years to complete.
As always the press tried to get the company to say that Scottish independence would be a threat to this investment, but the company refused to comment directly on the referendum but their chairman has come out to say he rejected suggestions that Scottish independence would threaten any plans to invest.

Nice try Cameron but no banana! Seems you cant bully everyone into saying what you want them to.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:There are plans to invest in a Hydro Electric plant in my bit of the country by a Spanish firm who specialise in Hydro.
The investment however s long term as the Spanish company have just finished a similar project in Spain which took seven years to complete.
As always the press tried to get the company to say that Scottish independence would be a threat to this investment, but the company refused to comment directly on the referendum but their chairman has come out to say he rejected suggestions that Scottish independence would threaten any plans to invest.

Nice try Cameron but no banana! Seems you cant bully everyone into saying what you want them to.

True.   And for a lot of independent companies outside the UK an independent Scotland would probably be a good thing. Wouldn't it?

Worst attempt to negatively a spin a story from the Unionists yet- first the story-

'The chief executive of Barclays has said his bank "can make it work" if Scotland votes for independence.
He said of independence: "That's a matter for the Scottish people to decide - we think we can make it work either way as a bank."- BBC

The SNP response to this comment-

'SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie said of the remarks by Mr Jenkins: "This is a common sense approach from Barclays Bank.
"Of course, they will have technical questions that they will want answered, but they are right - this is a decision for the people of Scotland and I very much welcome the chief executive's comments."

And heres how the Unionists are spinning it-

A spokesman for the official campaign to keep the Union, Better Together, said: "Mr Jenkins has made it clear that he has no view on the subject.
"However, expert after expert has lined up to dismiss Alex Salmond's currency plan - pointing out the great damage it would cause to our financial services sector."


And by experts he means people in the pro-Unionist government.

I almost feel like posting a Yes, Minister video after each of these updates. It would kind of sum it up.   

Yes, First Minister

 

Well, what did I tell you before Petty. Start a production company, get writing and we'll have it on BBC Scotland in time for independence.   

Major movements in the debate today.

UK Chancellor Osbourne is to rule out a currency union if Scotland votes yes.

This is a huge gamble from the NO camp- they are banking on the uncertainty it will cause to put people off- no one will vote YES if they dont know what the currency will be and think it wont be the pound- the best option available.

The gamble is it looks like bullying as most independent experts outside the political bubble think a currency union would be in the best interests of both countries.

But more so, if Scotland votes YES anyway then Osbourne just took one of RUK's biggest negotiating chips off the table. Its like a man sitting down to play a crucial game of chess and deciding not to bother putting his queen on the board.
Chances are RUK would have played hard ball in the negotiations for Scotland to keep the currency, wining concessions in return- not now.
But more so the SNP position is that if Scotland votes YES then we negotiate the assets and debts, taking our fair agreed share of both.
No assets to negotiate, then we dont pick up our share of the debt either and overnight that blows a huge hole in RUK Balance of Payments and increases their debt whilst at the same time they would lose all the income from Scotland and we would have their nuclear weapons.

And to make the position more interesting according to the BBC- "former Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, suggested that what the UK government says now and what it says after a referendum may be two different things."

If Osbourne loses this gamble and doesn't stop the rise in the YES vote then he just made life very difficult for RUK in the event of a split.

There is also a credibility gap here- 7 days ago the government line was 'a currency union was unlikely', as they were calculating that would create the uncertainty but without them losing the negotiating position sterling gives them in the event of a YES, but that wasn't working so then Cameron tried to lovebomb the nation and woo us to stay and that ddin't work either, so now they are laying down a major red line that's a changed position from last weeks in an attempt to scare people out of voting YES. Its like a pathetic version of good cop/bad cop.

To this end the SNP response has been to say its not the position they will take when reality hits and they have to act in the best interest of the RUK, and its a clear sign of panic and desperation and a lack of any ideas in the NO camp for a positive vision of the future and all they can think to do is try to scare us out of it.
On the last point the SNP seem to be getting some traction. And there is certainly a growing feeling from reading the press that some in the NO camp in Scotland are starting to worry about just how credible this all looks and whether it might not have the opposite effect.

Ally wrote:London is the city that immigration made from the dawn of of Britain's Empire. Can't use it an an example I'm afraid.

I usually skip right past the first page of a thread on into the last.  But I happened to see the first page and the whole immigration discussion.

I think New York is a fascinating study in large immigrant populations that works, but not necessarily because of policy.  Around 1950 E.B. White noted in a commissioned work on NYC ('Here is New York') that New York City shouldn't work.  It should fly apart from the centrifugal forces of culture and race.  But it does work because of the attitude instilled in New York as a a port city from the first: the city is special because of it's multiculturalism, and its vibrant economy.  People don't want to mess with either one of those.  There was racial integration in New York long before civil rights opened up the rest of America, and that's because everyone recognized it was the only way to make the city work.

We have rent control laws that serve to maintain immigrant communities.  Manhattan would be pure yuppie-ville without it.  But I think it works in large part because the economy can support it, and because such laws have been in force since the reformist laws of the late 19th century, so they are accepted as part of the package.

Small amounts of immigration I think is welcomed by any city.  But I don't know if just any city could survive a large influx of immigration without tension.  There has to be some support system for those who fail, either through cultural enclaves or through government policy, otherwise poverty breeds crime and unrest.  The cultural enclaves are a vastly superior support system to the government, which can lead to all sorts of silliness that people rightfully complain about. NYC does have a vast government support system that only works because it's one of the richest cities in the world, and even then it's a huge drain.  I don't think such support would work just anywhere without the risk of dragging down the system.  

A government does need to control immigration, but the all important street level reaction will vary from city to city and town to town, mainly based on expectations.  If people expect and accept change, it's less of a problem.  But that's no reason to say people should accept it.  Especially in small towns.

Seems the currency zone has taken another turn-

"The three main Westminster parties will declare that whoever forms the next UK government would not agree to allow an independent Scotland to use the pound.
The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats will make the comments on Thursday, the BBC has learned."- BBC


So all plotting together- the new tag line of the No campaign now, being tiredly trotted out at every opportunity by all three parties and all their backbenchers (who presumably have electrodes attached to their genitals incase they go off message) is-

"the only way to guarantee to keep the UK pound as our currency is to vote to keep Scotland a strong part of the UK."

I can see what you did there!

Can you remind me why the SNP wants to keep the pound? I honestly don't remember.