FREEDOM!!!! [2]

Yes, and it's nice to see him in one of those "not a hard hitting interview" kind of situations.

Its been an interesting few days.

First Standard Life, a large insurance and pensions company who have been based out of Scotland for 185 years announced they were drawing up contingency plans to withdraw entirely from Scotland in light of Osbournes announcement that the pound was off the table in any negotiations.

The NO side of course seized on this as evidence that a YES vote will lead to financial ruin.
And the YES side pointed out it was only a contingency plan, and only comes into effect of the pound remains off the table, and the uncertainty was being caused by Osbournes announcement, not Independence.

Its is certainly true that Westminster has accused the SNP of creating uncertainty and instability in the markets just by announcing there was even going to be independence.
Osbournes political stance on the pound is in comparison pretty reckless when it comes to causing uncertainty.

The day after that announcement the head of British Airways spoke out, saying that Independence could be a 'positive development' for his airline.

And today the former Chairman of Scottish Labour, 51 years a Labour MP, has come out in favour of a YES vote, saying "he had had been "swithering" on how to vote in the referendum.
He cited shadow chancellor Ed Balls' intervention on the currency union as a defining factor in his decision."
He added: "I will now be voting Yes because I think it is the only way forward for anyone who wants to see a fairer, more equal and more prosperous Scotland."

The No camp have said in response to the BA announcement that voting for 'cheaper holidays' was not a good enough reason for independence, and on the former Chairmans comments they released a press statement reading '"We know that the vast majority of Labour supporters reject Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon's politics of division and grievance, and instead want to work in partnership with our neighbours in England, Northern Ireland and Wales to create a better country."

Problem is thats not entirely true. The referendum is split along party lines only in the respective Parliaments, not at grass roots, which is why there are movements such as 'Labour for Independence' and why other parties like the Greens favour independence too.

The No side like to paint this as everyone else on one side and the SNP on the other, but at grass roots level that is not true.
I know people who voted SNP but are voting No in the referendum and I know labour and Green and Lib voters who are voting Yes.

The chaos remains it seems in Scottish Labour- who this close to the election still dont know or can tell anyone what a No vote would mean if devolution, as they cant even agree among themselves-

"SCOTTISH Labour proposals to devolve welfare and income tax powers to Holyrood have provoked a backlash among Scottish MPs and could be blocked by the UK party.
proposals on tax have already sparked anger among Scottish Labour MPs in Westminster, meaning there is a significant threat of deep divisions when the document is presented at the Scottish Labour conference on 21 March.
One senior MP told The Scotsman: “We were happy for it to go from 10p to 15p, but no more.” Another added: “There is no appetite for devolving more income tax powers.”
It was pointed out by another MP that the party’s UK Treasury team would have to agree to the proposals. “It’s just not going to happen,” said the MP.
Another MP warned that the proposals could see Scotland’s representation slashed in Westminster,"- The Scotsman

If Scottish Labour cant agree on what happens after NO just in their own party what chance of all Westminster parties agreeing on any further powers?

Interesting analysis on the currency from the Fiscal Commission Board (The Fiscal Commission Working Group (FCWG) is a sub-group of the Council of Economic Advisers which is helping to shape the development of a robust fiscal and macroeconomic framework for an independent Scotland. The members are Professors Andrew Hughes Hallett, Sir Jim Mirrlees, Frances Ruane and Joseph Stiglitz. The sub-group is chaired by Crawford Beveridge.)

'(The) fiscal commission working group said a formal currency union in the event of a "yes" vote was in everyone's best interests.
The group also said there were other "viable" options.
In a statement, the group said: "While we have noted the statements from the Chancellor and other political parties, our remit remains concentrated on economic merits.
"In this regard, we believe that the analysis to date by the UK government overstates the risks of a formal monetary union, for example, their analysis of Scottish financial sector risk is overplayed.
"At the same time, it fails to fully capture the benefits.
"In response to these developments, the working group has agreed that we will provide further analysis to demonstrate that, while other options are viable for Scotland, there are clear advantages for the rest of the UK from the proposed sterling area."
In response to the fiscal commission statement, the pro-Union Better Together campaign said that a "currency union is off the table". - BBC

Doubt it will stay off the table when they have to negotiate Trident and oil revenue! I really dont think in the event of independence England will cut off its nose to spite its face.


On the nuclear issue it emerged today that one of the nuclear subs has been leaking and needs a refit to the tune of 150million.
But they knew about it in 2012- they alerted the Scottish Parliament to the problem, today, hours before they announced it had happened.

'Scottish Veterans Minister Keith Brown said it was unacceptable the Scottish government had not been told until now.
He added: "It is totally unacceptable that for almost two years the UK government failed to notify Scottish Ministers on such an important issue.
"UK Defence Minister Philip Dunne eventually notified (Scottish Environment Secretary) Richard Lochhead of the situation shortly in advance of the UK government's parliamentary statement today.
"There is no excuse for UK Ministers not picking up the phone and alerting us to this situation two years ago and I have today written to Philip Hammond seeking an early meeting to ensure such disrespect is never shown again."

Its this sort of disregard for the Scottish Parliament that has in part led us this close to independence. They are happy to put their nuclear weaponry here, have all the facilities here, but they dont think the Scottish Parliament should be alerted to any potential dangers that occur here because of it.  

Defence secretary Philip Hammond was challenged over why it had taken him more than two years to reveal a radiation leak had been detected in a nuclear submarine test reactor
''This low level radiation event in the cooling water of the test reactor would not normally warrant any announcement as it is not judged a safety related issue by the relevant regulators who have been kept informed at all times.  These low levels of radioactivity are a normal product of a nuclear reaction that takes place within the fuel but they would not normally enter the cooling water,” he said.
“This water is contained within the sealed reactor circuit and I can reassure the House there has been no detectable radiation leak from that sealed circuit.
Events like this occur in the civil nuclear sector on a regular basis''
Although the news is only being made public now, the Ministry of Defence says the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the defence nuclear inspectorate were kept informed

theres your answer, load of hysteria over nothing.

Mrs Figg wrote:
Events like this occur in the civil nuclear sector on a regular basis''

Oh THAT's reassuring!  





{{{  }}}

seeing as its a non event and no leak into the environment, or any risk to people actually happened, I suppose it is reassuring.

The defence secretary said: "These low levels of radioactivity are a normal product of a nuclear reaction that takes place within the fuel but they would not normally enter the cooling water.

"This water is contained within the sealed reactor circuit and I can reassure the House there has been no detectable radiation leak from that sealed circuit.

"Indeed, against the International Atomic Energy Agency's measurement scale for nuclear-related events this issue is classed Level 0, described as 'below scale - no safety significance'."

Obviously this is manna for the SNP, and will no doubt use it as an excuse to whip up anger.

I just wish I knew what "regular basis" means.
 Monthly?   
Weekly?  
Daily?  

I reckon I'll stay behind the sofa till I have more information......

  now I know why you have those odd shaped veggies   its 'regular'   

 OMG I think ur right!  

Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the defence nuclear inspectorate were kept informed- Mrs Figg

Yes but not the Scottish government. SEPA and the defence nuclear inspectorate kept it to themselves for two years-

"The Ministry of Defence, who are responsible for the regulation of operations and safety at Vulcan, informed Sepa of this situation in the summer of 2012 and requested that they were not to make this information more widely known for security reasons." - BBC

The Scottish Parliament found out about it only hours before it was admitted to in Westminster-

"UK Defence Minister Philip Dunne eventually notified (Scottish Environment Secretary) Richard Lochhead of the situation shortly in advance of the UK government's parliamentary statement today."- BBC

So SEPA knew, the nuclear body knew, and Westminster knew about it two years ago, and the Scottish Government in whose waters the leak occurred, did not.
Do bear in mind the base is within 25 miles (41.7km) of the densest populated part of Scotland (Glasgow and surrounds).
The first job of government is to keep its people secure, and if there are any potential issues they should know about it when they occur- to only inform them hours before the announcement and two years late is a derisory way to treat the Scottish Parliament.

so doesnt the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have telephones?

Weren't allowed. They were told not to tell the Scottish government- or anyone else for 'security reasons'.

But the Scottish were informed and thats the important point. If it had been a major leak they would have informed someone in the government for sure. but it wasnt an issue because there wasnt any leak, its a non story being used by the press to sell newspapers and the SNP as ammunition. Its almost as silly as Cameron being in cahoots with Putin.

If it was a non issue why did it take 2 years for it to be openly spoken about, if it was a non issue why was it covered by a security order that prevented even the appropriate Scottish Minister being informed?

And the Scottish were not informed, only the environmental agency for Scotland was, just because it has Scottish in the name doesn't mean its actually Scottish. The Scottish Secretary after all is a Tory right now, and Westminster appointed.
The government didnt know is the problem. And they should be informed of any security issues howver minor at the nuclear base.
Frankly I, and everyone I know, also live within that 25 mile zone (also known as the' if something goes pear shaped your fucked zone') and I want to know my government is informed about anything going on at that base and are kept up to date with it.
Not told about two years later a couple of hours before the official admission of it.

its all spin. nothing more.

Hard to say without having been a part of it, I just know I have a boss who spends half her time complaining she doesn't get informed about every little detail, and the other half of the time complaining she has too many emails to even read them.

So what happens to unimportant stuff? If it's not important, she'll be annoyed by the extra email, but if she ever finds out I didn't mention it, she'll be mad. My solution is, if it's not important, I try to never EVER breath a word of it to her. Bury the meaningless details, I say.

If the radiation level is truly not important, the fact that it got out 2 years later means somebody slipped up. It should never have been mentioned. The thing is, there has to be a proper judgement of what's important. Maybe it should have been mentioned at the beginning....?

Its the principle of the thing- its a lack of respect for the democratically elected Scottish government.
They have a duty to the people of Scotland, and a lot of those people live in close proximity to the nuclear facilities- it shouldn't be made public every time, but it should be information given to the Scottish government, or at the least to the relevant Minister in the government- they should be kept up to speed with any such issues at the base.
Its not how much of a risk it actually posed or not, its what it says about how Westminster treats and views the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people.

the problem is the sense of affronted dignity over every little thing, even if nothing actually happened the principle is to protest against the horrible government in Westminster, people are blowing things out of all reasonable proportion in the run up to the vote. Its to be expected.
I am not for the Tory government, never voted for them, never will because I vote Labour, but this is getting into silly season territory, there are always two sides to the argument and I am saying you cant just take things the newspapers say as absolute truth, specially before September. this thread its going to be pretty one sided obviously, I am not attacking just giving the other side of the coin.

I am not accusing you of attacking. I am merely stating that as one of the people who live near this place I would feel more confident if I knew my government was kept up to date with everything that happens there.
I feel a lot less confident when I find out Westminster have been covering stuff up for two years and keeping them from my government.
It begs the question what has to happen before they think its worth informing the Scottish Parliament of it?

well something important, I guess.   do you seriously think they tell anyone about these glitches unless they really have to? there must be thousands of small scale incidents happening at nuclear plants all over the UK, are you saying it doesnt matter if it happens in England.

No I am saying if it happens in England Westminster will know about it it, and likewise if it happens in Scotland the Scottish Parliament should know about it.
I am expecting our Parliament to be treated with the same respect as Westminster would be in the same circumstances. It is after all the official democratically elected government of Scotland.
Westminster would not consider it acceptable if the Scottish Parliament knew of such things at the nuclear base and didnt tell Westminster about it- there would be outrage if it were that way round.
Now imagine if the base were within 25 miles of England's densest population centre and you'd be deafened by the outrage that the Sottish government would keep it to themselves and not inform Westminster.
I dont see why you expect it to be different the other way round.

I'm sure this topic was covered on The Simpsons.
Somebody needs to post a clip of Homer Simpson at the controls of the Springfield nuke plant.

Interesting input into the debate by the Citigroup- international financiers based out of America.
Thing about their assessment is that its at best inaccurate and at worst deliberately misleading.

They start off well enough saying there is - "nothing inherently implausible about a country with Scotland's population and economy being independent"

but then they go on to say-

""We regard a sterling monetary union as unlikely, but we are genuinely unsure what currency and monetary policy would be adopted by an independent Scotland.
In our view, it is astonishing that the Scottish government, in seeking independence, has reached this stage: seeking a currency union without agreement with the rest of the UK and without a clear alternative plan."

The first part is their opinion, so fair enough.
But the second part is just wrong.
The White Paper on Independence does in fact set out four currency options- shared use of the pound, continued use of the pound without a union, a new currency and joining the Eurozone.
So here are three alternative plans- but the currency union is the one the SNP favour because the independent commission recommended it as the best for everyone.

And secondly the reason the Scottish government has reached this stage 'without agreement with the rest of the UK ' is because Westminster refuses to negotiate or discuss any possible outcomes of the vote save a no.
The SNP have been trying to get Westminster into just such talks since the start, the electoral commission has several times now ordered Westminster to do so and they have continued to refuse.

It strikes me as odd that such a well known international group would make these fundamental errors in their official report   

And on the other side of the coin the international lending agency Standard and Poor have put out a report stating- 'Scotland's wealth levels 'are comparable' to those of AAA-listed nations, and that as an independent country - even without North Sea oil - Scotland would qualify for S&P's 'highest economic assessment'.- BBC

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Interesting input into the debate by the Citigroup- international financiers based out of America.


It strikes me as odd that such a well known international group would make these fundamental errors in their official report   

And on the other side of the coin the international lending agency Standard and Poor have put out a report stating- 'Scotland's wealth levels 'are comparable' to those of AAA-listed nations, and that as an independent country - even without North Sea oil - Scotland would qualify for S&P's 'highest economic assessment'.- BBC

In Japan, CitiBank is pronounced "Shitty Ban-ku." Says it all really.....