FREEDOM!!!! [3]

What has this got to do with the sex appeal of Viggo?   

Nothing at all, fortunately.   

As expected the BBC's half hearted suspension tactic is drawing fire already-

'A statement from the pro-independence Business for Scotland group said: "It is inevitably damaging to the credibility and impartiality of both the BBC and ITV if they do not fully resign from the CBI.
"As things now are, and at least up until the 30 May when the BBC suspension of membership comes into play, people in Scotland are receiving news from two self-declared No supporting broadcasters. That is simply not acceptable."

they also have fine tongues

Eomer appears to be the only one wearing a kilt of respectable length   

Hey wait a bloody minute- we are not talking about this!!!   

Wait, isn't testicular freedom on topic?  

No one is freeing my testicles! You never know what they might get up to   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No one is freeing my testicles! You never know what they might get up to   

I reckon that's why they call you Petty Tyrant   

Petty had obviously norced your thread, Halfwise. Good to see someone norced it back.   

  

 

Well the CBI fiasco of their own making has taken a turn towards humilation-

'Business lobby group the CBI has reversed its position as a registered campaigner against Scottish independence.
CBI director-general John Cridland confirmed the organisation had reversed its decision.
He said: "The CBI is politically independent and impartial.
"Although the decision to register with the Electoral Commission was taken in good faith, in order to carry out normal activities during the referendum period, it has inadvertently given the impression that the CBI is a political entity - we are not and never will be."
He added: "We have always said that the referendum is a decision for the Scottish people and we're not telling people how to vote.
"However, we do have a legitimate role as the UK's biggest business group in raising important questions on the big issues affecting businesses, jobs and growth, which we will continue to do."- BBC


But I doubt this is over, there is a problem now. The CBI have long been known to be in favour of the Union, they have supported the No side in-principle, and them signing up to the NO side officially only confirmed what most people already suspected.
And their position clearly has not changed going on this statement- so will all those who resigned sign right back up again or has the name CBI become to embroiled in peoples minds with the No campaign?

Did some more digging- you know how the CBI were stating a clear mandate and that they had the overwhelming support of their members? In fact the BBC report I quote from above repeats that exact quote still in the article, which is rather odd becuase of this- from the CBI statement (and not reported by the BBC in their report on this very statement) -

'Following a review by the CBI board and in the light of legal advice from its lawyers and Queen’s Counsel it has emerged that the application should not have been made: it did not have approval under the CBI’s normal corporate governance procedures and was not signed by an authorised signatory.'

So who did make the decision? And if no one authorised within the CBI signed off on it, who did? Were the government involved in the decision? And why aren't the BBC asking any of these questions? And why did they not mention this part of the statement in their report, especially when they have for days been publishing the contradictory CBI line that the CBI had a mandate to do this from members?

An interesting study that shows one of the reasons the SNP won a landslide, they have made an actual difference in pursuing policies different from those we would have was there no devolution and we had to do what Westminster wanted-

'Poverty levels in Scotland are falling and are now lower than in the rest of the UK, a report has said.
The report, Lower poverty in Scotland: pinning down the change, said the improvement in the Scottish poverty rate relative to that for the rest of the UK occurred after the year 2003-4.
It pointed out in England, the government had encouraged social landlords to charge rents closer to market levels.
The Scottish government has not pursued this policy, so rents have remained more affordable.
The report suggested if the situation had not improved in Scotland about 200,000 more people would have been living below the poverty line.'- BBC

If we were being ruled still solely by Westminster 200,000 people would be in poverty as a direct result of it (not to mention our NHS and teaching would be in the same mess and strike scenario as in England)

This is a good example of how the SNP have run things in the devolved areas they do have control over (and earned the trust of the electorate), and a strong argument for the Parliament and country being made independent and making all the decisions with no Westminster influence at all.

From the outside, it appears to be an almost irrefutable argument for gradual devolution, but unfortunately logic rarely wins in political contests.

The problem with that David are the other parties- when we had a Labour, and then a labour/lib dem coalition in the Scottish Parliament very little happened, there were far fewer differences between here and the rest of the UK because the Scottish Labour and Lib Dem parties ultimately are just parts of the main Westminster Labour and Lib Dem parties (same goes for the Tories but they are politically irrelevant in Scotland)- and thats who they answer to.

The SNP however dont have anyone else to answer to and so they have got loads done comparative to previous- so even policies Labour supporters in Scotland are in favour of- like free tuition- the Scottish Labour party stood against because it would have been the opposite policy of the Labour Westminster party- that sort of thing is one of the reasons the SNP got so many former Labour voters to vote for them in the Scottish elections, they could promise a different politics from Westminster that people approved of (and which privately many Scottish Labour MSP's would have liked to run the election on).

So getting more gradual power is not so easy- no matter what the Scottish party members might want, it has to chime with Westminster's line first and foremost.
There was a recent example of this where a Scottish Labour think-tank made proposals for the Scottish Labour to support further devolved taxation powers, with the Scottish Parliament gaining 90% of control over tax and spending- but when that leaked the Westminster Labour party went through the roof, and the final proposals that were made by Scottish Labour were so watered down as to be not worth changing.

That and every Westminster party has a different idea about what more devolution means, but they cant agree with each other, or even tell us what the extra devolved powers would be if we vote no. Only a vague- there would be more.

And to implement any changes whichever party it is has first to win a majority at Westminster and become the government- then they have to pass further devolution as law- and there is  no guarantee it would get passed through Westminster.

Actual real further devolution is less likely and a much longer shot at this moment in time than independence.

That's what I mean by "logic rarely wins". It's the same thing that's been standing in the way of an Israeli/Palestine solution for almost half a century. Everybody in the world knows pretty much what a 2 state solution looks like; everybody but the nut cases realizes it leads to a better future than the current path; everybody recognizes that it can be done best as a series of gradual changes rather than one huge, traumatic restructuring, but nobody has both the political cred and the balls to actually pull it off.

Which by the way reminds me of Norc's hair..... I wonder when we get pictures!   

I can post some of Viggo's hair if you like   

That's what I mean by "logic rarely wins"- David

Sort of. The position as it stands right now is that logically there is more standing in the way of getting further devolved powers of any worth than there is standing in the way of independence, which just requires voting yes.

I can post some of Viggo's hair if you like- Mrs Figg

  

'Flowing in the wind hair' Figgy ??  

 

 

Maybe Viggo was standing next to Boyens, her suggestions are often a load of hot air, easily enough to blow his hair so dramatically...

No Viggo here thank you very much!   



I like this initiative- seems a better way to blow 20million than most!

'Three Scottish universities are to receive £20m as part of a scheme to help Scotland meet its carbon emission reduction targets.
Strathclyde, Stirling and St Andrews universities will be given the Scottish government funding to build a number of new projects.
The money has been allocated through the Scottish Funding Council (SFC).
St Andrews University will receive £10m for a wood-fuelled biomass project at Guardbridge in Fife.
The plant will produce hot water to be pumped four miles underground to heat and cool laboratories and residences in the university.
Strathclyde University will receive £8m to construct a combined heat, power and district energy network, linking Strathclyde's campus with major energy users in the area.
A further £2m will be given to Stirling University for the installation of a combined heat and power plant to serve its main campus.'- BBC

The idea is give the cash to the uni's and so the future brains of the energy biz studying there will get a practical go at creating low carbon heating systems- worth a go. I''d rather they invested in the thinking of the future than most other things governments tend to spend money on.

Bluebottle wrote: 

Jesus is that you?