FREEDOM!!!! [3]

Well at long last the BBC have finally made up their mind what to do about their membership of the CBI- bugger all!

"The BBC had said it would suspend its membership during the campaign period, but announced that this was "no longer necessary" given the CBI's new stance."

Yup because everyone in Scotland believes the CBI 'accidentally' signed up to the official NO campaign and are entirely impartial   

'The National Union of Journalists has again indicated it believes membership could be seen to compromise journalistic impartiality.'- BBC

No shit Sherlock!  

So out of everyone who resigned or suspended their membership only the BBC seems to believe that is "no longer necessary" the rest have remained outside until after the referendum.

I guess the BBC have pretty clearly nailed their colours to the mast as well as trashed their reputation as being fair and impartial.

I think it was their fawning Thatcher obituary last year that first gave me pause, but I too have been disappointed by the BBC's direction recently. I should probably start shopping around for a new home page for my browser.

There i anew set of maps, an atlas of Scotland as it were, astonishingly the first dedicated map of Scotland in detail since the 19th Century.

'The atlas also explores topics including population distribution, employment patterns and transport links.
Researched and designed over nine months by Glasgow-based architects Lateral North, and comprising 35 different maps and an array of visuals, the atlas has been described as a "renewables manifesto" by its creators.
They said it was the first dedicated atlas of Scotland published since the 19th Century.'- BBC News


Among the many interesting facts included were these-

83.1% of land in Scotland is owned by private landowners - and of the private land 50% is owned by 432 people

Scotland has 25% of Europe's offshore wind resources

Scotland has 25% of Europe's tidal potential and 10% of its wave potential

Scotland's peak energy requirement is 10.5GW. The full wind energy capacity of Scotland is 159GW.

In 2013 Orkney generated 103% of its renewable capacity, but a lack of connection with the mainland meant a £3m loss in energy

There are 7,000 possible 5MW hydro schemes available in Scotland.



And the Unionists try to tell us we'd be too poor to manage?

looks like normal democracy is impossible while only 400 people own Scotland.

It's no better anywhere else. People tend to think it's more equitably distributed than it really is.

But 400 people own 80% how can that ever be a democratic distribution of wealth? this means the rich will just get richer, all the possible benefits of Independence will go straight in their pockets specially if they own land on or near the coastline. it means Independence will only benefit those living in cities and towns not owned by individuals.

That's the way things ARE and ARE GOING throughout the world, not just Scotland.

If you give up on democracy in Scotland you have to scuttle it everywhere else as well. But no, it doesn't help the democratic process, not one bit.   

Scotland has democracy. the UK isnt bongo bongo land.

Wealth inequality is a serious issue in countries the world over, including the entire UK.

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/tags/wealth

All I'm saying is that if you suggest Scotland would be worse off after independence because they have a greater wealth inequality, is that this is true everywhere.

damn quote button next to edit button.   

In terms of wealth redistribution it doesn't really matter how many people own the land- the wealth is redistributed through the tax system.
So long as they pay their fair share and what they should pay on the land they own the amount of revenue raised is the same if its 10 or 10,000 people owning the land.

The land being owned by the very few has been the way its been in Scotland since before the Clearances, indeed it was because so much of the land was owned by the very wealthy that the Clearances happened at all.

In one way the aristos have protected the land from being built on, so maybe its not all bad. If said land had been put into the hands of town halls or speculators a lot of our greenbelt land could have been turned to concrete in the 60s and 70s, and once its gone its gone forever.

There certainly is truth in that.
And whilst most of the land is owned by the very few the land is not unavailable to the masses.
Its not like in England and "Get orf my land!".

There are rules, but the trespass laws here are different.
Bar obvious things, like charging right through the middle of a flock of sheep or over someone's crops or hiking across military ground you can go most places.
You can only be done for trespass if it can be proven that you have caused damage, or endangered livestock or wildlife or done some other bloody stupid thing you deserve all you get for.

There is an estate not far from me, Hafton Estate (its mainly a caravan park now    ) but when I was a kid it was all natural forest. And on the north side, just beyond the north Gate House there was an old mill and mill pond (Ill see if I can find any pics anywhere of it).
Anyway around this pond were ancient tall chestnut trees, and every autumn my mum would take my brother and I to gather conkers (a popular playground sport of the time come Autumn).

We did this year after year from when I was about 5 or 6 until I was about 12.

I went back there a few years ago for the first time, and noted the mill had been done up and converted into something modern, and expensive looking. And the road which passes through the estate and exits out by the north Gatehouse onto the public road, was now fenced and gated off at both sides.

So I called out to see if anyone was there, got no response, opened the gate and went thorough and carried on.

And was quickly confronted by a bunch of upper middle class English people who seemed to have been in the middle of a garden party on the other side of the mill house somewhere and who were now outraged at me being on their property. The mill had become a rich persons summerhouse.

I pointed out that I had every right to continue along the road, and they were in fact breaking the law by having locked gates barring entry and exit.
The main guy got pretty angry and said he was a London lawyer and I was trespassing and he was going to call the police.
So I told him to call the police and sat down to wait.
He tried to physically move me, eventually gave up and went and phoned the police.

They arrived, listened to him bluster on about being a lawyer, then politely informed him he was in the wrong country, that unless he could show I caused damage to the property in some way that I had every right to pass through, and that further he was breaking the law by barring progress with a locked gate at either end and was now facing a fine.
And finished by asking me if I wished to press charges for assault.

I let him sweat before declining and going on my way.   

  I love it when arrogant blusterers get pulled down a peg or two.

Good for you standing your ground!

But do people have any expectation of privacy? Or do they just expect that if you want privacy you should pull your curtains?

I know it may not seem it, but I can, on occasion, be a bit stubborn!

And arrogant blusterers as Figgs wonderfully put it make me crabbit   


When it comes to privacy its a matter of common sense really.

If I had gone wandering abut their garden or something they would have been within their right to complain and the police would have questioned me and moved me on. Not for trespassing, but because I would not be able to give a good enough reason for why I had to be in their garden.

But in this case they had blocked about 100 yards of road off just because it passed by their posh house and they didn't want the riff raff using it.
But you cant just block off right of ways (and the alternative route round from there is at least a mile long to get a destination 100 yards away by their house) and that road has been there at least 200 years.

Its not like people can just go through your garden for a short cut- there is plain good manners to take into account too- which is why I called out before I went through their gate to see if anyone was about so I could inform them I was passing through- that was just me being polite, I didn't have to do that.

Its more when you go out and about in the countryside. Bar farmers fields with livestock in them or crops, Ministry of Defence, Royal land and a few other exceptions the rest is open to all.
The forestry for example own a lot of the land on the hillsides, but they cant, and wont, try to stop people going for walks along their forestry roads or even through the forests themselves.

Seems like a common sense enough approach. People around here are far too uptight about privacy for common sense to apply, though.

the only reason I wouldnt risk walking on somebodys land is dogs, if they have dogs loose, its curtains. its too late once they have bitten you.

Only if they a) have rabies or b) are trained as attack dogs.

From my experience when dogs are being territorial they typically only bite once, and if you move off they feel they've made their point and other than barking at you will not bite again.

Then there's the dogs who just 'don't get it' (being the lovable knot-heads they are), like my friend's dog Jay.

We were off to visit him after a bar, called and he said he wouldn't be home for about 20 minutes so why don't we go through the dog door and wait for him?

So I wiggle and squeeze through the dog door, then Matthew wiggles and squeezes through the dog door, and being a married gentleman, turns around to unlock the door to let his wife in (such a thought would never occur to me, sort of evading the point of the whole thing to my mind).  So he pulls on the door to find it was unlocked the whole time!

Then we turn to start up the stairs into the house proper only to find Jay there, tongue lolling out and tail wagging.  He had been quietly watching the whole proceeding with great interest, not the least dismayed to find people invading his property though his door.  Some guard dog.    I've heard of someone going into another friends dark house by the same approach, only to be caught by a huge bull dog enthusiastically licking her face when she was halfway through.

thats a nice dog acustomed to humans, I mean the feral ones kept outdoors all day with nothing but the human owner with food to relate to, some dogs are kept just as guard dogs and are pretty scary. theres a dog the neighbours own, its a sheep dog ( Maremma is the breed) they are bred to scare off and attack wolves, they have no fear and are hugely territorial, once it jumped up at me and clawed my legs, *shudder* dogs dont like me, I think they can smell cat, or eels   here they let guard dogs roam loose because wild boar destroy the crops and you have to go about with a stick just in case.

maremma sheep dogs are really cute fluffy White dogs, its a shame they are so aggressive but they werent bred to be with humans. people buy them thinking they are like labradors but they son get a nasty shock when they tear the leg off the postman.   

House dogs and farm dogs ain't the same category, assuredly. 'cept for the farm dogs that come in and curl up on the couch with you.

farm dogs are lovely once they know you are accepted by the farmer.  

cept maybe Farmer Maggots dogs   

Remember the CBI mess and how they blamed the whole mess on a "honest mistake" made by a "relatively junior" member of the organisation who was "operating outside of their authority".

Well turn s out that junior member was- 'CBI head of campaigns Richard Maughan and senior campaigns advisor Jon Harrison'

Now forgive me if they dont sound like relatively minor members- and nor do they seem to have been acting outside their authority given they signed up to the No campaign and they are in charge of campaigns.

Lies, lies and damned lies.