FREEDOM!!!! [3]

'Health service staff have formed a new group to campaign for a "Yes" vote in September's referendum on independence.
Co-founder of NHS for Yes, Dr Willie Wilson, said: "Independence offers us a unique chance to secure Scotland's health service - to protect it from future Westminster funding cuts, and the damaging impact of privatisation south of the border.
"We are fortunate that health is already devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it is a shining example of self-government for Scotland demonstrably being far better than Westminster government. But devolution is not enough.
"Privatisation and commercialisation are now rampant in the health service south of the border.
"This means that competitive tendering is now compulsory and GPs are obliged to consider which hospital offers the best deal rather than which will give the best outcome for patients.
"In Scotland, we are not going down this road - but the more Westminster cuts Scotland's budget, and the more the state withdraws from direct NHS provision in England, the greater Scotland's budget will be squeezed as a consequence because of the way the Scottish Parliament is funded.
"That is why it is vital that Scotland is in charge of all the revenue raised in Scotland with a 'Yes' vote and independence."
He added: "A 'Yes' vote will give us the protection our health service needs."- BBC

Looks like the political divide between Scotland and England just got a little wider- with UKIP doing well in English local council elections and with all the indications being they will do very well in the European election vote there too.
Whilst here all the indications are they have failed to win a single seat again.


And on the stupider side of the referendum the Treasury just published another scare monger filled report- which included the headline claim that Scotland would face an immediate 2.7 million bill needed to set up 180 Government departments to replace the UK ones.

Problem is the entire UK doesn't have 180 departments, it has 24!

No doubt the Treasury will blame it on a 'junior member of staff' who did not have the authority to sign off on the claim.   

In a feat of mindboggling defiance the Treasury are sticking by their claim Scotland would need to find 2.7mill to fund these imaginary 180 departments.

Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander said: "The Scottish government is trying to leave the UK but it won't tell anyone how much the set-up surcharge is for an independent Scotland."

The SNP Finance Minister John Swinney has said-

"This is deeply flawed analysis, underlined by the ludicrous and palpably false claim that an independent Scotland would need 180 government departments - something we have never claimed.
Much of the infrastructure needed for an independent country already exists, and Scottish taxpayers already pay their fair share for all devolved and reserved services."

In other words why would we need 180 government departments to run Scotland when the UK only has 24- and of those 24 we already have all the departments run and funded here for all the devolved issues.
So we probably need to set up about half of those 24, if even that.

The Treasury claims get more bizarre by the day.  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

The Treasury claims get more bizarre by the day.  

This was 5 days ago. How bizarre are they know, I wonder?  

extremely bizarre   

Even more bizarre than that.

There was so much happened in the last week, including the launch of the official campaign period, a raft of new reports that all contradicted each other, but no all that was guzumped by an announcement the other day- from the Tories of all people.

The Tories have put their offer on the table in the event of a NO vote- and it included full control of tax raising and spending- it goes, way further than the Labour party offer does, and is in fact in essence but without the name, Devomax.


Now if you remember way back to before the Yes/No question had been decided on their were strong calls for three options- Yes, No, and Devomax.

Salmond publicly said he wanted all options but it wasnt for him to come up with the devomax offer. Secretly he didnt want it as it is the most popular option and would spit the Yes vote down the middle.

Cameron didn't want it because he thought he was being clever, and with Yes at only 30% in the polls at the time he could get a No easily and not have to offer any more powers at all.
And by having a straight yes/no he believed a no vote would bury all talk of seperation for at least a generation.

But now the polls are down to anything from as little as a 2 point gap to a max of 10, nothing like a certain winning margin any more for Cameron, and if you project the creep in the Yes vote over the last year over the time remaining until the referendum, Yes win.

So it seems Camerons last ditch attempt is to put devomax back on the table but not on the ballot paper. He's bringing it in through the back door as a sweetener to a No vote.

But that it should be the Toruies- the party who voted against devolution when it happened, who should make an offer so far beyond even Labour, the party of devolution, that is the real shocker here.

Interesting indeed. Do the Tories have the clout to put their offer into effect? Because it seems to me that in the case of a yes/no vote for independence there's really no reason not to start implementing the new policies immediately IF they truly intend to follow through.

In the case of of a yes vote it's a moot point, and in the case of a no vote they've got a lot of work to do so they might as well get to it, right?

There is the problem for the No side David.

All the Unionist parties have their own offer of what will happen if there is a NO vote.

All of them base delivery of their promises on implementation when they become the sole majority party by winning the next UK General Election- next year.

Problem is there is little chance any of them will form a majority government- its more likely to be a minority led government or a coalition again.

And even once a party is elected they still have to legislate to move the power to the devolved government.
Then once that lengthy process is over it would still have to pas the House and into Law.
And that might not happen. And even if it does it then has to get through the Lords where it can be delayed for a considerable amount of time.

And as the final nail in the coffin of likelihood Cameron has already stated that such a devolution bill would not be in the first Queens Speech of his government if they win- the speech is the official announcement of planned legislation- they have to carry that stuff out, if its not in there then they dont have to carry it out in that term- which is five years.

And of course Scots have been here before, the devolution referendum of the 1970's, where Scots were promised many things if it was a No vote, none were delivered on and we got 13 years of Thatcher instead and the effective extinction of the Tories as a political party in Scotland.

So much for the NO campaign claiming that just having the referendum is negatively impacting the oil industry, and that uncertainty over what happens in the light of a YES is worrying the oil companies and investors-

'The North Sea oil and gas industry is unfazed by the prospect of Scottish independence, the authors of a report have suggested.
The Aberdeen and Grampian Chambers of Commerce (AGCC) study said more firms said independence would be positive rather than negative.
'While we find lots of interest in the referendum in the north east oil and gas community we do not find great concern about the result."
The research also suggested 37% of oil and gas firms were more confident about their future prospects...Confidence was further evidenced by the 35% of respondents who reported an upward trend in investment over the past 12 months, the report's authors said.'

Obama has commented on Scottish independence-

"The United Kingdom has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least, it looks like things have worked pretty well.
And we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner. (bold added)
But ultimately these are decisions that are to be made by the folks there."


Why is it when America says it has a 'deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner' I suspect skullduggery somewhere down the line?

Why wouldn't there be skullduggery when both nations are masters of the art?  

But if I were to read between the lines, I'd guess there might be some behind-the-scenes support of real devolution to preserve the union.

Good point about the skulldugery.

I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky the two current leaders of our countries are, by comparisons to the past, hopeless at skullduggery- Cameron doesn't have the subtlety to pull it off without giving the game away or bumbling it at every turn and Obama got caught red handed over international spying and now gives his backing to the UK government for a united UK in a public speech.

On the skullduggery chart those two have fallen off the bottom somewhere.


As to real devolution- its Scotch mist- its there from a distance but the closer you get to it the less and less clear it becomes until eventually it has just vanished.

The worlds largest art festival- The Fringe in Edinburgh just got bigger! Better take extra buckie this year!

'The range of entertainment on offer is the biggest ever, with 49,497 performances of 3,193 shows.
As well as ticketed shows there will be 825 free acts during the festival's run with 47 different countries represented.
To accommodate the larger line-up 299 venues will be used across the city.'- BBC

Bit of follow up and reaction to Obama's statement- the BBC Scottish political editor, Brian Taylor notes that this is a change in previous US comments on independence-

'The United States said that it would remain "neutral" in the debate over Scottish independence.
This position was articulated by the US ambassador to the UK, Matthew Barzun in October 2013.
In a BBC interview he said "we don't get into picking sides".
His predecessor Louis Susman said much the same thing in February 2013.
"We are neutral and we will just have to see what will happen" he told the BBC.
The position appears to have changed.'

And of course the Unionist side are all over it saying they-

'welcomed what he said was an "important contribution by President Obama" to the referendum debate.
Speaking on behalf of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, Mr Alexander said the US president's "clear statement of support for the UK staying together will resonate with many of us here in Scotland".
He added: "As a global statesman President Obama understands that interdependence is a defining feature of our modern world, and that building bridges, not putting up new barriers, is the challenge of our generation."


The YES side response has, in my view, been rather well pitched with a healthy dose of ironic humour to it.

Salmond responded with "Scottish Independence?- Yes we can!"

But my favourite quote comes from a 'senior figure' in the YES campaign-

"This is incredible. We hadn't expected them to run Obama until August. We must be doing well!"

 

It's hard for me to believe that one word inserted into a US presidential comment has any influence at all in a vote he has nothing to do with (Obama is Irish, after all.  ) Speaking of which, has North Ireland expressed an opinion on Scottish Independence?

That one word has been the main news headline and on the front page of every major newspaper since.

And the NO side are using it in answer to almost everything that happens- for example today a Scottish Labour MP, George Mudie, whose constituency is in England said if he was in Scotland he would be voting for independence.

The official response from the NO side and Labour?

'George Mudie is entitled to his opinion but we know the overwhelming majority of Scots share the view of the president of the United States Barack Obama that we are better together."


When it comes to propaganda dont underestimate to what shameless use the NO side will put that one word to.

In todays 'you couldn't make up' section of referendum news-

The Treasury put up a webpage supposedly to illustrate how Scots could spend the 1,400 quid the Treasury claims Scots would have making them better off if they vote NO (always struck me as odd then why we dont all have a spare 1,4000 quid right now seeing as we already in the bloody Union- but thats another matter, as is the 1,400 figure being disowned by the people whose research its supposedly based upon)- anyway the Treasury page was at best misguided and at worse patronising- suggesting we could all spend it on pies and hotdogs for example (no I dont know why hotdogs either) but if that on its own was not bad enough they then choose to illustrate these points in, LEGO. No really.

That is until LEGO themselves stepped into it and ordered them to take it down.

Farcical? Oh yes.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:we could all spend it on pies and hotdogs for example (no I dont know why hotdogs either)

 
Those are obvious euphemisms for....umm....flowers and vegetables.  

In an interview with the New Statesmen Alistair Darling, who is the head of the Better Together campaign and its 'Scottish' face compared Alex Salmond to Kim Jong-Il, but for me it was not the worst part of the interview, this bit was-

NS: Salmond has successfully redefined the SNP as [representing] a civic nationalism . . .
Darling: Which it isn’t . . .
NS: But that’s what he says it is. Why do you say it isn’t? What is it? Blood and soil nationalism?
Darling: At heart . . . [inaudible mumble] If you ask any nationalist, ‘Are there any circumstances in which you would not vote to be independent?’ they would say the answer has got to be no. It is about how people define themselves through their national identity.


I find this shocking in several ways at once.
Firstly he seems to be agreeing that the independence movement is a 'blood and soil nationalism'.
For those not familiar with that phrase it as an ideology most famously deployed by the Nazi party.

One of the other things that troubles me is is the suggestion that nationalist voters would vote YES no matter what.
I don't know anyone like this out of those I know are planning to vote Yes, I am not saying there are not such people, there are always zealots in any party and in any movement, but they certainly are a minority of people.

I am not voting YES on some notion of Scottish Nationalism I am voting YES because the circumstances seem to indicate its the right choice to make at this time.
I dont like the direction England is moving in politically, I find the democratic deficit between England and the other countries in the Union now too large to be ignored.
And the rise of a single London centric elite dominating all the major parties at Westminster indicates we no longer have anything resembling a Parliament of the people for the people. The very name, House of Commons is a bad joke.
And lastly I think a YES will spark a new period of creativity and productivity and confidence in Scotland, because for the last thirty years it has mainly been consent decline. And conversely I think a NO vote might spark a nationwide fall in confidence.

For once, drinking buckie and wearing a kilt really doesn't come into it.

Nowhere in my reasons for voting does some Braveheart notion of Scotland come into play that would make me vote YES under any circumstances, its the circumstances of current Britain that are driving it and have done to this point of having a referendum.

But there is no ill feeling towards the people of England, no sense of nation against nation, the working class are the majority in both countries and their lives will always have more in common than in difference.

This is about politics, about the direction we move in, and about democracy and what that should mean.
And it no longer seems possible to have any influence at Westminster to take England with us, they are going in the opposite direction, to Tories and UKIP and isolationism, so the only option is to dissolve our Union with the rest of the UK.
It appears the only way to maintain and secure our free education, a truly nationalised health service, free travel for the elderly and all the other things we have chosen to fight to keep hold of and Westminster as fought to rid itself of is to do this.
The Union is too broken to fix.

That Alistair Darling could so misread, or worse misrepresent, his own people in this way is for me the worst thing he does in this interview. Even if the current polls are perfectly accurate on the day and NO win, over 40% of the voters will still have come out for independence, to imply they are all blood and soil nationalistic, yes no matter what style nationalists is insulting.
And what of all the eligible to vote people who came here through migration, or from England, Wales or any bit of Ireland? What are they if they vote Yes? Have they too become blood and soil nationalists?

And if it is a YES there a few Scots Westminster politicians are going to find a cold reception in their own country for what they have said in this campaign about their own people. Darling and Alexander chief among them.

Interesting speech that for some reason is not being reported   from Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the top treasury figure in charge of making the Treasury case against Inependence.

He says much the sort fo thing you would expect someone in his position to be saying-

'“Apart from rescuing banks, I’ve spent a lot of time involved in the Eurozone crisis. Some of my colleagues got very closely involved with Cyprus and being a small country in a currency zone when things go wrong is not a happy place to be.
Britain would be taking a very big risk to go into a currency union on the basis of the proposals currently put forward by Mr Salmond.”
“I don’t want to scaremonger but you could envisage circumstances where you don’t want to be holding Scottish bank notes the day after. You could see businesses moving and people moving their money to London.”

All as expected, but interspersed inbetween the usual doom and gloom statements are give aways like these-

'“If there’s a Yes vote, Scotland will still be a prosperous economy.

“You can have very successful small countries. But if you create a border with independence you set in train a series of things which will tend to ensure the economies diverge. That may not be a bad thing."
“If you work hard enough at it you could create a currency union."
“I’m certain if Scotland became independent that it would get in the European Union and maybe it would get itself a very good deal."


And on the charge of misleading with the set up costs he said -“The Treasury misbriefed a key statistic... much to the chagrin of a leading professor at the LSE."


The problem for Sir Nicholas here is this speech was addressing a seminar at the Queen Mary University of London, so he obviously couldn't leave out the other side as much as usual, and in fact for the top guy employed to destroy the independence economic case he admits a lot here- that we would remain prosperous, that we would be accepted into the EU, that a currency union is possible and workable, and that the Treasury did indeed manipulate the figures in the start up costs report.

Things are on the move in the No campaign today.

First they are no longer Better Together, they have had a name change midstream to 'No Thanks'. (no really)
Make of that what you will.

Secondly after Cameron sold his soul to America to get Obama to bolster the NO side the Swedish Foreign Minister has entered the fray, entirely coincidentally I am sure to David Cameron being in Sweden at a meeting with other right wing European parties.

The Swedish Foreign Minister said, ""The Balkanisation of the British Isles is something we are not looking forward to. It opens up a lot, primarily in Scotland but also in the UK.
"What are the implications for the Irish question?" he asked. "What happens in Ulster?"

Unfortunately his choice of words were not particularly diplomatic with Salmond objecting to the comparison with what happened in the Balkans. And as two of those former states are now full EU members and the others are awaiting membership its also insulted them too, and they aren't happy about it.

The shadow Swedish Foreign Minister added, ""unfortunately we have a foreign minister with a specialty in insulting other nations. I think he's insulting the people of Scotland by comparing a democratic referendum with 'Balkanisation'."


However whilst this is what the press are focusing on I am far more concerned about that Irish reference.

If he was briefed by Camerons lot on what to say then Cameron is playing a bloody stupid and dangerous game here and betraying his ignorance of the persisting Irish question in the west coast of Scotland.
The SNP have been slowly but methodically putting those old fires out, but they aren't gone yet and bringing it into the independence debate will help no one, least of all Northern Ireland or my own bit of Scotland.

To be blunt if the NO campaign are going to try to use North Ireland as a political tool in this debate they are complete fuckwits who haven't got a clue the fire they are playing with.

Is it just me or does the O in NO in the new slogan with the white X in it remind anyone else of a dogs bum hole?