FREEDOM!!!! [3]

The Scottish Sun's front page today has the headline- 'SPLITTING DISTANCE' as the YES vote grows and the polls are down to 3 points between the sides.

Oh and Jim Murphy has mysteriously resumed his tour now he has made his political capital attempting to smear the YES campaign- the Sun sent along a journalist dressed as a chicken.

I definitely get the feeling the grass roots YES surge is growing.

Daily Record- 'Alex Salmond treated like a rock star as wellwishers flock to meet the First Minister in the street.
WELLWISHERS flocked to meet and greet Alex Salmond in Dundee, turning the First Minister's 5-minute walk back to his car into an impromptu 90-minute meet-and-greet with the locals in Dundee.
He ended up posing for more than 100 selfies with folk!









I just cant picture Alistair Darling getting that response if he ever deigned to walk among the people.
And I cant even visualise Cameron doing it all in Scotland.

Lance todays English Daily Mail provides an excellent example of what I was talking about- they also ran the poll result story but they prefaced it with some bulletin points in large bold-


Ok all three are basically about the same thing- NHS spending per head is higher in Scotland- and this is perfectly true.
Scotland has more of its population in rural areas than other part of the UK.
And because of the landscape it can be pretty inaccessible too. So we use helicopters a lot for transferring patients to centralised hospitals in the big cities who have all the best equipment.
But we dont get more money for this. Scotland gets a block grant from Westminster which it can decide how to spend.
Prioritising health was a SNP pledge, but it came at a price, the hospitals were centralised. SO now my local hospital only foes care for the elderly and accident emergency- i you need hospital treatment you have to be transferred across the Clyde to one of the main hospitals there. Its not free.
It is the same with tuition fees, they are free here because the SNP thought the principle was worth defending, but at a price. The price was fewer college places. Again its not free, its how they choose to spend the pot of money received from Westminster- they cant raise any money at all.
Also Scotland pays between 2 and 7% more into Westminster every year than it takes out. Westminster figures do not include oil revebue as they dont see it as a Scottish asset but a UK one, so they can avoid having to add it to the figures, nor do they include the 26% of our electricity that goes across the border or the tax raised from the very large tourist trade, and as all the seabed around the coast is 'Crown property' that doesn't count either, despite much of our export trade to England being seafood.

When you find excuses to remove all those out the figures it lets them make the claim to the English that England subsides Scotland.

And thats before you include intangibles- like having Trident here, or the navies only sea missile testing areas, or the hugely important to Westminster and NATO radar listening posts dotted all round the coast, or the refuelling depos for international and allied shipping.
And then there is the military personnel, which way will they choose- how many Scots will choose to join the new Scottish army? Groups like the SAS have traditionally being strong in Scottish representation, and indeed it was created by a Scot.
And then there is our world renowned science, tech and development, still world leaders in many areas. We have more listed top universities per head of population than any other country. We provide top level talent to the UK market place.

No the reasons for the NO side all uniting across the Westminster parties is because we are a net benefit to them. We cost less than we pay in and we provide you with essential things- military through all the things I mentioned, and civilian through electricity, water, oil and gas.

Yes.. and funnily enough it was westminster that had a hand in all of that being there. Its great that you mention all these things because it always sounds like (from the independents mouths) all e do is screw you over. But that is ok... I am sure you will be arguing to take everything you want and kick out everything you don't and then wonder why, if it comes to it, the rest of the U.K tells you to bugger off when it comes to things like currency etc.

I like Jim Murphy, he's got balls. Wont let the knuckle draggers intimidate him.

Yes.. and funnily enough it was Westminster that had a hand in all of that being there.- Lance

They didn't put the oil there, they didn't put the mountains there that make it well suited to hydro, they didn't put the coast there that the Crown claims.

'Its great that you mention all these things because it always sounds like (from the independents mouths) all e do is screw you over.'
'I am sure you will be arguing to take everything you want and kick out everything you don't'

Then you are not listening carefully enough. The YES position is that in the event of a YES, Scotland takes on all of its share of UK debt in return for its fair share of the assets.
They want a currency union because the independent panel of experts found it was in the best interests of Scotland and RUK. Sharing assets as the SNP wish to do is the most sensible option for all sides and the least acrimonious and will cause the least upheaval.
But it is Westminster who are whipping up the idea England pays for us and the SNP want all the good stuff without any bad.
Its dangerous and cavalier.

The arguments being made that Scotland pays in more than it takes out are not to make the case England is screwing us, but to make the case we would be a financially stable country if we were to go it alone.
It is Westminster who are refusing any negotiations or sensible dialogue.
The Electoral commission has twice demanded Westminster parties open discussion to provide clarity on key points like the currency and the EU and NATO, and it is they who have refused to do so.

'the rest of the U.K tells you to bugger off when it comes to things like currency etc. '

It is highly unlikely they will do so if there is a YES vote. It is not in RUK's interest to put up trade and personal barriers with an independent Scotland. It would cost English business, and Scottish, more to do business. And it would devalue the pound somewhat as oil revenue would no longer be backing it.

There isnt much oil revenue left to be had. And they may mot negotiate on currency other than 'you can use it, but we set the policy' as scotland having a say it that could be seen as costing more in the long term. You are counting too many chickens just like Salmond is. What if we say no and you either have to go with the euro or your own? You will already need to set up lots of governing bodies as it is, especially if you want to have some kind of credit worthiness attached to your economy.

The whole situation still feels completely wrong to me both the way I feel that your lot are papering over some huge cracks but also the way Westminster are being a bunch of idiots. We really do not need more divisions.... people just need to get a grip on reality.

There isnt much oil revenue left to be had.- Lance

Even the most pessimistic accounts say there is as much left as has been taken out.
Norway and Scotland discovered oil about the same time, Norway have a very large secure oil fund because they had the wisdom to set one up from the start. The UK didnt- we pissed it all away and spent it.
Scotland could however start one with independence and it would be comparatively as large as Norways is now in 50 years.
An oil fund also acts as a stabilizer on volatile oil prices.
And there is 50 years of oil left at least, and there are new fields in the west coast not yet exploited, and in fact we just discovered recently there is rather a lot of oil in the easy to get at Clyde, the reason it has not been exploited is that the nuclear submarine fleet come through there on the way to Faslane so the MOD blocked all knowledge of it from the public until it recently leaked.

'What if we say no and you either have to go with the euro or your own?'

Neither in fact. Plan B is sterlingisation, which in fact is favoured by quite a few economists in Scotland. It means no lender of last resort, however in countries which have this the banking sector is usually good as the shareholders, not the tax payers have to bail out banks that make bad decisions.

'You are counting too many chickens just like Salmond is.'

I would say that we are looking at the assets of the country versus the risk. And the more people who do that find themselves swayed towards the YES position.
And the YES campaign does not consist of Salmond, or event the SNP. There a broad church of smaller and independent parties supporting YES as well as scores of grass roots movements not affiliated with any party, and entirely separate entities such as Business for YES that are not part of any official party.
And if we get independence the SNP may well dissolve having achieved their primary aim, and if it doesn't there is no guarantee they will win the first elections in an independent Scotland.
To characterise the YES side as just Salmond as the english media like to do is a gross misrepresentation of the movement for YES. A vote for YES is not a vote for Salmond or the SNP but for independence.

I think I mentioned that I was in Alaska in the 1980's when a referendum on "relationships to the United States other than Statehood" was held. The Alaska Independence Party has always been a fairly major 3rd party (believe it or not, Sarah Palin is a moderate up there )

Anyway, these things come up from time to time in Alaska, for many of the same reasons as in Scotland, and they always hit the speed-bump of legality which got me wondering about how legal and binding the upcoming Scottish referendum is. So I went to Wikipedia and found this:

wikipedia wrote:The Edinburgh Agreement (full title: Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland) is the agreement between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government, signed on 15 October 2012 at St Andrew's House, Edinburgh, on the terms for the Scottish independence referendum, 2014.

Both governments agreed that the referendum should:

   have a clear legal base
   be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
   be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people
   deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

The governments agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to allow a single-question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014 so to put beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for the referendum.

The agreement was signed by David Cameron, Prime Minister; Michael Moore, Secretary of State for Scotland; Alex Salmond, First Minister; and Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister.

The legal status of the agreement is a matter of academic discussion.

If I'm reading this right, the referendum passing will lead directly to a court battle before independence is even an option.  Does that sound right?

looks like Salmond hasnt thought this through properly. Plan B down the toilet already.

Independent Scotland could not join EU without central bank, expert says
Former European commissioner for monetary union says plan to use pound without formal currency deal is 'simply not possible'
The former EU commissioner for monetary union said it would not be possible for an independent Scotland to join the EU if it used the pound without a formal currency deal or its own central bank.

Olli Rehn, who stood down in July as the European commissioner for monetary union and the euro, wrote to Danny Alexander, the chief secretary of the Treasury, this week to say having a central bank was an essential requirement of EU membership.

Now an MEP, Rehn said in a letter published on Tuesday night that Alex Salmond's apparent plan to use the pound without the formal permission of London – a policy known as "sterlingisation" – would "simply not be possible".
Rehn said the currency issue arose because "that would obviously imply a situation where the candidate country concerned would not have a monetary authority of its own and thus no necessary instruments of the EMU" [economic and monetary union].

He wrote that a core part of any new membership negotiation was for the applicant to commit themselves to EMU, and that implied the "will and expected capacity" to meet the tests for joining the euro – a policy Salmond has repeatedly rejected
Alexander said Rehn's views were a fatal blow to repeated suggestions by Salmond that an independent Scotland could use the pound freely if the UK government refused to set up a formal sterling zone.
Alexander said sterlingisation "is not only a bonkers idea, which flies in the face of any reasonable notion of what independence means and which would impose costs and risks on people and businesses in Scotland, it is also incompatible with Scotland's smooth re-entry into the EU".

David - I believe that is right, however Westminster makes a lot of noise about listening to the will of the people when it comes to things like this. Gibraltar and the Falklands arguements would fall apart if the Scottish people voted for independence and were not allowed it. Although I could see something get in the way if it is as close as it looks like it will be.

Figgy - Salmond says it will happen remember.. he must be right.

David- in Scots law the Agreement signed would count as a gentleman's agreement- whose legality is defined as-

'A gentleman's agreement is an oral agreement between two or more parties, usually based on a handshake or an understanding of trust. In the United Kingdom, the legal standing of such an agreement would depend on whether the parties intended to be legally bound by the agreement.'

Given the document signed and hand shook on was passing into law powers from Westminster to Scotland to conduct the referendum and abide by the results I would think most courts would see that as an intention for the agreement to be legally bound.
But unless it was ever needed to be tested in court it technically is a matter of legal academic discussion.
But for the reasons Lance gives it is highly unlikely Westminster would try to go back on such a publicly signed document and declaration made in such a manner.

Figg- I had to go on a right old hunt to find that story- but eventually found it in a newspaper.
The first thing to strike is that if there is a straight forward rule saying no central bank no entry the ex-commissioner would have said so, instead they use words like 'imply', which has been a NO side tactic in scare stories since the beginning. And is one of the ways usually to spot them.
Also why would an ex-commissioner be writing to the NO side to tell them this, instead of an official EU source informing the Scottish government of it? Sterilisation has been the plan B option in the White Paper since it was published months ago. Why now when the Unionist scare tactic of 'vote YES no pound' has spectacularly failed to work?
It smells fishy. But I shall wait and see if the story develops any or is picked up by any other news outlets.


'Salmond says it will happen remember.. he must be right.'- Lance

I am assuming you never watched the vid on bias, as you seem guilty off one of the major ways it is perpetrated right there- reducing the arguments of a broad church coalition of people and parties to all sound like the ideas of one single man in order to undermine the arguments. Its entirely disingenuous.

On the earlier discussion of membership of Nato Dame Mariot Leslie, former UK Ambassador to NATO up until this year said-

'“I am sure that it would be in Scotland’s interest to join Nato and to continue to anchor our own defence in a wider alliance of western democracies. But I am also in no doubt that the other 28 Nato allies would see it in their interests to welcome an independent Scotland into Nato. No ally would wish to interrupt the integrated Nato defence arrangements in the North Sea and North Atlantic – least of all at a time of heightened tension with Russia.”
“A democratic, non-nuclear Scotland with strong military and technological traditions would fit naturally alongside similar Nato members in northern Europe,” she says.
Dame Mariot is an Edinburgh-born and educated former director-general for defence and intelligence at the Foreign Office.'- Scotsman

Even the BBC seem to have finally stopped pandering to the scare stories now and are dismissing them for the nonsense they are, this from a car-crash interview with Willie Rennie (leader of the Scottish Lib-dems) for No from yesterday-

Lancebloke wrote:David - I believe that is right, however Westminster makes a lot of noise about listening to the will of the people when it comes to things like this. Gibraltar and the Falklands arguements would fall apart if the Scottish people voted for independence and were not allowed it. Although I could see something get in the way if it is as close as it looks like it will be.
.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:David- in Scots law the Agreement signed would count as a gentleman's agreement- whose legality is defined as-

'A gentleman's agreement is an oral agreement between two or more parties, usually based on a handshake or an understanding of trust. In the United Kingdom, the legal standing of such an agreement would depend on whether the parties intended to be legally bound by the agreement.'

Given the document signed and hand shook on was passing into law powers from Westminster to Scotland to conduct the referendum and abide by the results I would think most courts would see that as an intention for the agreement to be legally bound.
But unless it was ever needed to be tested in court it technically is a matter of legal academic discussion.
But for the reasons Lance gives it is highly unlikely Westminster would try to go back on such a publicly signed document and declaration made in such a manner.

OK, then help me understand this.

In the case that the referendum passes and the agreement is only as binding as a handshake with no details determined at this point, what would be the most likely next step?

In other words, how do you get the road map you'll need to proceed toward an independent Scotland? A government commission to study the process?

If so, this could take a while, couldn't it?

'Salmond says it will happen remember.. he must be right.'- Lance

'I am assuming you never watched the vid on bias, as you seem guilty off one of the major ways it is perpetrated right there- reducing the arguments of a broad church coalition of people and parties to all sound like the ideas of one single man in order to undermine the arguments. Its entirely disingenuous.' Petty

Its not disingenuous. Its called 'Being Ironic' Petty.

edit. please dont post any more of those hideous photos with that smug mug Salmond up close and personal. I had just eaten, it turned my stomach.

how do you get the road map you'll need to proceed toward an independent Scotland? A government commission to study the process?

If so, this could take a while, couldn't it?- David

The agreement for that is already in place, and was contained in the signed document.
In the event of a YES vote there is a preset 18 month period in which negotiations take place, during that time Scotland remains a member of the UK. Independence day follows that period of negotiations.

'Its not disingenuous. Its called 'Being Ironic' Petty.'

I dont think so, it is one of the most commonly, and cheapest tricks used by the NO campaign to try to undermine the YES position, making it all seem to be the idea of one power mad person. And that is utterly disingenuous to the broad coalition movement which in reality forms the YES campaign.

well he is power mad.

No, that really is just a propaganda myth.

more from Project Hypocracy....

Alex Salmond accused of 'hypocrisy' over warnings about privatisation of NHS

Scotland's First Minister is criticised for claiming the health service would be saved from privatisation by a yes vote after it emerged Glasgow's health bosses have awarded a big private contract.

Alex Salmond has been accused of “rank hypocrisy” and “duplicity” over his campaign on the NHS after it emerged that the health service in Glasgow has awarded a major contract to a private slimming company.

The First Minister has repeatedly claimed in recent weeks that the only way to save the health service from privatisation in Scotland is a Yes vote in the independence referendum.
His political opponents said he was scaring the vulnerable with lurid warnings while at the same time “nodding through NHS contracts to independent providers”.
The Telegraph has learned that Weight Watchers, the US-based international weight loss company, has won a two-year contract to provide 4,000 overweight patients with weight management guidance in the west of Scotland.
The move will take a large proportion of the patients currently seeking help for weight-related problems out of NHS care in the city, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and Dunbartonshire.
The contract is a major embarrassment for Mr Salmond, who has been warning that increasing privatisation of the English NHS will lead to cuts in health spending that will be passed on to Scotland.

One NHS source told the Telegraph he was “furious” when he heard about the contract, adding: “This is mendacious and hypocritical behaviour by the Scottish Government. I have been listening to Alex Salmond?s comments on the health service in Scotland in disbelief.”
Neil Findlay, Scottish Labour’s health spokesman, said the contract was “yet more evidence of the duplicity of the SNP”.
He added: “They are desperately scaremongering about the privatisation of the NHS in the event of a No vote, while all the time they are actively handing out contracts to the private sector.

“There is no depths to which they will not stoop and no lie they will not tell to try and win this referendum. It is shameful.”
The SNP’s decision to highlight alleged threats to the NHS, despite the fact that health is a devolved issued, has been credited with improving the Yes campaign’s showing in opinion polls.
But Mr Salmond’s statements on the issue have been contradicted by a raft of opinion from politicians and leading figures in health care.
Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, recently unveiled research showing that each Scot currently receives pounds200 more in health care spending a year than the average Englishman.

The claims were also dealt a blow by figures uncovered by the Daily Record showing that the NHS in Scotland had spent nearly pounds100million on sending patients for private treatments since 2011, while Prof Alan Rodger, former medical director of the renowned Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, has also accused the SNP of scaremongering.
Telegraph

“There is no depths to which they will not stoop and no lie they will not tell to try and win this referendum. It is shameful.”

Very British! This is the kind of rhetoric our news services always features when they show us clips of your Parliamentary debates. For some reason we Americans find it endlessly entertaining!

Interesting questions below, and I still havent heard anything coming from the SNP that will counter these arguments.

''
The facts are that the UK economy is rising at a rate higher than all of Europe and most of the world. We’ve got it good, and all of the figures show we are getting better and stronger by the day.

So why would we want to walk away from all of that?

I honestly can’t say. The SNP plan (and it’s on their leaked paper with Salmond’s and Swinney’s signatures on it) that they will slash Public Sector jobs, cut benefits and double immigration, creating a more competitive job market. Add to that a devalued pound (or whatever currency they want to use – again, see my posts below for more on this issue) hyper-inflation, the loss of jobs in Banking, Pensions & Investments and Financial Services, in Ship-Building, in Defence (all those jobs with BAE, Selex, Babcock, Thales, Marconi and more), NHS cuts…keep going and what do we get? A vast amount of unemployed people, no opportunities, lower average wages and a vast lack of investment from the rest of the UK.

The SNP has been throwing millions of pounds of UK money into small businesses of late in order to make a case for independence, growth and success, but this is not Scotland’s money…it’s the UK’s. Scotland gets, at present, a 60% cash injection from the rest of the UK to fund this. Again, under a yes vote, this will all dry up. again…why would anyone want to walk away from all of this?

I know it’s not brilliant out there for many, but a change to independence is not the answer. Alex Salmond has appealed to the poorest and most vulnerable to support him, and has then abolished the Right to Buy scheme, condemning tens of thousands to life on the schemes and estates with their way out blocked, whilst building tens of thousands of new homes for his projected level of immigrants. The same people who need hope are being flattened by the back door in Scotland. Scots are not allowed to move up into these houses, because it is not for the Scots. These, which Salmond sees as a useless generation who have had their chance and lost it, are to be swept quietly away to make room for others whom he sees as potentially more useful and most probably cheaper too. Peddling in other people’s hope is, to me, disgusting.

I know there’s some animosity over the rest of the UK – England bears the brunt of this, but we are all benefiting. We are all on the same side. We are all – whatever our nationality, just poor people trying to make our way in the world, and this man would hammer his own people to get what he wants. Would take away hope and give it to others. Put bluntly, Romania is not going to give Scotland a 60% cash injection, now is it?

We really and truly are Better Together – sometimes we might not like it, but we are cousins, neighbours – all of us stuck here on this same lump of rock and doing our best for our families. When the flag-waving and shouting has died down, we must look at what we are left with….and every statistic says to Vote NO. ''

rickydphillipsblog

Sadly Im afraid Figg that story is old news here and long since rubbished.
It is a good example however how the no side and the no media can make a case by combing two entirely separate issues and making out they are the same thing.

The risk to the NHS the YES camp (Including NHS for YES) claim exists comes from the manner in which Scotland is funded. The Barnett Formula stipulates that for every 4 quid per head spent on NHS in England and Wales Scotland gets 1.
However England has been embarking on a gradual increase in private sector providers in the NHS that is way beyond what is happening in Scotland's NHS which is still in the main public.
But it means there is the very real chance in the near future Westminster will be therefore paying less per head in England and Wales, meaning an automatic cut in the money awarded to Scotland.
We cant raise our own revenue, so the only way to make up the shortfall would be to cut NHS services, or cut other services to transfer money into the NHS.
That is the threat articulated by the YES side.

You will notice none of this actual substance of the argument gets within spitting distance of the nonsense written in that article you quoted above. It doesn't even mention the funding issue at the heart of it, just tries to make out the SNP are anti-private sector (they aren't which is why Scottish Labour used to dub them the Tartan Tories) and that its about them getting caught out involving the private sector. When the NHS argument has nothing to do with that but is about funding from Westminster and what is likely to happen to it under a Tory government (which looks most likely next year)
They are in fact trying to make an entirely false account of the position whilst avoiding all together the real claims and doubts raised over future NHS funding in Scotland.

These sort of counter stories came about after Salmond beat Darling in the last tv debate so clearly, and one of the areas Darling floundered badly was on the NHS, as he could not bring himself to say that leaving the NHS in Tory hands was better. And the NHS is a key factor in deciding undecided voters according to polling. Especially female voters.
So we got a spate of these stories trying to cover up the actual issue and try to turn it back on the YES camp.

That piece you put up in blue Figg is full of utter ridiculous statements that beggar belief- is it meant to be a satire of the No campaign?!

Favourites among them-

'hey will slash Public Sector jobs, cut benefits and double immigration, creating a more competitive job market. Add to that a devalued pound (or whatever currency they want to use – again, see my posts below for more on this issue) hyper-inflation, the loss of jobs in Banking, Pensions & Investments and Financial Services, in Ship-Building, in Defence (all those jobs with BAE, Selex, Babcock, Thales, Marconi and more), NHS cuts…keep going and what do we get? A vast amount of unemployed people, no opportunities, lower average wages and a vast lack of investment from the rest of the UK.'

They really need to read the White Paper which sets out the case in all areas.
This is basically an amalgamation of the doom laden NO rhetoric that the sky will fall in on our heads the instant we vote no. Its pathetic and belittles the country. We are too wee and stupid to be an independent country like every other independent country. No we are not.
Its this sort of spurious rubbish that has seen the No side slip from a 22 point lead in their favourite poll to 4 in less than 8 weeks.

'this is not Scotland’s money…it’s the UK’s.'

Um no actually it is our money. What we spend is what we are given by Westminster to spend, and its less than we put in to the pot. But it comes form revenue raised here.

'Scotland gets, at present, a 60% cash injection from the rest of the UK to fund this. '

Only if you are so stupid you only read one side of the balance sheet. There is nothing there about all the revenue going the other way to the Treasury which outweighs our costs. Unlike Westminster the Scottish Parliament has balanced its budget every single year the SNP have been in charge of it.

'Alex Salmond has appealed to the poorest and most vulnerable to support him, and has then abolished the Right to Buy scheme'

The right to buy scheme was scrapped on the back of popular consent. A Thatcher initiative that lead directly to the current housing stock crisis in the UK. With council housing being snapped up cheaply by landlords and rented on for huge profits, whilst consecutive Westminster parties failed to replenish the housing stock by building new social housing.
The end result was a major problem in housing people. So it was scrapped, and no one here is sorry to see it go. I am confused as to how they can think ensuring and providing decent quality housing for the poor and working classes is being bad to them!

And on the other side of the problem-