Isn't just more likely that it will split and that (a) the two new business will co-operate on some material and (b) the two new businesses will buy content from each other? Frankly, I'm not seeing this as a major issue.
We already have BBC Scotland which creates its own national programs/news while also scheduling the majority from the central organisation. Also we have different requirements e.g. Gaelic programs which would continue.
I don't see any radical changes happening when it comes to the Beeb. I suppose we would pay money to a Scottish TV Licensing agency instead.
The better together campaign is rapidly becoming known as bitter together.
But only in New Zealand
Ben, cheers for that
But again, considering the importance of the matter at hand remarkably short on information.
Don't misinterpret me, there's no hidden agenda in my questioning. Just genuinely looking for more data than I'm seeing.
One of the issues with the No campaign is that there is no agreement on what a post-referendum Scotland would look like. Ruth Davidsons "line in the sand" has been redrawn so many times its embarrasing, the LibDems long-avowed policy of a federal UK seems to have vanished without trace and the Labour Party in Scotland can't hold a policy together. Throw in moves to stop "Scottish" MPs voting on English-only matters, an EU referendum and the further downgrading of the UKs AAA rating and it's pure guesswork as to what the UK will look like. But that's just the nature of politics. Asking questions now about what sort of policies an Independent Scotland might adopt in 2016 is equally fraught with difficulty yet any uncertainty is being painted as something unique to the Yes case.
All we can really do at this point is look at the general direction in which we'd like to travel, either a more unequal society (by any independent measure) or somewhere that cares a bit more about the less advantaged.
All we can really do at this point is look at the general direction in which we'd like to travel, either a more unequal society (by any independent measure) or somewhere that cares a bit more about the less advantaged.
Not hard to guess which is which eh.
It's been a subject I've been discussing with my gf, I'd only feel comfortable voting on the matter if the plan was to stay in Scotland long term or until I croak.
Which seems increasingly likely as of late.
All we can really do at this point is look at the general direction in which we'd like to travel, either a more unequal society (by any independent measure) or somewhere that cares a bit more about the less advantaged.
I think it's even more fundamental than that: Simply, do we want to be free to decide for ourselves?
Scotland hasn't mattered in the UK for a long time - the way we vote doesn't matter, our opinions don't matter, nothing we can do will change the situation - apart from this. We can decide to be able to decide things for ourselves.
I hope Scotland will be a better place after independence, but that doesn't affect my decision.
You know what, I'm really quite pleased that you've both deconstructed your decision making on this to the degree that you have.
For me, doing so seems the right thing to do.
We're in for a long phony war stage in the campaign where neither said will make clear statements about what life in an independent Scotland for fear of the other side ripping their position to pieces So the yes campaign will carry on avoiding specific details of how policies will be financed and Better Together will feed us a diet of rumours and scare stories.
gordimhor - Member
...the yes campaign will carry on avoiding specific details of how policies will be financed...
I hope so, because that's the sort of thing we want to decide after we're free.
[quote=epicyclo ]
I hope so, because that's the sort of thing we want to decide [b]after we're free.[/b]
I hate that phrase. We're already "free" - free to choose.
scotroutes - Member
"epicyclo »
I hope so, because that's the sort of thing we want to decide after we're free."
I hate that phrase. We're already "free" - free to choose.
We have been granted the freedom to choose, we're not free, we are subjects.
When we are citizens, we will be free. There is a difference.
Epicyclo that's exactly why the yes campaign are tactically right to avoid specifics, although it's also just plain sensible not to say what their position will be in 18 months and assuming the yes campaign win when the UK government in conjunction with better together is not going to say what its negotiating position will be in the event of a yes vote. Like i said we're in for a long phony war stage.
we're not free, we are subjects.
Epicyclo, earlier:
[img] 
[/img]
Scotland hasn't mattered in the UK for a long time - the way we vote doesn't matter, our opinions don't matter, nothing we can do will change the situation - apart from this. We can decide to be able to decide things for ourselves.
Probably because you've been whittering on about it for so damned long, been so chippy about it, while pretty much having a government system that was pretty effectively different from the rest of the UK so as to look from outside as if you're running things yourselves anyway, that everyone south of the border has just got pissed off and is happy for you to just get on with it.
We don't actually give much of a toss what you do, what happens in Scotland now or in the future, or at least, nobody I know gives much of a damn, anyway.
By the time this all gets sorted, we'll let you keep the empty oil wells...
Which government system would that have been then, that was apparently so "effectively different" from the rest of the UK?
So David Cameron is about to speak on the independence debate, it seems cmd is going to talk about the impact of independence on the defence industry. However with even Alan Massie saying that the number of jobs involved is less than 2 thousand cmd could be playing right into the yes campaigns hands
Plus, it's right after going back on promises to move defence jobs up North. Cameron is the Yes campaign's best advert. Don't they realise that a posh Tory boy isn't going to do them any good?
I don't buy into televised debates between politicians, mainly as I assume everybody involved is a lying cheat.
However, I would like to see Toad face and David (I'd steal your milk if you had any) Cameron.
By the time this all gets sorted, we'll let you keep the empty oil wells...
By the time the oil runs out, you'll be buying Scottish wind.
I reckon CMD is playing a double bluff though, if not he's a bigger berk than I thought....
We don't actually give much of a toss what you do, what happens in Scotland now or in the future, or at least, nobody I know gives much of a damn, anyway.
To be fair, this is my experience also. I think the only people who are bothered to any significant degree are those with something to lose. And that's not your average guy on the street. I'm sure there are folk who care, not that I've ever knowingly met one.
I think the only people who are bothered to any significant degree are those with something to lose.
Like Cameron's father-in-law who has a holiday home on Jura, "owned" by a shell company in the Bahamas.
Is that really what it is? The Tories are worried that an independent Scotland won't let them buy big estates tax-free?
It's probably a major concern for David. Perhaps less than being responsible for turning the tide in the yes camps favour.
But the guy on a fork lift truck in the Tesco warehouse at Crick, he really isn't bothered. And neither are many like him.
On the ground, to your average Joe on the street. The general feeling I've encountered is....meh.
Anyone seen anything more recent than this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9015374/Britain-divided-over-Scottish-independence.html ❓