Forum menu
Oddly, I think that Salmond/Cameron mash up actually improves the way both look.
This may have more to do with just how repulsive I normally find both of them.
I see cinemas have banned those VNB adverts
Yes, well they've banned all referendum adverts. VNB witted on about how it's those nasty nationalists shutting down debate, but of course the real reason was that GOSH complained.
The VNB funding is such a blatant attempt to get around the funding rules it really should be properly investigated, but does the Electoral Commission have the teeth to do it? And will they do it now, or in 5 years? Just look at the list of donations to VNB over one period:
[img] 
[/img]
The limit for a single donation before it has to be declared now (rather than after the referendum) is £7500.
On a wider issue, you do have to wonder - if the case for No is so good, why do they keep having to lie and deceive to make it?
On the EU, the European Policy Centre says that Scotland would most likely not have to leave, even for a short time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27623271
Even Better Together seem to admit they've lost this argument, they've shifted from insisting that Scotland would be out in the cold, to saying we wouldn't have the same special exemptions that the UK has.
What's new about iS not enjoying the special exemptions - that argument has been around from the start.
Now there is often an anti- foreign ownership undercurrent on STW eg why do we allow the "bloody French" build our nuclear power plants, bloody profits just go overseas etc. Oddly, given the importance of foreign ownership to large parts if the Scottish economy, this argument is rarely raised here although the relevance of GNI versus GDP has been raised occasionally. At least Glasgow Uni and The Guardian pick up on this today, Why, because...
The gap between GDP and GNI directly affects taxes paid to a future independent Scottish government.
Not that you would find this admission in the BoD. Plus which ever way you use/twist the GERS stats, Scotland raises approx the same tax per head as rUK but spends approx 11% more per head. And that gets squared into a better fiscal position as if by magic? Amazing.
That photo gets scarier each time I open this thread!
Martin Wolf hits the nail on the head today in the FT after 48 hours on bllx on the debate from AS and DA
Yet what is more striking is how paltry the debate has become. Rather than say it favours independence whatever the costs, because it is the only way for Scotland to fulfil its national destiny, the Scottish government pretends it will be a simple, costless exercise instead of a journey into an uncertain, demanding future. Meanwhile, the UK prime minister feels unable to go to Scotland to say what seems to be essential: that, whatever the political differences between England and Scotland, he wants Scotland to stay in the union not because it makes us all a bit better off economically but because we in the rest of the UK value Scotland, the Scots and the shared and successful country these peoples have built together....The debate over the future of the union should not be reduced to huckstering over short-term gains or to debating implausible promises.
Quite.
foreign ownership undercurrent on STW
How can scotland best address this then by making her own laws or staying as they are?
Plus which ever way you use/twist the GERS stats, Scotland raises approx the same tax per head as rUK but spends approx 11% more per head*. And that gets squared into a better fiscal position as if by magic? Amazing.
The debate over the future of the union should not be reduced to huckstering over short-term gains or to debating implausible promises.
BRILLIANT
Again your preceding post was an example to us all in that respect and where you lead we all try to follow. You are beyond parody now.
*Well that is your impartial interpretation of them, forgive me for thinking it is someway short of an actual fact.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/European_Policy_Centre
And funnily enough, what name do we see at the bottom of the EPC report - Graham Avery, same old name seems to crop up again and again in the independence discussion, doesn't it!
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3655702.eceAn academic hailed by the SNP as supporting their claim that an independent Scotland would enjoy automatic membership of the EU does not represent the views of Brussels, the European Commission president has said.
José Manuel Barroso said that while Graham Avery was entitled to his “personal opinion", it was not that of the commission.Mr Avery, an honorary director-general of the commission and a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre, gave evidence to a Westminster committee last year in which he said that Scotland would not have to go through the formal EU accession process of non-member countries, He said that, in the event of a “yes" vote in 2014, there would be “not more than one or two years" of negotiations between Edinburgh and London.
“From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey," Mr Avery wrote.
His statement provided some welcome relief to the SNP at a time when European experts were lining up to warn that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate its membership from outside the Union. Alex Salmond used it to face down criticism from Johann Lamont last year, telling the Labour leader that Mr Avery “should know" the position.
Mr Barroso has now said that Mr Avery does not speak for the commission. “It is not the general policy of the commission to be represented by retired officials," said Mr Barroso. “In the instance referred to ... the honorary director-general did not speak for the commission. All retired officials may express personal views or analysis without prejudice to their obligation not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy."...
I note that bit particularly - [i]An academic hailed by the SNP as supporting their claim that an independent Scotland would enjoy automatic membership of the EU [/i]... we've not heard that for a while, have we?
Desperate times call for......!!! 😉 nice put down from Barosso though!
I also enjoyed...
We have done our own coatings
Oh really, what are they?
We have not done our own costings....
....Pantomime.
The real thing is descending to the same poor quality of trolling here. Still amusing to read on a quiet morning.
We have done our own coatings
Oh really, what are they?
We have not done our own costings....
Maybe they should just go with the treasury figures and then spend significantly less which would be a vote winner. Good spin on something that again demonstrates how Westminster are at it though.
Sounds like they are already listening to you ducks...
Talk of negative campaigning, you have to smile at the phone booth poster
At least the boy finds his maltesers more interesting and palatable than the message.
The difference is that the phone booth poster wasn't wildly extrapolated - it's an estimate from the Child Poverty Action Group:
http://www.cpag.org.uk/scotland/early-warning-system
...and it's all the fault of the English isn't it? But come 19 Sep, it will all disappear as if by magic.....
Maltesers definitely the better option.
teamhurtmore - Member
...and it's all the fault of the English isn't it? But come 19 Sep, it will all disappear as if by magic.....
No-one cares about your attempts to turn this into a Scots versus England thing.
After Sept, we'll be steering the ship and deciding where it goes. And it won't be in the same direction as EWANI.
And we don't need another of your democracy doesn't work tirades.
This is why we hate your football team. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/26684674 it's 48 years on - we dont need a "live" commentary.
And we don't need another of your democracy doesn't work tirades.
Point in the direction of one or is that merely a duck ism?
My attempts - have you missed the campaign so far??? I am a Scotophile, I don't like the S v Eng thing at all. It's the poster that pretends that this is something to do with England. Mention bedroom tax and you have the root of all evils apparently.
Epic, are you also missing the fact that whatever the vote, Westminster will still be pulling the strings. Fortunately the majority/canny folk are likely to vote democratically for the more benign version.
It's the poster that pretends that this is something to do with England.
Show me the word "England" in this poster:
[img] 
[/img]
It's nothing to do with England, it's do do with the different priorities of a Westminster government.
teamhurtmore - MemberAnd we don't need another of your democracy doesn't work tirades.
Point in the direction of one or is that merely a duck ism?
All the people calling you on the BS you spout are all telling lies about you...Your double standards and lack of self awareness (as pointed out again by JY on this very page)and by pretty much everybody else really know no bounds.
Ben, and the difference is? And the difference will be?
Simon Jenkins gets pretty close in the guardian.
Can Scotland do it? The campaign for September's independence vote opens officially on Friday. Yet both campaign and vote are superfluous: it will make no difference which side wins; either way, the outcome will be much the same.
At last some honesty to mark the start of campaigning.
But few actually picking on specific points ducks, wonder why??? Prefer misrepresentation or in one case simply trolling. Show me an example of an anti-democracy tirade as a starter.
En attendons toujours......
THM - may I suggest that you step away from the thread for a couple of days. You seem to be getting upset when people question your points.
Ben, and the difference is? And the difference will be?
Ah, you're going to ignore my question 🙂
Where in that poster does it blame child poverty on England?
There are many differences - we already have different spending priorities around health, education, social care etc, but with full control of funding there's a lot more that can be done - and with no money being spent on nuclear weapons for a start, there will be more money to do it with.
Simon Jenkins gets pretty close in the guardian.
Simon Jenkins is a pompous arse who seems to swallow the "more devolution after No" lie hook, line and sinker.
The poster does not use the word English clearly. But the implication is blindingly obvious. If we do not vote for independence from Westminster 100,000 will live in poverty. That is clearly a crock with false causation. May I suggest you look at the proposed defence budget to see what is also being proposed.
Yes, more money after all those tax cuts. It's magic! Do highers have a different syllabus to A/AS/GCSE economics?
Are you sure Jenkins isn't also a bully, blusterers etc......bloody Guardian readers. Still most of the bullying UK broadsheets have a pretty consistent theme these days along with BOE, EU etc. Wonder why that is?
Wanman, not upset at all. It's very funny. The lack of reference to specific points I may have made has a long history on here and it's obvious why! Makes the lunch hour pass so much quicker.
Because you don't answer them,so after 5 thousand posts nobody bothers with you anymore. Case in point because of the usual falsify claim that you are so touch about when it is directed at you.
(from Ben)
Ah, you're going to ignore my question
You know when you give us you standard line of "facts are all there if you care to look" yet when given specific questions to answer you don't...Still you are funny,I really should mock the afflicted,but I can't help myself in your case.
wanmankylung - Member
THM - may I suggest that you step away from the thread for a couple of days. You seem to be getting upset when people question your points.
More bluff and bluster from stw posters!
Or I'll put it another way; your refusal to give any ground when challenged is boring me.
The poster does not use the word English clearly. But the implication is blindingly obvious. If we do not vote for independence from Westminster 100,000 will live in poverty.
It's you that's confusing Westminster and England/English - the implication is only obvious to you.
Westminster has MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - we want independence from the whole lot, not just the English ones.
I know that the No side thinks it helps to portray this as a Scottish vs English thing when it's not, but why are you doing it?
another untruth ducks as you are now proving exactly, Still pick a specific point and happy to debate it. Obviously, the status of a currency is out of the question as the truth is too unpalatable, control of monetary and fiscal policy ditto. Feel free to pick any specific "lie" that I have made that has been questioned and not answered. Obviously I ignore the troll, so that doesn't count. But any others would be valid.
That is what I have done who AS - focused on the lies and the deceit of which there are many and with specific references. Hence the 5k posts!
Why Ben, because the anti-English undertone is blindingly obvious, that's why!
Why Ben, because the anti-English undertone is blindingly obvious, that's why!
I must be blinded by it, then - I should ask my English-born partner, father and father-in-law why they're all voting Yes.
Find me any Yes advert, poster, leaflet or website which is anti-English. Because I pay pretty close attention, and I haven't seen one.
Nice poster Ben.
[img] 
[/img]
[i]First, it is an outright and foul insult to every low income parent and child in Scotland and the UK, through its depiction of them as dirty, scruffy and negligent.
But here is a second reason to be furious about the poster: the figure of 100,000 extra children in poverty by 2020. This is in direct contradiction to the Scottish government’s own White Paper which tells us that by the same date the increase will be by 50,000.
Any single child being forced into poverty is of course an outrage, and certainly 50,000 is too high, but the point here is that there is a discrepancy of 100 per cent between the Scottish government and Yes Scotland.
In the poster, the small print says in advocating independence:
“There is only one guaranteed way to reverse the growing number of children living in poverty.”
This is a lie.
There are other ways; above all changes in government policy at a UK level, which would also benefit children in poverty in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This may require a change of government, but is does not require independence.
And there is no ‘guarantee’ that independence will reverse the trend.
Anyone reading the poster would imagine that there is a comprehensive, fully-costed proposal for the alleviation of child poverty on the table. However, like the rest of the SNP White Paper, all we have is vague assertions on child poverty: no costings, no projections, no guarantees at all.
The public should now know:
[b]They will use disgraceful images of people in poverty which suggest that low income families neglect their children, and allow them to go dirty and a scruffy, if they think it will win votes.
If there is any doubt, Nationalists and their misguided supporters will choose the highest available figure to inflate their claims.
They will make claims which are unsupported and they know they cannot support, and when asked to do so, they will claim it is not in the public’s interest to know about such things.[/b][/i]
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/05/how-much-am-i-angry-about-yes-scotlands-latest-poster/
Fortunately there are none down here! But loads in the rhetoric and that is audible and visible to all.
Yup, I read that blog a week or two ago. He misses the fact that the figure comes from the CPAG (who aren't connected to the Yes campaign or Scottish government). Then he has a wishy-washy hope that a UK government will suddenly reverse it's policies to change the situation - that would be lovely, but it's not going to happen as all the main parties have already committed themselves to further cuts.
t's you that's confusing Westminster and England/English - the implication is only obvious to you.Westminster has MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - we want independence from the whole lot, not just the English ones.
Who was the Act of Union between?
So wanting to dissolve the Act of Union is anti-English? Taking it a bit personally, no?
Then he has a wishy-washy hope that a UK government will .....
You however in contrast have a wishy-washy hope that an "independent" Scottish government will magic everything ?
You however in contrast have a wishy-washy hope that an "independent" Scottish government will magic everything ?
We have a government which has at least said they're going to try.
So wanting to dissolve the Act of Union is anti-English?
I'll ask again, who was the act of union between?
Because I think the answer pretty much craps on your "It's nothing to do with England" claim 🙄
We have a government which has at least said they're going to try.
Erm, Child poverty in the UK has been falling
I'll ask again, who was the act of union between?
The parliaments of England and Scotland. So if you want to think that dissolving it is anti-English then surely it's also anti-Scottish? Is it also anti-Welsh and anti-Northern Irish as well, or is it only anti-English?
Really, it's none of those.
The poster does not use the word English clearly. But the implication is blindingly obvious. If we do not vote for independence from Westminster 100,000 will live in poverty. That is clearly a crock with false causation.
It might or might not be true, but your attempts to turn it into some sort of English-bashing slur are pathetic.
We have a government which has at least said they're going to try.
You know of a government which claims it isn't going to try to reduce child poverty ?
Name me this government ?
An SNP government is no different to a Tory or Labour government in this respect, they will all claim to be concerned with child poverty and all intend to do something about it.
As usual the SNP and their allies fail to provide a compelling argument to show how they will achieve their stated aims, relying instead on faith, hope, and wishful thinking.
Good post Ernie (edit good posts)
Ducks, you forget it takes quite something to unite Ernie and me normally but the constant BS from yS is often common ground. We are both still waiting for our answers many 100s of pages back. Of course, we are not holding our breath as they cannot be answered honestly.
So kona, insinuating that being part of a union with England will result in XXXk living in poverty is not an anti-English slur, really? I find it funny as it's so preposterous, but imagine how nowty nats would be if the argument was reversed.
So kona, insinuating that being part if a union with England will result in XXXk living in poverty is not an anti-English slur, really?
You really are taking this personally, aren't you? No, of course it's not anti-English. What did my English relatives living in Yorkshire do to cause child poverty? Nothing.
No, I am enjoying it in my tea break Ben.
Out of interest would you rate the poster
1. negative or positive?
2. truthful or untruthful (a lie as left foot forward are claiming)?
Ducks, you forget it takes quite something to unite Ernie and me normally but the constant BS from yS is often common ground. We are both still waiting for our answers many 100s of pages back. Of course, we are not holding our breath as they cannot be answered honestly.
That's interesting,does Ernie want to preserve the union so he can retire up here on his terms as well?
More misrepresentation - who has said that? You are on a roll ducks keep it up (not that you seem to need encouraging). Still waiting for the specifics but tea has finished now.....
1. negative or positive?
2. truthful or untruthful (a lie as left foot forward are claiming)?
1. Negative, I'm not a big fan of it.
2. I have no idea what the child poverty figures are, I'd probably ask the experts - like the Child Poverty Action Group.
does Ernie want to preserve the union so he can retire up here on his terms as well?
No, I believe in a democratic society in which all political and economic power is in the hands of ordinary working people. I reject the charlatans who falsely claim to have simular goals.