Forum menu
It's no surprise AS and the SNP are focusing on Cameron as an individual,
AS is delighted no one has decided to do the same to him
This thread really is folk just moaning at the "other side" whilst defending "their " side when they do exactly the same thing [ or they just deny they even do it ]
for example you ended with
I do think a Yes vote is a vote for AS as Prime Minister and I can see that would hurt rather than help the Yes campaign.
You can claim that but it is clearly the exact same thing you just claimed [ and obviously untrue]. A Yes vote is not a vote for the SNP never mind AS anymore than a no vote a vote for Cameron ?
You are THM and I claim my troll badge from you as well
You are THM and I claim my troll badge from you as well
haha ! Perhaps TMH and I should come for a STW "Referendum Ride" with your good self so you can see that's not the case. No political talk though.
The AS comment I was responding to what others had posted. I do believe the SNP would be the winner in an independent Scottish election and I think there are Yes supporters who won't vote for that outcome as a result. I fear for an iS with AS at the helm and in control of your tax and spending.
Duckman, I can't remember who Salmond mentioned. I chose not to google it the time as I could not be bothered.
You could Google it for me, and tell me how much more unpopular they are than Sturgeon, Cannavan and Jenkins if you like.
less than half what HS2 would cost Scotland
I think we all know HS2 isn't going to be delivered on budget so that's even more of a saving for an iS, hopefully the prospect of having to pay for all of it will lead to it's cancellation.
Well that worked for ID cards 😉
Problem is all the money that's wasted before it's cancelled - Universal Credit is going that way too.
According to the Huffington post a majority of english people would prefer to have a no win in the referendum than have England win the world cup.
[url= http://survation.com/is-england-winning-the-world-cup-more-important-than-preserving-the-united-kingdom ]Huff post world cup survey[/url]
I wonder what would happen if the same question was posed here?
According to the Huffington post a majority of english people would prefer to have a no win in the referendum than have England win the world cup.
Well a majority of just 1.
What an incredibly silly poll btw, I can't imagine many of the respondents took it very seriously.
Meanwhile, how do people feel about the UK government spending £750,000 of taxpayer's money on sending a leaflet to every home in Scotland telling us that there are no guaranteed further powers after a No vote?
(Okay, the leaflet doesn't quite say that, but it doesn't guarantee any more powers and the Scottish secretary has said any further powers would be a matter of negotiation.)
Small change when considered in the context of the total waste of money involved in the whole flawed process. Both sides proposing pretty much the same thing and yet we waste all this time and money pretending there is a genuine debate going on. A complete lot of tosh.
Both sides proposing pretty much the same thing
In what possible way is full independence pretty much the same thing as the status quo?
A sensible article in the Guardian:
how do people feel about the UK government spending £750,000 of taxpayer's money on sending a leaflet to every home in Scotland telling us......
I guess it's part of the free mailshot which both sides are allowed to have so that they can put their case directly and unhindered to Scottish voters to help them understand both side's argument and make a slightly more informed decision ?
Well I feel quite relaxed about it, I like the thought that Scottish voters can sit down in their homes and read the arguments put directly to them by both sides. Presumably you feel that this is the wrong emotion and people should feel outraged ?
I take it that you don't like the thought of Scottish voters being allowed to read unhindered the No campaigns views and feel particularly incensed because you don't like what the No campaign have put in their free mailshot ?
Correct, its worse, now you might get a foreign country running your economy!!
It's an expensive comedy show - typified by your own side proposing policies that are completely incompatible with the idea of independence.
Well a majority of just 1.
Swayed by southerners and girls as well...best not do that punchline eh 😉
It's not the No campaign who have done it, it's the UK government, and it's not paid for from campaign funds the way Yes Scotland and Better Together leaflets are, it's paid for by UK taxpayers.
The UK government isn't bound by the funding limits either, though it has said it will voluntarily comply with them.
Are you saying that the Yes camp aren't allowed a free mailshot too, paid for by the UK taxpayer ?
If that's the case it's clearly unacceptable & must breach the rules laid down by the electoral commission.
EDIT : I've just checked and both sides are allowed one free mailshot which isn't "paid for from campaign funds the way Yes Scotland and Better Together leaflets are", it's paid for by UK taxpayers.
I think this is probably a non-story.
The rules say:
Costs would also include the posting of one neutral information leaflet about the referendum to every Scottish household, and one free mailshot to every household or voter in the poll for the designated campaign organisations.
Now the UK government isn't the designated campaign organisation. So is this the "neutral information leaflet"? If so then there have to be questions about how neutral it is.
I feel fairly certain that if the rules have been broken then the electoral commission will have something to say about it. In the final analysis this can be settled in the courts, the UK government cannot operate outside the law. As I say, I think this is probably a non-story. It's certainly isn't making the headlines as you would expect if the rules had been broken.
"Mistake and a misjudgement" 😀
The more important bit, though, isn't who paid for the leaflets.
It's that there have been two golden opportunities to announce a guarantee of more powers after a No vote - these leaflets and the Queen's speech - and neither of those opportunities were taken. So it's pretty safe to assume that this advert:
[img] 
[/img]
Is bollocks.
Scotsman tomorrow:
[img] 
[/img]
The more important bit, though, isn't who paid for the leaflets.
You asked : [i]"how do people feel about the UK government spending £750,000 of taxpayer's money on...."[/i]
It turns out that you're not really interested in what we feel about £750,000 of taxpayer's money being spent on a leaflet after all, which presumably means that you now accept that it was all done above board.
No, what you really want to know now is how we feel about the contents of a leaflet that not everyone has seen and which we only have your obviously completely unbiased opinion about what it contains.
Well based to the fact that you've seen the leaflet and I haven't, and that you don't like what you've seen, then you must be right.
You can download and read it if you like - or the contents are widely reported.
Feel about the same as I do about the white paper.
Propaganda.
Oh bloody hell, the Popes sticking his tuppence worth in.
I have seen no Better Together or UK leaflets. I was delivered a Yes leaflet a few months ago though. I was being urged to vote yes by the Proclaimers and Eddie Reader. How do I feel about Scottish government spending my money on the white paper? 🙁
The Pope agreeing with the Orange Order? That's a turnip for the books 😉
You can download and read it if you like - or the contents are widely reported.
But you would rather not provide a link to it, despite complaining of its contents and asking people how they feel about it.
A bit like the front page you've posted where you can see the headline but not read the article.
How about posting a readable link to an article whose attention you've drawn ?
Or do you prefer it when everything is a bit unclear and rather confused ?
Oh, good grief - here, let me use Google for you:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27817449
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefits-of-the-uk-booklet-going-to-every-household-in-scotland
The Scotsman article isn't on their website yet, because that's tomorrow's front page.
How about commenting on the lack of further guaranteed powers instead of nitpicking?
The Scotsman article isn't on their website yet, because that's tomorrow's front page.
So you're drawing our attention to an article you haven't even read ? I think one thing we can all agree on is that headlines don't necessarily give the whole story. Or do you make a habit of just reading headlines?
...instead of nitpicking
So you ask how people feel about a leaflet and it doesn't occur to you that they might want to see it before commenting ? You call that nitpicking ? Brilliant! 🙂
Thanks for the link btw, I'll have a look later.
I was drawing attention to the headline, which looks like it could be an interesting and relevant article.
I also assumed that most people, would be capable of finding a widely-publicised leaflet on the internet.
I must stop making assumptions, evidently.
Scotsman article is now online:
I also assumed that most people, would be capable of finding a widely-publicised leaflet on the internet.
So you think it would be reasonable for me to, say, complain about an article I had read in the Daily Telegraph, ask people how they felt about it, and then get annoyed when asked to provide a link ? 🙂
If it was so incredibly easy to find a link to the leaflet why didn't you do that when you first asked people's opinions about it ? I didn't even know what the leaflet was called, all I had to go by was that it was apparently sent by the UK gov to all homes in scotland, which is fairly vague.
Meh, you obviously don't want to actually comment on the important issues, so I'm off to bed 😀
Well I had a quick glance at the leaflet and it appears to be the UK government making the case for the "benefits of the UK".
I can't see a problem with that in the same way that I can't see a problem with the Scottish government making the case for the "benefits of independence".
Why have you got a problem with that.......because you don't agree with what the leaflet says ?
BTW apparently the leaflet "will start arriving through all Scottish letter boxes from June 23". Why didn't you wait until June 23 before getting upset ?
As far as the Scotsman's article is concerned I can't see much of a problem with that either, apparently : "There has been no breach of editorial guidelines as BBC facilities are made available to organisations and businesses who want to use them, including political parties, on a commercial basis". Which seems reasonable to me. I'm sure that if any breaches have been made the BBC will be held accountable, Yes Scotland will make sure of that no doubt.
But how about worrying less about leaflets and adverts that you don't agree with and focusing a little more on making the case for independence ? Time's running out and you apparently haven't convinced the majority of Scots yet. Too much whingeing and not enough getting on with it I reckon.
Why have you got a problem with that.......because you don't agree with what the leaflet says ?
It's what the leaflet doesn't say - it doesn't make any mention of any new powers for Scotland after a No vote.
Which means that that billboard advert, and all the Better Together comments that of course there will be new powers for Scotland, are looking distinctly untrue.
With the BBC, the Trust says that BBC Scotland say they haven't breached the guidelines so won't investigate - that's hardly a brilliant example of impartiality. But maybe no, maybe they haven't strictly breached their guidelines - surely you must agree that an impartial broadcaster taking money from one side during a campaign looks pretty dodgy?
Define impartiality Ben? Does that mean giving airtime and analysis to nonsense points? How can you give 50/50 coverage when one side has obvious contradictions at the centre of its arguments (and do it with straight face). Actually with UKIP, the BBC do this quite a lot and it's great to see Farrage made to look a fool under scrutiny. The sad thing is that the more he does, the more popular he becomes. Ditto the deceitful one. Funny old world. Anyway, storms over, suns out....happy riding!
Get ready to support the whites tonight 😉 !!!!
We've done this before - there have been academic studies showing that BBC Scotland is biased 2:1 in favour of No.
Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn't impartial?
I would rather they showed partiality on the facts and let that define their coverage than partiality to either BT or YS.
If you point out basics like the false argument on currency/asset/walk away from debt etc is obvious and clear BS, then that is not being biased with the facts but it is being biased against the perpetrators of BS. That is the standard that BBC should aspire to, not equal coverage of both sides per se. Just because AS likes to throw out the 3Bs with gay abandon does not mean that the BBC is in fact doing anything wrong. Perhaps ? it reflects the quality of the arguments put forward by the particular side under scrutiny?
Who paid for 'Scotland's future' to be published?
Thats hardly an impartial document is it? It seems it was OK for the taxpayer to pick up the bill for that, along with translation into Gaelic, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Hindi, Polish, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish & Urdu...
Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn't impartial?
Like paying for an academic to write a [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10258486/Independence-campaign-admits-it-paid-academic-to-write-newspaper-article.html ]newspaper article[/url] on your behalf?
Nah, it's only one side that lies and deceives. The other one, always the other one.
Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn't impartial?
I did some work to get a UKIP office up and running recently, I invoiced the work and got paid for it.
Do I now have to do work at all the other parties offices or be labelled a UKIP supporter 🙄
Did Ozzy really say no to a currency union? I just ask as the chancellor is Osborne, not Osbourne as in the thread title. 😉
Just saying. 😀
That's some echo in here.
Does that mean giving airtime and analysis to nonsense points?
No they would keep you off air 😉
How can you give 50/50 coverage when one side has obvious contradictions at the centre of its arguments (and do it with straight face).
Its essentially an election it does not really matter whether one lot are complete loons or not they should have access to the method of transmitting their views to the electorate in just the same manner as the other. By definition anything else is BIAS and by definition that in unfair.
walk away from debt
[b]It is an absolute lie* to claim they cannot walk away from the debt and you know this[/b]. It is why GO had to say the UK would honour it no matter what. It is one of the few issues we debate where there are actual facts. You know this, you know what they say so why would you do an AS( as you would no doubt describe it] tactic like that and BS and say something you know is not true?
Why do you keep doing this slagging of AS for doing this?
One day you will make a post where you criticise your opponents and do not actually do the very same on the same page. it wont be on this thread.
As for coverage it shold clearly be roughly equal and it should challenge their claims equally robustly. to dod anything different is to take sides. Both sides think the facts support their view. Neutrals know both sides facts are politically motivated spin delivered by economists and would class this as someway short of a fact and a truth.
jota you are not regulated by law to present the news impartially so your comparison makes no sense in the context of what we are debating
A judge must be neutral as must the BBC - you can take work from who you please.