[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

bencooper - Member

Better Together is being tipped off about BBC debates so they can get their supporters into the audience.

[i] [b] A BBC Scotland spokesman said: “The BBC is committed to ensuring balance in all aspects of the Referendum Debate programmes, including an audience with equal numbers of Yes and No voters. We have been meticulous and successful in this regard in the shows so far.

“In order to ensure we can achieve this, we have occasionally contacted groups on both sides of the argument to ask if their supporters would like to apply to take part.

“Every applicant is vetted and selected using the same process, after filling in an online questionnaire and speaking to our audience producer.

“We will continue to produce our audiences in the same way for the remaining debates, in order to ensure both sides of the argument are properly represented.”[/i][/b]

So Yes Scotland claims that the BBC are biased against them and haven't invited them to Referendum Debate programmes, do you really expect people to believe that ?

Either the BBC or Yes Scotland are lying, they can't both be telling the truth. Given the choice I'm sure people will make up their minds which of the two is most biased.

BTW Ben assuming that you are not a News International fully paid up subscriber who spends their Sunday mornings reading the Sunday Times, how did you manage to stumble on this article hidden behind a paywall ?

Does Wings Over Scotland send you an email alerting you of the latest line to push ?

Juncker is not the source used in the article. More desperate separatist lies.

Bloody spokespeople, hey? So easy to misinterpret. Look at what the yS one then said

A spokesperson for First Minister Alex Salmond said: "This confirms what we’ve said all along. Scotland is [b]already part[/b] of the EU and as such already [b]meets all [/b]the requirements for membership.

Now obviously those can't be AS's words as they are blatantly untrue, even after the article. Unless of course AS is......

Good job this is not important.....

Juncker is not the source used in the article. More desperate separatist lies.

Given the historical connotations with the word separatist, and the current headlines regarding Russian separatists, I assume this is another rather lame attempt to troll yes voters. Give over and grow up.

is hardly balanced or impartial.

He presents the No case reasonably well would you have preferred he had presented it in this style?

More desperate separatist lies.

If only he had achieved this level of balance eh

FWIW i am not a fan of un named sources but it is very common for the politicians spokesperson to brief off the record. Have you anything , beyond outrage, to counter the claim?
Funny you criticise the lack of impartiality in others whilst doing this

Muddy everyone is in the UK both parties would be iS and rUK.
Obvious troll is obvious.

In this vote both sides are the UK , were there a separation that is what they would be called. Everyone has used these terms throughout the debate.Been a lot of trolling on this point then 🙄

The Beeb are perfectly balanced - everyone thinks that Auntie is biased against them!!!

That takes some doing

Indeed it does and they do a very difficult job very well. All politicians think they are against them. IMHO they wont be asking anyone from here to join them 😉

On the contrary I have been calling them separatists for quite some time. They support the separation of Scotland from the UK hence separatists. It is easier on the tongue than dissolutionists.

Nationalist also has "connotations". Most people are already "grown up" enough to separate the debate from what is going on in the Ukraine. Lame attempt to "troll" no voters perhaps!!! 😉

Scotland is already part of the EU

Scotland is clearly part of the EU though the UK signs it were it not then neither is wales nor england

If it is not in the EU when you went to Scotland you would leave the EU and clearly you do not.
By "blatantly untrue [ BBC wont be calling today] you mean the UK is in the EU and scotland is part of the EU but it has not signed it personally. That is true but it is clearly , currently, in the EU just as england is and Cornwall and Gwynedd etc.

It is really weak to claim Scotland is not in the EU I was born there I have an EU passport as does everyone else born there and I am an EU citizen, Amazing considering it is not in the EU eh 🙄

FWIW i am not a fan of un named sources but it is very common for the politicians spokesperson to brief off the record.

Have any proof of that? Do you work in politics or the press? Your arguments rarely stand up to any scrutiny.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/index_en.htm

Hard to find the word Scotland (or England/Wlales) on the official list.

JY Scotland is currently part of the EU as it is part of the UK. There are no agreements stating that England or Scotland are part of the EU, only the UK is part of the EU. If England left the UK I would not expect to remain an EU citizen.

whatnobeer - Member

Given the historical connotations with the word separatist

What are they then ? I always understood separatist as referring to people who support a region breaking away from a larger region.

What do you have in mind when you mention "historical connotations" ?

t is really weak to claim Scotland is not in the EU I was born there I have an EU passport as does everyone else born there and I am an EU citizen, Amazing considering it is not in the EU eh

Channel islanders hold EU passports, my ex and my daughters both do, as does everyone else born there, although islanders don't have rights to freedom of movement within the EU, as the islands are not part of the EU

work that one out!

Look at it this way - If Martinique became independent from France, do you think they would still be part of the EU, and all the citizens would retain EU passports and freedom of movement?

Hard to find the word Scotland (or England/Wlales) on the official list.

But if you click on the UK it gives you this:

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/unitedkingdom/index_en.htm

Yes it does, and so what?

Hard to find the word Scotland (or England/Wlales) on the official list.

You said that it was hard to find the word Scotland on the official list. It isn't difficult at all.

It also mentions Lancashire hotpot made with lamb or beef, potatoes and onions, and ****stan.

😀

You said that it was hard to find the word Scotland on the official list. It isn't difficult at all.

Separatist desperation reaches a new low!

What are the historical connotations of the word "separatist"? And how is "separatist" incorrect or pejorative when applied to people that want Scotland to separate from the UK?

In an article titled,

Scottish Independence Is Inevitable
The Independence Referendum Is a Test of Scotland’s Confidence

and that ends with,

I shall vote yes this September. The campaign has already taught me that if we don’t make it with this third referendum, there will be a fourth. It’s time to rejoin the world on our own terms.

is hardly balanced or impartial.

Just as a point of order: American newspapers in general, and the NYT in particular, are exceptionally tedious and pedantic about striving for balance and impartiality. The journalism culture is arse-archingly self-regarding in that respect. The exception is in editorial and opinion pieces, where there is no attempt or pretence at balance.

Ascherson's was an opinion piece.

I prefer to think of myself as a member of the Rebel Alliance.

Whether I'm a Lando or a Han Solo........

Out of interest - has anything that either of the sides of the debate has argued changed they way you are going to vote? Feel free to answer even if you do not have a vote for whatever reason.

Yes and No

Ben makes me swing to a No vote.

THM makes me swing to a Yes vote .

The leading edges of both the yes and no campaigns make me swing towards selling my house and trying to find somewhere not run by total *******

Out of interest - has anything that either of the sides of the debate has argued changed they way you are going to vote? Feel free to answer even if you do not have a vote for whatever reason.

yes campaign moved me from a (hypothetical) probably yes to an almost certain (hypothetical) no. They just haven't thought anything through.

Have any proof of that? Do you work in politics or the press? Your arguments rarely stand up to any scrutiny.

I dont work in the North Pole but I know it is cold, it is that level of controversial as statements go. If you must have a constant spat with me at least pick something of substance that may actually not be true.
You want proof that politicians brief off the record? BRILLIANT 😆

JY Scotland is currently part of the EU as it is part of the UK. There are no agreements stating that England or Scotland are part of the EU, only the UK is part of the EU

Excellent so we both agree that scotland is part of the EU by virtue of being in the UK. Thanks.

Separatist desperation reaches a new low!

You have already agreed that scotland is part of the EU and now you are getting annoyed that someone else says the same thing with a reference 😕
TBH all I see is No voters engaging in AS like 3 Bs [sic] here. When you go to scotland you remain in the EU there can be no debate on this point at all. there can be none on the point that the UK is the member and Scotland is part of that Union [ hence in the EU] and it will need to reapply if independent [ IMHO as a current member rather an new one but that bit is at least debatable].

FFS , how is this even up for debate. Look at the latest link, the answer is in the words of the article....

Speaking to the Scotland on Sunday, a "senior EU source" said an independent Scotland's [b]application to join the EU [/b]would be treated as a "special case" as the country was already signed up to core requirements such as gender equality and workers' rights.

If an iS was automatically a member why would anyone be talking about "joining"? It's simple spin and BS to suggest anything otherwise.

You highlighted the wrong bit

Speaking to the Scotland on Sunday, a "senior EU source" said [b]an independent Scotland[/b]'s application to join the EU would be treated as a "special case" as the country was already signed up to core requirements such as gender equality and workers' rights.

Is Scotland currently independent? Its not and it is currently a member of the EU as is it is part if the UK.

If an iS was automatically a member why would anyone be talking about "joining"? It's simple spin and BS to suggest anything otherwise.

As far as I am aware no one has claimed they will automatically be a member and everyone accepts they have to reapply*. however they are currently a member of the EU.

The debate was about Scotland not iS.

* there is debate over which article and whether as an internal member or external - i forget which articles 41 or 42???? there is legitimate debate about this point as to which will prevail

I doubt any of us wish to predict what fudge the EU will choose to do and whether they will or they will not follow their own rules and procedures.

BTW Ben assuming that you are not a News International fully paid up subscriber who spends their Sunday mornings reading the Sunday Times, how did you manage to stumble on this article hidden behind a paywall ?

Does Wings Over Scotland send you an email alerting you of the latest line to push ?

It was on Twitter last night.

You can also buy paper papers.

No need to be subscribed to anything.

[url= http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/independence-referendum/no-campaign-bungles-costing-taxpayers-thousands-1.481309 ]The UK government wasted tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money with a leaflet mistake.[/url]

That was on Twitter too.

I dont work in the North Pole but I know it is cold, it is that level of controversial as statements go. If you must have a constant spat with me at least pick something of substance that may actually not be true.
You want proof that politicians brief off the record? BRILLIANT

You said it is "it is very common for the politicians spokesperson to brief off the record" and I asked how you know this. Realistically you don't know how often politicians spokespersons brief off the record do you? So when you stated that it occurs commonly you were wrong. Stop trying to make yourself out to be an expert on everything and lets stick to facts shall we old bean 🙄

p.s. I do not have a constant spat with you I am merely pointing out whenever you talk nonsense, you do it to everybody else on here 😉

I think you will be alone in thinking that politicians dont brief off the record on a regular basis. Anyway ,as you dont work for the press or in politics , your answer wont stand up to scrutiny 😉

Of all the shit I spout on here that really is amongst the least controversial.

The original article was supposedly from a senior source in the EU speaking about Juncker's views regarding an iScotland . Who is this source, how credible are they, how close are they to Juncker? I usually dismiss second hand information for the gossip that it is although I am not surprised that Ben took it as gospel. What is surprising is the way Blair Jenkins reacted "This is a timely intervention and completely debunks the scaremongering by the No campaign over Scotland’s future as an EU member". It is not a credible intervention and it does not debunk any claims the no campaign have made about iScotland and the EU. Blair Jenkins response is misleading and smacks of desperation.

As for whether politicians brief off the record on a regular basis, it sounds like you have been watching too much House Of Cards.

I have no idea what house of cards is FWIW - tv show I guess but i rarely watch tv unless it is sport. FWIW it amused me that you just spent an entire paragraph talking about what I said happened then finished off by criticising me for saying it happens.
tbh the number of times you say the phrase smacks of desperation smacks of desperation 😉

Both sides look for anything that may support their cause then post it up here and elsewhere. as the No did originally with JUnkers comments till hhis spokesperson said he did not mean them

the report comes after the No Campaign was accused of "distorting remarks" made by Mr Juncker after he said the EU needed to "take a break" from expansion.

Pro-UK campaigners seized on the president's remarks, claiming they made it clear that a Yes vote the referendum would also be a vote to leave the EU.

However, [b]a spokeswoman for Mr Juncker's spokeswoman[/b][ WTF!!] later said he was not referring to Scotland in his comments. Deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon said the No camp had "wilfully twisted" Mr Juncker's words and demanded an apology from the campaign.

I seemed to have missed the post where you were equally annoyed at the desperation in that from the No camp Perhaps, in the interest of balance, you could express your dismay now ?

FWIW I dont disagree over using unamed sources etc, its a shitty way to do things but it undeniably happens in the dark arts of politics.

EU refuses to comment on remarks made by unnamed sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28390740

To be honest, I think anyone trying to read anything in to comments now made either way from any EU officials is howling at the moon, they've now made it pretty clear on numerous occasions that they are not going to comment officially on what will actually happen regards Scotland until after the referendum, if and when they get a formal application, so as not to sway the internal debate any more than has happened already.

FWIW it amused me that you just spent an entire paragraph talking about what I said happened then finished off by criticising me for saying it happens.

No I didn't so don't try and weasel your way out of being proved wrong. You claimed "it is very common for the politicians spokesperson to brief off the record". You don't work in the press and you don't work in politics so you wouldn't know either way. You dissect everybody's comments and do your best to prove them wrong and you have been caught red handed talking complete and utter nonsense using your own tactics. Take it like a man old boy, admit you were wrong and we can move on.

piemonster - Member

You can also buy paper papers.

No need to be subscribed to anything.

Ben doesn't strike me as someone who pops down to the newsagents on a Sunday morning to pick up his copy of the Sunday Times.

How would he have time to trawl through the internet looking for Separatist friendly propaganda if he wasted time reading the Sunday newspapers ?

don't try and weasel your way out of being proved wrong

Comedy Gold thank you
I did genuinely belly laugh at that one.

You don't work in the press and you don't work in politics so you wouldn't know either way.

Neither do you so if this specious argument were true [ one does not have to work in the press or politics to have an inkling about how they operate] it would negate your point about me being wrong. If you were right you would be wrong. I know this is too complicated for you to get but trust me.

you have been caught red handed talking complete and utter nonsense

Yes you are right politicians and their spokespeople never ever brief off the record, never use unsourced folk to make statements on their behalf, you never read phrase like "sources close to the PM said", ever anywhere and it does not mean their press secretary, everytime they speak it is on the record and attributed to them or their spokesperson and your simple denial of that is indeed me proved completely and utterly wrong on this point.
Jesus man what I said is not even vaguely controversial nor wrong and you are so desperate to get a win [ Its the internet who cares and get a grip] you are beyond clutching at straws.
IIRC one or two of them have written about their time you should consider reading one as it will be a marvellous revelation to you. Out of interest what do you think the term Spin doctor means - sourced purveyor of the truth perhaps?

Take it like a man old boy, admit you were wrong and we can move on.

Like you did with the trams eh 😳

I am done on this issue as sources close to JY said he thought your point is laughable.
Oh that really was funny. thanks.

How would he have time to trawl through the internet looking for Separatist friendly propaganda if he wasted time reading the Sunday newspapers ?

Ben....post propaganda....outrageous

Wonder if the 'unnamed senior EU source' was Graham Avery, who has said very similar things before?

I also wonder if he's 'unnamed' because last time he spouted forth his comments were officially disowned by Barroso, stating that Avery's honorary position did not qualify him to speak in any official capacity on behalf of the commission

59 days.

you never read phrase like "sources close to the PM said"

You do in the Daily Mail and papers of that ilk. Mystery sources can be made up, I believe George Clooney just caught the Mail out lying using an undisclosed source, proving that newspapers use made up sources to make news.

I know this is too complicated for you to get but trust me.

Yet more wisdom that only you in your supreme knowledge could know. 🙄

As I said previously let us stick to facts and not treat second hand gossip as gospel.

Ninfan are you saying an undisclosed source was spouting nonsense? 😆

Ben doesn't strike me as someone who pops down to the newsagents on a Sunday morning to pick up his copy of the Sunday Times.

How would he have time to trawl through the internet looking for Separatist friendly propaganda if he wasted time reading the Sunday newspapers ?

Sunday Herald. If they have any copies in Waitrose.

It doesn't exactly take long to look at Twitter occasionally, and copy-and-paste anything here that seems interesting.

I'm disappointed to hear that your commitment to Scottish Freedom doesn't appear to take up much of your time.

You are just 2 months away from possible Freedom, time to pull all the stops out ffs.

If you don't fight for Freedom you give it away without protest. Stand free or kneel chained.

[img] [/img]

Yet more wisdom that only you in your supreme knowledge could know

I meant it was beyond your grasp not that it was actually difficult to grasp; imagine you not getting that eh.

I apologise for misunderestimating you