[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

^this!

No idea of how Mr Salmond is portrayed by the Scottish press, in the media i read (the i/ Independent) he gets quite a balanced level of coverage i think.
However, on TV he's awful, comes across as really unpleasant, slimy and completely untrustworthy - i rank him alongside Osborne and Cameron in those stakes.
Of course, that's just my perception but my friend in Elgin does appear to share some of those views about Mr Salmond.
I don't have a vote of course, so my opinion is worthless.

I don't have a vote of course, so my opinion is worthless.

Correct. 😉

In Scotland. Remember that the rest of the UK has an interest in what happens, it isn't all about Scotland, the UK is our country too and we will have a voice next year.

Yip, and think how you would feel if you were in the following position:- In 2015, it is very likely indeed that we will be governed from Westminster by a Government with absolutely no elected MP's in our country.

technically it's an archipelago plus a bit of Ireland.

Pedants will be first against the wall in an independent Scotland, along with people who talk in the cinema.

People using salmond as an excuse are just picking something to justify what would always be a no vote. There's no convincing them anyhow.

Yup, a friend of a friend on FB is voting No because they haven't dualled the A9 yet. Oh, and because of all the Polish kids in his son's class.

for most of the period you were describing, the UK was two pretty big islands (and a whole bunch of mostly insignificant ones). presently it includes a reasonable chunk of the island of Ireland - and you should at least be aware of Northern Ireland if you're dissecting the constitutional arrangements of the UK; after all, it's a part of rUK with which you'd like to see a maritime border established...you ought to know your neighbours!

My basic point was that one very good reason Britain/UK/England has had a relatively stable system of government for so long is that the English Channel made it a lot harder for rampaging armies to invade. Compare it to the German city states, for example, who were always invading each other or being over-run by Poles or Swedes.

I ask if you're a religious man because you seem very skeptical of evolution.

Good straw man argument there, well done 😉

Charming:

[img] [/img]

scotroutes - Member
FWIW,any polling shows Alex Salmond to be the most trusted of any party leaders , even amongst non-SNP voters. The press has run a non-stop campaign against him so it's hardly surprising that you might think the opposite.

One of the best yet 🙂

Dinner with Scots family on holiday last night - all no across the generations including Mum and daughter who both work in NHS in Glasgow (completely refuted AS comments in NHS). One of their telling lines was, " the English must really hate us/all of this". Overstating it a bit, but at least they got the irritation factor. But then again they were discerning as their voting intentions showed.

AS gets a more balanced presentation that most. The media are happy to cover the bulk of his hogwash without critical comment allowing nonsense like the currency, bedroom tax, oil prices, nukes etc to affect perception/debate. He gets away with "media murder" of the truth (as the fleeing rats are now happy to admit as they swim to shore.)

Love the irony of it's not about Salmond and yet loads of pictures of English Tories. Is it about CMD and Osborne alone?

Thankfully Charles Baillie and his so called Britanniaca Party is an ex-BNP nobody whom almost no-one votes for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannica_Party

I really don't think he is in anyway representative of the No campaign.

True Rene, but Ben likes to keep us all entertained with these photos!

Good straw man argument there, well done

Love the irony of it's not about Salmond and yet loads of pictures of English Tories. Is it about CMD and Osborne alone?

No, it's about this lot too.

[img] [/img]

That wasn't a straw man argument in the slightest.

Sure it is - you came out with that idea that I was skeptical of evolution so I must be religious, and tried to tie that to a discussion about systems of government.

Evolution via natural selection is in no way comparable to the evolution of systems of government - there's just no comparison.

[url= http://radicalindependence.org/2014/08/19/radical-independence-campaign-18k-canvass-sample-released/ ]RIC massive canvass results [/url]
The results of a canvass of 18000 people completely fly in the face of most other polls. Could it be because ric have targeted people in deprived areas.

Sure it is - you came out with that idea that I was skeptical of evolution so I must be religious, and tried to tie that to a discussion about systems of government.

gordimhor - Member
RIC massive canvass results
The results of a canvass of 18000 people completely fly in the face of most other polls. Could it be because ric have targeted people in deprived areas.

While that is encouraging there's still enough undecideds to swing it the wrong way.

I see oil is going to be the next big Project Fear push. Apparently it has run out. I'm off to the shed to eBay my spare cans. I'm going to make a fortune... 🙂

24 days to go.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/20/snp-accused-exaggerating-north-sea-oil-reserves ]SNP accused of exaggerating North Sea oil reserves by up to 60%[/url]

[i]"Sir Ian Wood, the most influential figure in the Scottish oil industry, has accused Alex Salmond's government of exaggerating North Sea oil reserves by up to 60%".[/i]

epicyclo - Member

I see oil is going to be the next big Project Fear push. Apparently it has run out.

I'm sure that silly and childish comments like that ^ which are clearly designed to trivialise and ridicule what is undeniably a highly important and relevant issue in the referendum debate, help to explain why the Yessers are trailing all the credible opinion polls, which unlike the "RIC massive canvass" don't focus on one section of Scottish society.

The need to rely on puerile retorts in response to serious issues speaks volumes.

+1

The Emperor's New Clothes - although emperor only fists the size of the ergo and extent of the vanity involved.

I wonder of there will be any truth re the NHS tomorrow. Best not to hold my breath......

Well sorry to disappoint folks, but it seems our household will be single-handedly determining the outcome of the vote. At least if we get sent any more voting cards.... I'm on three and the other half is on two.

Bidding starts at 50p, all payments by Paypal gift!

I had heard tell of that from somewhere else honeybadgerx - got 6 different polling cards for long gone tenants.

"Sir Ian Wood, the most influential figure in the Scottish oil industry, has accused Alex Salmond's government of exaggerating North Sea oil reserves by up to 60%".

Whereas:

THE UK's leading offshore oil industry body has dismissed claims by Sir Ian Wood that the Scottish Government's predictions for North Sea oil recovery are too high.

It's all too confusing for my little Scottish brain to handle - best leave the oil to Westminster to deal with, it's such a burden.

It's all too confusing for my little Scottish brain to handle - best leave the oil to Westminster to deal with, it's such a burden.

So this need to rely on silly childish comments in place of sensible debate is widespread among Yessers?

And on the 19th of Sept you will wonder where it all went wrong.

From your link Ben :

[i]On Friday Melfort Campbell, the chair of a Scottish government commission into the future of North Sea oil, said the 24 billion figure was an "aspirational scenario" which could be won if there was a radical review of fiscal and regulatory regimes and "improved stewardship" of the North Sea.

But he cautioned: "With current uncertainty, ageing assets, spiralling costs and the challenges of improving production efficiency and attracting investment, we will be hard-pushed to achieve the mid-range scenario of around 15-16 billion let alone the holy grail of 24 billion barrels."[/i]

So the chair of a Scottish government commission into the future of North Sea oil feels it might be a struggle to achieve Wood's claim of 15-16 billion let alone the 24 billion barrels claimed by the Scottish government.

Obviously you will feel that liberated from the shackles of Westminster Scotland will be free to increase investment, efficiency, and infrastructures.

But whatever the uncertainties about future production of Scottish North Sea oil the one certainty is that Scotland should not rely on the certainty of North Sea oil for future prosperity.

North Sea oil is not a magic wand.

So this need to rely on silly childish comments in place of sensible debate is widespread among Yessers?

I don't know - I think it's important to have a sense of humour in this. I also think that sensible debate is beyond the abilities of this forum, so I'm just having fun with it.

But whatever the uncertainties about future production of Scottish North Sea oil the one certainty is that Scotland should not rely on the certainty of North Sea oil for future prosperity.

We're not. If the oil ran out tomorrow, or if Scotland decided to leave it all where it is for environmental reasons (my preferred option) then the Scottish economy would still be fine. It's a nice bonus to have and save for the future, it's not a necessity.

....if Scotland decided to leave it all where it is for environmental reasons (my preferred option)

So you reject the Scottish government's claim it makes in "the case for independence" that a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund is vital and only achievable through a yes vote.

One of Yes Scotland's central arguments is that North Sea oil has been squandered, a very fair point imo, and that it should instead be invested in the future, again a fair point imo, but you would rather just leave it under the sea.

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

People are voting for independence for a lot of different reasons and there are groups coming at it from all sorts of different angles. Yes Scotland is only one of those groups. It it really beyond comprehension that someone might want Scotland to be independent, but also want them to leave the oil in the ground?

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

Not really - I'm not a member of Yes Scotland, I'm a member of the Green Party. We all want independence, we don't all walk in lockstep on every issue of policy. I know the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are totally interchangeable, but up here we actually have different political parties with different views.

Is my point of view so odd? Everyone who's not a loon agrees that climate change is probably the most serious issue facing mankind, and one big thing we can do to help is to stop burning fossil fuels. So yes, I think the oil should stay safely locked away under the sea.

But I accept that that is a minority view - humans aren't good at leaving resources alone. So if the oil is going to be extracted, I want the money we get from it to be put to the best possible use - and that use isn't for giving tax cuts and launching hugely expensive wars.

If we're going to screw up the planet for our kids by burning the oil, the least we can do is give them the money we get.

It it really beyond comprehension that someone might want Scotland to be independent, but also want them to leave the oil in the ground?

Not at all. I can see that is exactly what Ben wants. I still however think it's rather bizarre that one of the few sensible and valid points made the Scottish government/Yes Scotland, ie, not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben. Don't you ?

not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben.

Er, I haven't.

No.

Once the oil is gone/left in ground/stolen by foreign powers we could have a renewables sovereign wealth fund instead.

ernie_lynch - Member
...I still however think it's rather bizarre that one of the few sensible and valid points made the Scottish government/Yes Scotland, ie, not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben. Don't you ?

Ernie, sometimes the bow is too long for even you to stretch it... 🙂

Er, I haven't.

Well you want the stuff left under the sea, and presumably rely on oil from elsewhere - unless of course you think that a separate Scotland wouldn't need any oil derived products, which in effect rejects the Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund.

Well you want the stuff left under the sea, and presumably rely on oil from elsewhere - unless of course you think that a separate Scotland wouldn't need any oil derived products, which in effect rejects the Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund.

Oh, good grief - I'm not sure I can make it any simpler without using pictograms, but here goes:

- I think we should be using less oil.
- So I think it would be great if the oil stayed where it is.
- That isn't going to happen.
- So we're going to get some money from the oil.
- Therefore that money should do the most good.
- So it should be used to set up an oil fund for the future.

Oh, good grief - I'm not sure I can make it any simpler without using pictograms

I understood exactly what you said, it was written in simple very easy to understand English :

[i]if Scotland decided to leave it all where it is for environmental reasons (my preferred option)[/i]

You would prefer if it was left where it is, which unless I'm very much mistaken is under the sea.

Your preferred option in effect makes the rather sensible and valid argument offered by the Scottish government in "the case for independence", with regards to a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, redundant.

So I repeat my comment, when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11045117/No-Thanks-independence-posters-defaced.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11045117/No-Thanks-independence-posters-defaced.html[/url]

Posted this after seeing a series of defaced posters on my way home tonight. Isolated incidents on both sides are regrettable, however this seems to be happening to better together posters across the country. Yes posters and signs, as well as yes stickers plastered across Scotlands road signs do not seem to be subject to the same treatment, despite polls saying there are more no voters.

Ernie you are clutching at straws here, take a step back ffs.

What am I "clutching at straws" about ? Do tell me.

[i]"This government will make the creation of a Scottish Energy Fund an early priority," the devolved government, which favours independence said in its report[/i]

[url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/scotland-energy-idUKL5N0JB2MW20131126 ]Independent Scotland would create oil and gas wealth fund[/url]

The sovereign wealth fund is a fairly central argument which is being offered by those who favour a yes vote and one of the ways in which they suggest the future prosperity a separate Scotland lies.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed it this week, but there appears to have been a surge in support of the yes side of the debate. Many many people who I know who were staunch no voters have decided that they are definitely now voting yes.

[quote=wanmankylung ]I don't know if anyone else has noticed it this week, but there appears to have been a surge in support of the yes side of the debate. Many many people who I know who were staunch no voters have decided that they are definitely now voting yes.
Confirmation bias?

I reckon that those with the opposite view are less likely to let you know how they intend to vote, so you tend only to hear from/about those that agree with you.

I do think that there are fewer "don't knows" though.

Strolls in for a brief un-flounce

Posted this after seeing a series of defaced posters on my way home tonight. Isolated incidents on both sides are regrettable, however this seems to be happening to better together posters across the country. Yes posters and signs, as well as yes stickers plastered across Scotlands road signs do not seem to be subject to the same treatment, despite polls saying there are more no voters.

Yep, lots round here too. Only one opinion allowed by some. That said I've seen Yes signs forcibly removed, but nothing in comparison.

I've heard of more serious things tbh. Nothing nasty, just examples of where only one voice is allowed.

Confirmation bias?
I reckon that those with the opposite view are less likely to let you know how they intend to vote, so you tend only to hear from/about those that agree with you.

I do think that there are fewer "don't knows" though.

I'd imagine so. I know of more no voters now than before. And no increase in yes voters. Which I put down to my increasingly overt cynicism. And some assumptions being made on my voting intentions based on my accent. I'd also suggest the circles I move in leading to a distorted view.

I do know of a number of no voters that are borderline intimidated to admit it.

Anyway - re-flounces

Someone (who posts on STW) reported on Facebook that they'd seen at least one defaced "Yes" banner in the borders, so both "sides" are at it.

Defacing political posters isn't exactly new though, is it? I mean, we all had a laugh at some of the UKIP ones very recently.

[img] [/img]

To be honest I'd not seen that one. I much preferred the 'vote ukip, the friendly face of racism'

Anyway, I said "re-flounces"

And what are you doing in here anyway. You'll rot your brain.

I also think that a great number of the don't knows are going to abstain from voting. There are a lot of people who don't like the arguments from either side and if given the choice would choose "none of the above", preferring a Devo Max option.