[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Disproportionate to what? Population, generation?

It's certainly to be expected that post-independence, the rUK would want to import electricity from Scotland- the infrastructure, the capacity and the demand all exist obviously. Mutually beneficial situation

@JY, I'm not convinced it's that simple, it's not like England or Wales have filled their usefully windy spots. Strikes me as a correlation rather than a cause.

Ooh you old cynic.

I'm sure they'd never do such a thing.

should have thought an iS would be rubbing it's hands together. if the UK's energy requirements are not being fulfilled domestically, then by increasing iS's provision there's a ready made customer on your doorstep and it would make it an easy sell to the rest of UK? the infrastructure operated by the national grid is already connected to Scotland's, as well as the continent, so it should be a pretty easy sell, right?
get building them [s]nukes[/s] low carbon power generation systems!

should have thought an iS would be rubbing it's hands together. if the UK's energy requirements are not being fulfilled domestically, then by increasing iS's provision there's a ready made customer on your doorstep and it would make it an easy sell to the rest of UK?

Well, you'd think so - but I guess the counter argument is that most of the renewables are loss making and only operable with significant subsidy, so in an independent Scotland, who's going to underwrite the payments to the operators?

ninfan - Member
should have thought an iS would be rubbing it's hands together. if the UK's energy requirements are not being fulfilled domestically, then by increasing iS's provision there's a ready made customer on your doorstep and it would make it an easy sell to the rest of UK?
Well, you'd think so - but I guess the counter argument is that most of the renewables are loss making and only operable with significant subsidy, so in an independent Scotland, who's going to underwrite the payments to the operators?

I'd rather buy off the French (spits on floor) 😆

Let's not forget the water that Boris,you know the guy who could be future leader of this country, said you should pipe down to the sarf of England,because you have regular shortages. " och don't worry,it's all the peat that gives it that yellow colour and salty taste... 😈

@JY, I'm not convinced it's that simple

Fair point I am sure other factors need to be taken into account

Hmm, not sure if he's trolling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26933998

The Scottish government said the comments were "crass and offensive".

Again terrible reporting from the BBC.

So the whole assembly, all said this? Or was it from a spokesman or the yes camp BBC?

I presume a spokesperson for the Scottish government (i.e. the SNP).

This is more love bombing, is it?

Again terrible reporting from the BBC.

So the whole assembly, all said this?

And yet again another pointless attack on the BBC !

"The government" doesn't mean "the parliament" which I assume is what you mean by "the whole assembly". And as bencooper's points out ministers and others have the authority to speak on behalf of the Scottish government.

It doesn't mean that every MSP said the identical thing and most people realise this which is why the BBC didn't need to point it out 🙂

They've trotted out another Lord!

Can almost hear the meter ticking over as another few undecided go Yes.

What a load of bollocks that was. The fear, smear, and sneer campaign is getting desperate.

If Scotland not being in NATO is such a problem to the Western world, then the answer is simple, ask Scotland to be a member.

then the answer is simple, ask Scotland to be a member.

But I thought SNP policy was against joining NATO - so even if they were asked, they wouldn't join, surely?

It's not the first time Robertson's been wheeled out to talk pish about NATO- any time they want a scarestory but can't get it from NATO because they try to base their positions on reality, they bring him forth because of his past association with the organisation. He can give the impression of representing NATO while having nothing to do with them. It's a shame really.

(see also- last year when he was telling us that "unresolved border disputes" would prevent us joining NATO. Oh and suggesting Scotland would be responsible for the cost of relocating Trident)

Hard to see this as turning out to be anything but another project fear own goal though, it'll play well with their supporters but you can already hear people say "Whose business is it of America's what we do?"

"The government" doesn't mean "the parliament" which I assume is what you mean by "the whole assembly". And as bencooper's points out ministers and others have the authority to speak on behalf of the Scottish government.

It doesn't mean that every MSP said the identical thing and most people realise this which is why the BBC didn't need to point it ou

Its misleading. They should be clear 'a spokesman for X released this' or name the person who said it.

When the 'British Government' says anything its common to state who is saying/clarifying basically no?

The BBC were being a wee bit naughty, as though theres a united thought at Holyrood.

piemonster - Member
Hmm, not sure if he's trolling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26933998

In contrast! 😆

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/comment-independence-will-create-a-global-power-1-3365972

ninfan - Member
then the answer is simple, ask Scotland to be a member.
But I thought SNP policy was against joining NATO - so even if they were asked, they wouldn't join, surely?

Here is the Yes scotland position on nato

The current Scottish Government supports continued membership of NATO, albeit with the significant caveat that membership should not require retention of nuclear weapons in Scotland.

In their white paper ("Scotland's Future: Your Guide to Scottish Independence") the Scottish Government explains its view that "NATO membership is in Scotland’s interests, and the interests of our neighbours, because it underpins effective conventional defence and security co?operation".

Robertson language is shocking - I await the Union supporters attacking him as they do AS.
That attack and language is way OTT...was he tired and emotional?

In a plea to the former politician, she said: "I'm not the person using language like cataclysmic and suggesting that independence would aid the forces of darkness.

"I would invite George Robertson to come back into the realms of decent and rational debate, because that is the kind of debate we should be having."

THIS

Its misleading. They should be clear 'a spokesman for X released this' or name the person who said it.

No it is not misleading and you will find examples everyday of this

When the 'British Government' says anything its common to state who is saying/clarifying basically no?

Its clarified right there in your own question its the BRITISH GOVERNMENT saying it 🙄
Its not common the most common clarification is a "spokesperson" which tells you next to nothing

 

gordimhor - Member

The current Scottish Government supports continued membership of NATO, albeit with the significant caveat that membership should not require retention of nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Which again Robertson has claimed in the past would be a barrier to entry, ignoring the fact that NATO would [i]require[/i] Scotland as a member to adhere to the principles of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament as signatories to the NPT. We'd not be allowed to be a nuclear power if we wanted to or to receive UK nuclear weapons, nor would the UK be allowed to support us if we did.

So in some ways it's same old same old but the change of tone is pretty surprising, up til now they've been trading on his plausability and statesmanship, maybe he just thought he's used that up?

ignoring the fact that NATO would require Scotland as a member to adhere to the principles of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament as signatories to the NPT. We'd not be allowed to be a nuclear power if we wanted to or to receive UK nuclear weapons,

Which is entirely a straw man argument, since nobody with any real credibility has for one second ever suggested that Scotland (or any other country) [i]hosting[/i] nuclear weapons in the command of control of either the UK or US would be in breach of the NPT, otherwise Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Japan and a whole long list of other nations would have been breaking the non proliferation treaty for fifty odd years!

Funny that isn't it, over 30 years of constant opposition to NATO membership, then a complete policy U-turn just after Alex signs the Edinburgh agreement

And they accuse the No campaign of being disingenuous and inconsistent 😆

ninfan - Member
...Funny that isn't it, over 30 years of constant opposition to NATO membership, then a complete policy U-turn just after Alex signs the Edinburgh agreement...

I think you're confusing SNP party policy with the broader independence movement.

Our govt's future policies will depend on which govt we elect after independence.

Who knows, maybe we will want to seek the protection of Russia from the threatened bombings the Westminster mob have suggested will be necessary? 🙂

epicyclo - Member

Can almost hear the meter ticking over as another few undecided go Yes.

Really? 😐

You're in the minority.
You always have been, are now, and always will be.
I can only assume that you're hoping a lot of "No" voters are actually telling porky pies and will vote "Yes" on the day.
This won't happen. In fact, the opposite will happen.
I've had a good look around other forums to try and guage what people's true feelings are (as, believe it or not, the tiny population of STW is not representative of the general population 😯 ) and the Yes crowd are definitely a vocal minority.
A lot of No voters are simply too scared to share their opinion for fear of reprisal by the Yes mob.

I work in service/hospitality and speak to hundreds of people each week. I'm yet to meet one Scot who favours independence, though I suppose the ones I've spoken to are working in England and can see first hand one of the great benefits of the union.
They can also share their opinion honestly, without fear of abuse.

I've had a good look around other forums to try and guage what people's true feelings are (as, believe it or not, the tiny population of STW is not representative of the general population ) and the Yes crowd are definitely a vocal minority.

I'm yet to meet one Scot who favours independence

I am not getting into a debate here re your honesty [ i think we will take it as read you will defend it / criticise me] but it would be impossible for someone to ask hundreds of scots and not hear one in favour.
If i claimed I had asked hundreds and all has said yes would you believe me ? Would anyone?

Sorry for being unclear Junkyard, I didn't mean I speak to hundreds of Scots each week, but out of those hundreds of people, all the Scots have been against independence.

Do you just cater at events for the Union campaign?

No. 🙂
I'm in England so am not party to much campaigning.
My customers are a broad mix of public sector (NHS, Teachers, Councils et cetera) and very varied private sector.

Quite unscientific of course, I wouldn't dispute that.

epicyclo - Member

Who knows, maybe we will want to seek the protection of Russia from the threatened bombings the Westminster mob have suggested will be necessary?

I was hearing reports of 4 blackhawks flying north through central scotland yesterday. Westminster starting to a mass forces in preparation? 😆

Quite unscientific of course, I wouldn't dispute that.

💡 So it's probably best that you don't rely on your own research which concludes that no one in Scotland will vote for independence and perhaps rely instead on slightly more scientific research which suggests that approx 40% intend to vote for independence.

BTW what "work in service/hospitality" do you do that gives you the opportunity to ask every Scotsman and woman you meet whether they 'favour independence' ?

So it's probably best that you don't rely on your own research which concludes that no one in Scotland will vote for independence and perhaps rely instead on slightly more scientific research which suggests that approx 40% intend to vote for independence.

Thanks for the hot tip.

BTW what "work in service/hospitality" do you do that gives you the opportunity to ask every Scotsman and woman you meet whether they 'favour independence'?

I'm a grown up, I speak to people. I don't need to obtain permission slips from Mummy or Daddy. 😕

What do you do for a living Che?

I speak to people.

I figured that out. I find it slightly bizarre how you manage to ask Scotsmen and women you meet whether or not the support Scottish independence.

Although not quite as bizarre as your claim that you have never met one of the 40% who do.

I find it slightly bizarre how you manage to ask Scotsmen and women you meet whether or not the support Scottish independence.

You find it bizarre that two adults, or even a group of adults would discuss current affairs?
Now that is odd.
What do you do for a living? It may explain your peculiar views.

Although not quite as bizarre as your claim that you have never one of the 40% who do.

It's hardly bizarre when you actually read what I wrote and keep it in context.
Some of these people are working (and living) in England, so they will not be part of the 40% as they have no vote.
The rest are people working in England (but not living) or those doing business in England.

Now doesn't it stand to reason that these people are more likely to see the benefits of the union compared to someone who perhaps lives and works in Scotland without having as much experience of the rest of the UK?
I thought I made that point clearly in my earlier post, but maybe you missed it, or were distracted by Bert* or something.

*Pretty sure I owed you a cheap shot, there you have it. I personally thought it was quite good. 😀

seosamh77 - Member
...I was hearing reports of 4 blackhawks flying north through central scotland yesterday. Westminster starting to a mass forces in preparation?

The Russian aircraft carrier they didn't notice has been gone for weeks now.

Or were they responding to Coastkid's hordes rampaging through Nth Berwick at the weekend.

sbob - Member

...A lot of No voters are simply too scared to share their opinion for fear of reprisal by the Yes mob...

Can you produce a documented case of this?

Intimidation is a serious offence, and the police would take an interest. Or are you believing the beat ups produced by the media, which are fact free.

Can you produce a documented case of this?

A documented case of a post on an internet forum?
Yes I can, though I don't think the police would be interested.
Maybe "reprisal" was too strong a word, we're talking friends falling out not gang warfare or another Ireland situation!

Mind you, you know who the greatest enemy of a Scotsman is... 😉

You find it bizarre that two adults, or even a group of adults would discuss current affairs?

Well I find it a little odd that someone who works in "service/hospitality" should make a point of speaking to their Scottish clients about Scottish independence, yes.

Specially if they are a barman or waiter. Although black cab driver would make sense. And that would explain why none have been prepared to admit supporting independence - no one likes to be rude to a black cab driver.

Some of these people are working (and living) in England, so they will not be part of the 40% as they have no vote.

So your observation has no discernible value then. Which makes it rather strange that you should have mentioned it then.

Well I find it a little odd that someone who works in "service/hospitality" should make a point of speaking to their Scottish clients about Scottish independence, yes.

How sad that you should think like that. It's not the only topic of conversation though, we talk about all sorts.
It's just people, having a chat.

So your observation has no discernible value then.

So because some of my customers have no vote, the opinions of those that do aren't relevent.
With logic like that you could work for the SNP!

So what do you do for a living then Che? I take it you don't have much of a customer facing role?
(and go on; admit you thought the jibe was quite good 😉 )

sbob - Member
...A documented case of a post on an internet forum?...

No, an actual case of intimidation with actual rather than imaginary people.

You're an imaginary person?
The mind is a terrible thing to taste. 😉

ninfan - Member

Which is entirely a straw man argument, since nobody with any real credibility has for one second ever suggested that Scotland (or any other country) hosting nuclear weapons in the command of control of either the UK or US would be in breach of the NPT

Seriously? It's always been widely regarded that the US posting of nuclear weapons abroad is in direct violation of the NPT. It's something that's survived as it's historic, you'll notice that none of the list of nations you mentioned became a nuclear host within recent times. (and some are actively disarming- Germany now hosts only vestiges of the old US nuclear establishment, and is acting to remove the last of those, in keeping with its legal commitment to pursue the agenda of nuclear disarmament).

So it is bizarre that people claim Scotland refusing to host nuclear weapons would be an issue for NATO, when it's something other countries already do, and something Germany are moving towards with the full consent and cooperation of NATO.

Another fine Robertson claim- that Scotland would in fact be forcing the UK to disarm. Utter gibberish, there's no prospect that even he believes it. But here he is again being given serious attention.

sbob - Member
You're an imaginary person?
The mind is a terrible thing to taste.

That's the sort of thing hirsute sub-pontal denizens say... 🙂

It was an extremely obscure reference to an album by Ministry.
Still fairly certain at least one STWer would recognise it.

[url= http://m.stv.tv/news/tayside/270936-david-torrance-msp-allegedly-attacked-in-novar-bar-in-kirkcaldy/ ]Found one! An actual assault.[/url]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, wrong side.... 🙂

Probably for the best, you should never trust a Fifer. 😉

(**** me, that's a classy looking joint for political discussion!)

Cowboy country Kirkcaldy anyway.

That article I posted earlier was off the mark. Here is the real [url= http://eveningharold.com/2014/04/08/scottish-independence-will-bring-voldemort-back-claims-lord-robertson/ ]threat[/url]

Shocking evidence of a no supporter being assaulted. Not for the faint of hearted folks. 🙁

That was like a Limmy's Show sketch

That was like a Limmy's Show sketch

I wish... the muppet who uploaded that video to you tube is a member of the SDL

Hanbags at dawn in a pub after two men have political disagreement. Stop the press. My concerns run deeper than that.

If the settled will of the Scottish people is to vote for independence then there will be parties whilst the minority lump it, shut up and hope against hope Lord Robertson is wrong.
If the settled will of the Scottish people is to remain within the UK then look out for violent protests taken to the doors of Westminster by angry nationalists. They are likely to have support from anti fracking groups and anti capitalist protesters keen to stick one up the UK authorities.

In itself this does not appear worrying as this will be a minority of a few thousand. The real concern will come when I am sure you will see widespread support and lack of condemnation from nationalists who will be happy to acheive the outcome they desire, regardless of whether democracy is trodden on along the way.

....and hope against hope Lord Robertson is wrong.

You make it sound as if Lord Robertson's comments with regards to Scottish independence were sensible and reasonable !

When in reality they represent some of the stupidest and most ridiculous in the whole debate.........according to him a vote for Scottish independence will be a "pre-Christmas present" to "the forces of darkness", it could lead to the "Balkanization" of Europe and have a "cataclysmic" impact on the global balance of power, with "incalculable consequences".

What a load of absurd nonsense. You really don't need to 'hope against hope' that Lord Robertson is wrong - it's a forgone conclusion that he is. And he should ashamed of himself for spouting such drivel. Although I don't suppose he is.

C+p'd from elsewhere so don't ask me to verify.

George Robertson is Senior advisor to the (William) Cohen group. The Cohen group represents American & UK defence contractors.

The Cohen group, profits from foreign aid, written into contracts that recipient countries must buy US/UK made weapons.

Can I just do a LIKE to ernie's post above

He clearly wanted to help the no vote and he clearly has not helped one bit.

Any evidence for these assertions athgray

If the settled will of the Scottish people is to remain within the UK then look out for violent protests taken to the doors of Westminster by angry nationalists. They are likely to have support from anti fracking groups and anti capitalist protesters keen to stick one up the UK authorities.

In itself this does not appear worrying as this will be a minority of a few thousand. The real concern will come when I am sure you will see widespread support and lack of condemnation from nationalists who will be happy to acheive the outcome they desire, regardless of whether democracy is trodden on along the way

gordimhor - Member
Any evidence for these assertions athgray

http://www.cohengroup.net/about/teammember.cfm?id=9

That was harrowing ss77,truly harrowing.The way the Nat's beat him to a pulp and ate the tiny kittens he was carrying to the cat orphanage.As posted by that well kent authority sbob,is it going to be the next point of attack of the no campaign?

Have we mentioned the attack where an 80-year-old man had his wrist broken?

If you haven't heard about it, that's probably because he's a Yes supporter:

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-campaigner-80-attacked-1-3077094

George Robertson is perfectly free to rant about "forces of darkness" if he likes - and he also used that catchy phrase "rivers of blood" - what's very dodgy is he was asking other countries to interfere in a democratic election.

Another fine Robertson claim- that Scotland would in fact be forcing the UK to disarm. Utter gibberish, there's no prospect that even he believes it. But here he is again being given serious attention.

In 2012, in written evidence to a Commons defence committee, Scottish CND concluded:

"There are no practical alternative locations for Trident. As a result, if the government of an independent Scotland maintained a stance of refusing to host nuclear weapons, then Britain would effectively cease to be a nuclear-weapon state.

devonport would be glad of the work, and i can think of worse things that could happen to central plymouth in the event of an accident... 😈

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-trident-for-pound-plan-1-3369902

Just someones opinion. Intriguing how this will play out.

Del, bearing in mind a Tory MP has already stated they should stay in Scotland as fewer people live here,it isn't just the SNP telling porkies.

So it turns out Better Together are running a phone bank.

From London.

From a PR company in London.

From a PR company in London called Political Lobbying and Media Relations, based a couple of hundred yards from the Houses of Parliament.

😀

Why does it matter where the Better Together phone bank is located ? Why would it matter if was a couple of hundred yards from the Houses of Parliament or a couple of hundred miles from it ?

Does the location of the phone bank make a powerful argument in favour of a Scotland being separate from the rest of the United Kingdom ?

What's the point you're trying making......or is it as I suspect just a silly and completely pointless dig ?

Ernie,BT promote themselves as Scots fighting to save the union,hence Alistair Darling heading it up rather than somebody likeable.There are lots of call centres and PR companies up here,why not use one of them? Or perhaps it is easier to keep the NO campaign closer to it's chain of command? Actually I take that back,David Cameron has already said it is for Scots to decide and Westminster will not be getting involved,ARF! Can't see how Ben is attempting to suggest that is a compelling argument for Scotland to be a seperate country by stating the above.

Or perhaps it is easier to keep the NO campaign closer to it's chain of command?

I see, the phone bank might be "a couple of hundred yards" from the Houses of Parliament to keep it closer to "its chain of command".

Otherwise how would they know what's happening ?

If the Yes campaign needs to make an issue of the alleged location of a phone bank then that speaks volumes of their lack of credible argument which they can offer Scottish voters.

And a serious constitutional issue with consequences for generations to come needs more consideration than silly taunting. I would have thought.

I know,because the no campaign has set out such compelling reasons for the union,and all in a reasoned,measured way. As George Robertson did in the last week.
"And a serious constitutional issue with consequences for generations to come needs more consideration than silly taunting. I would have thought."
It should aso be a decision made by Scots,for Scots shouldn't it? The no campaign is driven by Westminster,not a dedicated group of Unionist Scots. Of course,if Westminster was willing to discuss potential terms of a split then it would be easier to have that level of consideration.

ernie_lynch - Member
Why does it matter where the Better Together phone bank is located ? ...

I think it makes sense for the BT campaign.

If they picked a Scottish call centre there's an approx 50% chance that the staff member doing the work supported independence and may be a wee bit subversive...

f the Yes campaign needs to make an issue of the alleged location of a phone bank then that speaks volumes of their lack of credible argument which they can offer Scottish voters.

I don't speak for the Yes campaign - no idea if the campaign is going to make an issue of it, they probably won't, it just amused me.

I know,because the no campaign has set out such compelling reasons for the union,and all in a reasoned,measured way

Exactly. In Darling's recent interview (the "monstered" one) he kept saying "we need to make a strong positive case for the union", and I kept thinking "well, go on then - you're the one in front of a microphone".

They keep saying there's a strong positive case for the union, but they never say what it actually [u]is[/u].

Why (tactically or strategically) would Westminster discuss terms of a split now? More Scots prefer a Union than a split. Absurd to give details on the conclusion neither you nor the majority want.

No compelling reasons? Again !?! (Repeat, repeat, repeat and it may become a (half truth)) I assume that, with respect to defence, you have read...

Esp pp 8-14

Actually, I will grant you it starts with why leaving would be a bad decision before presenting the positive case. But the compelling argument IS there for those who are willing to look and read. The alternative would be to spoon feed sugar drops of fantasy.

Got to page 8 of that, and laughed out loud. Recently, when some Russian warships entered Scottish waters, the MoD found out via a Twitter post by a fisherman, and promptly dispatched an escort ship. From Portsmouth, which only arrived a day later.

We also have no patrol aircraft any more.

Scottish energy report:

Exactly. In Darling's recent interview (the "monstered" one) he kept saying "we need to make a strong positive case for the union", and I kept thinking "well, go on then - you're the one in front of a microphone".

To be honest, the No camp doesn't need to make the case. You can just look out the window and that's what you'll get.

It's the Yes camp that wants to change things. And it is up to 'Yes' to make the case.

And up to us to decide. Personally it’s not particularly clear cut, but ‘Yes’ does edge it. But not by much, both sides strike me as a shower of shites when it comes to politicians. But one side appears to be a bigger shower than the other. Hobsons choice. Fortunately of course, Im not voting for a politician.

duckman, well, there [i]are[/i] less people in scotland, aren't there?
devonport fails the safety case due to the higher population nearby ( more than double in the same proximity than faslane ), and although, yes, a lot more people live not [i]that[/i] far away from faslane, devon and cornwall's population is ~1.5 million, rising ( from D&C police's estimates ) to ~ 8 million in the summer. south westerly prevailing winds would likely carry contamination up through devon and onwards.
still, like i say, plymouth sure would welcome the work. that place is on it's ar5e. 🙂

Welcome back THM,I suspected you would have a long dinner after Robertson's rant last week.With all due respect to these Scotland analysis docs which you have linked to on here a number of times,these are no more honest than the white paper.An example would be the one on defence above. The reality is rather different,the example Ben mentions above drives a coach and pair made through the suggestions of how wonderful defence policy is. At least in 1707 we had 4 frigates*

*Only 2 were seaworthy. 😆
Point of order,suggesting I dont want independence as you do above is wrong,long term I have always wanted out of the union.I would like to have seen it be an easier transaction with a period of devo max.That not being on offer I will take a painful birth as a better option than the status quo.

And todays polling http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-more-undecided-voters-1-3371857

SUPPORT for Scottish independence has fallen slightly, as has support for the Union, according to two new opinion polls published today.

The gap between the Yes and No camps remains close enough for the “don’t knows” to deliver the swing needed to secure a Yes vote in September.

The percentage of Scots polled who plan to vote Yes in the referendum has fallen to 37 per cent in the latest Survation poll, down from 39 per cent in last month’s study by the pollsters on behalf of the Daily Record, Dundee University and the website Better Nation.

But support for a No vote is also down, from 48 per cent to 47 per cent.

Panelbase

A separate poll by Panelbase puts support for a Yes vote at 40 per cent, which is down by one point on a poll issued by the same organisation at the weekend.

Those planning to vote No is also down by a point to 45 per cent according to the latest Panelbase survey carried out on behalf of the Yes Scotland campaign.

It means the “don’t knows” could still deliver victory for the Yes camp in September, with a six point swing needed in the Survation survey and a three point swing needed in Panelbase. There has been a marked shift in support for Yes since the start of the year.

Just in case anyone has forgotten http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/panelbase-bans-new-members-from-independence-polls-1-3080830

I know,because the no campaign has set out such compelling reasons for the union,and all in a reasoned,measured way. As George Robertson did in the last week.

That's a pisspoor excuse for the lack of a credible argument......."the other side also has a shit argument". ffs.

And now because George Robertson, who was always a talentless politician, has spouted some nonsensical drivel about the inevitable collapse of Western civilization as we know it should Scotland dare to vote Yes in September, you feel that the Yes campaign and its supporters are no longer obliged to offer any sort of rational argument. Remarkable.

Of course the truth is that those who support Scottish "independence", despite having had about 300 years to think about it, can't come up with any sort of half rational argument so they will look for any half-arsed excuse to explain this clearly hugely embarrassing fact.

The more this thread continues the more convinced I become that no case for Scottish so-called independence actually exists.

Half rational argument. We get to decide on our own government.

What more do you need, anything else is party politics.

Unless you are claiming that Scotland can't run itself Ernie? BTW you'd be the only one.

ernie_lynch - Member
...Of course the truth is that those who support Scottish "independence", despite having had about 300 years to think about it, can't come up with any sort of half rational argument so they will look for any half-arsed excuse to explain this clearly hugely embarrassing fact.

The more this thread continues the more convinced I become that no case for Scottish so-called independence actually exists.

We have a very simple reason.

We want our country back.

Good to see that the lasses are a canny bunch! Keep it up ladies.

Emotive and meaningless. No one "took your country". And surrendering influence and involvement over issues which affects the lives of those who live in Scotland is about as sensible as cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I now realise that I must have been remarkably naive to have thought that there might be a well thought out and rational argument for Scottish independence. It never occurred to me that in the 21st century in an advanced country people might still hang onto ridiculously primitive forms of chauvinism.

We want our country back.

Its not yours anymore - you gave it away, remember?