[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Please don't rush to join the troll. Read what I said instead. I will check to see if you can raise your game by coffee time.

P.S. You should consider all the figures available. Like currency options, they all have pros and cons. Neither should be used in isolation, hence I didn't say that did I? Of course, yesterday's data was a snap shot. In isolation they tell a limited story. More interesting is the insight they give into the drivers of the economy and especially the dichotomy between the split in the economy between the onshore bit (where most spending is concentrated) and the offshore bit (which drives a large part of the revenue, tax, is concentrated) and why this is important when deciphering la la land economics.

You can look at the Elgin hiccup in two ways too ie, a simple "one off" or a symptom of recent under-investments. Depending on your view, you can decide on your own sensitivity of future tax revenue forecasts (among other factors).

Of course, the BBC issue is a red herring but an understanding of national accounting and availability of statistics is required first.

Okay, that's it - Better Together, you've really gone too far this time:

[img] [/img]

Fewer. [u]Fewer![/u]

Alastair Darling just making stuff up is one thing - this is so much worse.

Always fun to see how much you can extrapolate from a one year trend.

Ah another fine example of the campaign Mr Darling characterised as "relentlessly positive"

😆 at that picture

Cut here for fewer grammar!

Sheesh,hyper sensitive Jocks...I wonder if somebody will pass any remark on that pic,y'ken maybe somebody who has frequently commented on the SNP's scare tactics...

@bencooper.

I've got to say that I've been against independence from the start.

But with that advert, I am now completely in favour. Who cares about the economy, defense, oil, or whatnot? If as a nation we cannot even get our grammar right, we have no right to continue to exist.

It's a crass advert.

Is there a better source confirming the advert is genuine? WoS is a nasty little arsewipe and he seems to be the only one who has a copy of it.

WoS is a nasty little arsewipe

Care to elaborate?

bencooper - Member
Care to elaborate?

I thought he was a dickwad after posting this on twitter:

Ben Fogle ?@Benfogle Mar 6

A week in Scotland and I'm reminded how much I like Scots and Scotland. Please don't leave us..........

Who appointed him spokesman of Scotland 😆 ? So I went through the comments, and saw this:
[URL= http://i.imgur.com/fH4gTEal.pn g" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/fH4gTEal.pn g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

I wondered if that was a true quote, and it is, but massively out of context. However he comes across as a complete bellend on the thread it's from nonetheless. Turns out he's a video game reviewer living in Somerset who doesn't take kindly to criticism 🙂

[URL= http://i.imgur.com/l5jYofTl.pn g" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/l5jYofTl.pn g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

So with that in mind, it seems he is quite happy to throw obnoxious comments out at people whenever he likes, but throws the toys out of the pram whenever somebody posts something he disagrees with.

So as I said, I'll be waiting for a better source on those ads. 😆

I'm a Yes voter and can't take anything WoS says seriously, it's so biased that I have a hard time accepting any of it. Bit out of order to attack the man in such way though, even if he is (allegedly) a bit of a dick.

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

I'm not defending him - I don't know him in the slightest - but WoS does provide facts and analysis that more mainstream media sources don't.

bencooper - Member

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

I'm not defending him - I don't know him in the slightest - but WoS does provide facts and analysis that more mainstream media sources don't.

How you feel about my screengrabs is how I feel about the ads he posted.
Anyhow, the shots I took are from just now, the pagese all still online, just google the text from them and you'll see. Even posting some of those things jokingly is deeply unpleasant in my view.

But anyway all I'm saying is that I'm taking his posts with a healthy pinch of salt. If a mainstream source runs with it I'd be more inclined to believe it was genuine.

bencooper - Member

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

So WoS's 'random screen shot' is genuine but the other ones aren't?

But mainstream sources don't run with this stuff, that's the point - when an independent academic showed that the BBC was strongly biased towards the No campaign, the BBC attacked him.

When the mainstream media isn't being impartial, you have to look to other sources as well.

So WoS's 'random screen shot' is genuine but the other ones aren't?

I don't see what he'd get out of faking them. He said they were leaked to him. He just got £100k through crowdsourced funding to help run a news site, it'd blow his credibility if he faked stuff like that.

Of course the leaker could have faked it.

It may provide analysis.

But that doesn't mean it provides facts.

When the mainstream media isn't being impartial, you have to look to other sources as well.

Yup, you need to look to other sources and asses their credibility and inherent biases too.

[url= http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog ]http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog[/url] is still the best source i've seen for being objective and really getting into some of the nitty gritty.

Yup, you need to look to other sources and asses their credibility and inherent biases too.

Absolutely. Newsnet Scotland and the National Collective are also good.

But here's an example of something where WoS facts contradict the mainstream media - according to WoS, [url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-letter-from-standard-life/ ]"Standard Life currently has no plans to relocate or transfer parts of our operations out of Scotland"[/url].

If that letter is true (and other sources in other places say similar) then it's very useful info to have.

Here's a poll from the Daily Record[url=http:// http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/referendum-new-poll-puts-support-3236690 ] Uncomfortable reading for Scottish Labour[/url]
Support for independence at an all time high though still behind . The poll shows labour is making no in roads against the snp .

Please don't rush to join the troll.

I assume you mean me - I am not sure it is trolling to point out that you are not neutral
We have both been saying it , as have others, since the start of this thread. Your hatred of AS is clear and not denied yet you are "neutral"
Its not a great argument hence why you have not said the BBC or the CS or the Bof E chair speaks like you do on this issue. No one neutral speaks like you do.. you may not like this fact but it is not a troll to point it out to you.

The survation link to Dumbledo.... sorry, Gordimhors poll

http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/

Referendum

In the referendum, voters will be asked, “Should Scotland be an independent country”. If this referendum were held today, do you think you would vote “Yes” or “No”?

Yes: 39% (+1)

No: 48% (+1)

Undecided: 13% (-3)

Voting intention

Scottish parliamentary elections (May 2016) – constituency vote:

Labour: 34% (+3%)

Conservative: 13% (nc)

SNP: 45% (+1)

Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1)

Another party (Net): 3% (-3%)

Scottish parliament (May 2016) – regional list vote:*

Labour : 28%

Conservative: 11%

SNP: 40%

Liberal Democrat: 7%

Scottish Green Party: 8%

- See more at: http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/#sthash.v4Ggnf9f.dpuf

These figures show little change from previous polling, with the SNP continuing to enjoy high levels of support in terms of forthcoming elections to the Scottish and Westminster parliaments, but the Nationalists have not managed to significantly increase support for the ‘Yes’ campaign. This may reflect a hardening of views on the independence question, with polls consistently showing support for a ‘No’ vote at a margin similar to that found in this poll. 39% in favour of independence is the highest level of support seen this year, but by a very narrow margin, and within the margin of error. - See more at: http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/#sthash.v4Ggnf9f.dpuf

How can you accuse the BBC of being biased??? The Scotsman published research yesterday arguing the they have portrayed the deceitful one as a "figure of fun." Are they not correct to maintain and uphold their high standards of integrity?

Well it would be funny if the implications were not so serious.....

[url= http://http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/bbc-chief-rejects-claims-of-referendum-coverage-bias.23666472?_=a180152c243a35cdb26fe784a848f6e030b4644d ]Heralds report[/url]
The other side of the story on the independent report.
The BBC are claiming factual inaccuracies in his report.

The BBC are claiming factual inaccuracies in his report.

They are. And the BBC's claims were responded to in detail - the factual inaccuracies are things like a couple of programmes broadcast a day later than noted in the data, stuff like that.

Do you think if we stuck Bencooper and Teamhurtmore on a merry go round we'd achieve perpetual motion?

However, BBC bosses completely rejected the allegations, insisting the report contained factual inaccuracies with quotes from people who did not feature in its reports and lines that its journalists did not say.

Yeah just minor things.

In the mass of statistics, yes.

WoS is a horrid site. A place where nationalists can vent their spleen and massage egos. It is a topsy turvy world when lack of BBC neutrality is berrated, then propaganda sites like WoS are used as a reliable source of the truth.

Recently WoS had a scary picture of a Spanish Joan Rivers lookalike, who is a descendant of the Stuarts, taken from the tabloid press. (I can't even remember her name). The site tried to claim the the No campaign were scaremongering by saying she may become the future queen of iScotland.

The site seems to do this regularly. Use sensationalist tabloid headlines against the better together campaign.

I am sure top journalistic jobs will come to the people that run these sites in our 'brave new world', then we will see if it is possible to speak up against them.

I am sure top journalistic jobs will come to the people that run these sites in our 'brave new world', then we will see if it is possible to speak up against them.

Hows the for shit stirring fear-mongering ffs.

Looking at that WoS better together posters.

There is actually sod all coming up to verify it. Even some of the posters on WoS are using "if it's real"

Recently WoS had a scary picture of a Spanish Joan Rivers lookalike, who is a descendant of the Stuarts, taken from the tabloid press. (I can't even remember her name). The site tried to claim the the No campaign were scaremongering by saying she may become the future queen of iScotland.

Can't find that on WoS. I remember the story, but not certain it was WoS who covered it. Was it claimed that the story came from the No campaign, or was it just an example of unionist propaganda?

Do you think if we stuck Bencooper and Teamhurtmore on a merry go round we'd achieve perpetual motion?

teamhurtmore - Member
How can you accuse the BBC of being biased??? The Scotsman published research yesterday arguing the they have portrayed the deceitful one as a "figure of fun." Are they not correct to maintain and uphold their high standards of integrity?...

The BBC is so badly biased towards the UK side we don't watch it anymore. It is the [u]British[/u] Broadcasting Service after all.

The Scotsman should be renamed the Anglophile Propagandist. It has not published the truth for quite some time. The Times gives a far better and more balanced view, although it is pro UK.

The BBC is so badly biased towards the UK side we don't watch it anymore. It is the British Broadcasting Service after all.

That proportional representation isn't it 😉 , the BBC is representing the views of the 62 million people that haven't voted for a referendum rather than the 1 million who did.

irelanst - Member
That proportional representation isn't it , the BBC is representing the views of the 62 million people that haven't voted for a referendum rather than the 1 million who did.

🙂

It's the BBC Scotland that we no longer believe. We know what to expect from the English Broadcasting Service. 🙂

Actually it disillusioned me somewhat. When I lived overseas I'd occasionally hear claims that the BBC was just the UK's propaganda unit rather than an unbiased commentator, but I didn't believe it.

Having been on the receiving end of how they are treating the independence debate I have formed the opinion that if Alex Salmond won a billion pounds, it would be reported by the BBC as "Scotland's First Minister has crushing money problems", or if they found a photo of him as a babe in a bath with another kid "Salmond revealed to have exposed himself to underage child".

I've become a fan of Al-Jazeera and other foreign media, because with no irons in the fire, they will give both sides of the issue fairly.

That's all we ask, fair reporting.

I've become a fan of Al-Jazeera and other foreign media, because with no irons in the fire, they will give both sides of the issue fairly.

Agreed (not necessarily with Al-Jazeera) but the general gist of what your saying.

There's some worryingly one side outlets out there. You don't expect these pro yes sites like WoS or Newsnetscotland to be anything but biased. But the BBC should, in theory be above it.

ben, you will find it if you click on your own link from page 37. The link titled "other gems from project fear", takes you straight to WoS where Joan Rivers appears. The particular post should be easy to find as you have posted an image of Joan Rivers there.

Is it bias or just a function of the situation? As an independent Scotland is a change from the status quo, you'd expect more questions challenging the change. It seems human nature prefers to challenge change and accept the status quo.

footflaps - Member
Is it bias or just a function of the situation?...

I think it's bias because of the very selective use of only negative facts. It's so blatant that even some No supporters I know are getting cranky about it - along the lines of "Do they think we're stupid?"

(Not that that will change their vote because they're Tories 🙂 )

I don't think BBC Scotland is biased but I do believe its coverage has been shoddy. I read about budget cuts and lack of time to make programmes. See Derek Batemans blog. I used to rely on BBC news ...no longer.

[quote=bencooper]When the mainstream media [s]isn't being impartial[/s] doesn't agree with you, you have to look to [s]other[/s] far more biased sources [s]as well.[/s] which do

I don't think that a part of the media holding an anti-independence editorial line is in itself bias.

But the selective use of negatives, total omission of positives, and the distortion of what has actually been said is bias.