The facts, which are few, are only the ones that support your view, everything else is a deceitful or bullying politician, depending on which side you are on, with an agenda.
Indeed. The other factor is it doesn't really matter what politicians want to do, it's what BAE want to do that matters.
H&W has a drydock that's plenty big enough. But I don't know about the other facilities either.
it's what BAE want to do that matters.
Makes potentially libellous bribery joke.
It's okay, Junkyard, the British government would shut down any defamation action...
(might have said this earlier in the thread, not sure)
Defence contracting is pretty messy tbh. Salmond at his worst really, there obviously are grounds for concern.
But at the same time, there are some realities here. Portsmouth was already the worst place to build modern warships even before they decided to close it down (and moves are afoot to sell or lease the naval yard, so while rebooting Portsmouth is already a bad option it's not far from becoming completely impossible) And by all accounts there's nowhere else in the UK that can do the job.
So the UK government says T26 is the right boat for the UK, and BAE says the Clyde is the only place it makes sense to build it.
Course, anything can be overcome with the will... The rUK could blow the budget and create the capacity to build them at home. But that'd be a major financial challenge, amidst defence cuts and the other costs of relocating military assets (Trident, of course, being a big one) And we're not talking generous timescales, these boats need to go into production within the next few years to replace the aging fleet.
A thing the Yes campaign ignores is that if the UK is buying fighting ships from abroad (the Royal Navy already imports military ships), there's no particular reason why Scotland is the premier bidder- once you take away the home turf advantage of the design, we're competing with French FREMM among others. Would the rUK stick with T26 at all? It'd be an embarassing climbdown on many fronts but certainly reasonable, once you cross the rubicon of ordering frontline ships from abroad why not go the whole hog?
But then of course that contradicts the Westminster position that procuring fighting ships from abroad is unthinkable, so something's got to give. They seem quite painted into a corner.
I think a lot of people are justifiably narked at being threatened with defence job losses, when scotland already receives less than its share of defence funding, and defence contracts, and has suffered proportionally more defence job losses than the rest of the UK.
I checked the date etc when I saw this in The Herald 😆
[url=[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/better-together-invites-wrong-speaker.23987485 ]better apart[/url]
*waiting
**still waiting
***Wanders off in dismay at failed link
Link not working sorry
heres the article
[quoteIT may be called Better Together, but the No campaign has been accused of a gaffe - after it asked an SNP minister to appear as its representative in an independence debate.
Humza Yousaf was surprised to receive the request to speak against his party's flagship policy of Scottish independence.
The case of mistaken identity follows a difficult few weeks for Better Together.
The organisation has been accused of dogged negativity and faced complaints from pro-Union sources that it is running an uninspiring campaign. In an email from Better Together, Mr Yousaf was asked if he could speak at an event organised by BEMIS Scotland, the national umbrella body supporting the development of the ethnic minorities voluntary sector in Scotland, in August.
Mr Yousaf, the Scottish Government's external affairs minister, accused his opponents of being "shambolic". And he revealed that he would be taking part in the debate, organised as part of Edinburgh's JustFestival - speaking against Better Together.
Mr Yousaf said: "With gaffes like this, it's no wonder the No campaign are in such deep, deep trouble.
"They are a shambolic campaign who are dropping in the opinion polls - they don't have their finger on the pulse of Scotland, and this latest blunder proves it.
"While I look forward to speaking at the event, it will not be for the No campaign, but to outline the many benefits of an independent Scotland."
A Better Together spokesman brushed off claims of a gaffe and called on the First Minister to represent the No campaign at the debate.
[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/better-together-invites-wrong-speaker.23987485 ]be calmed pie man[/url]
Honest it does work though I was tempted and it works for me!
I have not read the article
in case it fails
😀 yeh I had seen that.
This should also amuse you. In a cheap shot schadenfreude sort of way.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/apr/18/david-cameron-stung-by-jellyfish?CMP=fb_gu ]Jelly CMD[/url]
People lining up to piss on him I imagine.
Hang on, that sounds a wee bit wrong. I do not have a david cameron golden shower fetish. Not any more than normal anyway.
Maybe a little bit more than normal.
"People lining up to piss on him I imagine"
I would ,reluctantly, if he was on fire 😉
Scots only dislike Cameron because he sounds so English that you can't bare it. What has Cameron done to this country compared to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair? I am surprised you can even stand up with such a big chip on your shoulders.
Ah, is there a thing where you can't dislike Cameron without loving Brown and Blair? I didn't realise.
Fnf Could it be I dislike Mr Cameron because of coalition policies?
Scots you say...... 😉
I do however quite like chips.
Scots only dislike Cameron because he sounds so English that you can't bare it. What has Cameron done to this country compared to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair?
You completely undermine your own argument within two sentences. Tony Blair sounds every bit as English as David Cameron.
Sorry, have missed this for a few days, so playing catch up.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]An independent Scotland would be just like Scotland is today, nothing would feel or be noticeably different and claims by the Yes camp and some within the No camp that it would be are quite untrue. Both arguments are offering false dreams, one which involves a blissful situation of happiness and fulfillment, and the other a nightmare full of fear. Reality won't be like that.
except a little earlier in the same post
Just one example - the UK has food and children's clothes zero VAT rated, new member states are not allowed to have food and children's clothes zero VAT rated, but the UK as an existing member state is allowed.
So there will be a significant difference - either food and children's clothing will get a lot more expensive or iS won't be a member of the EU.
Seems reasonable
Might even get them to refit the carriers as well.
So there will be a significant difference.....
Of course there won't be a significant difference, as I said, "nothing would feel or be noticeably different".
OK, there might be 5% VAT on food and children's clothing (I don't know where you get "a lot more expensive" from) so what? In the way Scotland feels, it won't be different.
When this lot that you voted for bumped up VAT to 20% did Britain feel noticeably different ? Did the new rate of 20% change Britain significantly ? Of course not.
As I said both the Yes camp and some within the No camp are claiming that "independence" will bring huge changes to Scotland. IMO that's false and there is no credible evidence to back it up. Gradually over a period of time Scotland might become less wealthy but I doubt whether it will be very noticeably. How many people have noticed that wages, as percentage of GDP, have fallen significantly in the last 30 odd years ?
Might even get them to refit the carriers as well.
Absolutely. Bath Iron Works could easily handle the carriers, and I'm sure there are other US yards who could do it.
ernie, I think changes will be vast, and not for the better, you disagree yet fall generally on the no side. If changes are so small why do you reckon it really matters which way Scotland votes?
I think long term it will be bad for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. But I don't think it will create anything like the upheavals some are suggesting, why would it ? Scotland will have the same economic model as now, real power will be in the same hands as it is now, nothing much will be that different. Obviously Scotland will lose some of the influence it has at the moment, and it will be competing with a large neighbour which will have no responsibility towards it.
The case for Scotland going its own separate way hasn't been made imo, and the Yes argument appears to be based on nothing much more than petty chauvinism. More true patriotism and less petty chauvinism, is what I would suggest.
I certainly don't think the yes campaign is indulging in "petty chauvinism" no one as far as I know has claimed any form of superiority.
The case for Scotland going its own separate way hasn't been made imo, and the Yes argument appears to be based on nothing much more than petty chauvinism. More true patriotism and less petty chauvinism, is what I would suggest.
Can you give some examples?
bencooper - MemberCan you give some examples?
What do you want examples for ?
I said : The case for Scotland going its own separate way hasn't been made imo, and the Yes argument appears to be based on nothing much more than petty chauvinism. More true patriotism and less petty chauvinism, is what I would suggest.
If you don't agree with me that's OK.
Ah, okay, you're just making a pronouncement without evidence.
Can tell you're a Better Together supporter 😀
Call it a pronouncement if you want, athgray asked me a specific question concerning my opinion and I gave him an answer.
Why do you think it might be important for me to attempt to influence your opinion ?
After 106 pages I've come to the conclusion that nothing is likely to change your mind. Are you suggesting that I might have made a miscalculation ?
I'm just curious what examples of petty chauvinism you've seen in the Yes campaign. If you can't think of any, that's okay..
I didn't say I couldn't think of any, I'm just not interested in giving you any.
I think it would be reasonable to assume that whatever examples I might give you they will be completely unsatisfactory to you. So I'm not really interested wasting my time, although apparently you want to waste your time disagreeing with me.
EDIT : Just to clarify - it's the lack of a credible argument and instead in its place the strong dependency on emotional appeal which has led me to this conclusion. I've seen it right through this thread.
You have an interesting discussion style.
You mean like preferring to focus on an exchange of opinions and ideas while at the same time ignoring pointless arguing ?
Everyone has their own opinions often as the result of a lifetime of experience, they are unlikely to change them because of a single argument/debate. So unless you need to convince yourself of the virtue of your own argument, then arguing is fairly pointless other than to offer alternative suggestions.
You made a statement, I asked you for some examples of what you said, this seems to have upset you.
If you want to make statements that you can't or won't back up with evidence, that's entirely your choice, it's just not a very effective way to convince people.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm honestly interested in why you think the Yes campaign is based on petty chauvinism.
Anyhow, there's a new poll out - ICM for the Scotsman:
http://m.scotsman.com/news/martin-boon-a-pollster-entering-uncharted-waters-1-3382088
Excluding undecideds, it puts Yes on 48%.
this seems to have upset you.
What a strange conclusion to come to 🙂
If you want to make statements that you can't or won't back up with evidence, that's entirely your choice, it's just not a very effective way to convince people.
Well that's the point - I'm not trying to convince you. I've already pointed out that if you don't agree with my opinion that's OK.
Excluding undecideds, it puts Yes on 48%.
In other words less than half of Scots. Why is it that with less than 6 months to the historical vote the majority of Scots still remain unconvinced ? I still think the Yes camp will probably win, but only just.
I can't see how the overwhelming majority of Scots, [i]throughout[/i] the campaign, wouldn't be supporting Yes if the Yes camp was providing a credible argument.
[b]The world according to Ben Cooper[/b]
If something very slightly supports the yes campaign it is gospel. If it doesn't and is backed up by rock solid facts I will pretend that it does back up the yes campaign anyway by stating my personal opinion as a fact. I will also add a smiley at the end of my statement because the yes campaign is the positive and happy campaign 🙂 😀 😆 Then I will raise a glass with Mrs Cooper to an independent Scotland.
[img] 
[/img]
Huh, I'm a minority in a minority.
Mrs Cooper has better hair than Mary Doll.
Fnf,
What as opposing to you making sweeping statements about voting for Indy because you don't like English accents or THM's exact same viewpoint subbing anything from rUK as both fact and better? Yeah,can see how you have any cause for complaint.
Well come on now Daily Express which one is it in the r UK edition
[url=v http://m.thepaperboy.com/uk/daily-express/front-pages-today.cfm ]ruk daily express 22nd April[/url]
meantime in the scottish edition
[url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/retirement/471709/Scottish-pensions-are-safer-within-the-UK ]Scottish daily express tue 22nd[/url]
This thread makes me want to do toilet.
Gordimhors linking skills make me want to go toilet, let alone the rest of the thread.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/retirement/471709/Scottish-pensions-are-safer-within-the-UK
I believe these are the ones in question.
Yes that's the one thanks pm.
Aye, that was funny. Though not really any funnier than Gordon Brown warning about pensions. Along with the Better Together posters featuring people with the Daily Mail Sad Face (TM) 😉
What's funny about Gordon Brown's warning about pensions ?
He's not exactly got a brilliant record when it comes to pensions. When he removed the ACT relief it cost pension funds about £100bn in value, £5bn per year.
THM's exact same viewpoint subbing anything from rUK as both fact and better?
More salmond-esque distortions form the Duckman. The invitation to falsify any specific points is still open.
teamhurtmore - MemberTHM's exact same viewpoint subbing anything from rUK as both fact and better?
More salmond-esque distortions form the Duckman. The invitation to falsify any specific points is still open.
Not really,that is what you have done since the thread started,of course backtracking where necessary e.g as you did on Osbourne which even Ernie called you on.
In the last week or so you have claimed that the no campaign was pretty tame,(despite previously having said they should focus on positives) and linked to the Analysis defence paper which contained the "facts" "if we looked hard enough".
Am I making any of that up?
Yes you are and again.
The NO campaign is pretty lacklustre that is there for all to see. That does not equate to there being no positives. I have invited you to explain how the introduction to the document is pitched in a negative way and you still have yet to make a single point to justifying your point. Not surprising that. I even quoted the document to help you out.
Talk about desperate.....
So the point about the Russian ship discoved by a trawler doesn't suggest that the Defence document is BS and the "facts" contained within quoted by you are not an example of
THM's exact same viewpoint subbing anything from rUK as both fact and better?
I would say using tweets as a first line of defence is a fairly big indicator that maybe all is not as the SA document suggested.I would also say that mentioning this to you was me pointing out a negative..What do you think?
I fail to see how those two "news reports" are mutually exclusive?
One says we're all in the shit, the other says the Scots might be even more in the shit come independence.
I think I just felt seepage. 🙁
Ed joining George today - time for a new title?
The Labour leader also restated his party's position on the prospect of a shared formal currency union in the event of independence. Asked if such a deal - favoured by the SNP - was ruled out under any circumstances, he replied: "Correct." He added: "All of the lessons from the eurozone are that, if we are going to have a currency union, we also need the kind of fiscal union that we have across the UK."That is a sensible economic choice - it is not about the politics."
Dismissed as having zero credibility of course!
"Ed Milliband" and "credibility" don't really go together. The best bit was when he got so offended at the suggestion that he might not win the next general election.
Meanwhile the CBI omnishambles just gets better and better 😀
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27159618
"You know when we said we were supporting the No campaign? Well, we didn't mean it, we really are impartial. Honest."
[b]The world according to Ben Cooper part 2[/b]
Why should I bother accepting the views of the three main UK parties and the will of the UK people? The SNP have said a currency union will happen so it is definitely going to happen and anyone that says otherwise is a bully, bluffer or blusterer. Why won't the scadges from the south realise they are too wee, too poor and too stupid to exist without a currency union with an independent Scotland.
If you read your link bencooper you would understand the reason for the reversal :
[i][b]The CBI said it had taken legal advice, which suggested the application should not have been made.
"Although the decision to register with the Electoral Commission was taken in good faith, in order to carry out normal activities during the referendum period, it has inadvertently given the impression that the CBI is a political entity - we are not and never will be."[/b][/i]
So the CBI has been given legal advice that it cannot or should not register with the Electoral Commission to make financial donations to the No campaign.
I don't understand why you think this represents some sort of victory for you.
All you have done is highlighted the fact that the CBI considers that it would be bad for large employers if Scotland was to separate itself from the rest of the UK.
And the only reason they are not financially supporting the No campaign is because they have been legally advised not to.
None of this suggests a ringing endorsement of the Yes campaign. In fact it suggests the complete opposite. Although obviously I'm glad that you are chuffed about it ..... even if it is a little bizarre 😕
The chairman of CBI Scotland is the MD of Babcock's marine division, who operate Faslane.
I'm not surprised he thinks independence would be bad for business 😉
Oh, and "we've taken legal advice" is a stock phrase, along with the "it was a junior member of staff" line they're trying to play. What's much more likely is that the rush of broadcasters and other bodies to leave the CBI wasn't exactly brilliant publicity.
Well I'm not surprised either. What would surprise me though, would be if the chairman of CBI Scotland personally decided what CBI policy with regards to Scottish independence was.
Edit for your edit :
Oh, and "we've taken legal advice" is a stock phrase, along with the "it was a junior member of staff" line they're trying to play. What's much more likely is that the rush of broadcasters and other bodies to leave the CBI wasn't exactly brilliant publicity.
Well I guess the CBI could be lying but "the rush of broadcasters and other bodies" you refer to amounts to not much more than the BBC and Scottish universities. And I can understand why they might be in a legal dilemma. Although ITV and other broadcasters clearly weren't.
Still, it's interesting that you should highlight the CBI's serious reservations with regards to Scottish independence. Is that the official Yes campaign's line ?
What would surprise me though, would be if the chairman of CBI Scotland personally decided what CBI policy with regards to Scottish independence was
Various CBI members stated that there had been no consultation or vote about the issue.
..... or vote about the issue
You were under the impression that the CBI was an organisation like a trade union with democratic structures ?
Does this mean that you now only accept the opinions of organisations which have had a vote ?
[b]The world according to Ben cooper part 3[/b]
Damn that Ernie and his facts. I will have to draft a response
The chairman of CBI Scotland is the MD of Babcock's marine division, who operate Faslane. [i]As if the loons will be clever if enough to work out the difference between CBI UK and CBI Scotland when it is really CBI UK that is doing a u-turn so mentioning the CBI scotland MD is pointless.[/i]
Oh, and "we've taken legal advice" is a stock phrase, along with the "it was a junior member of staff" line they're trying to play. What's much more likely is that the rush of broadcasters and other bodies to leave the CBI wasn't exactly brilliant publicity. [i]Well I don't have any facts to prove Ernie wrong so a good dose of personal opinion should shut him up! Salmond never uses facts so why should I?[/i]
John Cridland said the application to register “should not have been made”, as it had not been approved by the CBI board and was not signed by an authorised signatory.
mentioning the CBI scotland MD is pointless
It was mentioned in the context of why the CBI might be against independence, so not really pointless.
The CBI likes to be portrayed as an impartial body, but it's hard to be impartial on independence when your Scottish chairman profits from nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
[b]The world according to fasternotfatter:[/b]
Anything said by a businessman, economist or poltician* is the gospel truth, and any suggestion that they might not be telling the truth or being impartial is so blatantly, obviously wrong.
*Apart from a pro-independence politician, of course, that goes without saying.
From the above link :
[b][i]“It was poor corporate governance and process. But it was never a valid application, we have Queen’s Counsel advice to that effect.”[/i][/b]
I think it's clear that the CBI reversed its decision because of poor corporate governance and process, and legal advice to that effect. Presumably it also breached their Royal Charter. None of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland. And the link points out that only 18 employers out of 1,200 have resigned or suspended their membership of the CBI over the issue, which presumably suggests that 1,182 large employers did not share the same level of objection.
None of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland
Has anyone suggested it did? Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they're not going to take a position.
What'll be interesting is what happens if the Electoral Commission says no to the CBI.
For four days this forum was a better place.
Clean up on aisle one, new pair of pants to sbob please. 🙁
Has anyone suggested it did?
And did I suggest that anyone did ?
However it's clear that you are well chuffed from this comment :
bencooper - MemberMeanwhile the CBI omnishambles just gets better and better 😀
I just wonder why you are so pleased ?........since none of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
[i]It was mentioned in the context of why the CBI might be against independence, so not really pointless.
The CBI likes to be portrayed as an impartial body, but it's hard to be impartial on independence when your Scottish chairman profits from nuclear weapons on the Clyde. [/i]
It was CBI UK that made the decision to campaign against independence not CBI Scotland. You imply that CBI UK made this decision not based on reason but because someone from CBI Scotland is connected to Faslane, this is again your own personal opinion and not a fact. You use the phrase "might be against independence", it either is or it isn't Ben, you use a very tenuous link between Faslane, CBI Scotland and CBI UK to back up your argument so again you are wrong and it is still pointless I am afraid. 😳
[i]Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they're not going to take a position.[/i]
Your at it again Ben! Personal opinion not fact!
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/10712842/BAE-latest-company-to-come-out-against-Scottish-independence.html ]BAE latest company to come out against Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f9187be-a522-11e3-a7b4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2zvjpcCnN ]Shell joins business chorus against Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10616789/BP-chief-Bob-Dudley-attacks-Scottish-independence.html ]BP chief Bob Dudley attacks Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/27/standard-life-could-quit-scotland-voters-independence ]Standard Life could quit Scotland if voters back independence[/url]
[url= http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2341503/rbs-fears-material-risk-from-scottish-independence ] RBS fears 'material' risk from Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/03/scottish-independence-guaranteed-costs-weir-group-scotland ]Scottish independence will bring 'guaranteed' costs, warns Weir Group[/url]
Obviously you've missed a lot out fasternotfatter but I found the Scots tourism industry opposition to independence interesting.
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-tourism-industry-rejects-independence-in-vote-1-3339835 ]Scots tourism industry rejects independence in vote[/url]
[i]Delegates at the Scottish tourism industry’s annual conference have voted overwhelmingly against independence.[/i]
And :
[i]Tourism is one of Scotland’s biggest industries, worth more than £11 billion to the economy each year and supporting around 200,000 jobs.[/i]
The CBI notified the electoral commission that they wish to become a part of the no campaign. Over a few days a number of members leave or suspend there membership because the CBI wants to be part of the no campaign though most do nothing. The CBI then says that its corporate governance has not been up to scratch and belatedly it gets legal advice that it cannot become a part of a political campaign. Not to worry it was a "fairly junior" member of staff we'll just get the application nullified. The electoral commission say they [b]may[/b] not be able to nullify the CBI's application.
Ernie and FNF say
😯none of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
Your at it again Ben! Personal opinion not fact!
And you're at it again, using companies making contingency plans (as all companies do) as a criticism of independence. BP has also said it doesn't think independence is an issue for them, despite the personal feelings of Bob Dudley.
They are correct. It doesn't.
Ernie and FNF saynone of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
😯
I can see by your " 😯 " that you obviously [i]do[/i] think that it represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinions, however much off the wall they might be, but I don't think the logic that you are expressing here really provides the basis for a sensible debate.
Gordimhor while Ernie may have said "none of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland" I most certainly did not. Are you trying to imply that because the CBI is now not actively campaigning against independence that they are endorsing it?
Ben you originally said [i]"Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they're not going to take a position"[/i] to which I replied with a list of companies that have expressed a concern about independence. My point was that your comment was not based on fact and I challenged your point and provided evidence to back up my argument. So I am not [i]"using companies making contingency plans (as all companies do) as a criticism of independence"[/i] I am merely using the statements made by these companies to back up my argument, there is no criticism of independence.
However I disagree that the companies are just making contingencies and it would indeed seem that your original statement was in fact totally wrong. Here are some quotes from the articles.
[i]In his strategic review Ian King, chief executive, said: “In September 2014, Scotland will hold an independence referendum. The decision on independence from the UK is a matter for the people of Scotland.
However, BAE Systems has significant interests and employees in Scotland, and it is clear that continued union offers greater certainty and stability for our business"
"In its annual results last month RBS said: “A vote in favour of Scottish independence would be likely to significantly impact the group’s credit ratings and could also impact the fiscal, monetary, legal and regulatory landscape to which the group is subject.”
"Mr Dudley said: “We have a lot of people in Scotland, we’ve got a lot of investments in Scotland. I don’t know … there’s much debate about what would happen with the currency and of course whether there would be connections with Europe or not."
"Standard Life, which has nearly 4 million customers in the UK and 5,000 employees in Scotland, said it would take "whatever action necessary" to protect its business, including moving its operations to England"
"One of Scotland's largest companies, Weir Group, believes that independence will "guarantee" higher costs for business but produce few and uncertain benefits"[/i]
It would appear that big companies think independence will make a difference and that they are worried by the prospect of independence.