How would the UK fare without Scotland?

zagubov

More food for thought for both sides in the "is this really an anti-English campaign".

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

More food for thought for both sides in the "is this really an anti-English campaign".

a few anecdotes don't tell much of a story

most outsiders like myself, don't see the campaign as particularly anti-English

it's just the hard core 'YES' voters have a huge inferiority complex and lack self confidence and blame the English for that.
Alec knows how to address his hard core supporters without using the English card as every knows what Westminster means.

e.g. why ever would a forwarding, looking self confident 'nation' choose to display their public face via a song about a battle 800 years ago with their closest (peaceful and democratic) neighbours?

so inward looking it's hardly credible but sadly is true
couldn't happen in any mature democracy

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh here's an answer then. Investment galore recommended... and Why ? Westminster lying ?

Chew on that for a bit. Then try your best to disclaim it. Looking forward...

Yes and on this article too... and not me as a poster here. Investors Chronicle part of the Financial Times. Are they lying with this ?

I believe that the word that you are scrabbling for is 'about'; as in 'Are they lying about this'? To which the answer would be, probably not. It's likely to be an honestly held opinion. But if we are on the subject of the opinions expressed by journalists employed by the Financial Times Group, how about John McDermott?

It makes me worry that the analysis officials are giving to the SNP government is being made to please – and in doing so, is misleading the Scottish public. At about this point I’m obliged of course to say that HM Treasury has made some dodgy arguments, too. (And yes, I have written about them.) But here’s the thing: impartiality and neutrality are not the same thing. I don’t think there is equivalence in the dodgyness; it seems to me that again and again the Scottish government and the Yes campaign are worse offenders.

The Scottish government is misleading Scots about oil
http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/07/13/the-scottish-government-is-misleading-scots-about-oil/

Do you think he's lying?:)

Thrugelmir

zagubov wrote: »

More food for thought for both sides in the "is this really an anti-English campaign".

Out of curiosity I paid a visit to the YES campaign website. The constant references to "Westminster" and Scotland making it's own choices were a reoccurring theme. All of which lacked any substance as to detail. The video was more like a holiday advert for a Cruise Liner. So yes, the campaign has a very us and them feel. Who is us and who is them is open to interpretation.

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

I believe that the word that you are scrabbling for is 'about'; as in 'Are they lying about this'? To which the answer would be, probably not. It's likely to be an honestly held opinion. But if we are on the subject of the opinions expressed by journalists employed by the Financial Times Group, how about John McDermott?

It makes me worry that the analysis officials are giving to the SNP government is being made to please – and in doing so, is misleading the Scottish public. At about this point I’m obliged of course to say that HM Treasury has made some dodgy arguments, too. (And yes, I have written about them.) But here’s the thing: impartiality and neutrality are not the same thing. I don’t think there is equivalence in the dodgyness; it seems to me that again and again the Scottish government and the Yes campaign are worse offenders.

The Scottish government is misleading Scots about oil
http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/07/13/the-scottish-government-is-misleading-scots-about-oil/

Do you think he's lying?:)

Dunno. The Scots certainly know the UK government has been misleading them about oil for forty years so why should they trust anyone outside Scotland on this matter now, particularly from London-based media? They may well wonder who commissioned this article.

After media nonsense like the Skintland article and all the Project Fear smoke and mirrors why would they take this any more seriously?

The main party backing YES is led by an oil economist with good popularity ratings.

It might just seem that the "Too poor" part of the Too poor, too wee and too stupid trope is getting another airing.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Dunno. The Scots certainly know the UK government has been misleading them about oil for forty years so why should they trust anyone outside Scotland on this matter now, particularly from London-based media? They may well wonder who commissioned this article.



.

for those who know nothing about the oil; in what way has the UK government been misleading the Scots about the situation?

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

for those who know nothing about the oil; in what way has the UK government been misleading the Scots about the situation?

They withheld a confidential report on North Sea oil resources for decades while continually portraying the oil as running out imminently.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

They withheld a confidential report on North Sea oil resources for decades while continually portraying the oil as running out imminently.

thanks for the reference quite a good read.

I'm sure it's all backfired now it's in wide circulation.

Shakethedisease

Then there's those 'further powers' and more devolution..

SCOTTISH Secretary Alistair Carmichael has said maintaining a strong UK Government presence north of the Border in the event of a No vote in September would mean the independence question would never be put again and the issue of Scotland's future would be settled "once and for all".

Mr Carmichael said Whitehall had allowed the Nationalists to "hollow out" the UK Government's presence north of the Border and the lesson of the referendum campaign was that this could never be allowed to happen again.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/carmichael-how-no-vote-will-settle-scotlands-future-once-and-for-all.24865471

Can't tell you what a gaffe this one is. At this point in time in the campaign...the 'never be allowed' comment. Now just about everyone including SNP/Salmond have said this is a once in a lifetime thing. That's fine. The 'never be allowed' thing though just smacks of the very thing Scots do not ever want to be told from Whitehall.

And 'allowing' nationalist's to 'hollow out' anything ? What by being democratically elected ? Twice ? How does that work ? And a much greater presence of the UK Government.. diluting devolution then ? We vote in, on the whole, SNP governments to stop big UK govt presence's north of the border ( ie to stop NHS privatisation and tuition fee's etc ). A lot of MP's, both Labour and Tory want to 'merge' these things...

Really bad move. Good thing Carmichael is 'retiring' from politics next year. Not that he'd be voted back in again anyway, but this sort of commentary is the very last thing the No ( more powers/more devolution if you vote No ).. campaign needs. This will be quoted endlessly for the next 7 weeks. As will the latest poll showing Tories/Labour within a point of each other in the UK election polls. Tories looming... Not so good either.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Then there's those 'further powers' and more devolution..

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/carmichael-how-no-vote-will-settle-scotlands-future-once-and-for-all.24865471

Can't tell you what a gaffe this one is. At this point in time in the campaign...the 'never be allowed' comment. Now just about everyone including SNP/Salmond have said this is a once in a lifetime thing. That's fine. The 'never be allowed' thing though just smacks of the very thing Scots do not ever want to be told from Whitehall.

And 'allowing' nationalist's to 'hollow out' anything ? What by being democratically elected ? Twice ? How does that work ? And a much greater presence of the UK Government.. diluting devolution then ? We vote in, on the whole, SNP governments to stop big UK govt presence's north of the border ( ie to stop NHS privatisation and tuition fee's etc ). A lot of MP's, both Labour and Tory want to 'merge' these things...

Really bad move. Good thing Carmichael is 'retiring' from politics next year. Not that he'd be voted back in again anyway, but this sort of commentary is the very last thing the No ( more powers/more devolution if you vote No ).. campaign needs. This will be quoted endlessly for the next 7 weeks. As will the latest poll showing Tories/Labour within a point of each other in the UK election polls. Tories looming... Not so good either.

so lets be absolutely clear.


you are saying, from your extensive and deep knowledge of Scottish voters, is that they are so stupid they are only influenced by spin and not substance.
Presumably that is why you worship the great leader and his refusal to discuss any matter of substance.


If you are right then I suppose that does explain the choice of indefensible Flower Of Scotland.