You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[quote=bencooper ]Fixed that for you
You don't want Waterloo Road or Question Time, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_produced_by_BBC_Scotland
I can see your point about Mrs Brown's Boys - I doubt the SBC could give that away...
Sorry I'm rather late on this, but somewhat disappointed that nobody else bothered to read Ben's link to find that QT isn't actually produced by BBC Scotland. So it seems what we stand to lose is actually Waterloo Road and Mrs Brown's Boys - I suspect many will agree with me that seems a reasonable trade 😉
Wikipedia in "not entirely accurate" shocker 😉
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/24/newsnight-review-revamp
Nonsense or clown either one makes the same point.
Winston my other sentence says "You are right enough Epiccyclo but there is no language of the gael on STW. My point being that a translation of epiccyclo s post was needed. Although his point is well made, Scotland has two languages of its own plus English.
I could have used the word ghaidhlig but decided to use the phrase canan nan gaidheal as it is a well known gaelic song which is about fighting {successfully}against loss of language and culture
[quote=bencooper ]I think the people of a country should be governed by a government elected by the people of that country.
Yet you want to belong to the EU? 😯
Well known by the standards of gaelic songs anyway 🙂
Yet you want to belong to the EU?
Oh good grief. Yes. I want I live in a country that's part of an international community, with international treaties and obligations.
Like, oh, every other country on the planet.
North Korea?
[quote=bencooper ]Yes. I want I live in a country that's part of an [s]international community[/s] undemocratic federal union
Scotland has two languages of its own plus English.
That's very debatable.
To try and claim "Scots" is a language rather than just a dialect is like saying "Geordie" is a language.
fighting {successfully}against loss of language and culture
1% doesn't sound very successful to me.
Languages evoke, change and often die. Why not resurrect Pictish as this was once the primary language in Scotland?
Given the strenuous and persistent efforts to eradicate gaelic,kilts, bagpipes,fiddles and anything else that was seen as Highland it seems to me a remarkable success that aspects of "Highland" culture are once again very well integrated and valued throughout Scotland.
News just in......
[i][b]Alex Salmond claims he has every right to use gym he’s no longer member of.[/b]Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has rejected claims by Virgin Active that no longer being a member of their club means that he can't use their equipment any time he likes.[/i]
LHS - Member
News just in......Alex Salmond claims he has every right to use gym he’s no longer member of.
Salmond in a gym? 🙂
"Highland" culture are once again very well integrated and valued
I thought it was Sir Walter Scott that did that and the current image of the "Highland" culture is a very romanticised. Besides, it has nothing to do with the vast majority who are Lowlanders.
From Wiki:
The Lowlands (Scots: the Lallans or the Lawlands; Scottish Gaelic: a' Ghalldachd, [b]"the place of the foreigner"[/b]) are a historic region of Scotland.
My point is not about the tartan and shortbread image, but rather about language music and culture. I know that lots of people enjoy Scotts novels -I am not one of them. Not many Scots subscribe to the image of the country that Scott created, that is much more popular outside of Scotland than it is here. Ghalltachd refers to the lowlands yes but it means the place where they speak the foreign language {English} rather than place of the foreigners. Gaelic was originally the language of most of Scotland except the far north and the lothians. You only have to look at the place names.
Ooh, that pesky Wikipedia again - actually a more accurate translation of a'Ghalldachd is the non-Gaelic-speaking lands. But whatever - Gaelic might not be the prime language of many, but Gaelic words and especially place names are common. Scots words even more so.
you only have to look at the place names
[img] 
[/img]
language music and culture
But thats a very arbitrary and selective slice of Scottish Culture - it certainly doesn't reflect the historic culture of the debatable lands and Reivers country.
Ghalltachd refers to the lowlands yes but it means the place where they speak the foreign language {English} rather than place of the foreigners.
If they weren't a separate ethic group/race/culture (choose whichever you prefer), why did they speak a completely different language?
It can easily be argued that the Central Belt had much more in common culturally with England, than with the Highlands. Right up until the 1700's the Highlands were considered a wild place and nobody ventured there. The society was still tribal.
They were ethnically cleansed in the Clearances, this wasn't done by just the English but their fellow Scots helped as well.
There is no common Scottish culture.
LHS - That's Scandinavian nothing to do with the Scots.
There is no common Scottish culture.
I guess those of us who were born and live here will just have to bow to your greater knowledge of the Jocks.
LHS - That's Scandinavian nothing to do with the Scots.
I think you will find there are a number of ****ts in Scotland.
Is this thread going to get back on track at all as I thought AS's speech was hilarious!
The pot was there yelling at the kettle, then the little boy came in & started stamping his feet, making threats if he didn't get what he wanted...
Seriously though, I had some respect for AS prior to this speech but now HA! What a clown!
Just to clarify, I have no axe to grind ref the Scottish independence. I don't why it shouldn't go ahead but AS's take on "independence" needs an entry in the dictionary all of its own because it bears no resemblance to the version of independence I'm familiar with.
Some interesting stuff re EU membership:
http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu
I like that ben, easy to read and clearly sets out the position at hand.
Winston this is from the open university mooc "Gaelic in Modern Scotland"
1 Gaelic as a national language of Scotland
1.1 Introduction
Modern Scotland, like most nations of the world, is a multilingual entity with a complex linguistic history. In many people’s eyes, Gaelic belongs predominantly to the Highlands and (west coast) Islands, but the linguistic division of Scotland along the Highland/Lowland line reflects only the latter part of the country’s long history.
Indeed, of recorded Scottish languages, Gaelic defers solely to English with regard to its maximum geographical extent. The only modern administrative regions which have no significant Gaelic heritage are the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland, which remained outside the Scottish kingdom (and the later ‘Gàidhealtachd’) at the time of Gaelic pre-eminence and whose inhabitants view themselves as belonging largely to the Norse sphere of influence.
Incidentally you said it was not a success that gaelic is still spoken in Scotland
and in another post you said referring to gaels1% doesn't sound very successful to me.
Your own wordsThey were ethnically cleansed in the Clearances, this wasn't done by just the English but their fellow Scots helped as well.
Yet they and their language remain.
The language is pretty much dead, it's not like you see it on any official documents or hear anyone speak it in the street. Compare that with Wales where it Welsh is used regularly.
Then English is the language of international business and Scotland, so any arguments about independance and language is blind alley.
I actually agree with you there Dragonarguments about independance and language is blind alley.
Its just the claims that there is no distinct Scottish culture that are laughable really
Interesting article about bias in the media:
Ooh, that pesky Wikipedia again - actually a more accurate translation of a'Ghalldachd is the non-Gaelic-speaking lands. But whatever - Gaelic might not be the prime language of many, but Gaelic words and especially place names are common. Scots words even more so.
The gaeltacht, is the gaelic speaking parts. btw fwiw England has lots of Celtic place names etc aswell.
btw dunno why Celtic history is coming into this, the whole of these islands, England included and a fair old chunk of europe has Celtic origins.
History doesn't really come into it, it's quite simple, there are a fair old whack of scots that feel we'd be better represented in a smaller Democratic grouping. That doesn't mean that what went previous is wrong, just at this moment in time, we feel that the larger grouping is deverging from what we want. Example, is that when they proxy parties get into power in holyrood(scottish labour), under the UK government, watch them dismantle the health service, free eduction etc, all to be inline with England.
That's why I'm voting for an IS, I'm against the privatisation of the individual.
Bugger all to do with who did and didn't speak gaelic(my grandparents first language) or any perseption of cultural differences, which are minimal.
Precisely. I'm first-generation Scottish with English and American parents, my partner is English. All voting for independence. This isn't about history, it's about the future.
ps that wasn't particularly aimed at you! 😉bencooper - Member
Precisely. I'm first-generation Scottish with English and American parents, my partner is English. All voting for independence. This isn't about history, it's about the future.
Didn't think it was 😉
teamhurtmore - Member
In his usual, unbalanced way wee eck with stand up tomorrow and talk about only one side of currency unions - reducing transaction costs and he will "dress this up" by calling GO/EB/DA/HM Tres notion (incorrectly) a "tax" on business. Conveniently, he will ignore the other side of unions - giving up independence - since that is counter to the whole debate. He will of course also use the three Bs and "assets". He may also have to add his mate's new retort "preposterous" as well? If only predicting the outcome of horse races was this easy!
POSTED 22 HOURS AGO #
Been in meetings most of today and only read FT and BBC coverage, but pretty much a full house in the BS stakes
1. " george tax" (tick): nice tag line and will ring bells. But complete bollocks. Not even close to a tax. Yes if you don't share currencies there are transaction costs but that is not even close to the definition of tax. Add "george tax" to "assets" in the BS bingo. Classic Amber light of BS coming up next.
2. No recognition of the counter argument of seperate currencies (tick). Not surprise there. Presenting one side of the argument and loading it with negative (and he talks about a positive story) and false descriptions
3. The liability arguments again and the threat of a technical defaul (tick).
4. Three Bs (cross) as far as I can see from reports. But a nice opening line about misjudging the Scots people. We prefer to swallow our own/ my lies (since they are home grown porkies) rather than being bullied with the truth from anyone else.
Lays the foundations for the House of Hubris perfectly. I can't face reading the full text yet, time for a run instead.
[url= http://http://news.scotland.gov.uk/Speeches-Briefings/First-Minister-speech-February-17-2014-95a.aspx ]full text of Salmonds speech[/url]
Summarising without reading THM 🙂
I guess those of us who were born and live here will just have to bow to your greater knowledge of the Jocks.
Do you have much experience of, say, the Outer Hebrides? I think your average borders resident has far more in common with the English than they do with the locals on Harris and Lewis.
Example, is that when they proxy parties get into power in holyrood(scottish labour), under the UK government, watch them dismantle the health service, free eduction etc, all to be inline with England.
The current lot are managing to destroy it atm!!
MrsT has an insight into what goes on out with hospitals but still in NHS and it is a shambles. Millions of pounds have been and are being wasted.........Too many quangos and nothing joined up.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics.html
Bencooper if it went pear shaped you'd probably decide on a job elsewhere leaving real Scots with their family ties/roots
British in the sense a German or Italian is European. If you ask my nationality, it's always been Scottish. Don't English people do the same?
Not me - I'm British if asked, English if pressed, Devonian if pressed further. 😉
I think this is actually a big drawback for the English. we're under-represented, and I think this is possibly because most of us feel British, so why would we need another parliament, other than the one we've got? don't know - nothing to back that up.
Therefore no English parliament. Personally I'd rather we all did without regional assemblies, including the welsh and scots, as they're just another tier of politicians feeding in the trough which ultimately we all have to pay for.
More politicians is not something anyone really wants, is it, politicians aside?
Anyway, rather off the point of the ( quite interesting ) thread.
Personally i'd rather see the Union stay together. surely we're stronger together? simplistic view maybe...
Gordi, thanks for the link. It couldn't get it to work. Maybe a bit tired after a quick 10 miler. But read it off the STV website in full.
Actually a bit of credit is due to wee eck this time. Of course there is the expected BS and the new addition of the "George tax" lie, but that is just par for the course. Given that his advisers are currently arguing about what plan c should be, he made a reasonable fist of the bad hand that he was dealt. Plus he made a very subtle but important change of tack. When presenting the smokes and mirrors about debt and the pound, he very carefully avoided use of the word pound at the same time as saying asset. Finally learning or just a slip? Instead he referred to the BOE as the shared asset, which is much better. Keep going at this rate and he might start telling the whole truth.
I'm British. I speak English.
Personally I'd rather we all did without regional assemblies, including the welsh and scots, as they're just another tier of politicians feeding in the trough which ultimately we all have to pay for.
+10
The less of them the better.
TBH, if I was a Scot I'd be very concerned about AS - he doesn't appear to have your best interests at heart & I think he's going to end up shafting you on the altar of his ambition/ego..
mrlebowski - Member
TBH, if I was a Scot I'd be very concerned about AS - he doesn't appear to have your best interests at heart & I think he's going to end up shafting you on the altar of his ambition/ego..
How can he do that? Can you give an instance?
You realise we will be having regular elections, and it's unlikely the SNP will survive as a party past the honeymoon period.
Ok links not working that's what I get for trying to post links from a mobile
Mainly as he's offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..
He does not strike me as being remotely trustworthy.
Mainly as he's offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..
He can't offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or 'pre-negotiate' (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
He can't offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or 'pre-negotiate' (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
Ah ok, so it's all Westminsters fault that he's offered no other options?
So far as EU membership goes it certainly is all Westminster s fault as the Uk govt is the only one that can askthe EU for a definitive statement on Scotland joining. The Westminster govt has refused to do so.
So far as EU membership goes it certainly is all Westminster s fault as the Uk govt is the only one that can askthe EU for a definitive statement on Scotland joining. The Westminster govt has refused to do so.
& financial union? I think Westminster has made their stance fairly clear.
I would like to see the no campaign grab the greater powers for Holyrood (devo Max) option and beat dear leader at his own game.
He keeps expecting the no camp to legitimise his position by pre negotiating on independence. I firmly believe that the majority of Scots would vote for increased powers, and would welcome debate on possible options. Darling should not meekly mummble out a press release on this, if sincere and meaningful he should use it as his main weapon. The no camp can claim to have it's finger on the pulse of most Scots, and if Cameron shows support he might find even his ratings in Scotland improve slightly.
They can even reach out to dear leader to discuss it on amicable terms, knowing he won't touch it with a barge pole, unless devo max is what he is after.
If currently the polls are 40%, 40%, with 20% undecided, I reckon all the undecided become no and possibly 10% of the yes side becomes no.
It is important to stress that to sway some of the yes voters, commitment has to be given and powers have to be meaningful. Dear leader will squirm then.
In addition, Milliband needs to stand up and say more. Labour really need to speak out more to its core support. He recently called for introduction of 45p tax rate. The pros and cons can be debated, however that tends to go down well in Scotland. For once when asked to comment on Millibands suggestion on radio, nobody from the SNP was available for comment.
The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
Yes, but the balance of the negotiations has been fundamentally shifted - Salmond has put his ace on the table, and rUK have raised.
i) Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds - the keys are all in the rUK's drawer, and if Scotland don't take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth
ii) if Scotland tries to create a precedent of walking away without the debt, how do you think the other European nations with homegrown independence movements like Spain are going to respond to their EU application?
ii) if Scotland tries to create a precedent of walking away without the debt, how do you think the other European nations with homegrown independence movements like Spain are going to respond to their EU application?
Also, would you really want a country that's happy to default on a debt as any kind of trading partner?
Yep, and from day one of Independence, Scotland are going to have to raise capital from the markets (they, like rUK, are still running a budget deficit) - and I don't think that Wonga offer loans that big...
He can't offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or 'pre-negotiate' (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if "we" want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
Same with the pound. Until we actually do gain Indy then all questions are hypothetical and it will take years to go through the courts?
What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if "we" want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
Same with the pound. Until we actually do gain Indy then all questions are hypothetical and it will take years to go through the courts?
You're a braver man than I voting for something without the knowledge of what it'll entail.
]ninfan
i) Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds - the keys are all in the rUK's drawer, and if Scotland don't take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth
That wouldn't look particularly fair or even democratic the yes scotland stance is we want a fair share of all the assets and would accept a fair share of the debt. We contributed to those assets. I see the question of whether currency is an asset as moot point and agree that rUk taxpayers should have a say in any negotiations. That is what both Mr Osborne and Mr Salmond have set out though negotiating positions.
But its 'Yes Scotland' who have been throwing around the threat of not paying - they've played their only card and Osborne has said 'so what', now Salmond has got nothing left to play!
We contributed to those assets.
So, if you want to keep them, then you've got to take on your share of the debt!
You're a braver man than I voting for something without the knowledge of what it'll entail.
And a lot of the debate comes down to that. If you believe the Scotland would be better governed from within Scotland then you'll vote Yes no matter what.
What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if "we" want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
AS is criticized for not offering facts on what will happen if there is a Yes vote. They've published what they want to happen but cant give anything firm as Westminster refuse to play ball. I'm sure you can see why they're doing this.
Also, would you really want a country that's happy to default on a debt as any kind of trading partner?
Scotland would have no debt to default on, it is all the UK's debt.
Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds - the keys are all in the rUK's drawer, and if Scotland don't take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth
I cant imagine why a scorched earth style approach would be in the best interests of the UK. A strong trading partner and economy in Scotland would surely be better for everyone involved.
Scotland would have no debt to default on, it is all the UK's debt.
If you want a share of the assets then you'd better take a share of the debts too.Also, as I understand. Scotland is legally bound to take a share of the UK debt - after all some of it is yours...just like the asserts...ergo if you don't accept the debt surely you are then defaulting on it..
If you want a share of the assets then you'd better take a share of the debts too.Also, as I understand. Scotland is legally bound to take a share of the UK debt - after all some of it is yours...just like the asserts...ergo if you don't accept the debt surely you are then defaulting on it..
The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.
The Yes campaign want to take the debt as well as the assets, that's always been the position. One of an open and fair negotiation as set out in the Edinburgh agreement. It's only been a response to the extreme non pre-negotitating that's being going on that it's been floated.
...Legally under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for the debt. The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money. Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’. ...
[url= http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/currency-reflections-legal-issues ]http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/currency-reflections-legal-issues[/url]
The Yes campaign want to take the debt as well as the assets, that's always been the position.
No problem, but the position last week was that they wanted the assets [b]and[/b] currency union in return for shouldering their share of the debt
Now they're playing for just the assets
The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.
Well, as suggested, you can wait and see what the markets think of that argument, and then see what Spain thinks of it when you negotiate for EU membership - I'm sure the prospect of walking into the moonlight without any debt would appeal to Catalonia as well
Oh, and guess who you've got to rely on to do your EU negotiation for you 😉
The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.
Ok fine, then we'll keep your share of the assets too. Surely thats equally fair.
Legally the debt is not Scotlands, what's the legal position on any assets?
Surely Spain's vote is not the one they should worry about, I assume the UK will have a say.
If only there was a precedent of a country getting it's Europe entry vetoed.
Legally the debt is not Scotlands, what's the legal position on any assets?
Must fall under the same remit, thats just common sense.
If only there was a precedent of a country getting it's Europe entry vetoed.
Macedonia?
Legally the debt is not Scotlands, what's the legal position on any assets?
The link I posted on the last page does a good job of explaining the situation. Also goes over some of the EU stuff from the last few days on another post. Shame not many people seem to be reading it.
I can't see Spain vetoing tbh, they'd lose access to fishing waters which is a huge thing for them. The situation with Scotland is very different legally speaking to the Catalan one, so they don't really have anything to worry about.
I assume the UK would get vote, but again, what would they gain by vetoing? Guaranteed higher education fees? Point scoring? I can't see why it would be in rUK's best interesting to block membership.
[i]Mainly as he's offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..
He does not strike me as being remotely trustworthy.
[/i]
This reminded me of a quote about Robert Maxwell from a guy that worked for him:
"He was a bastard, but at least he was OUR bastard"
Macedonia?
I was thinking of France, EEC, UK.
Shakes fist in the direction of Paris.
If only there was a precedent of a country getting it's Europe entry vetoed.
where are we with Turkey and north Cyprus these days?
And obviously there is Morroco.
I can't see Spain vetoing tbh, they'd lose access to fishing waters which is a huge thing for them.
I keep hearing this and I think "yeh, that sounds about right, Spain's access to Scottish fishing waters is more important to them than an entire region of Spain. Yep, sounds spot on"
The link I posted on the last page does a good job of explaining the situation. Also goes over some of the EU stuff from the last few days on another post. Shame not many people seem to be reading it
I went & had a read & TBH theres no more clarity there than there is here. Rather, just a lot of wishful thinking which brings us back to the start which is a lack of clarity from both sides..
Yep read it too but dont agree Mr L. There was a comment by Bill Fraser there which in turn linked to this
EDIT"The 1983 Vienna Convention provides that unless the successor states otherwise agree, immovable and
movable state property connected with the territory of a particular successor
state shall pass to that state,' while movable state property not connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to the successor
states in equitable proportions"
Seems a good deal more clear. Though it depends on whether independent Scotland is governed by article 16 or article 34
Lovely bit of subterfuge from wee eck re the Vickers report, ring fencing and it's implication for Scottish exposure to financial services today. It's breathtaking in its deceit yet again. So in addition to his failure to recognize the details of central banking accounting, we now have to add that he doesn't understand the difference between a branch and a subsidiary and how that effects who is responsible. More likely that he does undertanding but as with assets and liabilities, he is deliberately mixing terms and misusing them in a way that sounds vaguely plausible. He has no shame.
@gordihmor the following for the IFS seems to show what I would expect that per head the English pay the most tax (ie generate most revenue for government), this is reversed with Scots paying more if north sea oil taxes are divided on a geographic basis. Note in another paper from hmrc it showed how much more the scots pay in duty on spirits and cigarettes than do the English 😉 The scots pay more fuel duty per head which as its a big spread out country makes sense. The English as a whole,pay much more in property taxes due to high stamp duty collections in the SE, stamp duty now exceeds fuel duty revenues which are falling
[url= http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881 ]IFS tax/revenue breakdowns[/url]
Just watching the flabby-jawed one on Newsnight. does he do any research at all before he unilaterally announces stuff as fact?
Instead of you English chaps worrying about Scotland, here's something for you to get your teeth into.
John Palmer, former European editor of the Guardian, former political director of the European Policy Centre, visiting practitioner fellow at Sussex University's European Institute and a member of the Governing Council of the Federal Trust writes in The Guardian.
In the hullabaloo created by English Tory and Scottish unionist politicians, one critical question has been overlooked. Without Scotland could the present UK state be regarded it as the same state it was? A United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland it would no longer be. If so, why should the status of the "rump UK" be any different to that of Scotland?
So it looks like if we're out of the EU and NATO, so are you. 🙂
So it looks like if we're out of the EU and NATO, so are you.
You will have Nigel Forage doing a tour of Scotland with statements like that 😉