You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
athgray - Member
...I am yet to discover what is so wrong with the BBC that iS will require a new national broadcaster?
Well seeing as it is functioning as a Westminster propaganda unit it will be obsolete after independence.
So we will need a Scottish Broadcasting service.
Why does everything come to politics? I look at the service the BBC provides and on the whole I reckon it is pretty good. Will the program output of a Scottish service be better? I doubt it.
I can understand whatnobeer no problem
Well there you are, there's nothing to explain then - the BBC has a policy of allowing its programme editors to take whatever biases they want, all the ones in Scotland has decided to support the No campaign, and those responsible for Radio 4 have decided to be unbiased and evenhanded, apparently.
Either that or the nats have tailored their criticism of the BBC to suit their agenda and are making completely contradictory statements. What do you think?
I have no idea where in the UK you live Ernie, but if you've seen some of BBC Scotland's output you'll know what it's coverage is like. There was even a thread about it before this one.
On other issues I've seen the BBC Trust uphold complaints about how things have been reported. As far as I can tell BBC Scotland operates with it's own staff in it's own location. I have no idea how influence the rest of the BBC have over it, but in my experience Radio 4 usually covers certain things better than BBC Scotland.
konabunny - Member
"maybe Austerity Alex can take a much wider global role uniting previously waring parties, He seems to be an expert. He could join Tony Bliar."Oh, God, using these stupid nicknames makes you look like such a tiresome pillock.
What a sensitive wee bunch 😉
Meanwhile, add the youth to the ever growing list - so remember the youth who will be supporting the rapidly ageing population when you guys vote!
Athgray I feel there are a lot of good services provided by the BBC. I am really disappointed by the poor quality of some of the news output from BBC Scotland not only the referendum coverage, though it took the referendum to make me realise it.
It makes me wonder about some decisions taken at pacific quay cutting staff levels particularly.
Gordimhor, I have always thought that we have Reporting Scotland and the Proper News.
I also don't like when Newsnight becomes Newsnight Scotl..... change channel. About the only output from BBC Scotland I like is The Adventure Show.
What a sensitive wee bunch
How many folk have to say something before you reflect on your behaviour?
Is it everyone on the thread?
Is it still just me trolling you ?
Duckman/ aracer I cannot keep up - can you just argue with each other without making me referee 😉
I am calling it a score draw as i like you both
I think that hiring Kezia Dugdale to co present the program during the run up to the referendum is very shortsighted. I think the overreaction to Prof Robertsons criticism is bullying and I cant understand why at time when bbc scotland journalists are complaining of being overworked due to staff shortages, BBC Scotland are cutting staff again. This inspite of the fact that BBC Scotland has been allocated extra short term funding for referendum coverage. Then there are the recent arrivals of James Naughtie and Sarah Smith neither of whom have so far been any better than those they replaced imo . (edit)
😉 the tummy rumbles on 😉
Anyway feel the lurve from south of the border
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5473566a-ed9a-11e3-8a00-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33tl57riN
Athgray The Adventure Show is good, I thought newsnicht did pretty well until the last round of budget cuts. If you have gaelic or dont mind subtitles there is some good referendum coverage on BBC Alba notably Rathad an Referendum- Road to the Referendum.
I might look into it gordimhor. Up to now I have avoided everything referendum related apart from this cursed thread. 🙂
This (thread)too will pass 🙂
athgray - Member
I might look into it gordimhor. Up to now I have avoided everything referendum related apart from this cursed thread.
Which is the right thing to do. The real debate is over in a few seconds thought, but the fun goes on much longer.
[quote=Junkyard ]Duckman/ aracer I cannot keep up - can you just argue with each other without making me referee
I am calling it a score draw as i like you both
Sorry - I only brought you into it because I thought he was referring to my Sir BS line 😳
duckman also appears to have misunderstood the intent of my post - apologies if it came across as suggesting Scotland is nothing without rUK, that certainly wasn't the intention - I was simply having a pop at AS suggesting that iS would be just as important an ally to the US as rUK.
Though I guess if I'm having to explain my post a page or so later it hasn't really worked 🙁
aracer - MemberI was simply having a pop at AS suggesting that iS would be just as important an ally to the US as rUK
Which of course, he didn't do.
independence for Scotland would mean: "America has two great friends and allies here rather than one"
?
Yep, exactly. "Two great friends and allies" not "2 equally important friends and allies"
Do you want me to referee this one then 😉
OK, so I was having a pop at Sir BS suggesting that iS would be considered a great ally in the same sense as UK or rUK then if you're being picky.
Feel free JY - post edited just for you 😉
not "2 equally important friends and allies"
So Salmond recognises the lack of importance that an "independent" Scotland will have ? I can't say that came across when he made the comment "yes we can".
aracer - MemberOK, so I was having a pop at Sir BS suggesting that iS would be considered a great ally in the same sense as UK or rUK then if you're being picky.
When did he do that? Seriously, you're reading something that's just not there.
So he did actually say what I edited it to then?
You are "having a pop" about things you imagine he's said, which he hasn't. It's not "being picky", it's just stating the bloomin obvious- when you find yourself having a go at people for things they haven't done, you probably need to have a rethink.
Or failing that, imagine something more fun, [i]I[/i] didn't like it when David Cameron got high on glue and shat on Greyfriars Bobby.
Or failing that, imagine something more fun, I didn't like it when David Cameron got high on glue and shat on Greyfriars Bobby.
Did he not steal the money for the glue from Scottish orphans who's parents had died due to Tory cut backs in the NHS? But the BBC didn't report the whole story,so we will never be sure.
An OTT article but with one obvious pearl
[b]The Scottish government’s determination to retain the currency of what would be a foreign country, having no control over what interest rates are set and therefore having no real monetary policy, is bound to have caused a sharp intake of breath in these capitals. [u]Such elementary carelessness[/u] renders a financial crisis almost inevitable. [/b]Before an attentive Better Together audience at Leith Academy in Edinburgh on Thursday evening, Professors Adam Tomkins and Ronald MacDonald, both highly thought-of constitutional legal experts and economists, set out the all-too-likely consequences of such recklessness for the living standards of Scots paying mortgages or juggling precarious family budgets.
And the historical evidence is clear for all to see. Elementary carelessness indeed.
ndependence for Scotland would mean: "America has two great friends and allies here rather than one"
Yes, I'm sure the Americans see it that way
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6078767/US-senator-calls-for-investigation-into-Scotlands-decision-to-free-Lockerbie-bomber.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6073466/The-full-letter-from-the-FBI-Director-on-the-Lockerbie-bomber-release.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/20/lockerbie-bomber-release-libya-obama
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6064071/Barack-Obamas-fury-as-Lockerbie-bomber-flies-home-a-hero.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8226585.stm
Swedish documentary on independence subtitles are not translated by me 🙂
Shape-shifting Alex Salmond? Has someone been watching too many David Icke documentaries? #fnord
Oh come on. That's a 30 minute video FFS.
I can't watch all that. Can someone give a biased summary?
AS is the DO and he will eat your babies to get the pound and he still wont have freedom.
He will then turn iS into North Korea and the population will starve
Happy?
Moderately.
But that has more to do with the massive fruit scone in my belly.
What, not even a whiff of NATO?
Is there a new scare story? Same as the old scare story?
Anyhow, for those people who said it was absolutely ridiculous to suggest Obama weighed in at the request of the UK government:
http://news.sky.com/story/1278462/downing-street-asked-obama-to-back-union
Yeah, it's from across the pond this one.
googling Scotland NATO veto should find The Times article.
Its quite clear there are only bad outcomes from the US's perspective with an iS, things like a government more likely to be anti US, likely complexities with the Faslane base for example. From speaking with American friends the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber was very unpopular, most didn't understand before that Scotland could do such a thing independently of the UK government. The UK may well have asked Obhama to make a public statement of what it knew the countries previously privately help views where.
Here's hoping the next 100 days pass as quickly as possible so we can get this over and done with.
Double post for some reason.
for those people who said it was absolutely ridiculous to suggest Obama weighed in at the request of the UK government
Who said that ? What is ridiculous is the suggestion that the US president says stuff at a joint press conference with a British Minister without first discussing it with them.
Equally ridiculous is the suggestion that a US president says stuff concerning the integrity of the UK because he has been forced to do so by a British Prime Minister.
Obama gave his opinion because he chose to, no other reason.
Personally I think he should mind his own business and focus on being US president instead of interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, but that's a different issue altogether.
And if Scotland an "independent" Scotland wants to be a member of NATO you best get used to it anyway.
WTF is going on with journalism these days ?
Right they seem to have covered all bases with that article 😕
NATIONALISTS have been warned that the US will veto Scottish membership of Nato in the event of independence, following President Barack Obama’s intervention in support of retaining the United Kingdom.The head of the Royal United Services Institute, an influential defence think tank, said there was “zero chance” of Scotland joining the organisation if a Scottish National party government tried to remove the UK’s nuclear weapons from Scottish waters.
In addition, a former SNP defence adviser, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Crawford, claims a source close to the White House told him last year the US would block or delay Scottish Nato membership if it insists on Trident submarines being quickly withdrawn
Well, if we weren't a member of Nato we would be more vunerable,however if we didn't have a Nato member's nuclear subs in our waters(yes I know,annexing Faslane has been floated,but stay with me)then we would be a less attractive target.
if we weren't a member of Nato we would be more vunerable
What, you mean like Ireland ? 😀
That was a joke......right ?
What I don't understand is, like with the EU, what the motivation would be for kicking Scotland out. It'd be a huge hassle for no advantage, and they'd only want to let us back in again.
bencooper - MemberWhat I don't understand is, like with the EU, what the motivation would be for kicking Scotland out.
Scotland isn't an EU member state Ben.
We've been over this already. 💡
@ben - surely it's the other way round, having another new member at the table and likely one who is anti Nuclear and who has made the UK's and thus NATOs life more difficult by insisting no nuclear subs as Faslane. NATO wouldn't be kicking Scotland out, it would be declining to accept a new member. So iS out is the path of least resistance. The fact NATO is Like the EU in this regard, the EU wouldn't be kicking iS out they would be considering whether to accept a new member. Its the UK which is a member of NATO and the EU
Well I reckon the situation concerning NATO has been aggravated by the Scottish government making it very clear that things in an independent Scotland would be very different to how they are now, ie, no nukes.
That was always more likely to cause a reaction than saying that things would be remain exactly the same.
Scotland isn't an EU member state Ben
It's currently part of an EU/NATO state. There's a choice between unpicking all of that after independence - making every ex-pat Scot go home, making every EU citizen leave Scotland, etc - or just fast-tracking some paperwork and transferring membership to an independent Scotland in the 18 months between the referendum and independence.
NATO already has a bunch of non-nuclear members, and other countries which have near-member status. Being non-nuclear is no big deal to the USA, they've got plenty of their own nukes to go around, and they never base their boomers in other countries anyway.
And it would be voting to leave those arrangements. How many times do we have to go over that? The stated aim of the iS campaign is to negotiate continued membership before independence day - i.e. there's an acceptance that it needs to be arranged.It's currently part of an EU/NATO state.
The apparent notion that an iS will get everything it has asked for in the White Paper and everyone else is going to have to make all the concessions is optimistic in the extreme.
NATO already has a bunch of non-nuclear members
But that's not the issue. The issue is that there would be a significant change in Scotland to the existing situation.
If the British government was to inform NATO that it intended to scrap all its nuclear weapons by the end of next year that would not go down very well, despite the fact that NATO already has a bunch of non-nuclear members.
British nuclear weapons are part of a specific NATO strategy, some NATO countries not having nuclear weapons fits into that strategy, Britain scrapping its doesn't.
And presumably Scotland banning them doesn't either.
The apparent notion that an iS will get everything it has asked for in the White Paper and everyone else is going to have to make all the concessions is optimistic in the extreme.
Pretty sure that most people (even Ben 😉 )accept that iScotland won't get everything it wants, but that's what the starting point will be in the negotiations.
And it would be voting to leave those arrangements. How many times do we have to go over that? The stated aim of the iS campaign is to negotiate continued membership before independence day - i.e. there's an acceptance that it needs to be arranged.
Likewise, everyone accepts this, but given that both the EU and NATO are unlikely to really want to unpick everything as Ben points out, it's likely that iScotlands membership will be massaged and FastTracked.
Even the official reports of what are likely to happen (with regards to the EU anyway, I've not read anything on NATO) say that an entirely new membership application, negotiated from outside of the EU, with a lapsed membership isn't very likely and is undesirable.
None of that is likely whatnobeer. Scotland can't even fast track public sector change of its own design when it is in control of every component. Been there, tried to make it go faster, gave up and did something more interesting instead.
making every ex-pat Scot go home, making every EU citizen leave Scotland
Every Scot currently holds a British passport and it would be up to them if they decided to keep it or not (assuming UK doesn't withdraw it). So any Scot could remain and work in another EU country by keeping their British passport. Whether Scotland wanted to send home other EU citizens is up to them.
And the other EU members will want to send home every Scot who doesn't want to keep a UK passport? If even the official reports into EU membership reckon some sort of fudge prior to separation is the most likely, why do people on here not accept it? I guess we're all to set on being right all the time.
....every Scot who doesn't want to keep a UK passport?
Why would a Scot living in a EU country not want to keep their UK passport, specially if they wanted to reside in an EU country ? 🙂
Of course exactly the same situation exists today, if someone decides to scrap their UK passport and instead rely a non-EU passport then they won't have automatic right to reside in the EU.
What whatnobeer
said those doing the negotiation [ hopefully] wont be as petty as we are on here.
Every Scot currently holds a British passport and it would be up to them if they decided to keep it or not (assuming UK doesn't withdraw it
=I know this one as it concerns me
rUk will base its response on what iS does..stated position of rUK. Given they let the Irish in i think we will be safe.
Not sure what document it is in as I have read so many but that is the position
there you go cleared that one up eh. no one can accuse rUK of being vague eh 😉
ernie_lynch - Memberif we weren't a member of Nato we would be more vunerable
What, you mean like Ireland ?
That was a joke......right ?
Ok, I don't actually think that there are evil despots planning on conquering Scotland,should we manage to rid ourselves of our current ones,but we would have less ability to deal with the day to day stuff like off course Russian planes and "trawlers".
[quote=duckman ]Ok, I don't actually think that there are evil despots planning on conquering Scotland,should we manage to rid ourselves of our current ones
[img] 
[/img]
The passport issue could be a problem once EW&NI is UKIPed out of the EU.
What is going to happen to all those immigrants (from UK) in Spain - deportation?
That was meant to be tongue in cheek and leaving it open for interpretation who the evil despot is,(as you will have worked out)but hey-ho fill you boots anyway.
we would have less ability to deal with the day to day stuff like off course Russian planes and "trawlers".
More. Last time the Russians decided to invade*, the MoD only found out via Twitter, and it took two days for the nearest available ship to arrive. An independent Scotland will spend defence money on smaller patrol vessels, not massive white elephants like Trident and the carriers.
*Okay, they were sheltering from a storm, but that sounds boring 😉
What is going to happen to all those immigrants (from UK) in Spain - deportation?
No, the Spainish are very keen on Brits buying property there and spending their retirement income.
Brits wanting to work in Spain will probably have to fill out a Visa Application form.
Ben, was it not from a trawlerman's tweet in the first place?
bencooper - Member
An independent Scotland will spend defence money on smaller patrol vessels, not massive white elephants like Trident and the carriers.
And what if they decide not to turn around? Or perhaps decide to deploy some of the 40+ aircraft they could carry?
No nuclear powered submarines, no aircraft carriers, no nuclear weapon deterrent as a line in the sand.
Don't worry though, those KH41s are probably just bluffing. 😀
tightywighty - Member
And what if they decide not to turn around? Or perhaps decide to deploy some of the 40+ aircraft they could carry?...
In what world is that a realistic scenario?
And what if they decide not to turn around? Or perhaps decide to deploy some of the 40+ aircraft they could carry?
The UK would be stuffed anyway. There's no conceivable scenario where the UK military could beat the Russian military without using the nuclear option - and if that was used we'd all be dead.
Do Iceland panic about being invaded by the Russians? Belgium? Denmark?
bencooper - Member
The UK would be stuffed anyway. There's no conceivable scenario where the UK military could beat the Russian military without using the nuclear option - and if that was used we'd all be dead.Do Iceland panic about being invaded by the Russians? Belgium? Denmark?
The point of having nukes is that you don't have to use them; they're a deterrent.
If you are completely unconcerned, why have armed forces at all?
tightywighty - Member
...If you are completely unconcerned, why have armed forces at all?
We'll need them because we'll will have a militarily aggressive neighbour ruled by an oligarchy with the nasty habit of invading oil and resource rich countries in the name of christianity/democracy.
HTH 🙂
The point of having nukes is that you don't have to use them; they're a deterrent.
That worked* in the Cold War, when there were two massive opponents, either of which could totally obliterate the other, and that was considered a Very Bad Thing.
That's not the case now. Who are we deterring? It'd be a massive over-reaction to nuke Afghanistan in retaliation for any terrorist attack, and the terrorists may well not care about retaliation anyway. The Russians? Any attack we launch on them would be sure to attract a response that would kill a large percentage of the UK population.
There's no scenario where using nuclear weapons is better than not using them. None. So what use is a deterrent which you can never use?
And, again, why do most other countries not need a nuclear deterrent?
*For a given value of "worked" - there was no nuclear Armageddon, but it came damn close several times, and millions of people died in proxy wars.
That's not the case now. Who are we deterring?
[b]Now[/b]
Thats your problem Ben
You never know just whats round the corner politically - for example the national front romping home in the French elections, Russia invading the Crimean peninsular, none of which were seen as realistic possibilities even a few months ago!
And what would we be able to do about those things? Invade France? Attack Russia? What scenario would having nuclear weapons help with?
So not only does it turn out that [url= http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/barack-obama-was-asked-to-intervene-in-debate/ ]Obama was asked to intervene by Cameron[/url], contrary to what was claimed at the time, but also that [url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/alistair-darling-salmond-behaving-kim-jong-il ]Alastair Darling did agree with the Blood and Soil comment[/url] in the New Statesman interview.
That's two things in a week that Better Together have been caught lying about.
So Ben, an unnamed US Government source quoted by an unnamed Scottish Government source. Quite a compelling case that.
And Darling clearly qualified the blood and soil comment - not sure how anyone objective could associate its problematic historic connotations with the way it was used in that interview.
I'm afraid that's a big "so what" from me with added credibility for the nat cause lost by going on about it.
This made me chuckle :
A spokesman for Yes Scotland added: “This rather betrays the No campaign’s growing desperation and worry that Yes is on the winning path.
If there is any side in this debate that should be getting desperate it's the SNP. Because despite having had 80 years to convince Scots of the virtue of independence, and less than a hundred days left until the referendum, all the evidence suggests that they still haven't managed to convince the majority of Scots.
Time's running out lads and the gap is [i]widening[/i] - not narrowing. I reckon it's time to start panicking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker
I had previously thought that Scots would [i]probably[/i] vote Yes. But now with each remaining day that passes I'm not so sure.
Ernie, be careful of believing what the BBC publishes, it uses the same journalistic standards as Pravda.
If there's such a strong No vote, how come for every public event there is a large local turnout for Yes, but BT have to bus the same gang of 'supporters' in each location. They even have the golden heir to his daddy's seat to organise it.
made me chuckle, that out of the 6 polls on your link, you are obviously going by the worst one! 😆 the yougov one puts it as static and 3 out of the 6, show an increase. 
Ernie, be careful of believing what the BBC publishes
See Ernie, the polls are all biased in favour of No, its all part of the conspiracy
If there's such a strong No vote, how come for every public event there is a large local turnout for Yes
😆
Every time I go to an England match at the pub, there seems to be a large local turnout for the EDL, must be proof of something!
made me chuckle, that out of the 6 polls on your link, you are obviously going by the worst one! 😆
I'm going by all of them - they all show the No camp trailing the Yes camp. I'm not sure why that makes you laugh 🙂
I don't know what "the worst one" is suppose to mean. Several show the same sort of gap between the the No and Yes camps. And ICM doesn't even show the biggest gap.
Did you actually look at the link beyond just quickly scanning it ?
they all show the No camp trailing the Yes camp
Ah, but some of them show that Yes support has gone up one percent in the last week, if we extrapolate that 99 days into the future, then Yes will [i]definitely[/i] win!
Sorry I meant the Yes camp trailing the No camp ! It's hot, I've just been on a long bike ride, and I'm tired! 🙂
Only needed a quick scan, not exactly rocket science, and only 2 show a widening gap, 3 show a narrowing gap..ernie_lynch - Member
made me chuckle, that out of the 6 polls on your link, you are obviously going by the worst one!
I'm going by all of them - they all show the No camp trailing the Yes camp. I'm not sure why that makes you laughI don't know what "the worst one" is suppose to mean. Several show the same sort of gap between the the No and Yes camps. And ICM doesn't even show the biggest gap.
Did you actually look at the link beyond just quickly scanning it ?
I had previously thought that Scots would probably vote Yes.
Was this on another thread in a parallel universe?
What you going to claim next you have only just looked at the poll data ?