The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

freelancing as an "expert analyst" isnt being a journalist.

Also, stating she's fantastic just because you agree with her...

Not so. It's a good balanced report that explains Scotlands problems in a better way than I ever could. The article is neither pro or against as is obvious. It simply lays out the figures, and the arguments that each side presents. No matter how you look at it Scotland is getting a very good deal currently from being part of the United Kingdom and a lot of the things about the Union which has a positive impact on daily business life in Scotland is under threat the minute Scotland becomes Independent. The overseas embassies and diplomats being one excellent example of how Scotland would have to cut back to break even.

[bluto]

She fronted what seemed a reasonably journalistic report this week on the growth of polio and the development of "cures".

She IS a journalist, still, despite her work for Morgan.

I think this sums her up, best...

"Guardian columnist Peter Preston mourned the BBC's loss, writing "She wasn't a simple reporter, talking to people and reading the runes: she was an intellectual player in a vital, but often arcane, area."[14] She was replaced as economics editor by the BBC's business editor, Robert Peston."

Herr Dixon offered a reasonable opinion but, as usual, folk on this thread are unable to listen.

[Stuart Dickson]

She fronted what seemed a reasonably journalistic report this week on the growth of polio and the development of "cures".

She IS a journalist, still, despite her work for Morgan.

I think this sums her up, best...

"Guardian columnist Peter Preston mourned the BBC's loss, writing "She wasn't a simple reporter, talking to people and reading the runes: she was an intellectual player in a vital, but often arcane, area."[14] She was replaced as economics editor by the BBC's business editor, Robert Peston."

Herr Dixon offered a reasonable opinion but, as usual, folk on this thread are unable to listen.

An all too common trait of the Natsi I'm afraid. I was asked by ID to explain how Scots were subsidised by the Rest of the UK. I had a stab at it and found it difficult to explain and then found the article by Ms Flanders which was balanced, well written, easy to understand and which explained the situation perfectly. It's sad that the Nats won't read the information when it's so well presented.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I read the article when it was first published. It was reasonable, by bbc standards. As usual it's all about the subtleties and how facts are presented.

I see ur back on the thread bluto, did you get a nice new wooden spoon? Youre stirring it up a treat!

[Stuart Dickson]

I read the article when it was first published. It was reasonable, by bbc standards. As usual it's all about the subtleties and how facts are presented.

I see ur back on the thread bluto, did you get a nice new wooden spoon? Youre stirring it up a treat!

Subtleties? Is that what you call it.

It actually depends on whether you are taken in by the Natsi propagandists or not and what your expectations are of reality. Do you really think it's a reality that Scotland will get to keep 90% of all North Sea Oil? Do you really think Scotland will be able to get all the favourable terms the UK enjoys at the EU despite the fact that Europeans know Scotland are desperate - unlike our UK counterparts. (Did you see Berlisconi's interview with Paxman where he said that the UK not being in the Euro was a "disaster")? Do you really think that Alex Salmond would be able to sit round a table at the Bank Of England and get Scotland an Independence deal which means we use Sterling without restrictions, the UK underwrites all of our debt no matter how ridiculous it gets, whilst absolving Scotland of most of the UK debt that it's played it's part in building up?

The fact is that two to three years ago Scotland was being subsidised by the UK Treasury - and the SNP had an argument that may have bought them mitigation. However this year there's no question about it at all. Scotland is absolutely being subsidised thanks to John Swinney's mismanagement of the Scottish economy.

[buddiecat]

i hear that the kirk are stating that "faith groups" should have a say in an independent scottish government and that mr salmond is out and about visiting a mosque, this has always been my major concern, don't vote yes and give the religious fanatics any power, ffs we'll go back to no shops or pubs open on a sunday - except maybe corner shops, a bit OTT i admit, but religious groups should get nowhere near government - so vote NO

[EastBuddie]

I don't think whether or not she is a journalist is relevant to whether or not the article is balanced. I am not a journalist but I have a view on the referendum which I want to get across and the fact this thread has run to 184 pages means a fair few of us have views and I'll bet most of us (apart from Chick if he is on here) aren't journalists.

Also, I suppose it is a forlorn hope but is there any chance we can stop calling the other side names. It's making the most important decision of our generation sound like it's being made by kids, and unruly kids at that.

Insulting Better Together doesn't change the mind of any undecided voter and using terms like Natsis doesn't either.

[BoWSaint]

Oh FFS, stop quoting Natsi propaganda websites and I might get beyond the URL.

Here's a far more balanced fact based article written by the excellent Stephanie Flanders of the BBC

Your link is to a pro-union news website!

At least some websites and news groups have the honesty to openly admit that they support independence which is a lot better than the cloak and dagger tactics employed by the Better Together bunch to manipulate the public via supposedly neutral mediums.

Just because an organization is pro-independence does not make everything they report lies! If you did get past the URL then maybe you might realize that Scotland could be more than financially stable after independence, something that David Cameron has already conceded.

Any thoughts yet on the paradox of being "better together" by pissing money into an abyss or are you continuing to avoid that one because it stumps your arguments?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

i hear that the kirk are stating that "faith groups" should have a say in an independent scottish government and that mr salmond is out and about visiting a mosque, this has always been my major concern, don't vote yes and give the religious fanatics any power, ffs we'll go back to no shops or pubs open on a sunday - except maybe corner shops, a bit OTT i admit, but religious groups should get nowhere near government - so vote NO

I agree with you that religion shouldn't be in government. You do realise that Westminster has faith leaders in its unelected chamber, that's one of the reasons I'm voting yes

edit- I'm not aware of any religious input in Scottish Parliament?

Edited May 21, 2014 by TPAFKATS

[salmonbuddie]

i hear that the kirk are stating that "faith groups" should have a say in an independent scottish government and that mr salmond is out and about visiting a mosque, this has always been my major concern, don't vote yes and give the religious fanatics any power, ffs we'll go back to no shops or pubs open on a sunday - except maybe corner shops, a bit OTT i admit, but religious groups should get nowhere near government - so vote NO

Vote NO and stay with the nice, non-religious Christians, you mean?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394

[Stuart Dickson]

Your link is to a pro-union news website!

At least some websites and news groups have the honesty to openly admit that they support independence which is a lot better than the cloak and dagger tactics employed by the Better Together bunch to manipulate the public via supposedly neutral mediums.

Just because an organization is pro-independence does not make everything they report lies! If you did get past the URL then maybe you might realize that Scotland could be more than financially stable after independence, something that David Cameron has already conceded.

Any thoughts yet on the paradox of being "better together" by pissing money into an abyss or are you continuing to avoid that one because it stumps your arguments?

Where did David Cameron concede this "fact"? If I remember correctly David Cameron's comment on Independence was to say that Scotland could financially survive independence - but I don't remember him ever claiming that Scotland would be "more financially stable." I look forward to seeing that article.

[Stuart Dickson]

I agree with you that religion shouldn't be in government. You do realise that Westminster has faith leaders in its unelected chamber, that's one of the reasons I'm voting yes

edit- I'm not aware of any religious input in Scottish Parliament?

Really?

Perhaps you can explain why in Scotland there is a legal obligation to all Local Authorities to appoint three unelected religious representatives to sit on all their education committees? One has to be from the Church of Scotland, one from the Catholic Church and one from "other religious bodies". And perhaps you could also explain what this process is all about http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/31777.aspx

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Really?

Perhaps you can explain why in Scotland there is a legal obligation to all Local Authorities to appoint three unelected religious representatives to sit on all their education committees? One has to be from the Church of Scotland, one from the Catholic Church and one from "other religious bodies". And perhaps you could also explain what this process is all about http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/31777.aspx

why would I explain about local authorities? No one mentioned them apart from you.

Time for reflection at Scottish Parliament isn't religious. It's all explained in the link you posted. One small paragraph at the top of the page. Are you really this thick?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Where did David Cameron concede this "fact"? If I remember correctly David Cameron's comment on Independence was to say that Scotland could financially survive independence - but I don't remember him ever claiming that Scotland would be "more financially stable." I look forward to seeing that article.

Bow didn't say "more financially stable". Are you misquoting him or purpose or are you just hard of thinking?

[salmonbuddie]

Both are possible, ts.

[Stuart Dickson]

why would I explain about local authorities? No one mentioned them apart from you.

Time for reflection at Scottish Parliament isn't religious. It's all explained in the link you posted. One small paragraph at the top of the page. Are you really this thick?

BY LAW is the clue. The Scottish Parliament created the law that insists three non elected religious representatives must be on every education committee. That's religious involvement in Scottish politics. I'm sorry you can't grasp that.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Youll be offering a factual link to this? BTW, if true it's actually religious involvement in Scottish education, not scottish politics. Spin, spin,spin - ever thought of leaving pipe fitting and becoming a news editor at bbc or in a newspaper? You'd be a natural...

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Double post

Edited May 22, 2014 by TPAFKATS

[Stuart Dickson]

Youll be offering a factual link to this? BTW, if true it's actually religious involvement in Scottish education, not scottish politics. Spin, spin,spin - ever thought of leaving pipe fitting and becoming a news editor at bbc or in a newspaper? You'd be a natural...

Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1973 as amended by Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1994.

Look it up.

Edited to add - Actually because I know you have problems working Google I thought I would help you

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/39/section/31

(4)

The three persons mentioned in subsection (2)( b above (who shall not be members of the education authority appointing such committee) are—

(a)one representative of the Church of Scotland, nominated in such manner as may be determined by the General Assembly of the Church;

( b in the case of the education authority for each area other than Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and Western Isles, one representative of the Roman Catholic Church, nominated in such manner as may be determined by the Scottish Hierarchy of the Church; and

©one person or, in the case of the education authorities for Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and Western Isles, two persons, in the selection of whom the authority shall have regard (taking account of the representation of churches under paragraphs (a) and ( b above) to the comparative strength within their area of all the churches and denominational bodies having duly constituted charges or other regularly appointed places of worship there.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Moustache of Hyslop]

Out of their depth with what? We are already devolved so what is it that makes you think things will crumble?

The poor cement work

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1973 as amended by Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1994.

Look it up.

Edited to add - Actually because I know you have problems working Google I thought I would help you

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/39/section/31

Dear oh Dear, Silly Dicko

You don't realise that this is Westminster legislation

[Guest TPAFKATS]

BY LAW is the clue. The Scottish Parliament created the law that insists three non elected religious representatives must be on every education committee. That's religious involvement in Scottish politics. I'm sorry you can't grasp that.

Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1973 as amended by Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1994.

Look it up.

Edited to add - Actually because I know you have problems working Google I thought I would help you

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/39/section/31

[FTOF]

He really is the gift that just keeps giving.

[BoWSaint]

Where did David Cameron concede this "fact"? If I remember correctly David Cameron's comment on Independence was to say that Scotland could financially survive independence - but I don't remember him ever claiming that Scotland would be "more financially stable." I look forward to seeing that article.

Here is your quote. Enjoy.

“Supporters of independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies, such as Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country”

So the leader of the UK has himself admitted that we could have a thriving economy like some of the richest countries in the world. Is that financially stable enough for you?

It is obvious that he is desperate to keep such a cash cow subsidising the rest of the UK and that is why him and all his friends are campaigning so hard to hold onto us. They need us more than we need them.

[Stuart Dickson]

Here is your quote. Enjoy.

“Supporters of independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies, such as Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country”

So the leader of the UK has himself admitted that we could have a thriving economy like some of the richest countries in the world. Is that financially stable enough for you?

It is obvious that he is desperate to keep such a cash cow subsidising the rest of the UK and that is why him and all his friends are campaigning so hard to hold onto us. They need us more than we need them.

Yet another quote taken out of context and put on a Natsi propaganda site. Poor show.