Don't you just love the SNP......

YoungScud said:
First of all, to the moronic suggestion that the rest of the Uk should have taken part in the referendum, not only did every mainstream party band together to persuade the Scottish electorate to say No, but so did the media en masse. If I'd believed for one minute that there would have been a Yes result, I might well have found myself taking the wrong, but pragmatic view that that should happen. Why wrong? Well, has there been a single case in history of a nation exercising its right to self determination (note the word 'self') while involving another nation in the decision?

Finally, you can portray any future intention by an elected Scottish government as keeping voting until we get the right result if you want, but that smacks of tabloid thinking. If we are to maintain any pretence of democracy, we have to accept that people change, and that a future Scottish government, given a mandate, has every legal and constitutional right to hold another referendum. The responsibility of any government is to represent its people, to try to gauge their will and respond accordingly. Of course, this does not mean that we can expect another referendum within the next few years, but it would be naive to expect that things don't change.
Click to expand...
I would agree that Northern Island, Wales & England shouldn't have taken part in the Scottish referendum. But it would have been interesting to know what the peoples of those countries thought, as Scotland leaving the UK, would have an impact on them. Perhaps the 'mainstream parties & media en masse supporting the No campaign', was some sort of guage of that? Would that be financial or selfish reason for that, or is it purely they do not want the UK to divide?

It's the right of the peoples of Scotland to have a referendum, but they would to be some significant change for that to take place, otherwise it would seem that the minority rule the majority.
 
YoungScud said:
To save a separate post, I'd like to answer some of the less well-thought out jibes bandied around while I'm at it. First of all, to the moronic suggestion that the rest of the Uk should have taken part in the referendum, not only did every mainstream party band together to persuade the Scottish electorate to say No, but so did the media en masse.

A 'non-city' Scot
Click to expand...

Hum. The SNP are saying that when the EU vote comes the "outcome" needs to be a "yes" in all 4 countries, so more thamn 50% in every country - so how does that fit with your logic?

Problem with the SNP is that they are so insular they have no empathy for anything, or anyone else.
 
Midwest said:
It would have been interesting to know what the peoples of those countries thought, as Scotland leaving the UK, would have an impact on them. Perhaps the 'mainstream parties & media en masse supporting the No campaign', was some sort of guage of that?
Click to expand...

In just a few sentences you've explained and illustrated why there are so many folks with such misguided views, on not just this subject - but its nothing new, the media have been helping whoever they want to win elections for a decades.

Sadly, there's far to many that use headlines and media articles to form their opinions, sheeplike.
 
I wonder if those who think that the rest of the UK should of had a vote in the Scotish referendum believe the rest of Europe should have a vote in our in/out referendum.
 
Murdoch said:
Hum. The SNP are saying that when the EU vote comes the "outcome" needs to be a "yes" in all 4 countries, so more thamn 50% in every country - so how does that fit with your logic?

Problem with the SNP is that they are so insular they have no empathy for anything, or anyone else.
Click to expand...


Again, this has nothing to do with anything said by Nicola Sturgeon. What she said was that if there were some kind of political event which changed the nature of the relationship, a 'game changer' if you like, then the party wouid feel it had the right to include a further referendum commitment in its manifesto for the upcoming elections. Were that the case, they would only feel they had a mandate to go ahead if they were elected on that manifesto. That seems to me to be perfectly right and proper. When asked if a UK wide vote to leave the EU were to happen, while Scotland voted to remain, would that be an example of the kind of thing she was thinking of, she replied, it might well be. This is all predicated on the fact that she gauges the mood of the Scottish people to be that we wish to remain in the EU, that seems equally reasonable to me. It might be worth pointing out that a commitment to a further referendum in the next Parliament is very unlikely, there's an element of too many people being fooled by the MSM.

Midwest, I think you can take that as an answer to your post too. The nature of our democracy at least is that the SNp consider that they can only have another referendum if they give a commitment to oe in the manifesto and that they then have a majority. It's also worh noting that Scotland, with a mature form of democracy far more representative of all views than is the case in the UK, is far less likely to find the minority ruling over the majority. Reference the UK General Eletion results last May. I rest my case.
 
With respect the in/out EU vote, if the UK votes to leave, would we get our 200 mile fishing rights back? That would help countless communities and villages and towns around the UK.

I think it was the fact that Iceland would HAVE to give up its fishing rights was a key factor for them to cease their talks to join the EU.
 
YoungScud said:
Again, this has nothing to do with anything said by Nicola Sturgeon. What she said was that if there were some kind of political event which changed the nature of the relationship, a 'game changer' if you like, then the party wouid feel it had the right to include a further referendum commitment in its manifesto for the upcoming elections. Were that the case, they would only feel they had a mandate to go ahead if they were elected on that manifesto. That seems to me to be perfectly right and proper. When asked if a UK wide vote to leave the EU were to happen, while Scotland voted to remain, would that be an example of the kind of thing she was thinking of, she replied, it might well be. This is all predicated on the fact that she gauges the mood of the Scottish people to be that we wish to remain in the EU, that seems equally reasonable to me. It might be worth pointing out that a commitment to a further referendum in the next Parliament is very unlikely, there's an element of too many people being fooled by the MSM.

Midwest, I think you can take that as an answer to your post too. The nature of our democracy at least is that the SNp consider that they can only have another referendum if they give a commitment to oe in the manifesto and that they then have a majority. It's also worh noting that Scotland, with a mature form of democracy far more representative of all views than is the case in the UK, is far less likely to find the minority ruling over the majority. Reference the UK General Eletion results last May. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it has...... She has said that SHE wants the ability to block the UK exit if the Scots vote to stay in the EU
 
Murdoch said:
With respect the in/out EU vote, if the UK votes to leave, would we get our 200 mile fishing rights back? That would help countless communities and villages and towns around the UK.

I think it was the fact that Iceland would HAVE to give up its fishing rights was a key factor for them to cease their talks to join the EU.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we would be happy with any deal to allows all to make beneficial use of whatever lies below their geographically adjacent waters.

Seems like a good deal to me.
 
She said no such thing, given that she has no right to demand it. What she did say, in 2014, before she became FM, was that exit should require all four members of the UK should vote to leave. Cameron, in his supercilious way, simply stated that we are on UK. We are not. We are two sovereign nations, one principality and a province. He can pretend there would be no constitutional crisis as a result, but rest assued that, in the event of a vote to leave, will trigger one. It's not hard to see, with a pretty solid majority of Scots wanting to stay in the EU, how an easy case for another referendum can be made. Of course, that still requires the political will of Scots to succeed.
 
YoungScud said:
She said no such thing, given that she has no right to demand it. What she did say, in 2014, before she became FM, was that exit should require all four members of the UK should vote to leave. Cameron, in his supercilious way, simply stated that we are on UK. We are not. We are two sovereign nations, one principality and a province. He can pretend there would be no constitutional crisis as a result, but rest assued that, in the event of a vote to leave, will trigger one. It's not hard to see, with a pretty solid majority of Scots wanting to stay in the EU, how an easy case for another referendum can be made. Of course, that still requires the political will of Scots to succeed.
Click to expand...

Historically you are correct - at least as far as recent history is concerned, some more recent than others. Two sovereign nations (England & Scotland), one principality (Wales) and one province (NI).

However, Mr. Cameron was factually correct. We are one United Kingdom - legally, functionally, militarily and financially. Devolution was not given to Scotland, Wales & NI because they had a right to it (although their populations did vote in favour of it) but simply because it was politically expedient so to do. I am in favour of devolution - it is pragmatic, democratic, brings accountability and greater benefit to localities.

When the EU referendum is delivered, it will be interesting to note how different areas of our United Kingdom do vote. Of course it will. As someone who has lived close to Cornwall for all my life, I see first hand in microcosm what an Independence Party looks like. Believe it or not, there is a faction in Cornwall who want independence for that small county. Yes I know it beggars belief, but they are passionate about it.

In our democratic culture, (although legislation in the past 50 years has bizarrely both weakened and strengthened the following)
Everyone has a right to an opinion.
Everyone has the right to express that opinion - theoretically without needing to fear any repercussions for holding their opinion.
Everyone has the right to one vote.

As such, we - as the population of the United Kingdom - will express our collective will over the future of our nation where it pertains to continued membership of the EU. That collective decision of the individual will, has now and will for ever hold exponentially greater moral and legal weight than any alleged will of a sub section of that global (as in UK wide) population. Whatever the outcome.

Personally, as things stand now, as almost a lifelong opposer of membership of the EU, I find my opinion changing to that of staying a member. Why? Because of the increasing infringements & restrictions of personal freedoms & rights in the UK together with the imposition of certain laws and standards that I find personally beyond the pale. EU membership at least provides access to protections for freedoms and human rights that have become increasingly eroded in our country.

Decisions should not be made on financial grounds, but on philosophical ones. If, for example, you believe that Scotland should be independent - believe it, argue for it and continue to believe it even if it makes no financial sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On another point - just generally - our system of governance in this country is not one that rules by a series of referenda.

We appoint parliamentarians, who in turn form a government. We elect them to make decisions. If we are happy with those decisions, we re-appoint them to their positions. If not, we appoint a different set.

When we have appointed those parliamentarians and through them, the government, we actually relinquish our personal right to a vote until and unless those same elected parliamentarians decide that they believe we need to express it again.

As such, a referendum on any given subject should only take place once within a generation. A generation is broadly accepted as being 25 years. Therefore, with the residents of Scotland having recently expressed their collective will over this matter, that matter should now be closed for a generation.

That is how we govern in this country. It is certainly not a perfect form of government, but then there are flaws with any system. In my personal view, I believe that the overwhelming majority of the population of the U.K. are moderate and 'conservative' in their views (I don't mean the political party). As such, they prefer gradual, evolutionary change predicated on fairness to everyone. We tend to shy away from extremes of any nature and certainly do not want to be controlled by anything other than our personal freedom of choice and determination.
 
Hmm I have lived and worked in kent for more than a decade. Circumstances dictated that I had to move back to Scotland so that's my situation.
As someone who has made this life "journey" can I just say the following
1. There are plenty of Idiotic and bigoted english people - you only need watch the news of an evening lol
2. There are plenty of idiotic and bigoted scottish people - again watch the evening news for god's sake
3. The politicians of all colours from the national parties DID band together to form a NO campaign - nobody can really deny that - 1st time they have ever agreed and joined together about ANYTHING as far as I can remember. The same can be said for the media - the majority of the media promoted the NO and discredited the YES - I think anyone with a hint of intelligence can agree that actual facts and figures used by both sides were lacking and at times laughable.
The Ruk did get a say - you voted in the Mp's for your area - the leaders of these mp's decided on your behalf that the UK would suffer if it broke up, So they joined the NO campaign.
Does anybody think that the Tory party or any other party for that matter wanted Scotland to remain in the union for nostalgic reasons ? I don't - It is to do with power/money - nothing else matters.
I voted Yes - but I am not an SNP supporter nor member - I wanted to see a resurgent scottish labour party if truth be told, Is that so difficult for anyone to understand ?
So has things changed since the indy ref ? Yes more people have become politically engaged north of the border - hence why you "hear" their voice more.
In my time in England I have been called a Scottish XXXX (XXXX = every type of swear word you could imagine) - I have been accused of "stealing our jobs" "lowering the rate" been told that "Id kill any of mine who brought home a jock...."
Are these comments representative of your average english person ? Are they hell, I have made 10's of actual REAL friends who I now meet up with weather it is me traveling down or them coming up north or even holidaying abroad together - lifelong friendships. My other half is a nice english girl (a thoroughbred too lol).
Same applies up north - Believe it or not I have been called an English XXXX - due to my softening accent lol, I have heard people who I know to have never left the confine of the town they live in tell me/others how much they "hate" the english, All the stuff that was negative and happened to me down south I have seen replicated up north.....None of it is representative of the "normal" person though.
Every country in the world is perfectly capable of producing their own home grown idiots...ten a penny. They make the normal person cringe when we hear them start.
Football, rugby ect - different rules apply - I had many a great night in england supporting Scotland - even in a very english pub when we played you in Euro 96 and other occasions too - Great banter from all - Called a Scotch Cxxx me calling them English Cxxx blah blah blah....but you know what we all managed to have a beer and all knew it was just banter....Some people can't see through it, im afraid that is their problem - we can't educate everyone.
Finally am I glad that we voted NO after the collapse of oil ect - Nope, Every country in the world runs on good and bad times - these are indeed the bad times...how long for ? Who knows, I would be surprised if the price of oil is not back to historic highs within the next 5 to 10 years....Finite resource with infinite users. A few well placed wars will sort out the over supply.
Lastly I hate and laugh in the face of bigots weather they be English, Scottish or bloody outer Mongolian....a-holes are a-holes whatever accent they may have or whatever country they were born in.
 
Diddy said:
As an aside love your username Janner lol....hope your not related to the late lord ffs.
Click to expand...

Like a cockney is from London or a Geordie from Newcastle... a "Janner" is someone from Plymouth or sometimes thought of as from Devon. It originates (as far as I know) from the common male name of John sounding like Jan when spoke with a broad Devonian accent.

Remember "Jan Stewart, Jan Stewart lend me your grey mare" (Widdicombe Fair)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janner
 
sean_ork said:
Did you post the wrong link ?

That just simply confirms exactly what I posted - there's no mention of a veto, she even uses the same words as I did - essentially support for coming out needs to be across the Country - no one element will be dragged out against their will.
Click to expand...

Democracy mate - if over 50% of the UK nationals vote out then thats the will of the people.

I know you Scots aren't good at maths as you believe that a 55% to 45% was a narrow victory for the "stay" campaign.

And for the record I have a large amount of Scottish blood in me!
 
Petty digs are rather pointless - but I don't disagree with your democracy comment - if there was a UK wide out majority, which could potentially lead to sections being dragged out despite their majority vote to stay in - that's certainly more than enough of a reason to revisit the Independence question.

But, there has never been any suggestion of anyone having a veto.
 
sean_ork said:
Petty digs are rather pointless - but I don't disagree with your democracy comment - if there was a UK wide out majority, which could potentially lead to sections being dragged out despite their majority vote to stay in - that's certainly more than enough of a reason to revisit the Independence question.

But, there has never been any suggestion of anyone having a veto.
Click to expand...

What I do find really amusing about the SNP, is that pre 2015 they carried on, and on, and on about PR - yet now they go VERY silent on the matter.
 
Murdoch said:
She has said that SHE wants the ability to block the UK exit if the Scots vote to stay in the EU
Click to expand...

Just for the record, for those daft enought to beleive such one liners - she said no such thing.

Mr Murdoch was also kind enough to post a video link, so if you'd like to see what she actually said - watch it.
 
sean_ork said:
In just a few sentences you've explained and illustrated why there are so many folks with such misguided views, on not just this subject - but its nothing new, the media have been helping whoever they want to win elections for a decades.

Sadly, there's far to many that use headlines and media articles to form their opinions, sheeplike.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point I'm afraid. I understand you are responding to many other posts, but you should considering what's being said. Mainstream parties and media are populated by people. People have opinions, they might be biased one way or not, but never the less they are opinions. And it seems their opinions were based on keeping a United Kingdom. The SNP opinion is for Scottish independence, should we ignore their opinion?
 
Midwest said:
You're missing my point I'm afraid. I understand you are responding to many other posts, but you should considering what's being said. Mainstream parties and media are populated by people. People have opinions, they might be biased one way or not, but never the less they are opinions. And it seems their opinions were based on keeping a United Kingdom. The SNP opinion is for Scottish independence, should we ignore their opinion?
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point, you've made the mistake of assuming that people with the power to dictate media output and the general public people are equals.

The often en mass, one sided, highly biased, and very lopedsided "opinions" broadcast by the media are fortunately a long long way removed from a mass of folks capable of independent thought - yes there are people in the media, but that point would only be valid if all "people" had the opportunity to broadcast their views so publicly and consistently.
 
Last edited:
sean_ork said:
I'm not missing the point, you've made the mistake of assuming that people with the power to dictate media output and the general public people are equals.

The often en mass, one sided, highly biased, and very lopedsided "opinions" broadcast by the media are fortunately a long long way removed from a mass of folks capable of independent thought - yes there are people in the media, but that point would only be valid if all "people" had the opportunity to broadcast their views so publicly and consistently.
Click to expand...

So we can ignore the viewpoint of the SNP?
 
Midwest said:
So we can ignore the viewpoint of the SNP?
Click to expand...

We can all ignore whoever we want - my point is that the media is to powerful in that it has the ability to alter public opinions, very often by the use of biased reporting, selective editing, and unbalanced focus.

Youve suggested that the media is just a reflection of public opinion.

Midwest said:
But it would have been interesting to know what the peoples of those countries thought, as Scotland leaving the UK, would have an impact on them. Perhaps the 'mainstream parties & media en masse supporting the No campaign', was some sort of guage of that? Would that be financial or selfish reason for that, or is it purely they do not want the UK to divide?.
Click to expand...

The only opinion that is accurately guaged in most of our media is that of its owners and their paid complient underlings.
 
Murdoch said:
What I do find really amusing about the SNP, is that pre 2015 they carried on, and on, and on about PR - yet now they go VERY silent on the matter.
Click to expand...


It's hard to fathom what you're claiming here. Comparing referenda and PR is like comparing applesd and oranges, or Ian Duncan Smith and human beings. PR is proportional representation, operating quite well in Scotland. Referenda don't produce representatives, so what's your point?

Murdoch, you're reading something into Nicola Sturgeon's statements that she isn't even trying to imply. There is no implication, there is only fact. Scotland, as has been conceded by others here, is a sovereign nation and, as such, has the indisputable right to self determination. That doesn't mean every now and then, that means as and when its people choose. Scotland isn't a subsidiary of UK Plc, it's a partner in the UK. Partnerships dissolve all the time, sometimes acrimoniously, sometimes amicably. If and when Scotland exercises that will to leave, then it can and will leave. How the partnership dissolves depends on how the various parties act, but throwing the toys out of the pram won't have any effect on the end result. Now, one thing could change that; England, as another sovereign partner, could decide to dissolve that partnership, but that seems unlikely. In fact, it seems pretty unlikely that Scotland will choose to leave any time soon, but that'll be up to us. It's almost exactly the same kind of right which the UK will exercise one way or the other over Europe.
 
sean_ork said:
We can all ignore whoever we want - my point is that the media is to powerful in that it has the ability to alter public opinions, very often by the use of biased reporting, selective editing, and unbalanced focus.

Youve suggested that the media is just a reflection of public opinion.



The only opinion that is accurately guaged in most of our media is that of its owners and their paid complient underlings.
Click to expand...


If you don't believe that, take a gander at Murdoch's posts.
 
I understand the media never let the truth get in the way of a good story and some are owned by oligarchs or whatever, but it suggest something, when was it just the Scottish Herald who supported the Yes campaign. Their reasons may be financial, but it's still suggests a reasoning to keep the Union?
 
Midwest said:
I understand the media never let the truth get in the way of a good story and some are owned by oligarchs or whatever, but it suggest something, when was it just the Scottish Herald who supported the Yes campaign. Their reasons may be financial, but it's still suggests a reasoning to keep the Union?
Click to expand...

Is that you, using different words, again trying to suggest that the media is an accurate reflection of public opinion ?

If that's your point, again, its simply wrong.

The only point you've made that I will argee with is that the mass of the media were in the NO camp.
 
Midwest said:
Stop shouting, we are having an adult debate.

So why in your opinion were the mass media in the No camp?
Click to expand...

What an odd response.

no one is shouting - NO was capitalised to simply indicate a "no" associated with a campaign, as opposed to a non capitized no as in "no sugar please" - in the same manner as you've opted to similarly use a capital letter - full marks for pettinesses I'll give you that.

I've got no opinion on why the mass media were preaching for the no/No/NO camp
 
sean_ork said:
What an odd response.

no one is shouting - NO was capitalised to simply indicate a "no" associated with a campaign, as opposed to a non capitized no as in "no sugar please" - in the same manner as you've opted to similarly use a capital letter - full marks for pettinesses I'll give you that.

I've got no opinion on why the mass media were preaching for the no/No/NO camp
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to 'No', but apologies, it sounded as if you were shouting. Back to the debate. But there must be a reason why the majority of media were in the No camp, ideological, financial, empowerment?
 
Midwest said:
I wasn't referring to 'No', but apologies, it sounded as if you were shouting. Back to the debate. But there must be a reason why the majority of media were in the No camp, ideological, financial, empowerment?
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly there will be reasons, perhaps including those you mentioned and many many more - I'm trying to encourage folks to not walk sheep like into believing they reflect public opinion, rather they bend, con, lie, contrive (often illegally) to alter some of the more gulable folks views - and this affects how they vote.

Folks are lazy, you'll have seen opinions being expressed on this thread which are a result of just reading headlines, or just reading the output of certain sections of our media - lazy folks love being spoon fed, we live in a world full of sound bites and four word headlines - many folks simply gobble them up as gospel, and the media loves feeding them.
 
Last edited:
Not all of it is untruths, I'm speaking generally. Often embellished, litatious, out & out lie, but most often an element of truth or even fact. You decide what you want to believe. You have to listen & read it, otherwise how else do you find out what's going on where you live, let alone the world.
 
You simply have to find other sources which, over a period of time, show themsleves to be more trustworthy. The referendum campaign was a very good case in point, although by no means the only example of the MSM taking a very one-eyed view. To illustrate what I mean, let's just examine how the print and some of the TV news media approached the referendum. The reporting of all but one Scottish, and all the UK national papers was 'SNP bad'. The SNP government, duly elected, fulfilled its election commitment to an independence referendum. Having signed the Edinburgh Agreement, they set about arranging the details. Meanwhile, a broad coalition of different political, business and other interests formed the Yes! campaign. From day one, the media simply ignored the cross-party, cross-interest nature of the Yes! campaign and labelled every one of its actions as being SNP driven. They repeatedly referred to the 'utopia' promised by the SNP (not Yes!), a word never once used by anyone in the Yes! group. They constantly referred to oil revenues, again, a factor never relied on by the campaign. In fact, they sudiously avoided talking about oil revenues as a reason for independence, although they were quite rightly critical of the way that those revenues had been squandered by successive UK governments. They raised non-issue after non-issue, mostly because Better Together couldn't come up with very much in the way of argument, other than naked flag waving. The Scottish Daily Record, followed blindly by the Mail et al. excelled itself by front paging The Vow, that utterly meaningless promise issued by the mainstream parties via Gordon Brown. The major UK politicians, having shown no desire to get involved, suddenly appeared en masse in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Cameron, having backed away constantly from an open debate with Nicola Sturgeon, suddenly caved and then wished he hadn't. He, at least according to even the anti-independence press, had his clock cleaned. Despite all of this, the media continued relentlessly.

Since the referendum, the onslaught hasn't let up. The Forth Road Bridge is an excellent example. The SNP were blamed for stopping a maintenance regime they didin't stop. The Bitter Together mob accused them of using Chinese steel and causing the demise of TaTa Steel plants in Scotland and England. Facts didn't matter. TaTa had the opportunity to tender and chose not to. But hey, why let that fact get in the way of a good 'SNP Bad' story?

Now, if you need to ask questions like the one you've just asked, frankly you're not paying much attention to how the media in this country behave. News is no longer sought, it's bought. So, I tend to check with alternative news sources. Over a period of time, as truth emerges, I'm able to gauge the trustworthiness of a particular source. Of the major sources, I've found that, often, you could do worse tha Al-Jazeera. Of the UK's TV news sources, I guess you could say Channel 4 News isn't terrible. For the rest, spend ten minutes watching BBC Breakfast and you'll see what's wrong with news programming. We're treated to a couple of mindless twits waffling about Yoga for Dogs. It's all part of the dumbinf down process so beloved of our political masters. If we don't question anything, we don't question them. Their receivedwisdom becomes ours. Yesterday, on Facebook, I shared a Newsthump story about Carol Kirkwood having slipped and described the weather as 'cold as f***'. Never midn that Newsthump is a known satirical site, the story seemed obvious enough a hoax that everybody would see through it. Boy, was I ever wrong. The biggest reaction came from the moral brigade. You know, swearing is a sign of a lack of vocabulary, that kind of cliche. We often use, "It's in the paper, so it must be true", but it's actually turning out to be true.
 
YoungScud said:
Murdoch, you're reading something into Nicola Sturgeon's statements that she isn't even trying to imply. There is no implication, there is only fact. Scotland, as has been conceded by others here, is a sovereign nation and, as such, has the indisputable right to self determination. That doesn't mean every now and then, that means as and when its people choose. Scotland isn't a subsidiary of UK Plc, it's a partner in the UK. Partnerships dissolve all the time, sometimes acrimoniously, sometimes amicably. If and when Scotland exercises that will to leave, then it can and will leave. How the partnership dissolves depends on how the various parties act, but throwing the toys out of the pram won't have any effect on the end result. Now, one thing could change that; England, as another sovereign partner, could decide to dissolve that partnership, but that seems unlikely. In fact, it seems pretty unlikely that Scotland will choose to leave any time soon, but that'll be up to us. It's almost exactly the same kind of right which the UK will exercise one way or the other over Europe.
Click to expand...

I can't see Scotland listed anywhere as a sovereign state in it's own right only as part of the UK and most of your post implies that if Scotland does go independent that they will automatically assume the same world status as the UK does now without hindrance

sean_ork said:
Undoubtedly there will be reasons, perhaps including those you mentioned and many many more - I'm trying to encourage folks to not walk sheep like into believing they reflect public opinion, rather they bend, con, lie, contrive (often illegally) to alter some of the more gulable folks views - and this affects how they vote.

Folks are lazy, you'll have seen opinions being expressed on this thread which are a result of just reading headlines, or just reading the output of certain sections of our media - lazy folks love being spoon fed, we live in a world full of sound bites and four word headlines - many folks simply gobble them up as gospel, and the media loves feeding them.
Click to expand...

Your opinions castigating other posters information sources is typical of a lot of posters in these debates have you ever thought your stance is because you are being spoon fed information that suits your view point

Rather than reading the media try looking at the balance sheets you can only spend money once no matter how many things you want to buy with the same money

YoungScud said:
You simply have to find other sources which, over a period of time, show themsleves to be more trustworthy. The referendum campaign was a very good case in point, although by no means the only example of the MSM taking a very one-eyed view. To illustrate what I mean, let's just examine how the print and some of the TV news media approached the referendum. The reporting of all but one Scottish, and all the UK national papers was 'SNP bad'. The SNP government, duly elected, fulfilled its election commitment to an independence referendum. Having signed the Edinburgh Agreement, they set about arranging the details. Meanwhile, a broad coalition of different political, business and other interests formed the Yes! campaign. From day one, the media simply ignored the cross-party, cross-interest nature of the Yes! campaign and labelled every one of its actions as being SNP driven. They repeatedly referred to the 'utopia' promised by the SNP (not Yes!), a word never once used by anyone in the Yes! group. They constantly referred to oil revenues, again, a factor never relied on by the campaign. In fact, they sudiously avoided talking about oil revenues as a reason for independence, although they were quite rightly critical of the way that those revenues had been squandered by successive UK governments. They raised non-issue after non-issue, mostly because Better Together couldn't come up with very much in the way of argument, other than naked flag waving. The Scottish Daily Record, followed blindly by the Mail et al. excelled itself by front paging The Vow, that utterly meaningless promise issued by the mainstream parties via Gordon Brown. The major UK politicians, having shown no desire to get involved, suddenly appeared en masse in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Cameron, having backed away constantly from an open debate with Nicola Sturgeon, suddenly caved and then wished he hadn't. He, at least according to even the anti-independence press, had his clock cleaned. Despite all of this, the media continued relentlessly.

Since the referendum, the onslaught hasn't let up. The Forth Road Bridge is an excellent example. The SNP were blamed for stopping a maintenance regime they didin't stop. The Bitter Together mob accused them of using Chinese steel and causing the demise of TaTa Steel plants in Scotland and England. Facts didn't matter. TaTa had the opportunity to tender and chose not to. But hey, why let that fact get in the way of a good 'SNP Bad' story?

Now, if you need to ask questions like the one you've just asked, frankly you're not paying much attention to how the media in this country behave. News is no longer sought, it's bought. So, I tend to check with alternative news sources. Over a period of time, as truth emerges, I'm able to gauge the trustworthiness of a particular source. Of the major sources, I've found that, often, you could do worse tha Al-Jazeera. Of the UK's TV news sources, I guess you could say Channel 4 News isn't terrible. For the rest, spend ten minutes watching BBC Breakfast and you'll see what's wrong with news programming. We're treated to a couple of mindless twits waffling about Yoga for Dogs. It's all part of the dumbinf down process so beloved of our political masters. If we don't question anything, we don't question them. Their receivedwisdom becomes ours. Yesterday, on Facebook, I shared a Newsthump story about Carol Kirkwood having slipped and described the weather as 'cold as f***'. Never midn that Newsthump is a known satirical site, the story seemed obvious enough a hoax that everybody would see through it. Boy, was I ever wrong. The biggest reaction came from the moral brigade. You know, swearing is a sign of a lack of vocabulary, that kind of cliche. We often use, "It's in the paper, so it must be true", but it's actually turning out to be true.
Click to expand...

Throughout the referendum campaign I don't recall it was ever clear how Scotland was going to finance it's ambitions without the oil revenue. A lot of creative accounting was used by both sides during the campaign but the yes campaigns financials seemed to include figures on one side then ignore them on the other and then there were those costs not acounted for at all

If independence had happened Scotland wanted to contract out various government functions DVLA, Passports, the armed forces etc etc because it had already paid for them, in the various debates and interviews the inference was there that they would pay a contribution to the running costs of the functions they used but it may be less than the actual cost to supply them for those north of the border. This psuedo independence that wee eck proposed was in my opinion designed to get peoples backs up south of the border it was all down to how much Scotland could milk the rest of the UK for

Strange you criticise other posters information sources it would be interesting to know how you decide that Al Jazzera is a credible source. During the referendum campaign there was various documents produced by all the parties did you actually read any of them or where they not credible enough for you to get a balanced view

It is strange that since the oil price and therefore revenue from it has dropped the politicians have gone quiet on the subject
 

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Green 2 Go Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

YOUR Unread Posts

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Receive a daily, weekly, or monthly email containing a digest of new and recently updated threads.

Thread Information

Title
Don't you just love the SNP......
Prefix
N/A
Forum
Electrician Talk Forum
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
198

Thread Tags

Tags Tags
don't

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
Octopus,
Last reply from
Spoon,
Replies
198
Views
18,528

Advert

TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server

Tilers | UK Tiling Forum | Tilers Forums | Find a Tiler
Plumbers Forums | Plumbing Advice | Gas Forum
Back
Top