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

[Octopus]

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.

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.

 

[sean_ork]

She has said that SHE wants the ability to block the UK exit if the Scots vote to stay in the EU

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.

 

[Midwest]

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.

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?

 

[sean_ork]

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?

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.

 

[Midwest]

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.

So we can ignore the viewpoint of the SNP?

 

[YoungScud]

So we can ignore the viewpoint of the SNP?

Clearly you're always free to do that, but I don't think anyone's suggested otherwise.

 

[Midwest]

Clearly you're always free to do that, but I don't think anyone's suggested otherwise.

Do not understand your reply?

 

[sean_ork]

So we can ignore the viewpoint of the SNP?

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.

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?.

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

 

[YoungScud]

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.

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.

 

[YoungScud]

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.

If you don't believe that, take a gander at Murdoch's posts.

 

[Midwest]

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?

 

[sean_ork]

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?

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]

The only point you've made that I will argee with is that the mass of the media were in the NO camp.

Stop shouting, we are having an adult debate.

So why in your opinion were the mass media in the No camp?

 

[sean_ork]

Stop shouting, we are having an adult debate.

So why in your opinion were the mass media in the No camp?

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

 

[Midwest]

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

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?

 

[sean_ork]

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?

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.

 

[Midwest]

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.

 

[YoungScud]

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.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Yesterday, on Facebook. I shared a Newsthump...........

Nuff said really

 

[UNG]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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