The Rose & Crown

Home Forums General The Rose & Crown

This topic contains 990 replies, has 68 voices, and was last updated by  Craig 9 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 50 posts - 751 through 800 (of 991 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31638
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    So I don’t know if any of you care, but Scotland votes on indepedence this week. I care a lot.

    Westminster is running scared, all the dirty tricks are coming out at the last minute and our beloved BBC is being more biased than it was even before the Iraq war. I kinda feel I don’t live in a democracy any more and even public corporations are in the thrall of Government.

    Sorry, but it worries me. Why can’t people be allowed a free choice without scare stories and intimidation that keep all the vested interested happy?

    Vote Yes and there’ll be a monster under your bed! That’s what they’re saying. Or are you brave?

    #31639
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    One single reason for voting Yes, and there are many more.

    #31640
    wolfweed @wolfweed

    @craig
    I think I heard this morning that they predict an 86% turnout.

    I keep wondering what the rest of the UK makes of Better Together’s sudden pandering to Scotland as ‘the best bit’ of Britain…
    Alistair Darling on tv earlier today praised Scotland saying that – It wasn’t forced into union, it chose to unite & therefore was the most important element in forming the UK.

    Notice how Moffat has to be canny about his referendum jokes this series.
    Last night Clara was – Worried her mouth wants to go solo…

    #31641
    Timeloop @timeloop

    @craig I admit I haven’t spend a lot of time on this subject. As an outsider I’d like Scotland to remain with the rest of Britain just because it keeps everything more stable – less commotion.

    And regarding your second video: I don’t know that woman and if she is a well-known spokesperson or not. Something I just noticed is that she provides no facts and figures to it back up. Politics (other than Fiction like the Doctor) need to back up everything they say (don’t tell me I’m naive and that is hardly ever that case and that you can spin facts and figures … I don’t want to get into a deep politics debate @anyone who might see that point) with cold facts (as in statistics, developments over time and so on).
    I don’t just randomly believe things anyone might be saying. Who said it (backround), why did they say it (motives), to whom did they say it (target group), who is interested in the outcome (powerplay)? Basically can you trust that source ;D
    But as I said I am an outsider and it is more a general rambling than aimed at what that woman said.
    _____
    This came to my mind:
    1961, Walter Ulbricht, the Chairman of the State Council of the GDR announced: “No one has any intention of building a wall.” We all know what happened ;D

    #31643

    and our beloved BBC is being more biased than it was

    This is the sort of paranoid nonsense that has been the mark of the first serious miss-steps by the Yes campaign, all of which have come since the YouGov poll.

    #31646
    ScaryB @scaryb

    @craig

    Thanks for starting this conversation

    Why can’t people be allowed a free choice without scare stories and intimidation that keep all the vested interested happy?

    Vested interests – you’ve answered it yourself. eg majority of the current cabinet have direct links to private health care providers and pharmaceutical companies – and are making decisions on the future of the NHS.

    @wolfweed

    86% turnout? Really? That would be phenomenal. That’s why Cameron and co are running scared. That is not the status quo.  I’ve never seen so many people actively engaged in political discussion, ever, and not just the usual “oh it doesn’t matter how we vote, it’s always the same people who get in”, people are engaging with the issues.

    @timeloop @pedant

    Re checking your facts – BBC bias –  this was broadcast by the BBC recently – “respected” BBC reporter Nick Robinson blatantly reported that “Salmond didn’t answer the question” – cut to the unedited video which shows that in fact there was a detailed, reasoned, 7 minute answer to his question.

    http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/bbc-reporter-caught-red-handed-manipulating-video-in-scottish-indy-campaign/

     

    #31647
    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @craig – as I’ve pointed out a couple of times on Guardian threads, the current SNP offer for the BBC appears to be effectively asking the rBBC to pay Scotland to take their programmes.

    At least, when I do the maths on the calculator, that’s very much what it looks like. It will be a bit tricky for the BBC to remain unbiased when they look at the current suggestion – and realise they’re the turkey heading for Christmas.

    My opinion – the great and the good decided that I and millions like me I don’t have a vote on this: yet our nationality could be redefined. Living in a democracy? Are we hell! 🙁

    #31649
    ScaryB @scaryb

    @bluesqueakpip

    What the current debate is showing with startling clarity is that people’s voices count – IF there are enough people participating. And suddenly politicians are realising that they might actually be held accountable. (And thro the ballot box, not with guns)

    Apologies to the rest of the UK, but if 1 partner decides they want to talk about leaving a partnership then they shouldn’t be forced to stay by the other 3 partners.  Yes, the result of Thursday’s referendum in Scotland does affect the rest of the UK (hopefully in positive ways, many of which are not yet apparent), but that IS democracy.

     

     

    #31652
    Anonymous @

    @craig, @scaryb @timeloop @bluesqueakpip and @wolfweed (and @everyone else)

    Anyone who’s dipped into the many, many Guardian articles on this subject will be in no doubt where I stand on the issue. I’m a definite Yes.

    With regards the BBC bias, I think it’s become increasingly clear that there is a definite bias there, and getting more blatant as we reach the final days of the campaign. For example, an assembly that must I suspect have reached into the thousands yesterday in Glasgow’s Buchanan Street but with nary a mention on the Beeb. I think Frankie Boyle at the Edinburgh Television Festival a couple of weeks ago aptly pointed out that the Beeb takes in something to the tune of £300-320m in licence fees in Scotland but spends around £160m on Scottish programming. That’s not to say that Scots don’t benefit from the programmes made with the rest, of course (like a certain SF show of our acquaintance) but the fact that the Beeb stands to lose £14om-odd of its budget does mean that it can’t be exactly trusted to cover the issue fairly. They are very much a vested interest.

    @wolfweed — Darling is being a wee bit historically inaccurate when he says Scotland voluntarily chose to enter the union. Rather it was a cadre of skint noblemen who sold their country down the river in order to line their own pockets. If there was anything like democracy or any kind of plebiscite on the issue back in the day, it would have been unlikely to have happened. Hence Burns’s ‘parcel of rogues’ and all that. And indeed there had to be militia posted on the Edinburgh streets to quell the unhappy population. Plus a couple of wee rebellions down the line too.

    Not sure I buy the nationality argument either. Do we really define ourselves by where our Government is based. Did we just start feeling British in 1707 — which is really not that long ago in the history of our isles. I honestly don’t know. Not really sure just how much being administered from Edinburgh rather than Westminster will change how I define myself. Not that much, I suspect. But in terms of the vote, it’s not a vote based on ethnicity, but one based on residence and that’s as it should be, I think. These are the people who will be directly affected by such administrative changes.

    With regards to Moffat, and Capaldi too for that matter, I’d imagine that they’ve been told to stay the hell out of the whole thing, hence the coded digs in the scripts being the only thing he’s allowed. I personally interpreted these as suggesting a No stance, but others have taken them to suggest a Yes view. Which shows I suppose just how smart he is at this kind of thing. And it really doesn’t bother me either way, to be honest.

    #31653
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    @timeloop What she is suggesting is a free National Health Service for all (a cherished part of our lives) is under threat, as it is in the rest of the UK. Do you need numbers and statistics to convince you, or the word of a leading cancer surgeon who lives it every day? I could collate that sort of stuff if you want.

    @pedant The BBC has been pro No this whole campaign. It’s not paranoid nonsense. Just looking at facts. People are already calling for Nick Robinson’s resignation. Just as an example, I’m not a huge fan of Wings Over Scotland but the videos show the truth: http://wingsoverscotland.com/out-in-the-open/

    @bluesqueakpip I don’t have a vote either. On Friday I may not actually, legally be Scottish (I was born in England, my parents lived in Carlisle for a few years) which is why I want everyone to be as politically involved as they possibly can, vote or no vote.

    #31654

    @scaryb

    He was asked why people should trust him rather than economic players.

    He launched a string of ad homs at the BBC, the Treasury and Nick Robinson in a truly scattergun manner (it is defensive variant of the Gish Gallop). Speaking for 7 mins is not the same as answering, and was, in fact, classic politician’s bluster and a credit to his media trainers. At no time did he answer the question, although he asserted he had to shut down Robinson.

    Journalists are perfectly entitled to do their job and protect their sources, and perfectly entitled to edit out bluster, yet Salmond has demanded an inquiry. He has never struck me as such a fan of the Hutton approach.

    I think Robinson should have been fired for his terribly partisan conduct as the last general election was counted and the coalition was being negotiated. But here he did nothing wrong and could have edited it in a much more damaging way.

    (Also, Salmond clearly hasn’t been paying attention to the many corporation tax stories that have filled the news over the past couple of years)

    Anyway, I have no dog in this fight – I’m much more interested in its impact in England and how that would shape negotiations (see here if you are interested).

    @craig

    To the partisan, any words that do not wholly toe the line are biased.

    #31655
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    @pedant Over 1000, some suggest 3000, protested against BBC bias today. They may all be paranoid. Or they may have watched the media manipulation.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29196912

    #31656

    Gosh. People attacking the media in the run up to a crucial vote.

    I, for one, am shocked.

    #31659
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    @pedant

    To the partisan, any words that do not wholly toe the line are biased.

    That’s just “You’re lying. No you’re lying.”

    I read your blog post and it’s really good. Great read. But “Alex Salmond would rather take a bad deal than no deal ” is just wrong. Alex Salmond has already won more for Scotland than it has had for 300 years. Even if he loses, he has won (which I think may have been the plan all along).

    Cameron ruled out Devo Max, but has just given it anyway out of fear. What that fear is, loss of job, loss of oil, loss of staus on the world stage, I don’t know. But for once, for the first time in my life, politicians are afraid of the people.

    I hope it stays that way.

    #31661
    Timeloop @timeloop

    @craig I don’t think you need to. I’m not even close to having a say in it. I have heard often that the NHS is on the brink of collapsing in my 8 months in London. I was shocked when a Co-worker I accompanied to a GP would not be seen by any Doctor (there were several GPs in that building and hers was off-site) as an emergency and she still had to wait for an hour before an ambulance arrived.
    The mother of my boss (she’s been old) got sick and went to the hospital and wasn’t moved around so she lost muscle mass, broke some bone (apparently) and ended up dying to complications…. If I would live in Britain I’d probably fly home to get taken care of xD. But most people seem to prefer the care they can get at home.

    @pedant There are many ways the media can influence public opinions. You might wanna take a look at the Agenda Setting Theory and the Framing Theory as an example. There is also a difference between public and private media. Private media is only allowed to exist because public media shoulders the resposibility to inform the masses unbiased. That means no personal opinion is to be included in their coverage. And if it is included it needs to be stricly marked as such. If Rupert Murdoch is to decide all of his media should say that fruit is bad for one’s health (picked something stupid on purpose) and should be avoided all together his private media has every right to write that. Public media however does not have the same liberties. It has to entitle the recipient to form an opinion him-/herself.

    #31662

    Devo Max is a complete distraction (although I favour it for the English regions as well – I am a long-standing federalist).

    The success, or otherwise, of a country is in its finances. Salmond and others have said, perfectly correctly, that Scotland can use the pound. It could use the Israeli Shilling if it wanted to. But without control of your currency you have zero room for manoeuvre when things get rough, you have very little collateral. That is what I mean by a bad deal. And the Euro has not exactly been kind to peripheral nations and I doubt favourable terms would be acceptable in Germany.

    If I were running a campaign to screw Scotland to the wall it would be almost trivially easy (as the rise of UKIP rather shows – the English are nothing if not gullible).

    I would whip up The Northern working classes about how Scotland betrayed them after years of suckling on the Barnet Formula and demand to know where the country of Kier Hardy has gone. You’d be amazed how fast an old Commie like Mick McGahey could be rehabilitated as a lost hero. That’s Labour dealt with;

    I’d make sure the question of dual citizenship gets asked very loudly; “English pounds for English people” – Absolutely meaningless but would back every politician into a corner. And that’s the Tories sorted.

    And that would just be the start, because frankly only the Guardian and the BBC would even be interested in being even-handed.

    @timeloop – yeah, I’ve been a member of the National Union of Journalists for 20 years. I know my way around.

    #31664
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    @pedant I think Devo Max may have been the plan all along and you may just have missed a plot point or two. Meanwhile:

    If I were running a campaign to screw Scotland to the wall it would be almost trivially easy

    Of course it would, but not if the rest of the UK has no control over Scotland. Which is the case. We might as well be somewhere in Asia or Africa or South America.

    #31668

    @craig

    Of course it would, but not if the rest of the UK has no control over Scotland.

    I’m not talking about what would happen after independence, I am talking about what would happens between a yes vote and legal independence (whenever that is – the much touted 18 months has no basis in law).

    Control the money and you control everything. Every time English and Scots interests are opposed (inflation in Scotland and recession in England, or vice versa), English requirements will lead policy. You cannot be independent if you have no say over how your currency is managed.

    And I do not, for one second, think that Devo Max is Salmond’s aspiration.

    (Is it commonly known that he is very, very ill by the way?)

    #31670

    (On an oddly related note, I trust you have all been enjoying Outlander)

    #31671
    Spider @spider

    I am a proud to be Scottish. I am proud to be British. I will be voting no because I firmly believe we are better together. Not everyone thinks my way. I have no problem with that, it is up to everyone to make their own decision for their own reasons.

    But what i have disliked about the ‘neverendum’ is the way that (some) members of the yes campaign try to make out that those of us who do not want independence are somehow less loyal and less patriotic Scots, that we are somehow betraying Scotland by voting no – and they can (on occasion) actually be pretty aggressive about this.

    Example: Near where i live there is a long stretch of road. It is probably a 50/50 split as to yes and no banners/posters along this road. Every single one of the no posters has been defaced in some way…none of the yes ones have. I think that is quite telling.

    I also have wondered for some time no why it is ‘No Thanks’ and ‘Yes’….whatever happened to ‘Yes Please’?

    I’m just hoping Sept 18th isn’t a fixed point in time 😉

     

    #31673
    Apopheniac @apopheniac

    From the first page

    A break from the sofa and Doctor Who. Somewhere for real life, non-Doctor chat including news, politics, sport etc. Basically a place of a more adult nature.

    Ohhhhh nooooo, Scottish independence debates here, too.  I guess it was inevitable with the focus on Twelves Scottishness in DW.

    Those who don’t want that, please avoid.

    Well I was up for “a more adult nature” heh-heh-heh but obviously I mis-read the brief!  Will dutifully avoid now.

    #31701
    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @scaryb

    Apologies to the rest of the UK, but if 1 partner decides they want to talk about leaving a partnership then they shouldn’t be forced to stay by the other 3 partners.

    But you’re not talking about it to the other 3 partners. You’re talking about it to yourselves. It’s like some kind of rewatch of the dungeon scene in Day of the Doctor. [Trying to keep it a bit light].

    The reason this situation came about was because, to be honest, the politicos thought there wasn’t a cat in hell’s chance that Scotland would actually vote ‘Yes’. So, instead of this being a nationwide debate about ‘Do we want a United Kingdom’, it ended up as a Scottish vote on leaving.

    Now, the normal response to one partner deciding to leave when the other partners want them to stay is shock, followed by anger. Whatever way you look at it, that’s not a good situation for a new country to be in – their closest neighbours pretty pissed off. Furthermore, if the vote does go down to the wire, half the population of Scotland is likely to be pretty pissed off as well. Which half depending on who wins. Also not good.

    Much of this would probably have been avoided if the debate and the voting had been nationwide. We would be talking about a possible amicable divorce, instead of ‘does Scotland want to walk out’. It’s a different atmosphere.

    On a brighter note, I’m sure Cameron, Miliband and Clegg are all … needing to go to the loo a lot. If the vote is ‘Yes’, their careers are finished.

    #31702
    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @jimthefish – hang onto your hat; I’m about to get anoraky.

    I have a sneaking feeling that the Beeb spends rather more on Scotland than £160 million and that the figure quoted is for programming, not maintaining infrastructure. The figure I think the Scottish government has quoted is £175 million, which sounds about right. But anyway, let’s go with £320 million collected, and £160 million spent. Scotland pays £160 million towards national programming.

    Going by an 8.2% share of population, that means national programming should cost about £1951 million. However, the BBC’s annual budget (including other countries like Wales and NI as well as English regional programming) comes to £3157.6 million (not including the ‘spent on Scotland’). Either the Beeb is spending one heck of a lot on other regional programming – or Scotland is not actually paying a population based share of the national budget. The Scottish licence fees have been disproportionately directed towards Scottish based programming.

    From the point of view of the White Paper, the offer to the BBC is that the new Scottish government should take over the assets and staff of BBC Scotland, supply the BBC with the current level of programming (up to the value of £80 million, but it’s often lower), and receive national programming in exchange for the programming they supply.

    So, in exchange for getting rid of £175 million expenditure and receiving £60 to 80 million in commissioned programming, the BBC is expected to swallow a loss in revenue of at least £65 million. That’s not counting the pro-rata share in BBC Worldwide which will go to the newly independent Scotland.

    One hopes this proposal is merely the initial offer, because if the White Paper is actually a serious proposition the BBC’s response is likely to be two words.

    One will start with ‘F’ and the other with ‘O’. 😉

    #31709
    Arbutus @arbutus

    I am really interested to hear all your views on this, as I have been following this story pretty closely (I come from a part-Scot background, but have no current connections). As @scaryb and @bluesqueakpip have pointed out, it is like the divorce in which one partner says “I’m done” and walks out, while the other sits in shock. Anger often follows (I have a friend going through this right now, and her ex has been as obstreperous as it is possible to be).

    When the Province of Quebec had its referendum a few years back, there were strong views from the rest of the country. Some people were saying “good riddance”, while others made impassioned pleas to the Quebecois for a no vote. “My Canada includes Quebec” was a popular slogan. There is a very different history, of course, but it seems that the emotions were much the same. Much of the debate I am reading from the UK (currency, international relations, citizenship) looks very familiar.

    Personally, I held to the view that I didn’t want separation, but if it was clearly what the Quebecois wanted, then it hardly seemed fair to make them stay! In the end, the vote was very close, and there was a lot of bitterness there for awhile, but large numbers of Quebecois seem to have moved on at this point. Scotland seems to be similarly divided, and whichever way it goes, half of the country will be unhappy. I don’t know how you resolve that problem, though! When Newfoundland became the tenth Canadian province in 1948, the yes side won by a pretty thin margin. Many Newfoundlanders are still convinced that confederation was a mistake!

    @craig    I wonder whether those in your position will have to fight for the status that they want? We have a group here generally called the “Lost Canadians” whose parents were temporarily in the US at the time of their birth, and for various reasons a small group of them from a certain period fell into a legal crack and lost the Canadian status they had always believed they had. It was only recently resolved, but I believe these people have been given their Canadian citizenship back.

    Anyway, I’m glad that this question was brought up here because your thoughts are illuminating, and (as always here) it’s great to see a civil discourse about something that raises so much emotion!

    #31710

    @jimthefish

     Darling is being a wee bit historically inaccurate when he says Scotland voluntarily chose to enter the union. Rather it was a cadre of skint noblemen who sold their country down the river in order to line their own pockets.

    And also, this is pure nationalist historical revisionism.

    Almost everybody in Scotland with any sort of disposable wealth, including the nascent Scottish middle classes, invested in the Darien scheme – and pretty well every family in lowland Scotland was hurt by its failure, many of them ruined. Even if the English and Dutch East India Companies (two of the most morally bankrupt companies in history) had not prevented foreign investment, the only effect would have been to spread the loss a bit – the overwhelming weight of investment was always going to be from Scotland.

    The scheme was mis-conceived from the outset, totally blind to geo-politcal reality and a thorough triumph of vision over attainability – which cost 2,000 lives and half of Scotland’s working capital. No economy can bounce back from that. Sure, Scotland’s gentry took a bath  – but so so did thousands of ordinary Scots. Were they all traitors?

    The Darien venture raised £400,000 (about £6.5bn in today’s terms in a nation of fewer than 1m people) and the Act of Union saw England supply £398,000 to Scotland (which is also why many in England were opposed to the Union).

     

     

    #31717
    Anonymous @

    @pedant — no one’s arguing that the Scots populace in general didn’t suffer from the Darien fiasco. But it’s hardly historical revisionism to say that because there wasn’t remotely like what you’d call universal suffrage in those days that the Treaty of Union was anything like the settled will of the Scottish people, which is what I take that statement of Darling’s to mean. If the idea had been put to some kind of a popular vote, had such a thing had existed then, it almost certainly would not have happened. There was widespread rioting and discontent that lasted decades (some could say until today) over it. Much of Scotland was profoundly unhappy about it.

    @bluesqueakpip — Don’t dispute your figures and I am pretty sure that all the proposals of White Paper are starting points for negotiation and not written in stone. But I’d also say that you pretty comprehensively reinforce the argument I was making above — that the Beeb have a lot to lose by an independent Scotland and that they very much have a vested interest in the debate and therefore cannot be trusted in terms of journalistic impartiality. Their partisanship and clear bias means that their journalistic integrity has been fatally compromised on this issue.

    @arbutus — citizenship is not an issue in this referendum, as far as I’m aware. (I work as a journalist here in Scotland and have been exposed the referendum in sometimes excruiating detail and can’t recall this kind of thing ever being raised as a serious issue). It’s been made clear that residents of an independent Scotland will retain British citizenship until further notice. I personally think @craig will be perfectly at liberty to continue to claim himself as Scottish should he wish to do so.

    #31718
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    Sorry, just got got back from a night out. Thank you @arbutus for the concern, but from what I read I may be able to fast track myself a Scottish citizenship. Fingers crossed! I have a rather compelling case, having Scottish parents and grown up there.

    @pedant Of course we joined the Union following the disasterous Darien Scheme. And England obliged because we had trading relations with Europe that they wanted. England has never really got on with Europe has it? 100 years war etc. right up until now. Our Scottish princesses spoke french and married French princes. Like their marriages, the bond between Scotland and England was a marriage of convenience.

    England still spawns the likes of Farage while Scotland opens it doors to all. It does make me a little bit sad. Anyway:

    I don’t care what happens to television in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to the health service in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to taxation in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to business in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to everything else in Scotland
    Because as long as the people of Scotland have control of it, I have no reason to care.

    #31721
    wolfweed @wolfweed

    The BBC subtly demonstrates that it is fair by getting Andrew Marr to toss a coin…

    z

    #31729

    @craig

    . England has never really got on with Europe….Our Scottish princesses spoke french and married French princes.

    And England’s spoke German and Flemish and married Dutch and Bavarian – while the entire English Royal line is descended from the Angevins (which is why the true symbol of England is the three lions, not the cross of George).

    The king of both England and Scotland  in 1707 was …er…Dutch.

    Scottish princesses spoke French and married Catholics.

    But still, let’s wheel out the stereotypes, eh?

    I don’t care what happens to television in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to the health service in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to taxation in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to business in Scotland
    I don’t care what happens to everything else in Scotland

    And I think most English people would agree. Provided they don’t have to pay for it (which is why any currency deal will be strictly “our cash, our rules”).

    @jimthefish

    . If the idea had been put to some kind of a popular vote, if such a thing had existed then, it almost certainly would not have happened.

    This is all but impossible to prove. But the simple truth is that Scotland’s economy was in ruins and England bailed it out.

    It’s just a shame that the British (English, Welsh, Irish and Scots) are so easily hi-jacked by nationalism.

     

    #31734
    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @jimthefish

    But I’d also say that you pretty comprehensively reinforce the argument I was making above — that the Beeb have a lot to lose by an independent Scotland and that they very much have a vested interest in the debate and therefore cannot be trusted in terms of journalistic impartiality.

    Go back to the beginning: who gave the BBC a lot to lose?

    The authors of the Scottish White Paper, by making an offer that ten minutes examination of the books will show quite massively undervalues the value of the programming the non-Scottish bits of the BBC provide to Scotland. After all the deductions for expenditure no longer needed, and additions for programming to be provided, the offer works out at about 20 to 25% under the current licence fee.

    Which licence fee, the White Paper says, the new Scottish government will continue to collect at the same amount as before.

    Who wrote the White Paper? That would be the people with a vested interest in a ‘Yes’ vote. It’s terribly convenient to be able to claim that BBC News has a ‘vested interest’ and so can’t possibly be ‘impartial’.

    It’s called ‘dirty politics’. You write the rules so that someone will have an obvious reason to oppose you – and then claim they have a ‘vested interest’ and so ‘aren’t impartial’. Of course they have a ‘vested interest’; the ‘vested interest’ was created quite deliberately – by the authors of the White Paper, in this case, because they were the ones who had the power to write the rules.

    The amazing thing is that so many of the BBC’s reporters are managing to grit their teeth and try and remain impartial.

    #31771
    wolfweed @wolfweed
    #31776
    Anonymous @

    @wolfweed — it’s a tempting offer from Mr Morgan. Very tempting indeed.

    @pedant

    This is all but impossible to prove. But the simple truth is that Scotland’s economy was in ruins and England bailed it out.

    Well, no, because we can assume certain things from the level of discontent and constantly simmering resentment the whole thing caused. But it’s all by the by anyway. It doesn’t really matter how and why the union came into being. (And for people to bang on about Darien still is a bit like a husband facing divorce after 30 years of marriage complaining about having paid for the couple’s first holiday together before they got hitched. It just sounds a bit peevish.) What matters is the future, not the past. The union might have worked for some time but it’s increasingly felt that it doesn’t now. This is not an issue of nationalism for most Scots (admittedly there are the tartan-bedecked nutters on the fringes for who it might be) but one of self-determination. The desire is for governments that greater reflect the hopes and needs of the people.  For me at least — and I think for most others — any notions of shortbread tin nationality don’t enter into it. I just want better political representation.

    @bluesqueakpip

    It’s called ‘dirty politics’. You write the rules so that someone will have an obvious reason to oppose you – and then claim they have a ‘vested interest’ and so ‘aren’t impartial’.

    No, don’t agree. The White Paper is a statement of intent, the foundation upon which the post-independence horse-trading will be done. The BBC will undoubtedly be a part of the team involved in these discussions. And I’ve no doubt they could have had an input into the White Paper itself if they’d been remotely inclined. But its authors at this stage are in no way obliged to bend over backwards to accommodate the BBC or anyone else. That kind of negotiation will come later. It’s only remit was to envisage what an independent Scotland might look like, what institutions might be required and how they might work in practice. Emphasis on the ‘might’.

    The amazing thing is that so many of the BBC’s reporters are managing to grit their teeth and try and remain impartial

    Well, no, what they’re expected to do is act like professionals. I’ve had to write and edit articles and give a fair hearing to many causes and individuals I personally dislike over the years but you just have to suck it up and do your job, basically. Leaving aside facts and figures for the moment, it’s clear that the BBC potentially stands to lose financially if it’s a Yes on Thursday. (Never mind their shady dealings with CBI Scotland a few months back for the moment.) Acknowledgment of their stake in the debate would be nice but unrealistic to expect. But it’s not unreasonable for them to at least try and be remotely even-handed in their coverage, even if it is through gritted teeth. Nick Robinson manifestly lied last week and he was caught out. The coverage of Saturday’s events was risibly and transparently partisan. The Sunday Herald’s exposure of the timing of the RBS emails show that the journalistic credentials of the BBC in their handling of that story are questionable at best. It’s not good enough for a national broadcaster to be so suspect, especially when at least part of their funding is still coming from those they are clearly seeking to manipulate.

    #31778

    @jimthefish

    . But it’s all by the by anyway. It doesn’t really matter how and why the union came into being. (And for people to bang on about Darien still is a bit like a husband facing divorce after 30 years of marriage complaining about having paid for the couple’s first holiday together before they got hitched. It just sounds a bit peevish.)

    Yeah, but it isn’t – remember I come from this from thinking how any deal following a yes vote will go over in England and how mind the English will be towards reasonableness after a huge bail-out followed by 300 years of chippiness.

     Nick Robinson manifestly lied last week and he was caught out.

    If you could give me the time stamp for the unedited footage where Salmond answered the question he was asked I would be interested – ‘cos I can’t find it. “Talking for 7 minutes” is not the same as answering and Salmond shut Robinson down when he tried to insist on an answer.

    Yer paranoia is showing…

    #31780
    Anonymous @

    @pedant — I don’t think it’s paranoia to raise these kind of concerns. And frankly that kind of language doesn’t really help.

    #31781

    @jimthefish – it’s that or simple a string of ad hominems on the journalist (one for whom I have very little respect, btw) to mask the fact that Salmond didn’t answer the question he was asked.

    Now, about that time stamp…

    #31782
    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @jimthefish

    No, don’t agree.

    Well, of course not. You’re a Scottish Nationalist. Don’t get me wrong; the White Paper proposal has very effectively blindsided the BBC – it’s a very neat bit of political maneuvering.

    And I’ve no doubt they could have had an input into the White Paper itself if they’d been remotely inclined.

    They are allowed to promote a Bill in either Parliament to protect their own interests. They are allowed to enter into Framework Agreements with the relevant governments. However, I’m really not sure that they’re allowed to enter into negotiations with one or other side in an ongoing referendum. Any lawyers who could comment?

    The Sunday Herald’s exposure of the timing of the RBS emails

    Jim, you might be interested in this blog entry by Robert Peston, on the BBC‘s news site. Notice the date of the blog.

    #31794
    Anonymous @

    @pedant

    Now, about that time stamp…

    You know I’m not gonna come up with that. But it doesn’t alter the fact that Robinson knew — or should have known — that an answer to his question existed. To pretend otherwise is basically dishonest. There are a lot of news outlets who you’d expect that kind of thing of, but the Beeb shouldn’t be one of them.

    @bluesqueakpip

    Well, of course not. You’re a Scottish Nationalist

    Not really a one of those as I pointed out above. I just think this should be a bit more of a fair fight than it has been. Saw the Peston piece the other day. The Herald piece is also worth a look as it puts some meat on those bones.

    Think I’ll back off from this now though. I quite like the forum being a haven from the rough and tumble of politics. The occasional foray is OK though, I guess. And this is kind of a special occasion.

    #31799

    @jimthefish

    No, I sorry Jim – that’s disgraceful. If you call a man a liar for saying that the question was not answered when it wasn’t – and also whip up a mob to boot! –  it should be trivial to find him answering the question when it was asked.

    @scaryb described the answer as detailed and reasoned – it was neither of those, and nor was it an answer.

    Bloody hell, I’m going to have to take a cold shower from this defending of Tory Boy.

    #31841
    ScaryB @scaryb

    @pedant Will concede that it was, as you say, “a politician’s answer” but it was an answer, even if somewhat oblique. And implied that he should be trusted cos he knew his stuff about corporation tax and was consistent.  But Robinson’s way of reporting it implied that he said nothing at all, which is not the same thing.  And it’s not an isolated incident for him.

    Not backing off but agree with @jimthefish – small forays and minor skirmishes are fine, but these boards are probably best kept for bonkering. And it’s getting a bit late in the year for cold showers 😉 (Just don’t get me started on the number of times Farage has been on Question Time…)

    @arbutus – Someone was talking to me recently about the Quebec referendum. Interesting parallels.

    Last word from me for now – it IS a mighty unusual situation, and I only hope everyone on both sides of the choice and of the border, stays positive and civil afterwards. There will be a lot of work to do whatever the result. And if some of our politicians have suddenly become acutely aware of who put them in power and to whom they are directly answerable, that is no bad thing for democracy. Long may it continue.

     

    #31864
    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @everyone – I’d agree with all concerned that hot political potatoes like this one are probably best kept elsewhere.

    There are loads of places to argue about politics, but very few places where people can have a civil discussion about Doctor Who. 😉

    #31903
    Craig @craig
    Emperor

    @everyone I apologise, both for starting this and then being a bit busy for the last couple of days. I kinda thought we could have an interesting discussion amongst us all without things getting too heated, being members of this forum and all that. I now think I was wrong.

    Won’t do it again, and am prepared for a slap on the wrist from all involved. @pedant I really should use more smilies when I’m being flippant, was just trying to be a bit light-hearted. Sorry it wasn’t clear.

    Anyway, although this is “the pub” I think I’ve learned that this is probably not the site for such discussions.

    Once again, apologies for starting it. Lesson learned. :-S

    #31904
    Anonymous @

    @craig — Don’t think you have anything to apologise about. Don’t think (hope) any noses have been put out of joint and this is an incredibly ‘hot’ topic, so it’s bound to get a bit heated. I still thought it was pretty interesting though.  Let’s face it, this is a pretty one-off event. I wouldn’t want to think that RL topics of interest would end up being ‘off limits’ by default in the future should they arise though…..

    #31920
    Whisht @whisht

    doh!

    @jimthefish does this mean I can’t mod @craig ?

    darnit!

    I thought he’d clearly gone one step beyond.

    Ah well, if you’re reading this on Wednesday then just remember everyone, tomorrow is just another day. As is the day after.

    (what do you mean this isn’t being helpful?)

    #31926
    ScaryB @scaryb

    @whisht @jimthefish @craig

    Dangit! Now you’ve got me all excited again!!

    Never mind once in a generational stuff – this is once in a lifetime. Cross-party, looking to the future, with a chance to actually effect change… and our elected representatives are actually listening for once. Well maybe not exactly listening, but they have noticed something’s afoot which might affect their own jobs.

    Don’t expect any sense from this end of the county on Friday.  Just sayin’ 🙂  (Half of us will be hyper, half will be depressed and none of us will have had any sleep!)

    #31990
    Whisht @whisht

    ok @scaryb just for you (and all the other loverly wimmin ‘n laydeez here):

    (have been trying to find choons for parity to this discussion but although the titles fit, nothing else, so I gave up!).

    I get the feeling tomorrow is “gonna be a whopper” – enjoy it everyone!

    #31994
    Anonymous @

    @whisht I loved the crazy vids from that wonderful decade. I watched the whole thing. I don’t get the umbrellas, though. Could it be a reference to how, umbrellas shattering, with the various financial supports disappearing during this time, people needed other wet-weather gear to ensure they didn’t drown in the rain: the latter being unemployment, rate rises..yeah, I’ve missed the point. But you know, everything has a point…on the other thread we’re talking ‘chairs: 1 or 2?’ Still 🙂

    Kindest, puro (Always loved a bit of Madness. Wonder where @thekrynoidman is these days?).

    #32005
    ScaryB @scaryb

    @whisht

    Thanks (I think!!) for the video – well for the thought anyway 🙂

    Just come across this:  Oor Wullie – the Movie*

     

    It’s got aliens, and an awesome bucket

    *Note: unless you are familiar with the words “Sunday Post”, “The Broons”, “Oor Wullie”, “jings”, “crivvens”, “helpmaboab”  the above may not make any sense whatsoever, and would require half a childhood to explain 🙂

    #32009
    Anonymous @

    @scaryb –  SCOTLAND ROCKS  :mrgreen:

     

    #32012
    Anonymous @

    @scaryb – IDK enough to pick sides… ENGLAND ROCKS.   Do they have an awesome bucket?  😀

    #32013
    The Krynoid Man @thekrynoidman

    @purofilion Nothing’s happened to me, I just haven’t posted anything for a couple of weeks.

Viewing 50 posts - 751 through 800 (of 991 total)

The topic ‘The Rose & Crown’ is closed to new replies.