dougiedanger

Better Together? If we vote no we face a backlash, as stated in today's papers. A No vote will be a disaster for Scotland. The Telegraph: “If independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster. The researchers found overwhelming support, with 62 per cent in favour and 12 per cent opposed, for the proposition that ‘Scottish MPs should be prevented on voting on laws that apply only in England.’ By a similarly large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.” The Scotsman: “An English backlash against Scotland’s demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum. Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP has warned could see £4 billion removed from the Scottish budget. ‘The English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,’ said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University. There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the Border.’”

I think that's what you call "owned".

Hard to make sense of any of these No reasons/excuses, people tying themselves in knots to vote against themselves.

So you want absolute power for the Scottish government, but that is not quite on offer, so your decision is to vote for the option that gives us the least amount of power and the distinct possibility that any power we have will be considerably diminished by a Westminster government desperate to shut down for good the issue of Scottish sovereignty? Bizarre.

If you agree with this principle, why shouldn't the Scottish government and the Scottish people have complete control over their own affairs?

In that case it'll be easy for you to provide a link to demonstrate this. Remind me, which side is "project fear"?! The English folk wouldn't stand for the things you talk about any more than the Scots would. Everybody wants the same thing from the NHS. The "English folk" voted for the Tories--we didn't, and haven't done for decades, which suggests strongly that we do indeed want starkly different things from our governments and social services.

Anyone but those pesky Scots looking after their own affairs.

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land. Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"? Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is. My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom. I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way. I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put at the end. So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London". To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid. The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region. As a non Tory I am very happy with that. It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for. The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for. However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for. I pity No voters, but fire on with your future of Boris for PM, seems you're quite happy with that prospect, and with the "thriving and vibrant" UK being one of the most unequal and divided of all developed societies, food banks, bedroom taxes, it's all good. Boris for PM Don't think so! Tories love him, as you will know. And you are happy to entrust the future of the NHS and the whole country to this guy or some other out of touch toff? Anyone but those nasty red Scots at the controls I suppose.

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land. Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"? Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is. My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom. I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way. I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put at the end. So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London". To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid. The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region. As a non Tory I am very happy with that. It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for. The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for. However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for. I pity No voters, but fire on with your future of Boris for PM, seems you're quite happy with that prospect, and with the "thriving and vibrant" UK being one of the most unequal and divided of all developed societies, food banks, bedroom taxes, it's all good.

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land. Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"? Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is.

And when you're paying for education and paying for health services and still driving over potholes and still complaining about empty shop units in the high street and the high taxes and interest rates and the fascist state we'll be living in dont come greeting to me. Hey, that's the "thriving and vibrant UK" you're talking about there.

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land.

Not sure why he would be "like his father," the circumstances would be quite different and he would no doubt have the full support of his whole family. Times have changed, and the lad seems very mature and focused.

On the sterling non-issue, a letter to the Herald from the Adam Smith Institute, not exactly known for their Marxist-Leninist thinking: I HAVE no wish to argue for or against independence, but as an economist I would like to separate the economic realities of the currency issue from the political bluster that obscures them. The Chancellor has ruled out a formal currency union, though some say this is just negotiating bluff. Either way, there is nothing to stop Scots continuing to use the pound if they choose. A Westminster government with no jurisdiction over an independent Scotland has no power to stop them. Several independent countries, including Panama, use the US dollar, without seeking the permission of America's central bank, the Federal Reserve. In the absence of a formal currency union agreement, Panama has no say in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, which is conducted solely for the benefit of America. Some argue, by analogy, that if an independent Scotland continued using the pound without a formal currency union, Scotland would have no say in Bank of England policy, which could be potentially damaging for Scotland's economy. Nevertheless, as a result of using the dollar, Panama - a country comparable in population to Scotland - has one of the world's most stable banking sectors. And the economic interdependence between Scotland and the other countries of the present United Kingdom is so deep that the Bank of England would, in reality, have to take Scotland's welfare into account when setting monetary policy. Not to do so would risk damaging the other UK countries just as much as Scotland. Another suggestion, from Jim Sillars, is that Scotland should print its own currency and tie it to the pound. There is no substantive difference between this idea and using the pound. As the two are pegged, the only difference is the design on the currency. And why (apart from national pride) go to the expense of printing Scottish notes, exactly equivalent to the pound - but which people south of the Border might be reluctant to accept? The other option, switching to some other currency such as the euro, would be even more costly and difficult, and would raise huge, business-damaging uncertainties. It would also leave Scotland subject to the monetary policy of a country or agency with a very distant interest, if any, in Scotland's welfare. The easiest solution, therefore, would be for Scotland to continue using the pound, with or without a currency union, safe in the knowledge that, as an important part of the sterling economy, the Bank of England would have to take Scotland's interests into full account when setting policy. The currency problem just isn't a problem. Eamonn Butler, Director, Adam Smith Institute, 23 Great Smith Street, London.

That clown Boris has every chance of being PM of the UK--that is the reality of a No vote, more of these privileged, anti-Scottish elites more than willing to commandeer our resources while grinding us down through indifference and outright hostility.

It is quite telling that BT have latched on to this one non-issue to further put the frighteners on the Scottish people. What else do they have? Is there one single positive argument they have made for Scotland's future being better in the union? No doubt, the UK would be better with our wealth, skills and resources but what good does it do us, the people of Scotland, to remain in the union?

Bowie made a one-line pronouncement, Bragg was initially a no and has now come round to a reasoned argument for Yes, which he sets out convincingly in the article. Not every Englishman wants to cling desperately to Britain's imperial past, and some like BB can even see that the referendum is the best chance to renew politics and society in both Scotland and England.

Interesting piece from Billy Bragg here: Aug 08, 2014 09:50 By John Dingwall 0 Comments ENGLISHMAN Bragg is renowned for his activist edge and says he hopes a vote for Scottish independence would shake up the rest of the United Kingdom. 617 Shares Share Tweet +1 Email Billy Bragg is appearing at Belladrum this weekend BILLY Bragg is looking forward to a new England if Scots vote for independence in the upcoming referendum. The former soldier’s music career has been intertwined with political activism since he first enjoyed success in 1983. “I’ve always had an activist edge to what I do,” said Bragg, who heads to Scotland today for the Belladrum music festival in Beauly, Inverness-shire. “The Scottish independence debate is a manifestation of the failure of the Westminster system that only offers us two viable parties of government. People are getting a bit fed up with it. “You can see with the rise of Ukip and the failure of anyone to win the last election, that the offer that we are getting is no longer attractive. “Many of us live in constituencies that never change hands so our views are taken for granted and not expressed. I live in west Dorset, which has been Tory since 1886 and as a Labour supporter that doesn’t help me. “But I come from a town that has been Labour since 1931 and that doesn’t help the Tory voter who lives there, so I understand his point of view as well. “We need to change that and sadly Westminster is showing no signs of trying to address that issue. “My hope is that a Scottish Yes vote will act as a catalyst that would force the remainder of the UK to come to a new constitutional settlement that makes all of our votes count. “Not just the 10 per cent who live in the swing constituencies in middle England where the parties pitch all their votes.” Bragg isn't the only celebrity to back a Yes vote. Controversial comedian Frankie Boyle is one of many active supporters of independence on Twitter. He recently spoke about his pro-yes leanings with fellow comedian Kevin Bridges. VIEW GALLERY Bragg admits he changed his mind about Scottish independence after taking a more traditional stance against it, when referendum terms were originally being shaped. He said: “I originally had the more traditional leftist view that it would be a betrayal of the working class if Scotland left. “But politics has moved on a lot since then. “I see things now less in terms of class politics and more in terms of freedom resting in the individual being able to hold those in power to account. “If you can’t hold those in power to account, you are not really free. “There’s a number of areas in the British constitution where those ideas of accountability need to be enhanced. “Not least in how we hold the bankers and corporations to account and how we hold global capitalism to account. “This isn’t the traditional leftist narrative I learned during the miners’ strike. Conversely, in our country, socialism has always been about how to hold capitalism to account. “It is about refounding the ideas of a fair society and how we do that. “You have the chance in Scotland to change the landscape, to bring something new into being. If you are complaining about the status quo and you have a chance to change it and you don’t change it, then you have to ask yourself, what are you really complaining about?” Bragg will discuss his politics further when he arrives at the Belladrum music festival this weekend, alongside acts such as Tom Jones, Razorlight and Frightened Rabbit. He is performing on the Garden Stage tomorrow afternoon before taking part in a talk at the festival that night. “It should be good fun,” he said. “One of the reasons I chose a festival like this is that festivals tend to be in places you haven’t played for a while and I don’t think I’ve played up here since the 80s. At Belladrum, I’ll be playing solo in the afternoon, which is always a good time. Everybody is pretty chilled out. “In the evening, I’m doing a little chat. I’m being interviewed in a little tent somewhere. I’m here the whole day. “It’s not one of those ones when you appear and disappear before you get a chance to catch the vibe. “I’ll be checking out some of the other acts although I haven’t worked out who is on yet. I’ll be getting a sense of the place.” Bragg first enjoyed significant success when Kirsty MacColl covered his song A New England. He later fronted the Red Wedge collective of musicians, who tried to engage young people in left wing politics leading up to the 1987 general election. Before that, he was a vocal supporter of the 1984-85 miners’ strike. But after he recently tweeted “go for it” to Scots who are thinking of voting in the September 18 referendum, he found himself criticised by old Labour pals and Tories alike for speaking out in favour of independence. “The traditional left dabbled in a dozen types of socialism but they think there’s only one kind of patriotism or nationalism,” he said. “So I get people who have a knee-jerk reaction to nationalism. “I get people who mistake a referendum on independence for a referendum on the SNP. I have to argue with mostly Scottish Labour people who are very, very upset about the referendum. I also get people who think it’s only Scottish votes that have held the Conservative party at arm’s length in the last 60 years. “They don’t understand that Scottish Labour MPs don’t make a huge difference. “England is quite capable of electing a Labour government and we shouldn’t be scared of a Tory hegemony.” He’s also critical of the No campaign, which he sees as being steeped in hypocrisy. “I can only respond from an English perspective. But it has been very disappointing. “They have not recognised the urge for greater accountability at a more local level that’s behind this. “All these unionist Tory MPs who don’t believe that Scotland should have a say over the laws that it makes are the same people who don’t believe that Brussels should have a say over the laws that Britain makes. “They want us to leave the European Union for exactly the same reasons they’re telling Scots they should remain part of the UK.” He added: “You would imagine that people disappointed in Westminster will take the opportunity to change it. “It seems to me that those who want independence in Scotland are looking forward to a different future, whereas those who want to remain with the status quo are clinging to the past, to an imperial idea of the past and we need to wake up from that. “We in England are not going to do it on our own. “We need Scotland to kick us out of bed and we might get our act together on that. “There’s a post-British thing going on in Scotland and we in England would like to have a bit of that pie as well. “Your independence might wake us up from our old imperial dream.”

I think you're right on all points there, had they not missed even one of their penalties they would have been through.

UEFA have applied their rule to the letter, so why would there be any appeal? Sure seems harsh, but the rules are there and they have to be applied.

On the contrary, this thread is quite distinctive and should stand and prosper on its own merits.

As a few posters have said this is not a referendum on Alex Salmond; it is to ask you if you think Scotland should be an independent country. Our impressions of individual characters should not deflect from the very simple question we are being asked.

What, no CB??

2-1 Avoch so far, back from 1-0 down.

It was certainly in my top 3 football days following blues, along with winning the cup at wembley and being the first English club ever to beat club brugge away, seeing 9000 blues fans around the square and in the ground was exceptional. What are your away number usually and what do you expect for tomorrow's game ? Maybe knock a couple of zeros off your number.