Oddquine

But the Yes proposal is to be in the EU, at any cost! Yes, with an English, unelected monarch as our head of state. Seriously, WTF! But we'll inherit our fair share of national debt, and then run at an annual deficit by spending like there's no tomoroow on the wish list of social measures whilst oil revenues continue to plummet. Don't see how anything will change in that respect, if Scotland still wants arms and pharmaceuticals. You don't have to look back far to find Salmond proclaiming how prudent and well run Scotland's banks are, hence they would only require, and I quote, "light touch" regulation! Independence would offer the chance to do lots of things differently, but nobody is proposing to take those opportunities. Maybe your "spineless cowards" are the ones who are in a position to make a real difference but daren't do so! No, the YES proposal is to start from where we are, which is as a member of the EU as part of the UK. There is nothing at all stopping any political party in 2016 overturning that decision, or offering a referendum on it.. The Monarch has as much Scottish Blood as she has English..and incidentally is the Queen of England, and the Queen of Scots.It looks as if she is now mostly of German blood, though. And again, a continuing monarchy is a situation which can be overturned post 2016, given the will. Might do.but that would depend if a Scottish Government is as willfully spendthrift as a Westminster one. That's why a shortish-term currency union would, I suppose, be good for both countries, as it would, hopefully restrict the spending/borrowing propensity of both..until they get their ambitions related to the actualities of their economic positions on the ground. And our fair share of the National Debt is a negotiable instrument....as it would depend on what is considered National Debt..a figure with or without QE, for example. Oil revenues aren't going to plummet, if you listen to the oil and gas people and not the OBR. Sure it will fluctuate, but all income, wherever it comes from, fluctuates, because if that wasn't the case, Westminster might have managed to hit one budget target since 2010. The oil is not essential for Scotland to be a viable independent country, but it is a welcome bonus, as long as it lasts. Arms for the MOD and pharmaceuticals etc for the NHS tend to be negotiated contracts. Westminster has shown itself particularly incompetent regarding procurement contracts, preferring to soak the taxpayer to profit private companies. Bound to be something we can put in a written constitution to control lobbying and also the relationship between Government and big businesses. It is ridiculous that about 70 MPs and 140 Lords with interests in private companies vying for NHS contracts were allowed to vote on back door privatising of the NHS via the Health and Social Security Bill, for example. Might even, particularly in the IT for Government field, encourage SMEs to compete if the playing field was leveled a bit..and might even get us IT systems which work straight out of the box. You do kinda have to look back until about 2007, though, don't you....before the banking crisis, which not even the BofE, far less any politician, foresaw? (though if you can give me a link to anything on that lines he has said since, I'd be interested). Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? We don't know what the options offered post independence would be, over and above the information/policies from websites like RIC, Wealthy Nation, Common Weal, the Greens,.LFI, SDA etc. The SNP is only charged with getting us to independence,if we vote for it, in a form which is both viable and acceptable as a starting point. After that it will be up to us...and the policies of the Scottish political party/parties for which we vote..but on reading all of the above websites, it doesn't look as if there is any intention by any of them to become Westminster-lite.

Most outsiders couch their opinions in more temperate language, because it does the pro-independence side no good at all to have anyone being so blatantly abusive, and they realise that there is a propensity on both sides to take offence at everything which could even remotely be construed as offensive. Unfortunately, the MSM only listens to, and reports on, what NO supporters consider the offensive comments of YES supporters, and blows them up out of all proportion, hence the almost obsessive ranting against Cybernats as opposed to even gently censuring the insults emanating from pro-Union politicians and high heed yins or looking at the kind of abuse by supporters of the No campaign, contained within the likes of twitter, as typified in the BritNatAbuseBot. So using terms like spineless cowards or beggars etc to describe the generality of those who are voting NO, for various reasons that nobody but those people are aware,are both insulting and counter-productive, just as is that of the pro-Union side, with their descriptions of pro-independence supporters as fascists, nazis, cybernats etc, and the personal abuse directed against the elected FM of Scotland. You tend to find, out and about, that a lot of those who are not voting YES because of stuff like "I don't like Alex Salmond/SNP" or for one specific reason which has nothing to do with the independence concept, but relies on future party policies are making excuses for a decision they have already made. Into the bargain, abuse against NO voters is insulting to me and my family, because while some of them will vote YES, others will currently either vote NO or abstain altogether.......and none of them are spineless cowards or beggars.....or any of the other epithets used to describe NO voters in these last few posts in response to your original one. Three of them are British first, before Scottish, if they even think of themselves as Scottish at all.....all born before and during WWII, and brought up to think of themselves as British. That view of themselves is their norm and has been since the 1930s/1940s....and there is no changing it.....and believe me I have tried in the past. But they are not voting, in their opinion, against something, but for something which is not the same something as that against which many in our extended families will be placing their cross. That is not cowardice in an extended family of, afaik, predominantly YES voters.....that is courage..and I respect that. You may not..but it is easy to have opinions when you don't live here and will not be one of those having, regardless of the vote result, to maintain relationships with family, friends and the wider community following an extremely rancorous and vituperative debate, fuelled, and I make no apologies for my opinion, by the negativity and language used by those running the No Campaign. I myself have been known to say that people who read and listen to the "news" produced in/by the MSM, and believe every word of it, are terminally stupid..which, while intemperate, does at least differentiate people like my cousins, who would vote NO if Utopia was guaranteed with a YES vote, or those who are still undecided and searching for answers, from those who still, on forums and elsewhere, repeat already debunked information as fact, because it is still being reproduced in some newspaper, and sneer at those who would vote YES on that basis. An attempt at differentiation, though, still doesn't stop those who read and listen to the "news" produced in/by the MSM, and believe every word of it, from being offended.....and saying that I am denigrating all pro-Union supporters. I'm going to stop digging the hole for myself I started in that last paragraph.....and it would be really good if outsiders.and even insiders, on both sides, stopped digging holes for us all to have to spend time, better used in debate/discussion, on attempts at damage limitation. Neither side, unfortunately can do much about twitter which seems to attract some of the most irrational people in the world.....but I do find it somewhat hypocritical for the NBTT campaign to be insisting, all over the media, that Alex Salmond controls/is to be held responsible for all the eejits on the YES side, even though he does not lead the Yes Campaign......but no such demand is being made all over the media of Cameron.or, even, if it comes to that, Darling, who does lead the No Campaign.

Starchief, I prefer to think of my "speculation" as logic...the same logic which had me saying from the very beginning of all this, on a question (which is still being repeated ad nauseam by people who simply don't want to hear the response) ie "who will be paying the state pension I live on now if we go independent"? I have always that it would be the responsibility of the UK government to pay all, or part of all, pensions for those who have paid NI into the UK system, up until Independence day, so someone already retired will receive the pension they already receive, and anyone who has not yet retired, but has paid NI in the UK would receive that proportion of their pension from the rUK. This has been confirmed, specifically, by Westminster ministers, not so long ago...but we still see people asking the same question. We don't know the mechanisms by which it will work, of course, because that would be a subject to be negotiated, but we do know that, despite still Westminster fear mongering on pensions...that the rUK will be paying mine till I die, and part of my grandson's until he does. The only uncertainty over pensions after independence is the uncertainty over the future finances of a UK without Scotland's input given, there is a £5 trillion unfunded pension debt. Re currency...we all know the available currency options......Sterling, Euro or Own Currency.....and we all know that come May 2016, there may well be a different Government to the SNP in Scotland post election......and we all know about the requirements of the Edinburgh Agreement. So logically, and however much I dislike the idea, a relatively short-term negotiated Currency Union would fulfill the requirements of the Edinburgh Agreement, and give some certainty for at least the first term of iScotland/rUK Governments. As the Euro is simply not an option in the short term, given the need to negotiate with the EU and the time lag between that and meeting the convergence criteria, if we decide to do so. Similarly, having our own currency, which would be my preferred longer-term option, is well down the list of essentials to be in place as soon as possible. It took Ireland seven years, I think, after independence, to introduce the punt and set up a currency board pegged 1 to 1 with the pound (again my preferred option, at least initially). There is always the option of having our own currency with a free floating or fixed exchange rate policy, which would give us full control of our monetary policy, not available with the other options, but that would require the setting up of some kind of Central Bank, which would not be in place by 2016. Ergo, as the Euro and our own currency are longer term options to be considered/prepared for by an elected Scottish Government, post 2016, that only leaves the option of using Sterling in the short term.....and failing the currently preferred option of the Fiscal Commission Working Group for a Currency Union, that means using sterling without a formal Union. (ie Sterlingisation). Can't see that that is speculation, just logical deduction.

Plan B is almost undoubtedly, in the short/medium term at least to use sterling without a currency Union....(.which I'd prefer, given my druthers) ..just like Ireland did from its independence until it joined the ERM. Sterling, just like the dollar and the euro is a tradeable currency, and any country at all can use any of them if they want. The EU can insist on the Euro all it likes, but it is only obligatory once a country meets all five of the convergence criteria....and with the propensity of politicians not to think things through, four of the convergences are financially based, like level of debt to GDP and stuff like that....but the fifth one, membership of ERM II for a minimum of two years is optional...which is why Sweden has never adopted the Euro....because it has never chosen to join ERM II. Come independence, btw there will be one party, at least, standing in elections with not being in the EU as a policy....the SDA. They would prefer the EEA or EFTA, which they think would give the trading benefits without the centralism and regulations.

Just paid 2, I think, via the link in the reminder email. Let me know if I haven't, so I can find out where it went.

Mea culpa, Joe. The rules have only been changed a little bit re Catholics, and I misinterpreted them. Marrying a Catholic, in future, will no longer disqualify a person from succeeding to the Crown. Though it doesn't appear that the monarch can be anything but Protestant (and I suppose the CofE version, at that), so we won't ever be having a Muslim or Hindu one yet. Westminster is still taking much the same wee baby steps re bringing the succession into the 21st century as they are with devolution/democracy. I suppose what the bill has done is open the door to monarchical "mixed marriages" (as defined in areas of Glasgow). That's the Earl of St Andrews back on the succession list now, I assume.........and Prince Michael of Kent.

What will almost definitely happen, Alex, imo, apart from continued austerity at whatever level the UK Government decides (even if we elect 59 SNP MPs in Scotland, who vote against, and even if all MPs from Wales and NI join them), is that we will never ever be allowed to do this again. I'm quite prepared to bet that in future, all referenda will have to be UK wide only.........or we will become the UK version of Catalonia....as I don't believe there is any obligation on the UK Government to put constitutional change to a referendum........or if it is, I slept soundly through the referendum they had before they changed the rules of succession in favour of Catholics and women (not that I'd have voted against either). Always surprises me that anyone with at least two working brain cells would ever believe that the UK version of devolution, come the Scotland Act 2012, was about giving us any power....and not just about charging us to raise our taxes.or not...and also restricting our borrowing interest rates to those the Treasury decides to charge us, because they want to make damn sure we won't have any chance of getting a credit rating from the markets, so we don't get to borrow from them. And into the one-sided bargain, if we do borrow to do the stuff in/for Scotland, that the Union has neglected for the last 307 or so years, we have to pay every penny of our borrowing from the block grant (or however Westminster decides we are to be funded), and also pay our share, over and above, of the UK borrowing to fund the likes of HS2..just as we already pay our share of foreign embassies, but have additionally to pay £3000 a throw to get our foreign embassies to promote Scottish goods. Now maybe I am really fecking stupid....but can any unionist explain to me any benefit in continuing in a Union in which Scotland is not treated as a part of the Union? Given we are obliged to pay for the likes of HS2, the Olympics, the London sewage system, the backhander to water company customers in the south of England etc etc, I'd have expected that we could use the foreign embassies we already contribute towards, and the HMRC, we already contribute towards, without having to pay any extra......but devolution, UK style, means we will be obliged to raise taxes or cut services in Scotland to compensate Westminster for having gone to the bother of letting us have devolution in the first place. Is it only me thinks that Westminster takes the proverbial, and too many of us just don't have the guts to tell them to feck off....you need us more than we need you?

Bugger......had intended to be helping to man the YES set up in Forres at the Victoria Filling Station on the way into Forres from Elgin-side, but it was bucketing rain and freezing where I was at 8am and nobody ever got back to me to say weather had cleared later in the day. Not overly keen, I have to admit, with my health problems, to be exacerbating them for one-offs when I have to cover regular shifts in the Elgin Yes Shop, but I would have if I had to do that. That's the second year I've missed it...first one was because I was in Caithness and this time was the weather, because nobody told me it had cleared (which it had, where I was by lunchtime)......and which I hope means that they had enough help and I wasn't needed. Have to say, if Better Together was on the High Street, can't see why YES was not, but then again, the Convenor of The Moray Council chaired the only (so far) Better Together meeting in Moray.

For those who are completely illogically convinced that the BBC still does unbiased and even-handed and are to be trusted.....according to the BBC on their website, which does not allow comments on Scottish independence flagged "news" reports or blogs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28079812 Police said there was a maximum of 350 protesters, who carried flags and banners outside Pacific Quay, the BBC's Glasgow base. But what they didn't say was that there were another 1000 plus not carrying flags and banners and that unofficial police estimates made the crowd as being 1500-2000. So do you accept the BBC version....or the version from the police before it has been put through the Union-bias filter.or accept that the BBC didn't actually lie through their teeth.....but were economical with the truth..and manipulated their figures to fit their agenda, without actually lying..but that is fine by you because it suits your agenda as well? If you check out http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/events/3071707/videos/55189328,, though the bulk of the crowd is only seen time to time in bits of a long video, or any non-BBC taken and broadcast photos on FB, even the most arithmetically challenged Unionist punter would concede that....yet again.....the BBC is lying through their gritted union flag decorated teeth.

A NO vote is a vote for the status quo. If it was going to give any benefits to anyone compared with what we have now then it wouldn't be the status quo. But it isn't......it is a vote for more uncertainty....and less likely to be of the beneficial kind which may well come with independence. The status quo is what the UK is like currently. It is a share in £25 billion of cuts, and whichever Government is in power in 2015..we know that austerity will continue into the next Parliament and beyond It is a Scotland with pocket money decided by England..and I say England advisedly, because Barnett is, for the devolved governments, a proportion of England's spending on devolved matters...so as England privatises, by the back door, the NHS, we get less for our NHS, which will eventually force privatisation...or cuts. England can and does deem specific spending in England, generally in London, to be of benefit UK wide......so the public spending on HS2 and however many HS numbers have to be constructed before it gets to Scotland, if it ever does, is not transport spending counted in Barnett that we can spend on our own transport needs...although we'll pay our share of every mile of it, through England,for decades to come. The upgrade to London's sewage system, which kinda smacks of a private water board subsidy anyway, is deemed a UK wide benefit...but Scotland has it's own water board, publicly owned...which is paid for from a block grant which doesn't benefit from a share in the millions being spent in London...and with reducing Scottish budgets and the regular calls via the media and the CBI to privatise it, it's only a matter of time. So the status quo is cuts upon cuts. The Scottish Government is in the gift...as they continually remind us...of Westminster, as Westminster is sovereign..so even what we have now can disappear like the snow off a dyke. Parliamentary committees in both the Commons and the Lords want to remove Barnett completely. UKIP wants to remove the Scottish Parliament completely. There are mutterings from Burnham about an integrated British NHS and sounds from Brown of an integrated education system.....making Scotland North Britain, in fact. Any devolution is just Devo-tax and nothing approaching devo-max. NI has more devolution than Scotland.....in fact, right now, local Government has more devolution than the Scottish Parliament. And the status quo which is flagged up for after 2015, as in the Scotland Act 2012, will serve to cost us money in the collection of the Scottish rate of tax, whether we leave it the same as in the rest of the UK or not....but as they will remove the 10p from the block grant, we are forced to use it, and our grant will be adjusted it in following years depending on our tax levels in the immediately previous year. So, logically, to keep the status quo as it is now, with the free prescriptions, the free tuition, the bus passes etc.we will need to increase taxes to make us the highest taxed area in the UK, or cut back on the benefits we have received from devolution. And we will get a borrowing power for the first time....but we must borrow from the Treasury....so the Treasury will benefit from the interest we pay....and we will still have to pay our share of interest on Westminster borrowing for Westminster's purposes, even though we will, on top, be responsible for what we actually do borrow on our own behalf. and if, in the end, we do manage to improve the economy......it won't be us who get the benefits....it will be Westminster who collects any extra tax from Scotland due to the policies of a Scottish government, just as they do now..because we can collect tax, but can't spend it as we would wish. So Westminster is quids in coming or going.and Scotland ain't.....we do well, Westminster benefits....we do badly and Westminster benefits, because all Westminster devolution proposals since 1979 have been set at the lowest level they believe can manage to put the SNP's gas at a peep and reduce any chance of us moving towards independence...and nothing to do with what Scotland wants or needs. And the "offers" not guaranteed or guaranteeable by any of the Unionist parties, if we vote NO are just more of the same uselessness writ larger ...but polishing a turd makes it no less a lump of noxious crap. If there had been any intention to offer any power to grow our economy to benefit us, as opposed to just more responsiblity for spending the hand-out they so kindly give us, then Devo-max would not have been removed by Cameron and Moore from the referendum agreement. So whichever way the vote goes......there is no certainty, bar the certainty that life in the Union isn't going to get much better for most of us.and the certainty that life in an independent Scotland couldn't possibly get any worse....and beyond a NO vote...there will be no status quo..........apart from the status quo of Westminster in sovereign control of everything.

I have, on my hard drive, three almost finished posts in response to some I have read on here......but I have decided to go simple and logical..because the alternative for you all is the lengthy and immensely boring posts I do so well.....so...... Can anyone who intends to vote NO on 18th September care to give reasons as to why that stance would benefit Scotland more than, or even as much as, it will benefit the rest of the UK/Westminster? And would anyone who is still swithering, care to say why they are still undecided?

Hardly think you can slate DD for his views considering you were all for the forced marriage of ICT Anyway I see the Orange Order of Scotland have now thrown in their weight for the Against campaign and with that comes tens/hundreds of thousands of NO votes Dougal Naw..they'd have been NO votes anyway......it just means they can spend up to £150000 on telling us the benefits of staying in the Union.

Pretty much what Tommy Sheridan said in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFWdbXqqhZE

Not so sure they would....particularly as there have been mutterings from the Scottish Government about autonomy for the Islands and the Independence faction in Orkney/Shetland is actually relatively small, although you'd not know that from articles in the MSM. I'm sure if the Islands elect, in future Scottish general elections, candidates standing with Independence for Orkney and Shetland in their manifesto/as their main reason for existence, and win, it is something which should be considered. However right now, there seems to be little appetite for that. Bear in mind, the Islands' MPs floated the idea of seceeding from Scotland as a means(they foolishly thought) of keeping them in the rUK and holding on to the oil...and as another addition to Project Fear. I'd like to see some level of the same kind of autonomy for the disparate parts of the Highlands as well, tbh. I'd like to see us reverting to the days before regionalisation to something more local, on the lines of the old county councils. I never liked the regionalisation that produced Grampian Council (being from Moray, thats the one I know about), and having endured Highland Council ministrations from the centre, when I lived in Caithness, not overly keen on that either(though to be honest, now I'm back in Moray, the Moray Council is even more incompetent) and if the likes of a centralised police and fire service was to be continued in an independent Scotland, (which I hope it wouldn't be, if it was going to import all of Strathclyde's ways of policing, even if it is cheaper), it would give local areas more say over how it worked for them. Those in the Central Belt were possibly, before the last few years, the least likely to vote for independence, if there was a donkey sporting a red rosette they could vote for. There are definitely people who vote for a party because they have been brought up to vote for that party. My brother voted Labour all his relatively short life, because my parents did, but he couldn't have told you who was the leader of the Labour Party. However, he wasn't in the least interested in politics and only voted because he had, as I was, been brought up believing that it was his duty to vote. The SNP vote, which hasn't ever necessarily been an independence vote, has, to be fair, been spread over all constituencies at some level, but has always been strongest in semi-rural constituencies like Moray (despite the two airbases, probably because, for for general elections, many servicemen still have postal votes in their home areas), Banff and Buchan and Angus (and is probably why they got called Tartan Tories, as those had previously been Tory constituencies). and re cities, one of the Dundee Constituencies.It has never been particularly strong in the Central Belt, though has served there on a couple of occasions as a protest vote, but in General Elections, NuLabour has dominated the Central Belt, and Scottish politics, for decades. However, the Central Belt has by far the largest number of unregistered voters, a hangover from the days of the poll-tax, and they are being encouraged to register for this referendum, as nobody is daft enough to think that ignoring them, however they will vote, is going to produce any kind of definitive decision. The more people who vote the better...but it is true that if the Central Belt votes in numbers for/against independence that will likely swing it in their preferred direction. But that is how democracy works..the majority dictates the result...but only really in straight option referenda. In elections, whether FPTP like Westminster or even the mixter-maxter "PR" set up in Scotland, the majority does not get its preferred choice, which is why I'd prefer real PR, even if (or maybe because) it could well mean there is never a majority Government in Scotland again, and we could have consensus rather than Westminster style adversarial politics.and I think that would be no bad thing.

Robin McAlpine, of The Jimmy Reid Foundation says (and don't ask me where, but likely in one of the pay for view newspapers, as it has been C&P'd and not linked.)What he says is so true..and only the wilfully blind can deny it. (There was a survey done in March which said that 21% of Yes supporters had suffered online abuse and 8% of No supporters.) C&P'd here by me, and I'll provide the link when I find it......and any bolding is mine. The BBC did a pretty long interview with me yesterday. I wanted to express my amazement at how they were covering the breaking story about Labour being caught out trying to pass off a member of their Shadow Cabinet as an ordinary member of the public. I asked if I’d be allowed to get on record criticisms of how Better Together has behaved. They only use a short, anodyne excerpt in the final broadcast. Purely because I have a need to get this off my chest today, this is (more-or-less) the stuff they didn’t use. The Better Together campaign has been one extended smear operation and the permanent attacks on Yes supporters as abusive and aggressive has been part of that campaign from day one. They have sought to portray the independence debate as a nasty, hostile and scary one because they are actively trying to put people off from getting involved. It is a fundamentally anti-democratic practice and is beneath what is a wonderful and inspiring campaign. I would defend anyone’s right not to join the Scottish Labour Shadow Cabinet. I would speak out for anyone’s right not to get onto a platform at a national political event and make their children the subject of a political speech. But once you’ve decided that you’re going to do these things then I will defend everyone else’s right to respond – in a civilised way. It seems to me that Better Together believes that the role of the people of Scotland is to stand aside in silence while they lecture us. This is an amazing conception of democracy and it is remarkable that the people of Better Together think that they are a privileged elite whose right to free speech trumps everyone else’s. I have been involved in politics in Scotland for over 20 years (longer as a co-opted child) and this campaign is certainly not particularly nasty. I can just remember the Miners’ Strike. I can remember the Poll Tax campaign, the campaign to abolish Clause Four in the Labour Party, the anti-globalisation campaigning of the 2000s and much more. They were all much more hostile than this campaign. It would be lovely if there were no personalised attacks in politics. I would love it if Johann Lamont didn’t call nationalism a ‘virus’, if she didn’t make jibes about her opponents being childless, if she didn’t call all her opponents liars. I’d love it if Ian Davidson wasn’t threatening to give female politicians “a doing”, if Anas Sarwar wasn’t accusing the Scottish Parliament of being an anti-democratic dictatorship, if Alastair Darling didn’t keep equating support for Scottish independence with fascism. Unfortunately, in politics as in life, people don’t always behave like they should. Labour behaves as if it has installed a switch in Ms Lally which enables them to switch her on and off as a politician as they see fit – now she’s a politician, now she’s not. Unfortunately, once you’ve appointed someone to your Shadow Cabinet you can’t switch it off again. If Ms Lally is not able to cope with the job she has been given as part of a Shadow Cabinet, if she was not properly told what such a position would entail, then Labour has failed in a duty of care to her. It is nothing whatsoever to do with the Yes campaign. It is worth noting that technically Claire Lally as a member of the Labour Shadow Cabinet is senior to Alastair Darling who is only a backbench MP – such are the ridiculous outcomes of political gimmicks. But shallow, content-free stunts in which you use the mother of a disabled child to give the impression that you’re a party with a strong grass-roots backfires when it amounts to nothing more than the cynical use of a woman as window dressing. I wish I didn’t get nasty things written about me on the internet and I don’t write abusive things about other people on the internet. But if we are to start a national search for nastiness can we begin with the broad No movement. It contains within it fascist groups like the Scottish Defence League, racists like the British National Party, bigots like the extreme end of the Orange Order, nutters like UKIP and hundreds of individuals who are more than happy to write the most vile things about Yes campaigners. Since the only research done on the campaign so far showed that a big majority of the nasty things written on social media come from the No campaign, why can’t we start by asking Alastiar Darling and Blair McDougall to crack down on that? They might also want to have a word with Tory MSPs who attack pensioners like the Weirs, their rabid media partners who have demonstrated no bounds to their bile and ‘satirists’ on their side who write about the violent deaths of gentle Scottish artists like Alasdair Gray. Once this campaign is over, each and every one of us will have to answer for what we did and what we said. I am absolutely confident that I will be able to look back at my deeds and words with pride. I can say the same of almost all the people who are campaigning beside me. We have gone door to door, town hall to town hall, and we have told a positive story about Scotland’s future without telling lies about our opponents or trying to scare the people of Scotland with vague threats. Better Together and their media partners seem to believe they are the Spanish Inquisition, that they alone can determine guilt and innocence, that any base act on their part is simply a necessary evil in a campaign to protect their privilege. I too believe that they have behaved like the Spanish Inquisition. Then again, I was kind of expecting it. Edited to add the link http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/12/spin-and-smear/ And this link for anyone who thinks there are only nasty abusive nutters in the Yes Campaign....... .https://twitter.com/BritNatAbuseBot that's a robot archiving BritNat abuse/smears.

Pretty much as nasty as CyberBrits, I find, and I wish both lots would wind their necks in. However, the CyberNats and CyberBrits are just wee unimportant people, like me and you, venting their spleen anywhere they can vent it....undoubtedly because they have nothing more sensible to say. I remember the tweets saying Andy Murray was a Scottish C--t and a c--t Jock and lots of people using that kind of epithet and hoping he'd lose the wimbledon final..even if you don't! The one thing I have always thought about twitter(apart from the fact that I can't say anything much on it, because I don't do 140 characters or less saying anything)..and to an extent about FaceBook, is that they are a blight on the internet world. They are systems too easily abused by the numpties, or hackers. Can you, or anyone, prove, for example, that the people in either camp reputedly tweeting abusive crap are actually people in the camp it looks like they are in, from the tweets? There is getting to be a tendency to assume what is on twitter is as believable as what appears in the MSM..and it just isn't necessarily so in the case of Twitter.and rarely so in the case of the MSM. I find it more, infinitely more, worrying that the Unionist MSM will happily produce unsubstantiated gossip, call it "news" and run with it for days...like the "CyberNat" abuse against Susan Calman, which couldn't be substantiated.....and ditto the CyberNat abuse of Kezia Dugdale, which also couldn't be substantiated, but spun for all it was worth even to the extent that one Unionist paper actually followed, doorstepped and identified names and abodes of private citizens they claimed were Cybernats. Yet when both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon got abuse and death threats on twitter..not a peep from the MSM that I ever noticed. And I see they are at it again with Clare Lally.....To quote Wings, who actually checks out the stuff in the media....... We spent much of yesterday evening trying to actually track down the “vicious barrage” of vile cybernat abuse that Labour and “Better Together” activist says she was subjected to after being revealed to be rather less of an “ordinary” member of the public than the No camp presented her as at its recent Glasgow rally, and which has received blanket media coverage. As yet, we’ve drawn a blank. We’ve made repeated requests, including to people who’ve contacted us angrily claiming to be her friends or family members, for evidence of any abusive comments at all. All have been met with an abrupt outbreak of silence. Scotland 2014 devoted almost its entire 30-minute show to the issue last night. To depict the terrible onslaught, the above tweets [3] were all they could come up with. The entire affair is starting to smell distinctly piscine. The decision to blur the names of the “offensive” tweeters is curious in itself. These people have posted something in public, so it’s hard to see what purpose is served by obscuring them. One of the tweets – the Panini sticker album joke – is actually one of ours. Curiously the BBC has edited part of it out: Rest here http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-worst-of-the-worst/ and last para Our request remains open. If anyone has any evidence of ANY abuse being directed at Clare Lally we’d like to see it, and we will unequivocally condemn it. Until then, we reserve the right to call foul. In its absence no rational conclusion will be possible other than that “cybernats” – a pejorative term in itself – have been vilified and excoriated by politicians and journalists, yet again, on the basis of phantoms.

Think Colin Fox did well....loved his bit about the double-dip delusion being promulgated on us by Westminster with their "Better Together" mantra, (from about 2.35 mins in). He kinda discomboblutated the interviewer, who drew proceedings quickly to a close! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=WGQw1E5zWBA Edited to add a link to this http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/100-days-until-the-door-opens/ But in case nobody reads it...the last few paragraphs..... Compare and contrast. What sort of country do you want to live in. You can live in a land of hope, or you can live in the land of the po-faced and the pettit lip. A country where you’re told what’s good for you while the rich get ever richer and inequalities widen, where emigration in search of work is described as a Union benefit. Or an independent country governed by people who live here, people we can vote out of office if they do not live up to our expectations. A Slovene friend once told me why he supported independence for his small country. He said: I love my country because it is small and harmless, and it needs people to look after it. This small and harmless country is ours, and we will look after it because it is our home. Westminster politicians said that they wanted to turn the country into a land of owner occupiers when they sold off the family silver, we will answer them by telling them we’ll be the owner occupiers of our own land. All that interests them is how they can use our resources and our talents to further their own careers. Let’s make the future of Scotland our priority, the future of our children, our grandchildren, and generations yet to come. Let’s show the world what a small and harmless country can do, and be a voice for peace and justice in this world.

Scotland, of course. The best (and most abused) little country in the world! Why you asking?

The News Where You Are! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhL57cjN8xY Funny, I thought! Edited to add the perspective of an English Scot who is voting YES. http://www.englishscotsforyes.org/?p=515

Good article here http://wingsoverscotland.com/its-about-democracy-stupid/ from a guest contributor on Wings. C&Ping it to here....(bar the cartoon), so folk don't have to ignore the link. Luckily it is in short paras for those who are allergic to reading long tortuous sentences/paragraphs.......like what I produce! “Great Britain” began with the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James the VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England and Ireland, but the “United Kingdom” didn’t come into existence until the Act of Union in 1707, which effectively dissolved the Scottish Parliament. The “British Empire” began with the Union with Scotland and, if those in support of a Yes vote have their way, it will end with Scottish independence. But what’s any of that got to do with Barack Obama? I can ask that because I’m an American. If a native Scot tries to do so they’re likely be dismissed as backward and chippy “Bravehearts”. But ever since that morning in 1707 when Scots awoke to the news that their Parliament had been dissolved by a handful of lords and rioted in the streets, through the joys of the battle of Culloden, the Highland Clearances, and so on all the way to the brutality of Thatcherism in the 1980s it’s been clear who benefits most from this political construct. Much has been written about how the upcoming independence referendum represents a divorce between Scotland and England. But if we’re making relationship analogies, let’s just say that historically the British government is a power-hungry polygamist and Scotland is just the latest in a long line of unwilling wives to leave. This is how we’re so sure that the many of the threats that emanate from Westminster are indeed bluffs. We’ve rung up all of Britain’s exes: the USA, India, Ireland (and the entirety of the Commonwealth), and we can see that whilst the UK government can be an abusive partner and often behaves dreadfully during a break-up, once the deed is done they become much more cordial with their their former flames, because it’s in their best interests. Heck, they even send the Royalty around periodically for grand visits just to be friendly. Another fact is clear too – whilst all nations have their ups and downs, absolutely none of the countries that have broken up with Westminster have ever come crawling back. It’s very hard to communicate to people in the United States the level of centralisation of government within the UK. When most who hear why, as a “New Scot” from the States, I support a Yes Vote, they often look at me in puzzlement and say, “Well, that’s like supporting North Dakota leaving the USA”. Not quite. Scotland is a nation of just over 5 million people, a similar size to Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand and Norway, and we balance our budget on pocket-money grudgingly returned to us from our own taxes by Westminster. We don’t control the revenues from our oil & gas industry, our whisky, water, fishing, farming or tourism. The smallest of towns in anywhere USA has far more tax-raising power AND spending control than the entirety of Scotland. Most towns, counties or states can set sales tax (VAT), property tax, alcohol sales and even borrow to invest in their infrastructure. We have minimal representation in Westminster and far less in the European Parliament in Brussels than we would if we were independent. The entire strategy of the No campaign has been to overwhelm people with doubts about whether Scotland could manage these tasks that are second-nature to small US towns, leaving the average voter to believe that they need a degree in international law to cast a vote. I listen to a lot of BBC World Service radio in the wee small hours, and night after night I hear these brave journalists travel to the farthest-flung corners of the globe to interview, analyse and report on an impressive array of topics. However, when it comes to reporting on most issues in Scotland, it seems that we’re a no-go area. Rather, the majority of the media prefer to rely on some London-based hairdresser or a celebrity who maybe had a Scottish granny or went on occasional holidays to Skye for all first-hand knowledge of the situation. We are not known or much cared about in what’s supposedly our own country, even three centuries on. It’s time to face the reality, and start seeing other people. The referendum is an amazing opportunity for the people who choose to call Scotland home to partake in a political process in which their votes will actually matter. Together we could craft a constitution to reflect the needs and values of our community, and make sure that each person within Scotland can actually share in the bounty of her many resources. Priorities such as our NHS, free tuition, affordable childcare and a welfare system that doesn’t harass and demonise the sick, disabled and elderly can be protected in a way that we simply can’t do now. There will be bumps in the road, the outside world will still exist and influence us – but we can finally speak with our own voice and at least have a chance of being heard. I believe in real representative democracy. I believe in accountability. I believe that the status quo is not as good as it gets, and I believe a better Scotland is possible. Where my ancestors had to fight with rifles and cannon to free themselves from London rule, I’m voting Yes to begin that process of making that better future happen. My President should be able to understand that, and get out of the way.

Churchill

And Cameron has already said that there will be no mention of Scottish further "devolution" in the Queen's speech, if they are the ones to write it....so even getting any of what has been proposed re "devolution" is all in the lap of the gods of MPs' self-interest, and their continuing election by voters who are incensed that their taxes subsidise us, and they pay for all our perks, while not getting any of them themselves. (Comments sections on UK newspapers are an eye opener!)

I am getting sick fed up of the continual recycling of already debunked scare stories. Cameron is still at it...with his latest....."If Scotland vote for independence they are no longer members of the EU and it's become clearer and clearer since this campaign started that they would have to reapply to join the EU and as such, as an independent country, they would have to queue up as it were behind other countries - for instance those in the western Balkans that are already on the path towards membership. "The risk that outside the UK you wouldn't keep the pound, the risk that outside the UK you've got to reapply to the EU, the risk that outside the UK you wouldn't have such a strong economy with so many jobs and you know in the end its a positive argument I'm making because I think the UK has been a great success story. "We're there for each other. You know when there was a banking crisis and a big Scottish bank goes down you've got the whole of the UK there to support that bank and that economy. We're stronger and better off together. While I don't give a toss if we are in the EU at all, it would be very simple to get certainty on this...all it needs is for Westminster to clarify the situation with the EU.....but then that would remove the option to use our post-independence position for fear-mongering until September 18th, which is why clarity won't happen. Given there are as many knowledgeable people who contradict Cameron's opinion as who agree with it...and funnily enough, those who agree with Cameron, like Barroso, or Spanish politicians like Rajoy, have a particular axe to grind....logic alone would point to there being some difficulty within the EU if Scotland becomes independent, without being in the EU, or in the process of being fast-tracked to membership, (given, unlike the Balkan countries, we are pretty much EU compliant). That situation would put the position of EU citizens in Scotland on a sticky wicket, as it would Scots living/working in other EU countries, and would also close our fishing grounds to EU fishermen. It is also somewhat short-sighted of Cameron to assume that what is left of the UK would just gaily continue being the EU member, with no need for negotiations on its own behalf over rebate etc to adjust for the fact that the UK, as it will be, is not the same UK which joined in 1975, which then had Scotland's resources at its back to gain membership. Of course, you can never assume that politicians won't cut off their noses to spite their faces, and replace pragmatism with huffing and foot-stamping, and I suspect some EU politicians are just as childish as those in Westminster. What risk is there that, outside the UK, we can't keep the pound? The risk isn't that we can't keep the pound, the risk is that we may not have it in an official currency Union, which isn't that much of a worry, tbh, given the state of the UK economy, but there is no chance that we won't be using the pound one way or another post-independence, in the short/medium term at least. I do wish people would understand that using sterling, with no currency agreement will actually be an improvement on how the Scottish economy works now...because now, we don't have the fiscal tools to compensate for Westminster policies, and have to suffer under policies predicated on controlling the economy of London and the South. The bedroom tax, the austerity budgets, the trashing of the unemployed/disabled, the cap on housing benefit etc have been put in place because of the swingeing costs of maintaining London, particularly the City of London/Greater London in the manner to which it has become accustomed. It has been flagged up by the BOE, that interest rates must rise in the next few months...and they will rise to a level which is intended to take the heat out of the burgeoning house price boom in the south, in the hopes of heading off another recession..not to a level which is necessary in Scotland, where house prices are not sky-high to the same extent. The banking crap is just that, crap. If we had been independent at the time of the banking crisis, would the Scottish banks have been so pathetically poorly regulated in the first place, but even if so, rUK would still have had to bail out the banks in the rUK, which, incidentally were the loss making ones, just as the USA bailed out the branches of UK banks operating in the USA. Scotland would only have had to bail out the banks' operations in Scotland, which were mainly retail as opposed to the casino banking arms. I thought at the time, when Westminster was throwing money at the bankers, that we should have followed the Scandinavian model of the 1990's, rather than pat the bankers on the head, as we are still doing, and telling them that, as they are too big to fail, just carry on screwing us regardless. Speaking of crap...anyone see the latest from the BetterTogether Broadcasting Corporation. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/02/crossfire/ and http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/the-kezia-dugdale-show/ Plus the latest crap version of devolution-not even min far less max, from the Tories....http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-times-dont-change/ And regarding the certainty crap being demanded by Unionists on exactly what every policy is going to be in an iScotland, before any negotiations and the election for our first iScotland Government, Wings comments on it here http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-certain-death-of-the-union/ having illustrated here http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-common-sense-test/ and here http://wingsoverscotland.com/lets-make-this-simpler/ just how crap the offer is.......an offer which is, of course, not guaranteed as it has to get through both Houses of Parliament, neither of which is enthusiastic about letting child Scotland have anything which might smack of rewarding our temerity at questioning Westminster's parenting abilities.

I see the option is time limited, after a while it becomes set as liked. Must be a fairly short time, then, because I wasn't that long looking for a link to the article.

You got a link? Can't find it online (but then I'm not about to pay to read garbage as produced by the MSM in print or on the internet). If he wrote even some of what the post says, it wasn't just cringeworthy...it was downright insulting to large swathes of his countrymen/women..but then is that not the Better Together's modus operendi...make us think we are a joke, and wedded to the Victorian image of Scotland as encouraged by the monarchy. According to the FB post...the article was "an astonishing rant"...though I suspect no more "astonishing" than many of his posts on here have been.