Oddquine

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/opinion/the-nations-going-south-and-scotlands-paying-for-it.1384420754 Better Together? Really? I like the last sentence.it says it all! Scotland is the only country in the world to have paid for its own economic decline. It allowed oil revenues to flow south in the 1980s to finance Margaret Thatcher's City-centred deindustrialisation. Now it is about to do it again. Never have so few paid so much for so little.

Where in Invergordon is there a pavement that wide and that level...having tripped along them a fair bit? Out the Saltburn road, its not your car either then? Ah.that's why I don't recognise it........never walked as far as Saltburn, Unfortunately it's not mine....if it was, it wouldn't be parked in Invergordon! Best I could do re four wheeled advertising would be an equivalent logo on one of them shopping bags on wheels (which is an idea! )

Where in Invergordon is there a pavement that wide and that level...having tripped along them a fair bit?

Maybe I'm weird.......but I think that there is a big difference in tone and emphasis between not acting for/on behalf of Scotland (or, as you put it, "looking after Scotland's interests") if it chooses independence ....which was something to be expected......and part of the reason for the campaign, tbh, given the interests of Scotland are not always the same as those of the UK....and McDougall saying : fall into the trap of acting against Scotland until Scotland decides to leave the United Kingdom. Think about it!

Any Better Together supporter care to interpret Blair McDougall, director of “Better Together”s remark at Dundee Uni on 30th October to make it sound less of a threat? His words......" UK ministers are not going to fall into the trap of acting against Scotland until Scotland decides to leave the United Kingdom" followed by "“It’s a trap that they’re very wise not to fall into.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgROXHjGFo0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUAi1q4QL2HZ2hErZwrziNQg (not original link but the same with better sound) So what exactly does that mean? Given I read what is said as meaning what is said (because I'm reasonably good at most aspects of English...bar understanding sarcasm/irony and the like without an appropriate smilie (but could wish I was better at précis), I take it to mean that if we vote for Independence (how I interpret until) the rUk is going to do pouting, foot-stamping, huffing re negotiations and generally being so bliddy difficult that we will probably have to resort to International Law in order to adjudicate and impose rules to become precedent for all other countries in the same situation ,...but if that is what he means.....the rUK, in current economic circumstances, will frankly be cutting off the rUK nose to spite the Scottish face. I have read different interpretations, which I don't quite understand, from that quote......such as .scrapping the Barnett formula (which doesn't chime with the until re leaving the UK, but until re staying in it, because there would be no Barnett formula with Independence, though).......then we have the opinions which interpret that quote as saying that the UK will clip Scotland's wings by ensuring we are never in a position to have another referendum etc (and again that doesn't chime with the quote)..... but happy to listen to Unionist interpretation of the quote....and interested to understand if they perceive it as a threat or not....and if they don't.........., just how do they interpret it?

The latest addition to Project Fear inane pronouncements.......http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/29/independent-scotland-security-theresa-may-intelligence Scotland is going to be inundated with terrorists because we won't have access to anybody else in the world's intelligence services and are too poor and stupid to upgrade our own anti-terrorist unit to cope. I really wonder what those in England will think, when terrorists hurtle over the border to bomb English institutions, about the foot-stamping and pouting of the current UK leaders which would have made that scenario possible? I can't help wondering how we, as,an independent, peaceful country, without delusions of world importance,, without a military attack, as opposed to defence, force, without nuclear weapons and without an almost irrational compulsion to attach itself to the coat-tails of the USA as they have a go at killing innocent citizens of other countries for the benefit of US companies' profits, would be more in danger than a rUK which has reduced the border agencies to nearly a token level .and due to the UK incursions into other countries, make more home grown terrorists than the foreign ones we ever manage to remove in the "war on Terrorism". Heck, given that we have, thanks to the UK cut backs, practically nothing to stop even a strong swimmer with a bomb wrapped in a waterproof jacket landing anywhere on Britain's thousands of miles of coast....far less anything to stop Russian ships from parking offshore to empty their toilets,...we may even get better air/sea rescue and sea defence facilities when we don't have to rely on the UK to let us have them.

Was going to comment on the lack of intelligence of Philip Hammond......who is, today, the latest UK Government brain-dead nincompoop to insult Scotland and the Scots........but thiought Derek Bateman said it with a lot fewer swearie words than I would have,,,,,..so http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8157-london-calling But I will quote one part of his article which contains at the end, a question which has always puzzled me, when I read all the lies, scaremongering and insults levelled at the Scots by Unionists, including Scottish Unionists, for, it appears having the temerity to question the status quo. The gist of the Hammond pre-meditated humiliation of the Scots appears to be that London will retain the ancient Scottish regiments or what is left of them since they were decimated by Unionist governments and they will not fight for the Scots in future (and, under challenge, suddenly changed his mind!)...We won't have enough money to pay for decent armed forces and we are such a basket case of a country that our own people won't want to defend it. We are also such a backwater, it seems, with nothing worth defending, that no potential conscripts would bother to take part in a Dad's Army and would prefer to join up to fight for Glorious Albion. And this comes from our own government...from the people presenting a positive case for Union...from people who desperately want Scots to stay in Union...from the leadership who regard us as a family of nations united in the greatest union in the history of civilisation. I know it's propaganda and I know its purpose just as you do...to make people feel they are exposed, insignificant, dependent and unworthy so they will be grateful to a generous overlord and know their place – firmly embedded in union. (Seems to be working). But my question is: Where is the Unionist reaction from proud Scots to this scornful, inaccurate drivel?

Can't disagree with that.....Cameron is desperate not to have, as his eternal legacy for posterity, the fact that he was the PM who presided over the dissolution of the Treaty of Union so is setting up the non-Tory patsies to blame, just in case. They think we will forget they were the majority in the Coalition, and most of the policies enacted were theirs....but they should bear in mind that the Scots have long memories! Maybe, due to the LibDem influence the policies enacted were not as harsh as the Tories would have preferred.......but in the end, if not for the LibDems....how much more harsh would have been the Bedroom Tax, the alterations to Welfare benefits etc........given what we read about the Tory intentions if they get a majority next time? For sure, the association with the Tories in an administration which has not accomplished their trumpeted reduction in National Debt......and has trashed the most vulnerable to not achieve their targets.......and will,.for the Lib-Dems, not improve their electoral prospects one iota UK wide.....particularly given they are the one party which has never wavered for decades over promoting the Home Rule issue for all countries in the UK...so given their long time stance......and given a LibDem Secretary of State for Scotland........how come Devo-max isn't in the Referendum choices if they had any real influence and input? If the vote is for Independence...come 2016, I would, more than likely, have voted for the LibDems.because I am mostly centre/slightly left in my politics with centre/slightly right aberrations on specific subjects.....but frankly.....the LibDems subsuming of nearly all their principles for a taste of power...has kinda put me off that option.

He's the one who is on record as having said that the position of Scottish Secretary should be abolished and one combined entity set up for Scotland, NI and Wales. The reason Nicola Sturgeon wasn't so convincing against the Labour MP was because she never got to finish a reply without him interrupting her and talking over her....it was a crass display of rudeness by him..aided and abetted by a biased "referee" who obviously couldn't control a kindergarten class..or a football match! Michael Moore, on the other hand, was fair enough to let her get her replies out...and I'd bet that's why he is now out.......because he isn't the type to use childish tactics to interrupt the other person being interviewed...in other words.he isn't nasty and abrasive enough! It can't be because he isn't on Unionist message.......heck he didn't even stick up for Scotland in the UK Parliament when Scotland was being called a subsidy junkie by a Tory MP...but then the Scottish Secretary has never been Scotland's man in Westminster..but Westminster's man in Scotland.......and Moore is just too polite..he can regurgitate what he is fed as the accepted message....but seems hard pushed to be obnoxious on the hoof..like most of the rest manage. I have a feeling that Carmichael will more than live up to the UK Government's expectations..

Oh aye? So wot about this then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMeUcC_M20&noredirect=1 and this.... http://news.yahoo.com/80-arrested-anti-islam-protest-denmark-172249372.html And loads more. Sounds like you've had another "Ireland and Iceland Arc of Prosperity" moment! But DENMARK does not irritate the crap out of Muslim countries....though individuals within Denmark manage to irritate the crap out of some Muslims. Have to say if there are loads more, you are lazy beyond belief to just stick to links about Denmark...I do hope you are not being economical with the truth......because I can't be @rsed to check.... I didn't make the post so why should I....that's your job....you made the post! Are you a Daily Mail columnist that you can equate the state terrorism we have either directly inflicted on populations (like Afghanistan and Iraq.not to mention all our now free and independent colonies) or simply condoned (like the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel)... and laugh off our actions off by citing relatively few Muslims in foreign countries who protest as best they can because they object to those actions? So who do you blame for the "terrorism" in London during the violent "we are really hacked off with our government's policies" riots...or the face-offs between the two sides of the divide during the really stupid Marching season in Scotland and NI..or the violent pro and anti-fascist altercations on the streets of the UK, for example? Can you tell me, honestly, the last time Muslim terrorism was as much a problem in the West as it has now become? (Without picking up the UK equivalent of the Israeli Government Hasbara document containing instructions as how to respond to criticism (of which I have a copy ..the Israel jobbie not the UK one....though there likely isn't a lot of difference as to tone, tbh.)) Why would any Government with Intelligence or any ordinary punter with commonsense, think you won't spread terrorism by offering them a ready-made excuse to view us as enemies, .as we have spent ten tears or so drastically hacking off a whole religion, and a fair few nations....because we wander in and kill thousands of them for access to oil,the sale of armaments and the profits to be made from sorting out the mess our bombs have inflicted on the country? And you know something.....the animosity to Muslims in the West is a direct result of their reaction to us going in and shooting and bombing the sh1t out of them.(plus our 60 odd years of letting Israel trash the Palestinians with impunity.) As Lance-Corporal Jones said..."they don't like it up 'em"........but let's be honest.....would we? In the same circumstances....would we not kick back where and when we could as retaliation to invasion and perceived injustices .Would an invasion of the UK not make terrorists of a lot of us? We are reaping what we have been sowing since WWII.....but unfortunately, we are also inflicting the consequences of our actions, as we clutch the coat-tails of the USA, on Western countries which were less gung-ho than us...simply because they are Western and are tarred with our brush. So, to answer your question, if it was a questiion, despite it being couched in a sneer....Scotland, as long as we have twonks in the population, .and also have media twonks who will not acknowledge our responsibility for the Muslim terrorism which has blighted the Western world in the last few years and keep on blaming them for our faults.......will never be free of terrorism.....just as no country ever will be again.......but we won't get it at the same levels as the US and the UK did on 9/11 and 7/7...because we won't be kicking Muslim.....or any other @rses for what we can get out of it to enrich ourselves. Or do you still really think that the UK is as important in the world scheme of things as our politicians think....as they force us to pay to maintain their illusion of grandeur via Trident based in Scotland?.

Lol! No chance! Funny that the crap the Daily Fail produces with regular monotony is just fine......until it maligns the Millibands' father, though. Another example of "one law for us" you think?

When is somebody going to euthanase the Daily Mail? It is Fox News in print! Their latest load of crap....... .http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2446636/Scotland-likely-suffer-catastrophic-terror-attack-achieves-independence.html Scotland 'more likely to suffer catastrophic terror attack if it achieves independence' Independent Scotland would be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, a new report will claim this week Attacks could shut down water, gas and electricity supplies across country Next year, four million Scots will vote in independence referendum SNP's plans are a 'dagger poised at the heart of Scotland's industrial infrastructure', says Defence Secretary Philip Hammond Britain’s top defence officials have produced a damning 86-page assessment of the impact that separation would have on Scotland’s security, which warns of the terrifying threat to the everyday lives of Scots. The devastating dossier will show that the tiny defence budget proposed by the SNP could heighten the risk of a terror attack which could close down the water, gas or electricity supplies to every home and business in the country. etc etc etc ad nauseam. Rational? Yeah, right! Let's be honest.he's not talking about Scotland's security at all.....but that of the rUK. They are sh1t scared of terrorists gettiing into the rest of the British Isles via Scotland. Did they ever worry about that when the Republic of Ireland got Independence.....oops......no they didn't,...... because the terrorists were Irish grown....the UK hadn't made so many enemies all over the Muslim world that that a few Irish bombs were considered a real problem necessitating Terrorism Acts et al.. Now maybe I'm daft, but given we already pay around £175 million into the UK to pay for a facility which didn't mange to stop the 7/7 bombers, and now seems to spend its time arresting and holding onto lots of people without actually taking them to trial, and crows that they have "foiled" plots which the cynical may well think only existed in their imagination.......how could we make a worse job.......if we spent the same amount on our own set-up? Let's be honest.Scotland isn't going to make the enemies the UK has succeeded in doing...because we won't be trying to punch above our weight. We're not going to be clutching the coat-tails of the US of A waving pound notes as they increase the profits of armaments and oil companies to increase sales/acquisitions and thus their tax input to the benefit of the USA. If we spend the same £175 million come independence as we are paying into the Westminster coffers...we'll be dishing out twice as much as Denmark......which also doesn't irritate the crap out of Muslim countries. As long as our foreign policy is not based upon alienating as large a number of people around the world as possible...we're not going to need expensively funded intelligence services....and frankly, we are not obliged to protect rUK from the consequences of the actions of its Governments if terrorists try to get in via Prestwick rather than Heathrow.......bar do the same checks as Heathrow does now..and £175 million will much more than cover that. Have to say I've just noticed a photo on my FaceBook with a montage of Daily Mail scaremongering headlines.....and the suggestion that we should VOTE YES.......IF NOTHING ELSE IT WILL REALLY, REALLY **** OFF THE DAILY MAIL!

Luckily I have bookmarked both Bateman's blogs . http://derekbatemandotnet1.wordpress.com/. and http://drderekbateman.wordpress.com/.. because I'm not about to to pay to read the Herald or any other "news"paper.....and have used up my free allowance on Herald "Scotland" for the moment. But, to be fair, he probably isn't saying anything we don't already know (given I don't know which post of his has been picked up). We only have to watch the Beeb, even the Scotland version, to know that it is biased in favour of UK political parties to the detriment of anything happening outside the London/South East bubble. I had to get a bus into town today so I read it on my mobile. I've used up my free allowance on my computer and iPad I used to buy the paper version of The Herald till a couple of months ago, although my reasons for stopping it weren't political. My reasons for stopping The Scotsman several years earlier were as a result of Andrew Neil using it as a personal soapbox to bash the teachers and the Nats. However even though you can't get the article you should read the comments below it. Just have......must say that 95% of the time the comments are a lot more worth reading than the original article (which depends. of course, if comments are allowed at all) I have a desktop, a laptop and a tablet.....but unfortunately as I don't go anywhere much.......I am nearly always online through my home wifi. connection..Must see how evading the cookies works next time I'm down the road on someone else's connection. I'm not holding my breath in the hope of media even-handedness, having lived and worked through the negativity and scaremongering of the 1979 and the 1997 referenda....but maybe this time we will get an open, fair and honest debate. (and pigs are flying past my window as I write this) Have to say that John McIntyre OBE Woking rips my knitting and more on a lot of media fora. The man's a twonk.

Luckily I have bookmarked both Bateman's blogs . http://derekbatemandotnet1.wordpress.com/. and http://drderekbateman.wordpress.com/.. because I'm not about to to pay to read the Herald or any other "news"paper.....and have used up my free allowance on Herald "Scotland" for the moment. But, to be fair, he probably isn't saying anything we don't already know (given I don't know which post of his has been picked up). We only have to watch the Beeb, even the Scotland version, to know that it is biased in favour of UK political parties to the detriment of anything happening outside the London/South East bubble.

No...why on earth would you think that, Dougal? But they are the team which will lead the negotiations of the Independence terms of settlement, when/if we vote for Independence........and.I should think not as the only party/group represented. After that, who governs us will be up to us! If the only viable option is the SNP come 2016.then we will have only ourselves to blame, don't you think? Maybe about time the Scottish Branches of the UK Parties registered to be eligible to stand in Scotland......bound to be some of them who are competent politicians...aren't there?

Just been reading right through this thread.....because I hadn't read it since the amalgamation..... I just joined on the end.. .and noticed I had said Yngwie instead of FoolPhysio in the read it and weep comment in post #260. Apologies, Yngwie. While I'm on anyway.....interested to see that at long last HMRC is having a go at apportioning the tax take into receipts from the constituent UK countries. Results for Scotland are pretty much the same as those used in compiling GERS..... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-info.pdf though no clarity as to whether the Scottish Geographical share of oil revenues going to Westminster includes that in the appropriated 6000 square miles. Maybe they'll have a go at doing the same with separating out what the constituent UK Countries actually receive from Westminster in return for their input outside Barnett formula pocket money and welfare benefits and pensions..and what disappears into the UK black pit of indebtedness.

It's a Twitter poll and you're right to laugh it off, Oddquine. The fact that 92% of twits are in favour of independence is not something the yes campaign should be quoting in their support. I agree.but to be fair I didn't get directed to it.I found it myself....surprising what a varied mix of words in Google will turn up. .Haven't noticed the "yes" campaign linking to it, but quite likely they have..maybe to counteract the pro-Unionist media bigging up the Aberdeenshire schools poll..which is something I have noticed! My point, tbh, after the gloating over the Aberdeenshire Schools poll on here by some people, was more to say that unrepresentative polls are unrepresentative polls.and mean sod all in the great scheme of things a year ahead of the referendum. I am hard pushed to believe any "official" polls for either side...having (only once) experienced on the street political polling in my hometown, which was biased to the extreme and manipulated to get the result which suited their agenda....and given the result of the 2011 Scottish election, which was only forecast by one single polling agency out of a plethora (the same agency which makes the result closer than the others do atm), I really don't understand why anybody sets such a store by polls....although the broadcasting of them all over the place is pretty much propaganda.....because nobody likes to be on the losing side..and given the impression that more are against than for(in this case)....a lot of people will go with what they perceive to be the flow.....which isn't helped by Project Fear which encourages the feart to go with what they know. No problem with those who are British first and Scottish second..but I genuinely don't understand .how, if 62% of Scots in 2011 Census claimed to be "Scottish Only" they are not now happy with the prospect of living in a country run by Scots for Scots. I remember the sig of an acquaintance on another forum, which she has had since 2008 to my knowledge,The Bluebell of Scotland is hanging her head, The Lion, once rampant, is lying like dead........and I will adopt it myself if we vote No. My current main sig all over the internet is where am I going and what am I doing in this hand basket....and If we vote No...the hand basket will have touched down in Hell.....for me.

And now the bad news for those who were hoping the Tories wouldn't respond to this referendum the way they did in 1979.....and give us something more useful than the Scotland Act 2012 http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/no-further-tax-powers-for-scotland-says-david-cameron-1-2084365 They must think we have had enough scaremongering.to keep the Union intact..........so now come the promises! And given everything Scotland is allowed to have has to get through the UK Parliament.....I can't see Labour doing any more.

Noticed this tonight........and thought, given the almost irrational thumbs-ups and "woohoos" from pro-Union supporters re any and every non-representative poll in existence.which supposrs their view of things......it was worth noting. Got to get a bit of fun into this current gobsmackingly boring, biased pro-union controlled media debate so .http://modernscotsman.com/vote-yes-or-no-7-day-random-poll-for-scottish-independence/. is my offer. 92% for yes...read it and weep CB and Yngwie! I'm on twitter, tbh...but have to say I didn't vote in it.....because, having spent as much time trying to reduce my tweets to 140 characters as I do to produce an essay on here(as in hours)......I have only ever made one tweet......so I am in it but not of it.....if you understand me. .and just stalk my grandchildren on it now!

Yeah..right!

One has to be very careful about how one interprets poll results. Maybe what this shows it that yes voters don't like Ed Byrne. I do like Ed Byrne so maybe I'll vote "no" then. Yep.......I do as well....so maybe I'll vote no as well........absolutely NOT!

To summarise the link, a poll in schools in Aberdeenshire has produced 8718 votes (75.4%) for NO and an embarrassing 2847 (24.6%) for yes. This isn't simply a case of this outcome just squeaking it. This is a massive NO majority - and using a very large satatistical sample compared with your average opinion poll. It is especially embarrassing for Salmond, coming as it does right in the back yard of the said MSP for Aberdeenshire East!! It is very interesting from one or two points of view. But principally, speaking here is the younger generation which current voters would leave holding the baby in later years in the event of a yes vote. This of course is also the generation which will become the decision makers and those responsible for running things when the oil starts to run out. You hear a load of selfrighteous nonsense from the separatists about "campaigning for the future of our children and grandchildren". Well it looks to me as if the said children and grandchildren are telling them - by a majority of more than three to one here - "Look we are quite happy as we are. Go away Alex and leave us alone!" Hopefully this should also be a strong message to possible yes voters not to try to impose a scenario which they clearly don't want on the generations which would have to live with its consequences. This poll also shows that Salmond's attempted flanker of enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds has backfired spectacularly! It seems to me that the SNP maybe thought/ hoped cynically that younger voters might not have the maturity to weigh up the arguments and come to an informed decision so might well base their decision on something less cerebral like watching Braveheart. This is another typical example of SNP "wish list politics". Because instead, recent polling seems to suggest that it is male voters from west central Scotland who are perhaps being influenced in this manner. Meanwhile the youth of Scotland have shown that they are not the soft touch the separatists expected, but instead are showing a commendable degree of judgement here and are telling the SNP not to mess with their future. Good bit of spin Charles but I dont think so considering less than half of those who voted would be eligible to vote in referendum. Would be interesting to see the breakdown of 16 and 17 year olds. If we are going to extrapolate votes on Independence undertaken a year ahead and with a very limited demography, to pretend they do anything other than make a pointless point .....I offer the vote taken on 17th September by NewsNight (which almost managed to produce an unbiased debate without too much interjection by the BBC "personality" chairing it). It took place on the Scottish Borders, with an "undecided" audience...and the result was 62% to 38% in favour of Independence. So using the rhetoric of the Nay-sayers on here......Brilliant! . Have to say a demography which consists of about half of those who voted being under voting age (if all S4, S5 and S6 pupils actually voted in every school). and no indication as to the make up of the vote re age/class groups, doesn't fill me with trepidation in the same way it fills CB and Fool Physio with elation! But then I suppose they do have to have some straw at which to clutch. I cringed when I read in an online " paper" of 11,000 pupils who will be eligible to vote in the referendum 9,000 intend to vote 'no'. given at least 5500 of the 11000 are in S1,S2 and S3.....so way too young...unless kept back a lot,... to be voting in 2014 at all. Bear in mind, too, they were the same schools (though I don't know if all of them were involved at that time) which voted for AV and narrowly voted for the SNP in a similar exercise in 2011. ..so not your typical voters.are they?. I rather think, if I had been presented with that conglomeration of lies, negativity and misrepresentation in the Ellon leaflet......before I had made my own mind up about anything regarding politics......which in my case was around what is now S5... I'd have voted "no"..which does rather illustrate why the Bitter Together camp are doing Project Fear rather than Project Hope...much easier to scare people into doing what you want, as illustrated by the crap produced in the run-up to the Iraq War..than offer hope when we already know that hope of anything different in the UK bar austerity and cuts is not on offer for the foreseeable future..whoever gets in.

Can't say I really disagree with any of that...however, imo, the UK Governments of whichever colour seem singularly incapable of producing a law, contract, charter or any other flaming thing without leaving enormous loopholes through which to drive a coach and horses. The one thing we have become better at in the UK over the years, which was when the BBC started to lose their impartiality and become more entwined in supporting Government brain farts, has been the ability, even the obsession, to interpret every letter of the badly written law and ignore the original intention of it. I'd hazard a guess that the Government, when it drew up the BBC charter, didn't mean that the only time it was obliged to be impartial was from the time an election/referendum had been called and at any other time, they were at liberty to hit the typewriters and just let their bellies rumble. The BBC Charter is as wooly as the likes of tax law which allows tax avoidance/evasion, Benefit law which allows punters to take the proverbial..and the rules which allowed the Banks to run riot. I'd have no problem with an SBC which was properly set up and made genuinely accountable for its actions or inactions.....otherwise...why should we pay for a state broadcaster at liberty, with no comeback, to lie to us?

Funnily enough...people who think the UK establishment is not working encompasses more than just Scotland.....but Scotland is best placed to do something about it for ourselves...........and if we do sensible and get out of the Union, it may encourage those outside the favoured bubble of London and the Home Counties to demand their own voice in their own lives....which can't be bad for democracy. I assume you have been either googling me to come up with the Celtic link.or checking out my posts on here..(is that sad or what in either case)......so if you don't already know I like every pro-independence facebook page,( including the ICT one) ,..and that doesn't make me Labour, English. a New Scot or any other damn thing but me......any other assumption says more about your attitude than it does about mine! I have made no secret on here of the fact that, over my 65 years of life, I have acquired a hierarchy of football teams with Celtic now coming behind ICT in my SPL favourites....because I have managed to grow up and change my affiliations to reflect my changing opinions. I have hierarchies of support in Highland League and English Premiership as well, which are not the same as when I was in school, surprisingly enough. Do you think the same about everything you were convinced about when you were fifteen? I kinda thought that with my last two lines in post #174...I was offering you an opportunity to defend your corner. It seems, going by your response to which I currently respond, you are unable to come up with any reason as to why an Independent Scotland should pay a licence fee to support a Government mouthpiece with journalists like you employed.

You actually raise another serious questionmark against separation there - which I am sure you will try also to categorise in your so called "Project Fear". But with less than 9% of the BBC's current licence fee revenue, I would be interested to see what kind of service a Scottish equivalent would be able to provide - even if it were to try to raise a few more quid by imposing lots of adverts on viewers of and listeners to... what? The BBC is actually an excellent example of one of the fundamental benefits of the Union - economies of scale. Just home.......never intended to recognise your existence until I had sobered up (had a bottle of red) and became less swearie inclined......but, imo, who gives a toss about a taxpayer paid Scottish equivalent of the Project Fear BBC supporters? Really? I think that an SBC would be the death of democracy in Scotland just as the BBC has been in the UK! Why would we be even wanting to pay for a state subsidised entity which is little more than a brainwashing mouthpiece for the state....whether that is for the UK state or the possible Scottish one.(and one which, in print produces worse grammar and spelling that I do pretty smashed.) Having spent a lot of time listening to BBC radio, perusing BBC online input ,BBC blogs, etc since independence was mooted.....few of which are open to comment in Scotland, btw....I'm not prepared to have the likes of you in a Scottish BC brainwashing my children/grand children etc in an independent Scotland as the media is currently doing UK Wide. Project Fear is not a new thing.......it is what all Governments have always used to combat possibilities they don't want..or alternatively to ramp up possibilities they are gagging to accomplish. Project Fear brought us Afghanistan and Iraq, Trident, the terrorism acts here and the Patriot acts in the US ..and to an extent, even the economic meltdown.because of the fear that we would be left behind profit-wise as the USA reduced financial controls of banks to let them rip the population from bahookey to breakfast time..so we followed suit. The current Project Fear version is in the "possibilities they don't want" stable...because they can't..and you know they can't come up with any real reason NOT to end the Union.....bar it will be really bad for the UK.or what will be left of it. So far as I am aware coming out of the Union would reduce the UK influence in the world...(hidden in the weasel words "no Scottish input in international entities"...as if there had ever been any in the past 300 or so years ), To me, Project Fear confirms the utter childishness of what will be left of the UK epitomised by their never-ending cry of "you're not going to be able to do that"...re currency, the EU, the UN, NATO, pensions, welfare, oil, etc.as if the UK/rUK was god.and lies and misrepresentation were facts. . Explain to me why we would WANT, in an Independent Scotland to pay tax, which is what the licence fee is, to set up a government mouthpiece to shaft the people who pay for it as is happening in the UK at the moment? So is that it? Is that what I've been waiting all weekend for in fear and trepidation? The latest monologue from Citizen McSmith! Erm.no...I will at some stage talk about your interpretation of the Aberdeenshire schools referendum as regarding its extrapolation into the young being against independence, which is what I said. My response above had nothing to do with that ...just that I got home had a browse in various fora, because I'd not had internet access since I left home and spotted your reference to the Scottish arm of the (Biased) British Broadcasting Corporation. Given you wrote that over the weekend after I left home....why fear and trepidation over that post? Btw...I am Scottish citizen Mc(another non-clan name very loosely connected to the MacGregors).........though I do have Smiths (sans the Mc) in my ancestry. I do realise you have a job to maintain within the "British" media establishment ......but have you NO response to my opinions which are a result of seeing the British establishment at work?