DoofersDad

That's it then. We're fecked.

Those complaining of BBC bias against the YES campaign should have a look at this report from yesterday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29162234 This appears to have slipped under the radar somewhat and I had to use the search function to find it. It is not a "non-issue" like Salmond's RBS leak nonsense but something which should be the focus of political debate today. As Johann Lamont said "The SNP lies about our NHS have been the most shameful piece of political campaigning I have ever seen. They have deliberately misled the Scottish public, and preyed on the fears of the most vulnerable people in our communities to bully them into voting for separation. "This expert, impartial report has exposed that what Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Neil and the rest of the nationalist campaign are saying about the NHS is completely untrue." The BBC report outlines the finding and then sandwiches Lamont's comments between those of Alex Neil and a Doctor on the "YES" side. Both of these individuals are quoted with the usual sound bites, comments which are comprehensively discredited by the IFS report. It would be perfectly reasonable journalism, indeed good journalism to quote Neil and Dr Wilson and then go on to report that those views are not supported by the report. Unfortunately the BBC do not have the courage or journalistic integrity to do that. The low profile given to this important independent report and the way the BBC have reported it plays firmly into the hands of the YES campaign and their strategy of diversionary tactics and misinformation.

It wasn't the first video I was looking to be defended, it was the BBC bias. Did you watch them both? Yes, I did watch them both but unless the second one is more that the 23 seconds I'm getting from the link, I'm really not sure what your point is. The first video is a lengthy piece which, correct me if I'm wrong, appears to come from a live press conference and was therefore broadcast without any possible editorial bias. If it wasn't live then clearly Salmond's interaction with Robinson was unedited. The second video is a brief news report. Clearly news reports have to be very selective about what they include and depending on the time slot allowed may or not be able to include clips from the politicians. What you have posted was a very brief clip in which he factually reported on there being an international press conference. He factually reported the fact that his question on trust was not answered and factually reported that Salmond had criticised some media reporting. It was all very down beat and innocuous. What else might Robinson have said? Well, for a start, he could quite reasonably have said that Salmond had implicated the BBC in the alleged leak but had reneged on his promise to ask Robinson to respond. He could, and in my view should have picked up on the fact that if, as Salmond implies, the move of RBS registration to London is nothing more than a technicality, why was he making such a big play on the gravity of leaking this "market sensitive" information. That was the newsworthy bit from the exchange and Robinson let Salmond of the hook. There was nothing else Salmond said that was worth reporting. It seems to me that the BBC is bending over backward not to be accused of bias by the YES campaign and as a result has lost objectivity and journalistic integrity as a result.

Clacher_holiday2 asks "can anyone defend this from a press conference" yesterday afternoon? Well, as I'm someone in the "No" camp, it's not for me to defend the First Minister but I would have thought that it showed him up to be highly manipulative, dishonest and untrustworthy. Salmond starts his lengthy response by saying he will respond to Robinson's questions first and then put a reverse question back to Robinson which, he says, he is sure Robinson will be pleased to answer. Despite making a serious allegation against the BBC in the course of his answer, he then repeatedly refuses to allow Robinson back in despite his earlier promise to do so. Salmond's insecurity on this issue is reflected by his casual dismissal of the "technicality" of the registration of headquarters issue and his apparent outrage of the leaking of apparently market sensitive details. Clearly if this "technicality" was worthy of such casual dismissal then news of it would have no impact on the markets at all. As it is, impact was pretty limited simply because everyone knew this was RBS's position in any case. It really is a non-issue. Robinson asked about the impact of the change and received a patronising lecture on corporation tax for his troubles. Salmond also read out a statement from RBS saying there were no plans to move jobs. But, this is not an election and it is not just about the next 5 years. This is a referendum which will shape Scotland's future for decades to come. As always, Salmond chose to ignore that. The relevance of the Banks' decisions (Lloyds as well) is that registering in London means that the Boards of those 2 massive financial organisations see it is in their interests not to be regarded as Scottish banks but as British Banks. You have to ask yourself why they would take that line. Of course the RBS has no plans to physically relocate anything - yet. After all, relocating HQ would be massively expensive and would be unlikely to be cost effective at this time. What you can be sure of is that if there is a "YES" vote, as a British registered bank RBS will increasingly focus development south of the border and that may well mean moving the HQ in due course. The RBS announcement is not a disaster for Scotland but however you look at it, it is not good news. It is also interesting that Salmond should get so pompously indignant about the alleged leak of information that we all knew about in any case. Clearly it was a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the issues that really matter. In relation to banking for instance, Salmond still refuses to say what his preferred currency option B will be, given that everyone except himself seems to know he can't have his option A. His antics were dutifully reported by the BBC whilst they largely ignored the lastest report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which clearly demonstrates that the NHS in Scotland is far safer within the union. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366 The report blows a lot of the "YES" campaign's arguments out of the water and the Guardian reports that Health Secretary Alex Neil does not dispute the figures. There is no doubting that Salmond is a very clever and astute politician. We have just a few days left for the people to finally clock that he also highly untrustworthy.

HT 0 - 1 FT 1 - 2 ICT Mckay PT Eccleston 1st Goal; 32mins

It's about time Roy Hodgson came calling.

Great news. Hope that encourages lots more more to come and watch the guys.

You mean it's true that the club has commissioned Charles to write another book?

It seems to me that too much of the YES campaign is based on this sort of wish list stuff. There seems to be a real reluctance to debate the facts. The facts here are that it would not be in the interests of the rUK to have a currency union with an Independent Scotland so why on earth would they agree to something they don't want, to make it more likely that something else they don't want is more likely to happen? Regarding NATO. In the event of a "YES" vote, I would imagine the rUK would want Scotland to be a member but not on the terms the SNP would appear to want. Salmond wants rid of Trident but wants to shelter under NATO's nuclear umbrella. I think rUK may say that's OK provided either Trident stays where it is and Scotland continues to pay its fair share, or Scotland pays for its re-location. The Green's position of no to Trident and not applying for NATO membership is a far more honorable position. Regarding the EU, I think the Unionist parties have made it quite clear that they would support an independent Scotland being in the EU but the issues are whether Scotland would automatically become a member or whether it would have to apply, and what the terms of membership would be. The irony of the SNP's eagerness to be part of the EU is that the call for independence is so that Scotland can have control of its own affairs. However, it is the extent of EU legislation impacting on the ability of the sovereign British Parliament to have control over it's own affairs which is the reason the right wing in the UK are calling for a referendum on the UK's membership. As it is, all these major issues remain unresolved and we are asked to go to the polls next week to make the most important decision any of us have ever made in the absence of key information required to make a responsible decision. I have a lot of sympathy for the concept of independence but I cannot vote for it when key information is denied to us and when the facts we do know suggest that independence is likely to have serious financial implications for our country.

That's your view, and I suspect you may well be right, but it's not what Salmond says. "Three Plan B's!", he proudly proclaimed. And one of them is sterlingisation, or didn't you notice? We all know that "3 plan Bs" means "no plan B". The problem is what his plan A is. It's all a bit like someone saying they're going to vote for Devo-max and ignoring everyone telling them that it's not an option on the ballot paper. Then when they turn up at the polling station next week and discover that it's actually not an option, they won't have a clue what to do. In the unlikely event of a "YES" victory, you think it will be sterlingisation, I think it will be sterlingisation but Alex Salmond insists it will be a currency union. He should be proclaiming the opportunity to create a separate Scottish currency as any proud newly independent country would do. The fact that he isn't should make anyone thinking of voting "YES" think long and hard about the choice they make next Thursday.

Just been catching up on some of the other posts over the last couple of days. There really is some desperate nonsense coming from the "YES" campaign. I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to most of it, but one particular rant by George Monbiot in a link posted by Dougiedanger does deserve comment. Monbiot is somebody who makes his money by being controversial and is not somebody anyone should take too seriously. In this latest rant he talks about the Scots voting for hope over despair. The impression is that the Scots are a deeply impoverished nation cowed by the overbearing rule of its big neighbour. A "YES" vote will free the Scots from the chains of oppression and offer hope of a release from the current despair. I paraphrase but that is the general sense of what he says. It is complete nonsense. So how do people in Scotland actually feel about their lot? Rather than take the word of an Englishman who lives in Wales, why don't we ask the Scottish people? That is exactly what the Government does through the Office for National Statistics in their programme for measuring national well-being. This has been started by the current Government and asks four simple questions of a huge random sample of 165,000 people from within the UK. The 2012/13 report can be found at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_328486.pdf. The survey asks people to rate their feelings on 4 aspects on a scale of 0 to 10. These 4 issues are how satisfied folk are with their life, how worthwhile people feel what they do in life is, how happy they are and how anxious they are. What the survey shows (during a period of austerity measures I might add!) is that people throughout the UK are remarkably happy and satisfied with their lot. Asked the question "overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?" only 5.5% of people living in Scotland said they were unsatisfied (assuming that scoring 0 - 4 is unsatisfied, 5 is neither satisfied or unsatisfied and 6 -10 is satisfied). The corresponding figure for England was 5.8%. This is hard data that tells us that in general we think life is good. In fact, the results are quite extraordinary when you consider the number of people who are unemployed, who have significant illnesses and disabilities and who have relationship problems. It is a stark illustration of just how well families, society and the state look after people who have challenges in their lives. It gives the lie to the idea that the Scots are a down trodden people who need a radical political change to give them hope for a better life. You can vote "YES" for hope if you want, but it will a hope that by some miracle the economy doesn't go pear shaped. Or you can vote "NO". No to gambling away our prosperity and sense of wellbeing. We truly are "better together" and the evidence is there to prove it.

You make a good point about the fact that neighbouring independent countries have their own currency, but of course, the real issue here is why are the SNP not proposing that Scotland has a currency of its own and why are they so hell bent on insisting that there will be a currency union even though all the Unionist parties have said that will not happen? It is worth bearing in mind that the Unionist parties could simply have said that they are not commenting because they will not be negotiating until such time as Scotland has voted for independence. The fact that they have been up front about this is simply because it is not up for negotiation. The UK does not have a currency union with other countries and there is absolutely no reason why they should make an exception in Scotland's case - in fact, there is every reason why they should not. The reason the SNP are desperate for a currency union is because they know their economic plans are fundamentally flawed. The strategy for paying for all these plans for a land of milk and honey the SNP has bribed the voters with is firstly to borrow massively, secondly to rely on a level of oil related tax revenue which assumes top end estimates of productivity and oil prices, and thirdly to attract high levels of net immigration of workers into a re-energised economy who in turn will contribute large tax revenues. It won't work and the SNP know it. Had they confidence in their plan they would grasp at the opportunity for Scotland to have it's own currency and would promote the idea as a tangible sign of a proud and truly independent nation. Instead of this confident assertiveness of the strength of an independent Scotland's economy, Salmond lamely says that the unionist parties are bluffing! It is utterly pathetic. The SNP are reliant on a currency union so that the Bank of England can bail Scotland out when the oil revenues turn out to be well short of the SNP's hopes, when all the hoped for new jobs don't materialise and when Scotland needs to start paying back the massive sums it intends to borrow. There is of course one way of ensuring a currency union and one way only. That is by maintaining the political union and voting "N0".

What's more, the happy couple have promised to call the baby Alex if there is a NO vote!

On TV yesterday there was a SNP MSP stating that the fall in the pound was more likely a response to the news that the Americans may bomb the IS terrorists in Syria! The YES campaign's responses to anything related to the economic case are simply bizarre as we get closer to polling day. Oddquine's response to the news about the proposed devolution of tax raising powers is "we'll have new powers to increase taxes on our own people, sending even more families into poverty, increasing the need for food banks"! So I take it the plan is to use the new powers to tax the poor, then?

Ayeseetee, you appear to have completely ignored my previous post on this subject. This cartoon is typical of lengths the YES campaign go to completely ignore the facts to produce misleading propaganda. All three main parties in the UK Parliament support Britain being in Europe as did the British people in a referendum. These three parties not only think Britain is better as part of the EU, they also think Scotland is better as part of the British Union. That is an entirely consistent position. However, the YES campaign (or at least the SNP) are fiercely opposed to Union with the UK but are keen to be part of the European Union. That is an inconsistent position. In addition, whilst there is some pressure in the UK for a referendum on Europe, this is coming from the Tory right wing and UKIP who cite the same reasons as the "YES" campaign do for leaving the UK. But at least they are consistent as they couldn't care less if Scotland left the UK. It is just the SNP who are inconsistent here.

No I mean the possible 2015 uk eu referendum the one that could see scotland forcefully exititng the eu with the rest of the uk? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/21/eu-referendum-majority-leave-opinium-observer-poll To be honest, I don't know. It is only speculation at the moment and I have not given any real thought to it. I guess my gut feeling is that I would rather be part of the EU but my approach would be rather like with next weeks referendum. My gut feeling 2 years ago was that I would rather Scotland stay in the Union but that I was open to persuasion that Scotland would be better off being Independent. In the event, I have been strongly persuaded that Scotland will be better off in the Union. Unlike with this referendum, I hope that if there is a "No" vote and we remain in the UK, any referendum on EU membership follows some level of negotiation of terms beforehand so that we have a clear picture of what we are voting for. Of course, if there is a "Yes" vote and Scotland gets admitted to the EU I would hope there would be a referendum on that too. After all, it seems that a key point for the YES campaign is that the Scots want to be in charge of their own destiny, but if Scotland is in the EU there will be an increasing number of things which the Scottish people have little say over. We certainly won't get the European Parliament we vote for. Ironically, whilst you and others try to link UKIP with the Better Together campaign, it is UKIP and the Tory right who are keen to leave the UK for precisely the same reasons the "YES" campaign want Scotland to leave the UK. As for my right wing credentials? Well, I admit to having voted for the Lib Dems but never anything more right wing than that.

I take it you mean the YES / NO referendum on 18th September when we will be asked to vote for an Independent Scotland without knowing whether or not an independent Scotland will be in the EU or not, and if it is, under what terms. I will be voting "NO" because I think that when we vote on matters of this importance we should know what we are voting for.

for any unionists the orange order march is on the 13th a nigel farage visit on the 14th Keep your diaries clear! What possible relevance would the odious orange order or Farrage have for supporters of the Union who have the best interests of Scotland at heart are trying to have a sensible debate on the issues that matter? I do of course appreciate that these absurd references are merely a diversion to draw us away from the fact that the case for independence doesn't stack up on an economic basis. But it is perhaps significant that you happen to know the dates of these visits? Planning on joining one - or both?

So an increase in funding equates to cuts in your book then.

Yes, you did. There is the world of difference between cuts in service and cuts in funding. I have given you a link to an official government website that explicitly states that total funding for the NHS in England has increased in real terms this last year. Commisioning bodies who have the responsibility for spending that money have to make decisions on where that money will go. A common theme is that some services are merged, typically where two old and inefficient hospitals are closed and replaced by a single and better equiped hospital. Frequently local campaigns fight for the old hospital local to them to stay open and the closure is portrayed in the media as a "cut" when the reality is that a better and more efficient facility is being provided, often with resource being released for other priorities. There will also be cases when some service is actually reduced to some extent to allow resource to be directed to a higher priority area which has been inappropriately underfunded before or where significantly better but more expensive treatments have emerged. No matter how massively funding increases, there will always be some reallocation of funding which will be perceived as "cuts" by some. Fact is that public spending on the NHS in England has increased year on year under the current Government. Is your priority what is best for Scotland or to have an independent Scotland at any cost? If it is what is best for Scotland, can we please have a debate based on the facts?

I see little point about complaining about the UK debt when despite basing their economic case on top end oil revenue projections the SNP still see the need to borrow massively in the first few years of independence when the UK debt is likely to be reducing.

But he's not the one who's lying on this issue. The Tory Government has actually increased public spending on the NHS in England in line with the pledges they have given. http://www.england.nhs.uk/allocations-2013-14/

Devo-Max is a red herring here because the question being asked is whether or not we want independence. Once Independence is rejected, then you can discuss whether more devolution is desirable. The better together campaign and the Westminster based parties are shooting themselves in the foot getting sidetracked on this when they should be focussing attention on attacking the case being made for Independence. There are two things fundementally wrong with the approach they are taking. Firstly, if the response is simply to offer more and more by way of devolution of powers, it is not unreasonable for the voter to say "well, if you want to hand over more and more powers, why don't you go the whole hog and gives us independence? If giving us all these addition powers is good, why is independence not good?" Secondly, by offering the voters a sweetener to remain in the union, there is an implication they accept that when Salmond promises a land of milk and honey, he actually has got milk and honey to offer. What they should be saying is that it is not a jar of honey that Salmond is holding, it is a jar of vaseline which he will be using liberally to shaft the voters if we make the mistake of voting "YES". The Scottish leaders of the Unionist parties are no better. Johann Lamont, Willie Rennie and Ruth Davidson make strange bedfellows. They seem to have no idea of who should do what with whom and to date their fumbling around has done little to get anyone excited. With just a few days to go before the poll and with many already having voted by post, we still do not have answers to basic questions and we are being asked to believe in an economic case which is fundamentally flawed. The fact of the matter is that first and foremost, the leadership of the YES campaign want an independent Scotland for better or worse. What is in the best interests of Scotland is a secondary consideration to the fact that Scotland should be independent. In order to get enough people to vote for indepence the YES campaign are offering the electorate a vision which sounds great but which is not affordable. The undecided and even some who would normally vote "NO" have fallen for the con. Hopefully the Better Together leadership can refocus on the issues that matter before Scotland's economy is plunged into crisis.

Now watch the offers to do something for us so they can hold onto the oil tax revenues, the Scottish export figures and the Trident parking space come thick and fast! Wonder who will be first to tender! But I hope everyone bears in mind, offers/promises from Westminster are always as little as they can get off with, or are ignored completely when they get their way, as in 1979.........and once we vote NO...we will be perceived to have acquiesced to everything they do to us in future. After all, haven't they had two years, at least, to come up with something useful, having decided to forbid the Devo-max option in the referendum.....but true to form, they offer sops, then, as in 1979, at the last minutes, weigh in with a promise they will do something AFTER we vote NO......having proven with regular monotony in the past, that we can't trust a Westminster politician as far as we can throw them. If they are so desperate to keep us, it is because it is to their benefit, not ours...and you all know that. According to the rules, any new offers have to be made 28 days before poll. Since some folk have already voted (postal), it would surely invalidate their vote. Apparently Darling has commented on the poll saying it is a "wake up call"! It rather reinforces what Yngwie and I were saying above about the ineptness of the "Better Together" leadership. Has he only just realised that the polls do not show 65/35 in favour of the Union?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mps-10-payrise-says-commons-4177390 If that doesn't make you vote yes nothing will **** up the UK then ask for a pay rise the cheek They'll be able to afford it if the Scottish MPs b*gger off North of the Border. Steady, true colors showing there. Forgot to put the smiley on but let me explain. My remark was simply based on the supposition that if there is a YES vote, then come independence, MPs representing Scottish consituencies will no longer be able to sit in the Westmisnster Parliament (which is South of the border) and therefore they will "b*gger off North of the Border". They will no longer receive their salaries and the joke was that this money divided up amongst the remaining MPs will broadly pay for the 10% rise. I know jokes are best never explained - but it was a joke!