clacher_holiday2

The pull of the EPL is hitting clubs in all countries, including England and Scotland.  The closest league side to me is Plymouth Argyle and I have never once seen a kid in an Argyle shirt, its all Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal.  In Scotland, traditionally it was Celtic and Rangers who would suck up all the support from the towns around the country but moving forward they will suffer from it aswell, their perceived 'big club' status doesnt hold up today with people of all ages having instant access not just to the games but to fans of other clubs via social media.  Historically people would only ever interact with other football fans at work or in the pub, it made sense to support the Old Firm with their universal printed media coverage or your local side who you will have greater access to.  3 years ago when we last had an Old Firm derby, there were bugger all armchair fans out in the pubs for it, yet when Manchester United play Arsenal or any other SUPERSUNDAY event takes place, theyre packed out.

The printed medium is dead to an entire generation, in favour of a globalised news network and communications, where finding something to talk about or somebody to wind up over a football game is just a button click away.  You can watch any top level game at home for free and talk about it online, nowadays you can go to any pub and find folk to talk football with, in my eyes these people are supporting a TV program rather than a sport but it has proved to be the peoples choice.

It wouldnt shock me to see more football shirts for EPL clubs sold in kids sizes around Scotland than all Scottish clubs, its the same globalisation people accept happily when they talk about their favourite music, tv or films.  Nobody expects people to only listen to Scottish bands, irrespective of their quality but purely because they are Scottish, so why should we be expected to bother with Scottish football just because its local?

This has been a running thing for me for 4 years now but the only hope for Scottish Football is Summer football pretty much immediatley, we need to be playing the 3 months a year without the English Premier League on TV and we have to start now before we turn into the Irish league.  There is no way for us to compete with the billions in marketting the EPL as a brand offers, so we need to re-align ourselves to the best 2nd tier position possible, which to me is summer football.

 

So come on Charles, any ideas on using the political process to affect change for the 65million of us?

 

An independence referendum for Glasgow and Dundee?

 

Given that I am a member of the 55% majority who appear to be of the view that much of it ain't particularly broke etc etc and don't really share that radical socialist zeal for constant revolutionary change, my main priority would be for the Labour Party in particular to get its act in gear and provide a credible challenge to the Posh Boys who currently comprise the administration.

But unfortunately, having abandoned its traditional political ground and elected a leader who both looks and sounds like Mr Bean, ther Labour Party does have some way to go.

 

From all that and whatever else I have read on here to date, you have no strong political convictions in any direction besides engaging in a seething rage against the SNP. 

You didnt even mention anything you've already complained about from the current SNP administration in Scotland that you would like to see change, such as decentralising the Police and other services. 

Assuming that the 55% are indeed quite happy for things to carry on as they have been, how many of the 55% majority do you think are aware of the true state of the UK economy, which is at the point where we are paying 13billion a year more in interest payemnts than we are on the entire military, with nothing going into repayments?

As things stand today in 2014, state pensions and public sector pensions are currently funded on a 'borrow-as-you-go' basis, do you think the 55% are even bothered?

One ripple effect from the debates coverage nationally that I wasnt expecting was the issue of elderly care in England, where people locally have started to question why they were so happy about having a spending cap of £70,000+ for services provided in Scotland for free, so that could lead to a benefit here if the old dears stay alive long enough to affect change.  It'll come with a price but then people here were also unaware that more tax is raised per head in Scotland, which has tempered a lot of the 'you are all addicted to benefits' line I heard in the early days of the referendum debate.

So come on Charles, any ideas on using the political process to affect change for the 65million of us?

No doubt a star of you intellect has the vision to save us all, you can peer deep into the future of an independent Scotland, so what awaits us in an independent UK?

So far all I've seen is you creating an anglophobic/xenophobe enemy to rally against, then bizarrely following through with attacking the SNP/YES people that only exist in your head, heres your chance to shut me up with some constructive ideas for us to unite behind to improve the entire island...

 

the SNP would just rather have the money spent on social services than faster trains around London and faster missiles to fire at nobody. 

 

 

Interestingly enough Robert Peston has just filed a report about the Barnett Formula on the BBC (cue the usual suspects shouting "bias") which shows that per capita spending on railways is actually 72% higher in Scotland than in England. So, it seems, yet another unsubstantiated Nationalist assertion, made to try to provoke dissent and grievance, bites the dust.

On the subject of the Barnett Formula, this referendum has of course now drawn Scotland's considerably higher level of public funding within the Union to the attention of the entire UK and many outwith Scotland will now, understandably, begin to question this.

But I am quite sure that the SNP would be delighted if the Barnett Formula were to be questioned and even more delighted if it a were to be scrapped, leading to lower levels of public spending for the Scottish people. Because this would give them yet another opportunity to sow grievance, division and ill feeling (*) among the Scottish people who in reality count for damn all to the SNP compared with their sole obsession of separation to which everybody and everything else is subsidiary.

 

(*) - remember the good old days when Scotland was actually quite a happy place to live in? I mean the days before the Nats set about their mission to create as much misery and discontent as they possibly could in order to sway the disaffected over to their cause.

Now, after seven years of Nationalist control of Holyrood, Scottish society distinctly oozes with grievance and resentment as the SNP misery machine proceeds on its distinctly unmerry way. You just have to take one look at them to see what a uniformly humourless bunch they are - which is probably why so many of them end up getting married to each other.

Given that the spreading of misery and discontent is such a cornerstone of SNP strategy, That Ghastly Woman must indeed be the overwhelming candidate to become the next SNP leader since she is the possessor of by far the most miserable and discontented looking gob in Scotttish politics. (Mind you, the recent performance of Councillor Liz MacDonald of Nairn may mean that Nippy Sweetie Nicola has competition ere long!)

 

Didnt you read my message about your bitter and twisted slant on all things politics, created entirely from your parochial outlook that has no basis in reality, renders you irrelevant in any sort of political debate?

Leaving your consistent teeth grinding at the SNP aside for once, how do you proopose the UK government sets about improving the economy and lives of the 65 million, rather than the 5 million, as was the leading message of the No campaign?  At the moment we spend £52billion a year on national debt interest payments, which currently sits at 89% of GDP, as a comparison we spend £39billion on defence and £110billion on the NHS.

For all the bluster about the SNP's proposed borrwing plans, at the UK level we have borrowed a further £57billion to cover budget gaps this year, rising up to £127billion by 2017.

Under these conditions, what would you do to help everyone in the UK?  Or are you just thinking politics as an excuse to sneer at those flag waving lefty sorts cluttering up the high street?

 

 

 

 

 

To suggest that people had to be tricked into voting for the SNP/Yes on the back of false promises of more money is no different to the proportion of No voters who had to be scared into voting to remain in the Union, without realising the dangers that lay ahead if doing so.

 

 

 

I actually think it is fundamentally different.  Let's not forget there were scare tactics on both sides, with the YES campaign scare stories on the NHS being described by Johann Lamont as the most shameful bit of electioneering she has ever come across.  And of course one person's scare story is another person's identifying the risks of one course of action.

 

What the SNP were doing with what I have called "bribes " was quite different.  The White Paper on the independence referendum "Scotland's future" goes way beyond a paper detailing the process and certain consequences and, indeed the case for independence.  What it provided was a manifesto for the 2016 election detailing what measures the SNP proposed to implement in an independent Scotland.  It then heavily promoted those policies to those who would benefit most.

 

The problem here is that it was a one horse race.  No other major party could say what policies they would propose if there was an independent Scotland because they were all opposed to independence.  To put forward policies in the event of an independent Scotland would only serve to encourage people to vote YES if they liked the policies.  All that the other parties could say is that the policies were not affordable; to which the SNP's response was that they would borrow to fund the policies.  This gave the SNP free reign to stick in anything which they thought might be popular.  As Charles says. it didn't matter whether the policies were affordable or not, by the time these bought votes resulted in Independence an irrevocable change would have been made.  The SNP would then either renege on their promises or plunge the nation into debt.  Either way, they wouldn't be caring because we would be an independent country and that was the goal all along.

 

I don't blame the SNP for this.  There were no rules of engagement, as it were, to stop turning the referendum into an election. The loophole was there and they exploited it for all they were worth.  As with so much, the blame lies with Better Together and the Unionist leaders for letting them get away with this.  This tactic of the SNP was obvious from the start - after all, they turned a Government White Paper into a party manifesto!  Labour should have responded in kind.  They will have seen the White Paper / manifesto and could have issued a preliminary manifesto for the 2015 election and argued firstly that what the SNP were promising was not affordable in an independent Scotland, and secondly that a UK Labour Government would be able improve on much that is currently a problem - and do it before the SNP could in an independent Scotland.  Perhaps they felt such tactics were not consistent with the togetherness approach.  Whatever the reason, they let the SNP electioneer virtually unchallenged and focused instead on the issues which should have been what the referendum was all about but which was of little interest to some of the most vulnerable in our society who were being offered something tangible by the SNP.

 

 

The SNP really shouldve carried this election at a canter by promoting the potential of all governments under an independent Scotland.

 

A critique of their White Paper as an unaffordable manifesto, is only fair when the other parties bring out their own in the run up to next May, I suspect none of them will be going in with a balanced budget, given how utterly decimated our economy is. 

 

The money ran out years ago, the numbers on the balance have a minus symbol at the start of them.  Don't kid yourself into thinking we're a rich country when it's all been paid for with credit cards, we have very little of tangible value to offer the world, every party will be running a government off debt.

 

 

Your last paragraph is why Westminster was so desperate to have a NO vote . According to the Grauniad.....

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/sep/19/uk-plc-breathes-sigh-relief-scotland-no-vote

 

The final issue is that the referendum has highlighted some of the weaknesses in the UK economy – in particular the importance of the North Sea oil in disguising the weakness of the balance of payments caused by the decline of manufacturing. Without oil and gas, the UK would be running a current account deficit of 7% of GDP. Even with the help of the North Sea, the gap stands at 4.5%, extremely high for a country in the early stages of an economic recovery.

The prospect of an independent Scotland taking control of 90% of North Sea reserves would undoubtedly have sent sterling into a tailspin. Even though that threat has now been removed, the size of Britain’s trade gap means the upward movement in the pound is limited. Sterling is vulnerable to bad news – be it a slowdown in growth, problems in the eurozone or a widening current account deficit. Once the dust has settled, it is likely to fall back.”

 

The Guardian must be Anglophobic aswell.

 

 

 

If you really believe that and are "in absolutley no doubt" then you are an irrelevance in this debate, as you have learned nothing in the past 50 years.

 

 

 

If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. I said I was in "absolutely no doubt".

 

I do, however, find it interesting that, in common with many of your political persuasion, you regard those expressing views contrary to your own as "an irrelevance".

However I feel I really must bow to the vast experience of these things which you have clearly picked up in much less than 50 years and without even having lived on this side of the border for much of the time.

 

Just 28 years in Scotland.  Are you saying if I spent more time in Inverness I might understand why you think all SNP supporters hate the English?

Its not having a differing point of view that makes you irrelevent, theres lots of valid reasons why being in the union benefits people living in Scotland, theres also lots of valid reasons the Yes campaign were misguided.  It's your conditioned fallback of imposing prehistoric Anglophobic views on those who would oppose you or your Union, so you can dismiss them out of hand, that makes you irrelevent.

 

'Central Belt' as you have used it is a relic of the old world, Us v Them down south,

 

the anti-English guff is decades out of date and played no role in the campaign, regardless of how your bitter-tinted specs may have read between the lines.  Again, its a relic of the old-Highland mentality, chip on the shoulder stuff you no doubt style yourself as being above, to even pressume anti-Englishness is still an issue to snipe against.

 

I fully understand that you would wish to project Scotland as being rather more unified than it really is, but the stark truth is that central belt prejudice against the Highlands remains alive and well.

And I am also in absolutely no doubt that a large chunk of the Nationalist persuasion are simply the same old Anglophobes as they ever were - it's just that, in the interests of electability, Party HQ has of late declared a ban on expressing it.

 

If you really believe that and are "in absolutley no doubt" then you are an irrelevance in this debate, as you have learned nothing in the past 50 years.

The real divisions between people are economic and social, not geographic or racial, most of us will have more in common with working class Mexicans, Iraqi's, Russians, Englishmen or Sudanese than we ever have with white, Invernessian or Scottish millionaires that live a mile down the street from us.

Globalisation started hundreds of years ago, skip centuaries of economic and technical development until it finally trickled down to the human level around 2002 with cheap home broadband, boundaries were further broken down by 2006 when using the internet on your phone became viable.  Come forward to a referendum in 2014, collectively we've had years of instant access to new information sources and have been enlightened to so many alternative outlooks that your old parochial outlook on life has been exposed as nothing but a fabrication, its petty to pressume people today still hold the values of the past.

But then thats the point isnt it?  If you can super impose a discriminatory opinon upon an entire group of people, then you are justified yourself in never having to take them seriously.  They have no place questioning you, you can laugh off any point they come accross no matter how legitimate it is, as they are mere "Anglophobes".

I would never claim there are were no anti-English sentiments amongst some of the dinosaurs in the Yes campaign but like you, they are in the minority.

The irony is that you talk about the 'Central Belt' in the manner you probably think us SNP supporters talk about the English, I live in the South of England and from experience can see there are rich, poor, stupid, smart, racist, violent, funny etc English people here, aswell as lots of other nationalities, much like Inverness and the Central Belt you're so affraid of.

 

 

 

To suggest that people had to be tricked into voting for the SNP/Yes on the back of false promises of more money is no different to the proportion of No voters who had to be scared into voting to remain in the Union, without realising the dangers that lay ahead if doing so.

 

 

 

I actually think it is fundamentally different.  Let's not forget there were scare tactics on both sides, with the YES campaign scare stories on the NHS being described by Johann Lamont as the most shameful bit of electioneering she has ever come across.  And of course one person's scare story is another person's identifying the risks of one course of action.

 

What the SNP were doing with what I have called "bribes " was quite different.  The White Paper on the independence referendum "Scotland's future" goes way beyond a paper detailing the process and certain consequences and, indeed the case for independence.  What it provided was a manifesto for the 2016 election detailing what measures the SNP proposed to implement in an independent Scotland.  It then heavily promoted those policies to those who would benefit most.

 

The problem here is that it was a one horse race.  No other major party could say what policies they would propose if there was an independent Scotland because they were all opposed to independence.  To put forward policies in the event of an independent Scotland would only serve to encourage people to vote YES if they liked the policies.  All that the other parties could say is that the policies were not affordable; to which the SNP's response was that they would borrow to fund the policies.  This gave the SNP free reign to stick in anything which they thought might be popular.  As Charles says. it didn't matter whether the policies were affordable or not, by the time these bought votes resulted in Independence an irrevocable change would have been made.  The SNP would then either renege on their promises or plunge the nation into debt.  Either way, they wouldn't be caring because we would be an independent country and that was the goal all along.

 

I don't blame the SNP for this.  There were no rules of engagement, as it were, to stop turning the referendum into an election. The loophole was there and they exploited it for all they were worth.  As with so much, the blame lies with Better Together and the Unionist leaders for letting them get away with this.  This tactic of the SNP was obvious from the start - after all, they turned a Government White Paper into a party manifesto!  Labour should have responded in kind.  They will have seen the White Paper / manifesto and could have issued a preliminary manifesto for the 2015 election and argued firstly that what the SNP were promising was not affordable in an independent Scotland, and secondly that a UK Labour Government would be able improve on much that is currently a problem - and do it before the SNP could in an independent Scotland.  Perhaps they felt such tactics were not consistent with the togetherness approach.  Whatever the reason, they let the SNP electioneer virtually unchallenged and focused instead on the issues which should have been what the referendum was all about but which was of little interest to some of the most vulnerable in our society who were being offered something tangible by the SNP.

 

The SNP really shouldve carried this election at a canter by promoting the potential of all governments under an independent Scotland.

A critique of their White Paper as an unaffordable manifesto, is only fair when the other parties bring out their own in the run up to next May, I suspect none of them will be going in with a balanced budget, given how utterly decimated our economy is. 

The money ran out years ago, the numbers on the balance have a minus symbol at the start of them.  Don't kid yourself into thinking we're a rich country when it's all been paid for with credit cards, we have very little of tangible value to offer the world, every party will be running a government off debt.

 

I would prefer the analogy that it might be better to have had the money spent on the A9 years ago rather than on a second Forth crossing or on the Edinburgh trams. For the SNP to blame "Westminster" (or is it OK just to call them "the English" again now the vote is past?) is a bit rich when the SNP centralises power on itself and on Edinburgh and continues the practice of marginalising the Highlands in which central Scotland has indulged for centuries.

 

* They have centralised control of the police who also now adopt "one (central belt) size fits all" policies such as the routine carryng of guns.

I know you see yourself as a cynic and intellectual, you probably introduce yourself as a journalist, in your own eyes the voice of reason. 

However its snippets like the above that bring your true nature to the fore, you're short sighted and stubborn, you're as much of a cosmopolitan liberal thinker as I am a black man.

This 'central belt' you speak of includes many hundreds of thousands of people more affluent than your middle class Highlander's, with many more peaceful and safe areas than Inverness, with even less need for armed police on the streets.  'Central Belt' as you have used it is a relic of the old world, Us v Them down south, using Central Belt to describe poor and dangerous areas where arming police isnt as terrible an idea as you would first assume.

You then let slip again- "or is it OK just to call them "the English" again now the vote is past?", projecting your own out-of-touch outlook on the SNP and Yes campaigners.  You should read Irvine Welsh's article I posted earlier on the phases Scottish society has gone through leading us to the point 45% of the population don't want to be in the Union, the anti-English guff is decades out of date and played no role in the campaign, regardless of how your bitter-tinted specs may have read between the lines.  Again, its a relic of the old-Highland mentality, chip on the shoulder stuff you no doubt style yourself as being above, to even pressume anti-Englishness is still an issue to snipe against.

Sadly I suspect you are set in your ways and will dismiss any knock on your perceptions as coming from somebody unworthy of your time, the sort of person who could be conned into thinking Scottish self determination might not be a bad idea.

The truth is that I am somebody who grew up in the Highlands just long enough to see the generational decline of the small mindedness you've displayed already.  I had access to news, communication and travel globally during my formative years, before the ingrained Heelin chip on the shoulder could be formed and can spot a dinosaur a mile away.

You will prove to be on the wrong side of history on this issue CB, the UK is finished globally and will start to tear itself apart starting at the general election next May, Scotland will suffer in the short term like the rest of the island but will ultimatley come out smelling of roses once we stand up for ourselves.

Well for starters....

 

* They have centralised control of the police who also now adopt "one (central belt) size fits all" policies such as the routine carryng of guns.

* They will not save nearly as much cash through this policy as they claim.

* They have also removed the Fire Service from local control.

* They have imposed a Council Tax freeze which reduces the capacity of local councils to implement the wishes of their local electorates.

* They have, whilst implementing all the above centralisation, set themselves up as paragons of the devolution of power.

* They have made a total pig's ear of implementing their flagship Curriculum For Excellence policy in education.

* They have failed to provide the women of Scotland with the childcare provision over which they have devolved power.

* They have allowed public services to struggle by failing to use the tax varying powers afforded them by the devoluiton settlement of 1999 and instead blamed "Westminster". Now, not even having used powers already granted, they are screaming for more.

* They have allowed their justice system to get into total disarray with issues like the corroboration question still in the air.

* They have completely sidelined the day to day needs of the Scottish people whilst preoccupied for the last three years with their now failed vanity project.

 

Has crime increased since the police were reorganised?  Has there been a sudden surge in crime or a delay in the response to criminal activity that never happened before the centralisation?

Has Scotland seen more people burn to death sicne the Fire Service was centralised?  Do you feel more vulnerable?

Do you think the 'local electorate' would vote for or against an increase in Council Tax, on the promise of more being done locally with the money?  I wouldnt be against individual councils have the power to offer it to people as part of council elections.

Childcare and Education I've no idea about but from doing a bit of research, the childcare issue is moving in the right direction even now, using the devolved power.

The tax varying powers are tax increasing powers, their argument with Westminister is that the money to pay for the extra services is already there, the SNP would just rather have the money spent on social services than faster trains around London and faster missiles to fire at nobody. 

The corroboration issue had SNP opponents aswell as advocates, as you say the question is still up in the air, disarray is exaggerated spin that could be used to describe any change in the law.  You could say the changes to Double Jeopardy sent the justice system into 'disarray' aswell, yet its hard to argue against the motives behind abolishing it.

Can you highlight any good they have done since taking over Holyrood or is it just a consistent seethe?

Doofers Dad is absolutely 100% correct here. All the SNP/Yes were interested in from the start was getting people's crosses in their box and they were never all that fussed about how they did it.

One of the main things they benefited from was complete ineptitude on the part of the Labour Party from the mid 90s right through until the polls closed last Thursday.

* In the mid 90s, Labour abandoned their Socialist principles in order to make themselves electable and hence created a political vacuum which the SNP instantly filled with various promises to the "have nots". In the run up to the referendum they knew, if successful, these would only be exposed as completely vacuous AFTER an irreversible decision had been made.

* By creating the Scottish Parliament in 1999, far from "killing Nationalism stone dead" (as George Robertson claimed would be the case) they instead obligingly provided the SNP with a soapbox.

* One of their own - Wendy Alexander - advised back in 2008 that they should "bring it (a referendum) on" at a time when there would have been an overwhelming NO vote. They failed to grasp that opportunity and rejected Wendy's proposal.

* They then proceeded to run such an inept 2011 Scottish "Sandwich Shop" election campaign that there materialised an SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament even although only 22% of the electorate voted SNP.

* And finally, with the complacency which has always been the hallmark of the Labour party in Scotland, they ran such a poor NO campaign that they couldn't even hold on to a significant slice of their "own" supporters.

 

But to return to DD's accurate appraisal, much of the Yes vote didn't actually come from people who support separation. Many voted Yes because they were promised more cash in their pockets after Yes were allowed to take over the Socialist agenda. As a result, much of the Yes vote was a consequence of Socialist - Capitalist considerations and not motivated by any fundamental support for separation.

There is also a further consideration which I fully acknowledge may offend some, but is a fundamental, albeit unfortunate truth. The experience of 37 years in the classroom told me long since that, regrattably, perhaps around a third of the population are simply not capable of understanding the issues of the debate. I would also suggest that a disproportionate slice of these people were seduced by self interest and instead responded to simplistic bribes from the SNP and voted Yes.

Ironic isn't it that the SNP have bleated on self-righteously for decades about Scotland in 1707 being "bought and sold for English gold" and then resort themselves to a policy, the mainstay of which is cynical barefaced bribery and exploitation of those unfortunate people least able to appreciate what is going on.

 

To suggest that people had to be tricked into voting for the SNP/Yes on the back of false promises of more money is no different to the proportion of No voters who had to be scared into voting to remain in the Union, without realising the dangers that lay ahead if doing so.

The SNP is by a distance the most popular party in Scotland and it isn't necessarily all due to protest votes against New Labour, since 2007 Alex Salmond and the SNP have lead an incredibly efficient government at Holyrood despite the contstraints of the current devolution settlement.  They've also done well at council level where others have failed for decades, Dundee being the best example, where they have visbily revitilised the city's prospects through council level negotiations to promote industrial investment in their Universities after decades of decline under Labour.

You can call the SNP's policies since the mid-90's a bribe for sure but who were they trying to bribe?  Do traditional Labour voters really care about the protection of rural education and health facilities?  Do all the people on benefits really care about a council tax freeze when they don't pay CT already?  Who benefits from protecting rural post offices?

Slashing business rates at council level has changed lives, was that a bribe to the working class aswell?

I've said it myself that the Yes campaign turned too Socialist in targetting Labour voters, Scotland is traditionally a country of innovators, merchants and tight ******** who would happily have voted yes on a ticket of equal opportunity for all, rather than equal reward.

 

I disagree. Until the vow, there was clear and rapid momentum from No to Yes with the gap narrowing from 20 points to, in one case a Yes lead.

 

The No supporters can argue many things but they can't seriously argue that these 'promises' didn't make a difference to the result.

I'm a bit of a stats geek but it didn't quite work like that.  There was a narrow squeeze but not very much when you take YouGov out of it.  Now, in UK elections, YouGov has been excellent but poor in Scotland (ICM are far better).  The massive narrowing was greatly exaggerated by a change in methodology when YG realised they were hugely underestimating the amount of SNP voters they were picking up.

 

As for broken promises...I suspect many will be upset over what is eventually reached but No would still have won, just more narrowly.  What if it would have been Yes?  Would the currency union have appeared?  Would Junckers have admitted his statements of an application being necessary was a ruse?  No to both.  Neither side would have got exactly what they want but the Scottish people made their decision.  Saying they were too stupid to realise the issues is patronising stuff.  There were bigger broken promises there to be found.

 

What would have been interesting is if Yes had laid it out on the line.  What were the plans for the currency if no union?  How would Scotland cope being outside the EU?  Is the Euro something that is a no go, no matter what inducements the EU offer?  As you can see on this very forum, I was leaning towards Yes until the White Paper.  Maybe they needed to go for the blind optimism approach to get the Labour vote in Glasgow's estates but it certainly turned me right off.  As I've said a number of times, there was a case for independence but Yes didn't make it.

 

But can't we move on?  Enough with insults about wanting to be Greater England and throwing toys out of prams.  I would hope that we all want Scotland to succeed, independent or British.  If your hope is that Scotland fails so you can wave your little flag about, it's not patriotism that's driving you but selfishness.  If you are simply expecting Scotland to not succeed...well, let's put that aside for the moment and work together.  I guarantee you, I would have been waving the Scottish flag if independence had come, maybe even voting Labour to get the best deal from Westminster after the break up (and that's saying something after the Blair/Brown years!).  We're all in this together, like it or not, so let's try to make it work.

 

I agree with the sentiment there but would really like to hear some clear goals of those who seek to pacify Scotland.

What exactly can we do to work together, to make the whole of the UK better?  Ignorring the obvious question of why havent we done it before, is there a clear path to actually improving social inequality, increasing social mobility, improving quality of life?

Miliband is asking for Scottish voters to rally behind his £8 an hour minimum wage (in 2020) but with no tie in to inflation, £8 an hour in 6 years time will be no better for folk than £6 an hour is just now. 

Theres no plan in place to reduce the national debt besides kicking the can further down the road.  Theres no party talking about smashing the civil service to bits to structure it more in line with the private sector, with just piecemeal tinkering the Unions will stand for.  No party is talking about how to open up access to services currently available to Scots in England, devolved regions of England spending more of their own money won't work as theres even more inequality and poverty down here than there is in Scotland and devolution will only further create division in quality of life that no party will stand for (such as those between Scotland and England already).

Also theres no talk of constitutional reform for the House of Lords anywhere, theres still not going to be any greater say for Scotland at national level on foreign affairs, defence or budget policy, our MP's are still outnumbered 10/1 by those in England unless we can get a federalised system that no part besides the Lib Dems is talking about.  Under a federalised system, where each region has a set number of representitives making decisions equally, Scottish MP's would be able to vote more in line with MP's representing similarly disenfranchised demographics in the North of England even if its accross party lines there will be a more defined Left/Right balance than the current party lines where everyone is mixed in the middle.

What Scotland has voted in favour of is mind boggling stupid, people obviously don't realise how skint the UK is.

All of the polls showed a consistent rise in the number of "Don't knows" in the run up to the referendum, promises of more power would certainly have swayed some but never enough to change the final outcome.

I would agree with most of the sentitment there Alex, however I would question the legitimacy of the democratic process when an entire generation of the electorate are relying on a medium with heavy self interest in one outcome, for their information.

I'm not sure why the Yes campaign tried to remain so positive, theres legitimate dangers to staying tied to a country whose national debt is 90% of GDP and has a massive trade and spending deficit, maybe a bit of fear mongering might not have been a bad move?  The sad truth is our country is being funded by foreign debt and is overly reliant on financial services in London, when they make a **** of it the rest of the country has to suffer, the Westminister parties have no control themselves over money supply, nevermind Scotland having a say at all.
 
The SNP lost their core support because they targetted Labour voters throughout the campaign and took their own base for granted, despite the demographics in those areas being totally different.  The constant talk of currency union was a massive own goal, I honestly think they would've won over more middle class voters with promises of a new currency, with controls put in place to favour savers and investers.

State pensions are secured at the UK level by a credit rating, nothing more, there is no 'pension pot' as darling called it.

 

As you indicate there are a number of Baby Boomers like me in my situation of being positive net contributors in their retirement - it is a set of values that a lot of us grew up with. Unfortunately not enough of us grew in this way. And I am talking about the people that that had the capability to do so not about the unfortunate people who did not have the capability to do so. They should always be helped and looked after.

 

On behalf of my generation I apologize to you and your generation for the hardships you will have to endure into the future  Unfortunately an apology is not very nutritious nor does it have any monetary value.

The apology is accepted on behalf of the current working generation of the western world.

Any chance you could organise your peers to sell the social housing they bought for £20,000, 3 decades ago, here in the South of England that I'm being asked to pay 15 times as much for, at a level consistent with the increase in UK average wage over my lifetime?  I have no problem with structures that were never funded from the public purse or were ever designated for social housing to be included in the great sell-off.  Infact, how about we limit the sell off at a fair price to those who use ex council properties as buy-to-let investments?

I was born in 1983, according to the Financial Times website, the average wage in 1983 was £10,159.44 per year, the same source says as of April 2014 the average wage has fallen slightly to £25,400.  A mere 250% increase in the asking price might be a bit low for me to expect, given that baby boomers running councils nationwide for a couple of decades threw up as many barriers as possible for more homes to be built.

In exchange I'll be less spiteful about handing over income tax every month to fund their 30+ years of retirement.

I'm sorry if I sound overly bitter about any of this, I've had a bad week, Scotland voted itself down to county status and threw 2 fingers up to the people currently paying for the island to keep itself afloat.  Turkeys voting for Christmas.

8. Voters over a certain age have been digesting all the information required to make what they consider to be an informed decision from media putlets firmly in favour of one of the two options.

None of whom broadcast the real dangers to pensioners benefits while staying in the Union, such as one day having to pay 20k per year for care as they do already in England or highlighting that the UK pension fund is secured by a credit rating rather than a valuable natural resource.

Sure, staunch and proud the old yins have been, with no fucks given for the people currently funding them who want a better deal.

Check the historical figures for UK household debt, I'm on the mobile just now so I cant cut and paste anything but despite having all the advantages of growing up in a boom period where national debt came down and the UK enjoyed a trade surplus (such as being able to walk out of school/work and into a job, cheap ptoperty, state funded education), the BBers still felt they had to live beyond their means.

They then gave birth to future generations of scroungers, without giving them the advantages they had but did successfully pass on the debt lifestyle.

Now they have decided to settle Scotlands future in a referendum, which will ultimatley see us alot worse off down the line as we will move from socialised public services to being customers of public services, with the bonus of paying for new trains in London and faster missiles, on the back of a false belief they were voting to stay in a larger pension 'fund' with not one **** given for future generations well being.

I vote we increase the overseas pensions at 5 times the rate of inflation, as a thank you for the collectors once gracig us with their presence.

Im 31 and I'm part of a wonderful generation that is currently paying the interest payments on your pensions and health care, as we all know pensions are paid from the UKs 1.4trillion debt and my NI is used ro pay for the credit. I've never seen you ask my age ever.

There will be individual examples of non-pampered and entitled baby boomers for sure but I will repeat again what I said the other week, you guys will go down in history as the worst generation ever.

Congratulations to the Baby Boomers on winning the Scottish Referendum for the UK.

Last generation to get free education, the generation who took advantage of Thatchers right to buy and allowed her to destroy the working class politically ( thanks pieanbovril) and the generation who not only allowed the UK to sleepwalk into trillions of debt with no social gain but now the generation that has sealed Scotlands fate.

Thanks, you lazy apathetic selfish ********

Lots of drivel SP.  You asked whats happeneing in the Ukraine and I answered within the first 11 words of the second paragraph on my first post.
 
Whats happening in the Ukraine is a ceasefire, paint the Russians as the enemy all you want but the fact is the day after there was a ceasefire agreed between the Ukrainian military and the Separatists, NATO and the EU forced through more sanctions against Russia regardless.  The current conflict between the old East and West has nothing to do with whats happening on the ground in the Ukraine, if it were the sanctions would never have been applied after a ceasefire.  There has been upwards of 2,000 deaths mainly on the separatists side and hundreds of thousands of refugees, mostly fleeing east from the Ukrainian military, nobody in the conflict has won a thing.  If the West didnt paint the uprising as an invading army, there may well be a question to answer for our leaders who have supported a government willing to use any means necessary to kill its own people.

Considering you assume the BBC is an impartial and balanced outlet, I think I can dismiss everything else you have to say on the world, youre clearly out of touch with reality.  The BBC is under constant threat of license fee reform and have to be 'on message'.
 
The old narrative of NATO GOOD, RUSSIA BAD just doesnt hold up to scrutiny, why peddle the BBC's garbage on here?  Have you ever actually listened to Vladamir Putin talk about the conflict in the Ukraine?  He's more interested in keeping them as customers of his countries resources than invading it.

The goal in the Ukraine is no different to the goals the West has in other parts of the world, mainly the Middle East, instability.  The current situations in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Israel and Syria are entirely by design, instability leads to the West gaining twice over in investment and denying any one group of countries or people becoming influencial enough to stand up for themselves.  Who do you think will put up more of a fight in trade negotiations?  Assad, Hussein, Mubarack, Gadaffi?  Or the next local tribe or sect to hold power for a 6 month period, thats desperate to take what they can while on top?
 
We lend them expensive money, they spend it on weapons, we gain interest on debt repayments aswell as score big on arms deals.  It's a system thats been working since the Romans started picking favourites in all the little kingdoms around Europe, aslong as neither side could ever gain the upper hand you could fund them both forever.
 
In the Ukraine, NATO wants the Russians pissed off, without them there would be no need to keep investing so many billions accross the alliance on defence, the story needs a villain.

If they really are the enemy, why havent they taken over the whole of the Ukraine?  Why is there a Ceasefire?  With a ceasefire, why are there sanctions against Russia?

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.

It wasnt the first video I was looking to be defended, it was the BBC bias.

Did you watch them both?

If you want to bring the Nazis into the conversation, do a bit of reading on the history of Svoboda, one of the groups that were installed into cabinet positions in Ukraine after they overthrew their last government.
 
Go read up on the events leading to the encirclement of Kiev in 1941 and how the Germans were able to amass so many troops there so quickly.

As for the nonsense about Stalin, he killed alot more of his own generals before the war even started in the 1930's, it had nothing to do with "Russia" as you call them than what the Germans accomplished.  Stalin himself is hated in Russia today, he killed many more Russians than any other country during his reign.
 
You are clearly the product of media conditioning, you have lived a lifetime under their influence and story telling so I cannot blame you for that.  Russia bad, NATO good?   I'm by no means saying the Russians historically are saints but then we have even more blood on our hands, NATO (including Canada) have broken more international laws and fought in more wars than Russia ever has.

That sounds like a word for word report from the BBC propaganda machine Scarlet.
 
Whats happening in the Ukraine just now is actually a ceasefire that NATO appear to be desperate to break.  If the Russian military lead by Putin on a giant fire breathing Unicorn, was really invading the Ukraine, they'd be in Kiev in about 2 days.