The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Alex MacLeod]

Ahh the Scots Guards..........think its the only Scottish regiment still to retain its name though it operates under the guise of 12th Armoured Infantry Brigade. Nobody from either side of the debate has offered an answer to the question of military presence in Scotland other than the scaremongers who haven't a clue but spout of anyway. This is one of those areas that will be negotiated if the referendum returns a YES majority. My understanding, from a fairly prominent MSP is that there aretwo options here. Scotland goes it alone being the only one getting aired. The other is that a British military would be retained as at present and that financing of such would be shared.

[Charles Bannerman]

The other is that a British military would be retained as at present and that financing of such would be shared.

This is fast becoming just like "So what have the Romans ever done for us?" from The Life Of Brian but renamed "So how 'independent' would Scotland really be if you vote yes?"

 

Overheard at a recent meeting of the People's Front Of Caledonia.

 

"So how 'independent would Caledonia really be? What about currency?"

 

"Well, we'll use the pound, so I'll give you currency..."

 

"And a shared fiscal policy because of sharing the pound?"

 

"Well obviously fiscal policy, but apart from currency and fiscal policy...."

 

"Foreign Embassies and Consular facilities?"

 

"Well clearly we'd need to use the UK's, but apart from currency and fiscal policy and embassies...."

 

"Training facilities for our Olympic team?"

 

"Yes, well we'd still need to use the ones in England, but apart from currency and fiscal policy and embassies and sports facilities...."

 

"The military?"

 

"Well we'd definitely want to share that with the UK as well - although on our terms without Trident. But apart from currency and fiscal policy and embassies and sports facilities and the military....."

 

And so it goes on.

 

It's intriguing that each time something they can't deliver comes up, the separatists just say that they'd want to share the facilities with the UK. That, by the way, is the UK which Salmond threatened with a default on Scotland's share of the national debt, but whilst still clearly expecting the UK to bend over backwards to assist the SNP in its attempt to break the country up.

Let's have no illusions about this. Separation is total and very difficult to reverse so no one is going to buy this myth that it's really no great deal since not much will change. And in any case the Blue Facepaint wing of the SNP would never buy these proposals for what is in effect a Wee Pretendy Country.

It seems that the SNP say they'd expect "The Romans" to share this, that and the other with them - whilst they hog all the oil revenues for themselves and default on debt.

 

"Welease Megwahi" (Kenny MacAskill - 2009)

 

Coming to a cinema near you - "The Life Of Alex", starring Alex Salmond as Jesus Christ, Nicola Sturgeon as Mandy Cohen and Michael Russell as Biggus Dickus

Edited January 20, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[PaderbornCaley]

The two most common comments regarding the Military I hear from Yes supporters are

‘We won‘t need to go invading other countries‘ and

‘Smaller Military will be less expense on tax payer‘

But with no clear plan for the thousands of Scottish men and women employed by the Military then it appears there could be a heck of a lot of jobs at risk if Scotland votes yes.

I cannot see it being feasable to share Military. Military intentions of a UK Government may be very much different to Military intentions of a Scottish Government. However I suppose negotiations could come up with serving Scottish personnel being allowed to remain within the British Army. But with no clear plan to keep every personnel in employment then this for me is a black mark for the Yes Camp.

[dougiedanger]

The two most common comments regarding the Military I hear from Yes supporters are

‘We won‘t need to go invading other countries‘ and

‘Smaller Military will be less expense on tax payer‘

But with no clear plan for the thousands of Scottish men and women employed by the Military then it appears there could be a heck of a lot of jobs at risk if Scotland votes yes.

I cannot see it being feasable to share Military. Military intentions of a UK Government may be very much different to Military intentions of a Scottish Government. However I suppose negotiations could come up with serving Scottish personnel being allowed to remain within the British Army. But with no clear plan to keep every personnel in employment then this for me is a black mark for the Yes Camp.

I wouldn't worry, as the British Army will always have a place for young, desperate Scots to fight their wars for them.

They're nice like that.

[Oddquine]

Some great and interesting arguments on both sides here. There‘s something i‘m wondering though if anyone can help me out.

What is the Yes plan for Military Personnel? Not speculation, but an actual plan? Will every single serving Scottish soldier get the opportunity to join a new Scottish Army? What happens to regiments such as Scots Guards (formed in 1640). Will current Scottish serving personnel get the opportunity to remain within the British Army if they wished to? It seems vague and a lot of Military jobs could be at risk.... or could they?

 

That would kinda depend on the decisions of the first elected Government in 2016. 

 

If we vote for Independence, and there are negotiations as there should be, regarding the division of debts and assets, the assumption in the White Paper is that we will get a share of the current UK military assets, to which we have paid a disproportionate amount of our taxes for little return to date.

 

The info on all that is here. 

 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/11/scottish-independence-white-paper-defence-issues/#Defence_capabilities_at_the_point_of_independence

 

There's too much in it to C&P.

 

It assumes, of course, that after negotiation and agreement over a share of  military assets, at the point of independence, Scotland will have enough military equipment to equip a basic force........and then says what the SNP would do over the following five/ten years if in Government and assuming we will be in NATO.  

 

The man/woman power requirements over all three services  would be at Independence, 7500 regular and 2000 reserve personnel, rising to around 10000 regulars and 3500 reserves in five years and 15000 regulars and 5000 reserves within ten.

 

The units of the Scottish Army will carry on the names, identities and traditions of Scotland’s regiments, including those lost in the defence reorganisation of 2006 and it says that they would put in place joint arrangements with the Westminster Government to identify and transfer units and personnel wishing to serve in Scottish defence forces.. The response to a Westminster Defence Committee meeting on the implications of Independence asked the same question of the Secretary of State, who confirmed that they would be able to continue serving with the rUK forces if they chose.  There are likely going to be a fair few who wouldn't be able to transfer to Scotland, even if they wanted to do that...as we won't have for a long time, if ever, the likes of submarines.

 

And no Trident!!!!!

[Charles Bannerman]

 

.  

The man/woman power requirements over all three services  would be at Independence, 7500 regular and 2000 reserve personnel, rising to around 10000 regulars and 3500 reserves in five years and 15000 regulars and 5000 reserves within ten.

 

 

 

And no Trident!!!!!

 

How do you know? How can you or any other yes advocate speak for a Scottish government of unknown political persuasion elected years into the future? This just sounds like Alex's wish list politics with his series of "commitments" which no one is in a position to say could or would be delivered. That is presumably as specified in his 670 page publicly funded Toom Tome which must surely succeed the 1983 Labour manifesto as the longest suicide note in history.

By the way you seem not to have quoted the section of the linked document which presumably says how you would replace the 4000 (due to rise to 5000 by 2017) direct jobs and the many other indirect ones which would be lost if the Faslane base were to close.

 

Then of course there's the one thing that the SNP say they want to do and they can do now - improve childcare. But they won't because they want to keep that as a carrot to get women to vote yes and they're especially short in that department. The reason, they say, is that they don't want any cash generated by extra employment to go to the Westminster exchequer.

Now how cynical is that? Giving their own anti-Westminster paranoia priority over the interests of the women of Scotland.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[robbylad]

 

 

.  

The man/woman power requirements over all three services  would be at Independence, 7500 regular and 2000 reserve personnel, rising to around 10000 regulars and 3500 reserves in five years and 15000 regulars and 5000 reserves within ten.

 

 

 

And no Trident!!!!!

 

How do you know? How can you or any other yes advocate speak for a Scottish government of unknown political persuasion elected years into the future? This just sounds like Alex's wish list politics with his series of "commitments" which no one is in a position to say could or would be delivered. That is presumably as specified in his 670 page publicly funded Toom Tome which must surely succeed the 1983 Labour manifesto as the longest suicide note in history.

By the way you seem not to have quoted the section of the linked document which presumably says how you would replace the 4000 (due to rise to 5000 by 2017) direct jobs and the many other indirect ones which would be lost if the Faslane base were to close.

 

Then of course there's the one thing that the SNP say they want to do and they can do now - improve childcare. But they won't because they want to keep that as a carrot to get women to vote yes and they're especially short in that department. The reason, they say, is that they don't want any cash generated by extra employment to go to the Westminster exchequer.

Now how cynical is that? Giving their own anti-Westminster paranoia priority over the interests of the women of Scotland.

 

It's called democracy Charles. At the general election after and in the event of a yes, parties will set out their manifesto and even you will get a say in these things. You're obsession with Alex Salmond and the SNP is blinding you to the fact that another party may have better ideas. On the other hand judging by the antics of Johann Lamont and Ruth Davidson, maybe not. 

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

.  

The man/woman power requirements over all three services  would be at Independence, 7500 regular and 2000 reserve personnel, rising to around 10000 regulars and 3500 reserves in five years and 15000 regulars and 5000 reserves within ten.

 

 

 

And no Trident!!!!!

 

How do you know? How can you or any other yes advocate speak for a Scottish government of unknown political persuasion elected years into the future? This just sounds like Alex's wish list politics with his series of "commitments" which no one is in a position to say could or would be delivered. That is presumably as specified in his 670 page publicly funded Toom Tome which must surely succeed the 1983 Labour manifesto as the longest suicide note in history.

By the way you seem not to have quoted the section of the linked document which presumably says how you would replace the 4000 (due to rise to 5000 by 2017) direct jobs and the many other indirect ones which would be lost if the Faslane base were to close.

 

Then of course there's the one thing that the SNP say they want to do and they can do now - improve childcare. But they won't because they want to keep that as a carrot to get women to vote yes and they're especially short in that department. The reason, they say, is that they don't want any cash generated by extra employment to go to the Westminster exchequer.

Now how cynical is that? Giving their own anti-Westminster paranoia priority over the interests of the women of Scotland.

 

 

Just as much as you can blithely and so very rudely tell us we will be nothing without suckling on the teat of "Mother England" (Have to say, she's even more bossy, stubborn and self-opinionated  than I am....and regarding the similarity of your beliefs, is as irrational as you can be from time to time on this subject).

 

However, if you have some insight into what the consequences of a NO vote in Scotland is going to be .kindly inform us...you may even change our vote.  It is up to you to prove to us that the Westminster mindset is going to change, given the current rhetoric from all parts of all UK political parties,  rather than denigrating those who believe, very sincerely, that a Scottish Government working for Scotland and the Scots can't possibly be any worse for Scotland than Westminster control.has been over the past three or four decades. 

 

I really can't understand how anyone can promote the option of continuing in a Union which, to date has made inequality the main focus of their policies in the last three/four decades......and that aspiration is just about the only one which has ever been met. I don't want to live under a Government which is so personally wealthy that it neither knows or cares  how the other half lives.....26 millionaires in the Government do not represent the way I think. I'd not have voted for any political party so mentally impaired as to think that policies, like the bedroom tax,employment of  of ATOS to throw people off benefits etc which encourage/force the disabled, the unemployed, the poor to suicide or to using foodbanks (which appear to be the only real growth industry in the UK currently), while reducing taxes for the better off, failing to close the loopholes (which frankly invite tax avoidance in the same way as badly drawn benefit rules provide loopholes allowing a small minority to take advantage) and allowing the employees of our failed banks to gain bonuses of twice salary and calling that a restriction illustrating "we are all in this together"....and despite all the misery they have inflicted on the UK population.they have not reduced the National Debt by one farthing, but are  still adding to it annually.  But then, of course, I don't remember seeing any of the above in their manifestos......of which I have copies of the key policies , as I do of the Coalition agreement. (and very few have been fulfilled as yet).

 

.Thing is, Charles that if we vote for independence.......

firstly, the decision about Trident will have been made, by a negotiating committee which will not just be drawn from the ranks of the SNP.....and maybe even accomplished (though I doubt the time scale will allow immediate removal, especially if Westminster hasn't made contingency plans.) by 2016.....

and secondly, despite the YES/NO divide, a majority of Scots want Trident out,as do a large proportion of the rest of the UK, so I hardly think any Scottish Political Party no longer joined at the hip to its UK mother, and who aimed to be elected, would be foolish enough to have rolling back the Trident removal agreement in their manifesto.

 

That the 4000 jobs the NO supporter, Gordon Matheson, is panicking about losing on the Clyde?  It must be, because trhe MOD said in 2012 that civilian jobs at Faslane are at about the 520 or so mark. Are the employees in the ship yards incapable of building anything but defence related ships?  I can follow any knitting/crochet/cross-stitch pattern....and what else does a competent company need but a pattern and someone of capable of reading it?  Will an Independent Scotland never need to build ships?  The Clyde didn't always rely on UK MOD defence contracts......and given that the UK is happy to order fuelling Tankers from Korea......why would other countries not be as happy to give the Clyde yards contracts?  Just been on the link and reread it...and I see nothing referring to 4000 or more Faslane jobs....but I'm sure you can point me at the paragraph or so to which you refer.  I did the usual FIND 4000 in my browser, which threw up nothing on that page.  However, even if you are correct, a proportion of  the money saved from not funding Trident can and will be put into infrastructure spending in the west of Scotland, which should create more jobs than you claim will be lost. In 2012, the Scottish TUC and Scottish CND funded a study which said that the total reduction in direct and indirect civilian employment across Scotland if Trident was scrapped would be less than 1800. 

 

The childcare thing...get real...if they forked out money for childcare, they would be obliged, given their limited finances, to cut something somewhere else.  I know you and other Unionists would like that, as it would produce yet another imaginary stick with which to beat Salmond.......and honestly.I agree with the "why remove the likes of free bus passes for pensioners in order to fund childcare and help grow our economy just so it enriches a Government in Westminster which  appears to have hands with holes in the palms, given the short time it takes them to waste every darn penny they get" mindset.  We are talking, remember, about a Government which has spent a quarter of a million of our smackers on getting portraits of MPs painted.and which spent £10,000 pounds on acting lessons for ministers. It's just a real shame they weren't taught how to act as human beings!

[Alex MacLeod]

One day we'll all wake up and find that Charles Bannerman has put forward some debate. And remember Charles, if you dont like the outcome and you dont like the tartan and the deer and the hills and the weather and the whisky and the patter and all else that you decry about this country then there are plenty buses and trains and even planes and boats heading south.

[The Mantis]

 

Derek Bateman, with a heavy heart, reveals the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

The not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

Derek Bateman asks why none of the MSM (mainstream Scottish media) have mentioned the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

 

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles 

[Oddquine]

 

 

Derek Bateman, with a heavy heart, reveals the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

The not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

Derek Bateman asks why none of the MSM (mainstream Scottish media) have mentioned the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

 

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles 

 

 

Read it already.  But to be fair it just said what we already know..the MSM are Unionist to the core..maybe to protect their jobs (a bit like the MPs in Westminster representing Scottish Constituencies who regularly trash Scotland and the Scots, and promote the Union lately), Can't see many antis trying to justify the bias (bar maybe Charles).

 

If we are doing links......

 

Raise you http://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/so-tell-me-again-why-did-gordon-brown.html

 

.http://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/opinion/letters/yes-expect-better.23198310

 

and     http://nationalcollective.com/2014/01/21/all-together-now/   

 

That last is the kind of  article I like.....thought provoking but sarcastic/satirical with it!

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

Derek Bateman, with a heavy heart, reveals the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

The not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

Derek Bateman asks why none of the MSM (mainstream Scottish media) have mentioned the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

 

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles 

 

I would be interested to know the yes/no stance of the researcher from this most prestigious of Scottish Academic Institutions who has done this analysis- an analysis  where the categorisation of broadcast content will inevitably be to a large extent subjective and the product of a judgement or perception on the researcher's part.

Which reminds me of a book on WW1 I saw revewied in The Courier the other week and which came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died! Then it emerged that the author was a former SNP MSP who, to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get."

Given the current high degree of separatist twitchiness about the WW1 centenary and their paranoia about any resulting feeling of "Britishness" (q.v. Joan MacAlpine MSP's now notorious "misplaced loyalty" rant) you could just about predict a few attempts to foster a feeling of resentment at the sacrifice - real or imagined.

[dougiedanger]

Congratulations, CB, you are the perfect British subject, cap-doffer extraordinaire, knows his place, believes everything he is told, anchor still holding.

Give yourself a pat on the head.

[Charles Bannerman]

Congratulations, CB, you are the perfect British subject, cap-doffer extraordinaire, knows his place, believes everything he is told, anchor still holding.

Give yourself a pat on the head.

DD, can you not see that the whole point of the post before last is that I DON'T believe everything I am told - which is maybe just as well during this interminable referendum with its incessant "jam tomorrow" promises/bribes from the yessers.

[dougiedanger]

 

Congratulations, CB, you are the perfect British subject, cap-doffer extraordinaire, knows his place, believes everything he is told, anchor still holding.

Give yourself a pat on the head.

DD, can you not see that the whole point of the post before last is that I DON'T believe everything I am told - which is maybe just as well during this interminable referendum with its incessant "jam tomorrow" promises/bribes from the yessers.

 

I think your questioning goes in one direction only.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

Derek Bateman, with a heavy heart, reveals the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

The not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

Derek Bateman asks why none of the MSM (mainstream Scottish media) have mentioned the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

 

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles 

 

I would be interested to know the yes/no stance of the researcher from this most prestigious of Scottish Academic Institutions who has done this analysis- an analysis  where the categorisation of broadcast content will inevitably be to a large extent subjective and the product of a judgement or perception on the researcher's part.

Which reminds me of a book on WW1 I saw revewied in The Courier the other week and which came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died! Then it emerged that the author was a former SNP MSP who, to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get."

Given the current high degree of separatist twitchiness about the WW1 centenary and their paranoia about any resulting feeling of "Britishness" (q.v. Joan MacAlpine MSP's now notorious "misplaced loyalty" rant) you could just about predict a few attempts to foster a feeling of resentment at the sacrifice - real or imagined.

 

 

I'd assume from no knowledge whatsoever, that he is at a minimum as biased as all those academics who support the Union campaign with their research..and which you believe implicitly.....and a lot less biased than the likes of the OBR and IMF, set up by the two main political parties, but hailed as "independent" and which you believe implicitly..and even less biased than the MSM.

 

Now, now, Charles...your bias is becoming frankly irrational again. Why would you assume that nobody in the SNP researches anything? It wouldn't be because you never research anything you say on this thread, would it?  I wouldn't be so crass as to say you never research anything in your great tomes, because I have never read them for anything in them to strike me as erroneous..but if I had thought you were wrong.....I'd have checked out my facts before I went online and made accusations just because I could.

 

For your elucidation...and that of the relatively few others on here who think you know what you are talking about.......the figures Colin Campbell used were taken from a book entitled "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson.  Niall Ferguson is certainly Scottish but is an avowed Thatcherite, has an extensive CV in academia starting with an Oxford degree and encompassing lectureships, chairs and fellowships in history in academic establishments from the LSE, to Harvard.and Stanford..he's been involved in banking management for a hedge-fund and advised Gove on the History curriculum in schools in England and Wales..he also supported the Iraq War. and was an advisor to John McCain in 2008 and supported Romney.  I think you'd probably like him, on reading his Wiki entry.  I think he's an ass (in the American use of the term).

 

And for your further elucidation, Ferguson took them from "The Great War and The British People" by J M Winter. J. M Winter is not even British.......he is American........educated at Columbia and Cambridge and a Yale Professor of History.

 

I expect you will retract your unwarranted insult to Colin Campbell......and if you manage to prove that Ferguson was wrong, to save you having to do that...I assume you will post on here and tell us that a Thatcherite Scot who has advised the Coalition came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died and that he to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get."

 

I don't have that much of a problem celebrating the end of a War, ..and to compare it to the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations....jesus wept!  Who would believe that anyone, save an utter sociopath, would propose that the upcoming 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, which cost so many lives from all the countries involved, including ours, should be cause for national celebration on the lines of the Diamond Jubilee? 

 

But the cynical among us may well think that, as Scotland will have the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup in 2014, pre-referendum, and what Olympic Games and Diamond Jubilee "union effect" produced is wearing off, a celebration of the only important UK historical anniversary big enough to spend a few tens of thousands quid on smacks less of being done to celebrate anything but more to try to resurrect that feeling before YES day. It rather smacks of opportunism, given the timing of the announcement, less than a month after the Edinburgh Agreement. Wonder if Scotland didn't have the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup, if there would have been a "Celebrate the deaths of a lot of men in the world, including  26.4% of Scottish combatants. and 11.8% of those from the rest of the UK and Ireland

 

But it happens to be the only whole UK thing in a time scale which might last until September 18th....and jingoism is jingoism...........and who cares if it is appropriate or not.

 

There is no glory in war....and less glory in celebrating the start of any war. The dead soldiers will be birling in their graves to think that we are celebrating their deaths..and before you start, Charles...I'd have said that whenever the anniversary of the war fell.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Oddquine

[The Mantis]

 

 

 

 

Derek Bateman, with a heavy heart, reveals the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

The not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

Derek Bateman asks why none of the MSM (mainstream Scottish media) have mentioned the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

 

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles 

 

I would be interested to know the yes/no stance of the researcher from this most prestigious of Scottish Academic Institutions who has done this analysis- an analysis  where the categorisation of broadcast content will inevitably be to a large extent subjective and the product of a judgement or perception on the researcher's part.

Which reminds me of a book on WW1 I saw revewied in The Courier the other week and which came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died! Then it emerged that the author was a former SNP MSP who, to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get."

Given the current high degree of separatist twitchiness about the WW1 centenary and their paranoia about any resulting feeling of "Britishness" (q.v. Joan MacAlpine MSP's now notorious "misplaced loyalty" rant) you could just about predict a few attempts to foster a feeling of resentment at the sacrifice - real or imagined.

 

 

I'd assume from no knowledge whatsoever, that he is at a minimum as biased as all those academics who support the Union campaign with their research..and which you believe implicitly.....and a lot less biased than the likes of the OBR and IMF, set up by the two main political parties, but hailed as "independent" and which you believe implicitly..and even less biased than the MSM.

 

 

 

When this story broke, there was some discussion by the Yes side about his impartiality, as it would give the No side a stick to beat him with. I can't find the discussion now unfortunately, but it turned out Dr Robertson has no direct connection with the SNP or Yes, and neither was he paid. 

 

You can be sure that his bias would have been used to discredit him, but up until now, John Robertson appears to be squeaky clean, so instead they have chosen to bury it. The stance of the researcher is immaterial - the evidence, especially lower down the report, is overwhelming. You'd have a job faking something so blatant.

 

There's plenty of precedent here. Only recently Reporting Scotland ran a story about how a researcher had been paid to write a pro-Yes article, while neglecting the bigger story that this only came to light because of alleged hacking of Yes emails.

 

Or the Latvian official who proclaimed that Scotland wouldn't get EU membership. Jackie Bird read out the first part of his statement but did not bother reporting the rest, which then went on to say the rUK would have equal difficulty. This was reported in the Herald in full.

 

And try looking for "MOD oil boom Clyde" - you'll find loads of references, only not BBC ones. 

 

Coming on the heels of the alleged complicity in covering up the Jimmy Savile affair, the BBC, which I am obliged to support by paying the licence fee, seems to have as much integrity as Rangers FC.

[The Mantis]

 

 

 

Derek Bateman, with a heavy heart, reveals the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

The not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

Derek Bateman asks why none of the MSM (mainstream Scottish media) have mentioned the not-very-surprising but nevertheless shocking news

 

 

What about this? Has nobody seen it or does nobody care? Obviously I don't mean you Charles 

 

I would be interested to know the yes/no stance of the researcher from this most prestigious of Scottish Academic Institutions who has done this analysis- an analysis  where the categorisation of broadcast content will inevitably be to a large extent subjective and the product of a judgement or perception on the researcher's part.

Which reminds me of a book on WW1 I saw revewied in The Courier the other week and which came to the most crazily outrageous conclusion that 26.4% of Scottish combatants died! Then it emerged that the author was a former SNP MSP who, to work out his sums, had clearly borrowed the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator - which of course is permanently set at "Think of the biggest number you can, extrapolate as wildly as possible from there and NEVER try to justify the figure you get."

Given the current high degree of separatist twitchiness about the WW1 centenary and their paranoia about any resulting feeling of "Britishness" (q.v. Joan MacAlpine MSP's now notorious "misplaced loyalty" rant) you could just about predict a few attempts to foster a feeling of resentment at the sacrifice - real or imagined.

 

Seriously, Charles. The Monty Python was bad enough, but this is truly dreadful.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

For your elucidation...and that of the relatively few others on here who think you know what you are talking about.......the figures Colin Campbell used were taken from a book entitled "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson. 

Yes I am perfectly aware of that, and indeed referred to Ferguson's book as the source of that 26.4% figure in a recent letter to the Inverness Courier on this very subject. In his definitive text on Scotland's contribution to WW1 "Flowers of the Forest" (2006), the leading Scottish military historian Trevor Royle makes an informed, well argued and detailed analysis of likely Scottish deaths. He quotes Ferguson as his source of the 26.4%  which Royle then rejects as "a figure which is clearly too high". As for Ferguson, reviews of "The Pity Of War" refer to the book as "uniformly at variance with the accepted version of history" and its author as "known for his provocative contrarian views."

Royle's analysis even rejects a figure much lower than 26.4%, which is hence exposed as a gross overstatement.

But hey! If you can get a hold of a number, even through a marriage of convenience with a Thatcherite, to put into the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator and produce an answer which might help to stoke up resentment against "the English" for turning the Scots into a latter day Uriah The Hittite.......

 

I never fail to be amazed at the rather strange take on history to which many nationalists seem to be prone. The Battle of Culloden tends to be a favourite. For instance in last week's Courier one of their local councillors claimed that "If the Jacobites had won it would be the Stuart monarchy rather than the Windsors." That might be literally true but he completely ignores the fact that there was never any chance of the Jacobites winning Culloden, which was no more than the eventual venue for the inevitable, and even if they had, the Government still had plenty other armies at its disposal as the clansmen, victims of an outdated feudal system, sensibly filtered off home.

But there seems to be this obsession with categorising the Jacobite rebellions as Scotland v England matches (I suppose this enhances the desired resentment factor) whereas in reality they were actually Old Firm games.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[ictchris]

I'm voting No just to make CapitalCaley cry.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

For your elucidation...and that of the relatively few others on here who think you know what you are talking about.......the figures Colin Campbell used were taken from a book entitled "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson. 

Yes I am perfectly aware of that, and indeed referred to Ferguson's book as the source of that 26.4% figure in a recent letter to the Inverness Courier on this very subject. In his definitive text on Scotland's contribution to WW1 "Flowers of the Forest" (2006), the leading Scottish military historian Trevor Royle makes an informed, well argued and detailed analysis of likely Scottish deaths. He quotes Ferguson as his source of the 26.4%  which Royle then rejects as "a figure which is clearly too high". As for Ferguson, reviews of "The Pity Of War" refer to the book as "uniformly at variance with the accepted version of history" and its author as "known for his provocative contrarian views."

Royle's analysis even rejects a figure much lower than 26.4%, which is hence exposed as a gross overstatement.

But hey! If you can get a hold of a number, even through a marriage of convenience with a Thatcherite, to put into the SNP Oil Revenues Calculator and produce an answer which might help to stoke up resentment against "the English" for turning the Scots into a latter day Uriah The Hittite.......

 

I never fail to be amazed at the rather strange take on history to which many nationalists seem to be prone. The Battle of Culloden tends to be a favourite. For instance in last week's Courier one of their local councillors claimed that "If the Jacobites had won it would be the Stuart monarchy rather than the Windsors." That might be literally true but he completely ignores the fact that there was never any chance of the Jacobites winning Culloden, which was no more than the eventual venue for the inevitable, and even if they had, the Government still had plenty other armies at its disposal as the clansmen, victims of an outdated feudal system, sensibly filtered off home.

But there seems to be this obsession with categorising the Jacobite rebellions as Scotland v England matches (I suppose this enhances the desired resentment factor) whereas in reality they were actually Old Firm games.

 

 

So what you are saying is that you could have given references to illustrate that there are different opinions as to the accuracy of the figures used by Colin Campbell, as used by Niall Ferguson and as originated by JM Winter..or even said that the figures were from sources, which are generally accepted by most people, and not simply produced from the top of Colin Campbell's head.  However, as is your wont, and that of your Unionist media friends, you misrepresent the facts to give a spurious excuse to do your usual irrational SNP rant .  Glad you cleared that up!

 

Why would I need to look up the figures? I wasn't the one who introduced the book review and used it to make a pretendy point.  Couldn't you find anything from your Unionist reference points to actually discuss the differences between your assertion that the 4000 (rising to 5000 in 2017)  direct jobs and the many other indirect ones which would be lost if the Faslane base were to close and my figures which make the job losses less than 2320. (but to be fair, both of us have more realistic figures than Hammond, who claimed not that long ago, the loss of 12000 jobs ), And what makes you think Faslane will close...there is life after Nuclear Weapons, you know?

 

What does Culloden have to do with anything,...bar I'd not be too happy to see housing built next to the battlefield........don't fancy having my ashes scattered in somebody's garden if the Fraser stone happens to end up in it! 

[The Mantis]

 

What does Culloden have to do with anything,...

That struck me as well. There's plenty non-Nats make the same mistake in thinking it was Scotland v England, but hey, what the hell, it clears the decks for another paragraph of gratuitous Nat-bashing.

[PaderbornCaley]

I'm voting No just to make CapitalCaley cry.

You need to keep up with my current political opinions. ;)

[The Mantis]

BBC: Breaking News

[Oddquine]

For all those who equate Independence with a perpetuity of having an immortal Alex Salmond and the SNP in charge, because God hates us.....or more likely because the media is always giving that impression....there will be other options from which to choose.

 

Salmond et al, set out just one vision for Scotland in the White Paper...but there are other visions, some by groups of like-minded people, out of which may or may not grow fully fledged political parties after Independence..  The information is not often set out in one place on their sites..but is mostly under Articles or Policies in the links on the pages.

 

Groups for Scottish Independence

 

Common Weal...... http://scottishcommonweal.org/what-is-the-common-weal-project/

 

Wealthy Nation.....http://www.wealthynation.org/

 

Radical Independence......http://radicalindependence.org/

 

Labour For Indy......http://www.labourforindy.com/

 

Current Scottish Political Parties for Independence

 

Social Democratic Alliance.....http://www.scottishdemocraticalliance.com/

 

Scottish Greens......http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/policy/

 

Scottish Socialists........http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/policies/

 

Solidarity......http://www.new.solidarityscotland.org/

 

I'm not including the plethora of FaceBook Groups, though I have often wondered if a political party formed out of all the football related Groups for independence might not herald an era of less sectarianism (given there are 3 Rangers ones,two Celtic ones.and a Rangers and Celtic one)..but what would it be called?  I would suggest The Caledonian Thistle Secular Slap Bang in the Centre Party! (you think that would be suitably Scottish and non-controversial?