Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[wigantojapan]

so on one hand Cameron and the no supporters all parties say that a Scotland in the Union will make the Uk stronger internationally,,, and then the conservatives put forward this..

Conservatives promise to scrap Human Rights Act after next election

Theresa May tells conference that party is prepared to withdraw from European convention 'if that is what it takes to fix law.

..May's explicit statement followed David Cameron's hint on Sunday that the Tories were openly considering the "nuclear option" of withdrawing from the ECHR, despite warnings from the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, and others, of the damage to Britain's international standing.http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/30/conservitives-scrap-human-rights-act

so another example of Westminister saying one thing for Scotland to frighten people in Scotland into voting no and saying something completely different to the English/Union supporter/voter

[wigantojapan]

Something exciting is happening in Scotland.’

That phrase alone has been missing from our cultural and social discussions for far too long. ‘Something exciting is happening in Scotland? Ha! Aye, right. Now, back to London.’ We have been seen as an irrelevance, an economic hindrance and a (British) national joke. There are only two sides to our country that are ever portrayed in the media. The first is the Braveheart, bagpipes, tartan, Loch Ness Monster; the romanticised and lampooned version of Scotland’s past. The second is urban decay, alcoholism, deep-fried mars bars and the subsidy junkie; a ‘true’ and ‘honest’ representation of ‘modern’ Scotland. Could it be possible that within the infinite cauldron of beauty, creativity and diversity of culture, that there might be more than two sides to ‘parochial’ Scotland?

Aye do you similarities some of the above with some of the cliches in this thread that the no /union supporters use in their phraseology and representation of what a yes voter is?

read onSomething exciting is happening in Scotland.’

That phrase alone has been missing from our cultural and social discussions for far too long. ‘Something exciting is happening in Scotland? Ha! Aye, right. Now, back to London.’ We have been seen as an irrelevance, an economic hindrance and a (British) national joke. There are only two sides to our country that are ever portrayed in the media. The first is the Braveheart, bagpipes, tartan, Loch Ness Monster; the romanticised and lampooned version of Scotland’s past. The second is urban decay, alcoholism, deep-fried mars bars and the subsidy junkie; a ‘true’ and ‘honest’ representation of ‘modern’ Scotland. Could it be possible that within the infinite cauldron of beauty, creativity and diversity of culture, that there might be more than two sides to ‘parochial’ Scotland?

http://scottishpokemon.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/the-referendum-will-not-be-televised/

FYI the headline is taken from the wonderful social documentation of american life by Gill Scott Heron....For people who do not know of him,,well should you really be asking questions /debating on political issues if you don't,,,,that's democracy for you...I would harbour a guess that more of a majority on the yes side do know of him and his powerful messages...though i guess the people who are scrambling to google him will focus on his personal life and put a negative spin on that..like all of the no campaign

[nontabury]

Lancashire lad, was't it Alex Salmonds who said that Scotland is a nation of drunks,

Also is not AS an admirer of Alexandre Putin, I seem to recall that you recently wrote very strongly against AP.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[RuamRudy]

Lancashire lad, was't it Alex Salmonds who said that Scotland is a nation of drunks,

Also is not AS an admirer of Alexandre Putin, I seem to recall that you recently wrote very strongly against AP.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Clearly you have been taking inspiration from the BBC into how to take a large piece of dialogue, isolate two single element and present it totally out of context to suggest something totally contrary to what the fuller text states. The above is a shameful example of how you are resorting to petty tactics to obfuscate the facts to compensate for a bankrupt position.

This is what he said about Putin:

"Admire him?‚" asked Campbell. Salmond replied: "Certain aspects. There are aspects of Russian constitutionality and the intermesh with business and politics that are obviously difficult to admire. He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing. Russians are fantastic people, incidentally; they are lovely people."

As for Scotland's sorry situation with alcohol, he stated that "if you are promoting... [whisky] as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks."

[Commander Tamson]

Lancashire lad, was't it Alex Salmonds who said that Scotland is a nation of drunks,

Also is not AS an admirer of Alexandre Putin, I seem to recall that you recently wrote very strongly against AP.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Clearly you have been taking inspiration from the BBC into how to take a large piece of dialogue, isolate two single element and present it totally out of context to suggest something totally contrary to what the fuller text states. The above is a shameful example of how you are resorting to petty tactics to obfuscate the facts to compensate for a bankrupt position.

This is what he said about Putin:

"Admire him?‚" asked Campbell. Salmond replied: "Certain aspects. There are aspects of Russian constitutionality and the intermesh with business and politics that are obviously difficult to admire. He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing. Russians are fantastic people, incidentally; they are lovely people."

As for Scotland's sorry situation with alcohol, he stated that "if you are promoting... [whisky] as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks."

Well done sir and well researched. But isn't that the game?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[StreetCowboy]

Some time back I was out drinking with an old school friend, and I quizzed him on the issue of independence. He said that he wasn't sure how it would affect his employment, living in Scotland and being employed by an English firm, and he would consider moving to England if Scotland became independent. Anyway, he did praise the aggressive efforts the SNP were taking to address excessive drinking in Scotland, particularly through the attempt to introduce minimum pricing.

[RuamRudy]

Lancashire lad, was't it Alex Salmonds who said that Scotland is a nation of drunks,

Also is not AS an admirer of Alexandre Putin, I seem to recall that you recently wrote very strongly against AP.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Clearly you have been taking inspiration from the BBC into how to take a large piece of dialogue, isolate two single element and present it totally out of context to suggest something totally contrary to what the fuller text states. The above is a shameful example of how you are resorting to petty tactics to obfuscate the facts to compensate for a bankrupt position.

This is what he said about Putin:

"Admire him?‚" asked Campbell. Salmond replied: "Certain aspects. There are aspects of Russian constitutionality and the intermesh with business and politics that are obviously difficult to admire. He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing. Russians are fantastic people, incidentally; they are lovely people."

As for Scotland's sorry situation with alcohol, he stated that "if you are promoting... [whisky] as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks."

Well done sir and well researched. But isn't that the game?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sorry - this is a subject that is far too important to be taken frivolously, and with so many people remaining undecided because of uncertainty, nonsense dressed up as fact cannot be left unanswered, no matter how obscure the location of said nonsense.

[Scott]

The posting of pictures of news articles is not permitted. Posts and replies have been deleted. Follow the Fair Use Policy and post the first three lines and a link.

[wigantojapan]

How wealthy is Scotland?

Is Scotland subsidized by the UK? look and learn

[wigantojapan]

http://michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/play-this-everywhere/An incredible speech at a Scottish Parliament Committee made by Dennis Curran from the group Loaves and Fishes.

Any time anyone tells you UKOK you should be showing them this video.

Any time anyone tells you we need the UK to be looking after our welfare system, show them this video

[wigantojapan]

Today's featured article puts the spotlight on pensions, a subject important to most of us.The good news is, "State pensions would still be paid after independence..." Read the article to find out more.

Anyone who really wanted to know the score when it came to pensions was already aware of the facts. For well over a year, the DWP has been telling people who asked that they would continue to receive their UK state pension regardless of the outcome of the referendum. So that’s reassuring.
But for some unfathomable and mysterious reason, the explanation for which defies all known science, that information hasn’t really made it into the independence debate. “Better Together” has felt absolutely free to continue scaremongering about it, with Alistair Darling saying as recently as last month “On the subject of pensions, what happens with separation? Nobody knows – certainly not the Scottish Government.”
pensionsrisk

http://wingsoverscotland.com/look-away-now/

scaremongering,,lies,,media no show,,its all there,,if you want informed information get on the social media sites

[wigantojapan]

get your sundays papers...In these posts ,,you will see a broad range of people from Scotland asking difficult questions.You will also hear that certain schools have banned any form of discussion on the referendum,,even though there are pupils and Teachers who can vote .You will also hear that it is difficult to get the better together side to debate as a tactic they are relying on the media to do their work for them...Unfortunately for them social media is a quicker form of news and many of their blatant lies are being exposed at breaking pace,,,but they also know that not everyone even has access to social media,,and people in general still read the same bias newspapers and watch BBC which time and time has been found out to be impartial....Enjoy the videos and learnhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNrySXdjchg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Ec4O3ogT

Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg70QdhZ1Uw

[wigantojapan]

The Anglosphere Media

BY BELLACALEDONIA on

FEBRUARY 20, 2014

• ( 25 )

By Robin McAlpine

I haven’t always agreed with Martin Kettle’s Guardian columns over the years. They have mixed some good, pertinent analysis of what’s wrong with Britain with some unfortunate Blair-apologising. But of late I’ve felt that his commentary on what’s happening in Scotland just now has been quite good and more informed that many London-based commentators.

I write this because I really dislike overly-personalising political analysis; arguments should stand or fall on the basis of the content, not the person. So when I take his column today as a jumping-off point for a discussion of the skew-whiff nature of UK politics it is only as an example.

The basic argument in his column is that, in effect, the Scottish Government has abandoned reasoned, argument-based politics in favour of naked political posturing. He suggests that, faced with a barrage of detailed questions from George Osborne and some on-air comments from Barosso, the Nats have retreated into name-calling mode and have given up any pretence of statesmanship.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/20/the-anglosphere-media/

[wigantojapan]

Where is Alistair Darling the face of the better together campaign...As previously stated Darling has come a long long way from his roots and his constituents that got him on the slippery ladder of the modern day politician,,,Well he has turned up not a stones throw from where he started his political career,,albeit a more leafy area of edimbra ,,not quite as exclusive an address as the grass roots no movement of Charlotte Square but affluent non the less,,,

So here were he has been,,Here is how in the main the no campaign operate in a debate,and has been the case over the all of Scotland when they are prepared to turn up which is not often.Want to hear about the 'public' meeting organised by Craiglockhart Parish Church this evening?

Hundreds turned up to hear the debate between No campaign chief Alistair Darling and Jim Eadie MSP speaking for the Yes campaign. Here are some of the key features of this 'public' meeting:

1. The audience were NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK. No questions from the floor were allowed.

2. The audience were NOT ALLOWED to film the debate. Some journalism students from Napier University were allowed to film it, but we were expressly told that they would only be using that film for their course and it would not be publicized on social media or anywhere else.

3. The Chairperson read out a list of pre-submitted questions for the 2 speakers to answer. There were about 8 questions in total. Almost ALL of them were variations on questions about the possible 'risks' of independence. NONE of them were about the possible risks of a No vote.

4. The supposedly 'neutral' Chairperson cross-examined Jim Eadie on one of his answers. There was no cross-examination of any of Alistair Darling's answers.

5. I spoke to the Chairperson after this 'public' meeting at which the public had not been allowed to speak. I asked him who chose the questions. He said that he did. I asked him why almost all of the questions had been about the possible 'consequences' of independence, but none of the questions had been about the possible consequences of a No vote. He said that just so happened to be the questions he had received, and admitted it made for a biased set of questions. I asked him why he didn't then allow questions from the floor as a possible way of balancing out the type of questions. He said he didn't allow questions from the floor because of the 'limited time available'.

Most bizarrely of all, he said that because of the limited time available, if he had allowed questions from the floor then there wouldn't have been time for everybody to have asked their questions. So in other words, he was saying that the solution to the problem of some people not getting the chance to speak was to allow NOBODY in the audience to speak!

6. Fortunately, Alistair Darling was at least heckled from the audience. This was the only way anybody in the audience there could actually get to challenge what he was saying. Alistair Darling didn't respond, he simply hid behind the chairperson who reminded the public at this 'public' meeting that we weren't allowed to speak.

Craiglockhart Parish Church is supposedly neutral on the question of independence. Presumably it is therefore just a co-incidence that the set-up of this 'debate' could not have been made easier for Alistair Darling if they had tried. He didn't have to answer any questions from the audience. He was never cross-examined on his answers by the chairperson (while his opponent was). Almost all of the 'pre-submitted' questions that he did have to answer were about the supposed 'risks' of independence - to which all he had to reply was 'Well yes, quite, I agree, there's so much uncertainty about independence, we're better off as part of the UK etc. etc.'

And, while the Parish Church can't be blamed for this, the location of the meeting pretty much guaranteed Mr. Darling a relatively sympathetic audience - a leafy, well-off suburb of Edinburgh. Obviously, many of the well-off locals who attended the meeting were mostly keen to preserve a status quo that has clearly served them so well.

In spite of all this, Yes supporters were also there in significant numbers. Incredibly for such an affluent area, the audience did seem to be pretty evenly-balanced between Yes, No and undecideds. The chairing of the meeting was most certainly not evenly-balanced.

At the end of the meeting, the Chairperson, who is also a Minister at the Church, led us all in prayer for good things to come out of the referendum debate for Scotland regardless of the outcome. But in spite of that brief holy moment at the end, I left a church this evening with the feeling that something thoroughly unholy had happened under its roof.

[wigantojapan]

Last for me today..there is a lot of reading in todays posts so it will take time for many of the facts to sink in....This is in todays Scottish herald ..This comes via from ENGLISH people for independence...again defeating the myth that we are anti English.....moving on enjoy the report and its links...

http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html

[nontabury]

Last for me today..there is a lot of reading in todays posts so it will take time for many of the facts to sink in....This is in todays Scottish herald ..This comes via from ENGLISH people for independence...again defeating the myth that we are anti English.....moving on enjoy the report and its links...

http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html

Why do you persist in pasting and posting from so obviously biased propaganda sites. Last year we had a similar thread on this same subject, the main SNP supporter was Theblether, however unlike you, he was capable of of constructing his own arguments in support of separation,and very occasionally would even concede to failures in the SNP policies, you on the other hand just blindly accept everything you are told from these professional politicians, a bit similar to the majority of Thais who again blindly follow one of the two political sides here in Thailand, but at least they have the excuse that they were never brought up to think for themselves.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[wigantojapan]

Last for me today..there is a lot of reading in todays posts so it will take time for many of the facts to sink in....This is in todays Scottish herald ..This comes via from ENGLISH people for independence...again defeating the myth that we are anti English.....moving on enjoy the report and its links...

http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html

Why do you persist in pasting and posting from so obviously biased propaganda sites. Last year we had a similar thread on this same subject, the main SNP supporter was Theblether, however unlike you, he was capable of of constructing his own arguments in support of separation,and very occasionally would even concede to failures in the SNP policies, you on the other hand just blindly accept everything you are told from these professional politicians, a bit similar to the majority of Thais who again blindly follow one of the two political sides here in Thailand, but at least they have the excuse that they were never brought up to think for themselves.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The above link is a government paper unless you are suggesting that is biased and propaganda..As for the rest of your comment ,well i will leave it at that,,no need to answer it,,speaks for itself..Good to see you have such an even opinion of Thais as you do Scots,,, like my mother always said its the children i feel sorry for

[wigantojapan]

The largest telecommunications provider in BT,

the largest satellite broadcaster in SKY

the largest retail chain in Tesco are all staying, regardless

. http://www.yesscotland.net/news/bt-stay-scotland-after-independence of course all the big businesses where going to leave Scotland,,,that was a mantra ,,that was chanted before and is still chanted today,,,,,BT SKY and TESCO are off course bias and use propaganda methods to maximize their profits and are followers of the SNP of course.....Anyone is free to comment on any of the content of the links i post,,,I did say the content...

[transam]

Tesco is world wide, the other two are businesses too, they will continue in business until all is revealed in "their" future....................

[folium]

Where is Alistair Darling the face of the better together campaign...As previously stated Darling has come a long long way from his roots and his constituents that got him on the slippery ladder of the modern day politician,,,Well he has turned up not a stones throw from where he started his political career,,albeit a more leafy area of edimbra ,,not quite as exclusive an address as the grass roots no movement of Charlotte Square but affluent non the less,,,

So here were he has been,,Here is how in the main the no campaign operate in a debate,and has been the case over the all of Scotland when they are prepared to turn up which is not often.Want to hear about the 'public' meeting organised by Craiglockhart Parish Church this evening?

Hundreds turned up to hear the debate between No campaign chief Alistair Darling and Jim Eadie MSP speaking for the Yes campaign. Here are some of the key features of this 'public' meeting:

1. The audience were NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK. No questions from the floor were allowed.

2. The audience were NOT ALLOWED to film the debate. Some journalism students from Napier University were allowed to film it, but we were expressly told that they would only be using that film for their course and it would not be publicized on social media or anywhere else.

3. The Chairperson read out a list of pre-submitted questions for the 2 speakers to answer. There were about 8 questions in total. Almost ALL of them were variations on questions about the possible 'risks' of independence. NONE of them were about the possible risks of a No vote.

4. The supposedly 'neutral' Chairperson cross-examined Jim Eadie on one of his answers. There was no cross-examination of any of Alistair Darling's answers.

5. I spoke to the Chairperson after this 'public' meeting at which the public had not been allowed to speak. I asked him who chose the questions. He said that he did. I asked him why almost all of the questions had been about the possible 'consequences' of independence, but none of the questions had been about the possible consequences of a No vote. He said that just so happened to be the questions he had received, and admitted it made for a biased set of questions. I asked him why he didn't then allow questions from the floor as a possible way of balancing out the type of questions. He said he didn't allow questions from the floor because of the 'limited time available'.

Most bizarrely of all, he said that because of the limited time available, if he had allowed questions from the floor then there wouldn't have been time for everybody to have asked their questions. So in other words, he was saying that the solution to the problem of some people not getting the chance to speak was to allow NOBODY in the audience to speak!

6. Fortunately, Alistair Darling was at least heckled from the audience. This was the only way anybody in the audience there could actually get to challenge what he was saying. Alistair Darling didn't respond, he simply hid behind the chairperson who reminded the public at this 'public' meeting that we weren't allowed to speak.

Craiglockhart Parish Church is supposedly neutral on the question of independence. Presumably it is therefore just a co-incidence that the set-up of this 'debate' could not have been made easier for Alistair Darling if they had tried. He didn't have to answer any questions from the audience. He was never cross-examined on his answers by the chairperson (while his opponent was). Almost all of the 'pre-submitted' questions that he did have to answer were about the supposed 'risks' of independence - to which all he had to reply was 'Well yes, quite, I agree, there's so much uncertainty about independence, we're better off as part of the UK etc. etc.'

And, while the Parish Church can't be blamed for this, the location of the meeting pretty much guaranteed Mr. Darling a relatively sympathetic audience - a leafy, well-off suburb of Edinburgh. Obviously, many of the well-off locals who attended the meeting were mostly keen to preserve a status quo that has clearly served them so well.

In spite of all this, Yes supporters were also there in significant numbers. Incredibly for such an affluent area, the audience did seem to be pretty evenly-balanced between Yes, No and undecideds. The chairing of the meeting was most certainly not evenly-balanced.

At the end of the meeting, the Chairperson, who is also a Minister at the Church, led us all in prayer for good things to come out of the referendum debate for Scotland regardless of the outcome. But in spite of that brief holy moment at the end, I left a church this evening with the feeling that something thoroughly unholy had happened under its roof.

Where does this report come from?

[RuamRudy]

Where is Alistair Darling the face of the better together campaign...As previously stated Darling has come a long long way from his roots and his constituents that got him on the slippery ladder of the modern day politician,,,Well he has turned up not a stones throw from where he started his political career,,albeit a more leafy area of edimbra ,,not quite as exclusive an address as the grass roots no movement of Charlotte Square but affluent non the less,,,

So here were he has been,,Here is how in the main the no campaign operate in a debate,and has been the case over the all of Scotland when they are prepared to turn up which is not often.Want to hear about the 'public' meeting organised by Craiglockhart Parish Church this evening?

Hundreds turned up to hear the debate between No campaign chief Alistair Darling and Jim Eadie MSP speaking for the Yes campaign. Here are some of the key features of this 'public' meeting:

1. The audience were NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK. No questions from the floor were allowed.

2. The audience were NOT ALLOWED to film the debate. Some journalism students from Napier University were allowed to film it, but we were expressly told that they would only be using that film for their course and it would not be publicized on social media or anywhere else.

3. The Chairperson read out a list of pre-submitted questions for the 2 speakers to answer. There were about 8 questions in total. Almost ALL of them were variations on questions about the possible 'risks' of independence. NONE of them were about the possible risks of a No vote.

4. The supposedly 'neutral' Chairperson cross-examined Jim Eadie on one of his answers. There was no cross-examination of any of Alistair Darling's answers.

5. I spoke to the Chairperson after this 'public' meeting at which the public had not been allowed to speak. I asked him who chose the questions. He said that he did. I asked him why almost all of the questions had been about the possible 'consequences' of independence, but none of the questions had been about the possible consequences of a No vote. He said that just so happened to be the questions he had received, and admitted it made for a biased set of questions. I asked him why he didn't then allow questions from the floor as a possible way of balancing out the type of questions. He said he didn't allow questions from the floor because of the 'limited time available'.

Most bizarrely of all, he said that because of the limited time available, if he had allowed questions from the floor then there wouldn't have been time for everybody to have asked their questions. So in other words, he was saying that the solution to the problem of some people not getting the chance to speak was to allow NOBODY in the audience to speak!

6. Fortunately, Alistair Darling was at least heckled from the audience. This was the only way anybody in the audience there could actually get to challenge what he was saying. Alistair Darling didn't respond, he simply hid behind the chairperson who reminded the public at this 'public' meeting that we weren't allowed to speak.

Craiglockhart Parish Church is supposedly neutral on the question of independence. Presumably it is therefore just a co-incidence that the set-up of this 'debate' could not have been made easier for Alistair Darling if they had tried. He didn't have to answer any questions from the audience. He was never cross-examined on his answers by the chairperson (while his opponent was). Almost all of the 'pre-submitted' questions that he did have to answer were about the supposed 'risks' of independence - to which all he had to reply was 'Well yes, quite, I agree, there's so much uncertainty about independence, we're better off as part of the UK etc. etc.'

And, while the Parish Church can't be blamed for this, the location of the meeting pretty much guaranteed Mr. Darling a relatively sympathetic audience - a leafy, well-off suburb of Edinburgh. Obviously, many of the well-off locals who attended the meeting were mostly keen to preserve a status quo that has clearly served them so well.

In spite of all this, Yes supporters were also there in significant numbers. Incredibly for such an affluent area, the audience did seem to be pretty evenly-balanced between Yes, No and undecideds. The chairing of the meeting was most certainly not evenly-balanced.

At the end of the meeting, the Chairperson, who is also a Minister at the Church, led us all in prayer for good things to come out of the referendum debate for Scotland regardless of the outcome. But in spite of that brief holy moment at the end, I left a church this evening with the feeling that something thoroughly unholy had happened under its roof.

Very interesting - thanks for the report, WtJ.

I still await the Cameron / Salmond debate; interestingly, Cameron is reported to be thinking about debating with Nigel Farage.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/09/david-cameron-appeals-ukip-voters

[wigantojapan]

Where is Alistair Darling the face of the better together campaign...As previously stated Darling has come a long long way from his roots and his constituents that got him on the slippery ladder of the modern day politician,,,Well he has turned up not a stones throw from where he started his political career,,albeit a more leafy area of edimbra ,,not quite as exclusive an address as the grass roots no movement of Charlotte Square but affluent non the less,,,

So here were he has been,,Here is how in the main the no campaign operate in a debate,and has been the case over the all of Scotland when they are prepared to turn up which is not often.Want to hear about the 'public' meeting organised by Craiglockhart Parish Church this evening?

Hundreds turned up to hear the debate between No campaign chief Alistair Darling and Jim Eadie MSP speaking for the Yes campaign. Here are some of the key features of this 'public' meeting:

1. The audience were NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK. No questions from the floor were allowed.

2. The audience were NOT ALLOWED to film the debate. Some journalism students from Napier University were allowed to film it, but we were expressly told that they would only be using that film for their course and it would not be publicized on social media or anywhere else.

3. The Chairperson read out a list of pre-submitted questions for the 2 speakers to answer. There were about 8 questions in total. Almost ALL of them were variations on questions about the possible 'risks' of independence. NONE of them were about the possible risks of a No vote.

4. The supposedly 'neutral' Chairperson cross-examined Jim Eadie on one of his answers. There was no cross-examination of any of Alistair Darling's answers.

5. I spoke to the Chairperson after this 'public' meeting at which the public had not been allowed to speak. I asked him who chose the questions. He said that he did. I asked him why almost all of the questions had been about the possible 'consequences' of independence, but none of the questions had been about the possible consequences of a No vote. He said that just so happened to be the questions he had received, and admitted it made for a biased set of questions. I asked him why he didn't then allow questions from the floor as a possible way of balancing out the type of questions. He said he didn't allow questions from the floor because of the 'limited time available'.

Most bizarrely of all, he said that because of the limited time available, if he had allowed questions from the floor then there wouldn't have been time for everybody to have asked their questions. So in other words, he was saying that the solution to the problem of some people not getting the chance to speak was to allow NOBODY in the audience to speak!

6. Fortunately, Alistair Darling was at least heckled from the audience. This was the only way anybody in the audience there could actually get to challenge what he was saying. Alistair Darling didn't respond, he simply hid behind the chairperson who reminded the public at this 'public' meeting that we weren't allowed to speak.

Craiglockhart Parish Church is supposedly neutral on the question of independence. Presumably it is therefore just a co-incidence that the set-up of this 'debate' could not have been made easier for Alistair Darling if they had tried. He didn't have to answer any questions from the audience. He was never cross-examined on his answers by the chairperson (while his opponent was). Almost all of the 'pre-submitted' questions that he did have to answer were about the supposed 'risks' of independence - to which all he had to reply was 'Well yes, quite, I agree, there's so much uncertainty about independence, we're better off as part of the UK etc. etc.'

And, while the Parish Church can't be blamed for this, the location of the meeting pretty much guaranteed Mr. Darling a relatively sympathetic audience - a leafy, well-off suburb of Edinburgh. Obviously, many of the well-off locals who attended the meeting were mostly keen to preserve a status quo that has clearly served them so well.

In spite of all this, Yes supporters were also there in significant numbers. Incredibly for such an affluent area, the audience did seem to be pretty evenly-balanced between Yes, No and undecideds. The chairing of the meeting was most certainly not evenly-balanced.

At the end of the meeting, the Chairperson, who is also a Minister at the Church, led us all in prayer for good things to come out of the referendum debate for Scotland regardless of the outcome. But in spite of that brief holy moment at the end, I left a church this evening with the feeling that something thoroughly unholy had happened under its roof.

Where does this report come from?

If you are referring to who the report comes from rather than where the report comes from,it quite clearly shows in the report who is reporting.

If you are referring to where in location,again that is clearly set out.

Now do you or don't you want to discuss the contents?

[folium]

Where is Alistair Darling the face of the better together campaign...As previously stated Darling has come a long long way from his roots and his constituents that got him on the slippery ladder of the modern day politician,,,Well he has turned up not a stones throw from where he started his political career,,albeit a more leafy area of edimbra ,,not quite as exclusive an address as the grass roots no movement of Charlotte Square but affluent non the less,,,

So here were he has been,,Here is how in the main the no campaign operate in a debate,and has been the case over the all of Scotland when they are prepared to turn up which is not often.Want to hear about the 'public' meeting organised by Craiglockhart Parish Church this evening?

Hundreds turned up to hear the debate between No campaign chief Alistair Darling and Jim Eadie MSP speaking for the Yes campaign. Here are some of the key features of this 'public' meeting:

1. The audience were NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK. No questions from the floor were allowed.

2. The audience were NOT ALLOWED to film the debate. Some journalism students from Napier University were allowed to film it, but we were expressly told that they would only be using that film for their course and it would not be publicized on social media or anywhere else.

3. The Chairperson read out a list of pre-submitted questions for the 2 speakers to answer. There were about 8 questions in total. Almost ALL of them were variations on questions about the possible 'risks' of independence. NONE of them were about the possible risks of a No vote.

4. The supposedly 'neutral' Chairperson cross-examined Jim Eadie on one of his answers. There was no cross-examination of any of Alistair Darling's answers.

5. I spoke to the Chairperson after this 'public' meeting at which the public had not been allowed to speak. I asked him who chose the questions. He said that he did. I asked him why almost all of the questions had been about the possible 'consequences' of independence, but none of the questions had been about the possible consequences of a No vote. He said that just so happened to be the questions he had received, and admitted it made for a biased set of questions. I asked him why he didn't then allow questions from the floor as a possible way of balancing out the type of questions. He said he didn't allow questions from the floor because of the 'limited time available'.

Most bizarrely of all, he said that because of the limited time available, if he had allowed questions from the floor then there wouldn't have been time for everybody to have asked their questions. So in other words, he was saying that the solution to the problem of some people not getting the chance to speak was to allow NOBODY in the audience to speak!

6. Fortunately, Alistair Darling was at least heckled from the audience. This was the only way anybody in the audience there could actually get to challenge what he was saying. Alistair Darling didn't respond, he simply hid behind the chairperson who reminded the public at this 'public' meeting that we weren't allowed to speak.

Craiglockhart Parish Church is supposedly neutral on the question of independence. Presumably it is therefore just a co-incidence that the set-up of this 'debate' could not have been made easier for Alistair Darling if they had tried. He didn't have to answer any questions from the audience. He was never cross-examined on his answers by the chairperson (while his opponent was). Almost all of the 'pre-submitted' questions that he did have to answer were about the supposed 'risks' of independence - to which all he had to reply was 'Well yes, quite, I agree, there's so much uncertainty about independence, we're better off as part of the UK etc. etc.'

And, while the Parish Church can't be blamed for this, the location of the meeting pretty much guaranteed Mr. Darling a relatively sympathetic audience - a leafy, well-off suburb of Edinburgh. Obviously, many of the well-off locals who attended the meeting were mostly keen to preserve a status quo that has clearly served them so well.

In spite of all this, Yes supporters were also there in significant numbers. Incredibly for such an affluent area, the audience did seem to be pretty evenly-balanced between Yes, No and undecideds. The chairing of the meeting was most certainly not evenly-balanced.

At the end of the meeting, the Chairperson, who is also a Minister at the Church, led us all in prayer for good things to come out of the referendum debate for Scotland regardless of the outcome. But in spite of that brief holy moment at the end, I left a church this evening with the feeling that something thoroughly unholy had happened under its roof.

Where does this report come from?

If you are referring to who the report comes from rather than where the report comes from,it quite clearly shows in the report who is reporting.

If you are referring to where in location,again that is clearly set out.

Now do you or don't you want to discuss the contents?

So you were in Craiglockhart, correct?

[nontabury]

Hundreds turned up to hear the debate between No campaign chief Alistair Darling and Jim Eadie MSP speaking for the Yes campaign. Here are some of the key features of this 'public' meeting

5. I spoke to the Chairperson after this 'public' meeting

6. Fortunately, Alistair Darling was at least heckled from the audience.

Craiglockhart Parish Church is supposedly neutral on the question of independence.

So you were in Craiglockhart, correct?

If you are referring to the parish of Craiglockhart, just outside Wigan in Lancashire then I can quite believe that he was there.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Scott]

If you are copying or quoting information from other sources and not giving a link and credit to those sources, you will receive a suspension. That is a rather serious infraction of forum rules and it may violate the law as well.

You have been warned.

[wigantojapan]

I have quite clearly stated in numerous threads where i am from...It is not my responsibility for other people if they cannot pick up on that ..

I have clearly stated in a previous thread that Mr Darling has been in my family members house,in the constituency that got him on the ladder of politics .

It is not my responsibility to spell that out to people where that is,,they can find out for themselves,,,,,but lets be very clear on this it is NOT in Lancashire and it is NOT in Wigan which are both in England and of course Darling represented a Scottish constituent.

[wigantojapan]

Hundreds turned up to hear the debate between No campaign chief Alistair Darling and Jim Eadie MSP speaking for the Yes campaign. Here are some of the key features of this 'public' meeting

5. I spoke to the Chairperson after this 'public' meeting

6. Fortunately, Alistair Darling was at least heckled from the audience.

Craiglockhart Parish Church is supposedly neutral on the question of independence.

So you were in Craiglockhart, correct?

If you are referring to the parish of Craiglockhart, just outside Wigan in Lancashire then I can quite believe that he was there.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

depends on how you perceive distance,,,,200 odd miles North of Wigan,,Lancashire in some people s eyes is Just outside,,,,Though i doubt that is what you meant....

[wigantojapan]

Today's article highlights the facts about Scotland's economy and expels the myths that as a nation we are 'too wee, too poor, and too stupid'. Nothing, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.
The facts are there to be read and they prove we are big enough, rich enough, and definitely intelligent enough to be Independent. But don't take my word for it, read the article...

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts” http://myweemusings.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/facts-and-figures-explained/

[wigantojapan]

Another reason why the Westminster wants Scotland in the UK

The British government on Friday gave the green light for oil firm EnQuest to invest £4.0 billion in a North Sea oil field scheme that will support an estimated 20,000 jobs.

Oil firm EnQuest said in a statement that it would plough the equivalent of $6.4 billion or 4.7 billion euros into the Kraken oil field east of the Shetland Islands, which lie north of the Scottish mainland.

The plans have been approved by the government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change and welcomed by finance minister George Osborne.http://www.pesatimes.com/news/energy-mining/uk-government-approves-4-bn-north-sea-oil-project/

[wigantojapan]

More proof, if it were needed, that Westminster does not represent the majority of the population. And another reason to vote YES.

"A few days after it was revealed that an NHS group is considering charging patients for the crutches, walking sticks and neck braces it issues, we discovered that David Cameron has intervened to keep the cost of gun licences frozen at £50: a price that hasn't changed since 2001.

The police are furious: it costs them £196 to conduct the background checks required to ensure shotguns are issued only to the kind of dangerous lunatics who use them for mowing down pheasants, rather than to the common or garden variety. As a result they – sorry, we – lose £17m a year, by subsidising the pursuits of the exceedingly rich...http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/britain-plutocrats-landed-gentry-shotgun-owners