Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[wigantojapan]

But cherry picking 'facts' to 'prove' a point is.

This has to be the biggest laugh of the day,,by a man who goes through a persons posts on a entirely different subject,,,,

Thank you for that one.

Back to the topic in hand

[wigantojapan]

http://proindy.org/2014/05/15/daily-digest-osborne-upsets-inequality-laid-bare-and-cameron-in-scotland/

Osborne ramps up his threats

George Osborne’s latest intervention in the referendum showed the chancellor not just continuing to stick his head in the sand about currency union, but ramping up his threats about what would happen should Scotland dare vote Yes. Various papers cover his vow to stop Scottish banks notes from being printed, and his prediction that an independent Scotland would run out of hard cash.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/may/scots-tory-leader-gags-mp-colleagues-yes-surge

cots Tory leader gags MP colleagues on Yes surge

Thu, 15/05/2014 - 11:40

The No campaign has faced embarrassment today, as David Cameron’s visit to Scotland coincided with a speech by Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson telling Westminster Tories to butt out of the referendum campaign.

In a speech to Tory MPs in London yesterday, Ruth Davidson spoke out against her Westminster colleagues telling them “if you don’t know anything, don’t say anything’.

Ahead of his visit to Scotland, newspaper reports have confirmed that the No campaign have privately admitted that David Cameron’s last visit to Scotland ‘gave the wrong impression’ after he refused to engage with real people – and Professor John Curtice has told David Cameron that his advice would be to “keep away” if he wanted to help the No campaign.

The No campaign has descended into chaos in recent weeks – with senior Tories continually briefing against Alistair Darling’s role in the No campaign, as rumours about his effective replacement as chairman continue.

In a further embarrassment for the Tories it has emerged that Ruth Davidson has urged her Tory colleagues not to campaign in Glasgow during the referendum campaign as the party is so unpopular – despite Ms Davidson herself representing the city.

[jpinx]

Given that UK is unsure of the EU - and independent Scotland is sure -- who's cosy-ing up to who now ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27418134

Edited May 15, 2014 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

But cherry picking 'facts' to 'prove' a point is.

This has to be the biggest laugh of the day,,by a man who goes through a persons posts on a entirely different subject,,,,

Thank you for that one.

Back to the topic in hand

Don't you realise that if you put the word facts in inverted commas, it becomes a valid and well reasoned argument? If you augment it with the word prove, similarly bracketed, no further evidence is required; your position is unassailable.

[wigantojapan]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-pounds-in-your-pockets/

Several of today’s papers run with the story that in giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in Westminster, George Osborne yesterday made the claim that Scots could run out of cash under independence, as Scottish banks would no longer be able to print their own pound notes guaranteed by the Bank of England.

Osborne’s argument is that Scottish notes are accepted as currency in the UK under the Banknote (Scotland) Act of 1845. However, this legislation would no longer apply after independence without a currency union, thereby making Scots notes worthless.

In what was an oddly nervous and evasive performance before the Committee – despite its extremely friendly questioning – it was one of the Chancellor’s stranger assertions.

[Basil B]

Very simple, if Scotland does go independent then Scottish bank notes will be treated like any other foreign currency in the rUK unless their is agreement to currency union which is highly unlikely as this will require an act of parliament.

If Scotland does vote yes, Alex will first have to approach the UK government for concessions, this government is due for reelection and highly unlikely to exist in it's current form come next May.

May be some agreements may be binding whoever runs the country following the elections next May, I do not know, but only thing for sure no one is going to give Alex anything as it will cost them votes south of the boarder.

There probably have to be a "Scottish divorce bill" go through parliament that will contain much of the legislation required for the separation of Scotland and for the concessions Alex wants, there is no guarantee it would ever get through intact even with all major parties imposing a three line whip.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Basil B

[RuamRudy]

Very simple, if Scotland does go independent then Scottish bank notes will be treated like any other foreign currency in the rUK unless their is agreement to currency union which is highly unlikely as this will require an act of parliament.

If Scotland does vote yes, Alex will first have to approach the UK government for concessions, this government is due for reelection and highly unlikely to exist in it's current form come next May.

May be some agreements may be binding whoever runs the country following the elections next May, I do not know, but only thing for sure no one is going to give Alex anything as it will cost them votes south of the boarder.

There probably have to be a "Scottish divorce bill" go through parliament that will contain much of the legislation required for the separation of Scotland and for the concessions Alex wants, there is no guarantee it would ever get through intact even with all major parties imposing a three line whip.

According to the UK government, Scotland imported GBP 59 billion worth of goods from the rest of the UK in 2012. There will be a lot of upset rUK manufacturers and distributors if a spoilt little rich boy spits the dummy because he doesn't get his own way.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scottish-independence-referendum-factsheets/scottish-referendum-information-pack

[7by7]

Dr Robertson is not a member of the SNP; but he is an avid supporter of Scottish independence.

His paper, which contains no references and little data to back up his findings, has been questioned by many academics. and contains many inaccuracies.

BBC rejects 'thought-control' claim.

However, BBC bosses completely rejected the allegations, insisting the report contained factual inaccuracies with quotes from people who did not feature in its reports and lines that its journalists did not say.

BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie said Mr Robertson refused the BBC's requests for his raw data.

Erm... well they would say that, wouldn't they?

You specifically point out that the author is an "avid supporter of Scottish independence" as if this is a negative aspect, then you back up your position with comments by the head of the organisation under dispute. Do you not think that Mr. MacQuarrie could also have the same charge leveled at him with far greater success?

So, to reiterate, I provided you with an academic paper that made a claim about a public body. Your rebuttal is simply to offer the denial by said public body. Please, where is an independent confirmation of BBC impartiality?

That Dr Robertson is a supporter of Scottish independence is very relevant; it means that his conclusions have to be taken with a very large sackfull of salt; unless he is willing to provide the raw date to back up those conclusions.

Yet he flatly refuses to do so. If the data exists, why does he not produce it?

His claims are no more than that; claims without any data to substantiate them. His refusal to provide the raw data he used strongly indicates one thing, and one thing only. He had a theory, the BBC and other media are biased against Scottish independence, and then set out to find evidence of this. Ignoring evidence which disproved his thesis.

Even the claims that his report was suppressed are rubbish.

Maybe you missed this bit "Head of news and current affairs John Boothman denied that the study had been suppressed, pointing out that Dr Robertson had discussed it on BBC Scotland's flagship morning news show and that it was debated in phone-ins....."

The man from Wigan has posted coverage of Dr Robertson appearing before a Scottish Parliament committee, coverage from the BBC! The BBC are so desperate to suppress his report that they are covering his appearance before a Scottish Parliament committee!

In that video (10:12 to 11:23) he rejects Professor Curtice's results as the professor "only relied on samples." He then says that he monitored all BBC output between 6 and 7 for a year. Only one hour a day! Even if we ignore the BBC's 24 hour news channel, they provide far more news coverage each day on BBC1, BBC2 and the local BBC stations, including BBC Scotland, than a mere one hour. Why didn't he also monitor the lunchtime news, the 10pm news, Newsnight, BBC Breakfast news; plus, of course, other news and current affairs programmes from BBC Scotland?

Maybe he did, but rejected what he found as it didn't fit his hypothesis?

Dr Robertson's problem, it seems to me, isn't that his report has been suppressed by the media, it hasn't, but that it's been widely ignored or dismissed; because it contains so many factual errors and he has no raw data with which to back up his findings.

As for providing evidence in the form of academic reports showing the BBC to be impartial; surely you are intelligent enough to know that one can't prove a negative?

[7by7]

I believe you said this a couple of days ago 7.

"The answer to the question "Why wont Cameron debate Scottish independence with Salmond?" is simple, and has been answered many times. As Prime Minister, Cameron cannot get involved in the referendum campaign; on either side."

So what is Cameron doing in Scotland today??? I guess he is not getting involved in the referendum campaign eh?

"on either side"

Scotland is still part of the UK.

Cameron is still Prime Minister of the UK.

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK Prime Minister should be barred from entering certain parts of the UK?

As for a televised debate; it should be between the leaders of the two campaigns; whoever they may be.

Whether you accept it or not, I have at least offered an explanation of why Cameron wont have a televised debate with Salmond.

Neither you nor any of the other pro independence posters here have yet offered any explanation as to why the leader of the Yes campaign (whether that be Salmond or Jenkins) refuses a televised debate with the leader of the No campaign (whether that be Darling or his successor).

Can you now do so?

[RuamRudy]

I believe you said this a couple of days ago 7.

"The answer to the question "Why wont Cameron debate Scottish independence with Salmond?" is simple, and has been answered many times. As Prime Minister, Cameron cannot get involved in the referendum campaign; on either side."

So what is Cameron doing in Scotland today??? I guess he is not getting involved in the referendum campaign eh?

"on either side"

Scotland is still part of the UK.

Cameron is still Prime Minister of the UK.

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK Prime Minister should be barred from entering certain parts of the UK?

As for a televised debate; it should be between the leaders of the two campaigns; whoever they may be.

Whether you accept it or not, I have at least offered an explanation of why Cameron wont have a televised debate with Salmond.

Neither you nor any of the other pro independence posters here have yet offered any explanation as to why the leader of the Yes campaign (whether that be Salmond or Jenkins) refuses a televised debate with the leader of the No campaign (whether that be Darling or his successor).

Can you now do so?

As was explained earlier, the Yes campaign leader is Blair Jenkins, not Salmond.

Here is Mr Jenkins agreeing to 'debate with No at every opportunity'. http://wingsoverscotland.com/one-down/

But going back to your earlier statement, "Cameron cannot get involved in the referendum campaign, on either side.". I am not sure that he read your post before he spoke yesterday. Maybe you want to send him a direct message so that he understands his remit more clearly.

[7by7]

The question asked by Wings over Scotland was "Can you confirm in principle you're willing to have a public debate?"

This, and the reply you linked to, was in July last year.

Since then, Darling has had public debates with Yes supporters, such as the one in Craiglockhart, but the high ups in the Yes campaign seem unwilling to debate with him.

Agreeing in principle seems, as far as the Yes campaign are concerned, a lot different from actually doing it!

Unless I missed these public debates; in which case I am sure that you will be able to provide links to reputable reports of them.

BTW, I know you have said that Jenkins is the leader, or rather the chief executive. Has anyone told Salmond?

But going back to your earlier statement, "Cameron cannot get involved in the referendum campaign, on either side.". I am not sure that he read your post before he spoke yesterday. Maybe you want to send him a direct message so that he understands his remit more clearly.

See my earlier post on this.

Edited May 16, 2014 by 7by7

[RuamRudy]

That Dr Robertson is a supporter of Scottish independence is very relevant; it means that his conclusions have to be taken with a very large sackfull of salt; unless he is willing to provide the raw date to back up those conclusions.

Yet he flatly refuses to do so. If the data exists, why does he not produce it?

His claims are no more than that; claims without any data to substantiate them. His refusal to provide the raw data he used strongly indicates one thing, and one thing only. He had a theory, the BBC and other media are biased against Scottish independence, and then set out to find evidence of this. Ignoring evidence which disproved his thesis.

Even the claims that his report was suppressed are rubbish.

Maybe you missed this bit "Head of news and current affairs John Boothman denied that the study had been suppressed, pointing out that Dr Robertson had discussed it on BBC Scotland's flagship morning news show and that it was debated in phone-ins....."

The man from Wigan has posted coverage of Dr Robertson appearing before a Scottish Parliament committee, coverage from the BBC! The BBC are so desperate to suppress his report that they are covering his appearance before a Scottish Parliament committee!

In that video (10:12 to 11:23) he rejects Professor Curtice's results as the professor "only relied on samples." He then says that he monitored all BBC output between 6 and 7 for a year. Only one hour a day! Even if we ignore the BBC's 24 hour news channel, they provide far more news coverage each day on BBC1, BBC2 and the local BBC stations, including BBC Scotland, than a mere one hour. Why didn't he also monitor the lunchtime news, the 10pm news, Newsnight, BBC Breakfast news; plus, of course, other news and current affairs programmes from BBC Scotland?

Maybe he did, but rejected what he found as it didn't fit his hypothesis?

Dr Robertson's problem, it seems to me, isn't that his report has been suppressed by the media, it hasn't, but that it's been widely ignored or dismissed; because it contains so many factual errors and he has no raw data with which to back up his findings.

As for providing evidence in the form of academic reports showing the BBC to be impartial; surely you are intelligent enough to know that one can't prove a negative?

I go back to what I said earlier - all the rebuttals offered come from the very organisation accused of bias.

As for an absence of bias that you suggest cannot be proven, I am afraid you are wrong. It is entirely possible for one to carry out an objective analysis on BBC content and provide a review in the manner that Dr Robertson did. If, as you purport, the BBC is not biased, then that would be evident from the results. I await your delivery of such a report - but please don't simply roll out another BBC bod protecting himself and his organisation. I think even the most trusting of souls could see how they may have a huge conflict of interests.

[7by7]

You have, I see, ignored all the important points I raised.

The three most important questions:-

Why wont Dr Robertson release the raw data upon which he based his findings?

How is monitoring just one hour a day out of the many hours per day of BBC news a fair sample?

If the BBC are supressing his report, how come he discussed it on BBC Scotland; how come they held phone ins to discuss it; how come they provided full coverage of him being questioned about it by a committee of the Scottish Parliament?

[I Like Thai]

How much revenue will the BBC lose when Scottish people no longer have to pay the TV license

[phuketjock]

I believe you said this a couple of days ago 7.

"The answer to the question "Why wont Cameron debate Scottish independence with Salmond?" is simple, and has been answered many times. As Prime Minister, Cameron cannot get involved in the referendum campaign; on either side."

So what is Cameron doing in Scotland today??? I guess he is not getting involved in the referendum campaign eh?

"on either side"

Scotland is still part of the UK.

Cameron is still Prime Minister of the UK.

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK Prime Minister should be barred from entering certain parts of the UK?

As for a televised debate; it should be between the leaders of the two campaigns; whoever they may be.

Whether you accept it or not, I have at least offered an explanation of why Cameron wont have a televised debate with Salmond.

Neither you nor any of the other pro independence posters here have yet offered any explanation as to why the leader of the Yes campaign (whether that be Salmond or Jenkins) refuses a televised debate with the leader of the No campaign (whether that be Darling or his successor).

Can you now do so?

No where in my above post have I made the slightest hint that Cameron cannot visit Scotland or in fact anywhere

he wishes in UK or the World for that matter.

What I did question and still do is what is he doing in Scotland Quote " in support of the better together campaign "

when you so emphatically insisted that he " cannot get involved in the referendum campaign; on either side. " ???

You have so far failed to answer this question

Can you now do so?

Incidently there was also nothing in my above post about campaign leaders having a televised debate.

But then again you had to say something to avoid your embarrassment I suppose.

[Boo]

I have edited out the full text of a news article, please remember the fair use rule, only the first few sentences please.

13) Do not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[7by7]

PJ,

You seemed to be questioning his right to be in Scotland, so I asked you a question. You must have missed the "?".

You did mention the TV debate; albeit by quoting me; I responded.

See also the earlier replies I referred RuamRudy to.

[7by7]

How much revenue will the BBC lose when Scottish people no longer have to pay the TV license

Probably a lot less than the savings they'll make when they no longer have to pay for BBC Scotland, BBC Radio Scotland, BBC Alba.

[RuamRudy]

You have, I see, ignored all the important points I raised.

The three most important questions:-

Why wont Dr Robertson release the raw data upon which he based his findings?

How is monitoring just one hour a day out of the many hours per day of BBC news a fair sample?

If the BBC are supressing his report, how come he discussed it on BBC Scotland; how come they held phone ins to discuss it; how come they provided full coverage of him being questioned about it by a committee of the Scottish Parliament?

Dr Robertson has addressed the issue of raw data here: http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8679-uws-academic-responds-to-bbc-scotland-criticism-of-indy-news-study

1 hour monitoring - I don't see the BBC upset at that, so maybe you are in a minority of one, but I think you would agree that it would be a very onerous task to monitor for 24hrs per day. Anyway, they carried out a 1 hour survey of BBC and STV, not BBC alone. It is a comparative survey.

And your third point - here is where you will possibly insult me, once again, by claiming that I have psychological issues, however I stand by my point. The BBC has been proven to be operating outside its mandate. It is out in the open and causing outrage, so they cannot ignore it. It can either accept the findings and adopt the appropriate corrective actions or reject them. It chose the latter, and in a most venomous manner.

[RuamRudy]

How much revenue will the BBC lose when Scottish people no longer have to pay the TV license

Probably a lot less than the savings they'll make when they no longer have to pay for BBC Scotland, BBC Radio Scotland, BBC Alba.

Probably? I think you meant to type 'I don't have a clue but I will make negative statement anyway'?

SCOTTISH LICENCE FEE INCOME: £300m

BUDGET OF BBC SCOTLAND IN 2016/17: £86m

COST OF BUYING BBC CHANNELS: £21m

MONEY REMAINING: £193m

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-price-of-the-bbc/

[7by7]

A report full of assumptions, which they admit, and based on data from RTE!

RTE has to buy BBC programmes it wants to show. Viewers in Scotland currently don't, like the rest of us in the UK they receive them free to air.

Like the rest of us in the UK, their licence fee doesn't just pay for local programming, it pays for all BBC programming; radio and TV.

Except they get an extra one as well; BBC Alba.

Edited May 16, 2014 by 7by7

[RuamRudy]

A report full of assumptions, which they admit, and based on data from RTE!

You must be very astute to make that observation in under 2 minutes. I am impressed.

Why is RTE not a suitable model for comparison? Which country do you suggest should be used as an indicator of potential cost? Do you actually understand the methodology used?

[7by7]

You have, I see, ignored all the important points I raised.

The three most important questions:-

Why wont Dr Robertson release the raw data upon which he based his findings?

How is monitoring just one hour a day out of the many hours per day of BBC news a fair sample?

If the BBC are supressing his report, how come he discussed it on BBC Scotland; how come they held phone ins to discuss it; how come they provided full coverage of him being questioned about it by a committee of the Scottish Parliament?

Dr Robertson has addressed the issue of raw data here: http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8679-uws-academic-responds-to-bbc-scotland-criticism-of-indy-news-study

No, he hasn't. The BBC asked for the raw date, he refused it. Read the report you have linked to.

1 hour monitoring - I don't see the BBC upset at that, so maybe you are in a minority of one, but I think you would agree that it would be a very onerous task to monitor for 24hrs per day. Anyway, they carried out a 1 hour survey of BBC and STV, not BBC alone. It is a comparative survey.

The BBC have commented on the inaccuracies contained in the report; see my earlier link and the report you have linked to. But you reject such comments with the flip remark "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Also, in the report you have linked to they do question the only 1 hour a day aspect.

Any researcher worth his salt would know that such a minute sampling is nowhere near representative. I know this as I have worked in data collection/analysis and our clients would never have accepted results based upon such a minute sampling.

Obviously, he could not have watched all the programming himself and, as the report you've linked to, but don't seem to have read, says, he didn't. That's what research assistants are for.

And your third point - here is where you will possibly insult me, once again, by claiming that I have psychological issues, however I stand by my point. The BBC has been proven to be operating outside its mandate. It is out in the open and causing outrage, so they cannot ignore it. It can either accept the findings and adopt the appropriate corrective actions or reject them. It chose the latter, and in a most venomous manner.

Proven by whom? A doctor who produced a report based on extremely minimal research.

Causing outrage? Only amongst those who have an axe to grind.

A venomous manner? How? By allowing him airtime to talk about his report, by broadcasting him being questioned by a Scottish Parliament committee. Yes, really venomous.

They have commented on the report, it's factual inaccuracies etc. You seem to want to deny them this right of reply.

[7by7]

A report full of assumptions, which they admit, and based on data from RTE!

You must be very astute to make that observation in under 2 minutes. I am impressed.

Why is RTE not a suitable model for comparison? Which country do you suggest should be used as an indicator of potential cost? Do you actually understand the methodology used?

An easy observation to make, as the report itself says it's based upon assumptions!

Comparing RTE and BBC Scotland is not comparing like for like.

RTE, like any other foreign broadcaster, has to purchase BBC programmes it wishes to show. BBC Scotland doesn't. There is no cost of them buying in BBC programmes!

BBC Scotland and BBC Radio Scotland and BBC Alba have budgets from the general BBC pot to make their own programmes; as do all other BBC regional stations.

All BBC national programming, TV and radio, in Scotland is paid for from the same general pot as that shown in the rest of the UK. A pot funded by all UK licence fee payers, not just Scottish ones.

Edited May 16, 2014 by 7by7

[nontabury]

Come on Lancashire Laddie, answer my post 1175, why would I have problems returning to the UK with my Thai family in the event of a UKIP government. I am sat here worried to hell.what am I to do, luckily we don't intend to go to the UK for another 18months, that should give you plenty of time to make up an answer.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Come on where or where is your reply, this could be very important not only to me, but also to many other British Citizen here in Thailand who may be thinking of returning to the UK, or is this another piece of deliberate miss-information from you.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Awaiting reply from Wigantojapan.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Basil B]

How much revenue will the BBC lose when Scottish people no longer have to pay the TV license

I assume if Scotland becomes independent the BBC will be split up, if Scotland wants a none commercial broadcaster then Scotland will have to find the money someway or end up looking at blank screens.

[phuketjock]

PJ,

You seemed to be questioning his right to be in Scotland, so I asked you a question. You must have missed the "?".

You did mention the TV debate; albeit by quoting me; I responded.

See also the earlier replies I referred RuamRudy to.

I seemed to be questioning Cameron's right to be in Scotland, WHERE? other than in your mind.

I quoted you in my post and you responded............to your own post, bizarre.

I see no reples to RuamRudy where you answer the question why Cameron was in Scotland for

2 days in support of the better together campaign.

I will quote you once again " why don't you answer the question? "

[7by7]

I have answered the question; that you can't be bothered to read the relevant posts is your problem, not mine.

[RuamRudy]

I have answered the question; that you can't be bothered to read the relevant posts is your problem, not mine.

I agree with PJ - you blustered and bloviated but failed to answer the question.

Unlike PJ, I am not going to ask you to clarify because I know that you are unable to do so.

[7by7]

A typical response from the independence lobby when they don't like the answers to the questions they have asked.