Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[jpinx]

The experts confound Project Fear once again.

Experts Predict Nation Would Stay In EU

...Prof Avery said: "From a practical point of view, no member state has a material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU, even for a short time. This would deprive the EU of Scotland's budgetary contribution, fisheries resources. Scotland outside the EU, and not applying EU rules, would be a legal nightmare for EU member states, whose citizens and enterprises would lose their rights in Scotland. No member state, particularly not the rest of the UK, would have an interest in creating such an anomaly."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/experts-predict-nation-would-stay-in-eu.24352215

I thought Greece was the nightmare state at the mo................

Dunno -- France seems to have made a big whoopsie with their budget now. Given that and the recent election results it's not unnatural to think that something might actually change now

[RuamRudy]

The experts confound Project Fear once again.

Experts Predict Nation Would Stay In EU

...Prof Avery said: "From a practical point of view, no member state has a material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU, even for a short time. This would deprive the EU of Scotland's budgetary contribution, fisheries resources. Scotland outside the EU, and not applying EU rules, would be a legal nightmare for EU member states, whose citizens and enterprises would lose their rights in Scotland. No member state, particularly not the rest of the UK, would have an interest in creating such an anomaly."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/experts-predict-nation-would-stay-in-eu.24352215

I thought Greece was the nightmare state at the mo................

Go on, for once, indulge and illuminate us with your perspective. You make plenty little jibes like the one above, but how does that move the conversation forward?

Maybe I can help you get your stride. How about telling us in what ways would an independent Scotland be like Greece?

[7by7]

Dear, oh dear.

1) The European Policy Centre, despite it's name, is not an official body of the EU; it is an independent 'think tank.'

2) Despite the spin put on the report by the pro independence Herald, Graham Avery's report does not say that an independent Scotland will automatically become a member of the EU. It says they will have to apply and outlines ways that application could be handled and possible conditions of membership and possible concessions on membership requiremengts due to Scotland previously being part of the UK.

Rather than the Herald article, with the usual cherry picking we have come to expect from pro independence sources, people should read the report itself.

Could an independent Scotland join the European Union?

An interesting footnote to the report

This text expresses his (Graham Avery's) personal views.

So, despite the Herald's spin, "according to a leading Brussels think tank" and "The European Policy Centre reckons" for example, this is not the opinion of the EPC but that of one man!

[RuamRudy]

Dear, oh dear.

1) The European Policy Centre, despite it's name, is not an official body of the EU; it is an independent 'think tank.'

2) Despite the spin put on the report by the pro independence Herald, Graham Avery's report does not say that an independent Scotland will automatically become a member of the EU. It says they will have to apply and outlines ways that application could be handled and possible conditions of membership and possible concessions on membership requiremengts due to Scotland previously being part of the UK.

Rather than the Herald article, with the usual cherry picking we have come to expect from pro independence sources, people should read the report itself.

Could an independent Scotland join the European Union?

An interesting footnote to the report

This text expresses his (Graham Avery's) personal views.

So, despite the Herald's spin, "according to a leading Brussels think tank" and "The European Policy Centre reckons" for example, this is not the opinion of the EPC but that of one man!

1) What are your minimum acceptable standards for input to the debate? Is an organisation who's whole remit is focused on the EU not a qualified contributor? This is, after all, a formally issued briefing paper by one of their senior advisers.

2) Of course he cannot confirm automatic entry. As you state, the Professor (please, show the man some respect) represents an expert body, not the EU itself, so while his opinion should be highly regarded, he cannot be considered to speak on behalf of the EU.

I have read the whole paper and the tone is broadly positive. Using the term 'cherry picking' is a bit disingenuous on your part because there is not a lot in the report that would worry a Yes supporter. If you were commissioned to write an anti independence article based on it (and I am not assuming for one solitary second that you have anything even resembling a biased bone in your body) there is not a lot you could lift from it to highlight any potential challenges to Scotland becoming a full member of the EU within a reasonable timeframe. Then, you would definitely need to resort to cherry picking...

[transam]

The experts confound Project Fear once again.

Experts Predict Nation Would Stay In EU

...Prof Avery said: "From a practical point of view, no member state has a material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU, even for a short time. This would deprive the EU of Scotland's budgetary contribution, fisheries resources. Scotland outside the EU, and not applying EU rules, would be a legal nightmare for EU member states, whose citizens and enterprises would lose their rights in Scotland. No member state, particularly not the rest of the UK, would have an interest in creating such an anomaly."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/experts-predict-nation-would-stay-in-eu.24352215

I thought Greece was the nightmare state at the mo................

Go on, for once, indulge and illuminate us with your perspective. You make plenty little jibes like the one above, but how does that move the conversation forward?

Maybe I can help you get your stride. How about telling us in what ways would an independent Scotland be like Greece?

Know idea, depends on the free stuff for all in the new promist land.......

[7by7]

The Herald did it's best to convince the gullible that this report came from the EU; I merely pointed out that it doesn't.

If you look back through my posts on the subject you will see that I have never said that an independent Scotland could not join the EU. As far as I am aware, neither has Better Together. If they have, I'm sure that you'll be able to find the relevant quote from their material; with a link, of course.

What I have said, and what has been confirmed by many sources, including the EU president and this report, is that the assumption put about by the Yes campaign in general, and Salmond in particular, that Scotland is already a member of the EU and so must automatically continue to be so post independence is false.

That you put as a prologue to your quote from the Herald article "The experts confound Project Fear once again" (Experts? No, just the one.) indicates that you were attempting to use that highly misleading article as proof that Salmond is correct; when the opinion of the report is that he is most certainly not.

BTW, as Graham Avery is referred to as such on the EPC website, I am sure that he would take no offence at my calling him such.

Indeed, he does not speak on behalf of the EU. In fact in this report he doesn't even speak on behalf of the EPC; despite the attempt by the Herald to mislead people into thinking that he does.

Perhaps you should have read his report before crowing about it's contents.

Especially as reports from the Herald have many times in the past been proven to be biased and unreliable.

[RuamRudy]

The Herald did it's best to convince the gullible that this report came from the EU; I merely pointed out that it doesn't.

If you look back through my posts on the subject you will see that I have never said that an independent Scotland could not join the EU. As far as I am aware, neither has Better Together. If they have, I'm sure that you'll be able to find the relevant quote from their material; with a link, of course.

What I have said, and what has been confirmed by many sources, including the EU president and this report, is that the assumption put about by the Yes campaign in general, and Salmond in particular, that Scotland is already a member of the EU and so must automatically continue to be so post independence is false.

That you put as a prologue to your quote from the Herald article "The experts confound Project Fear once again" (Experts? No, just the one.) indicates that you were attempting to use that highly misleading article as proof that Salmond is correct; when the opinion of the report is that he is most certainly not.

BTW, as Graham Avery is referred to as such on the EPC website, I am sure that he would take no offence at my calling him such.

Indeed, he does not speak on behalf of the EU. In fact in this report he doesn't even speak on behalf of the EPC; despite the attempt by the Herald to mislead people into thinking that he does.

Perhaps you should have read his report before crowing about it's contents.

Especially as reports from the Herald have many times in the past been proven to be biased and unreliable.

If I were to issue position paper using my company's logo and letterhead without authorisation, it would lead to a difficult conversation with my boss. They definitely wouldn't put it on the company website unless it was approved.

You are right, it is one man's analysis, but he is not a bar room (or Thaivisa) philosopher, but an expert in the subject.

That said, what in the article is highly misleading?

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[RuamRudy]

The experts confound Project Fear once again.

Experts Predict Nation Would Stay In EU

...Prof Avery said: "From a practical point of view, no member state has a material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU, even for a short time. This would deprive the EU of Scotland's budgetary contribution, fisheries resources. Scotland outside the EU, and not applying EU rules, would be a legal nightmare for EU member states, whose citizens and enterprises would lose their rights in Scotland. No member state, particularly not the rest of the UK, would have an interest in creating such an anomaly."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/experts-predict-nation-would-stay-in-eu.24352215

I thought Greece was the nightmare state at the mo................

Go on, for once, indulge and illuminate us with your perspective. You make plenty little jibes like the one above, but how does that move the conversation forward?

Maybe I can help you get your stride. How about telling us in what ways would an independent Scotland be like Greece?

Know idea, depends on the free stuff for all in the new promist land.......

Well done, you are getting your post count up.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[phuketjock]

The Herald did it's best to convince the gullible that this report came from the EU; I merely pointed out that it doesn't.

If you look back through my posts on the subject you will see that I have never said that an independent Scotland could not join the EU. As far as I am aware, neither has Better Together. If they have, I'm sure that you'll be able to find the relevant quote from their material; with a link, of course.

What I have said, and what has been confirmed by many sources, including the EU president and this report, is that the assumption put about by the Yes campaign in general, and Salmond in particular, that Scotland is already a member of the EU and so must automatically continue to be so post independence is false.

That you put as a prologue to your quote from the Herald article "The experts confound Project Fear once again" (Experts? No, just the one.) indicates that you were attempting to use that highly misleading article as proof that Salmond is correct; when the opinion of the report is that he is most certainly not.

BTW, as Graham Avery is referred to as such on the EPC website, I am sure that he would take no offence at my calling him such.

Indeed, he does not speak on behalf of the EU. In fact in this report he doesn't even speak on behalf of the EPC; despite the attempt by the Herald to mislead people into thinking that he does.

Perhaps you should have read his report before crowing about it's contents.

Especially as reports from the Herald have many times in the past been proven to be biased and unreliable.

Well 7 what do you have to say about Danny Alexanders contribution to "project fear" ,which you continue

to deny even exists?

His barefaced blatant lies about the initial set up costs of a new independent Scottish goverment placed

the cost at 12 times the the original figure estimated by the very source he used to come up with this figure.

On the basis of that gross deception alone how can anyone trust any figures that the NO campaign comes

up with???

No project fear Aye Right.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-treasury-figure-for-cost-of-yes-vote-badly-misrepresents-key-research--says-academic-whose-own-work-it-was-based-on-9443603.html

Treasury said that creating the new government departments required would “see Scottish taxpayers fork out £2.7 billion”.

Yet Patrick Dunleavy, a politics professor at the London School of Economics whose research was used to come up with the figure, said that it overestimated the cost by a factor of 12.

[RuamRudy]

So, I think we all agree / concede that the Vote No Borders 'grassroots' campaign is a shadowy, malevolent organisation that is far from its claim to be representative of the common man. Now they are ramping up Project Fear by trying to scare cancer sufferers. Thankfully, Great Ormond Street Hospital has rejected their lies outright, but No Borders are executing utterly shameful tactics that I am sure we would all like to condemn, or do you feel that the end justifies the disgusting means?

See the despicable video here:

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[i claudius]

To be honest i do not care what Scotland does ,i have no problem with it or Scots people ,but if they go independant ,they should cut all ties ,have no say in British politics ,no MP s in westminster ,their own currency ,and give or take nothing from the rest of the UK ,IN OTHER WORDS SINK OR SWIM COMPLETELY ON THEIR OWN.the same as if they were Spain ,France ,ect ect ect.

[7by7]

........If I were to issue position paper using my company's logo and letterhead without authorisation, it would lead to a difficult conversation with my boss. They definitely wouldn't put it on the company website unless it was approved.

Of course Prof. Avery's paper appears on the EPC website with their authorisation.

But; when you read the paper you obviously missed the disclaimer at the bottom; despite my previously pointing it out to you!

Here it is again. "This text expresses his personal views."

His personal views, not necessarily those of the EPC.

You are right, it is one man's analysis, but he is not a bar room (or Thaivisa) philosopher, but an expert in the subject.

I have not denied that; what I have said, and what is obvious to anyone who reads this paper, is that it does not say what the Herald article wants people to believe it says.

That said, what in the article is highly misleading?

I've already given examples; but I'll do so again.

1) The headline; "Experts....."

One expert, singular, not experts plural.

2) "...predict nation would stay in EU."

Prof. Avery in his paper does not predict that an independent Scotland will "stay in EU." He can't, because, like England, Northern Ireland and Wales, Scotland is not in the EU; the UK is. Something he makes clear in the preamble to his paper.

What he does do is outline the ways in which an independent Scotland may, not will, have it's application for membership accelerated. He also presents the arguments against such acceleration.

3) "SCOTLAND would stay in the EU after independence because much of the continent would face a "legal nightmare" if it did not..."

Prof. Avery does not say that at all in his paper. In fact he says "If Scotland votes for independence, the decision on how to proceed will not be taken by lawyers, but by the EU's leaders in the European Council, and they will decide on the basis of practical and political considerations...."

4) "....according to a leading Brussels think tank."

No; according to Prof. Avery, as the disclaimer at the bottom of his paper makes clear.

5) "The European Policy Centre reckons......"

No; Prof. Avery reckons, as the disclaimer at the bottom of his paper makes clear.

6) "SNP MEP Alyn Smith said: "This report debunks much of the nonsense peddled on Scotland and the EU by people who should know better. The European Policy Centre is as serious as it gets in Brussels."

Well, they are reporting what he said, and he would say that, wouldn't he?

But Prof. Avery's paper does not debunk any 'nonsense' being 'peddled' by anyone except the nonsense being peddled by some quarters of the Yes campaign that an independent Scotland will automatically remain in the EU. As is obvious to all who read it.

7) To be fair, they do then quote Better Together.

"A spokesman for Better Together disagreed: "As part of the UK we get special deals in the EU. What Alex Salmond needs to be honest about is what would happen to our opt-outs on the Euro and the no borders immigration scheme, as well as what would happen to our rebate......"

Which are exactly the questions Prof. Avery asks in his paper.

The spokesman concludes "telling Scots that everything will be alright on the night simply isn't credible."

Exactly.

[7by7]

Well 7 what do you have to say about Danny Alexanders contribution to "project fear" ,which you continue

to deny even exists?

His barefaced blatant lies about the initial set up costs of a new independent Scottish goverment placed

the cost at 12 times the the original figure estimated by the very source he used to come up with this figure.

On the basis of that gross deception alone how can anyone trust any figures that the NO campaign comes

up with???

No project fear Aye Right.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-treasury-figure-for-cost-of-yes-vote-badly-misrepresents-key-research--says-academic-whose-own-work-it-was-based-on-9443603.html

Treasury said that creating the new government departments required would “see Scottish taxpayers fork out £2.7 billion”.

Yet Patrick Dunleavy, a politics professor at the London School of Economics whose research was used to come up with the figure, said that it overestimated the cost by a factor of 12.

What I have to say is; read the whole article you have linked to. You'll find further down the page the following

The Treasury said that the £2.7 billion figure in its briefing paper did not represent its “official calculation”, and that it was instead focussing on the figure of £1.5 billion – the higher end of an estimate “starting at £600 million) from Professor Robert Young of the University of Western Ontario.

Better still, read the actual analysis itself.

Then read and compare the Scottish governments version.

Although you have no doubt already decided which one you prefer.

(I admit that as yet I have not had time to read either).

[7by7]

So, I think we all agree / concede that the Vote No Borders 'grassroots' campaign is a shadowy, malevolent organisation that is far from its claim to be representative of the common man. Now they are ramping up Project Fear by trying to scare cancer sufferers. Thankfully, Great Ormond Street Hospital has rejected their lies outright, but No Borders are executing utterly shameful tactics that I am sure we would all like to condemn, or do you feel that the end justifies the disgusting means?

See the despicable video here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IE1PEv7Qrj4

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Again?

You obviously failed to understand the argument the last time you brought this up; I'll try and make it simpler for you.

All UK residents are entitled to NHS care anywhere in the UK.

If Scotland leaves the UK then Scottish residents will no longer be UK residents.

So why should non UK residents who pay no tax to the UK government be able to use the UK's NHS which is paid for by UK tax payers?

As for Great Ormond Street; a special case. It is a registered charity and much of it's funding comes from charitable donations rather than the taxpayer.

A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said there was very little risk that independence would impede Scottish patients going there. The hospital was used routinely by patients across Europe and across the world because it had very highly specialised expertise, often not available abroad.

"Some of our specialist treatments are only available here, so we're probably quite different from a lot of standard NHS hospitals, so we do have arrangements with a lot of countries because they don't have the same level of specialist care that we can offer patients." (source)

[7by7]

Project Fear.

A name given to the No campaign by elements of the Yes campaign who do not want the Scottish people to find out about the disadvantages of Scotland leaving the UK.

So whenever these disadvantages are brought up, instead of reasoned arguments about why the Yes campaign think the advantages of independence outweigh the disadvantages, instead we get weasel words from them such as scaremongering, bullying, lies etc.

From Wiki

On 23 June 2013, in an article marking the campaign's first anniversary, the Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear".[28] The name "Project Fear" subsequently appeared in other news outlets[29][30] and was co-opted by pro-independence campaigners.[31] The following line of the Sunday Herald's article said that "[blair] McDougall is unrepentant about the tactics", but on the following day's edition of Scotland Tonight McDougall denied ever hearing anyone use the term "Project Fear".[32]

Although I understand that some elements in the No campaign have since adopted the label as an ironic tag; similar to the way that fans of a certain London football clubs chant of "We are Milwall, no one likes us."

So, all you pro independence Scots; why don't you want your fellow countrymen to be told about what they would lose by leaving the UK?

Why do you only want them to know about the advantages, and be kept in the dark about the disadvantages?

You wont answer, I know. But you don't need to; the answers are obvious.

[RuamRudy]

So, I think we all agree / concede that the Vote No Borders 'grassroots' campaign is a shadowy, malevolent organisation that is far from its claim to be representative of the common man. Now they are ramping up Project Fear by trying to scare cancer sufferers. Thankfully, Great Ormond Street Hospital has rejected their lies outright, but No Borders are executing utterly shameful tactics that I am sure we would all like to condemn, or do you feel that the end justifies the disgusting means?

See the despicable video here:

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Again?

You obviously failed to understand the argument the last time you brought this up; I'll try and make it simpler for you.

All UK residents are entitled to NHS care anywhere in the UK.

If Scotland leaves the UK then Scottish residents will no longer be UK residents.

So why should non UK residents who pay no tax to the UK government be able to use the UK's NHS which is paid for by UK tax payers?

As for Great Ormond Street; a special case. It is a registered charity and much of it's funding comes from charitable donations rather than the taxpayer.

A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said there was very little risk that independence would impede Scottish patients going there. The hospital was used routinely by patients across Europe and across the world because it had very highly specialised expertise, often not available abroad.

"Some of our specialist treatments are only available here, so we're probably quite different from a lot of standard NHS hospitals, so we do have arrangements with a lot of countries because they don't have the same level of specialist care that we can offer patients." (source)

You really do like to contradict yourself, don't you. First comes your half baked rant about a point in the past where you were wholly less than convincing, then you admit the Great Ormond Street is a special case and not part of our previous discussion.

However, the point of my post was not to give you old fodder to rant nonsensically about; I wanted to give you fresh fodder, and was thus referring to No Borders (a) making up lies to scare the country; ( being pulled up by the very institute they tried to scare us about.

Oh - sorry. We previously did discuss No Borders and Project Fear and you agreed that they were sinister, but you said it was a one-off. Looks like they never got your message. Project Fear rides again.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[beautifulthailand99]

The Herald did it's best to convince the gullible that this report came from the EU; I merely pointed out that it doesn't.

If you look back through my posts on the subject you will see that I have never said that an independent Scotland could not join the EU. As far as I am aware, neither has Better Together. If they have, I'm sure that you'll be able to find the relevant quote from their material; with a link, of course.

What I have said, and what has been confirmed by many sources, including the EU president and this report, is that the assumption put about by the Yes campaign in general, and Salmond in particular, that Scotland is already a member of the EU and so must automatically continue to be so post independence is false.

That you put as a prologue to your quote from the Herald article "The experts confound Project Fear once again" (Experts? No, just the one.) indicates that you were attempting to use that highly misleading article as proof that Salmond is correct; when the opinion of the report is that he is most certainly not.

BTW, as Graham Avery is referred to as such on the EPC website, I am sure that he would take no offence at my calling him such.

Indeed, he does not speak on behalf of the EU. In fact in this report he doesn't even speak on behalf of the EPC; despite the attempt by the Herald to mislead people into thinking that he does.

Perhaps you should have read his report before crowing about it's contents.

Especially as reports from the Herald have many times in the past been proven to be biased and unreliable.

Well 7 what do you have to say about Danny Alexanders contribution to "project fear" ,which you continue

to deny even exists?

His barefaced blatant lies about the initial set up costs of a new independent Scottish goverment placed

the cost at 12 times the the original figure estimated by the very source he used to come up with this figure.

On the basis of that gross deception alone how can anyone trust any figures that the NO campaign comes

up with???

No project fear Aye Right.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-treasury-figure-for-cost-of-yes-vote-badly-misrepresents-key-research--says-academic-whose-own-work-it-was-based-on-9443603.html

Treasury said that creating the new government departments required would “see Scottish taxpayers fork out £2.7 billion”.

Yet Patrick Dunleavy, a politics professor at the London School of Economics whose research was used to come up with the figure, said that it overestimated the cost by a factor of 12.

Given previous form on the cost of the Scottish Parliament building I would say most figures plucked out of the air underestimate the real figure. Most English outside of the Westminster clique I feel don't really give a damn. More of a feeling - off ye go then.

[RuamRudy]

[

Given previous form on the cost of the Scottish Parliament building I would say most figures plucked out of the air underestimate the real figure. Most English outside of the Westminster clique I feel don't really give a damn. More of a feeling - off ye go then.

The Scottish Parliament was Donald Dewar's project, under a Westminster labour government. Why would you think that a Hollyrood SNP government would be inclined to be so cavalier?

It would be a pity if many English people saw this as a rejection. The Scots I talked to about it see a future of mutual respect and support, except we take control of our own affairs.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[jpinx]

Really -- who gives a damn about what the politicans say? Let the people vote as they want. The situation is so confused with UKIP, EU, currency and other aspects that people will never make sense of the politicans pontifications. Meantime, in the real world, France have admitted a huge overestimation of income and the euroMPs/crats are struggling with a perceived need for more money. None of this money actually exists -- it's all done by selling bonds on "iou's". If we are only going to consider the financial aspects of independence it's a hopelessly confusing calculation.

What's really happening is that a nation of people are declaring their allegiances - one way or the other - and accepting majority rule on the outcome.

[Chao Lao Beach]

It will be a bog blow to the UK if the Scots bail out.

[transam]

It will be a bog blow to the UK if the Scots bail out.

Toilets will never be in the equation........ ....................

[nontabury]

It will be a bog blow to the UK if the Scots bail out.

Most of the population in the rest of the country, think otherwise.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[RuamRudy]

It will be a bog blow to the UK if the Scots bail out.

Or a positive move for all...

[transam]

It will be a bog blow to the UK if the Scots bail out.

Or a positive move for all...

Definitely be a movement.......................or just dump the idea, and the paperwork...............

[RuamRudy]

It will be a bog blow to the UK if the Scots bail out.

Or a positive move for all...

Definitely be a movement.......................or just dump the idea, and the paperwork...............

This thread is rapidly going down the lavvy

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[smokie36]

Thought I'd throw this in the mix...admittedly in the window of a YES campaign office in Moray.

[smokie36]

Funny...I've yet to see any NO campaign office....outside of Edinburgh that is where they are ensconced in Charlotte Square I'm told....good location that....plenty of Oyster bars and fine wine nearby....

[nontabury]

You obviously lack an intelligent response, so out come the insults and accusations of trolling.

Is there anyone here on the Yes side capable of an intelligent debate?

Yesterday you publicly accused me of being a racist, but I am the one doing the insulting? Brilliant - your warped sense of reality is truly astounding.

I have to say though, I preferred it when you were sitting with your nose in the air - not because your contributions offer irrefutable flashes of inspirational No thinking, but because you contribute nothing positive to this thread. You have nothing but bile and bitterness to spread in your posts. You are not some guiding light of truthfulness, but a ham fisted bar room advocate. Therefore, debating with you is pointless because your stock responses are so boring.

Are you describing 7x7 or are you referring to yourself?. And as for having a closed mind, you certainly take the biscuit.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[7by7]

Leaked SNP papers - what they didn't want you to know...

The leaked Swinney files – The truth about taxes, spending and oil in a separate Scotland

The Swinney files part 2

Sourced from Better Together.

[7by7]

Funny...I've yet to see any NO campaign office....outside of Edinburgh that is where they are ensconced in Charlotte Square I'm told....good location that....plenty of Oyster bars and fine wine nearby....

This page certainly suggests that they have local offices, though as I haven't been to Scotland since before the campaign started I cannot say where they are.

Volunteer at my local Campaign Office (Data entry, stuff envelopes, telephone canvassing etc)

Make telephone calls from my local office

etc.

Maybe you should get out and about a bit more.