Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

So did No announce any more supporters whilst I was asleep? Dot Cotton maybe, or Ainsley Harriet?

 

[8bit]

So did No announce any more supporters whilst I was asleep? Dot Cotton maybe, or Ainsley Harriet?

Was it you that was at the thing in Trafalgar Square? Someone said they were going and I can't remember who it was. Was Jim Davidson there or is that just a scurrilous rumour?

 

[liquidtmd]

Watching this as an English guy and in context the United Kingdom is a Union it's like watching your partner get up, walk around the pub and say to anyone who will listen "Do I leave him? I think I wanna leave him. It would mean a costly divorce. What do you think".

I know it's Scotlands vote but it's going to affect us all. It's sad. A big proponent of the Yes vote is they don't like Westminster. Reality check - we're not mad keen on them either. But if they think Alex Salmond heralds the promised land they've got another thing coming. It's replacing one set of suits for another.

Please stay United with us Scotland. Otherwise as of Friday, literally there is no point calling us the United Kingdom as it was tenuous anyway. Consign the name to the bin.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Was it you that was at the thing in Trafalgar Square? Someone said they were going and I can't remember who it was. Was Jim Davidson there or is that just a scurrilous rumour?

I was there. If Jim was present, he his from me. Though there was a guy running about in a Salmond mask and my girlfriend and I were speculating about what celebrity that might have been.

The only ones I actually saw with my eyes, journalists and Boris aside, were Al Murray, Eddie Izzard, Dan Snow, Bob Geldof aaand... A few others I forgot, but no one woaaahhhh. No Ainsley Harriet, for example, unless it was he under the mask.

 

[8bit]

I was there. If Jim was present, he his from me. Though there was a guy running about in a Salmond mask and my girlfriend and I were speculating about what celebrity that might have been.

The only ones I actually saw with my eyes, journalists and Boris aside, were Al Murray, Eddie Izzard, Dan Snow, Bob Geldof aaand... A few others I forgot, but no one woaaahhhh. No Ainsley Harriet, for example, unless it was he under the mask.

Ah OK. Thanks! Some on Twitter seemed to think Davidson was there doing his Chalky routine and I thought that was a little far fetched.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ah OK. Thanks! Some on Twitter seemed to think Davidson was there doing his Chalky routine and I thought that was a little far fetched.

Ahahaha. I love the idea of Jim thinking "I know what'll keep the Union together!" And doing that.

Boris nearly ran me over as I crossed the road to go to Charring Cross for a burrito (Tortilla aahhhh) but that's a relatively normal thing in London if you walk around the streets. At some point Boris *will* nearly run you over on his bike.

 

[kmag]

Nothing to do with spite, its just common sense

England is by far the largest economy in the UK, either by GDP or per capita. By allowing Scotland access after independence, will mean England will be the country that shoulders the bulk of the responsibility and financial burden

In short.

English bank goes pop, England has the bulk financial burden
Scotish bank goes pop, England still has the bulk financial burden

Given the profile of where the "Scottish banks" do business, England would still have the bulk burden in any case.

 

[Walshicus]

I know it's Scotlands vote but it's going to affect us all. It's sad. A big proponent of the Yes vote is they don't like Westminster. Reality check - we're not mad keen on them either. But if they think Alex Salmond heralds the promised land they've got another thing coming. It's replacing one set of suits for another.

Perhaps, but it's better to have sovereignty rest with your countrymen than foreigners in London, isn't it?

We've seen time and time again two things from Westminster with regard to Scotland:
1) Ambivalence.
2) Contempt.

The McCrone Report should be required reading for everyone who wants to comment on Scottish independence. We have direct evidence of the scale of the lying to which Westminster went the last time around to subdue Scottish nationalism. The government's OWN report showed Scotland to be so rich in resources as to have a tax surplus that was "embarassing", and as a result they classified it secret so as to keep the Scots from realising their own potential for success.

Westminster lied last time. How can anyone take a word of what they say on this issue as truth? Westminster gives not one shit about Scotland; it just wants the oil wealth.

 

[Pankratous]

Plan for Thursday night: finish work at 10, dash home grabbing dominos on the way, put feet up and wait for the results.

 

[Mastadon]

Independent Scotland will face NHS budget cuts

Voting no to independence is critical to the future of the health service in Scotland, Alistair Darling has said in a direct challenge to one of the yes campaign's most successful arguments with voters.

The leader of the pro-union Better Together campaign said new powers for the Scottish parliament, which would be set in train the day after a no vote, would result in a stronger, more secure health service. Those powers would enable Holyrood to raise extra money to spend on the NHS as well as borrow more to build hospitals and facilities for the elderly.

Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland, Darling attacked what has been one of the main planks of the pro-independence campaign in recent weeks, that a yes vote is the only way the protect the NHS in Scotland from Westminster's cuts and privatisation.

Referring to confidential papers passed to the BBC which suggest the NHS in Scotland is facing a funding gap of more than £400m and that sweeping cuts will be needed for health boards to break even, Darling said: "Today we learned that [Scottish National party leader and deputy] Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have been deceiving us. I find that quite appalling.

"After all these scare stories [about privatisation] they've known that these cuts are coming along but we weren't going to be told about it until after the polls had closed," he told the Good Morning Scotland show.

The papers were passed to the BBC by a senior NHS whistleblower, who said they had become frustrated by claims from the yes campaign that the greatest threat to the NHS came from the UK government.

...

Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, said it was "absolutely untrue" that there would be cuts to the NHS budget in Scotland, describing Darling's argument as "totally mythical, totally made up and meant to misrepresent the situation".

Asked directly about the cuts suggested in the leaked papers, Salmond insisted that the figures referred to efficiency savings that would be ploughed back into the health service.

"This paper makes the point that we've been making throughout the campaign: unless we control the overall finances of the health service we'll be left with the invidious position that even increasing health service spending in real terms, we're faced with this appalling choice of having to increase taxation to fund the health service instead of making a real choice not to waste billions on nuclear weapons."

He said a yes vote would mean Scotland would have control of its own finances "to enable us to protect our health service not only in real terms but meet these funding pressures for the future".

Last week the Institute for Fiscal Studies published an analysis which revealed that the Scottish government was planning to make cuts in health spending even though NHS budgets were rising in England. The analysis showed planned cuts to NHS funding in Scotland of 1.2%in 2015-16. In England, it said, health spending was due to increase by 4.4% in the same year despite an overall public spending cut of 13%.

 

[kmag]

Well there is on the Scottish side. They'll use the pound, BOE will act as a lender of last resort and the status quo will continue until they either make a Scottish currency or join the Euro. If the UK doesn't like this then the Scots won't be paying any part of the UK national debt and they'll use the pound anyway.

The rUK needs an independent Scotland to continue to use the pound. It doesn't need a currency union but it definitely needs the petro-money added to the balance of payments, without it the BOP gap would be over 7% (up from just under 4%) and that's basically unsustainable. Nevermind capital flight from Scotland, there would be a capital flight from the UK in general if an independent Scotland ended up using anything else.

 

[lastplayed]

What percentage does the Yes camp need to win? 51%? 50.01%?

Sorry if it's been discussed already.

 

[Walshicus]

Lol, I know who I'd trust with the health service more. I mean seriously, even with the limited powers available to it, Holyrood has managed the S-NHS orders of magnitude better than the E-NHS.

I mean it's almost obscene that Better Together have the gall to try and claim better stewardship of health in Scotland. An affront to sanity.

 

[kmag]

Independent Scotland will face NHS budget cuts

Meanwhile in yesterday's Guardian.

The NHS is facing a mounting financial crisis with more than half of all hospitals now in deficit and the service likely to end the year almost £1bn in the red.

Two sets of official figures later this week covering the NHS's performance in April, May and June will confirm a sudden, sharp and dramatic deterioration in its financial health between the first three months of 2014 and that quarter.

The pressure on services is so great and money so tight that, for the first time, a majority of hospitals ended that period in the red and accumulated a collective deficit approaching £500m.

NHS officials familiar with the situation say the speed with which financial troubles have deepened, and sheer number of NHS hospital trusts now affected, is causing unease at the Department of Health. Insiders say that figures due out on Friday are far worse than expected and likely to make "grim reading" for health secretary Jeremy Hunt. Hunt has already given hospitals more than £1bn of extra funding over the last year to help them cope with winter pressures and tackle a mounting backlog of operations, which recently reached a six-year high.

NHS leaders say privately that without an urgent bailout from the government, hospitals' overall deficit is likely to have increased further, and be approaching £1bn, by the time the NHS's financial year ends in March.

And as many as three-quarters of all England's hospitals could be in the red by then, they believe.

Hospital chief executives say the need to hire extra staff to maintain care standards in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal, demand for A&E care, cuts in the fees they receive for treating patients and the NHS's £20bn savings drive has left them increasingly unable to balance their books.

One hospital boss said that the demand for care is so relentless, especially from older, frail patients, many of whom need to be admitted as an emergency, that "it's now like winter all year round". Last month one hospital saw a record number of patients turn up at its A&E unit on one day, despite it being summer and a lack of major illnesses such as flu.

Chief executives of hospitals describe the NHS's financial position as "a car crash" and "an absolute disaster" and warn that they can no longer provide services of the quality expected without incurring ever larger deficits.

Later this week Monitor, the NHS's financial regulator, will reveal that for the first time the semi-independent foundation trust hospitals it oversees – which are the NHS's best-run and strongest performing hospitals financially – posted a deficit for April, May and June rather than their usual surplus.

The 83 acute hospital trusts it regulates between them ended up more than £100m in the red. More than half lurched into deficit in that quarter, a big increase on the 34 such trusts, or 41%, which ended the 2013-14 financial year in deficit. Many trusts which usually make a surplus proved unable to do so amid the growing pressures, which also include the use of expensive agency and locum medical staff to plug gaps in rotas, especially nurses.

The steep decline in foundation trusts' financial performance – the sector overall made a surplus of £133m in the last financial year – is particularly significant, given their history of consistently sound financial management and profit-making since their creation in 2004.

However, the figures for the 62 NHS acute hospital trusts overseen by the NHS's Trust Development Authority (TDA) are worse. As with foundation trusts, the number of those traditionally weaker-performing trusts in deficit rose in April, May and June, from 24 (39%) in 2013-14 to more than 30, incurring a collective deficit of over £300m.

The hospital sector as a whole posted a deficit of £108m in 2013-14, the first time it had ended up in the red since the NHS's last cash crisis in 2005-06.

Foundation trusts have spent an estimated £1.2bn improving care, mainly on extra staff, in response to Robert Francis's Mid Staffs report last year and the review of NHS patient safety by Prof Don Berwick.

Monitor and the TDA both declined to comment before publishing their latest respective quarterly reports.

Labour blamed the coalition's radical restructuring of the NHS last year for the situation. "David Cameron chose to put NHS finances on this knife-edge when he wasted £3bn on a damaging reorganisation and clawed back a further £3bn to the Treasury in recent years. That is why the NHS finds itself in a such a fragile financial position," said Andrew Gwynne, the shadow health minister.

The Department of Health insisted that, despite the NHS's financial squeeze, all trusts must control their finances while also providing the best possible care.

"We've taken tough decisions to increase the NHS budget by £12.7bn over this parliament," said a spokeswoman.

"We understand some trusts are facing challenges because of increasing demand but they must have a tight financial grip and ensure they live within their means. Delivering high quality services and balancing the books must go hand in hand and we expect trusts to deliver this during the course of the financial year."

 

[Kathian]

A funding gap is not a budget cut and this refers to the current budget and is not a consequence of independence.

Seems odd this is claimed now after weeks of the campaign.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Plan for Thursday night: finish work at 10, dash home grabbing dominos on the way, put feet up and wait for the results.

I've bought myself a rather nice looking bottle of Speyside single malt (before I need to pay import duty!) which I'll be consuming to a greater or lesser extent depending on how it's going.

 

[kmag]

What percentage does the Yes camp need to win? 51%? 50.01%?

Sorry if it's been discussed already.

50%+1 vote of valid votes cast.

 

[lastplayed]

50%+1 vote of valid votes cast.

Cheers.

That seems kinda low to me for such a huge decision, knowing that pretty much half of the country is going to be disappointed with the result (if it is that close). It's not like an election where you can change your mind again in a few years, this is (potentially) for a lifetime!

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

Westminster gives not one shit about Scotland; it just wants the oil wealth.

Yes...how will we all manage without that 1% of economic activity that oil industry means to the UK, 1% will make all the difference to a successful UK or a basket case.

You really are the very definition of a 'useful English idiot'.

Oil revenues are a nice bonus for the UK economy, they are not a requirement, and if lost, can and will be replaced with fracking revenues, which would be given priority if Scotland left.

The only country that desperately needs the oil is Scotland, to pay for the new Eden that's been promised, although they have yet to work out the details on how they can spend the same barrel of oil 5 times over to pay for it. But that's just another example of how everything will just work out for Scotland..because Scotland is a magic and special place and a special place and people don't have to live by the same economic rules.

And it's not Scotland's oil or the UK's oil, it belongs to BP, Shell and all the other drilling companies who actually pay to bring it out the ground, without whom it would be of no use to anyone.

 

[SKINNER!]

It's not like an election where you can change your mind again in a few years, this is (potentially) for a lifetime!

I'll give it 50 years before Westminster comes crawling to Holyrood asking to unite again.

And it's not Scotland's oil or the UK's oil, it belongs to BP, Shell and all the other drilling companies who actually pay to bring it out the ground, without whom it would be of no use to anyone.

Which is why the UK went into the Falklands War...and the Iraq War! To protect oil companies' intere- oh wait. That doesn't sound right.

 

[SlickShoes]

Cheers.

That seems kinda low to me for such a huge decision, knowing that pretty much half of the country is going to be disappointed with the result (if it is that close). It's not like an election where you can change your mind again in a few years, this is (potentially) for a lifetime!

So what do you suggest?

If 50% +1 person vote NO then half the country is stuck being in the UK that they don't want to be in, someone is going to end up disappointed.

 

[kmag]

Yes...how will we all manage without that 1% of economic activity that oil industry means to the UK, 1% will make all the difference to a successful UK or a basket case.

You really are the very definition of a 'useful English idiot'.

Oil revenues are a nice bonus for the UK economy, they are not a requirement, and if lost, can and will be replaced with fracking revenues, which would be given priority if Scotland left.

The only country that desperately needs the oil is Scotland, to pay for the new Eden that's been promised, although they have yet to work out the details on how they can spend the same barrel of oil 5 times over to pay for it. But that's just another example of how everything will just work out for Scotland..because Scotland is a magic and special place and a special place and people don't have to live by the same economic rules.

And it's not Scotland's oil or the UK's oil, it belongs to BP, Shell and all the other drilling companies who actually pay to bring it out the ground, without whom it would be of no use to anyone.

Balance of Payments, mate. Goes from a deficit of 3.8% to North of 7% without "BP's oil". With that level of a BOP deficit you're looking at a massive devaluation of Sterling and an massive increase in borrowing costs.

Fracking should fill the gap in time, but not soon. And that's if you get around the NIMBY issue.

Of course you could continue inflating house prices to give the illusion of growth in the interim.

btw the central belt of Scotland has decent reserves of frackable gas, not as big as the shale in the North of England but enough for 46 years of Domestic supply (at 10% recovery) http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/fracking-scotland-s-shale-gas-resources-revealed-1-3461140

 

[liquidtmd]

Perhaps, but it's better to have sovereignty rest with your countrymen than foreigners in London, isn't it?

We've seen time and time again two things from Westminster with regard to Scotland:
1) Ambivalence.
2) Contempt.

The McCrone Report should be required reading for everyone who wants to comment on Scottish independence. We have direct evidence of the scale of the lying to which Westminster went the last time around to subdue Scottish nationalism. The government's OWN report showed Scotland to be so rich in resources as to have a tax surplus that was "embarassing", and as a result they classified it secret so as to keep the Scots from realising their own potential for success.

Westminster lied last time. How can anyone take a word of what they say on this issue as truth? Westminster gives not one shit about Scotland; it just wants the oil wealth.

Indeed. What you say is true. Though in terms of Oil wealth, the decades of equipment and laying the foundation for processing that came collectively as a result of a UK investment.

In the result of a Yes vote Salmond seems to be implying "LOL thats all ours, get your own and oh in terms of National Debt what are they going to do - invade?" (I realise that last comment has been disputed and laughed off as a joke, but things said in jest...) If it's the will of the Scots to vote Yes, then fair play. We will still work hand in hand. The world will not end. There's just lots of basic fundamental questions that aren't answered from the Yes campaign - we will all collectively pay the financial and otherwise cost if a Yes vote goes through and it (pun intended) it goes South.

I'm no fan of the Three Musketeers from Westminster but the plans that are proposed for further devolution in event of No seem pretty binding. Are they enough? I guess thats a question the Scots will answer in 48hours.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Fucking snakeoil salesman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416

 

[Godan]

Voting NO.

 

[kmag]

Fucking snakeoil salesman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416

Even if true, that would change in the face of a No vote, because?

I must have missed the bit where shitloads of extra money has been promised to Scotland from BT? Oh wait, they're talking about cutting funding in return for the ability to raise taxes.

 

[BigWeather]

If No wins I imagine it'll be generations before another vote will be allowed to happen. It is waaaaay too close for comfort for England. Shame they didn't make the vote "Yes, independence" and "No, but check back with us in 2034." Of course something like that would guarantee a No outcome with such a tight race as it is, as I imagine some of what drives the Yes is that this may be seen as the last time this comes up to vote for a very long time.

 

[liquidtmd]

If No wins I imagine it'll be generations before another vote will be allowed to happen. It is waaaaay too close for comfort for England. Shame they didn't make the vote "Yes, independence" and "No, but check back with us in 2034." Of course something like that would guarantee a No outcome with such a tight race as it is, as I imagine some of what drives the Yes is that this may be seen as the last time this comes up to vote for a very long time.

Indeed. There's probably valid Legal and practical reasons why it didn't happen, but ideally a 'Vote Yes' or 'Vote No with a provisor that if certain devolution promises aren't kept then it goes to a retrial in 5 years' would have made this a far more civilised affair.

 

[Chinner]

Fucking snakeoil salesman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416

I'm jealous that the Scots get free prescriptions. I have chronic stuff and I am still not entitled to anything.

 

[kmag]

Indeed. What you say is true. Though in terms of Oil wealth, the decades of equipment and laying the foundation for processing that came collectively as a result of a UK investment.

In the result of a Yes vote Salmond seems to be implying "LOL thats all ours, get your own and oh in terms of National Debt what are they going to do - invade?" (I realise that last comment has been disputed and laughed off as a joke, but things said in jest...) If it's the will of the Scots to vote Yes, then fair play. We will still work hand in hand. The world will not end. There's just lots of basic fundamental questions that aren't answered from the Yes campaign - we will all collectively pay the financial and otherwise cost if a Yes vote goes through and it (pun intended) it goes South.

I'm no fan of the Three Musketeers from Westminster but the plans that are proposed for further devolution in event of No seem pretty binding. Are they enough? I guess thats a question the Scots will answer in 48hours.

The "further devolution" promises are hogwash. They're so bad that the guy who wrote the devo-plus proposals (which didn't even go as far devo-max) is now considering voting Yes. They're mostly based on the Labour position which was the worst of all the major parties (unbelievably the Tories position is probably the best although the backbench tories are dead set against them)

I am disappointed that, at this late stage, I am still not sure which way I will vote. For that I can only blame the dithering of the unionist parties. If they had come together in 2012 with a radical, combined agenda, there would have been no lingering doubt in my own mind. There would also have been no lingering doubt in the minds of most people in Scotland wanting a strong union with the rest of the UK, but with Scotland controlling much more of its welfare and the majority of its tax powers.

I am a natural no voter. I was not expecting to be even considering voting yes. But the reality is that, because Gordon Brown, on behalf of all unionist parties, has failed to outline what actual powers will be transferred, the factual reality is that the yes proposition appears to be closer to Devo Plus than the no proposition

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ote-unionists-devolution-independent-scotland

 

[Rubenov]

Stay united UK please

 

[Walshicus]

Stay united UK please

Why?

Spoiler

Fuck the UK.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Both my parents are voting no. I can't as i don't live there (and never have tbf)

Both my parents extremely annoyed about the appropriation of the Saltire to the Yes Campaign. Along with some of the more "militant" campaigning that is coming from Yes as they put it.

 

[Kathian]

I'm jealous that the Scots get free prescriptions. I have chronic stuff and I am still not entitled to anything.

I thought you only paid for one off prescriptions?

 

[liquidtmd]

The "further devolution" promises are hogwash. They're so bad that the guy who wrote the devo-plus proposals (which didn't even go as far devo-max) is now considering voting Yes. They're mostly based on the Labour position which was the worst of all the major parties (unbelievably the Tories position is probably the best)



http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ote-unionists-devolution-independent-scotland

An interesting read. This is depressing and not suprising

But the reality is that, because Gordon Brown, on behalf of all unionist parties, has failed to outline what actual powers will be transferred

However my issue is this that he highlights which is a real sticking point for me:

However, the flaw in the yes campaign’s proposition is that they will be dependent on the cooperation of a foreign country to allow them to use their currency and share in their monetary policy decisions, not to mention to act as the lender of last resort

to boot also, despite the tone towards the end the guy hasn't said he is voting Yes - just considering as you state (despite that being severe enough) Specifically:

I’ll be watching both campaigns closely for the next few days. I’ll decide whether I think the unionist parties are as serious as they claim they are about devolving power, and I’ll be hoping for some further clarity on the powers the UK government will devolve. Then I’ll vote.

 

[Chinner]

I thought you only paid for one off prescriptions?

Don't the Scottish get it free? Think that was the situation when I lived in Scotland awhile back.

 

[Kathian]

Don't the Scottish get it free? Think that was the situation when I lived in Scotland awhile back.

It is but I assumed repeat subs in rUK were also free?

 

[funkypie]

Perhaps, but it's better to have sovereignty rest with your countrymen than foreigners in London, isn't it?

We've seen time and time again two things from Westminster with regard to Scotland:
1) Ambivalence.
2) Contempt.

The McCrone Report should be required reading for everyone who wants to comment on Scottish independence. We have direct evidence of the scale of the lying to which Westminster went the last time around to subdue Scottish nationalism. The government's OWN report showed Scotland to be so rich in resources as to have a tax surplus that was "embarassing", and as a result they classified it secret so as to keep the Scots from realising their own potential for success.

Westminster lied last time. How can anyone take a word of what they say on this issue as truth? Westminster gives not one shit about Scotland; it just wants the oil wealth.

I'm sorry you think English people are foreingers, they clearly are not.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

Balance of Payments, mate. Goes from a deficit of 3.8% to North of 7% without "BP's oil". With that level of a BOP deficit you're looking at a massive devaluation of Sterling and an massive increase in borrowing costs.

Well gee, good job you don't plan on using the pound in this new Scottish Eden then isn't it.

Sterling crashed 25% in 2009...it was managed, the broad and diversified UK economy dealt with it.

The cause of that crash was having to guarantee hundreds of billions of pounds to the banks...a FAR more serious problem than dealing with the loss of oil revenues.

Sterling will devalue but nothing like the amount seen in 2009, Scotland on the other hand will have the double problem of devaluation and no central bank..now that would be a fatal combination.

 

[nelsonroyale]

A funding gap is not a budget cut and this refers to the current budget and is not a consequence of independence.

Seems odd this is claimed now after weeks of the campaign.

There have been many false claims diffused through the No campaign. Yesterday I spoke to a number of Polish residents who feared EU migrants would be sent back following independence. These kind of scaremongerings are being diffused through social media.

Incidentally the Scottish government has been much more supportive of migrants than the UK government. Leaving the EU and making it harder on EU mobility has much more traction with the political class in England than Scotland.

The Scottish government was also against the disasterous privitisation of the Royal Mail, and yet had little say in the sell off

 

[Stinkles]

I'm sorry you think English people are foreingers, they clearly are not.

If you read his post again, you will detect clear and unambiguous future tense. And a mild rhetorical flourish.

 

[JonathanEx]

Thought this was interesting. ITV's Tom Brady on why he's not enjoying covering the referendum - http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/

 

[liquidtmd]

Thought this was interesting. ITV's Tom Brady on why he's not enjoying covering the referendum - http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/

I think the BBC and ITV are guilty of bias at some editorial levels but yes, the level and nature of menace in the abuse Nick Robinson and others have received has no part of political movements.

I don't blame Tom for not enjoying this

 

[Stinkles]

Thought this was interesting. ITV's Tom Brady on why he's not enjoying covering the referendum - http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/

So his amazing observation is that the yes campaign is a bunch of meanies?

Also that article really, really needs a copy editor.

 

[RulkezX]

Thought this was interesting. ITV's Tom Brady on why he's not enjoying covering the referendum - http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/

Is anyone surprised? The mob tactics used have been disgraceful.

If anyone is in any doubt about their mentality go to twitter and tweet #votingno #indyref and watch your feed explode with abuse.

I've been shouted at and called a coward in the middle of my towns highstreet just this week.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

Is anyone surprised? The mob tactics used have been disgraceful.

No matter how 'civilised' and 'developed' a country is, nationalism operates at the same ugly base level the world over.

 

[Saiyar]

So his amazing observation is that the yes campaign is a bunch of meanies?

Also that article really, really needs a copy editor.

Yesterday I read a quote in an article about the NUJ condemnation of the treatment of journalists. Paraphrasing it slightly

There was a line of police protecting a media building from a crowd of people demonstrating on behalf of the government party

I hope everyone would view that as unacceptable.

 

[aspiegamer]

It's fascinating to me that the conditions are 50%+1 to break away. A simple majority. Could presumably this be put to a ballot again for a vote to return? If "No" wins what are the rules on voting over this again and how soon? This is why history-altering changes generally prefer a massive shift (3/5ths or 2/3rds) to show that something has overwhelming public support. A margin that big also makes a measure immune from short-term voter regret. For example, a ton of states in the US voted to ban gay marriage in the early 00s but we've undoing a lot of that now that we've thought better of it. We can request a do-over on that if we realize we screwed up. Independence seems like something you can't really have a do-over on.

Please do not go through with this, Scotland. I can't pretend to speak for your better interests but as an American I really don't want you giving Southern states any ideas, especially on just a 50%+1 threshold.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

I hope everyone would view that as unacceptable.

When striving for independence, 'see no evil,hear no evil,speak no evil' is the mantra of the campaign and it's followers.

The ends justify the means.

 

[Sage00]

No matter how 'civilised' and 'developed' a country is, nationalism operates at the same ugly base level the world over.

You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to respond to a comment as ignorant as this with anything but anger and insults. If that makes me a typical nationalist then so be it. I believe in a society where weapons of prestige for a failing empire don't take precedence over nurses and teachers, where parents aren't forced to go to food banks just to feed their children while politicians give themselves a 10% pay rise and maintain the highest level of expenses ever, and where democracy prevails with a government voted for by the people here, with no unelected upper chamber of inherited titles.

If I'm demonised for waving the flag that represents all that and getting a bit angry at people who want to take it away, I'll take it and proudly say: Go fuck yourself.