The incredible vanishing story
Gah. Why is it that any time we’re ever vaguely nice about the Daily Record in public, they immediately pull an idiotic stunt like this and make us look like chumps?
Watch and marvel, readers, as a headline disintegrates in front of your very eyes.
“Alex Salmond admits Scotland could be forced to ditch pound if country votes Yes in September’s referendum”
Does he? Wow, it must be pretty serious if the First Minister himself has come out and made such a dramatic declaration, so completely at odds with everything he’s said for the last few years. Let’s read on.
“Alex Salmond’s Government have been forced to secretly concede there is a risk an independent Scotland could ditch the pound.”
Oh, right. The very first line in the text of the story reveals that in fact Alex Salmond hasn’t admitted anything at all. We’re talking about the Scottish Government here, but apparently the Record thinks its readers are too thick to understand unless they personalise it with somebody they’ve heard of.
“The Daily Record can reveal major infrastucture [sic] contracts drawn up by his Government now include a clause designed to reassure businesses they will be paid in sterling even if Scotland adopts a different currency.
One of Scotland’s top corporate lawyers last night said the clause had been drawn up to calm fears over the impact of Scotland joining the euro or launching its own currency.”
Whoops, our mistake. It’s not even the Scottish Government that’s made this alleged admission or concession. The source of the story is “one of Scotland’s top corporate lawyers”. (Because of course, Record readers are intimately familiar with the rankings of Scotland’s corporate lawyers.)
“The clause effectively admits a go-it-alone Scotland could be forced to give up the pound. “
Oh, “effectively”? CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG! MADE-UP BOLLOCKS ALARM! MADE-UP BOLLOCKS ALARM! CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG!
We’re not even a third of the way down the story and every word of the headline has turned out to be a complete falsehood. Alex Salmond hasn’t admitted a thing. Nor, even, has the Scottish Government. What we have is one previously-unknown person, political affiliations or agenda unknown, spinning a slight technical alteration – which suspiciously the Record doesn’t actually show us – in a certain way, which the Record has then spun even further behind the cover of the weasel word “effectively”.
(Which of course translates to “Okay, the thing we’re talking about doesn’t ACTUALLY say anything of the sort, but we’re going to tell you that that’s what it secretly means because we’ve got a big empty space on page 8 today.” The entire piece is, to all intents and purposes, a conspiracy theory built on one innocuous and insignificant fact, like the nutjobs who claim to have proved that mankind didn’t land on the moon because of the angle of the shadow in a reflection in a photograph or something.)
The rest of the article is just padding and waffle, with the obligatory hostile quotes from a Labour spokesperson and a couple of lines right at the very end for the Scottish Government to defend itself. But pro-independence blog Logic’s Rock did some proper journalism and went and actually dug out the full clauses in question.
ORIGINAL VERSION
Manner of Payment
34.3 All payments under this Agreement shall be made in pounds sterling by [electronic transfer of funds for value on the day in question] to the bank account of the recipient located in the United Kingdom) specified in the relevant invoice, quoting the invoice number against which payment is made.
AMENDED VERSION
Manner of Payment
34.3 All invoices under this Agreement shall be raised in Pounds Sterling and the money of account and money of payment in respect of all payments, liabilities and claims (including any accrued rights) under this Agreement at any time shall remain denominated in and be made in Pounds Sterling. All payments under this Agreement shall be made in Pounds Sterling by [electronic transfer of funds for value on the day in question] to the bank account of the recipient (located in the United Kingdom) specified in the relevant invoice, quoting the invoice number against which payment is made.
The text we’ve highlighted in red is the only addition or change to the clause. We’re struggling to see which part of that sentence contains an admission that “a go-it-alone Scotland could be forced to give up the pound”, let alone one by Alex Salmond.
(Scottish Government infrastructure contracts can be awarded to companies of any nation – the Edinburgh trams, for example, are being built by German company Bilfinger. So we’re having a hard time working out why such firms would be at all distressed at the thought of being paid in Euros rather than pounds anyway. For many of them it would clearly be a great deal more convenient.)
If anything, the clause would appear to be an assertion that Scotland definitely WILL be keeping Sterling. It quite clearly tells contractors that whatever happens, they’re not going to be getting paid in anything else, and it would be awfully strange for the Scottish Government to commission, invoice and pay people in what would be a foreign currency if we were using the Euro or some other concoction of our own. (Not only would it be a huge bureaucratic pain, but it would hold the entire Scottish budget hostage to currency-exchange fluctuations.)
The opposite interpretation that’s been arrived at by Mr Sleigh and the Record is therefore bewilderingly illogical. We can only assume that the paper is counting on nobody reading past the headline. Because if they do, they’ll find nothing but an empty hat where they were promised a rabbit would be.
It’s alternative moniker The Daily Retard is well deserved.
The Daily Record’s new strapline?
Drivel Then, Drivel Now, Drivel Forever!
does Nick Clegg have a Daily Record Journo relative called David?
Oh, for goodness sake…
I shared the Yes Scotland pic concerning:
The No campaign’s newly appointed adviser, Jim Gallagher has claimed that its “likely” that an independent Scotland will be an EU state after “accelerated negotiation”.
With a quip at the end that the as it was a Wednesday the “can’t user the pound” BS story will be appearing shortly, and lo and behold..
Ta da…
here it is..
Cheers Rev, another FB share 🙂
A disgrace of a newspaper,are they all (newspapers) wanting us not to buy them any-more?
My mind just wandered there a little, back to the time of “cash for questions”… could we be seeing a “cash for headlines” situation happening?
Whatever other problems are occurring within the MSM at the moment it’s fairly obvious that honest, coherent content is not a required element in the eyes of the editors.
Its job done at the Record though isnt it?
As soon as DR readers see the word ‘Salmond’, they think “Boo!” and wont further read anything which seems complicated and dull. All they register is the headline and its negative taint. Pathetic.
I asked a while back, if you can be hauled up for falsehoods and threats on social media, wheres the accountability for such fabrications in the Media.
Shouldn’t there be a mechanism for the Government to haul these folk over the coals?
Load of nonsense. The German (…whatever firm) just changes it into Euros – charged at a greedy Tory? bank? and goes off into the Sunset.
The ‘Record’ ie the readers must come up the Clyde in a banana boat. Disgraceful ‘journalism’.
Make it up as they go along.
Ah yes, it’s a Wednesday. Odds on Lamont leading with this tomorrow then?
But aye, have to agree with your interpretation. This looks far more like a guarantee Scotland will be using Sterling, at least in the near future, than an admission it won’t.
Of course, the SNP cannot tie a future Scottish government to keeping the pound though. If it becomes in Scotland’s interests to set up our own currency, and a party proposing that has support for it, it could happen. So this clause gives a guarantee that no government in the future can change that particular contract, which would seem to make sense.
Saying “a future government could choose to change currency” however something though, is not the same as “admitting a country could be forced to change currency”. The UK could change currency to the Euro any time there was support for it too. That’s the nature of having the independence to do these things.
What’s it got to do with Jim Gallagher? . Elected No. Who do these people think they are? Becoming multimillionaires leeching of the public purse by obstructing democracy.
@Cath
How long before Johanns suicidal promise to campaign alongside David Cameron is the subject of a “Good luck finding him” joke from wee Eck.
I give him a few minutes, he loves to keep em waiting for a punchline!
As soon as this came out I replied to Severin and David Clegg on Twitter and asked where in the article did Salmond say anything to the effect of the sensational headline, no reply, except a fake Unionist Troll account spouting nonsense
I presume the SNP-led Government will demand the Record retract this misleading and unsupported assertion with immediate effect. In addition the First Minister should briefly and concisely rubbish this story at FMQs.
Separashun committee just starting if anyone interested.
link to parliamentlive.tv
O/T George Kerevan on Politics Scotland now
This is nothing new. Anyone remember the Records advertising campaign when they gave away a sticker for your car saying “Real Scots read the Record”
I remember following behind a car in the M8 daily traffic jam some mornings. It had a great parody sticker in its rear window saying “Real Scots rip up the Record” I never found out where the driver got it from. This must have been over twenty years ago!
Any company likely to be dealing with foreign suppliers would have a similar clause in their terms, unbelievably irrelevant story!
Brilliant stuff. Proper Scottish journalism exposes the scandal of fraudulent labelling & sale of Fish-Supper wrapping as news paper.
I keep laughing that the pro-London rule campaign keeps falling into “no true Scotsman” fallicies. (link to en.wikipedia.org)
It was bloody named for us, and they’re almost invoking it by name!
What’s the next headline going to be?
No True Scotsman would vote Yes in September?
Whit,s the bettin on,Wee Ruthie,s 1st ? at FMQ,s,when will the FM be meetin the PM.Wee ECK haud,s up a copy of the Daiy Record,I dont think that would be any time soon, at least in the current climate.
Oh for gods sake. Is our news media beneath contempt or are they all merely Severin Carrel/Torquill Crichtons’?
Clegg by name, Clegg by nature. Like his namesake at Westminster, they can’t help themselves from talkin utter bullshit.
He seems to be a favourite of BBC Scotland, so I’m sure they will interrogate him regarding this story.
Your typical Record reader is now that sreamin skull that was on that Rangers video who can on read the big words before their concentration goes. He is a constituent of Terry Kerry.
Says it all really.
O/T
BBC Scotland and BBC News24 going heavy on this legal aid in Scotland story. Their headline does not match the story either. It’s about solicitors who have been found guilty of mis conduct but still claim fees.
Check out the headline to the solicitor story down the page a bit. It says layers claim millions in legal aid fees. But read on and you find that it is the companies that they work for that make millions. Just another example of what the Record is up to.
link to bbc.co.uk
So to cut to the chase, its basically a pile of old wossiname.
Salmond said nothing of the kind.
The SG said nothing of the kind.
The text of the clause itself says nothing of the kind.
In fact if anything it goes out of its way to state the opposite. Which is to say ‘we’re only dealing in pounds sterling’.
Am I missing something?
Legal supplement required. A contractor may require to be paid in a chosen currency – dollars is not unusual. He may have good or bad reasons for this. Agreeing to pay in said currency is no indicator as to the currency options or intentions of the contracting government. In short, this is a red herring from a red top.
The headline is the point and the only purpose. The article itself is largely irrelevant to the purposes of the D.R. — they are interested only in their readers seeing the headline, it’s a bad headline for indy, it’s boring politics stuff and quickly flip it over to read the important sport stuff on the back page. They will use any means whatsoever, regardless of how flimsy a connection is made to the actual headline, in order to spin their negative indy headlines.
It won’t be long before we read headlines such as: “Scottish Indy Referendum Results in Accelerated Climate Change”, “Sales of Onions Plummet Due to Indy Referendum”, “Edinburgh Zoo Pandas Fail to Conceive Due to Indy Referendum”.
If the D.R. and their ilk can find even the remotest, flimsiest correlation, they will jump to Indy bad causation.
Damn! I just finished writing my own response to this Record piece. Not sure I’ve added much to what Stu has said. link to sco.lt
“Anyone remember the Records advertising campaign when they gave away a sticker for your car saying “Real Scots read the Record””
I remember that, and cringing at it. I always wondered if the No campaign’s “real Scots” was ripped off from it?
If yer no fast …
The Daily Record lost credibility many moons ago. The only reason why I buy it these days is to help me find a new job.
What we call a boilerplate clause. Important but boring. 15 years ago corporate lawyers were bumping up fees by drafting in millennium bug clauses. Then it was “what if we join the euro” clauses. Just another “what if?”.
*yawn*
The first version of the payment terms is quite old
“All sums to be paid by the Client under this Agreement shall be invoiced in Pounds Sterling and payment shall be made in Pounds Sterling by electronic transfer to the Service Provider’s bank account as such details are set out in the Contract Term”
You will note that the above is closer to the second version of the Scottish Government contract teerms where it stipulates the invoice and payment will both be in Sterling. This contract clause is from the a recent UK Government model contract.
This is worse than a non-story.
If anyone’s interested, the “top corporate lawyer” in question, Andrew Sleigh, can be found here: link to legal500.com
Now, I wouldn’t want to cast aspersions on Mr Sleigh’s professional abilities, but one line in that profile struck me as rather interesting:
Well, he clearly did a fine job on that one…
Thanks for picking it up, Stuart.
As always it’s about the headline and their assumption that people won’t actually read the article. Or more likely these days, not even buy the paper.
Lack of respect epitomises every aspect of the NO side. Even down to their press friends appealing for support from people they obviously regard as idiots.
They treat the public as though they were herding cattle with their red topped sticks.
I phoned the daily record and they are sticking to the fact that it was Alex Salmond they were extremely rude to me when I pointed out to them that it was one of there unionist Lawyers who claimed that it was said then they told me that as Alex is head of the Scottish government that he takes responsibility for it. I am afraid I then lost it with them and told the silly news person to go away and f off.
This has to be one of the best examples of blatant political propaganda masquerading as ‘news’ we have seen yet in the independence debate. Sadly this is a daily event for our partial, partisan and puppet media.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
The rUK — or whatever it ends up being called — pound will be a foreign currency, no matter what currency an independent Scotland uses.
As opposed to using the pound, and therefore holding the entire Scottish economy hostage to decisions made by Westminster and the Bank of England, and by the financial sector?
There is absolutely zero chance of Westminster allowing an independent Scotland to have a deciding stake in decisions made about the pound. They might offer ‘consultation’, but they’ll give up Newcastle before they give up control of their currency. With no control over it, the pound will be a foreign currency from the perspective of Scotland.
“The rUK — or whatever it ends up being called — pound will be a foreign currency, no matter what currency an independent Scotland uses.”
Um, no it won’t. If it’s ours too, it’s not foreign. Is the Euro a “foreign” currency in Germany, or France, or Belgium? Where is its “home”?
Its all complete bollocks, isn’t it?
To think that they do it so that we can remain under Westminster rule.
Shameful.
What makes me sad, is not so much the newspapers’ complicity in the unionist campaign – newspapers always have and always will be operated on behalf of some agenda or other – but that so many people in our country will swallow this kind of stuff hook, line and sinker.
O/T Anybody watching the ‘Seperashun’ Committee?
link to parliamentlive.tv
@man in the jar.
I want a car sticker that says; the daily record is lying to real Scots.
One for the bbc wouldn’t go amiss either.
This is standard boilerplate. Lawyers tinker with it from time to time – that is what they do.
Requirement to invoice in a particular currency is nothing unusual or noteworthy. By way of a somewhat trite example the current standard FCO contract terms state ‘All..invoices shall be denominated in [insert currency e.g. Sterling]’.
If a possible currency change or currency risk was being addressed in a commercial contract then the drafting would run to many, many paragraphs.
I followed a car through Carluke yesterday which had three stickers on the rear window. “Rise and be a Nation again” “Yes” and “Real Scots tear up the Daily Record”
I thought surely not for toilet paper. That is history! Enjoy!
The Daylate record is a horrible unionist shitrag , their appalling coverage of all things Scottish ! ‘If Adolf Hitler flew in today they would send him a limousine anyway’! But selling less than 200,000 the regional rag is heading for the plughole .
It’s also about the headlines that they don’t show. When the White Paper was launched, two of the local newsagents in my area had their billboards blank.
Or should that be bileboards?
FlimFlamMan – Not true, I would hazard a guess we would have at least one advisor sitting on the BoE monetary committee that reports to Cairney…..not only that, but Scotland would have a good amount of leverage in any decisions due to the already highlighted discrepancies in the rUK economy should we threaten to leave it or not have any influence.
Of course, it does beg the question of why there aren’t advisors sitting on the BoE’s committee now that represent Scotland interests…as well as the other countries…..when people say Westminster is London oriented this is where it comes from.
I doubt we would even an advisor at the BoE in the event of Devo Max, but with Independence, we definitely would. They quite simply can’t afford us not to have a say.
And thanks yet, to its availability in print, people can still be observed on buses, cafes & dentists’ waiting rooms, achieving a level of fact free enlightenment by taking a daily dose of the Record’s puerile propaganda & salacious yet vacuous, celebrity focused gossip.
It really is a challenge not to believe that the writers & publishers of this rag deliberately & wilfully treat their readers as complete mugs.
A couple of items Rev. O/T I do apologise.
Hold onto your hats, the Foreign Secretary William Hague, and Chief Treasurer Danny Alexander are wait for it, flying into Glasgow on Friday to point out the benefits of the union.
Hague will also stress the fact that we’re much much better off in the union as we get protection from NATO, through the UK. Source Glasgow Evening Times no link found. I’m afraid.
BBC Scotland are hosting a series of debates,on independence over the next few months. they are appealing for members of the public to be part of the audience, the first debate will be held in Greenock on Tuesday 21st, Hawick on February 18th, and Fife on March 18th.
If you wish to attend any of these events.
Email referendum debate@ bbc.co.uk put audience debate in the message field. Then provide name day time phone number, where you live and what debate you wish to attend.
Precisely Chalks… It is the difference between currently having no influence at all on the Bank of Sterling (exactly what it is, as the Band of England is an incorrect name to describe its’ role)… and having the economic leverage of a nation of over 5 million people and copious amounts of natural resources and economic activity.
It must be remembered though, that the markets (and they are international) are the single biggest factor in influencing the interest rates… not politicians.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
But the pound won’t be Scotland’s, will it; do you actually think Westminster will give up control?
Yes, since none of those countries have control over it.
The ECB.
“But the pound won’t be Scotland’s, will it; do you actually think Westminster will give up control?”
Does Finland “control” the Euro? Of course not. Is it therefore a “foreign” currency in Finland? Of course not.
This argument is tedious.
I’ve often wondered what the response would be if the Scottish Government were to ‘call my bluff’ with the Westminster stance on currency and the EC stance on the EU question.
“As Westminster have indicated that they will refuse our offer to agree a Sterling union we are forced to now formulate a position on ending use of Sterling, adopting a Scottish Pound initially pegged 1:1 with Sterling and establishing a Scottish central bank. A revised position of Scotland’s acceptance of an apportionment of UK debt will be made”
“Despite the Scottish Government’s continued attempts to agree a method of continuing membership, The European Council have indicated that Scotland will be removed from the European Union in the event of a YES vote, We are therefore forced to concede that as of 24th March 2016 , following a YES vote, EU treaties will no longer be applicable to Scotland, Scottish citizens, or residency of EU citizens within Scotland. Following independence, the support of the Scottish people for the EU will be gauged to ascertain if we should apply for membership.”
Twain’s “If you do not read a newspaper you are uninformed, if you do you are mis-informed” was never truer than with the Daily Rancid. It is to the truth as is the box jellyfish to skinny dipping.
[…] Here is a typical example of how the pro-union media throw journalistic accuracy, integrity and impartiallity to the wind just to falsely strengthen the case for the union in minds of the electorate… Wings Over Scotland | The incredible vanishing story […]
Will Jenny Marra and the daily record guarantee that Scotland will not be allowed to use the £ sterling. In the event of a yes vote.
Flimfanman – They have a say in it, we currently do not.
And if you believe that we would continue to have no say in the pound as independent, then I would urge you to look at the leverage Scotland has.
Tautology, oops.
Sorry.
My contribution to humanity is to rip ALL newspapers in half as soon as I come across them.
@Cath
Wee Johann has to wait until Brewer and Paul Sinclair give her FMQs a run out on Newsnight Scotland tonight, then she gets the final draft sent down to the bunker after midnight.
There, she will practice the face contortions, and wrist waving and scream completely irrelevant questions to big Eck.
Most newspapers in Scotland are from south of border with an added kilt
And anti independence agenda ( not much future for them )
Anyone wishing to comment to a Daily Record politico, who goes by the name of Torcuil Crichton, then be my guest, though he very seldom replies, preferring to delete comments, typical really.
http://www.whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk
Poor Torcuil. He had pretensions of being a political journalist but instead writes for the Daily Record.
A brilliant observation by Jim Sillars.
“On the 18th September 2014 between the hours of 7am and 10pm for the first time ever, the Scottish people will have absolute sovereignity lying in their hands… if, after 1 minute past 10pm, there is a YES vote then we retain that power. If, after 1 minute past 10pm, there is a NO vote, then we will lose that power.”
Very well put. Here’s the vid:
link to inplaceoffear.com
Another premature ejaculation by Blair
“As soon as DR readers see the word ‘Salmond’, they think “Boo!””
Problem is, it isn’t just the informationally challenged, is it?
At the start of the week, I felt it prudent to withdraw a pictorial gag from FB.
It was a picture of a £20 note, but with Alex Salmond’s face replacing that of Robert the Bruce and the words ‘Scottish currency 2016’. The intended joke simply being that Alex Salmond was right and we will have the pound.
I wouldn’t have bothered withdrawing it if objection was only from the U-crowd, but some from the yes movement were not happy with it.
Made me realise what a uniquely successful vilification exercise our opponents allied with a compliant MSM have had on arguably the yes campaign’s main political figure.
You have to watch the rant by Mark Isherwood Tory member of Welsh Assembly.
link to bbc.co.uk
Hmm… I’m on the fence re yes/no and am frantically trying to read unbiased material (very hard to find). But with all due respect to you, and with all due disrespect to the aforementioned rag, you have tended to be a wee bit pedantic here haven’t you? I mean, first of all, the story DOES say it’s been drawn up by the Scottish Govt (I quote from the article: ‘drawn up buy his government’) but the reason for doing so was explained by the ‘top lawyer’. So you’re not quite right there. Some would even suggest this made you look as bad as the Record. Secondly, you are taking every single letter printed by a red-top paper as gospel and picking holes in everything you can find. You could take this further and say that journalistic licence allows them to print things like ‘Alex Says’ when in fact his government are saying it. I’m sure you wouldn’t even think of mentioning this if the shoe was on the other foot.
I admit that these rags are full of rubbish… but anyone can do what you’ve done to any story all day, every day. It doesn’t really make me want to vote yes.
Maybe you should rename your website ‘Pedants over Scotland’? This piece definitely, in my book, makes you as bad as the unionist propoganda which I am only too aware of. Bad show.
“you have tended to be a wee bit pedantic here haven’t you?”
Um, no. Not only is the Record’s story TECHNICALLY untrue – nobody has “admitted” anything, let alone Alex Salmond, the only quote from a government official is a denial – it’s also based on a completely spurious and irrational premise, as the second part of our article notes. If anything, the change suggests that the Scottish Government is definitely going to keep Sterling, which is the opposite of what the Record claims.
We make no claims of neutrality here, but the Daily Record is Scotland’s second-biggest newspaper, and people deserve to be told when it’s lying to them on every level.
It would seem that other Tory members of the Welsh Assembly have drafted the same speech. There is lot of repetition.
Carney to meet Salmond.
Wonder if they’ll discuss the Daily Record story?
Whatever currency iScotland uses (please not the pound, please not the pound) I will not be paying a red cent for the Daily Record. That’s one tradition I’ll be steadfastly sticking to.
The £’s a shite currency.
link to edmundconway.com
Increasingly worthless.
Will have to do for the transition though. Makes sense.
David Clegg: A ("Quizmaster" - Ed). Member of the fifth column against Scotland and it’s people.
@chalks
Yes, that’s the ‘consultation’ I mentioned; deliberately easy to ignore.
The leverage is imagined.
I began my usual screed on currencies, but let’s try a different tack. After WWII the UK government debt to GDP was over 200%, compared to less than 100% now. We were creating a NHS where none had existed, and there was the little matter of cities bombed to bits by the Germans.
Oh, and we were operating under the constraints of the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard.
Despite all that, the UK serviced those debts.
The only time the UK has ever defaulted on debt was when we operated under the gold standard. There is no gold standard now.
The UK government has no problem servicing its debt now, and the rUK government will have no problem after Scottish independence. Scotland is perfectly capable of prospering as an independent nation state, but so is the rUK.
It may well not prosper, or its people as a whole may not, as is already the case, thanks to the incompetence and corruption of the Westminster political classes. That is a whole other problem though.
Getting back to debt and currencies; the rUK will operate the pound in the interests of the rUK economy. Or more particularly, in the interests of the [r]UK government’s favoured part of the economy; the financial sector.
Don’t get angry, get YES!
Every time the MSM comes out with nonsense like this, just resolve to put a wee bit extra effort into the campaign for Scottish independence. What a powerful motivation! Determine to send just a wee bit extra cash to sites like this, walk just a few more streets and deliver just a few more leaflets, speak to just a few more people.
And remember, if the majority of scots really believed Daily Record headlines, 2007 would never have happened, let alone 2011.
Carwyn James, First Minister of Wales has argued that in the event of a No vote in Scotland and that the UK government didn’t reneged on it’s promise on new devolved powers that another Scottish referendum is inevitable and the Scots will vote Yes.
Are you going to sue if it’s technically untrue?
“Are you going to sue if it’s technically untrue?”
In most instances, telling lies isn’t a crime.
SS
When we went to visit our daughter in NZ about 5 years ago it was nearly 3 NZ dollars to the pound. Three was the ballpark figure we used to price things there.
Now it ls less than 2 dollars to the pound.
Oops that is Carwyn Jones
Bilverus
Why sue when we can lampoon? The story is absolute nonsense and it is important that we discuss why it is nonsense because we will encounter it repeated as Gospel in a month or three months time with a “I read…”
Deconstruct now and be well armed to correct clearly and precisely every time it is encountered hereafter. It is one of the reasons this site is not exactly top of the pops with the Better Together media types.
‘There, she will practice the face contortions, and wrist waving and scream completely irrelevant questions to big Eck.’
caz-m – She doesn’t need to practice.
Bikverus shows that he/she doesn’t understand what suing means or why people sue.
E.g. There has to be demonstrable harm done to someone such as trashing their reputation which would cause them a financial loss.
The only financial loss I can determine is the money folks have wasted buying the Daily Record. But that’s a free will choice. And it would be impossible to claim consequential financial loss just because someone believed the shite published in the Record.
Got anything positive to contribute instead?
@Bilverus
The point of the pedantry (if it is that)is to demonstrate, in detail, that the story – and in particular the headline – has no basis in fact and that it is spun with the intention of directly damaging the Yes campaign.
You may say this happens all the time – and indeed it does – but I wonder if you can point to similar distortion coming from the Yes side?
If it weren’t for a bunch of nit-picking people prepared to dig out the facts and hold journalists to account, they could make up anything they liked (well, they do anyway, but at least this site provides the evidence for it.)
HandandShrimp – I’m afraid I feel that the way this story is being deconstructed isn’t particularly beneficial to either side of the debate. As I stated previously, virtually every single letter of the article has been ‘deconstructed’ to the nth degree.
If you did this to every newspaper article (especially those as er, shall we say ‘complex’ as those in the Daily Record) then you could pretty much create any conclusion you wanted. And for me, that makes WoS as bad as the other lot. And that’s a shame.
“And for me, that makes WoS as bad as the other lot.”
What, because they tell lies and we point out the truth? Right.
If we didn’t question the rubbish printed by the Unionist media in Scotland/England, we might as well sleepwalk through the rest of our lives.
Your future will be affected by the vote this year whether you like it or not. But you have an opportunity to consider which affect you would prefer & will be given a choice with which to make it happen.
Or you could just believe what the Record tells you & then wake up one day wondering why a loaf of bread costs 300 quid.
@Gillie says
Carwyn James, First Minister of Wales has argued that in the event of a No vote in Scotland and that the UK government didn’t reneged on it’s promise on new devolved powers that another Scottish referendum is inevitable and the Scots will vote Yes.
He can put his money on that. Due to the arrogance of the establishment there will be unrest and aggro, which will result in a second referendum which will be a walk over. SCOTLAND WILL BE FREE.
@Bilverus – deconstructing it like that is the most straightforward way of explaining in what way a story is complete bollocks.
To the audience reading Wings, that’s fairly appropriate – I can now confidently argue with that assertion if someone says “But Alex Salmond himself admitted that”…
Oi! Wings! You pro-independent website you, stop being pro independent!
Tomorrow, I expect butterflies, smiling donkeys and my stars – aquarius I think…,
@ Papadocx
I doubt the SNP will ever get the chance to have another Referendum i.e. via the Holyrood route. If there’s a No victory then Westminster will pass legislation to neuter the Scottish Parliament, to prevent another referendum.
Indeed, it may not even be in the SNP’s interest to win in 2016 for after the latest Tory £25 billion austerity package is delivered, many of the progressive policies introduced by the SNP Government will have to be curtailed or taxes will have to rise in Scotland to sustain them. If the SG cut services or increase taxes to pay for them then the SG after 2016 can pretty much guarantee losing the next Scottish Parliamentary election and, as Alan Bisset tells us, Labour will move in to occupy the ruins.
I think if there’s a NO vote in September then the SNP doesn’t want to win the 2016 election. What it could perhaps do is stand on a manifesto commitment of straight independence, without another referendum.
Probably all moot–YES will win in September, no doubt about it.
You point out your version of the truth! I love how you simplify things when it suits and then ‘deconstruct’ when it suits. top stuff. Pedants corner. YCMIU etc etc. Still, you are helping me decide which way to vote.
“You point out your version of the truth!”
No, the ACTUAL truth. It’s an empirical fact that neither Alex Salmond nor the Scottish Government admitted anything to do with Scotland losing Sterling. We support all our assertions with links. If you’re going to vote No because you like being lied to, or because a website nobody’s forcing you to read points out when the media is telling lies, fair enough.
Roddy MacDonald – I don’t know who or what you’re talking about. I’m trying to be balanced here, saying I don’t agree with something WoS has printed (by and large, as a passive reader of WoS and Bella Caledonia, a lot of what’s been printed has helped me sway from being an initial ‘no’ voter, to being ‘don’t know’, so I’d like to thank WoS and BC for that) and saying why. Whereas replies like Mr Rev Campbell’s are fine, yours are utter drivel. Please stop accusing me of being someone I am not. Same goes for Mr Roboscot. You sound paranoid mate.
@ Bilverus
I rather suspect your mind was already made up how you will vote before you entered here. But that’s just my hunch. But however you vote, I trust that you will ensure it is a fully informed vote.
Nope, it’s not made up, and it’s still not. I am looking for as much information as I can.
Bilverus
I run a bar and most conversations regarding newspapers start with the words ‘look at this’ as a finger is pointed to a headline. Very rarely is the content mentioned. We make available to customers the usual Sun, Record, Scotman, Gaurdian and because it’s the only paper in Scotland that occasionally has some balance the Herald.
There is no newspaper available to put the indy side. However thanks to the hard work of The Rev his contributers and the other indy online sites who provide links to back up their positions I can direct interested people to source material as well as the indy online content itself.
It would be pretty boring to simply put links to source material with a headline on the lines of ‘Record prints crap see these sources’, infact a deconstrution of badly researched material is about the only sane way to approach this area.
If you can come up with a better way I am sure we would all be will to give it a go.
Don’t be a stranger one day a subject close to your heart will come up and you may just be glad the Rev scrutinised it.
Oh for heavens sake, someone has to say it. Bilverus is a No voter posing as a Don’t Know. Slightly more sophisticated than the No campaign usually are, but no nonetheless.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
It may be a tedious argument, but that doesn’t mean it it isn’t important.
The UK uses a currency issued by that country’s government sector. The same is true of the US, Canada, Japan, Brazil and so on. They have their own currency.
Ecuador uses a currency issued by a body outside the control of the Ecuadorian government; the US dollar. To Ecuador it is a foreign currency.
Germany, France, Belgium and Finland — and the other euro nations — also use a currency issued by a body beyond the control of their respective governments; the euro. What does that make the euro if not a foreign currency?
Would you be happier if I said effectively foreign? The point is that the eurozone nations do not have control over the currency they use. Germany has more input than the others, but even it doesn’t have control.
This conversation, tedious or not, is taking place within the context of the independence debate. Independence is about control of Scottish affairs residing within Scotland.
Bilverus is Richard Atkinson ?@rchrdtknsn and I claim my £5!
To be honest I have been wondering if the Scottish Gov wouldn’t start letting little leaks out, to the effect that they had began to look into creating a fall back position on another currency, if Westminster continued to refuse to pre-negotiate.
The idea being that when the London Money Traders heard this they would be again chapping on No 10’s door to demand a currency agreement.
You never know, it might just be that ‘Oor Alex’ has even got the hapless Unionists working for him now and they don’t even know lol.
I hear this argument a lot “But the SNP want to use the UK currency, and therefore will have no control over their own financial matters such as interest rates, and therefore independence is a sham”.
And this is used as a cast iron reason (or excuse?) to vote no!
I find it such an odd argument that I have trouble countering it. Hoping the discussion here will help…
I get the impression that any unswayed, possibly uninformed people aren’t welcome on here, unless they tow the SNP line.
“I get the impression that any unswayed, possibly uninformed people aren’t welcome on here, unless they tow the SNP line.”
There’s no SNP line here. As noted on the About page, I’ve voted Lib Dem for 22 years. I’m not in the SNP and never have been. And unswayed people are very welcome, but they’re subject to the same rules on talking cobblers as anyone else is, and saying “You’re as bad as the liars because you point out their lies” is cobblers, I’m afraid.
You simply couldn’t do what this article does to any piece in any newspaper, because most of them aren’t as blatantly factually wrong as the Record’s one is.
It’s “toe the line”.
FlimFlamMan;
I was with you when you said Whitehall control of sterling would make it ‘foreign’. But that last post makes utterly no sense.
lol thanks Kalmar. Wings Over Grammar too by all accounts today. What else can we put folk to rights on here?
The form of exchange doesn’t matter. What matter is whether the books are balanced. What currency doesn’t matter? All different countries use the Euro, Some balance their books and are in surplus, some do not and are in deficit. That is what matters, ie in surplus or not, deficit. The currency,the form of exchange doesn’t matter. It’s how much you spend and how much is taken in (tax revenues) that matters.
Germany’s stronger influence is as the biggest country – 80Million – that gives German influence being the largest country in the EU. ie balances the books more successfully as well. German success helps the EU. Germany contributes the highest amount to the EU 25Billion Euros. France (pop 70million) contributes 20Billion Euros. Spain (pop 45million) contributes 20Billion Euros. The UK (62 million) contributes 15Billion euros. (gets a rebate) They all get CAP/Grant etc back.
The fall in the value of the £ against the Euro means the UK pays more, than before. £12,5Million. UK pays £1/2Billion more because of the £ devaluing against the Euro.
@Bilverus.
Please don’t take comments to heart, if indeed you are of a don’t know disposition, thats fine, all I ask is that you find out as much as you can, about independence and staying in the union. Then once you’ve digested the info, decide which way you want to vote, but remember this there are no pro-independence newspapers or tv channels.
Bilverus – Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Anyhoo, allegedly undecided trolls aside. I see my comment on the Record article has been deleted for violating their terms and conditions. I can’t find a link to their Ts&Cs and am at loss as to what what so objectionable. We’re hardly in Euan McColm territory of foul-mouthedness, are we?
Yawneroonie! So let’s get this straight, the Big News is that this change was made: “All payments under this Agreement shall be made in pounds sterling” was changed to “Pounds Sterling” (capitalised) and a bit about raising the invoices in Pounds Sterling added (clause 34.3, page 66)
link to scottishfuturestrust.org.uk
If that bog-standard business practice in major projects with international bidders is big news to Andrew Sleigh of Levy MacRae, it doesn’t say much for him being a “top corporate lawyer”.
So what if we have to use the pound to smooth our way into independence. It’s a necessary evil and the right choice for the transitional period. And why shouldn’t we use it? We are equal parties in this union.
Apparently.
So what if it’s technically a ‘foreign’ currency. With a SG voice on the committee of the BOE, we’ll probably have more say than we do now.
The point of the piece was to highlight the attention seeking headline which denigrates Yes without any evidence whatsoever to back up its claims.
Utter shite story.
Keeping the £ has helped me persuade a lot of devo maxers to vote Yes.
The pro-union campaign given much assistance in this by saying ‘It’s not independence that’s being proposed [its really devo max]’ whilst presenting retention of the £ as key to this.
So in that sense, I’m fine with the idea. Once Scotland is independent people won’t care in the long term when we eventually de-couple as appropriate.
The £ ultimately is a poor, weak, shadow of its former self. The current devaluation is just one of many that UK governments have used in failing desperation. It won’t be the last.
To whom it may concern: it’s not ‘tow the line’ it’s ‘toe the line’. FFS.
Roddy, think what you like sir! I can only confirm that I am undecided. I am going to now state a few things about where I currently sit, if you think I am protesting too much then you don’t have to read it, do you. This might not be the right thread to post this on but I will anyway, I will welcome views.
I was no. I am undecided. I’ve been swayed to this by the behaviour of a) the Better Together campaign and their smears and b) by the behaviour of this current UK government. I am also aware that the current UK government isn’t a permanent arrangement, as that’s what democracy is all about. I am also aware that a vote for yes will mean there is no control for people in Scotland over the rest of these islands, which (and I know the actual ‘amount’ of control is debatable) it currently has through the right to vote for the UK ruling party.
Example: Lets say nuclear weapons are banned in an independent Scotland. That’s great for Scotland. What it means in practice is that they all get moved to, say, Cumbria. And guess what, the amount of nuclear weapons doesn’t get reduced, and if that mushroom cloud goes up, Scotland gets it too. To me that’s an empty victory to say the least.
So this is the main reason that I’m not saying I’m going to vote ‘yes’ right now. My mind can be changed – I am undecided (honestly Roddy, I am). Does it not by default completely disregard the majority of non-tory, non-westminster supporting people in the whole of the UK? Families that relied heavily on work in industry who have been sold down the river by Thatcher’s policies? I completely understand the idea that this is Scotland’s chance to change that – but by changing that it could make it worse for more people (albeit in a different country)? Is that fair? Or shouldn’t I care, as many ‘yes’ voters have told me ‘that’s up to them’? (‘them’ being our neighbours down south). Is that not a bit of an ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude’. Is that not a tory attitude?!
Some ‘yes’ voting friends have said that this is the start – that following an independent Scotland, we can start to put pressure on other neighbouring governments to do the right thing. Will that really happen? I’ll be honest now, if the Yes campaign had made this part of it’s ‘manifesto’ (for want of a better word), you could count me in for voting yes. I have a worrying feeling there are too many nationalists supporting the ‘Yes’ campaign, and let’s face it, nationalism is driven by the requirement of one group of people being more important than another.
I’ve read up on the Common Weal and for me that’s the most positive thing coming out of all of this so far. But interestingly, they say you don’t have to vote yes to supper them.
Don’t forget more than 20m people in the whole of the UK didn’t vote for the current government. What makes us different up here in Scotland? The only thing I can think of is the geographical/border divide. And that divide is giving us a right to change things. But unfortunately the by-product of that seems to be to make things worse for more people. And that’s why I haven’t (yet) moved from ‘undecided’ to ‘yes’.
“Lets say nuclear weapons are banned in an independent Scotland. That’s great for Scotland. What it means in practice is that they all get moved to, say, Cumbria. And guess what, the amount of nuclear weapons doesn’t get reduced, and if that mushroom cloud goes up, Scotland gets it too. To me that’s an empty victory to say the least.”
Three things.
(1) They’re not going to Cumbria. There’s nowhere in Cumbria that could host them. Realistically the only place elsewhere in the UK there’s even a slim chance of building an alternative Trident base is Milford Haven in SW Wales, and that’s quite a long shot. If Scotland gets rid of Trident, the de facto situation is that they’re gone from the UK too.
Don’t take my word for it. Try the CND document “Trident: Nowhere To Go”:
link to cnduk.org
or for a view from the other side of the debate, here are some MoD chiefs quoted in the Telegraph:
link to telegraph.co.uk
(2) There isn’t actually going to be a nuclear war. But if there is, nowhere on the face of the planet is safe. Even if you escape blast and fallout, any large-scale exchange will cause a nuclear winter and we’re all screwed. So there’s not a lot of point in factoring in location in that context.
(3) Even if Trident DID only move to Cumbria – which it can’t, because Cumbria is totally unsuited for about a dozen reasons – the biggest and most tangible benefit is that we won’t be paying for it. That’s hundreds of millions of pounds a year that can be put to better use. That’s no empty victory in my book.
*for supper, read support (before the grammar police kick in)
@Bilverus
If it wasn’t for Wings deconstructing this article how would we (me) not so intelligent people believe anything other than this was true? For me Wings doesn’t deconstruct a story to create any conclusion it wants. It shows me the utter pish these papers print and could get away with if it wasn’t for Wings. I couldn’t imagine what the next 8 months would be like if it wasn’t for Wings. Wings gives me the cojonés to go out and dispute the dung people regurgitate from these rags.
Bilverus;
If you’re truly concerned about the disparity witnessed in the UK, you cannot vote no.
Thanks Mr Atypical, but I’d need you to expand on that in order to help me make an informed decision. You see, I don’t agree with you.
1. Nuclear Weapons. The realpolitik of NIMBY local politics in England is such that when the nukes are kicked out of Scotland, it is extremely unlikely that they will ever find a home in England and, having suffered the expense of a shift from Scotland, I’d hazard that London would not be keen to foist them upon Wales.
2. Scotland has next to no influence on UK politics at the moment. Only for a short period in 1974 did Scottish votes make a blind bit of difference to what UK Govt was elected. The great majority of the English working classed can’t bother their backsides to vote. Why should they? They are offered 3 variations on Neo-Liberal Toryism and invited to take their pick (See next article). By far the biggest and best influence over rUK politics Scotland can have is to do outr own thing and demonstrate to those South of the border and West of the North Channel that it can be done.
Solidarity, EWNI Brothers! Power to the people is what the Scots constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty is all about.
Hope that helps.
Bilverus
What makes us different up here in Scotland?
The last word of this sentence. We live in Scotland. Other people live in England. Others in France. Mrs SS is from the latter.
Personally, I don’t feel it’s my place to influence how England is governed (which you seem to want to do?). That would be just wrong; I mean I don’t live there. The way Scottish unionist MPs vote on English matters devolved to Scotland (e.g. NHS, eduction) disgusts me. How dare MPs elected in Scotland support e.g. No fees at home but vote them through in England. This is particularly pertinent given Scotland blocked the Tory majority that England voted for.
I’d like that to stop and it’s one of the reasons I’m voting Yes; to stop our unionist MPs creating resentment against Scotland in England and to allow England to get the government it wants.
You are missing the point by a long way here. Nuclear weapons in themselves are symbolic – if they are ever deployed, all bets are off wherever you are in world!
Therefore it is largely a symbolic statement as to whether you have them or not. And if you do not want them (which the people of Scotland and the Scottish government do not) then it is utterly daft to take your approach and say “well they’ll only be a few hundred miles down the road, in that case we may as well keep them” and pay billions of pounds to their upkeep, make ourselves a direct target for terrorists and put our population at risk in case of an accident.
As for the WMDs on the Clyde. I mainly against paying for them before anything else. Better spent on e.g. schools and hospitals. If they’re decommissioned entirely as a result of independence, then bonus!
People in the rUK can vote for a party that wants to scrap them too like the Greens.
Certainly, if Scotland keeps sending Labour, Tory and Lib MPs which support WMDs to Westminster, we’re not helping the anti-nuclear lobby down south.
Bilverus;
I’ll bite. (Why? Because I recognise the timbre)
As we both know, Ultra capitalism as practiced by the UK insists in extreme contradictions, the only remedy is socialism. The best chance of which is found in a movement fuelled by a social democratic party, aka, the SNP.
Not socialist enough, true. But in comparison to Westminster’s political choices, it’s communism.
As you know.
@Bilverus.
An upshot for the people south of the border,when Scotland gains independence, for places like Newcastle Cumbria,etc,is if Scotland can grow its economy and draw more business away from London, then northern England, may well benefit from this trade.
As it stands now northern England is an impoverished area, and like Scotland it doesn’t seem to feature on Westminsters radar, wouldn’t that be one way in which Scottish Independence might help our neighbours across the border.
“Nope, it’s not made up, and it’s still not. I am looking for as much information as I can.”
Bilverus
Fair enough and you ask that people expand on a point etc, but then I don’t understand why you think this article is too detailed. The currency argument is one of BT’s favourites. This admittedly load of complete tosh is a contribution to that. It is short and it is more likely to be read by Jock Tamson’s bairns than some rather nuanced 2,000 words in the FT that concludes “maybe ayes maybe naws”.
Many of us use this site as resource which we both add to and take from to carry on the argument on other sites and newspaper comment sites. It is therefore essential that we chew things over and make sure we understand what is going on. It has nothing to do with creating an alternative reality. If we did that it would be easily countered. The headline says one thing the facts of the story and the changes to the contract clauses (which they didn’t show) says something else. The revised contract says that business will be conducted in Sterling. It isn’t all that different from the UK standard contract on which it was clearly based. If the contract says business will be conducted in Sterling how on earth can the Record turn that into Scotland will not have the pound? That is the nub of the issue. It may have taken a few words to get there but that is the distilled essence. Do you disagree? If so what is your interpretation of the Record story?
Rev
Even Milford Haven is a long shot these days. They shut the bases at Milford Haven and Trecwn that could have mirrored the Faslane Coulport facilities and turned Milford Haven into a huge liquid gas facility. Not impossible but not ideal either. Be a bit of a to do if a sub and liquid gas container ship had a quarrel.
“Even Milford Haven is a long shot these days”
That’s why I called it a “long shot” 😀
handAndShrimp;
It’s only in Scotland so no English people die if it goes wrong. Too high a danger for anywhere in England what.
MOD says so.
Bilverus,
What is different in Scotland? Well how about how our voting system is set up. PR is a heck of a lot better than first past the post.
See what happens with 1st past the post. We get a government that NOBODY on this island voted for.
You have to remember that the voting system devised for Holyrood was to prevent exactly what is happening on 18th September, to prevent the SNP from getting into government with an overall majority and setting Scotland on a path to independence.
It simply was not meant to happen, but it did and I still firmly believe that the Scots knew exactly what they were doing when putting their crosses on their ballot papers.
Just keep digging and hopefully you will vote with Scotland at heart, not party politics, just our very ancient and proud country, where for the 1st time in over 300 years the ordinary Scot and not the lords will make the decision.
By the way Rev, love the new set up for posting. It’s brilliant.
@Atypical
Correct.
Speaking of nuclear dangers, I would like to know what will happen with Dounreay. Currently undergoing a very expensive clean-up operation (at the taxpayer’s expense):
And other atomic messes, such as the Dalgety Bay foreshore and Rosyth dock problems, which even as part of the UK the MOD is being very reluctant to start fixing.
Incidentally, but related…
France has nuclear weapons.
Mrs SS (from Normandie) and I had a discussion about the merits of a full political union between say France and Britain or France and Scotland with the capital as Paris / government there (France being the more populous / geographically larger country). You could argue that we in Scotland or Britain could influence French nuclear disarmament by this means for example (both her and I are anti-WMD).
Concluded in the end it made no sense. While we’re very much the same, share similar values, many aspects of culture, same sense of ‘fair play’ etc, feel solidarity… in the end they’re French and we’re Scottish, English etc living in the geographically distinct countries of France, Scotland and England as appropriate. That just makes the most sense; aside from variety being the spice of life (I love the fact she’s French – what a sexy accent / language :-)), keeping your government local is a good thing for democracy.
In contrast, we concluded a looser, co-operative union like the EU makes much more sense.
Kalmar;
My brother, (on a clear the mind turismo of n. Scotland was actively ‘ushered’away from the blockaded Dounreay site, and quizzed by people about his presence in quite an aggressive manner.
Personally, my Grandmother, a Dalgety resident till her (relatively) timely death sent myself and my brother frolicking (innocent) across the very area concentrated with the radiation, not restricted at all as latterly as 1990.
Maybe that explains my anti UK psychosis?
@Atypical_Scot
What exactly makes no sense? That’s not a dig, I just want to know where I wasn’t clear. My last post was intended as an expansion on the point of lack of control.
And as a general point, I’m not saying this as an argument for a no vote; I’m saying it to argue in favour of a Scottish currency.
That’s why I called it a “long shot” 😀
I have got to stop pretending I can multi-task
I’m saying it to argue in favour of a Scottish currency.
I’ve not come across many Yes voters who are adverse to the idea of a Scottish currency and envisage it as a distinct possibility at some point. Jeez, even if Scotland went the Euro route it would need a $almond first for a few years to enter into the ERM.
Of course, when we wake up on the 19th after a Yes and Scotland is defacto independent, we’ll still need to go and buy a loaf of bread with something. As the two countries tidy up on the main indy arrangements over the next 18 months or so to the ‘official’ indy (party) date still better to run with the £. Even then, it’s doubtful that everything will be transferred back and forth as appropriate for another few years so again, keeping the 3 makes sense.
Probably about 5 years following a Yes it will be time to
start preparing options for a de-couple if needed. A central bank can be initiated before this in preparation. It may just in the beginning play the role of e.g. the central bank of France, with the Bo£ in London acting like the ECB.
The independent Scottish government will just decide, guided by the electorate, what’s in the best interests of Scotland as happens in other countries.
For the moment though, I’m happy with my £Scots. Keeping that for now has settled the nerves of some Devo maxers I know too; they’re going for Yes now. Good stuff!
@Bilverus…
You have to weigh up what a vote NO means as well. Looking at what is happening to the UK at present it’s not hard to see what the UK will look like in 10 years. You seem to me to be a Labour Internationalist that’s hoping for a Labour government in 2015. Even if it were to happen (increasingly unlikely) Miliband still has no choice but carry through the policies of today, he even said so. I want Scotland to be independent for many reasons, mostly concerning self-determination, re-industrialisation, nuclear-free and the protection of our education, NHS and social security. If it remains part of the UK it will become nothing more than an underfunded region with reduced powers, and that neutering will be the death knell of a people who will eternally have look elsewhere for a decent job and life.
I live and work in London at the moment and I see everyday the £100bns being spent in creating a City State to rival Hong Kong and Singapore. While this is great for the SE, it takes money to build and that money is coming from all over the UK. Vince Cable is correct when he said “London is sucking the life out of the UK.” There are multi-billion £ infrastructure projects planned for London over the next 30 years. To partly achieve this Scotland’s wealth is poured into the coffers of the Treasury, and heed Boris Johnson’s words when he says “A pound spent in Croydon is of more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde.” Almost all boroughs (under any political colours) are now engaged in ‘social cleansing’, the forced removal of council tenants from long-established communities and dispersed to towns far afield. Those homes are demolished and areas rebuilt for the private sector.
As for WMDs, once Scotland’s wealth is removed from Westminster, they will be scrapped as there is no facility to look after them long-term in the rUK while also requiring safe storage for the warheads nearby for quick turnaround re-arming (this rules out any current port).
If you want Scotland to grow and prosper, see children educated in free schooling and the sick cared for in a principled NHS, then the only way is independence. There is no other way of achieving this today. The UK is fast changing and the powers at be, call them ‘Atlanticists’ because regardless of Labour, Tory or LibDem, that is what they are, will create a facsimile of the USA. I want Scotland to the best country in the world and self-determiniation can achieve that. We are the generation that can say YES and lay the foundations with a people’s constitution, but it’s our children and their children that will achieve greatness from that vote, to build a greater nation on the values, principles and ethics that we hold dear to ourselves today.
Is bilverus latin for shit-stirrer.
Sounds like someone who loves reading their own comments.
@bilverus
Let me address the rUK argument. If you want the rUK to change, IMO the best way to achieve this is by voting Yes. Why? Because, although it may make no discernible difference for a few years, it will have opened a crack in a sclerotic constitutional structure, and although we don’t know exactly where that will lead, it will lead somewhere, no doubt about it.
That process will be hastened by the mere fact of Scottish independence. All kinds of relationships will have to be re-cast – Ireland, Northern Ireland, Northern England. The status quo in these places simply can’t continue exactly as it is.
The point being, that with the power of independence, Scotland is then free to determine how it relates to the rUK. We may end up with a federation – a confederation – who knows? But unless we vote Yes, we have no power to determine our future, or influence anyone else’s. Westminster will see no reason to change, and nothing will happen.
I see Mark Carney is coming up to visit us to ensure the £ doesn’t take a huge hit post Yes and Scotland continues to use it.
link to bbc.co.uk
@Ken500
It’s not about exchange; it’s about the issuing of debt in a currency you don’t control. That is something that only makes sense if you can guarantee constant export surpluses. There is no such guarantee for Scotland, especially if there is a move away from oil toward renewables.
Spain was running a government surplus before the crash, and now look at them; near 60% youth unemployment. That’s worse than the great depression. Greece ran a government deficit, and has equally catastrophic unemployment.
The common factor is running export deficits and not having their own currency.
The UK ran export and government deficits, but suffered nowhere near as much. It has its own currency.
Germany gave up its currency and ran budget deficits — it one one of the first to violate the euro deficit limit, but was not punished — but it ran export surpluses. It has not suffered like Spain or the other peripheral nations.
Suffering in this case means both the level of misery inflicted on the people and, in the case of the euro nations, the level of bond yields imposed by markets before the European Central Bank — the currency sovereign for the euro — stepped in.
Do you see the pattern? It’s not about government ‘book balancing’; its about the relationship between currency sovereignty, public debt, and exports. Governments only have control over one of those three, and the euro nations have ceded that control.
German exports to the euro periphery countries suck money out of those economies, which their governments are powerless to counter since they gave up their currency sovereignty.
The paper & coins in your pocket (Money) is nothing more than a promise issued by a central bank to redeem it for something tangible & indestructible (usually gold).
Of course we never do that because we use it for other more useful purposes & occasionally buying shit we don’t really need.
What it’s called it largely irrelevant & all that really matters is that everyone else believes as much as you do that it could be redeemed at a bank for what it is apparently worth. e.g. 1 pound buys 1 pound’s worth of gold.
It is that subconscious belief that makes it worth something. When that belief starts to dissolve, inflation rises. It happened to Germany between WW1 & WW2 because the government defaulted on its war reparations & there was no trust in the money anymore. The apparent cost of everything rocketed to the point that by 1923, prices doubled every 2 days. So a new currency was effectively created by redenominating the old one.
Britain is at risk because it is increasingly in danger of being unable to service its sovereign debt, especially if interest rates rise.
But if Scotland choses a new currency, all that really matters is that the market including you and me believe its worth something. When we changed to a decimal currency in 1971, everyone had a simultaneous belief that the new money was worth something equivalent to the old one, even though the units might have been different.
And a new currency would minimise the risk to Scotland should Britain default because they would be using a different currency. It would still affect us but not as bad as if we had kept Sterling.
@Bilverus
Its really this simple.
Who do you trust to deliver?
Holyrood – Westminster
Be sure though, very, very sure you are aware of what the bare essentials of each vote means.
For me its that I would gain a directly accountable government which reflects the will of the Scottish electorate and a country where the rights and responsibilities of the populace and their public servants are enshrined in a written constitution. A country where bairns not bombs come first and the tax and spend is prioritised toward the welfare of the populace, not highly expensive toys or illegal foreign adventure.
I wish to live in a country that doesn’t punch above its weight on world affairs and geopolitical chess, but works with others toward solutions. If I’m lucky I’ll see the start of this process, I doubt Ill see the best of it come to pass.
Its for the future of others dontchaknow. 🙂
@Skier
Oh Jeez skier, that’s too much.
What were the odds after your comments a couple of days ago? Still think a big reveal is on the cards soon? At first it was an invite to the FM, now its a visit.
Coincidence?
RE the whole Bilverus chat here; I have often wondered about wholly neutral, non-biased information and whether or not it even exists out there. People do ask for it and I never know where to direct them: I usually tell them that if somewhere is neutral then by definition it will be pro-indy anyway.
The most neutral appearing site I have found seems to be the future of UK and Scotland page, http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk although even they seem to rely on IFS and OBR statistics.
What do others think?
@Bilverus
I enjoyed your addition to the article. It is good to stir it up at times! I hope that more “don’t knows”, and even “no voters”, will follow your example and post. I think it is safe to say that Wings Over Scotland commentators are not frightened of reasoned debate, and it is by having such a debate, that more people will be convinced of the merits of independence.
You raise the interesting point regarding Scotland influencing the colour of the UK government. I have every sympathy for the large parts of northern England that have suffered under Tory policies but that was due to the succession of governments that England as a whole voted for, as opposed to Scotland that has not provided a Tory majority for 60 years. When given the opportunity to have an assembly, the north-east of England rejected it preferring to remain under the same government as the rest of England. If they are happy with the current set up of Government is it right that Scotland should influence their form of government, especially as the political demographics are markedly different in Scotland?
FlaimFlamMan;
being pegged to a currency is completely different to entering a currency agreement.
@Macart
All in good time.
@Skier
Ma bum’s makin’ buttons. 🙂
@scotish_skier
Well that’s encouraging, and on your comment that keeping sterling is attracting people to the yes camp, well that’s positive as well. What worries me is that depending on the nature of the negotiated settlement — debt, assets and so on — and the specifics of Scottish trade surpluses/deficits, an independent Scotland that uses sterling could be rapidly painted into a position where initiating its own currency becomes almost impossible.
Greece, Spain, Portugal, and increasingly even Italy and France, would all be better off right now, and in terms of recovery prospects, if they were out of the euro. The process of getting out though is sufficiently scary that they continue to suffer appalling social deprivation rather than take that, genuine, risk.
On an Off Topic point about UK media; back when the banks and governments of the eurozone were facing imminent default risk, we were treated to almost hourly updates on the BBC. Now the ECB has stepped in sufficiently to support banks and governments, and it is ‘merely’ tens of millions of human beings that are suffering, we hear barely a peep.
@Atypical_Scot
That depends on the agreement. Does anyone here really think Westminster will give up control of sterling?
Well that’s encouraging, and on your comment that keeping sterling is attracting people to the yes camp, well that’s positive as well.
Aye, it is. People have been reading about the ‘No’ white paper and seeing they need to vote Yes in September even if it’s just ‘devo max’ they want.
link to appgtaxation.org
All makes a fair bit of sense, which is unusual for Westminster.
@G H Graham
That’s simply wrong; the gold exchange standard — part of the Bretton Woods agreement — effectively ended in 1971 when Nixon ‘closed the gold window’, and officially ended in 1973. Modern currencies, including sterling, are floating, non-convertible currencies. You can’t redeem a pound for anything except another pound.
Yes, Germany’s war reparations were denominated in currency convertible to gold, and their industrial capacity was wrecked; first by the war itself and then by the French/Belgian annexation of Germany’s industrial heartland in the Ruhr. Even before the annexation Keynes had warned that the situation was completely unsustainable and that Germany would be forced into default.
The UK has its own, floating, non-convertible currency; it is the sole creator of the very thing in which its government debts are denominated. It does not need to acquire its currency from some other entity; no other entity can create it. It is not committed to converting its currency into some other currency or commodity; no gold standard or peg.
It can experience spending driven inflation, or currency depreciation, but under the conditions noted in the previous paragraph it can never be forced to default.
@Mary Bruce
fullfact.org is about as neutral as they come but they never really arrive at any definite conclusions. It is also a UK politics site so stories about Scottish independence are few and far between.
Daily Record – made in Manchester isn’t it?
Is the Mr Sleigh mentioned perhaps Andrew Sleigh, a partner of Levy & McRae, who according to their website are legal advisers to the Daily Record?
Anyway, according to the pro-union campaign’s own research, just 22% consider currency important in making their referendum decision.
(Yougov for Better Together, April 2013).
EU was 19%.
So, in summary, 8/10 Scots don’t think the pro-union campaign’s main ‘weapons’ are relevant according to Better Together.
That’s with Yougov methodology making it favourable to BT too.
DCanmore yesterday at 8:26pm
“A facsimile of the USA”. You are dead right. I don’t even think that the Westminister machine even realises that’s where corporations and banks have wound them up and pointed them in the direction of. Anybody living in the UK and more especially England can easily feel it in the air though. If they care to unbury their head from the sand or take their nose from the grindstone or their face out the trough, that is.
Funny, I’ve actually been on the site! We were on a camping holiday, I accidentally drove down the approach road to get a closer look, without realising it was a dual carriageway with no way of turning round. I was stopped and given a bit of a talking to, then escorted through the gate by the military police (or whoever) where I could do a U-turn and then back out the way.
FlimFlamMan – You may be correct, but as others have pointed out, this option allows us more chance of a Yes vote.
Softly softly.
I can never understand the argument which says that Scotland continuing with the union will somehow help the people in the North of England. Is there a light at the end of that particularly dark tunnel that I don’t see? Does the ‘One Britain’ project show signs of achieving the goal of a fair and equable UK from Lands End to John’o’Groats?
Of course not. We only need to look around us to see where Britain is heading, with Scotland being dragged along behind, like a tail that is never allowed to wag.
The subject of this article is indeed important, but lets not lose sight of the big prize. We need the powers that independence will bring in order to have the society we want. The rest will fall into place, as others have found when faced with this situation.
@scottish_skier
Well, it’s not unmitigated drivel, which I suppose is unusual. It does beg several questions though, and either misunderstand, or deliberately obfuscate, some important things. I’ll try to keep this comment short, so just one quote, discussing a Scottish currency:
This, and the discussion in general, misses or ignores the fundamental difference that currency independence makes to the function of taxation.
Governments which use an external currency — the Rev. doesn’t like the word foreign — have to acquire that currency before spending; through taxation and loans.
When a nation has its own currency the government is now the source of the currency it uses; it has no need to acquire it. In this case taxes serve principally to:
a) drive the initial demand for the currency,
b) provide real resource space for the government’s spending, by reducing — when necessary — private spending power, and
c) regulate — in the sense of a thermostat — economic activity; increasing to prevent overheating and reducing to counter recession.
@chalks
I can see the benefits, so I’ll try my best. You have no idea how tempting it is to respond to that bit in the post titled “As it was, is, and shall be”. You know the bit I mean.
Nae worries. An insignificant number of DR readers will bother to cast a vote IMHO.