The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The thin veneer of pretence

Posted on December 14, 2013 by

The Scottish media often complains that the supporters of independence attack it as biased merely for reporting news that they don’t like. It’s sometimes justified in doing so – it’s foolish to indulge the delusion that amid the constant avalanche of “Major blow to SNP/Yes campaign” headlines, there aren’t some actual blows now and again.

rompuy

Of course, the media has only itself to blame that nobody listens when it cries “Wolf!” for the 20th time that month. There are times when a “story” is so nakedly a piece of agenda-driven propaganda rather than journalism that in publishing it the press abandons all right to expect to ever be treated as an impartial chronicler of events.

Today is one of those times.

The Scotsman and the Herald both prominently run an old used tissue of a story concerning comments made by Herman van Rumpoy, the unloved president of the European Council. “Independent Scotland ‘would have to reapply’ to EU”, blares Scott Macnab for the Scotsman, while in the Herald our old pal Magnus Gardham opts for the hysterical “Van Rompuy torpedoes SNP claims on EU membership”.

The actual text of both articles reveals a very different truth.

Firstly, both are forced to concede that van Rompuy’s remarks (it’s the Herald that seems to have spelled his name correctly) were explicitly NOT made in reference to Scotland, a position the European authorities have stuck to like glue for over a year.

But it seems not to matter. Regardless of how many times the EC clearly and unambiguously repeats “WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SCOTLAND”, something keeps getting lost in the translation, and by the time it reaches Scottish newspapers it’s inexplicably become “THIS IS THE POSITION FOR SCOTLAND”.

That alone would cast some pretty major aspersions on the neutrality of the reporting. Look at this passage from the Scotsman’s piece:

“Mr Van Rompuy was answering a question about a proposed referendum in Catalonia. He declined to comment on a specific country, but agreed to set out ‘some of the principles that would apply in such a scenario.'”

Scottish independence and the Catalan referendum are NOT the same scenario. The Scottish referendum is being conducted with the full consent and co-operation of the UK government, which has signed an agreement stating it will respect and abide by the result. The Spanish government, on the other hand, has flatly stated that it will not allow the Catalan referendum to take place at all, far less recognise its outcome.

Scott Macnab knows that full well. He knows that Mr van Rompuy was speaking about a completely different set of circumstances, and Macnab even reports that Rompuy made abundantly clear he wasn’t referring to any specific country. Yet the headline, in flat contradiction of that quote, still screams that specifically Scotland would find itself outside the European club as a result of a Yes vote.

But even if we overlook that aspect (and it’d be a very big bit of overlooking), both papers carry quotes destroying their own headlines. Here’s the Herald:

“Mr van Rompuy said: ‘If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory.'”

Our emphasis, there. Because Mr van Rompuy’s statement categorically does NOT “torpedo” the SNP’s claims about membership – in fact it does the precise opposite.

The SNP’s position is that Scotland would negotiate the terms of EU membership during the 18-month period between a Yes vote and the actual date of becoming an independent country, scheduled for late March 2016. This is a position, as the First Minister never tires of pointing out, which has been acknowledged by the UK government’s own experts as feasible and reasonable.

(We’ll just take a moment here to highlight a particularly revealing line from the Daily Record piece in that link, for the 95% of you who never bother to click them:

“Scotland could set itself up as an independent country within 18 months of a yes vote. 

That’s according to the legal expert hired by the UK Government to say breaking up would be a complicated and lengthy affair.

In a major blunder yesterday, Professor James Crawford said he agreed with the SNP that negotiating all the deals could be done in a year and a half.”

Our emphasis – that’s the Record’s ever-lovable Torcuil Crichton, reporting a neutral academic actually giving his honest and truthful view on something as a “blunder”.)

Scotland would remain part of the UK – and therefore a member of the EU – from September 2014 until March 2016. Scottish MPs will still sit in Westminster. So Mr van Rompuy’s comments are completely irrelevant to Scotland: he himself says that Scotland would only find itself outside the EU from the day of its independence, but in fact everyone agrees that it would have completed negotiating its independent membership by then, without ever actually being outside the EU at any point.

There is – as a simple matter of demonstrable fact, undisputed by any side – no conflict whatsoever between Mr van Rompuy’s claims and those of the SNP. There’s also absolutely nothing in the story that constitutes “news”, as Mr van Rompuy is merely re-stating a position that the European Commission has been stating in the exact same terms for at least a year.

Gardham isn’t quite finished lying, though.

“Efforts to establish beyond doubt if the Scottish Government’s fast-track plan for EU membership would be acceptable to Brussels have reached stalemate.

The Scottish Government has refused to approach Brussels for clarification after the EU said it could only offer a formal legal opinion to the UK Government as member state.”

This, as anyone possessed of basic reading skills and a vague interest in Scottish politics is aware, is an absolute barefaced untruth. The Scottish Government has NOT “refused to approach Brussels”. It has stated time and again its willingness to seek clarification alongside the UK government and co-operate in any way required. The First Minister did it again at FMQs on Thursday:

“The United Kingdom Government has refused repeatedly to go to the European Commission with the precise legal scenario, despite the Scottish Government’s offer to do so.”

That fact has been repeatedly recorded in the last 12 months. Magnus Gardham knows it as well as you do and we do. So why on Earth the Herald’s editor allows him to state things which are diametrically opposed to the known reality is beyond our professional journalistic understanding.

Unless, of course, the Herald – and the Scotsman alongside it – are pursuing a policy of deliberately lying to the Scottish people for political ends. Which, as we’ve just shown, they are. It’s just that most of the time, they’re a little more careful not to make it quite so obvious.

Print Friendly

    206 to “The thin veneer of pretence”

    1. DougtheDug says:

      You’ve got a mistake in your first sentence. I’ve fixed it for you.
       
      “The North British media often complains that the supporters of independence attack it as biased merely for reporting news that they don’t like.”

    2. big_al says:

      It’s as someone said yesterday. The MSM do not want Scotland to be Independent therefore they will print whatever they like and abuse their position of trust in order to hoodwink the reader/viewer to believe something which isn’t actually true. 

    3. Camilla Kaczinski says:

      And John MacIntyre, OBE is back. With one of his most arrogant comments to date. Does that man have nothing better to do than troll articles on Scottish independence?
      Steve McKay  (reply to) John MacIntyre OBE, WOKING:
      Thanks JM – your quote from the EC simply makes my point.
      Westminsters inaction and rhetoric is damaging to Scottish interests. Holyrood should amend it’s very generous position and insist that on independence day EWNI will be viewed by Scotland as a joint sucessor state (not continuing state) and that the UK will cease to exist. A perfectly tenable legal position which will see a change of attitude from Westminster as it is forced to act in it’s own self interest – the one thing it is actually good at…..

      John MacIntyre OBE, WOKING  (reply to) Steve McKay:
      The tail doesn’t wag the dog.

    4. Jiggsbro says:

      that’s the Record’s ever-lovable Torcuil Crichton, reporting a neutral academic actually giving his honest and truthful view on something as a “blunder”.
       
      I think he might have meant that the UK government blundered, by hiring a neutral academic who gave an honest and truthful view, contrary to the view they were hoping to get.

    5. Wayne says:

      John Macintyre OBE is remarkably persistent and dogmatic.  He is the sort of intellectual shitgeist of Unionism, but in a way you to have to admire/laugh at his dedication.  He has a singularly narrow and inflexible position which he will cling to and can never be dissuaded from.
       
      Last time I checked he worked for the government in waste management, which sort of seems appropriate in a way (or at least that is what he got his OBE for).  NNS banned him yesterday which just about made my day, and it really is a wonder he isn’t on here a lot.  I am assuming he has been banned already?

    6. a supporter says:

      In a major blunder yesterday, Professor James Crawford said he agreed with the SNP that negotiating all the deals could be done in a year and a half.”

      And that is supposed to be a professional ‘journalist’ reporting.

    7. Murray McCallum says:

      What do the journalists at ‘The Scotsman’ think of their paper? Given the deteriorating financial position at their company, do they feel this is the quality of output that will get them out of the hole they are in?

    8. Training Day says:

      Can the ‘Scottish’ media keep up a barrage, day in day out, of EU membership/currency lies between now and September 18th?
       
      Does an ursine creature relieve itself in an area dense with trees?

    9. Vincent McDee says:

      I was going to write what Derek already has, and much better than I could.
       
      http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/
       
      “What the Barroso/Van Rompuy anti-democrats are saying really saying is: Please don’t vote for independence because it will make life tricky for us and our political masters in the big nations hate the idea of losing power as sparky and wealthy parts of their countries break away. We can’t control things if they do and we’ll struggle to adjust to a changing world. Everything is fine as it is. And if you don’t play our game, we’ll threaten you.

    10. Wayne says:

      To the case in point.  Our Reverend is as always quite correct, and in amongst all the scare stories about EU membership some universal and incontrovertible truths need to be borne in mind.
       
      1)  The precise scenario of the Scottish referendum (ie a legally approved referendum leading to accession/independence) is not covered by any rule of EU law, whether within the terms of the treaty or cases before the ECJ.
       
      2) As a result of 1) legal opinion is divided.  Both the position of the Scottish government and that of the UK government are both backed up by other legal scholars both at home and abroad.  The lawyers can’t agree, which isn’t surprising really.
       
      3)  The EC has not issued any guidance on the legal position of an independent Scotland, and in particular they have not addressed what might happen between a YES vote and notional independence day.  Indeed as the Reverend and others have repeatedly pointed out almost every letter or statement produced carries an unequivocal statement disclaiming its application to the specific case of Scotland.
       
      4)  The EC could offer an advisory opinion (this opinion would not be binding though) on the legal position of an independent Scotland in terms of EU membership.  However, such a request must come from a member state.  The UK government has thus far refused to make such a request, despite the Scottish government offering to assist them to do so on numerous occasions.  
       
      4)  The issue of what will happen between a YES vote and independence day is in the main a political question, which will come down to what position individual EU member states take.  There are numerous positive statements from foreign ministers from Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg etc. which are very positive about Scotland’s potential membership.  Not one member state has said they will block or veto Scottish membership.  Even Rajoy despite being asked repeatedly by the Spanish press has refused to say so, despite the fact he could gain some internal political traction if he did just that.  None of the big European hitters have said anything.  The position of France and Germany will be critical.  At that moment we can only speculate what their thinking is.
       
      I want to add one final caveat here.  It is all too easy to think of the EU question in parochial terms and be sidetracked by the way the debate is being framed by the Unionists, but I suspect that one of the most important questions here is not the issue of the state but of the citizen.  There is nothing to prevent another member state from asking for a legal opinion from the EC on the issue of Scottish independence.  This would not be interfering in UK domestic politics.  It would simply reflect the duty of the state to look after the interests of its citizens.  A german citizen living and working in Scotland might well be concerned about the potential impact of independence on their rights as an EU citizen.  Given that the UK government has declined to clarify the legal position, it is not impossible that another member state might do this on behalf of its own citizens, or wider commercial interests.  Fundamentally the EU question is one that transcends borders, it goes to the very heart of what the EU is, and what it aims to be.  We can’t allow ourselves to think in polarised nationalist versus unionist terms.  Though I am not necessarily saying anyone on here does, but our media often encourage such a restricted perspective through their approach.

    11. Vincent McDee says:

      There is a BIG personal reason for Rumpy to be so admant, see this
       
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Belgium
       
      The same a Scottish tory should have, as his party is to Flanders and Belgium as the unionist tories to Scotland and the UK

    12. A minor point of clarification, Mr Van Rompuy is not the President of the Commission, he is the President of the European Council.  Otherwise another spot on post.

    13. Captain Caveman says:

      Again, whilst making no excuses whatsoever for misleading headlines of the MSM (any more than I make excuses for the wilful sophistry and/or hubris of the Indy Movement, never moreso than on this particular issue), it IS fair to state that there is considerable uncertainty – and therefore danger – as regards the ongoing status of an independent Scotland within the EU, most especially as regards current UK opt-outs.
       
      Come on guys, this is a statement of fact. Don’t use the fact that the EU Commissioner *cannot* come out and explicitly state “Scotland” for legal reasons (until and unless the UK State officially seeks clarification, which it is unlikely to do), as somehow meaning, or trying to wilfully mislead that there’s NO relevance to his comments? Get real guys, read between the lines here. This issue is the single biggest danger to Indy and unless you start honestly and fairly trying to face up to it, you’re not going to win this argument. Sorry if that sounds harsh or too blunt, but there it is.

    14. JasonF says:

      by the time it reaches Scottish newspapers 
       
      By the time BBC has spun it, too:
       
      Scottish independence: Scots EU independence plan ‘now untenable’
       
      Nothing in that headline to suggest it’s actually Labour who are being quoted and have brought Scotland into the frame. In the opening paragraphs, they still don’t let on, merely slipping in a ‘it has been claimed’ after mentioning Rompuy:
       
      “Comments by the European Council president have cast further doubt on an independent Scotland’s EU membership status, it has been claimed.
       
      “Herman Van Rompuy said that, if Catalonia became independent from Spain, previously agreed EU treaties would no longer apply.”
       
      It’s not until the third paragraph that hey begin to be clear whose claims the story is actually about, and even then it’s misleading about the source of the headline quote as they state ‘parties’ using the ‘tenable’ line:
       
      “Opposition parties said the Scottish government’s argument was not tenable.”
       
      It’s the eighth paragraph before the quote is directly attributed: 
       
      “Scottish Labour external affairs spokeswoman Patricia Ferguson”

    15. Thepnr says:

      I find it inconceivable that the EU has not yet sought legal opinion as the status of an Independent Scotland after the referendum.

    16. Juteman says:

      Serious question. Do I need to make myself a tinfoil hat, or does anyone else think that certain ‘media folk’ are also working for, and being paid by, the British Security Services?
      Some of these ‘jounalists’ and BBC ‘reporters’ must surely have been promised a new estate in England.

    17. creigs1707repeal says:

      “The Scottish referendum is being conducted with the full consent and co-operation of the UK government…”
       
      Except it isn’t full co-operation. The Electoral Commission explicitly stressed that both sides ensure that the Scottish electorate are fully informed of all the issues before the poll. The UK Government are working overtime to ensure that this does NOT happen. They refuse to ask the EU the question on EU membership of iScotland and rUK after a YES vote. The UK Govt, as a signatory of the Edinburgh Agreement, has an obligation to ask that question of the EU. That it refuses to do so should tell everyone n this country that this is a Government that refues to act in your best interests, that treats you with contempt.

    18. Captain Caveman says:

      “I find it inconceivable that the EU has not yet sought legal opinion as the status of an Independent Scotland after the referendum.”
       
      So do I. Hence their comments to date, which aren’t so much thinly veiled but one-molecule thick.

    19. The Man in the Jar says:

      Anyone who wants more reassuring information on the EU bullshit being branded about by Better Together and the MSM should take a look at the “Wee Ginger Dug” blog.
       
      The author of Wee Ginger Dug has lived and worked in Spain as an interpreter for many years and has some great insight into the Spanish problem. I recommend taking a wee shufti.
       
      PS. Hi Captain Caveman how are you doing? I’m including yourself in the above recommendation BTW.

       http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/

    20. Seanair says:

      Great rebuttal Rev. Stu but the lies are not acknowledged as such by the SMS when pointed out to them. I was beeling earlier today when I read Gardham’ s piece about about the SG refusing to approach Brussels.

      Murray McCallum
      Re your question about Scotsman staff, I don’t blame too much junior staff in the Scotsman, Herald, BBC etc.for the political bias when jobs are scarce, mortgages to be paid, kids to be fed. I reserve my anger for the proprietors, editors, senior staff who know that their time is up when Scotland becomes independent. No more medals, knighthoods etc.

    21. The Man in the Jar says:

      Damn to late to add as an edit.
      Wee Ginger Dug = 
       
      http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/

    22. steviecosmic says:

      @Captain Caveman
       
      The only uncertainty Scotland faces in this regard is if it votes NO, and the in/out EU referendum goes ahead in 2017. THAT is uncertainty.
       
      Whilst I agree that there will be uncertainty over ‘details’ of Scotland’s membership of the EU, I think I’m not alone in thinking that non-membership of the EU is simply inconceivable. 
       
      I admire an invitation to rational debate, but let’s get that debate into some kind of perspective please.

    23. jake says:

      Worth listening to Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, on the matter. He is quite clear that it’s a new situation for which there will need to be a new solution and that the lawyers are currently looking at it.

      Here he is being interviwed on the BBCs Hardtalk:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03k662m/HARDtalk_Martin_Schulz_President_of_the_European_Parliament/

      the bit of interest re Scottish independence and EU membership comes at about 15.20 mins in.

    24. Jingly Jangly says:

      Think its about time the SG came out and said that in the event of a Yes vote there will be a referendum on whether we want to join the EU. According to polls that I have seen a large minority of Scots don’t want to be in Europe. Europe will be desperate to have us as members due to our fishing grounds and oil and gas amongst other things, Should we not just call there bluff?

    25. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “So do I. Hence their comments to date, which aren’t so much thinly veiled but one-molecule thick.”

      Wait, let’s just get this clear. Out of a thousand, how much do you think the EU wants to (a) reject an independent Scotland’s membership, or (b) delay it for years? That’s not rhetorical. I want numbers.

    26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Except it isn’t full co-operation. The Electoral Commission explicitly stressed that both sides ensure that the Scottish electorate are fully informed of all the issues before the poll.”

      The referendum and the debate aren’t the same thing.

    27. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “there is considerable uncertainty – and therefore danger – as regards the ongoing status of an independent Scotland within the EU, most especially as regards current UK opt-outs.”

      No there isn’t.

      1. Scotland doesn’t need an opt-out from the Euro, for reasons exhaustively detailed here and elsewhere. In fact, it couldn’t join the Euro if it wanted to, which it doesn’t.

      2. We dealt with Schengen in detail last week.

      3. The UK’s “rebate” is a red herring. The entire issue of Scotland’s contribution would be negotiated anew.

    28. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “A minor point of clarification, Mr Van Rompuy is not the President of the Commission, he is the President of the European Council. “

      Oops. That’s what I get for staying out playing poker until 4am and writing features when I’m still only half-awake. Fixed, ta.

    29. fairiefromtheearth says:

      Time to buy some shares in a rope factory,after all we do hang draw and quarter Traitors.

    30. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “He is the sort of intellectual shitgeist of Unionism”

      Surely “shitegeist”?

      😉

    31. Captain Caveman says:

      “Wait, let’s just get this clear. Out of a thousand, how much do you think the EU wants to (a) reject an independent Scotland’s membership, or (b) delay it for years? That’s not rhetorical. I want numbers.”
       
      I wouldn’t have thought the EU wants Scotland out, agreed (albeit not at all sure what some of its powerful *member states* would want under those circumstances). But Stu – this is entirely besides the point! I don’t care about what they “want”, I only care about what the most senior people within that organisation have SAID – for whatever reason.
       
      Without tediously trotting the whole thing out (and besides you know full well who’s said what within the EU, far better than I do), it is entirely fair comment to say that, whilst there’s no absolutely definitive position either way, there is most certainly a distinct and clear possibility, as evidenced by incredibly blunt, direct comments as far as the law allows on the part of the EU, that an independent Scotland would have to reapply for membership, could risk current UK opt-outs, could risk having to join the Euro and/or a bunch of other mandatory conditions to join, upon which it may then decide not to bother. This is NOT fearbomb crap; that isn’t my style. Hiding behind wordplay, sophistry and/or someone not specifically saying “Scotland” (because, as we both know, they can’t), isn’t a satisfactory counter-argument.
       
      It’s not right that the Scottish electorate should sleepwalk into voting Indy without at least knowing, in all fairness and honesty, that there ARE (as yet not fully quantified) risks here – this is my view.

    32. jake says:

      Juteman, the question shouldn’t be whether or not there are mince pies and spooks in the media, but the extent to which they contribute to content and compromise the integrity of the journalistic output.

      http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2006/436-hacks-and-spooks.html

    33. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I wouldn’t have thought the EU wants Scotland out, agreed (albeit not at all sure what some of its powerful *member states* would want under those circumstances). But Stu – this is entirely besides the point! I don’t care about what they “want”, I only care about what the most senior people within that organisation have SAID – for whatever reason.”

      You don’t seem to have indicated any numbers.

      But I’m baffled that any seemingly-intelligent person would put store by what a politician said rather than what they want. It shows a mind-bogglingly dedicated refusal to learn anything at all from the entire history of politics. Nick Clegg SAID he’d vote against tuition fee increases. David Cameron SAID he wouldn’t privatise the NHS. Etc etc etc etc.

      What politicians SAY is whatever bullshit they think will win a few votes. What they WANT is what determines what they actually do.

      Dear God, did I actually just have to point that out?

    34. caz-m says:

      O/T

      Regarding the fine imposed by UEFA on Celtic. BBC Scotland reports that it was for displaying banners of Bobby Sands and William Wallace.

      Surely there isn’t a law that says you will not raise banners with the face of William Wallace on it.

      Or has BBC Scotland got another agenda.

      New BBC Scotland guidelines:-

      Nothing Scottish shall be celebrated in Scotland. By Order.

    35. Wayne says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell
       
      “He is the sort of intellectual shitgeist of Unionism”
      Surely “shitegeist”?
       
      Yes I stand corrected, shitegeist it is! 😉

    36. fairiefromtheearth says:

      I stopped buying papers a few years ago and i aint had a TV for 15 years the mental abuse you have to put up with the MSM put me off,unfortunatly being awake and seeing through all their lies takes a toll on you,most of the people i know have stopped buying papers and are yes voters,i do not belive the MSM polls or they poll in affluient areas to skew the poll in their favour,for me i want to see these papers die for the way they have treated their readership.

    37. Juteman says:

      @Jake.
      I know the Security Services will be involved. I’m simply wondering how many well kent faces are directly employed by them.

    38. Captain Caveman says:

      Sorry, am I being thick here? What “numbers” do you want? My totally meaningless estimate out-of-a-thousand-how-much-the-EU-want-Scotland-out? 
       
      I’m not going off what some partisan politician has said, but the President of the EU Commission, who is supposed to be impartial and most certainly is supposed to know about stuff like this? Among others also, to be fair.
       
      But, I am precisely NOT saying “Scotland would definitely have to do X or Y” as regards the EU, merely that there is a demonstrable risk of it. Which, surely Stu, you can’t seriously argue is unfair. That, I suggest, is one hell of a big risk.

    39. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      @ Juteman
      I suspect that you are right.
      I also suspect that the Press is being subsidised by the same “funnies.”
      It is the only way I can see why they “papers” are pumping out this crap whilst sales collapse.
      Who has a very opaque large budget and has as a core objective the preservation of the existing British State?
      It happened in Canada during the Quebec independence referendum.

    40. braco says:

      Captain Caveman,
      welcome back. The molecule thick veil you see appears to me more of a closely fitting glove. As Rev Stu has already quoted and highlighted,

      “Mr van Rompuy said: ‘If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
      In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory.’”
       
      That statement seems to actually have been tailored to fit the very scenario being proposed by SNP and YES Scotland. That is, should Scotland vote YES in September we will still be a member of the UK and as such within the EU. Negotiations will then take place for our continued membership in the following 18 months prior to our declaration of independence. What about this do you not understand?

      As far as your ‘opt out’ worries are concerned, have you seen the latest Scottish farmer subsidies relative to the rest of the UK, never mind Europe?

      The much lauded UK ‘opt outs’ and ‘rebate’  have never really been of benefit to Scotland but many times have actually damaged us. The ‘rebate’ in particular simply allowed Westminster access to funding (Canary Wharf etc) that would otherwise have had to have been allocated as infra structure expenditure to be spent in the poorer areas of the member state. At the time, that would have meant much of Scotland.

      This is how Spain and Ireland did so well out of the EU development policies of matched funding. The UK and Portugal however decided rather to keep investing in the already wealthy areas such as London and Lisbon.

    41. caz-m says:

      Link to the BBC Scotland Celtic banner story.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25373147

    42. Wayne says:

      @Caz-M
       
      Regarding the fine imposed by UEFA on Celtic. BBC Scotland reports that it was for displaying banners of Bobby Sands and William Wallace.
      Surely there isn’t a law that says you will not raise banners with the face of William Wallace on it.
      Or has BBC Scotland got another agenda.
      New BBC Scotland guidelines:-
      Nothing Scottish shall be celebrated in Scotland. By Order.
       
      I may be wrong but I think there is a general prohibition against banners of a political nature, which both were deemed to be.  Though I do agree, banners of William Wallace are not really at the top of the offensiveness tree.  When you leave aside the man and move to the myth, he can be whatever you want him to be, nationalist hero, unionist hero, a byword for Scottish cultural cringe…etc. 

    43. Andrew Morton says:

      Re the Herald EU scare, I’ve had a couple of posts get through moderation but one got expunged. This was one where I pointed out that the story had been written in such a way as to avoid the obvious question re Westminster not asking for a ruling. I also pointed out that the headline implied total certainty when the paragraph below said that it was merely the claims of unionists.
       
      the Herald has an iron clad policy that any post, however reasonable, which disputes the facts or the tone of an article, even if true, gets deleted and if you persist you get put into moderation. This is the most insidious part of the mainstream media No campaign, it’s impossible to dispute their claims, because the only place where most people can see your point is in the mainstream media and they won’t publish it.

    44. rabb says:

      Jingly Jangly,
      You might be on to something there. It’s a risky game to play and may very well backfire but if the EU thought for one minute that Scots were about to vote Yes with a clear danger of walking away from the EU a decision would out very quickly.
       
      With the EU’s largest fishing fleet in Spain fishing our waters and the Dutch spot market trading Scottish oil & the overall net contribution from Scotland to the EU biscuit tin, they will fight tooth & nail to keep us in.
       
      We hold all the aces in this argument. Perhaps it’s time we played them at their own game and call them out!
       
      Like some others on here, I FIRMLY believe the decision that Scotland will be a continuing member state has already been made & rubber stamped.
       
      We must wring it out of them and quickly!

    45. braco says:

      Sorry about the formatting there Rev, don’t know what happened at all?

    46. fairiefromtheearth says:

      I dont understand why we would want to join the EU Titanic,sureley after having a referendum on independance we wouldent want to join another parisite the World is bigger than the UK and Europe and its time we took our rightfull place, time for another Scottish lead renaissance.

    47. creigs1707repeal says:

      “Except it isn’t full co-operation. The Electoral Commission explicitly stressed that both sides ensure that the Scottish electorate are fully informed of all the issues before the poll.”
       
      RS: “The referendum and the debate aren’t the same thing.”

       
      Let me put it this way–the referendum is not being conducted by the Westminster Govt in the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement.

    48. Midgehunter says:

      The EU “Statements” up til now have not ruled out that any member state can seek clarification as to what will be the way forward should Scotland vote YES in the referendum.

      It’s in the self-interest of all the states to know what the legal procedure would be when a legaly binding treaty between the two nations which formed the UK is terminated by one of them.

      What steps would be undertaken to ensure that trade, diplomatic ties, defence, movement of EU citizens, fishing rights etc. between the rUK / Scotland and the other member states can continue as smoothly as possible.
       
      If the UK gov. remains obstinate in its refusal to cooperate then surely a country like Denmark or the Netherlands could take up the question for the sake of clarity.

    49. The Man in the Jar says:

      I like to point out to doubters that upon the reunification of Germany over 16 million former East Germans didn’t have that much bother joining the EU.

    50. balgayboy says:

      @Midgehunter;
      Good point, if the UK government is reluctant/scared to ask the question, then why has no other associated interested country stepped forward?
       
      Never could comprehend why these so called free country’s are sitting on the fence and ignoring the basic principles of the EU without opinion.

    51. caz-m says:

      Does the EU really want another oil rich country like Scotland to join Norway on the outside.

      You can bet everything is being done so the transition is as smooth as possible.

    52. sanz says:

      And just to prove the ‘neutrality’ of its business pages, the Herald has a good news story today about an entrepreneur who is planning major investment in Scotland, unlike some of his acquaintances who are holding off till the referendum. The headline reads ‘Firms freeze spending plans due to 2014 vote’.
      Ye couldnae make it up!

    53. Taranaich says:

      @Rev: Oops. That’s what I get for staying out playing poker until 4am and writing features when I’m still only half-awake. Fixed, ta.

      THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN A CORRECTION ON THIS SITE

    54. Vincent McDee says:

      A FAIR WARNING
       
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/you-can-still-be-jailed-for-being-a-republican-government-confirms-and-it-remains-illegal-to-even-imagine-overthrowing-the-queen-9004176.html
       
      In full, section three of the Treason Felony Act 1848 reads:
      If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing … or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable … to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.

    55. creigs1707repeal says:

      A post The Herald won’t publish:
       
      http://tinyurl.com/oobk4bm

    56. Caroline Corfield says:

      Much of this will become clearer after the EU elections in spring next year. There is a very good chance that UKIP will do well, which will focus the minds of anybody who’s pro EU in the UK or indeed the hierarchy of the EU. There will be the very definite risk of a referendum on the UK staying in the EU and that vote resulting in the removal of the UK (potentially) from the EU.

      So to give it some figures I’d say a 50% chance that the UK would be removed from the EU (and Scotland too if there was a No vote to the independence question).

      However, regardless of what impartial or otherwise EU officials and politicians SAY, it is quite apparent that Scotland wants to be on the EU (polling has shown a majority for) and it would benefit the EU to have Scotland in the EU ( simple economics). The negotiations should be easily concluded in the interim period between the referendum result and the date of actual independence. 

      Risk of Scotland not becoming part of the EU upon date of independence 10%.

      Happy?

    57. Jamie Arriere says:

      Liars, liars, plunging circulations on fire!! Did we really expect anything else?
       
      Sooner or later this boil is going to have to be lanced – whether by the EU or the UK government. It’s beginning to poison even more then before relations between Holyrood and Westminster, at a time when both governments have said they BOTH wish to renegotiate terms with Brussels – two birds with one stone is not even crossing their minds.
       
      The Scottish government is right to keep arguing the reasonable common-sense continuity path, but maybe there should be voices off calling for joining EEA/EFTA instead, out with the Spanish trawlers from our waters, pay up the fees for your students or home, and you can whistle for any net contributions. Or maybe that’s what they want to draw out from us so they can say who’s doing the threatening? Maybe a few photos of Salmond with the Chairman of EFTA might concentrate minds.
       
      Captain, we are perfectly aware that there are risks involved here, but everyone on here knows there are even greater clearer threats on a NO vote – to our budget, to devolution itself, to more bombs on the Clyde, to the NHS, to even wider social inequality, and to our basic self-respect. There are no risk-free options, and the primary hurdle to removing the uncertainty is Westminster – and they want us to stay?

    58. kininvie says:

      @Captain Caveman:
      There are risks in most things, and politics is no exception. The question is how serious and likely to materialise the risk is. If you project current circumstances into the future, there is virtually no risk. Scotland might end up with a marginally worse deal than the UK has, but that’s about it.
       
      Fast forward eighteen months, and all kinds of things may have happened, for good or ill, which may influence how Scotland’s EU membership is viewed. Chiefly, if there is blood on the streets of Barcelona, the EU has a problem which quite eclipses the question of Scotland. Meanwhile, it is worth remembering that there exists no mechanism for disenfranchising EU citizens, and no EU law competent to deal with Scotland’s situation.
       
      The risk to Scotland of UK withdrawal in 2017 is very much greater in terms of likelihood and impact. Probably about a hundred times as great – since the Rev wants hypothetical numbers. On any likelihood/impact risk matrix it’s going to be up there on the edge of the red zone, whereas Scotland’s continuing membership is in the green, (likely/minimal) with Scotland being forced to reapply somewhere low down in the yellow (fairly unlikely/moderate impact).
       
      As the Rev says, politicians say one thing and do another, and that’s especially true of multilateral diplomacy. You only need to compare the long list of  UK rhetorical positions over the Treaties of Maastricht, Lisbon & Amsterdam with the end result to see that what starts as a line in the sand is rapidly negotiated away.

    59. kininvie says:

      @balgayboy
       
      The reason no other member state has asked the question is that the UK government has made it clear that it does not wish the question to be asked. It would be seen as a deeply unfriendly act for a member state to break ranks in that way (and remember, the EU states are all supposed to be close chums).  If Iran were in the EU, it might well ask the question, just to annoy – but it ain’t….

    60. Richard says:

      The big issue is not which position is correct but the extent to which wavering voters are affected by the constant discussion of problems. It is clear that there is a significant coordinated campaign running with the collusion of some companies and a good few journalists. The UK government has been in the dock for Kenya and I saw recently that malaysians were suing for atrocities from their independence. We all know about Ireland’s history with the UK. We don’t have a terrorist movement but the UK government isn’t going to fight clean. It may be down to whether the population is happy to be a region of the uk or a real country.

    61. Jamie Arriere says:

      It’s occurred to me that I have yet to read or hear anything from our MEPs on this subject. Why is that? What’s the talk of the steamie in the European Parliament?
       
      Another failure of our MSM. Why don’t you contact Alyn Smith or Ian Hudghton for their perspectives, Rev? (soon cos there’s elections next year)
       
      http://www.alynsmith.eu/contact_me
      http://www.snp.org/people/ian-hudghton

    62. Juteman says:

      I’m pretty sure someone in the EU has been tasked with keeping an eye on the ‘Scotland problem’. That person/team will also be reading online blogs.
      Sooner or later, they will realise that their game of brinkmanship could backfire spectacularly. It they sense a ‘GIRUY’ feeling building in Scotland towards the EU, a positive statement will be released.

    63. CameronB says:

      Re. Spooks in the media. Let’s not forget the psychological warfare experts beavering away in the background, partly funded by ourselves.
       

    64. BeamMeUpScotty says:

      What Scots will remember long after the dust has settled is that the traditional media in Scotland did everything it could to prevent us exercising our democratic right to always get the government we vote for.They act in the same way as media in a totalitarian state where the message is disseminated from a central point without variance or rebuttal in order to support the aims of the ruling elite.There is no such thing as a “free” press in Scotland and their undermining of democracy will not be forgotten.

    65. Macart says:

      Re application and renegotiation are two different scenarios heavily reliant on a barrow load of what ifs. Whilst Scotland remains part of the UK post YES vote (that would be approximately 18 months), then renegotiation of membership will be the order of the day. Scotland would still be part of the original member state after all. Should for whatever inconceivable reason negotiations fail within that period and equally inconceivably we’d still want to be members at that point, then re application would indeed be the stance for a newly independent Scotland. As it stands renegotiation of membership is both the Scottish governments position and as far as anyone can see the actuality within that 18 month period.
       
      Like I say though its all what ifs and frankly in my case its a non issue. Its not why I’m voting for independence anyway. I’m voting for an accountable government which constantly reflects the wishes of its electorate. A government which receives its sovereignty from the people. A government which isn’t worried about punching above its weight militarily and prioritises our tax and spend accordingly. Europe is already an open door for both trade and travel. EU, EFTA (shrugs) we’ll be open for business regardless. 🙂

    66. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      @ CameronB
      Double plus good and bad.

    67. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      Why isn’t the Scottish Government already making informal talks with the EFTA group.
      Such a move would certainly be known to Bruxelles and would send the wind right up their collective Jamie Derrieres.

    68. Doug Daniel says:

      Captain Caveman: “I’m not going off what some partisan politician has said, but the President of the EU Commission, who is supposed to be impartial and most certainly is supposed to know about stuff like this? Among others also, to be fair.”
       
      Van Rompuy is not impartial, and I don’t mean that in some sort of conspiracy-theorist way. Van Rompuy’s role is to represent the members of the European Council – that includes Spain and the UK, but not Scotland and Catalunya. If he makes statements that go against the wishes of council members, then he is not doing his job. So, he will take the line that most suits existing member states.

    69. Macart says:

      @BTP
       
      Good point. It’d certainly win brownie points with those indy voters unsure with the EU stance and put the wind up both Brussels and Westminster. They wouldn’t know whether to shit or get off. Still it could be argued that the SG are simply sticking to long held position of EU support. 

    70. Suzanne K says:

      A large majority of folk I speak to couldn’t give a monkeys about our position in the EU. It’s simply not on their list of priorities concerning Indy.
      Businesses and farmers are the only folk I know who care along with EU nationals of course.

    71. Doug Daniel says:

      Incidentally, I’m totally in favour of Scotland remaining in the EU, but if the various EU institutions are going to persist in conspiring with the UK government in tricking people into voting against independence, then I don’t think that’s an organisation I want to be a part of.
       
      Perhaps it’s time to say to the EU “we’d love to remain in the club, but if you’re going to interfere in our domestic affairs, then you can go fuck yourselves.”
       
      It would be interesting to see how quickly “ooooh you’ll get chucked out!” would change to “oooh you can’t leave, you have to go through a process etc.”

    72. Thepnr says:

      Magnus Gardham over at the Herald is at it again this afternoon in particular with regard to classroom sizes as discussed at FMQ’s on Thursday.
       
      One good for a laugh is that he writes “Floating voters who backed the SNP in 2011 might be having second thoughts and some are returning to Labour.”
       
      http://archive.is/uqhsf

    73. big_al says:

      Perhaps it’s time to say to the EU “we’d love to remain in the club, but if you’re going to interfere in our domestic affairs, then you can go fuck yourselves.”
       
      Well said Doug.
       
      Time to grow a pair.

    74. scottish_skier says:

      it IS fair to state that there is considerable uncertainty 
       
      My clients are the oil and gas majors. Walk around TOTAL’s HQ in Aberdeen and you’ll here French widely spoken…
       
      How come they’re not worried about neither the EU nor currency? I mean we are talking about an industry that generates 25% of UK corporation tax…
       
      I asked around. Management have basically winked and said ‘nothing to worry about’. Their CEO’s / boards are obviously privy to information we are not, for now anyway.

    75. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      @ Doug Daniel
      The case for the prosecution of Scotland vrs the EU rests.
      At the first sign of us going down the Norway route and Spain losing access to Scottish waters for our fish, watch their collective biscusps quivver.
      As for Spain, the biggest “Spanish” fleet is the Galician one. Galicia is the progenitor land of the Celtic peoples and Rajoy is, guess what, a Galician? I am not sure if he is of an other Spanish extraction, like Franco, but I guarantee that if Scotland says feck you Spain, the internal mayhem in Spain would be pretty spectacular.

    76. Captain Caveman says:

      @Kinivie
      Good points, well made. However, it still boils down to conflating/confusing the quite separate risk of the post ‘No’ vote Union voting for EU separation (which I totally acknowledge) with the more present danger posed by a ‘Yes’ vote. The latter risk still remains intact and unchanged.
       
      But lets digress, as it is interesting and I’m not trying to duck this. For me, the issue of the Union potentially voting against EU membership boils down to these factors:
       
      1. It would remain entirely within the democratic gift of the peoples of the United Kingdom, as very distinct from the ‘Yes’ vote scenario, which would be within the gift of third party EU bodies and far from impartial member states with vested interests.
       
      2. A UK-wide EU referendum rests on an outright Conservative government being elected – a VERY big “if” – with Cameron still at the helm of it.
       
      3. Above all, it assumes Cameron will keep his word and actually grant the promised referendum – another very big “if” if ever there was. We’ve been promised stuff like this before…
       
      4. Even if all of the above come to pass, I personally don’t think the UK would vote to come out of the EU anyway, when it came down to it. Never under estimate inertia and a fear of the unknown; the media, business, the US presidency et al would all be making very big, frightening noises warning the peoples of the UK not to do it.

    77. A2 says:

      “John Macintyre OBE is remarkably persistent and dogmatic.”
      Let’s not forget that his stock and trade is waste management.
       
       

    78. Juteman says:

      @Captain Caveman.
      Your point 4 sounds familiar.

    79. Captain Caveman says:

      @Juteman
       
      Absolutely, yes. Not saying I approve – I’m a democrat first and foremost, I believe in a fair fight and people being told the truth i.e. I am an idealist. But that’s not how things work (unfortunately) and I concede there are definite parallels with the Indy campaign that you allude to. 

    80. scottish_skier says:

      Let’s see, putting aside any arguments about EU stance, who’s saying what…
       
      Those planning to vote Yes to Scottish independence:
      43% In Favour of the EU
      38% Against the EU
       
      Those planning to vote No to Scottish independence:
      43% In favour of the EU
      36% Against the EU
       
      Those unsure about Scottish independence:
      32% In favour of the EU
      31% Against the EU
       
      How is this an Scottish indy referendum winning issue?
       
      Data from October Panelbase Scotland-wide poll.

    81. Juteman says:

      @ Captain Caveman.
      This was the section I meant.
      ” Never under estimate inertia and a fear of the unknown; the media, business, the UK presidency et al would all be making very big, frightening noises warning the people of Scotland not to do it.”

    82. Captain Caveman says:

      @Juteman
      Yes, I know. I was essentially agreeing with your sentiments.

    83. msean says:

      A case of a kind of chinese whispers, where the words are changed deliberately.

    84. bald eagle says:

      doug daniel
      spot on tell them scotlands out
       if they need anything that we have got come and get it we cant be arsed
      filling in all the forms
      they dont even need to visit send them some photos
      all  you!ll hear is” but but but”
       tell them but fuck all you!s started this crap so go chase yourselfs

    85. scottish_skier says:

      Anyway, the prospect of getting chucked out of the EU could bring some UKIPers and Tories on board Yes.
       
      I know we’re only talking a few %, but needs must.

    86. Rod Mac says:

      Re the nonsense about Spain applying a veto   three words Oil , Fish  Germany!!!
      Real politik!

    87. bald eagle says:

      why is my last post all over the place
      im going back to bed

    88. scottish_skier says:

      I guess Scotland getting chucked out of the EU could set a new precedent. How to get out of the EU if your country’s government is ignoring calls for an exit from some regions.
       
      The newly formed SE of England Independence Party could even field candidates in the 2015 UKGE if Scotland being booted out of the EU for voting Yes was confirmed by that point.
       
      Some German states to follow?

    89. scottish_skier says:

      What’s most amusing is the unionist right-wing attacking the EU all the time, calling for an in/out EU referendum whilst simultaneously saying ‘Don’t vote for Scottish independence as you’ll be chucked out of the EU’.

    90. braco says:

      CameronB,
      welcome home.

    91. scottish_skier says:

      Out of interest, is it possible to have the Euro forced upon Scotland whilst Scotland being thrown out of the EU at the same time?
       
      Could be a new angle for Magnus.

    92. William Stirling says:

      Tonight I voted for a pro independence issue in the national newspaper, the Scotsman. I was declined. I tested the same vote and decided to vote the opposite, No and the Unionist position. I was accepted.

      This is not the Soviet Union, North Korea but Scotland. Total disgrace and another sign of the institutional state bias to suppress the freedom of speech and an alternative opinion. Every media channel is the same- BBC, STV, Scotsman….the propaganda continues.

      As Katie Adie once said” I keep telling myself to calm down, to take less of an interest in things and not to get so excited, but I still care a lot about liberty, freedom of speech and expression, and fairness in journalism”.

    93. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Our position on EU should be “The SNP believes that staying in the EU is in Scotland’s best interest but any future independent Scottish Government will have the choice that independence gives it tos tay in or come out. In-like Denmark or out -like Norway we are completely confident that Scotland will manage fine”

    94. Brian Powell says:

      The questions always look at what the SG has said about the EU. It would simple for a journalist to ask the President of the European Parliament or Commission. “Has PM Cameron asked for a ruling on Scotland in the EU and if so have you given an answer”.

    95. Rough Bounds. says:

      I am beginning to fret a bit. I don’t feel confident at all that we are going to win our independence if we carry on like this. The reason is, it seems to me, that we always appear to have our backs to the wall defending our position instead of going on the attack.
      The enemy in the guise of the press and the BBC give their various ‘reasons’ why Scotland shouldn’t be independent. We then react to those spurious reasons and we seem to spend all our time saying, ‘That’s no true. That’s a lie. That’s no how it is. Naw we’re no. Naw we didnae. Naw it isnae. You’re no being fair”.
       
      I’m frankly fed up explaining. I just want to claw their fecking heads off now.

    96. Doug Daniel says:

      Skier – aye, I was thinking the exact same thing about the “how can the EU chuck Scotland out AND force it to take the Euro?” question last night. It just highlights the way this campaign is being not only conducted by the No side, but also reported by the media – just say whatever comes into your head at that time, and don’t worry if it conflicts with that other thing you’ve just said.

    97. Gerry Everett says:

      Why are the editors not being called to tune though with their blatant lies? Surely there’s what the Press Complaints Commision is for.

    98. msean says:

       the s e of england independence party.lol how would they manage without the rest of the country to bleed dry?

    99. Paula Rose says:

      Surely the UK is a union of two countries whereas Catalonia is a region of Spain? So there is no point in equating the situation there with here – or does the MSM regard Scotland as a region? Could someone ask them.

    100. Bunter says:

      I feel so much happier now I have cancelled my herald subscription the other day and made a point of sending a couple of emails of complaint.

    101. Richard says:

      I suppose it is fair to say that I am for independence whatever it costs. I dont share the SNP vision blindly and consider that the choice we have is the difference between being another county like Yorkshire or being a real country that takes its place as an equal to other nations.

      it seems that the no voters prefer the idea of being a large county or a region of the UK.

      It is fairly difficult to imagine what a joke it would be to listen to flower of Scotland at football and rugby internationals if we got as far as voting no. 

      a region or a country that is the choice? The EU is a separate consideration that will come as a consequence of the vote.

    102. JLT says:

      I keep saying these things at the work when some of my colleagues, who still side with the Union, keep telling me, that Scotland will not be allowed to share currency union, or be in the EU.
       
      My reply is two very simple statements….
       
      1. Why doesn’t Westminster just come out and say ‘Absolutely No‘ to Currency Union?
      2. Why doesn’t the EU just come out and say ‘Scotland will NOT be allowed into the EU, if it becomes Independent?’
       
      For Currency Union, the plain fact of the matter as the Rev, and countless others have said is that if Scotland is not allowed to use Sterling, then Sterling will devalue big time instantly, as it will lose the oil as hard core collateral.
      To be honest, maybe Salmond should just call their bluff, and just ask them straight out, ‘Look, are we in; yes or no?’ I bet the silence will be deafening.
       
      As for the EU, the last thing they really want is to be denied to the rich fishing waters and the oil. I think three things will come into play here.
      First, Scotland is not a state. It is a country. Catalonia has never really been a country.
      Secondly, no citizens of the EU have ever been thrown out of the EU. The EU will dread this moment if it should happen as it goes against what the EU is meant to stand for; continental unity!
      Thirdly, I have a feeling that at the end of the day, I think the little German Iron Lady, Ms Merkel, may have a big say in this. The last thing she wants is 2 of the richest top 6 nations in the world sitting on her doorstep (the other is Norway), and not having at least one of them in the EU. She is more liable to BOOT OUT the Spanish and the Portuguese from the EU than have Scotland turned away!
       
      For ourselves, we just sit tight, and ask those of the unionist persuasion very politely, those two key questions that I mentioned above. As far as we have all heard, there have been no definite …’No’s’. It is as simple as that!
       

    103. Les Wilson says:

      I think we must apply reverse logic to the European question, therefore my opinion is that if the UK were so sure we would not get in, they would use their option of directly asking the EU. Reason being that if they are as confident as they proclaim, they would be sure they would get they reply they wish for. That being the case they could batter the Scottish electorate with the proven fact.

      However, as they refuse to try and get this “certainty ” ( in their view “) , they prefer to throw tons of money and huge efforts including every kind of manipulation they can muster, into trying to scare the Scottish voters points to the fact that they are VERY UNSURE that their “certainty ” which in fact is no certainty at all. 

      It rather points out that in fact their “real view” is that Scotland will be accepted, fact is they are terrified of a Scottish YES vote , and if they dared to actually ask the question, and it went against them, they now full well it would BOOST the YES vote.

      So ask yourself the question of why they would spend all the money and effort on pursuing false reasons. There is only the one logical answer, they already know that Scotland will be welcomed. So their only tool is the fear factor. Ignore and we will win what we want.

    104. caz-m says:

      @William Stirling

      Do you have a link to the “Scotsman” poll?. We have to rubbish the results of this poll as soon as they appear.

    105. Jamie Arriere says:

      Re Lord MacIntyre of Woking OBE, I’m surprised he has not appeared more regularly here with his southern wisdom, since he was kicked off Newsnet Scotland yesterday.
       
      http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8461-the-continual-shaming-of-the-scottish-parliament

    106. Brian Mark says:

      Why bother with the MSM, I gave up with the Scotsman years ago when Andrew Neil was the front man for the Barclay Brothers and I suspect that very little has changed since those heady days. As for the Herald well I thought it had a wee bit quality but how wrong can you be given there unbalanced reporting of the independence question. As for the Daily Ranger and the Murdoch rag arse paper and toilets come to mind, gave up on them in my teens the newspapers that is. I now get my news from your site and others In my opinion whats left of the broadsheets will be no more by the end of the decade as the money to sustain them will be no more. ,

    107. CameronB says:

      @ Braco
      Cheers. I never actually left, my internet has been up the spout. Extreme difficulty in connecting to the web and almost complete failure to load pages. It’s still a bit shaky. Old dongle? Might be time to upgrade.
      If only you knew the hours I’ve spent these last few weeks, simply trying to get in here. 😉
       
      @ BtP
      I expect you have been keeping up to speed on the new age of feudalism the bankers have managed to corner the EU into. Debt serfdom delivered up by the ERM, which as a supra-national entity, is above national law and legislation, and without democratic oversight. Bearing in mind the probable effects of the continued expansion of the TPP,  I hope those drafting Scotland’s constitution will be up to the task.
       
      EU makes bank creditors bear losses as Cyprus bail-in becomes blue-print for rescues
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10145355/EU-makes-bank-creditors-bear-losses-as-Cyprus-bail-in-becomes-blue-print-for-rescues.html
       
      EU set for more Cyprus-style bail-ins for troubled banks
      http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/17012
       
      P.S. A recent example of a democratic state’s security services conducting psychological warfare on its own people.
       
      Cyber command headquarters raided over alleged smear campaign
      http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/10/22/2/0301000000AEN20131022005451315F.html

    108. Fab001 says:

      How any reports have their been in the media regarding the implications of our EU membership in the event of a no vote? Very few probably, if any. This is despite the looming in-out referendum if the Tories win the next general election. Maybe this is in part the fault of the SNP and the Yes Campaign, they should be ramming that message down the throats of the Scottish electorate, but they aren’t. Maybe they would see this tactic as fear mongering or negative, which isn’t their style, but if they aren’t gonna do it who will?

    109. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      @CameronB
       
      The key point of your post above, for me anyway, is
      EU set for more Cyprus-style bail-ins for troubled banks
      http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/17012
      I believe that Banks own your money when you deposit with them. The can do what they bloody well want up and including putting it on a long shot in the Grand National. We have no rights one these crooks “own it.”
      This why there is  a €100, 000 guarantee throughout Europe.
      Companies, on the other hand, do not own the money they deposit with banks so, until recently, they cannot own money “in trust” to them.
      I believe, and maybe someone from the businessscotland can back me up here, that banks are now telling SMEs that any money deposited by them is now viewed to be under individual depositor rules. This means that they have no UKGov safety net if a bank goes tits-up?
      Next bank which goes down, RBS, Credit Agricole, BNP, Societe Generale, any fucking Spanish bank you can name and the same in Italy, means that individual depositors, including SMEs will be treated as though they were investors?
      Think Cyprus and Greece in a “Bail In” not “Bail Out” model.
      The template has been laid. We, the poor bloody infantry will be paying for the leap frogging Generals.
      Time for a cull

    110. CameronB says:

      @ BtP
      Pest control.

      @ Andrew Morton
      I hope you don’t mind me using your complaint as a template? Thanks for posting it.

    111. Andrew Morton says:

      Here it is without the typo!
      I am a British citizen, born and living in Scotland. As you know, Scotland votes next year on whether to dissolve the Union with England. I am growing increasingly concerned  about my position as a citizen of the European Union following statements by Messrs. Van Rompuy and Barosso regarding the status of territories which vote for independence.

      The media in both England and Scotland have interpreted these statements to mean that if Scotland votes in favour of independence, I shall no longer be a citizen of the EU.

      Does this mean that from the day of a Yes vote that I will lose all my rights as a citizen? If so, is this not contrary to the letter and spirit of the treaties?

      I would be grateful if you could give me a reply to answer my concerns.

      Please note that I am not a member of nor am I acting on behalf of any political party or organisation. I am enquiring only for myself.

    112. braco says:

      CameronB,
      I had been considering trying to organise a search party for you over on Quarantine.

    113. Papadocx says:

      Who is  orchestrating this treacherous campaign against the Scottish people? let the scotsman and herald stand up and give us the source of this dangerous propaganda and who is the driving force. 
       
      Or are they going to ignore their loyal readers and protect their shadowy faceless paymasters like the Spineless scum they are. Setting out to terrorise and scare their loyal readers with LIES AND SUBLIMINAL SCARE TACTICS.
       
      The lowest of the low, and their puppet masters HMG in whatever guise it chooses. 

    114. CameronB says:

      @ Braco
      I’m glad you didn’t. You never know what you might have caught me doing. Low-level sedition isn’t my only hobby. 🙂

    115. Vronsky says:

      It’s a mistake to criticise the Herald, Scotsman or whomever for poor journalism.  They are not in the business of journalism.  If they were, there would be no point whatever in the wealthy and powerful seeking to own them.   Their function is the management of public opinion: social control – that’s worth paying money for.
       
      There is equally no point in showing that what they report is untrue: their requirement is not that it is true, but that it is believed.   Every time I leaflet in the street I am accosted by people possessed of the most astonishing delusions – and in every case I know where the got them.  Well – except one.  One chap wanted to know what the SNP would do when the Hebrides took independence. 
       
      The main stream media channel the theology of the ruling class and unless you are of a natively sceptical turn of mind you will believe them, and that’s most people, by the way.   Of those who hear the BBC News, only one in ten thousand read the comprehensive refutation on WoS appearing ten minutes later. 
       
      I’m not sure we can overcome this – and don’t tell me it doesn’t matter.  Which other country on the planet cannot muster a majority for self-government, even ten months away from a poll?  Where do you think the polls would stand if 100% of output from the BBC and the MSM were in favour of independence?  Or even just a little closer to neutral?

    116. gillie says:

      Something VERY, VERY, VERY strange is going on with the Scotsman’s voting system. 
       
      There appears to be a deliberate attempt to deny readers from voting for pro-independence comments. 

    117. Vronsky says:

      Oops, sorry Rev.  Note to self: don’t paste straight from MS Word.

    118. TheGreatBaldo says:

      OT
       
      An excellent source for rebuttal (from an impeccable source of intellectual rigour) for any Unionist EU Scare Stories…
       
      http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/events/reports/2012-2013/Scotland_and_the_EU.pdf
       
      ‘False legal certainty’….I like it !!
       
      This should really be circulated as far as possible by digital means….ideally with the 2 articles cited by the Rev here, as a vivid illustration of the difference between what the experts are saying and what we are being told…

    119. Finnzz says:

      Lamont appears singularly incapable of changing her script at FMQs and thinking on her feet when the scenario changes.

      Perhaps a more direct approach by Salmond is required though I’m not sure that calling her and Ruthie Baby blatant liars would be acceptable parliamentary language.

    120. braco says:

      CameronB,
      I suspected as much! That’s why the ropes, snow shoes, parka and whisky flask stayed in the cupboard.

    121. john king says:

      BtP says
      “Why isn’t the Scottish Government already making informal talks with the EFTA group.”
       
      Because I’m guessing to use EFTA  as a bargaining ploy with the EU would be pretty disrespectful towards the EFTA members and wouldn’t be the start a country who wants others respect I personally would like unless we’re serious about EFTA,
      are we?

    122. braco says:

      The GreatBaldo,
      thanks for that pdf min. Just started reading it. Very interesting and I would certainly recommend it to anyone interested in the EU arguments.
      Cheers.

    123. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      John King
       
      I think all countries at all time are talking with many different countries and groupings.
      It could be described as a fact finding mission, not the run up to a formal application.
      Quite normal I think.

    124. john king says:

      Doug Daniel says
      “Perhaps it’s time to say to the EU “we’d love to remain in the club, but if you’re going to interfere in our domestic affairs, then you can go fuck yourselves.”
       
      Now that’s a country I would be proud to serve!

    125. gillie says:

      The EU is a contactable and responsive organisation. EU citizens have rights to information. So is there a draft that will allow individuals to gain the information to determine the status of an independent Scotland and EU membership.

    126. Camilla Kaczinski says:

      There are actually quite interesting articles on the subject on europeanlawblog.eu (just search for Scotland) and here:

      http://eutopialaw.com/2011/11/14/685/

      Where Aidan Quinn QC heralds the view that both Scotland and rUK should be regarded as successor states. An option which would likely be preferred within the EU – and elsewhere.

      Either I’ve missed something, or it’s really odd that that option is largely being ignored.

    127. BeamMeUpScotty says:

      I am EU agnostic but could see a possible future situation where the Scottish state decides that the EU is no longer serving it’s interests and decides to separate itself from the union.The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation then goes into full anti separation mode with daily propaganda news items extolling the virtues of being part of a bigger entity supported by the Franco German owned press doing likewise.Now is the time for the EU to demonstrate to it’s citizens that it is fully behind democracy and the rights of individuals to self determination or whether it still clings to the traditional European Divine Right of Kings model of top down rule.

    128. kininvie says:

      Let’s take a little lesson from Greg Moodie’s book, folks:
       
      http://nationalcollective.com/2013/12/14/greg-moodie-refuses-to-be-bored-into-submission/

    129. john king says:

      Cameron B says
      “Low-level sedition isn’t my only hobby.”
      I’m assuming your other hobby is Dick Shawn impressions?
      you know what they say,
       Its a mad mad mad mad mad world,
       btw nice to see your back online.

    130. Erchie says:

      Captain Caveman

      a lot of the attempts to put people off voting for Indy boil down to “there may be change and uncertainty”
       
      Well, since the 2010 vote there has already been change
       
      We learn that foreigners are evil and to be feared
       
      We learn that a fair wage for a day’s work, or even consistent employment, are a thing of the past
       
      We find that not only are terminally ill people just “workshy skivers” but there are actually what are effectively workhouses starting
       
      We could be out of the EU if we stick with the UK
       
      If there was a fair press, then this would be covered. Your, Unionist, position is so weak, so feeble, that it cannot stand opposed to the Indy one, so your side uses scare tactics and lies.
       
      Is that really a mindset, in terms of policy or tactics, that you wish to be associated with? Do you ever wonder to yourself “Are we the baddies?
       

    131. Jim Mitchell says:

      If it weren’t for the fact that we want as many votes as possible to secure victory, I would be glad that we were on a different side from  those who knowingly tell lies against our country.

    132. Archie [not Erchie] says:

      @ kininvie – What year was that? Go to the back of the class and write out 100 times ‘I must always check my dates’ 🙂

    133. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      @kininvie
      It is a start.

    134. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      It is dated today’s date but further down it is 2010.

    135. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Good Martin Kelly article on naughty BBC doings:
       
      http://newsnetscotland.com/

    136. JLT says:

      Doug Daniel / BtP
       
      To be honest, I agree with you both, but not just on the EU. As I said in my comment, I would call the UK’s bluff too.
      I sometimes wonder if Margo MacDonald was right. We should have created our own currency, and also put the option of joining EFTA on the table. I really wonder if both the UK and EU would have squealed loudly if that had been in the White Paper.  
       
      I know this is a long game, but I wonder if there really is a disadvantage in the Yes camp just coming straight out with it and demand an answer to Currency Union. Yes or No ????
       
      It’s bound to throw the UK into a spin. If they refuse to answer even if pushed severely, then the silence is not only deafening, but the answer can only be a huge fat YES! If the UK was sooooo sure, then it would be a resounding ‘No’ instantaneously.
      To even have a deafening silence, makes me wonder if the screw could be turned on Westminster. What if the Yes Camp then turns around and mutters about leaving Sterling altogether because we can’t get straight answers on Currency Union and EU continuity. I bet the UK would be desperate to talk then. The last thing Westminster wants is Scotland, with all its massive rich assets, leaving the UK entirely, thus causing stability in Sterling to wobble severely, which would then hit the so-called ‘recovery’ on the economy.
       
      If this crap continues into next year, and if by the start of summer, Yes is behind due to the lies, then you know what? If I was the Yes Camp, I would just go for broke, and just say that we are not getting any answers from the UK and EU, and thus Scotland intends to create its own currency, and may join EFTA after all. 
       
      Watch the UK and EU react then!

    137. M Lyons says:

      Never read this nat site before but it keeps being recommended by nats inscotsman comments ( ironically that has been killed off by the cybernats who didn’t like the way the conversations kept going against them)
      So here I am.  
       
      Who ever is behind this blog is not the sharpest brain on the block.  The point about having to reapply to the EU is not it won’t be successful but that we will need to comply with conditions for new applicants.  A that means the euro not the £ as per the white paper and b. Schengen. Which means passport checks and border controls all along the Tweed.
       
      That is the problem. And Salmond and the wee lassie that follows him about are completely flummoxed as to how to deal with it.

    138. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “A that means the euro not the £ as per the white paper and b. Schengen. Which means passport checks and border controls all along the Tweed.”

      Oh boy. Welcome to the debate fourteen months ago. If you ever get up to speed with where it’s at now, do come back and join us. Otherwise, kindly sod off back to the Scotsman, because we really don’t have time to deal with this sort of brainless duncery over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

      Say anything half that stupid again and you’re banned. That’s your only warning. We’re busy.

    139. braco says:

      M Lyons,
      Oh FFS!

    140. Ian Brotherhood says:

      An instant yellow?
       
      Way to go M Lyons – that could be a first.

    141. Erchie says:

      Oh M Lyons. You are such a card! Thank you for a jolly laugh after this soggy, cold day!

    142. msean says:

      Lol,is this the petty misinformation comedy gold hour?As my teacher used to tell me at school,”..read the passage before you write the essay,you will fail if you don’t”.You need to read some more on referendum subject before commenting.You will find plenty of helpful informative links on this nat site.I did.

    143. “So here I am.”  Aye, but, naw fir long.  

    144. Brian Powell says:

      The UK Government, Labour in the UK and Scotland, the BBC, also potentially the EU, do have a very serious problem coming.
       
      The Catalonian Referendum.
       
      If Scotland is ‘persuaded’ to say No with an issue like the EU membership and it is done by Together etc lying, giving false information and distorting information, but then Catalonia votes for Independence and has a short negotiated continuous membership of the EU, there would be considerable consequences.
       
      These Parties and EU institutions would forfeit their claim to be democratic. The consequences of that are not always immediate and take time to filter through.
      They may try to discount the reactions in this country, but the rest of the world does see.
       
      Consider if BBC journalists found that abroad they were not trusted as they once were. Or that a near future Government decide it was time to abolish the BBC and it looked to the public for support.
       
      Consider Scottish Labour politicians going to nuclear arms reduction conferences and trying to lecture others, when they could have got rid of them here but didn’t.
       
      Consider when the EU has been shown to be colluding with member Governments, such as the UK or Spain, to block democratic movements.
       
      They may think they can control the consequences of the Referendum but these situations just have a habit of getting away from them.

    145. Stuart Black says:

      “brainless duncery”, brilliant! 🙂

    146. twenty14 says:

      Hi – M Lyons
       
      Bye – M Lyons

    147. kendomacaroonbar says:

      “….then they come to fight you”

    148. scottish_skier says:

      Which means passport checks and border controls all along the Tweed
       
      I can see the border from my house. I’ve been across it (on the ground) once in the past 10 years and I work in Oil and gas, travelling a fair bit. There’s just no need to cross it (by rail/car) and if you are flying through a London airport (use Amsterdam – much better) then security/passport checks are going to happen anyway. The same applies to the vast majority of the population of Scotland; England is another country and most people have as much reason to visit it as Danes have to visit Germany.
       
      The TMfS also produces estimates of the number of trips which are made by car, bus or train across the border with England. These suggest that, on an average weekday, around 8,000 people travel each way between Scotland and places in Yorkshire and South East England, about 5,000 travel each way between Scotland and places in Northumberland, and over 6,000 people travel to and from South West England and Wales.
       
      http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/12/17120002/162
       
      So the equivalent of 0.36% of people in Scotland regularly travel across the border as part of their day to day lives. Wow, so feck all then really.
       
      Personally, I’m in a way disappointed there won’t be border posts and a big security fence / wall built. Would give a major boost to the local borders economy, what with the construction and guard jobs. For both sides of course.

    149. Stuart Black says:

      “…then you win.”

    150. Papadocx says:

      M Lyons 8:38
      If you want to join YES group there is hope for you yet! Will send you some literature and take note of your details. Thank you for your interest in yes SCOTLAND!

    151. Marian says:

      Much as it pains me to say this but you have to admit that Project Fear are succeeding in setting and controlling the news agenda on independence each day with their diversionary “tell a lie often enough and it will be believed” strategy. 

      For what its worth Project Fear or UKIP have also succeeded in becoming the majority making comments on articles on independence in the Scotsman and Dundee Courier.

      Don’t know if anyone else have noted this but I am finding that very few people are interested in discussing the White Paper. Now I know its the festive season and all that, but I would have expected YES to have started a big push after the release of the White Paper but the YES campaign appears to have run out of steam instead.

    152. Jingly Jangly says:

      You not the Mr Lyons that’s get called up at Edinburgh Zoo every April 1st are you!!!
      Naw I didn’t think so as going by that post a big cat has mair brains than you.
       

    153. Doug Daniel says:

      Hi M Lyons
       
      ERM 2
       
      Now fuck off.

    154. Linda's back says:

      M Lyons is so last year.
      In order to adopt the euro a country needs its currency to be committed to the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) for two years.  Scotland doesn’t have a currency to commit to the ERM, and as Scotland plans to keep the pound, we therefore cannot adopt the euro, even if we wanted to, and so certainly can’t be forced to either.
      Alistair Darling has said we would have to reapply to the EU from outside, and that means being forced into the euro – however that is inaccurate and even David Cameron can’t help but say he was wrong.
      Speaking in Czech Republic . nine years after they joined the E U,   European Council president Herman Van Rompuy  stated: in  May 2013
       
      The prime minister added in his statement that it is even an obligation to join the euro, so that is nothing new. But you have to meet all the criteria. At this stage the Czech Republic is not meeting all the criteria, so the problem is not a problem today. But even if you meet the criteria, then of course the Czech Republic has to make its own decision in its own constitutional order. So I will not interfere in this internal debate; it’s up to the Czech Republic to make up its mind.
      The currency issue has more resonance with voters than EU membership as in the worst case scenario we can be a member of EFTA, just like poor  Norway, and still have free trade with the rest of Europe. 
       
       

    155. Ian Brotherhood says:

      It is to be expected that BT despatch the occasional kamikaze, but it’s disappointing that they choose people with such poor aim.
       
      We deserve better, surely? (Have they already used their best and bravest volunteers?)
       
      Come back Norsey!

    156. CameronB says:

      Apologies, completely OT.
       
      Further to Caroline Corfield’s comment of a wee while back, re. the dislocation between local government finance, need and local service provision. I have found that Royal Commission that warned that the Poll Tax would dislocate urban centers from their more rural hinterland. It was the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, headed by Baron Redcliffe-Maud. The National Archive has all the published and unpublished minutes and notes, and it might be worth while for a professional journalist to take a look at them. I think it would help to explain how our local democracy was privatised.
       
      Anyway, evidence of the Conservative party’s commitment to rates in 1970, just a year or so before the Chicago Boys escaped the zoo. This record of HMG was classified Secret until 2001.

      INDEX
      OF
      CABINET CONCLUSIONS
      (CC(70) lst-24th Meetings)
      (13 January,1970,to 28 May, 1970)

      The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning said that the Ministerial Committee on Local Government Reorganisation had commissioned a number of studies from officials on this subject. But there was still a considerable amount of work to be done; and there had been no opportunity as yet for consultation on these matters with local authorities or other interests. It would not be practicable, therefore, to deal with the subject of local taxation and financial relationships in the forthcoming White Paper in any detail; and the Ministerial Committee had agreed that it would be preferable to confine the reference in the White Paper to a statement that the Government shared the Royal Commission’s view that rates must remain the principal local tax and to promise publication of a Green Paper on local government finance at a later stage. A suggested form of words was set out in Annex I to his memorandum.

      In discussion it was suggested that there might be advantage in arranging joint studies of local finance with the Labour Party, with due regard to the need to maintain confidentiality.
      (page 14, my emphasis)
      http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/large/cab-128-45.pdf

      Evidence that collusion between the Westminster parties is not a new phenomena?

    157. Linda's back says:

      Before I read M Lyons misinformed comments, I was going to say the SNP Scottish government must be the only government in the world that does not have one newspaper or broadcaster supportive of its aims and ambitions for its country.

    158. Richard says:

      As for rUK being the successor state I favour crowd funding for a legal challenge to that one. Feel the need to volunteer to help with the YES campaign.

    159. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Marian-
      …you have to admit that Project Fear are succeeding in setting and controlling the news agenda on independence each day with their diversionary “tell a lie often enough and it will be believed” strategy.’
       
      Er, sorry Marian, but no-one has to admit any such thing. They may think they are doing that (and so may you, if you wish), but there is no evidence to back-up your statement – any information delivered via MSM is highly suspect, especially the interpretation of polls.
       
      We all know there’s only one psephologist in Scotland, but even plebs like meself can look at what Rev, Scottish_Skier and others have been monitoring, and see that the trend is clear – folk are shifting from hard ‘No’ to ‘Don’t Know’ – having done so, they tend to then become ‘Yes’.
       
      Your comment about ‘No’ dominance of the Scotsman and Dundee Courier goes right over my head – I don’t know anyone who reads either, in hard copy, or online – and I can’t imagine why you feel it is a problem. 

    160. Bertie K says:

      Brilliant thread folks!
       

    161. CameronB says:

      Re. Dick Shaw. 🙂

    162. caz-m says:

      Came across this site that lets you search any journalist’s work since they started reporting. e.g. Magnus Gardham, it will show you every report and for which newspaper it appeared in If you start from “oldest first” setting then it will show you all his work.

      Handy site if you like delving through a journalist’s history. Worth a look.

      http://www.highbeam.com/publications/uk-newspapers-2026

    163. Robert Kerr says:

      Totally O/T perhaps. Sorry Rev.
       
      A simplistic argument for keeping BoE paper and coin of the realm is that the Queen’s head is depicted. 
       
      To echo from Judea through two millennia 
       
      “Render unto Caesar….”
       
      Good Night.

    164. Linda's back says:

      Your comment about ‘No’ dominance of the Scotsman and Dundee Courier goes right over my head – I don’t know anyone who reads either, in hard copy, or online – and I can’t imagine why you feel it is a problem. 
      The MSM  / BBC coverage  is a huge  problem for example the number of people who have fallen for the ASDA higher prices story is amazing and despite best efforts of online pro independence sites we can’t counter this.
      The Yes campaign need more instant rebuttal  “non political party” authoritative commentators to debunk this nonsense but not helped by the BBC who this morning pointed out that Gordon MacIntyre was a Yes Business for Scotland spokesperson but Daniel Nicholson was an “Edinburgh Businessman” implying that he was neutral.
      Just as they have numerous former Labour advisors (and former candidates)  who are presented as neutral economists/ experts  but are at pains to point out that George Kerevan was an SNP candidate.  

    165. Mealer says:

      Marian,
      take heart.The MSM IS the NO campaign,who call themselves Project Fear.They were never going to give the white paper a good crit.So there was never going to be a big swing on the back of it.But we can use the information in it to persuade others that there is a bright future for an independent Scotland.Things are,despite the best efforts of the media,edging ever so slowly our way.You are the YES campaign.Keep your chin up and keep at it.Win or lose,future generations deserve our best effort.

    166. Mealer says:

      Marian,
      take heart.The MSM IS the NO campaign,who call themselves Project Fear.They were never going to give the white paper a good crit.So there was never going to be a big swing on the back of it.But we can use the information in it to persuade others that there is a bright future for an independent Scotland.Things are,despite the best efforts of the media,edging ever so slowly our way.You are the YES campaign.Keep your chin up and keep at it.Win or lose,future generations deserve our best effort.

    167. caz-m says:

      @CameronB

      That was funny, cheered me up. My kind of humour.

    168. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Marian
       
      Disagree completely. Most of the people I would expect to read the White Paper are reading it at the moment. Its contents will become progrssively more influential.

      I don’t think anybody on here would for one minute imagine that the bonkers contents in the Scotsman comments is anything other than completley imeaningless. Scotsman’s circulation is down to around 23,000  (not a lot above the Daily Sport). Don’t know a lot about Dundee Courier but it has to be said all sensible discussion is on sites like this.

    169. Peter says:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmxqjzCxNEE I think we need to promote just what we have in this special country.

    170. gman says:

      For what its worth I contacted the Eu a couple of weeks back.

      What will Scotlands position be in EU post a yes vote in upcoming independence referendum?Would Scotland be chucked out?
      A
      Thank you for your message and for sharing your views with us.
      Please kindly note that, in our capacity as a general information service, we can provide only factual information and cannot comment on your remarks.
      In the hypothetical scenario of a part of a European Union Member State wishing to leave that Member State, it is first and foremost an internal matter within that Member State to define the arrangements. There are several theoretical scenarios possible under international law. The Commission cannot speculate on which choices would be retained. For the same reason, the Commission is not able to speculate on any potential consequences under EU law.
      We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if you have other questions.
      With kind regards,
      EUROPE DIRECT Contact Centre

    171. Marcia says:

      In the Sunday Herald tomorrow:
       
      Our splash tomorrow – Revealed: Better Together’s coffers boosted by new £1.3m in donations. Laird, ex-soldier, stockbroker among big donors

    172. CameronB says:

      Re. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8463-bbc-admits-parts-of-academics-interview-removed-but-denies-misleading-viewers
       
      “The BBC Scotland official said: “As noted in earlier correspondence with you, the rushes of the full interview are no longer available, having been deleted, with only the broadcast programme archived.  This is a normal part of a ‘good housekeeping’ process to which all programme-makers adhere.”
       
      Alternatively it could be seen as destroying evidence. 🙁

    173. caz-m says:

      @Linda’s back

      Great points Linda, you are not alone, I also keep an eye on the totally bias BBC Scotland. Their bias is getting noticed by many more people as each day passes.

      They have two radio shows that are broadcast on Saturday and Sunday mornings. It is one of the few occasions that the listener has to hear debate of political events that took place in the past week.

      If you listen to the content of the programmes, they are more like BBC World Service. This morning we were in South Africa, Ireland (TWICE), Uruguay, Ukraine and the Pope (worldwide). That was a 2 hour show.

      How are we meant to get political debate when our own public broadcaster doesn’t even discuss our own parliament.

    174. Marcia says:

      Front Page of tomorrow’s Sunday Herald;
       
      http://twitpic.com/doq25h
      Interesting to find who these donors are. One linked to MI6.

    175. Archie [not Erchie] says:

      @ Dave McEwan Hill and Marian – Today I was asked 3 different questions viz a viz: Pensions, Passports & Defence. Later in the day I was able to answer those questions from my hard copy of the WP.
       
      I was able to show the questioner the relevant pages and the interest was so intense I burned the .pdf files [Full copy and Summary] onto a CD-R which was gratefully received.
       
      In my block of 55 flats people now know I have the WP and I expect many more questions in the future.

    176. Training Day says:

      Vronsky’s point above bears repeating: what other country in the world seems to have such antipathy to self-government?

      We may deride the lies and distortion of the – let’s give them their proper title – the English MSM – but the fact is they are browbeating a huge section of our populace.

      We need to be far more aggressive towards the BT campaign, at every and any opportunity. The approach of the now vanishing Blair Jenkins et al simply won’t do.

    177. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Linda’s back –
       
      I don’t want to start splitting hairs here, but you said:
       
      ‘The MSM  / BBC coverage  is a huge  problem for example the number of people who have fallen for the ASDA higher prices story is amazing and despite best efforts of online pro independence sites we can’t counter this.’
       
      Sorry, LB, but how can you possibly know for sure how many people have ‘fallen’ for any of this shite?
       
      As this campaign has progressed, despite similar scary rubbish being pumped out week after week, month after month, the trend is obvious, and undisputed – Yes is gaining.
       
      The BBC/MSM strategy has become plain for all to see, and becomes more obvious as we proceed – why, then, should we consider it a ‘problem’, when it isn’t working?
       
      We mustn’t sweat the small stuff – in the scheme of things, the BBC is a new kid on the proverbial. It cannot dictate how people really feel about their own future, any more than it can claim impartiality – the clue to understanding what the BBC is, and why it does what it does, is contained in its name. We shouldn’t expect them to behave otherwise, and ‘worrying’ about their influence lends them a power which is undeserved – the only people who should be concerned about BBC Scotland are the people who currently work there – they, and anyone else who is genuinely ‘worried’ about the BBC, and what will happen to it after we’ve voted Yes, should consult the White Paper, Chapter 9, Part 3 (page 315).
       

    178. Papadocx says:

      How come HMG set up the Chillcotte enquiry into the behaviour of the press when people in England complained about the standards and behaviour of the press.
       
      The behaviour of the press against Scotland and the Scots is atrocious, bordering on immoral and yet instead of defending the Scottish people, they appear to be involved in it.
       
      To a poor Scotsman like myself it would appear this position of the government is racist and most objectionable and possibly illegal. Think there is one law for England & another for Scotland? 

    179. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Anyone currently working for the BBC (and other MSM outlets in Scotland) should listen carefully to this song, consider the lyrics, and have a long hard think about what they’re doing, their future, and what – exactly – they’re being paid for.
       
      This is not a game – the time to get ‘serious’ is running out.
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDSdDoD4Sg

    180. A2 says:

      “bordering on immoral”

      A bit generous of you there , it IS immoral.

    181. CameronB says:

      @ Papadocx
      Pedant alert! Most Scots and English are Caucasian, so it can’t be racist. Xenophobic perhaps, but that would mean we are a separate countries.
       
      Oh I am confused. 🙂

    182. ronnie anderson says:

      C mon REV, DOUG D, dont be harsh on M LYONS, the least yous could have done is give him the address of Mr Comikeekle SOS he likes cakes ,hes hud Tunnocks / Oaties , Im sure he wuld like LYONS tae

    183. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Ronnie Anderson –
       
      Mister Carmichael does make exceedingly good gaffes.

    184. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Just for the record –
       
      Here’s Carmichael in feisty, optimistic mode i.e. before that tete-a-tete with Nicola Sturgeon:
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBt25CliTGY

    185. Ron Burgundy says:

      Having read through much of the comments thus far it is clear that most of us are feeling the frustration of a loaded MSM and British establishment attack on the independence movement.
      This should come as no surprise to any of us – it was entirely predictable. They have to misrepresent, lie and deflect. Christ I would too if I had to sell the turkey that the Union State is today.
      The No side stoke the fear using their “running dogs” in the MSM to keep people from thinking and understanding. If they succeed and NO wins, take comfort from the fact that their victory will be fleeting and pyrrhic because the tide of history is with independence and my reasoning comes in two parts. 
      (1) The high end financial press like Money Week magazine ( check out the You Tube “The End of Britain” ) and commentators like Max Keiser on RT both point to the likely economic collapse of the UK after the 2015 election under the weight of accumulated debt – whichever Unionist party wins the general election – the fate of the Union State economy is sealed.
      (2) When the bust comes in 2 years time it will blow big – Scotland will suffer hugely in this and the Peterkins, Chrichtons, Gills and Gardhams will have a lot to answer for. And the Augean stables at Pacific Quay? Now that will be interesting.  But the day of reckoning will come more specifically for the Scottish Unionist politicians who will have led Scotland to oblivion and misery. Their careers and their reputations will be finished.
      Unionism then as an ideology will be denounced and discredited and the “settled will” of the Scots will finally become clear.
       
       

    186. CameronB says:

      Just realised my pedantry shows my age up. Caucasian?

    187. CameronB says:

      Correction to my earlier post re. the Cabinet Conclusions. My quote was from page 14 of the particular Cabinet meeting in question, page 32 of the PDF. Doh.
       
      Just so you don’t think my eyes rotate unnaturally. 🙂

    188. john king says:

      Ian Brotherhood says
      “come back norsey”
      I willing to  bet his library privileges have been revoked 🙂

    189. john king says:

      “So here I am.”
       
      At last, do you know how long we’ve waited for you to turn up? 
      now if you could just sit in the corner, facing the wall please, thank you, and now just put this pointy hat on , yes I know it has the letter D on it, it stands for er delayed, now just sit quiet and you’ll maybe learn something.

    190. scottish_skier says:

      Interesting to find who these donors are. One linked to MI6.
       
      I wonder if Blair doffed his cap and tugged his forelock whilst ‘feeling humbled’ by the wealthy conservative party supporter donations.

    191. M Lyons says:

      WOW!!!  I never dreamt my opinion of all nats would be confirmed quite so quickly.  Even some Rev chips in with some filth.  God help us all if there is a yes vote.

    192. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “WOW!!! I never dreamt my opinion of all nats would be confirmed quite so quickly. Even some Rev chips in with some filth.”

      If we must have trolls, we still need more intelligent ones than you. Bye.

    193. Bill McLean says:

      M Lyons – filth! What filth from the Rev? You obviously confused this site with some unionist ones you have been on. You would learn about “filth” had you read the dozens of comments about Andy Murray by your unionist friends in the run up to Wimbledon. In my long life I’ve never seen such filth in print. Now! Clear off to where you are wanted, in fact needed. To those sites that practice filth, dishonesty, racism and censorship on a daily basis, The great pity is that those sites know it is the only way they can win this referendum! Shame on them and you for your unfounded allegation!

    194. F Cameron says:

      The Rev comments:
       
      “Otherwise, kindly sod off back to the Scotsman, because we really don’t have time to deal with this sort of brainless duncery over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again”
       
      Seems pretty rude to me.  You can’t just ban everyone that doesn’t agree with you.

    195. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “You can’t just ban everyone that doesn’t agree with you.”

      I don’t. I ban people who are idiot trolls with no goal other than disruption. And even Mr Lyons got a warning first.

    196. F Cameron says:

      I suppose so Rev but there does seem to be an anti-nat silence on Wings over Scotland.  Have you banned them all?

    197. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Have you banned them all?”

      No, most just choose not to come here because they don’t like being expected to debate like grown-ups, with sources and facts and actually answering questions as well as asking them.

      I think there are a total of seven people currently banned, three of those for outright and persistently abusive behaviour and the rest (eg Grahamski) for refusing to conduct debate in a civilised manner after repeated warnings. Anyone who argues their point with reason will never have to worry about censorship, and abusive people on the Yes side are subject to the exact same rules and sanctions. At least two of those banned are, or claim to be, Yes supporters.

    198. Bill McLean says:

      F. Cameron – I ask you to read the tweets about Andy Murray in the run up to Wimbledon – they’ll cause you to re-evaluate your perception of “rude”!

    199. Andy-B says:

      Good piece Rev.
       
      As for something getting lost in translation I think not, its a deliberate and sustained, propaganda campaign by the press, against independence.
       
      On the rare occasion they do throw a snippet of positive pro independence news the punters way, to make themselves seem impartial, they usually unleash a volley of anti independence headlines, the next day to try and frighten the life out of the man/woman on the street.
       
      No wonder those of us in the know are, pretty cheesed off, at the press and the msm.

    200. Captain Caveman says:

      I’m an English Unionist, and a Tory to boot, and have absolutely no problem with posting at Wings at all, quite the reverse. People are incredibly friendly.
       
      Of course, the debate gets heated from time to time, very much including myself in that, but hey, that is entirely to be expected. We’re supposed to be grown ups.
       
      My assessment is that, if you come on here with honestly-held views but at least a reasonably open mind, and a willingness to hear other viewpoints and admit when you yourself get stuff wrong, you’re fine. If, on the other hand, you come here just to cause trouble, you get chucked off. Simples.

    201. HandandShrimp says:

      CC – while we may not agree with you, you are here to debate. That cuts a person a lot of slack. (You are a decent egg too if a tad misguided on the politics front 🙂  )
       
      I must visit the Scotsman at some point. The last time I read comments there it was a remarkably silly place with the apparent goal of trying to occupy the slot vacated by the old Yahoo troll boards.

    202. MochaChoca says:

      Don’t know if this has been covered on here already, but the reason that the UK government gave for not approaching the EU was stated by the (then) SoS as:
       
      “Scottish Government ministers have not made clear what kind of independence they would hope to negotiate: there is nothing approaching a precise scenario from them.”
       
      “The European Commission has indicated in a series of responses – to European parliamentary questions, the House of Lords and correspondence with the Deputy First Minister of Scotland – that it would only be able to express an opinion on the legal consequences under EU law of a specific situation upon request from a member state detailing a precise scenario.
       
      “The letter [to the DFM] was crystal clear – ‘in the absence of a precise scenario…he would not be in a position to usefully discuss this further with you’.”
       
      With the realease of the White Paper we do now have the ‘precise scenario’, lack of which had previously prevented the formal approach to the EU from proceeding. This could become interesting as the ‘other side’ have hung so much on this uncertainty.

    203. Andrew Morton says:

      I mentioned on a previous thread that I had written to Europe Direct to ask them to clarify my position as an EU citizen in the event of a Yes vote. I have now had a reply:
       
      “Dear Mr Morton,
       
      Thank you for your message.
       
      Please kindly note that, in our capacity as a general information service, we can provide only factual information and cannot comment on your remarks.
       
      Please be informed that if a part of a Member State wishes to become independent, this is first and foremost an internal matter within that Member State. Therefore, it is not for the European Union to take sides. Furthermore, there are several theoretical scenarios possible under international law. The Commission cannot speculate on which choices would be retained. For the same reason, the Commission is not able to speculate on any potential consequences under the EU law.
       
      We would like to draw your attention to several questions raised in the European Parliament on this topic (E-010762/12, E-011159/12, E-010044/12 and E-011632/12) and to the joint answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the EC:
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-010762&language=EN
       
      Finally, European Union (EU) citizenship is a consequence of citizenship of a Member State of the EU. One cannot be an EU citizen without being a citizen of a Member State. It is additional to, but does not replace the latter. Relevant background information is available on the website of the Directorate General for Justice at the following link:
      http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/index_en.htm
       
      We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if you have other questions.
       
      *Follow this path to access Parliamentary questions: Indicate the Parliamentary term and add the number/year of the question or use the search by words > press “Search” > click on the document icon > if the question has an answer already, click on the icon “Answer(s)”.
       
      With kind regards,
      EUROPE DIRECT Contact Centre
      http://europa.eu – your shortcut to the EU!
       
      European Year of Citizens 2013
      It’s about Europe, it’s about you – Join the debate!
      http://europa.eu/citizens-2013/
       
      Disclaimer
      Please note that the information provided by EUROPE DIRECT is not legally binding.”



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top