Independence - how would you vote?

[Saor Alba]

Seriously though: what's the difference between, say, workers in Britain and those in other parts of Europe etc? And why do the Nordics for example achieve so much more 'alone' than what the UK does?

"Ravenscraig Closes in 1992 and steel making comes to an end in Scotland. If Scotland had been independent it could have been supported."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjkKkYR0yxE

[xbl]

Putting aside Ad Lib reaching a new low and Tryfield being exposed as a liar, again, the good thing about that business poll is that on its own it is meaningless. However, combined with everything else, its another indicator of the direction of travel of the independence argument. The tide is definitely turning!

[Tryfield]

Speaking of, are you ready to tell us where you discovered this "FACT" that we would have to join the Euro? Or did you just make that up and pass it off as a "fact"?

You and your fellow campaigners will need to show the residents of Scotland who do not want to be politically and financially further integrated in the big web that it wont happen.

I can't see that happening.

Me thinks I've wasted a hunner quid. Oh well, easy come, easy go.

[Tryfield]

The tide is definitely turning!

[Ad Lib]

That doesn't answer my very important question, but thanks for trying at least.

Except it does. The BBC hasn't done it because it's institutionally biased because of its origins and its funding source, and the rest of the media hasn't done it because it's biased and chases hat it thinks is its biggest audience (soft c conservatives with a suspicion of the unknown) and pursues what serves its best interests, which is to preserve a system which ensures high circulation and viewership and protects their revenue streams.

There's no such thing as neutral media. And people tolerate the facade of neutrality of the BBC because they erroneously think otherwise and because there's no interest in other people with the ability to change it to challenge it.

[vikingTON]

The high propensity of Scottish independence coverage across all political media in the United Kingdom.

I don't think this is the case so... where is your evidence to support this claim?

If it weren't a live issue that they thought drove ratings, circulation and credibility, the UK papers wouldn't cover it.

The Independent publishing an article does not constitute a story that drives ratings and credibility. The Independent runs thousands of stories: you have yet to show why this would be higher up its list of priorities, and why the editorial staff would fabricate a quote to do so.

You're fooling absolutely no-one with your mewling defence and faux ignorance.

Yet they do. Exhaustively. Why do you think that is?

They don't, and when pressed, you have provided not a scrap of evidence to show that they do. All in an utterly cringeworthy attempt to save your fellow Unionist, fellow Glasgow Law Troll associate from a well-deserved and already delivered pasting.

And as a result you lose the last shred of your credibility on the thread. Gutter.

[xbl]

You and your fellow campaigners will need to show the residents of Scotland who do not want to be politically and financially further integrated in the big web that it wont happen.

I can't see that happening.

Me thinks I've wasted a hunner quid. Oh well, easy come, easy go.

So where is this "FACT"? When will Bulgaria be joining the Euro if it is a "FACT" that Scotland will have to join?

[EON]

Except it does. The BBC hasn't done it because it's institutionally biased because of its origins and its funding source, and the rest of the media hasn't done it because it's biased and chases hat it thinks is its biggest audience (soft c conservatives with a suspicion of the unknown) and pursues what serves its best interests, which is to preserve a system which ensures high circulation and viewership and protects their revenue streams.

There's no such thing as neutral media. And people tolerate the facade of neutrality of the BBC because they erroneously think otherwise and because there's no interest in other people with the ability to change it to challenge it.

Newspapers like the Scotchman etc I can understand, obviously, I was merely poking fun at them.

The BBC however should have absolutely no political inclination whatsofuckingever. Frankly, anything you say regarding that matter is meaningless to me. At least you tried, though.

[EON]

You and your fellow campaigners will need to show the residents of Scotland who do not want to be politically and financially further integrated in the big web that it wont happen.

I can't see that happening.

Evidence/proof for these claims please. Thanks.

[Tryfield]

So where is this "FACT"? When will Bulgaria be joining the Euro if it is a "FACT" that Scotland will have to join?

Where does it say they wont?

They, and an independent Scotland would be told what to do. More so Scotland as a positive contributor.

You see, it's things like this that will make the undecideds say no no no. Not everyone has been brainwashed.

[Ad Lib]

I don't think this is the case so... where is your evidence to support this claim?

Google "Scottish independence referendum" and compare it with the number of hits 4 years ago.

The Independent publishing an article does not constitute a story that drives ratings and credibility. The Independent runs thousands of stories: you have yet to show why this would be higher up its list of priorities, and why the editorial staff would fabricate a quote to do so.

I didn't say it constituted a story that drives ratings and credibility. But it's what they PERCEIVE to be the case. Again, I'll simply ask you to use Google to compare the volume of Independent articles on independence in the last 24 months and compare it to the last decade.

You're fooling absolutely no-one with your mewling defence and faux ignorance.

Defence *of what*? Be VERY specific. I've still not been told what I'm defending and what against.

They don't, and when pressed, you have provided not a scrap of evidence to show that they do. All in an utterly cringeworthy attempt to save your fellow Unionist, fellow Glasgow Law Troll associate from a well-deserved and already delivered pasting.

They do. Learn how to use Google. And ask yourself why the Daily Mail is the highest circulation paper in the UK. Ask yourself what kind of independence articles the demographic of newspaper readers in the UK are most likely to be amenable to. The answer, of course, is superficial, sensationalist claims which represent the dominant sentiments towards Scottish independence across the UK, which is mainly anti, and even then a significant influence on some English support for it is negative sentiment surrounding the subsidy junkie myth.

And no one has actually told me what I'm supposed to have "defended" H_B from. I didn't even read his posts. I just read Swampy asking why a newspaper would make up a quote. Like it's not a common occurrence in the mainstream media.

And as a result you lose the last shred of your credibility on the thread. Gutter.

Yawn.

[EON]

Where does it say they wont?

They, and an independent Scotland would be told what to do. More so Scotland as a positive contributor.

You see, it's things like this that will make the undecideds say no no no. Not everyone has been brainwashed.

Are Denmark, Sweden and Finland bossed around by the EU? Be very to the point here please.

[Ad Lib]

Newspapers like the Scotchman etc I can understand, obviously, I was merely poking fun at them.

The BBC however should have absolutely no political inclination whatsofuckingever. Frankly, anything you say regarding that matter is meaningless to me. At least you tried, though.

I'm not saying the BBC should have a political inclination. I'm saying that it does and inevitably does, and that you can't stop it from doing so. Which is why the veneer of neutrality is more pernicious than being blatantly partisan. We should just accept that state bodies can't be neutral on matters of news and information, and either tolerate those biases or get the state the hell out of broadcasting. I choose the latter.

[xbl]

Where does it say they wont?

They, and an independent Scotland would be told what to do. More so Scotland as a positive contributor.

You see, it's things like this that will make the undecideds say no no no. Not everyone has been brainwashed.

I've already posted on this exact thread in response to this exact issue just a week ago, with links and evidence, that Bulgaria have announced that they will not be adopting the Euro. I posted the link and the evidence up and asked you to substantiate your claim.

What you have done is hide for a week, pop back up, and make exactly the same point like the last week never happened. Substantiate your point with evidence or admit it is not a "FACT".

[vikingTON]

Google "Scottish independence referendum" and compare it with the number of hits 4 years ago.

lol wut

That's your evidence? Google hits for a referendum that didn't exist 4 years ago?

The term 'beyond parody' has rarely been more appropriate on this thread.

I didn't say it constituted a story that drives ratings and credibility. But it's what they PERCEIVE to be the case. Again, I'll simply ask you to use Google to compare the volume of Independent articles on independence in the last 24 months and compare it to the last decade.

No such study would reveal the interior, sinister motives of The Independent editorial staff, fabricating quotes from the CDU Government. Either put up with your evidence for this or shut up.

They do. Learn how to use Google. And ask yourself why the Daily Mail is the highest circulation paper in the UK. Ask yourself what kind of independence articles the demographic of newspaper readers in the UK are most likely to be amenable to. The answer, of course, is superficial, sensationalist claims which represent the dominant sentiments towards Scottish independence across the UK, which is mainly anti, and even then a significant influence on some English support for it is negative sentiment surrounding the subsidy junkie myth.

There is not a single scrap of evidence that the Daily Mail's popularity and the Scottish independence debate are even remotely connected. I'm not in the habit of drawing Venn diagrams, but if someone could place your two claims in entirely separate circles, that is what we're dealing with here. You are flailing around wildly in your effort to dispute the most obvious source of this story: the UK Government's briefing, not the nefarious plan for media domination hatched by The Independent.

Once again, beyond parody.

And no one has actually told me what I'm supposed to have "defended" H_B from. I didn't even read his posts. I just read Swampy asking why a newspaper would make up a quote. Like it's not a common occurrence in the mainstream media.

Uh huh, of course you did. You just happened to pop in when your fellow troll was being utterly trashed, with some cock and bull story about Scottish independence being the UK equivalent of Watergate.

Seems legit.

[Tryfield]

Are Denmark, Sweden and Finland bossed around by the EU? Be very to the point here please.

Fcuk off ya clown.

[xbl]

Fcuk off ya clown.

Clown? You? Calling people clowns? When will Bulgaria be joining the Euro? Fortunately, I thought your memory might be problematic, so here is one I made earlier.

You are the one that called it a "fact", not me. Defend YOUR fact.

But okay. A number of countries have joined the EU in recent years. Almost

all had to commit to joining "one day". However, to join the Euro, they have to join the ERM, which is voluntary. Still with me so far? Now we constantly get told that this opt out was only for older members, not the newer members. Still with me?

So the most recent country to join, Bulgaria in 2009, announced that they

would not be joining the Euro, shelving their plans indefinitely. There were a complete lack of stormtroopers and sanctions that followed this. The EU didn't care. So why would we HAVE to join, but mighty Bulgaria wouldn't?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443759504577629323056333022.html

Furthermore, it isn't possible to join the Euro on day one. It requires

years of membership of the ERM and other conditions, so it would take YEARS to finalise joining the Euro, even if we wanted to on day one, which isn't going to happen. So there is absolutely no way we will be forced to join the Euro. This wasn't a very hard thing to prove.

Furtherfurthermore, how are the No camp going to use this "fact"? Won't it

contradict their claim that we won't be allowed in?

Now, your turn. You made a statement, justify it.

[EON]

I'm not saying the BBC should have a political inclination. I'm saying that it does and inevitably does, and that you can't stop it from doing so. Which is why the veneer of neutrality is more pernicious than being blatantly partisan. We should just accept that state bodies can't be neutral on matters of news and information, and either tolerate those biases or get the state the hell out of broadcasting. I choose the latter.

Erm... why? Are all Liberal Democrats gutless like this?

It is something I 'have' to fucking pay for, and it doesn't represent my views or provide any sort of balance on this extremely important issue.

[Tryfield]

I've already posted on this exact thread in response to this exact issue just a week ago, with links and evidence, that Bulgaria have announced that they will not be adopting the Euro. I posted the link and the evidence up and asked you to substantiate your claim.

What you have done is hide for a week, pop back up, and make exactly the same point like the last week never happened. Substantiate your point with evidence or admit it is not a "FACT".

I shall be spreading the word to any undecideds I know that the EURO is what they will get if they vote YES.

Eventually, that is where we would be headed if we went alone. No doubt about it.

[EON]

Fcuk off ya clown.

'Proving I don't have the slightest fucking clue' type-post.