Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

I find this "but the Tories are arseholes" logic circular. You think that the Tories are nasty because of the things that they do, but you then also assume that the things that they do are necessarily nasty because they are Tories. Exactly what do they have to do for you to accept they aren't anything other than utter pure evil?

Something that isn't pure evil? That would be a start? As a party goes, they are pretty evil, although I prefer them to Labour on the basis that they actually say they are going to be pure evil, and then deliver.

Edited to add, although to be fair to them, they have delivered gay marriage, which you can tell isn't evil by the way the rank and file objected to it.

[DeeGas]

Prince George is a little rascal apparently.

Ahhh!

God save the Queen.

Better Together.

[Ad Lib]

Something that isn't pure evil? That would be a start? As a party goes, they are pretty evil, although I prefer them to Labour on the basis that they actually say they are going to be pure evil, and then deliver.

And how would you measure this "something that isn't pure evil" if not by, well, the content of their actions? Why won't you let their endorsement of a more progressive student finance system influence that opinion?

[xbl]

And how would you measure this "something that isn't pure evil" if not by, well, the content of their actions? Why won't you let their endorsement of a more progressive student finance system influence that opinion?

Because it is without a doubt intended as a way for the Tories to save a few quid.

[ForzaDundee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23762792

[Ad Lib]

Because it is without a doubt intended as a way for the Tories to save a few quid.

But it represents *more* government money going into Universities (£50 million a year more state money than the old system). It only saves the government money if graduate earnings explode above inflation and current projections within the next 20 years or so!

[Enigma]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23762792

Ooooh we might have to apply for the Commonwealth. Do you think they'll accept us?

[Swampy]

Ooooh we might have to apply for the Commonwealth. Do you think they'll accept us?

I reckon Spain might veto us.

[Swampy]

Come to think of it, this is the best news yet. Maybe we can cancel their stupid fucking games.

[DeeGas]

Mr Funny Eye Brows is coming across very well on Hard Talk.

Better Together.

[DeeGas]

If Scotland stab the UK in the back then yes, reject them completely from the Commonwealth.

f**k off with Scadanavia,the German Empire (if they have ya!) and the Rep Irish etc.....

[Talion]

Less good than England.

0/10.

[renton]

So, since the crash we've lost a few posts. Yes Scotland have been hacked and are the media leading with this story? Well actually they'd rather lead with an attack on yes Scotland that an academic was paid for his time to write an article that subsequently appeared in the Herald. BT, and in particular MacDougall just look pathetic over this.

[~~~]

So Henry McLeish comes out with some home truths about the Labour Party and the way Better Together are running the unionist campaign

The response from labour?

Go join the SNP

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-critics-call-for-mcleish-to-join-snp-1-3054753

[Colkitto]

So, since the crash we've lost a few posts. Yes Scotland have been hacked and are the media leading with this story? Well actually they'd rather lead with an attack on yes Scotland that an academic was paid for his time to write an article that subsequently appeared in the Herald. BT, and in particular MacDougall just look pathetic over this.

McDougall has been well backed up by the Unionist press on this one.

[Ad Lib]

It does seem a little odd that YesScotland would pay someone to write a contribution to the Herald then for that financial contribution not to be declared. What they waste their money on is really their business, but you'd have expected at the very least that the Herald be made aware of the contribution.

[Colkitto]

It does seem a little odd that YesScotland would pay someone to write a contribution to the Herald then for that financial contribution not to be declared. What they waste their money on is really their business, but you'd have expected at the very least that the Herald be made aware of the contribution.

Why? The article was offered to the Herald but they wouldn't pay for it. The Yes campaign did, and the Herald printed it.

[Ad Lib]

Why? The article was offered to the Herald but they wouldn't pay for it. The Yes campaign did, and the Herald printed it.

When someone is offered money by a political organisation to write something, the fact that money has changed hands ought to be disclosed to those reading the article. Purely in the interests of transparency. If Bulmer is being presented as an erm... independent academic, when in fact the donation indicates an affiliation not simply to "independence" but to "YesScotland" then those reading the article should be made aware of this.

It is standard practice among academics to disclose their funding sources, however tenuous or benign, to published work, even where there is no direction or instruction as to the content by those paying the money. It's about accountability.

I find it peculiar that either a) the money given by YesScotland to Elliot Bulmer/his organisation was not declared to the Herald, whose column inches it occupied, or alternatively b) that the Herald was informed of this payment but did not see fit to disclose it.

The hacking stuff is really a separate issue and one for the police to investigate. Depending on whether they can identify who if anyone has gained unauthorised access to the email accounts in question, it may or may not be embarrassing for any actual participants in the referendum campaign. We'll have to wait and see. In much the same way as the fact Bradley Manning broke the law doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the WikiLeak cables, the hacking issue doesn't mean we shouldn't question the failure to disclose YesScotland paying Elliot Bulmer to write an article in the Herald.

[invergowrie arab]

I agree that there should be a wee note at the bottom of the article saying who paid for it if it was paid for. Its not exactly dishonest as it is common practice but its not something im happy with for any side.

Of course, how that information was gathered now appears to be entirely irrelevant

[Baxter Parp]

When someone is offered money by a political organisation to write something, the fact that money has changed hands ought to be disclosed to those reading the article. Purely in the interests of transparency. If Bulmer is being presented as an erm... independent academic, when in fact the donation indicates an affiliation not simply to "independence" but to "YesScotland" then those reading the article should be made aware of this.

It is standard practice among academics to disclose their funding sources, however tenuous or benign, to published work, even where there is no direction or instruction as to the content by those paying the money. It's about accountability.

I find it peculiar that either a) the money given by YesScotland to Elliot Bulmer/his organisation was not declared to the Herald, whose column inches it occupied, or alternatively b) that the Herald was informed of this payment but did not see fit to disclose it.

The hacking stuff is really a separate issue and one for the police to investigate. Depending on whether they can identify who if anyone has gained unauthorised access to the email accounts in question, it may or may not be embarrassing for any actual participants in the referendum campaign. We'll have to wait and see. In much the same way as the fact Bradley Manning broke the law doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the WikiLeak cables, the hacking issue doesn't mean we shouldn't question the failure to disclose YesScotland paying Elliot Bulmer to write an article in the Herald.

"I was asked to write a piece based on my constitutional expertise. I accepted fair payment for my work - as I, as a freelance academic and contributor, have every right to do. I would do the same if anyone else asked for a working day of my time. I had full editorial control and was not given any direction on what to say, neither by Yes Scotland nor by my Constitutional Commission colleagues.

"Although my position as Research Director of the Constitutional Commission was mentioned in the author bio, the article was written in a personal capacity. That said, there was nothing in the article that would compromise the Constitutional Commission's position, nor conflict with its charitable remit.

"Moreover, while my own preference for independence is a matter of public record - I've never been shy about it - the Constitutional Commission exists to provide well-researched information to the public about constitutional choices, and its membership contains divergent views on a range of constitutional questions, including the question of whether Scotland should be an independent state." - Dr. Bulmer.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7902-moves-to-smear-yes-scotland-underway-as-more-details-of-hacking-claims-emerge

How eager you are to accommodate Unionist smears.