UKC

The BBC were always going to support the union. But this week their bias has become so blatant it's quite frightening.

Nick Robinson has been particularly bad.

It's a sad state of affairs.

In reply to Donnie:

There's another thread.. it does look bad but I thought Salmonds attack was down right out of order..

Why should the people not know as much as possible before making a vote?

I think the BBC are fairly impartial, they break good and bad news, this was bad news for the YES..

But they didn't lie, or report rumours, they leaked factual information that another major bank was shifting its HQ due to concerns over the currency issues.

I do think the BBC should have risen above his attack though..

I'm actually a bit surprised that so many think its right that stuff like this isn't publicised?

We all know it will happen, independence will cause significant bumps in both countries economies, thats what people have to think, balance the pros and the cons, and they should be given as much information to balance those 2 sides out and come to their own decision.. not just the side Salmond wants the people to have…

In reply to Donnie:

Don't worry, the Yes campaign are offering to send the boys round to anyone who disagrees with them.... subject to a Yes result of course.

In reply to Donnie:



Is it bias though?

Might make some people sit up and think for a minute.

Just as well ,imo ,that Nick Robinson is on our screens to bring a bit of reality into our living rooms.

More and more I ask the question; Salmond :- How the hell can people still believe in this man?

In reply to Donnie:

Well I don't know about the BBC but it's widely accepted that Nick Robinson is basically the official BBC Tory guy.

In reply to RomTheBear:

"widely accepted" by you, you mean?

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes + 1

In reply to stroppygob:

Yes widely. In 2010 there were public calls for him to be fired because of bias.
Famously he was also the President of the Conservative Party youth group, and has a long history of being criticised for his biased approach.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes, well, lefties will always call for anyone who doesn't totally believe in their sacred truths to be sacked.

A bit of balancing isn't a bad thing;

In reply to Donnie:

In that video Robinson comes across as a Paxman wannabe and ends up sounding like a bit of a d1ck.

In reply to IainRUK:

I think the criticism was more about Nick Robinson reporting about the press conference by simply showing a shot of himself asking a rhetorical question and reporting none of the reply, lol.

Overall no media is impartial, certainly not the state medias ! The only way is to look at different sources IMHO.

In reply to stroppygob:

What does someone'S perception of left bias in 1979 have to do with the Scottish Referendum?

In reply to stroppygob:

Well i agree that for some time the BBC was clearly biased to the centre left.
However Nick Robinson has a long history of bias that is almost unrivalled by anyone on the BBC.

In reply to aln:


At least Paxman never pretended to be an impartial journalist.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Fair enough then, they are biased both directions at times. We can agree on that.

In reply to stroppygob:


Of course. But regarding Nick Robison I don't think he should be the political editor of the BBC.
From inviting Tory friends as "independent experts" on panels, misreporting facts, publicly assaulting peace protesters... He's done it all in total impunity and usually gets away with a public apology. He is damaging BBC's reputation and credibility, IMO.

In reply to Donnie:
On another topic I was in the pub with one of my friends earlier, and she was telling me that her daughter attended the bigbigdebate at the Hydro. Apparently, she was told by BBC staff to pretend she was a no voter and to sit quietly amongst another group of no voter without clapping or cheering, because they were concerned they didn't have enough noes... Other teens reported the same.

Quite embarrassing for the BBC to try to influence the audience... I'm surprised they couldn't simply arrange to have a representative audience in the first place.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The BBC tore Blair a new arse over Iraq.. there was a lot of bad blood over it..

In reply to RomTheBear:


Can you explain?

In reply to IainRUK:

I think Blair tore the BBC a new arse. If it was anything other than state broadcaster, its now more akin to stenography than journalism.

D

In reply to andymac:

Look at this: http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/bbc-reporter-caught-red-handed-man...

and also the research from that Prof John guy (can't remember his name).

In reply to Donnie: Curious that Salmond is more interested in the BBC splashing a story a few hours early rather than the issue of all the financial institutions' plans to flee an iScotland. Is the list of excuses close to hand?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I see now banks, supermarkets, businessmen and sundry others have been added to the bullies list.

In reply to RomTheBear:


FFS this has been standard form by the "liberal (and not so liberal) left" at the bBC for fifty years.
Kirsty Wark interviewing nulabour was like an Islington dinner party.

In reply to MG: It's bizarre, why on earth should companies be concerned about what currency they would be using, or what regulatory framework, or whether they'll be in the EU or out, or whether there will be a central bank to act as a lender of last resort, or whether they will be paying import tariffs? Why can't they just accept everything will be fine?

In reply to Postmanpat:

What's more likely is that the BBC coverage tends (overall, doubtless with many quotable exceptions) to reflect the prevailing political mood of the day. When NuLabour was in power - at least at first - it had very widespread support. At present the mood is more right wing than I ever can recall it being in my lifetime - even under thatcher - and it appears the BBC may be reflecting that.

In reply to MG:


Well Comrade, in the new Socialist Utopia of North Britain, we shall follow the former GDR model, and have State Supermarkets to cater for our every need.
So the 'Luxury' outlets such as Lidl, Aldi, and Morrisons, will only be patronised , by loyal Party Apparatchiks.......Now about that 'Currency'?!

In reply to Postmanpat:



I know, time has changed though. Now the BBC has quite a strong rightwing bias.

According to most studies, there is always a bias towards political incumbents, but the ratio in favour of Conservative politicians appearing on BBC news is far greater than it was in favour of Labour figures when Gordon Brown was prime minister

In reply to dek: .


The Scottish Rupee of course !

In reply to john arran:


I think there is a element of that. It's noticeable that the referendum coverage has given the "yes" camp much better coverage as their share of the polls grew.

But during the before, during and after Thatcher era the BBC was well to the left of centre. Some were political activists but I think most just assumed that their views were "the centre" so should be represented as such.

There is still a lot of the latter about but the drift of the middle class (who inhabit the BBC) to "the right" and the public pressure not to be the audio/visual edition of the Grauniad have combined to force change.

In reply to RomTheBear:
That'll be the Scots 'Bawbee'...(Old skool. teuchter money)

In reply to Donnie:
The BBC sadly now acts like an arm of the Tory party. Their fawning coverage of the royal family, the Thatcher funeral and their unwillingness to cover anti establishment movements are just a few examples of their lack of balance. But their bias during the referendum has been shameful and a little sinister. Without the internet we would have been left with a very one sided and distorted vow of the debate. Let's see what kind of intelligent analysis they off about the links between the No campaign and the bigots and xenophobes of the Orange Order marching to support unionism in Edinburgh today. The last time they were mobilised it was to oppose the creation of an Irish Free State.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Looks like you watched the BBC edited version rather than the real version, Sir Chasm. Salmond addressed the issue of banks moving their registered offices in detail and quite convincingly before moving on (more briefly) to the BBC's role in leaking a market sensitive story. That's not the impression you would get from watching the BBC's reporting. It's not surprising that people get a false impression when our (formerly) most respected broadcaster is doing things like this.

Salmond :- How the hell can people still believe in this man?

It's a vote for independence, not for Salmond or SNP

Stuart

In reply to dek:


I have a million ScotCoins tucked away in a digital wallet, that should cover at least my lunch for the day after independence

In reply to Stuart the postie:

In the event of a yes vote, Salmond will be one of the architects of the new Scottish constitution, he will have a huge say in the future of Scotland.

In reply to 999thAndy:

According to the Scottish Independence Bill, the first independent Parliament, elected in May 2016, must establish a constitutional convention to draft the permanent written constitution of Scotland.

So the first draft of the Scottish constitution would depend of which party has a majority at this point.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Absolutely. I think the thing which makes me most angry about Salmond is the way he talks as if a Yes vote would be a personal mandate for him to run Scotland as he wishes. The referendum is not about his or anyone else's policies; it is purely and simply about independence.

In reply to Donnie:


If a bit of BBC "No" bias makes it more likely I'll actually be able to get the BBC in future, then I'm all for it.

In reply to alastairmac:


Which, amazingly, could reflect the fact that they are an arm of the establishment, not an arm of the Tory party.

In reply to john arran:

I think that it is much more that there are internal corporate biases in media that are in keeping with the corporate democracies we now have, whether they be nulabour of the coalition.

In reply to Postmanpat:


With respect to Nick, I'm sure it's far more simply that he's a Tory, and has been active as such since his School days.

In reply to Saor Alba:



John Robertson? https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005589228387

A good example of an impartial and objective analyst...

In reply to contrariousjim:


I think he hides his prejudices about as well as the hordes of BBC journalists of the left have always hidden theirs . It makes me chuckle that when, for the first time in decades, the BBC has a senior political journalist from the "right" the Grauniad mob erupts into howls of "bias".

But alastairmac was commenting on the BBC generally rather than Robinson in particular I believe.
Anybody who can listen to Jenni Murray on Womens' hour and still think the BBC is Tory must be barking.

In reply to Donnie:

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaint/alexsalmondrbsquestion/

In reply to MG:


Looking again at the video (now being much hawked around the internets) the version I have seen only shows 25 seconds of the News at 6 report. It would be very interesting to see the full (or a fuller) report, unfortunately now dropped off Iplayer.

I wonder if "another party" has also been guilty of selective editing?

In reply to Donnie:

What has being right wing or not got to do with independance ? ALL the major parties are against it and the BBC is presumably reporting from the perspective of the majority of its viewers/listners who are not split 50:50 on the issue.

In reply to Donnie:



When you realise that he's actually this guy you'll find it quite impressive that he says anything half intelligent:

http://www.xpat-net.com/1944-large_default/homepride-self-raising-flour-1kg...

In reply to GrahamD:


And, given the mess that the BBC itself would face if Scotland becomes independent, it's scarcely surprising if they're a teensy weensy bit biased against it:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/fe...

In reply to felt:
you're on a run with your doppelgangers- keep it up

In reply to Donnie:
The BBC have aduty to be impartial and comprehensive. That are letting down all licence payers and their own journalistic integrity (sic) by being neither. I have been at massive demonstrations of support for the Yes vote in. Glasgow today. Ignored by the BBC. While a minor gathering by Jim Murphy is covered. And the BBC have managed the not inconsiderable feat of making the sectarian bigots of the Orange Order appear to be reasonable voters who just happen to carry banners saying "no popery". Whatever the outcome on Thursday we deserve better.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Grauniads think that they have an inherent moral and intellectual superiority over everyone, so they have no need to justify themselves - they are just "correct" so anything they do or say is justified. The left-wing, Gruaniad bias of the BBC is so obvious as to barely need commenting on. Newsnight is now completely packed with Guardianistas, it corresponds to the old joke about channel 4 news - "turn up, read out Guardian, collect 3/4 million pounds", even the editor is directly transferred from the Guardian, as are most of the staff. For left-wingers, the end still justifies the means, just as much as it did when they were excusing or denying the gulag under Stalin or Mao.

The BBC purchases more copies of the (tiny minority interest) Guardian than it does of any other paper, it is in fact the largest single purchaser of the Guardian. Notoriously it spends 85% of the job advertising revenue in the Guardian, totally un-necessarily as it could just place jobs on its own website.

There is in any case an easy solution to BBC bias - just abolish the licence fee and the compulsion to pay for it, then it can be as biased as left wingers want, but it will have to sing for its own supper. If people think it is shit or biased, they won't have to pay for it. Very few people other than Guardianistas will then pay for it on its merits.


Not as bad as Kirsty Squawk, just LOVES hectoring and preaching at anyone who questions the virtues of an authoritarian big-state, also never lets anyone she is whining at get a word in edgeways.

In reply to alastairmac:
Alastair, I was at the Yes demo in Buchanan Street, Glasgow today aswell. Took the baby there in the buggy as wife has the lurgy and needed break.

Great carnival atmosphere. A no stand next to the yes stand. Literally thousands of people. Folk talking politics in the street. No eggs, No Bombs, no bullets and no smarmy politicians!

As you say the Beeb reported none of it. They are also not reporting the huge anti-nhs privatisation demos which are happening in England at the moment. The Nick Robinson report (or his cut) is disgraceful and there are times in the past when Beeb Journalists would've been sacked for less.

Channel 4 did better today on the Orange Order reporting. To be fair these bigots aren't representative of most no voters but then neither are the extremes in the yes camp who've been receiving more than their fair share off Beeb coverage: re Jim Murphy mob
Personally, over the last few months I've realised my license fee is worth diddly squat in real terms. Think it's time to move over to internet only...

In reply to RomTheBear:



Thanks for posting that - I was wondering who it was that literally hundreds of people on FB were posting about with various (remarkably similar) versions of the same story (always a "friend" they were speaking to) - but it actually was your actual friend who you met in the actual pub. Thanks for posting - I assumed it was one of those made up things on social media.

In reply to Donnie:
Yes. Great atmosphere. I am encouraged by some of the new information and comment sites like Bella Caledonia. As with politics I think other new and more adventurous / independent alternatives are emerging that will compete very effectively with the traditional publishers and the BBC. Once publicly subsidised news services start deciding to broadcast their own version of the truth or what the establishment wants us to hear it's an ominous sign. Time for the BBC to stop forelock tugging and remember what we pay them to do.

In reply to Jon Wylie:


Isn't capitalism a great thing?

In reply to Jon Wylie:

Its the second story on the BBC website!

In reply to Postmanpat:


They say the postman always rings twice but this is getting daft!

Well the internet is...helps to bypass the media shutdown

In reply to MG:
I'm talking about the tv news that loads of people watch.....

Even taking that into account the Buchanan street footage doesn't show the thousands that were there....nor does it show the orange order stuff

In reply to Donnie:

The British Brainwashing Company has always been the same, they had a weapons grade peadophile running around there for years, but no stories about it, and they announced wtc7 had fallen down before it had and then made out there was no knowledge of an inside job. It's just a tool of the state for influencing public perception. So it's no wonder it's carrying on now according to an agenda.

In reply to Donnie:

I'm not a Tory, but I've listened to Nick Robinson many, many times on the Today programme, and find him to be an intelligent and perceptive observer and interpreter of events.

If I were a Scot and had a vote, I would now seriously consider voting Yes. I would want to remain in the EU, one of the great civilizing ideas of modern times, and whatever short-term hiccups there may be, in the long term I would right now reckon the risk of being out of the EU to be greater within the UK, with its populist UKIP and UKIP-esque movements, and its horrid Orange Order ahdherents, than without, as Scotland.

In reply to The Mystery Toad:




I'm a bit off topic but, You'll need to narrow that one down...could be a few. I reckon you might mean SIr Jimmy Saville. That late great Knight of the Realm. Last I heard his knighthood couldn't be removed as it didn't exist in death...

The establishment couldn't just say "he was an evil c**t and never shouldve been knighted"..

I don't mind the Orange Order going around but they totally trashed the Meadows in Edinburgh today. Plastic bottles and crisps packets everywhere, there was about a dozen council employees picking up everything...

What is it with these people that they love crisps so much ? Are they sponsored by Walkers or something ?

In reply to mbh:



I think this is a very sane response - which supporters of 'No' (like myself) will empathise with

In reply to mbh:

I think it's about time someone posted this - if only to wind up Postman Pat....

youtube.com/watch?v=5rU8YU3loeQ&

In reply to RomTheBear:




Aahahaha funniest post this year so far for me

In reply to Removed User:



I loved the comic timing of the second sign popping up just as he spits the dummy and destroys the first

In reply to Greenbanks:

He said he is a "one-nation Tory" and anti-eu, I have no problem with that but at least he is honest.

In reply to mbh:


Yes, this is the only argument for inependence that I buy into; in the long term an independent Scotland is more likely to be in the EU than an intact UK. If there is to be an EU referendum, I wish it had been before the independence one, so that I knew where the UK stood with respect to Europe. I want to be in Scotland, The UK and Europe.

In reply to mbh:



Fair point, except that...

There is no guarantee of Scotland's acceptance into the EU, and if it is accepted what terms it might be accepted in.
There is no guarantee of a UK referendum on the EU - it is wholly dependent both on an outright Conservative win at the next election.
It is unknown whether EU membership would be rejected in any referendum - espite the fear generated by UKIP they actually make up less than 2% of council seats.

In reply to Removed User:



I enjoyed it !

In reply to Postmanpat:


It was terrible.

"Looses" FFS.

And "cut the war not the poor"? They want to increase poverty? Or increase the number of poor?

There's nothing that incenses me more than incoherent protestors...

In reply to off-duty:
Yes...unknown unknowns ... risks ... which is more likely? What step would have what influence?

I would love Scotland to remain as part of the UK. But I understand that a greater drive is to remain as part of something even greater - the EU and the democratic ideas that it stands for. The EU is often derided as ineffective, and perhaps it is in a quick-acting military sense, but that is to ignore what it can and has done. For example, I think the EU was instrumental in defusing the Irish Troubles. Once both sides found that their "Home" nations were part of the same greater entity, one that had a greater vision than they ever had, it all seemed very parochial, and all but the thuggiest of factions melted away.

In reply to off-duty:

Maybe that's why so many of your lot like battering them eh!

In reply to Removed User:


Even if it was a rhetorical question, you really should have finished with a question mark.

It's mister truncheon for you...

In reply to alastairmac:

I know, the heartless biased BBC totally ignored it.

Apart from it being the third article on their news website front page.

The second article on their UK news front page

The second article on their Scottish news front page.

Despite it only being held off the top spot by the murder of David Haines, they have ignored it totally.

:roll:

In reply to alastairmac:


Look the biased BBC are even failing to report a "Yes" rally in Wales, by craftily hiding it as the lead Wales News article....

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-29189446

In reply to RomTheBear:


You mean the smackeroonie.

How much to go from Edinburgh to Glasgow by cab? "That'll be 50 smackeroonies."

In reply to stroppygob:

It also hid

"Few in Wales want Scots breakaway" in the same section…

and a rally of 400 people.. if they reported every rally of 400 people we'd have a ruddy big website..

In reply to Donnie:
When the BBC gets lots of accusation of bias on both sides, it means they are more or less in the right place.

For example on the Gaza issue they got around 900 complaints of bias from pro-Palestinians and around 900 complains from pro-Israeli...
In this debate though there haven't been many accusations of bias from the no side.

This could mean that Yessers are inherently different from the Noers and tend to complain more, but I am not so sure about this.

I think it reflects the press in general which even in Scotland has almost entirely sided with the No, apart from the Herald.

Anyway very good Andrew Marr show this morning with Salmond and Darling, calm and reasoned interviews and proper questions, equal time for both parties.

In reply to stroppygob:


Are you sure? Who are you thinking of?

In reply to IainRUK:






Wasn't the actual leak from Treasury?

In reply to Timmd:

It was a joke, I was playing up to my stereotype here.

In reply to Morgan Woods: I think (not absolutely sure) that the crime of leaking share sensitive "insider" info is committed by the "insider) (i.e. someone from HMT as the shareholder), not the BBC.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

i don't know..

I just think the BBC should publish leaks if credible.. rumours no.

Say there is a leak and the BBC find out that come a NO vote then the tory's will somehow force Scotland to charge tuition fees. The BBC should report that.

News that is credible which informs about what will happen, what contingency plans are in place, should be reported..

I actually disagree with RtB over the BBC and Blair.. at the time they were pretty much at war during the Iraq War, dossier issue..

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bbctimeline.html

In reply to RomTheBear:

Marr's superb.. he has his views and will put people in his place, very much a no bullshit interviewer but really goes for the truth and try's to get balance.

In reply to Donnie:
I think this will now be be a No vote Donnie, but I also now think that there will be another referendum in my lifetime.( I'm 55)

I think this, because they have left the door open to claims that the process was not scrupulously fair.

There will for sure be ( founded or unfounded) resentment that there was media bias, and scaremongering orchestrated by London.

But possibly more so, is that Westminster gambled on denying a question on more powers ,ON the ballot paper, insisting instead that the Scots had a straightforward choice.
Vote Yes for independence or No for the status Quo .

NO new powers (beyond those that had been coming anyway. )

And THEN Westminster changed the rules just before the vote.

And there IS some credible evidence for this .
When the Devo Max question was muted, Cameron said that :-

The only way the Scottish people could have more powers, is to vote for independence- More powers for Scotland is incompatable with remaining in the UK.

Obviously now this is proven NOT to be true.

The Westminster proposition to the people living in Scotland, was, that the vote is not about more powers, but a simple single issue, full independence - or nothing.
( That, however, is NOT now what is on offer. )

To do a U- Turn on this has ,very likely, ensured a No vote( in the short term) but also opens the door for unhappy Yes voter's claims of -foul play-, and an ongoing demand for a 'fairer' further referendum, 10, 20 years, or so down the line .

So the 'plan' HAS ( by all accounts) worked, the Scottish People will very likely 'trust' Cameron, and vote No. His legacy will not be tarnished ( by losing Scotland at least)

However, there will be a reluctance not to deliver much in the way of new powers, as all three parties know that there will be calls to match any powers they give to Scotland, to other regions who also are also unhappy with their relationship with Westminster.
The three of them will meet and seek a consensus, starting at the minimum powers that any of them offered, and then further reduce them as much as possible.

So, I argue the vote will be No, but the 3 Westminster parties will gamble on delivering very little in the way of new powers, and hope the Scots will settle for this (forever.)

At least the Scots have no choice but to accept whatever they 'are given' -
For now at least.

(I will come back on here in 20 years or so, to say, I told you so

However, if you have a reasoned counter argument why ( after obtaining their No vote) Westminster Will deliver 'meaningful ' powers to Scotland (that will kill calls for full independence forever) , I would be interested to hear it.

In reply to Jim C:



Surely any London based meejah bias would be playing into the hands of the No vote.

In reply to stroppygob:


Hmmmn

In reply to GrahamD:

Only probably is that BBC News is based and controlled from Media City in Salford.....................

In reply to Jim C:

"The only way the Scottish people could have more powers, is to vote for independence- More powers for Scotland is incompatable with remaining in the UK."

Why do you think that?

I dont think thats true..

I think Scotland/reions can have freedom with certain taxes, like the states.. not major but divide up say income tax allow freedom on the state part.. not majorly, just a few %.. I think that can work.

In reply to Jim C:

The Westminster parties will say and promise anything for a "No" vote. Once in the bag it'll be lost in a bog of bureaucracy. They'll toss us a custard cream in five years or so.

Sadly I think Scotland "The Brave" will bottle-out and vote "No", despite being a wealthy country eminently capable of running its own affairs. By comparison, the Norwegians had nothing in 1905. All this media and corporate wind-and-piss is bound to have an effect on some people.

In doing so we'll throw ourselves on the mercy of the Tories, with their far-right mission to destroy the last vestiges of social democracy. We'll also announce to the entire world that, in a world full of countries that have fought for their independence, we prefer to be a "region" of another. A "wee sleekit, cowrin' timorous" region.

We'll be the laughing-stock of the world, and we'll have chosen it.

In reply to IainRUK:





The big problem with this is that there is no comprehensive constitutional framework to do it. Currently Westminster can give some more powers but overall funding is still decided by Westminster, and they can cancel/veto anything, and most importantly there is always the threat that if new powers are used in a way to doesn't suit Westminster, funding or powers could be reduced.

I think too it can work but you need a federal system with clear separation of powers, and a big enough degree of fiscal autonomy.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You are obsessed with this. The record over 15 years with Scotland and much longer with NI, is that the UK government will let devolved bodies do their thing without interference unless law and order completely collapses, and even then will strive to return to devolved government. There has never been a "threat" of reducing powers, rather the opposite - more and more power has been devolved from London over time ( Scottish and Welsh parliaments, Mayor of London, police commissioners, new Scottish powers). You seem a bit paranoid.

Sure, overall borrowing etc will be controlled by the UK, that is what is involved with a union, but that is a good, stabilising influences not something to be concerned about.

In reply to MG:

Rom is, I think French - he's used to a constitution/ codified laws!

(Sorry to speak for you Rom)

In reply to MG:


Well it's all good but the core of the matter is taxation and fiscal autonomy. Few people actually realise the madness of the current system.

Taxes paid in Scotland go to Westminster and then some of it comes back to Scotland to pay for the devolved administration. The amount of money that comes back depends on the amount of money that is spent on the same administration in England.

It means that in fact the Scottish government has control only over policy for devolved matters, not for funding. If the UK government cuts public services we have to cut as well, even if our economy performs better than the rest of the UK and tax revenue per head is higher than in the rest of the UK.

We have to stop this nonsense and give at least 50% fiscal autonomy to Scotland (with of course a stability arrangement to make sure we keep level of deficit in line with rUK).

In reply to RomTheBear:

So the more prosperous areas of the UK should have more money to spend than the poorer parts? Or just Scotland?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Well that's a different argument to fear of nasty London taking powers away. I have a lot of sympathy with the idea Scotland should raise the taxes it spends on devolved matters. However, there still needs to be UK-wide taxes and transfers, as there are in any other federal(ish) setup.

In reply to Andy Long:

If you think the Tories / Lib Dem coalition is 'far right' I think you need to take a closer look just who else is out there.

In reply to MG:



I would be absolutely fine if it was like that ! The problem is that the Uk doesn't simply control borrowing like you seem to suggest, it controls 90% of the taxation, and 90% of the funding.

What I am saying is that Scotland should control at least 50% of the revenues it raises through taxation.

It's doesn't seem like the end of the world, but looking at the proposal from Labour and Tory party we are not even close to anything like this.

What they are suggesting is that Scotland would be able to change taxation levels on a few selected taxes, but how much of the money resulting from these taxes can be spent will still depend on how much is spent in England.

This is just madness, in these terms, further powers are not useful, they are a curse, it means we have to bear the burden of managing our own things ourselves but we can't reap any of the benefit from it.

In reply to MG:


Completely agree ! I am not asking for anything more than that !
But please look at the Labour and Tory proposals and you'll see that they are light years away from anything of the sort.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I haven't read them in detail but I thought they were proposing somewhere between all and a good chunk of income tax and quite a few other taxes would be devolved? That seems quite close (and certainly not light years away) to what you say you want to me, particularly if pensions etc. are to remain UK wide.

I would be interested to know how Italy, which has a large "centre" with a few "autonomous" regions, such as Aosta, operates. It may be a model for the UK.

In reply to MG:

That's the trick ! The plans are to devolve income tax policy.

But there is no plan whatsoever to give any significant chunks of the tax receipts to Scotland, most of the taxes raised will still go to Westminster, and some of it comes back depending on spending target sets in England.

That's why the Scottish Variable Rate of Income tax was never used, there is no point increasing income tax in Scotland, when the spending decisions taken for England mean that we would still get less funding overall. You'll just end up with higher Scottish taxes but still lower spending in public services.

In reply to RomTheBear:


>
I do not think that that is the case in the current arrangement. At present Scotland has the power to raise income tax by 3p. That is in addition to the Barnett Formula. If there is any doubt then the Scottish government could have spent some of the last 7 years getting a definitive answer.

I would be more impressed by the SNP's 'if only we had the tools we could do so much more line' if they actually used the tools they have, and stopped running scare stories on the NHS and Education which are entirely devolved matters where they already have the means to inject more money but choose not to do so.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Indeed, it goes on top of the Barnett formula, but you can understand that if Scotland increases income tax by 3p, this extra revenue stream for the Scottish government is still dwarfed by what the Scottish government gets through Barnett.

It means that we can increase income tax in Scotland by 3p but if Westminster decides to lower spending target for the UK even by a tiny amount then this extra revenue is immediately wiped off, resulting in higher taxes in Scotland but still a lower spending level.

On a side note, the SVR was designed specifically to be unusable, have a read there : http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-uselessness-of-the-sc...

In reply to Donnie:

Robinson reported that he asked Salmond a particular question and said Salmond would not give an answer to it during a press conference. What the video shows is Salmond giving an 7 minuet reply , so basically Robinson is lying to BBC viewers.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Looking at that link I'm still of the view that you can do quite a lot with £1.2 billion for instance the Scottish Government initiative of 2012 to widen access to Higher Education, providing 2000 places for students from deprived backgrounds cost £10 million.

In any event come what may the 2012 act increases the take to 10p in the £ plus land transaction tax and others.

This whole subject though cries out for engagement between both governments rather than taking the nuclear option of independence and its inevitable increased costs for all.

I hope that with a No vote that is what will happen.

I cannot see Yes resulting in anything more than years of disruption with a downturn in the economy resulting in the very things that many Yes voters wish to avoid as the government becomes increasingly strapped for cash.

In reply to rogerwebb:

I think you have identified your central issue. If you can only see years of disruption then you haven't looked into it properly. In short you're closed on the matter.

I can see many advantages of staying in the Union and I am more than happy to recognise them.

On balance though, I am for Yes and understand those benefits will no longer be there.

If you can't see any benefits at all of Yes then you definitely haven't understood what is being said.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Of course ! The only problem, as I pointed out earlier, is that if we start increasing taxes, raise £1.2 billion and start spending it on public services, then the UK government can simply decide to reduce its spending targets, and that comes off the block grant, therefore cancelling out any new revenue stream generated.

Because of this arrangement, you can understand that it's almost impossible politically for any Scottish Governement to start raising extra taxes, it would mean bearing the responsibility for having higher taxes than in the rest of the UK, without any guarantee that spending on public service would increase.

In reply to MG:


Gosh, how exciting. We're moving away from the shitty old UK system to the wonderful modern Italian one. I'm thrilled. Not.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Fair point ! -

In reply to Saor Alba:


I rather think I do.

I don't see that any of those benefits require independence.

I am at loss to see how anyone can dismantle a country and effectively build two new ones without years of disruption at extra cost.

The loss of productivity in the civil service as time is spent untangling things that were never separate, the loss of economies of scale, the costs to set up entirely new bodies, and that is assuming a velvet divorce, are all costs that will be unnecessarily born.

We are unlikely to ever agree, but please do not accuse me of not understanding the issues or what has been said. I come to different conclusions from you that is all. One of us may be right, we both may be wrong but we have both certainly examined the questions.

In reply to RomTheBear:

>

Hence my comment that a good use of time would have been pinning the UK government down on this matter.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Well yes, the problem is that we have been given this referendum with a Yes/No question on independence so that leaves little room for the SNP to try to fix the relationship, now all they can do is spend all their energy arguing for independence and try to win it.

No the biggest problem with this referendum is, if it's a no vote, then with the threat of independence eliminated for a generation we probably get shafted, and if it's a yes vote, we break up the country and we enter a world of shit for at least a decade. Difficult to pick a side.

In reply to RomTheBear:

>

I have my reasons for voting No which can be seen on another thread (I have more but space was an issue) but what you have just said is I think the most succinct and descriptive expression of don't know that I have seen.

Brilliant

In reply to rogerwebb:
Saw this on another thread somewhere...can't find it, so here's good as anywhere else.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/pied-piper-of-the-polling-statio...

See Moony's comment about the fairy tale, I've been chuckling all day!!!

In reply to Donnie:

Better they have full independence than "Devo-Max". With full independence they can sink or swim depending on their ability. With Devo-max they can keep the begging bowls out.

In reply to rogerwebb:

I am not accusing you. I am saying that if you can't see a single benefit to independence then in my view you need to re-look as clearly there are ups and downs to everything. It's an on-balance thing.

In other news, I see Nick Clegg has signed a pledge......

In reply to stroppygob:



I think you'll find we're the breadbasket, not the beggars.

In reply to Fultonius:


Literally, no you're not. Bread comes from wheat, and whilst you have ~10% of the population of the UK you produce less than 6% of the wheat. Too busy producing barley for malting to help keep the booze flowing - http://www.grainchain.com/Resources/11-14/WheatInTheUK_11-14.pdf

Metaphorically, no you're not. You're about 10% of the population of the UK and about 10% of the economic activity. You would have to have a significantly disproportionate contribution to finances (say > 50% of total) to qualify as a metaphorical breadbasket.

You have a healthy economy that is in proportion to the greater UK. Why claim more, when that claim to be more collapses at the first hint of scrutiny? Yet this more or less sums up most of what I've seen of the "yes" campaign - platitudes and totally baseless statements that are repeated ad nauseam like a mantra, hypnotising many into servitude of the idea. This is a terrible shame because it seems the campaign is fixating on many areas that simply can't be predicted with any accuracy, and largely ignoring the deeper, more interesting and more important decisions and consequences.

In reply to Saor Alba:


That's a hard one to come back on!

Ultimately I think they will deliver though

In reply to Fultonius:


Really? On what level do you claim that superiority?

In reply to Fultonius:


Even if you are now, which I seriously doubt, the costs of this independence will criple the economy.

In reply to RomTheBear:



This is why people on uKC shouldn't get annoyed if the rUK posters without a vote comment on here..

We'll be affected quite considerably. Either directly or indirectly.. I'm not saying we should have a vote at all, but we should certainly be able to comment on the matter.

We've already seen significant wobbles in the market as the vote has got tighter and closer…

Many of us will also have economic interests, jobs, houses there too… I must admit that's worry of mine.. we may have to sell off our 30,000 acre Grouse shooting plot..

In reply to IainRUK:

Ditto, but resigned to the fact that little I say will have any influence


I'm selling my golf courses, trying to offload them before the vultures move in.

In reply to IainRUK:



Not MY words , Iain, these words were attributed to David Cameron when he was saying anything to get rid of the Devo Max option from the Ballot paper. ( only to introduce it dishonestly late in the day)

In reply to Jim C:

why dishonestly?

Say he's changed his mind? Is that impossible?

Or can only Salmond do that? Millstone? Neck? ring any bells.. northern atlantic arc.. 'f*ck did Iceland just screw their economy?'...

In reply to Jim C:

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

That's quite interesting.. so the SNP will do the cuts after the referendum..

In reply to Postmanpat:


I like this one on :- What ( Who) it is not about......

Not a AS fan then Tommy?

youtube.com/watch?v=0hE_DWKI4r8&

In reply to IainRUK:


Say what you like about AS, I personally can't stand him, but really, Cameron has 'changed his mind' pull the other one Iain. Lost it possibly.

The snag with his statements re Devo ( that he has " changed his mind on" ) is that it is remarkably similar to what he has said about a Currency Union being 'incompatible'

But of course he will Never 'change his mind ' on CU , as that really WOULD be dishonest, so it is unfortunate that the same phrase that he has 'changed his mind over' on Devo, is used again to describe a policy that will never, ever, under any circumstances I'm sure, be changed.

A CU, is totally incompatible with Scotland being independant, also totally incompatible with remaining in the EU.
He will never change his mind. We can be sure of that.
(even if ' incompatible' in terms of more powers, was not as impossible as it first appeared.

A bit of a credibility gap there David old boy. Maybe he never read the boy who cried wolf.

In reply to Jim C:

I don't think he did. I think further devolution was alwas the plan…

I don't think they will change their mind on CU.. it will affect the rest of the UK too much.. that's not theirs to offer around in deals..

In reply to IainRUK:


Unless it's about certain super injunctions

In reply to RomTheBear:


Really? Spending due to increase by 4.4% in England and reduce by 1.2% in Scotland http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/scotland-nhs-not-better-ind...

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Lol, this one page document published just one week before the vote has been widely debunked because basically it misses out two very important things:
- the privatisation of some parts of the service in England, which is not accounted for.
- the figure are not per capita. In fact health spending per capita in Scotland is much higher and staying the same, and it is planned to decrease again in real term in England. They are just completely taking the demographics out.

In reply to RomTheBear:




Lmao, perhaps you could provide a link or two.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Can you provide a link to the debunking? Off the top of one's head this would imply that a)The NHS doesn't pay for the private services that it contracts b) The English population will have increased by 4% between 2010 and 2015.
But I'd be interested to see.

In reply to Postmanpat:
a)The NHS doesn't pay for the private services that it contracts

This is one form of privatisation but there is no account for the amount the treatment paid to private health services directly by the individual concerned, either personally or via private insurance, simply because treatment are becoming more difficult or not good enough through NHS.

Since the Health and Social Care Act of 2012 the duty of the English Health Secretary to provide universal health care has been abolished, and therefore there is no guarantee that many things are simply not going to be offered on the NHS anymore. In this situation it would become extremely difficult of Scotland to maintain the same level of universal care.

Now that this fundamental duty of universal care has been abolished in England, it seems unavoidable to me that faced with queues and unsatisfactory service people will turn to the private sector that has been nurtured under NHS contracts, and pay for services out of their own pocket.

b) The English population will have increased by 4% between 2010 and 2015.

It will have, projected increase is 4.4% in England.

Fact is spending on health in Scotland is currently the highest in the UK per capita. We can blame many things on the Scottish government but not to not spend enough on health.

In reply to RomTheBear: While you're looking for your debunking links, something else to chew on http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Please read my reply first...

I saw that earlier, and frankly there is nothing extraordinary or new, Scottish government has said publicly that they wouldn't be able to protect current levels of spending with the budget cuts.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The NHS is under terrible stress, and will continue to be so either with or without independence, no matter what anyone promises.

The better a job we do of keeping older people alive, the more they come back needing further healthcare. As long as attention is paid to quality of life, this is a good thing - but it will always cost as much as we're willing to spend, with more needed.

I do find it odd, though, that the title of that article is "Scottish independence: NHS in Scotland 'faces £400m funding gap'" when the article describes the current situation, under devolution.

I think you just brought the thread full circle!

Interesting thing happened.

Just got a Yes lady at my door giving me a card with a reference number to hand out to a Yes representative at the exit of the polling station.
Apparently it's because this way they will know whether you have casted your vote, and if you haven't they would come to your place or call you to remind you to go and vote yes

Is this normal practice in the UK ? It seems a bit dodgy to me to pressure people like that.

In reply to RomTheBear:





Yes, pretty much ubiquitous. What normally happens is people outside the polling station ask to see the number that's on your official polling card - you can, of course, refuse.

It's not used to hassle individual voters (at least, I've never heard of that happening) - more to identify geographical areas that haven't voted so that parties can do targeted canvasing as the day goes on. There's no point in canvasing people who have already voted!

In reply to climbwhenready:

Huh, Ok I guess it's one British oddity that I didn't know, we live and learn every day ! Something like that in France would be severely frowned upon !

In reply to RomTheBear:



I read your reply and it doesn't debunk the IFS's findings, so while I'm waiting for your links...

And while your looking perhaps you could find some links showing that Salmond or Sturgeon have explained that cuts will be needed so that health boards can break even - because this morning Salmond was saying you're wrong.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Please let me know why, I think it's pretty clear.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/sturgeon-uk-reforms-a...

It was also pointed out during the last TV debate with Sturgeon that whilst they can protect the policy of the NHS in Scotland they can't protect the funding.

And indeed, the principle of universal care has been abandoned in England whilst it is still protected in Scotland, but the consequence of that is that as more people are going to switch to private healthcare in England this will affect Scottish budgets due to the way the Barnett formula works. It's a very simple argument and that's not too difficult to understand I think.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Eh?

In reply to MG:


Yes, The Health and Social Care (2012) removed the government's obligation to provide universal healthcare in England.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well, the report is here http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366 and your comments dont refute the findings. But a couple of links to where it has been "widely debunked" dont seem to be an onerous request.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/sturgeon-uk-reforms-a...



So, as salmond has said there will be no cuts, how is the £400 million deficit to be filled?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Possibly but that doesn't mean the principle of universal care has been abandoned, just that it may not be provided directly by the state.

In reply to RomTheBear:

As ever, you can do what you like with figures, if you are creative enough.

In my job I do reports that use statistics, and I get guidance on what interpretation is required to be taken from them. ( what is it that is trying to be proven)

After I know that, it is not too hard to show whatever is required even if the stats would not at first glance to look as if they would lend themselves to that interpretation. (I heard a policeman making a similar point on the radio very recently on crime figures, and a similar thing a while back regarding ambulances on time arrivals. If it is classed as routine rather than an emergency, that changes the picture. So if you know that you are NOT going to meet the target for an emergency when it is called in, then they flagged them as 'routine'- Simple)

I also work closely with metallurgists, and if we are making a concession application it is perfectly possible to indicate the direction of travel that the justification will go.
(Often it would be able to take the opposite view using the same data. )

So we should treat all stats as dubious from all sides.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Here is one which explain more or less what I have been saying.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/12/the-ifs-observation-on-funding-scot...




Well, like everything else, from tax revenue and deficit that we control, unlike the current situation where the funding is constrained by spending targets set in England.

It's really not difficult to understand, if England decides to spend less on healthcare, we end up having to make cuts too.
If people turn to private healthcare in England, that affects Scotland too.

In reply to Jim C:

The report from the IFS ins't even a statistical analysis it is a one page political statement with 4 figures in it. The fact that it got published just last week is not a coincidence.

Very easy to debunk as soon as you realise that

1) NHS Spending per head in Scotland is way higher in Scotland per capita than in the rest of the UK therefore policy decisions over the past decade might have been different in terms of priorities.

2) The more people in England turn to private healthcare as a result of long queues and poor NHS service, this in turns means that less funds get allocated to NHS in England, and through Barnett, means less gets allocated to Scotland.

This is the main argument of the SNP and they don't even mention anything about this.

3) Again because they look at it terms of spending per head, it doesn't account the rapid demographic change in England over the past 4 years.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Google "Weightwatchers Glasgow NHS" and tell us if you find anything on privatising parts of the NHS in Scotland

In reply to RomTheBear: Thank you for the link, but it doesn't help your original contention (which you seem to have deleted, curious), which was "this funding gap is directly the result of the loss of funding due to decrease [sic] spending on healthcare (and other) in England". As the figures provided show, there hasn't been a decrease in England but there has in Scotland.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Lol but did you not read ? The figure are per not per capita and therefore don't mean anything. In fact Health spending in Scotland a about 6 percent higher in Scotland than in rUK.

In reply to aln:


He is a dick. Just a tolerable one.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Lol indeed rom, we can see your original contention "this funding gap is directly the result of the loss of funding due to decrease [sic] spending on healthcare (and other) in England" and we can see it's wrong - despite you deleting it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I deleted because I couldn't include a link with edit and I was about to repost the same with the link but someone replied first.

And it's not wrong, NHS spending per capita has decreased sharply since 2010.

In reply to RomTheBear:



You can't even get that right http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Mehh this is the figure for 2003/04 to 2010/11, when indeed it was rising. I said from 2010 when it has gone down sharply.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bt3WeOvIAAAqYiu.png

In reply to RomTheBear:



Gone down sharply? You take out one, mendaciously drawn, peak and it's still higher than in 2009.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well relatively speaking yes, it's been going up pretty much without interruption since the 1950, 2010 is the first time it's been decreasing, it a fairly high rate of decrease, as this rate spending per capita would be halved in less than 20 years.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well, no. It's been a rising trend but it has clearly gone up and down
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47717000/gif/_47717500_nhs_spending2_...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lol, I like that you cut the last bit after 2010. Also it's not per capita, it's by % of GDP. Here is the full trend, per capita.

http://soylentdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/nhs-life.png

(Green curve)

In reply to RomTheBear:




I like that your two graphs show the peak at different times and different amounts. Nice try to reel it back from your original, deleted, contention.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lol, humm no the two are perfectly matching, not surprising since they are using the same ONS source, the only difference is that the first one is adjusted for inflation that's why you see a slightly higher peak on the second.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So what are we to do rom? Do we increase the overall spending on the NHS every time the population of the country increases by one? And do we cut it if the population decreases? It would be even more of an issue for iScotland, Salmond wants more immigrants and the population is ageing. As we've seen, overall spending in Scotland has already been cut compared to it rising in England.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well yes if the population increases normally tax revenue increases, so spending should go up in line with that otherwise it goes down. Which is what is happening.


If the population in England decreases this is actually a bonus for Scotland. Because Scotland population as a share of the UK the becomes more important and it gets more funding, because Barnett depends on the share of population.


Yes, indeed more immigration in Scotland would be good news, unfortunately not possible in the UK.
The Fresh Talent Scheme that allowed international students to stay to work in Scotland after graduation has been unilaterally cancelled by Westminster.

You couldn't find a better example of Westminster contempt for any kind of local policy that really make a difference.

In reply to Robert Durran:

the thing which makes me most angry about Salmond is the way he talks as if a Yes vote would be a personal mandate for him to run Scotland as he wishes.

No he doesn't. This seems to be an obsession for you.


The referendum is not about his or anyone else's policies; it is purely and simply about independence.

Exactly. We know that already so why do you keep harping on about Salmond?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not in the current UK as I know it.

In reply to MG:


Maybe not, one thing is sure, it's up for sale. TTIP not going to arrange that.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Let's have a look at Salmond's view of ttip http://paulhutcheon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/ttips-staunch-supporter-alex-sal...

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well, I never liked Salmond.