|
Crossposting from the general UK thread because you made this thread while i was digging about : Some stuff for There was an article I came across that highlighted anti-independence bias within BBC scotland. It contained video clips of broadcasts as well as critical analysis of what was contained within them. I'm sure it was shortly after the rugby fiasco but I can't remember how i came across it and Google isn't providing much help. Maybe someone here can remember where it was. I did, however, stumble across an anti-independence bias facebook page which (if it's run properly) may act as a source for evidence of BBC manipulation. I also just came across Newsnet Scotland which may have some good sources of information for an OP. Of particular interest might be the page on Unionist scare stories. This is the article I read that first gave me the figures for taxation vs population. There's the Gers reports too but there are contentions from opposition about things being omitted, true deficit (deficits  ) levels, etc and I've not personally read too much into this topic yet.
Kin fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 15, 2012 |
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Red7 posted:Wouldn't this (for the most part) be served by Devolution Max? Frankly I think an Independent Scotland will damage both the UK and Scotland's ability to act on the world stage. The UN Security Council membership and bodies like NATO are about much more than invading other countries, the same with nuclear weapons, its how the UK has managed to retain as much clout as it does and the loss of that is going to have knock on effects on how we interact with other countries across a broad range of topics. Explain these Talking Points please, because I don't really see why we (Scotland) need to care about influencing the "world stage". I don't know the ins and outs of British Empire history, but I have been wondering how much influence Scotland, Wales and NI have had historically on the conquests of The British Empire and its "clout". I'm assuming that while many good soldiers have come from all of the countries many of British Military actions have come at the behest of Westminster or whatever English Parliament was in power, no? Adar posted:What are the actual chances of this referendum? The BBC seems to think < 50%? The BBC have proven that they cannot be trusted in what they report in regards to independence. mediadave posted:Reviled, as you are clearly enthusiastically for independence, how would you feel if Scotland voted against it? While I can't speak for Reviled, I would feel that the people of our country had been manipulated and lied to through subversive means, all in order to keep the political status quo (and social balance of power) based around centre right wing ideology. Kin fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I know, and it sucks, but the Tories won't always be in power. Italy and Germany don't fracture every time an unpopular government is elected. A divided UK may force the drastic political change that's been needed to break the UK out of the endless Labour/Tory cycle. I'll grab a copy of Empire next time I'm in the bookshop, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads up on that book. I'll buy Killing Hope instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
Etherwind posted:Well, they were talking about rounding all the Tories up into camps... We could work with the North of England to build and run the camps there so that not only do they get caught as they cross the border, but we'll be providing the areas with some economic benefits. 
Kin fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Reveilled should probably pop it in the OP or the second post or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Yes, in rump-England we'll probably get a choice between the Tories on the left and the British Union of Fascists on the right. Speaking as someone living in the North, thanks guys! ;p And perhaps that might encourage the organised development of a proper English Left wing party (and the rejection of Labour) that would represent everyone that's not in the South East (i.e. all you poor suffering sods in the North and Wales). Kin fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:One of the main reasons I worry about Independence is because if that rear end in a top hat Murdoch is on side it MUST be rotten somehow. I see it a means to an end. Once we get rid of the Tories, then we can get rid of Murdoch. It's naive to think that (as scummy as he and his papers are) the Murdoch press isn't and wont still be influential during this whole process of independence thus it's much better to have them for it than against.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I think the point trying to be made by the 1 in 5 isn't that 1 in 5 jobs will leave Scotland if Scotland leaves the Union, but that those companies may not have chosen to base their operations in Scotland had it not been part of the Union. It's not a brilliantly put point, but I feel the campaign is playing towards "stronger together" rather than "weaker alone". Why wouldn't they have based the companies in Scotland in the lack of a Union? These companies have been set up in Scotland for financial reasons and the only difference the lack of a union would have made is that they'd be Scottish companies. Kin fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:Reagrdles whether you thought Independence was a good idea or not prior to the Olympic Games. A good reason to change your mind is not how many gold medals we collectively won. Almost everyone in that crowd will be an ignorant Unionist happy to discard any notion of change for the better for nothing more than a few platitudes from Westminster and a shiny piece of metal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I just...I don't understand people who aren't happy with what their country wins in Olympics. And what exactly did we win?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I know Newsnetscotland is an openly pro-Independence website, but this article seems sound enough, and if it is true, should be rolled up and carried around by everyone in case of encountering the "Scotland's too poor" argument. Seems pretty solid to me and backs up all the earlier evidence that supported it. No doubt there'll be some pathetic unionist spin on this like "the SNP fudged the numbers" or "they guys doing the survey didn't take X or Y into consideration" or they'll try and spin the population percentages into a confusing way that trick the public into thinking the opposite of what they mean. Their usual shite really. To be honest I'm more interested in seeing which news outlets pick up this story (even if they just report that more evidence supports the claim that Scotland can sustain itself) because it'll be a further litmus test for media bias.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Red7 posted:You don't see the irony of railing against unionist spin while at the same time holding up numbers published by the SNP? Not particularly as a majority of things that Unionists spout have typically been shown to be lies or disinformation to anyone who does a little research while, from my perspective, the negative connotations of the SNP have often only really been claimed by Unionists, often with little to no evidence to back them up. This is something that you yourself have attempted to just do by insinuating that the numbers presented in the report are false, despite having absolutely no evidence to prove so. They're "lies, damned lies, and statistics" are they? Prove it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Red7 posted:I haven't at all, I implied they are as suspect as the unionist numbers. Once again, prove it. And if you're not implying that the quote is an indictment of the SNP numbers then you can't be claiming it as an indictment of any other numbers so why quote it in the first place? edit: typo Kin fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Maybe I missed it, but i didn't see anything about a yes/no in there. "would you like independence, greater devolved self governance powers or to remain in the Union?" is technically one question right? One question, three checkboxes, preferential voting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, it's called "living on the same council estate for over 20 years and keeping your eyes open". No, it's called anecdotal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:I feel the BBC has been very even-handed on this issue so I'd like to hear evidence to the contrary. There was a London-based Scottish-sounding lady asked whether she missed Scotland and she said I sairtainly dont mess the marcho drunken culture (sorry I can't do the accent!) Perhaps you should do your own legwork and type a few basic words into google. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TZpu51A_GU
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:That's not enough to convince me. I was more after stuff from the last couple of weeks since the election's been announced. Thanks though Ah, so evidence of their bias only counts to you if it was carried out within the last 2 weeks? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Jedit posted:A lot of that trend will be hatred of the Tories. If it looks sure that the Coalition will be ousted in the GE - and let's face it, that's close to certain if only because the Lib Dems collapse and the Tories can't form a majority - then those vacillators will be heading right back to "no" again. Sadly, I think this is true. Labour haven't quite been outed as the poo poo party they are and instead are seen as the Good guys to the Tories Bad guys.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Jedit posted:What's sad is that Labour are the good guys. No. No they're not
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Niric posted:I agree with you in part - the union campaign has been shockingly bad so far at highlighting what's good about the union - but the point here is negative for Scotland compared to what? The Yes campaign has not set out what the alternative is, and so it is impossible to say whether the status quo would be better or worse than it. We're not considering any options right now, because the yes campaign hasn't given any options: they haven't yet made clear what independence means in practice. The "alternative" is pretty much increased self taxing powers. a.k.a. "devo-max". This is the biggest change that will probably take place in practical terms. A singular change that, need i remind you, was forcibly removed as an option from the referendum by the UK government. A singular change that's wanted by the majority of our country. A singular change that the Tories "promise" to consider giving us if we vote no...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Sorry, forcibly removed? Salmond wanted 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote in the referendum; the Tories offered to allow that in exchange for removing Devo Max from the ballot, and Salmond accepted. You're right that Devo Max is wanted by the largest number of Scots on both sides of the question (though not a majority of Scots), but it was removed with the full consent of the SNP in a deal with the Tories. Why then should we be surprised when Cameron proposes a second deal to give the SNP what they really want in exchange for supporting the Tories in the 2015 General Election? And why should 16 and 17 year olds only get to vote in something that will directly affect them if the Scottish government gives up the ability to ask the public for what they really want? The exchange was clearly made because of a longer strategy. Right now young people are being hosed by the UK government. Proper hosed. Youth unemployment is at record highs, further education has been crippled outside of Scotland, job seekers and benefits are being crushed and young people (16 and 17 year olds) are feeling the brunt of this. Having young people vote on this is a benefit, especially as many of them probably don't fall into middle class back grounds entrenched with some idealised rose tinted glory of "unionism", but there's no way that it's fair to our people that an entire option is stricken from a referendum just so that more of our people can vote. Jedit posted:largest number of Scots on both sides of the question (though not a majority of Scots What?  You also have to have your head pretty far up your arse (not to mention ignorant of everything that happened in the 80's and in the last 3 years) if you think you can trust a Tory politician to fulfil a promise to anyone that isn't rich and in London. edit: not to mention that those of us without a short memory recall the Scottish Conservatives and Labour were outright set against Devo max at the beginning of this until the SNP maneuvered them into contradicting themselves and pushing for it over independence. Kin fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I want Scotland to be part of the UK, like I want the UK to be part of Europe. It gets really tiring seeing pro-independence voters paint anyone who disagrees as feeling that way because of the Glory of the British Empire. There's four or five instances of it in the last two pages of this thread alone, there's always a dig at England, or the Tories, or the middle-class. It's so "chip on your shoulder" and comes off as spite. Well, until unionists provide reasons for staying within the UK that won't still be true under independence (nor hypocritical attacks on independence), the burden of proof for showing that it's not idealistic romanticism held by classes of people typically unaccustomed to suffering at the hands of the UK/English/London/Right Wing government lies squarely on your shoulders. Kin fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Who am "I" meant to be convincing? Those who you claim have "a chip on their shoulder" and the audience to which you make this presumptuous statement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Hoops posted:The faction of pro-independence voters who I feel are embittered against "England/London/Tories"? I've lost what you're saying, am I convincing them that they are prejudiced or am I convincing them to not vote for independence? What part is "presumptuous", I'm reacting to reading the last three pages of this thread. As leggsy said, the burden of proof lies on both sides, not just the pro-independence. And while the pro's have been putting together these plans and proof, the Unionists haven't; Instead resorting to defaming the pro arguments or remaining silent. You claimed that unionism is more than a dream of the middle class/right wing, that the status quo of now is better than what will come from the few real term changes of independence, so do what few unionists have bothered to do and instead of resorting to waffling statements that simply boil down to "because we will be better together", back it up with proof. Kin fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Is there a good reason to believe the "swing toward Yes" will continue? I just really haven't a lot of hope... How long have Unionist now had to come up with solid, definitive reasons of benefit for us to stay in the Union? The longer they take to come up with something that's actually credible while the UK is dragged kicking and screaming into a Privatised, Disabled and Low income crushing, Anti-EU, Tory led black hole, the more people up here will realise that there are actually very few sound reasons for staying. quote:The New York Times seems firmly pro-union: And so full of spin I'm surprised that people aren't falling over after reading it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:e: To me, the more worrying part for independence supporters would be the poll results over time, which from a scan of the results in that story seem to indicate a bit of noise around a relatively firm ~20 point gap. Maybe the independence supporters can change that, but so far they don't seem to be having much success. To me it seems like the SNP are putting all of their ducks in a row whilst letting the No campaign run its mouth. What many people/papers are failing to say is that the great efforts being put forth by the "better Together" campaign seem to be having no effect either. That it's never been reported in that way shows how so many reports of these polls put a negative spin on them and are biased towards Unionism. I expect we'll see a full steam ahead campaign in 2014 with greater details for independence while Unionists continue to spin the same naysaying nonsense that's been debunked over and over as England (and the rest of us) get dragged along into ever worsening living conditions by a government in London we didn't and have never truly elected.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:It kind of makes sense to report it that way, though. The pro-union campaign doesn't have to convince anyone to switch sides in order to win by a healthy margin. Independence supporters, on the other hand, have to make up significant ground to avoid losing fairly convincingly (at least, according to the polls). Well, no, you could report it without bias by pointing out that the no campaign have failed to convince more people too. Unless, of course, you're trying to spin stats to hide how ineffective the no campaign has been.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
My girlfriend just got this shite through the mail.  They're really trying to push this bollocks aren't they? Not quite sure if/how to fill it in. I was thinking either to reply with "you lying fucks" in section 2, but ideally i think i'd rather pin it up on the lobby noticeboard with "liars" sprawled across it and a url linking to a succinct rebuttal of the nonsense. Is there one by the way? I've seen a few articles here and there but wasn't sure which might be the best one to link to. Kin fucked around with this message at 17:06 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Angepain posted:It does seem a strange time to split off from the campaign, given No is in the lead right now and has been consistently. Or maybe Labour are already certain of a no vote whatever happens (the hearts and minds of Scotland being their birthright, after all) and so figure their real priority is not to look like they're associating with the Tories. What with "not being the Conservative party" being the main thing going for them these days. I wouldn't be surprised if it's just some attempt to make it seem like there are more 'parties' behind a Pro-Union idea than there are for a Pro-Independence. Well, i say "Pro-union", but so far it's been more like anti-independence than pro-anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
A friend of mine posted this bollocks on facebook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqXIanIWwc8 I'm only 4 minutes into it so far I'm pretty sure I've heard her mention "economies of scale" 3 times and throw percentages to the wind for "REAL NUMBERS". Does anyone have any other thoughts on the video?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Hoops posted:He's the Edinburgh Union president, and it's just a a blog, don't worry about it. Even if he wasn't a student politician (and thus could have his views disregarded completely and uniformly anyway) Edinburgh Uni is not where any independence battles are going to be fought. If you polled the student population you'd be lucky to get double figure support. If you polled the student population of Edinburgh uni I wonder if you'd get double figures for individuals from lower income brackets.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Puntification posted:This comes up almost every other page, the UK has never had a labour majority that was dependent on Scottish MPs. It's also one of the biggest smoking guns of this whole thing. The Scottish people have almost never truely had an actual say in how the UK is governed. That alone should be enough to question why we're still part of the UK (just look at the current UKIP/Tory withdrawal from EU that no-one in Scotland wants), but as the "permanent Tory England" thing keeps coming up it's clear that the majority of our people are still mis-informed.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Well that's the heart of it isn't it? You as a nationalist feel a strong separation between "Scottish" and "English". Oil that is drilled in Aberdeen belongs to you and an Aberdonian and an Orknian, but not a Geordie or a Londoner. A lot of people don't feel as strong a cultural boundary. All the facts and figures will be debated for the next 18 months but people will vote based on how far along the scale they feel between "100% Scottish" and "100% British" (what this thread calls "rose-tinted romanticism of the Great British Empire"). A lot of Scots probably feel "British" because they've been born into and told they're in the British club from day 1. What they haven't been told is that it's a membership they've never had control of, a membership that makes them suffer things they don't want to suffer and a membership that robs of them of their goods and actively lies to them. I bet if you scowered the lower classed areas of Scotland, you'll find that most will identify being Scottish way before being British and it's most likely because they're the ones without a voice that are being continually crushed from this "union". It goes way beyond oil rights and you should know this if you read even half of the stuff that's been posted in both this and the UK threads.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:The poll included 14-17 year olds out of a 1000. With 67% saying they want more information before making a decision. So is that a no or want more info? Or no until they have more info. The more info part indicates that 60% are actually undecided. Which coincidentally ties in approximately with the 20-30% for/against that hasn't shifted either way. The poll then, unsurprisingly due to its source, doesn't really say anything new.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:I am sort of confused myself. The ambiguity and confusion behind explaining these results and the lack of publication of both the poll itself and detailed targeting methods don't give me a lot faith in its accuracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
zokie posted:So how are people dealing with the fact that both the Tories and Labour seem quite open to leaving the EU but not Scotland leaving the UK? And that Scots seem to want stay in the EU the most... Pro-independence supporters agree that it's just one of the many signs that we need to leave. Anti-Independence supporters seem to try and just divert away from the subject or just don't really engage with it. Undecided individuals seem to acknowledge it as a bad thing without proclaiming it as a reason to outright support independence (but it's quite obvious that it's a push in that direction). I'm pretty sure that a big boost to the Pro campaign will be to just run a series of ads in the weeks leading up to the referendum hihglighting: The UK wants X, But Scotland Wants Y or Scotland wanted X and instead got Y. Then highlighting that, because we don't actually any real say in how the UK is run, we've had to have X. The Tories have forced upon us so many lovely things over the last 4 years that there's more than enough to use.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:If that's the only reason, would there be any need for an animated .GIF drawing extra-special attention to something that's supposed to be entirely innocuous and unremarkable, and thread posters grinning about it as if it's a victory for nationalism? There's a gif of it because the BBC cut away from the shot almost moments after it was spotted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:It's also because it made for an amusing image, Cameron applauding in front of a flag he despises. It would have been just as funny if it were Cameron holding up a British flag behind Salmond. But you can bet that kind of shot would have been zoomed in on like the arses of the women's doubles.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Aliginge posted:What are the thoughts of the thread regarding the privatisation of Royal Mail? Would an independent Scotland re-nationalise it's own postal service? We need More Postmen NOT a Tactical Nuclear Submarine. Say Yes to Independence and NO to spending £2.4billion on Trident. Our Country Can't Afford It. YEStoIndependence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 13:02
|
|