Scottish Independence yea or nay

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not even a week after the referendum and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29342142

'New gas and water technologies could add decades to the lifespan of oil reserves in the North Sea, according to Edinburgh researchers.

A Heriot-Watt University team said they had made a breakthrough in developing clean and cheap methods to maximise extraction from existing fields.'

Good thing they didn't come out with that two weeks ago. There's another one for all the conspiracy theorists.

A Dub in Glasgo

One man's conspiracy theorist is another man's truth

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

One man's conspiracy theorist is another man's truth

Yeah conspiracy theorists.

A Dub in Glasgo

porsche959

^ Another shocking indictment of the nonce-protecting nest of vipers called the BBC.

alastair

Eh, the BBC can't be held responsible for the timing of the Centre for Enhanced Oil Recovery's study release. Kinda hard to report on something before it's been released to the public and media, wouldn't you say?

Gerry T

alastair wrote: »

Eh, the BBC can't be held responsible for the timing of the Centre for Enhanced Oil Recovery's study release. Kinda hard to report on something before it's been released to the public and media, wouldn't you say?

I don't think the BBC give a unbiased view of events. Scotland is one example, Palestine/Israel is another. But then is any media truly impartial. Someone always owns a news corporation and they will have political views

alastair

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't think the BBC give a unbiased view of events. Scotland is one example, Palestine/Israel is another. But then is any media truly impartial. Someone always owns a news corporation and they will have political views

The BBC isn't owned by anyone, other than the citizens of the UK. And you haven't actually presented anything to support your suggestion of bias. I can point you towards claims of pro and anti Israel/Palestinian bias within the BBC, so they're probably doing something right.

I'm still struggling to see how the BBC can be held to blame for the timing of an announcement they had no control over whatsoever.

Gerry T

alastair wrote: »

The BBC isn't owned by anyone, other than the citizens of the UK. And you haven't actually presented anything to support your suggestion of bias. I can point you towards claims of pro and anti Israel/Palestinian bias within the BBC, so they're probably doing something right.

I'm still struggling to see how the BBC can be held to blame for the timing of an announcement they had no control over whatsoever.

The BBC in the last couple of weeks were praising a English man that went to fight for Israel against the Palestinians. The Israelis should be done for war crimes for what they are doing, the BBC has the agenda of the UK Govt that want to get into bed with the USA at every opportunity. Just like that crap that went on with the bombs of mass destruction in Iraq. BBC was gung ho in its reporting...the UK and USA were the bad guys, not the good guys.

I watched the election unfold and found the BBC to be very pro union and did not give as much air time to the yes vote. Not that I'm that bothered really but it was noticeable.

I would be one that takes reporting in press and media with a grain of salt and know each story has two or more sides. I don't like when one side is portrayed in a certain light, it speaks of agenda.

kieran--f

SNP membership has grown by over 32000 in the last few days making it the third largest party in the UK, the yes vote has come out stronger since Westminster looks to be going back on promises. To be honest you would of been daft to expect any promises to be kept...

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/sep/snp-membership-soars-labour-could-die-out

alastair

Gerry T wrote: »

The BBC in the last couple of weeks were praising a English man that went to fight for Israel against the Palestinians.

They were? Can you provide a link to support this? I can provide a heap of claims of anti-Israeli bias at the BBC if you want it.

Gerry T wrote: »

The Israelis should be done for war crimes for what they are doing, the BBC has the agenda of the UK Govt that want to get into bed with the USA at every opportunity.

The BBC isn't a part of the government, and has regularly clashed with government policy.

Gerry T wrote: »

Just like that crap that went on with the bombs of mass destruction in Iraq. BBC was gung ho in its reporting...the UK and USA were the bad guys, not the good guys.

This would be the same BBC that stood behind Andrew Gilligan and his 'sexed-up documents' claim in regard to WMD in Iraq? Seems a little unlikely, wouldn't you say?

Gerry T wrote: »

I watched the election unfold and found the BBC to be very pro union and did not give as much air time to the yes vote. Not that I'm that bothered really but it was noticeable.

I watched the same coverage and didn't see any evidence of bias, or of too little balance of time for the Yes campaign.

NIMAN

kieran--f wrote: »

SNP membership has grown by over 32000 in the last few days making it the third largest party in the UK, the yes vote has come out stronger since Westminster looks to be going back on promises. To be honest you would of been daft to expect any promises to be kept...

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/sep/snp-membership-soars-labour-could-die-out

A wee bit too late now, considering they will have to wait another generation to cast their vote again.

fryup

kieran--f wrote: »

since Westminster looks to be going back on promises.

give them a chance its only a week since the referendum :rolleyes:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

NIMAN wrote: »

A wee bit too late now, considering they will have to wait another generation to cast their vote again.

Not necessarily. If the Conservatives stay in power, which they probably will, and deliver on their referendum to leave Europe there could be another referendum in Scotland depending on what the results are of the EU vote.

fryup wrote: »

give them a chance its only a week since the referendum :rolleyes:

Their vow promised action the very next day. Not sure that's happened. Cameron has also tried to tie England into the changes for Scotland which will delay any action for Scotland and Miliband came out the day after the vote and said they're no longer in agreement with the Tories on any of it so they have indeed already gone back on their promises.

Lemming

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Their vow promised action the very next day. Not sure that's happened.

What exactly did you expect to happen the very next day?

The issue is being discussed/argued/debated/etc.. That's what politicians do before legislation gets drafted, agreed on, signed off, and then enacted.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lemming wrote: »

What exactly did you expect to happen the very next day?

The issue is being discussed/argued/debated/etc.. That's what politicians do before legislation gets drafted, agreed on, signed off, and then enacted.

The "vow" that the three No parties promised a few days before the election had #1 on the list a clear and precise timeline for action to be outlined and started the day after the vote. What actually happened the day after the vote? Cameron trying to shift the focus onto England and Milliband trying to distance himself and his party from the agreement and the Tories.

They may well deliver what they promised eventually but they have already gone back on their word in regards to the promises made.

Happyman42

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The "vow" that the three No parties promised a few days before the election had #1 on the list a clear and precise timeline for action to be outlined and started the day after the vote. What actually happened the day after the vote? Cameron trying to shift the focus onto England and Milliband trying to distance himself and his party from the agreement and the Tories.

They may well deliver what they promised eventually but they have already gone back on their word in regards to the promises made.

Very true.
They cannot deliver without the union breaking up/tearing itself apart as others rightfully clamour for devolution.
That they won't be able to deliver will hasten another referendum for a chastened, non-gullible and fully aware electorate.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

They may well deliver what they promised eventually but they have already gone back on their word in regards to the promises made.

Cameron's 'day-after' start to the extended devolution might not have been the start you wished for, but it's still a start. I think the extra devolution commitment should be measured on the equivalent timeframe that would have been applied to transition to independence. It shouldn't take as long, of course, but expecting change in weeks is a bit unrealistic.

Clearly there's now unstoppable momentum for regional devolution - that's already started (including the grubby/messy political manoeuvrings involved). The Scottish, English, Welsh all want a piece of extra devolution, and NI politicians seem only too happy to get some too. That's too great a electoral bloc to ignore - by any party.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

Cameron's 'day-after' start to the extended devolution might not have been the start you wished for, but it's still a start. I think the extra devolution commitment should be measured on the equivalent timeframe that would have been applied to transition to independence. It shouldn't take as long, of course, but expecting change in weeks is a bit unrealistic.

Clearly there's now unstoppable momentum for regional devolution - that's already started (including the grubby/messy political manoeuvrings involved). The Scottish, English, Welsh all want a piece of extra devolution, and NI politicians seem only too happy to get some too. That's too great a electoral bloc to ignore - by any party.

While I agree it makes sense to sort all 4 countries out at once it's still put Scotland to the back of the queue rather than right at the front where it would have been with a Yes vote. Also, it's probably fair to say you could blame the No voters for interpreting "The Vow" as meaning they'd get priority treatment whereas the wording of it doesn't specify anything other than the start of a move towards more powers for Scotland. Sneaky buggers, politicians.

Sam Russell

What the Tories are saying that Westminster should be the English Assembly, with English MPs alone allowed to volte in English matters.

Surely, if England are to get an assemby, then that assembly should be seperate from Westminster as is the case with the three other assemblies. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that such an assembly be located outside of London, and preferably in Manchester (where the BBC have moved to) and be completely seperate from Westminister.

Westminister can then cencentrate on the important matters of declaring war, Nato, the EU, the UN, foreign affairs, and other important matters.

Iwasfrozen

Sam Russell wrote: »

What the Tories are saying that Westminster should be the English Assembly, with English MPs alone allowed to volte in English matters.

Surely, if England are to get an assemby, then that assembly should be seperate from Westminster as is the case with the three other assemblies. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that such an assembly be located outside of London, and preferably in Manchester (where the BBC have moved to) and be completely seperate from Westminister.

Westminister can then cencentrate on the important matters of declaring war, Nato, the EU, the UN, foreign affairs, and other important matters.

The Palace of Westminster is a really big place. You could easily find a chamber in there to house a separate English Parliament. There's no reason to move it out of Westminster.

tipptom

Cameron definitely deceived the Scottish electorate.


He reminds me of a dodgy contractor promising you the sun moon and stars that he will come the next day if you give him a deposit and then says the next day that he has to sort another job out first knowing full well when he got your money he was going to do the other job.


The Scottish electorate should be ashamed of themselves for falling for the deceipt.

Sam Russell

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Russell
What the Tories are saying that Westminster should be the English Assembly, with English MPs alone allowed to volte in English matters.

Surely, if England are to get an assemby, then that assembly should be seperate from Westminster as is the case with the three other assemblies. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that such an assembly be located outside of London, and preferably in Manchester (where the BBC have moved to) and be completely seperate from Westminister.

Westminister can then cencentrate on the important matters of declaring war, Nato, the EU, the UN, foreign affairs, and other important matters.


The Palace of Westminster is a really big place. You could easily find a chamber in there to house a separate English Parliament. There's no reason to move it out of Westminster.

You missed my point. By Westminister, I clearly mean - not the Palace of Westminister which is just a collection of gothic buildings - but the British Government made up of the House of Commons, The House of Lords, and the Cabinet, plus all their support staff.

Obviously, the Government could find the an office somewhere, and perhaps some part-time staff. What is needed is an assembly of equivalent substance to that of Scotland, Wales and NI - but obvioulsy grander in every way to emphaise the pre-emminence of the English assembly. To emphasise this, a seperate location up north would achieve much.

fryup

tipptom wrote: »

Cameron definitely deceived the Scottish electorate.

post in a years time, and then we'll see

tipptom wrote: »

The Scottish electorate should be ashamed of themselves for falling for the deceipt.

ashamed of themselves:rolleyes:

maybe they just want to remain with britain simple as

as if irish people know whats best for scotland

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

With regards to "English voted for English Laws" the SNP MP's abstain from voting on English matters, I don't see why all the MP's representing non English constituencies can't just do the same. It would solve the issue without anyone really having to do anything.

tipptom

fryup wrote: »

post in a years time, and then we'll see



ashamed of themselves:rolleyes:

maybe they just want to remain with britain simple as

as if irish people know whats best for scotland

Any idea when Cameron was down on his knees begging for his political life of the Scottish people with his big bribes promises that he decided to leave out the little part about "in tandem and at the same pace as reforms to England" at that time?.Im sure the Labour supporters in Scotland would like to have another vote on that when he stuck it in the next morning.


Scared the **** out of Scottish people in to remaining with Britain more like.


Hah,the cheek of us Irish having an opinion on the Scottish referendum and what we think is best for Scotland according to ye unionists,well heres news for you we even have a vote in our own country now?.

Iwasfrozen

Sam Russell wrote: »

You missed my point. By Westminister, I clearly mean - not the Palace of Westminister which is just a collection of gothic buildings - but the British Government made up of the House of Commons, The House of Lords, and the Cabinet, plus all their support staff.

Obviously, the Government could find the an office somewhere, and perhaps some part-time staff. What is needed is an assembly of equivalent substance to that of Scotland, Wales and NI - but obvioulsy grander in every way to emphaise the pre-emminence of the English assembly. To emphasise this, a seperate location up north would achieve much.

Having the assembly in the palace of Westminster would serve that purpose. It's a very impressive building, second only to the US capitol imo.

Moving the English assembly out of Westminster would only serve to make it less prestigious plus England has never been ruled from anywhere but London.

fryup

tipptom wrote: »

Hah,the cheek of us Irish having an opinion on the Scottish referendum and what we think is best for Scotland according to ye unionists,well heres news for you we even have a vote in our own country now?.

unionist me just because my viewpoint differs from you, you automatically think i'm a unionist...just shows how narrow minded you are

Sam Russell

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Having the assembly in the palace of Westminster would serve that purpose. It's a very impressive building, second only to the US capitol imo.

Moving the English assembly out of Westminster would only serve to make it less prestigious plus England has never been ruled from anywhere but London.

They used to have a local government in London call the Greater London Council with the leader one Ken Livingston. It was based in a lovely building directly oposite Westminster on the south bank of the Thames. Margaret Thatcher destroyed the GLC and sold off the building.

An English Assembly will only survive with its powers intact if it is entirely seperate from the central government and the best way of ensuring that is having the assembly based in the North of England.

Camelot was not in London.

Fr Tod Umptious

Sam Russell wrote: »

They used to have a local government in London call the Greater London Council with the leader one Ken Livingston. It was based in a lovely building directly oposite Westminster on the south bank of the Thames. Margaret Thatcher destroyed the GLC and sold off the building.

An English Assembly will only survive with its powers intact if it is entirely seperate from the central government and the best way of ensuring that is having the assembly based in the North of England.

Camelot was not in London.

The GLC was replaced with the current borough system.
So local government was devolved further with the breakup of the GLC.