• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Implications of Scottish Independence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, it's Anas Sarwar who is in charge of that bus, not Jim Murphy as I said.

Why would anyone want to drive round Scotland in June in a bus with blacked-out windows? It's bonkers. What must in be like inside? I for one would get terminal motion sickness and be unable to function.

People pay good money to be driven round Scotland in tour buses at this time of year. The scenery is spectacular. But these guys don't want to see it. Or if they do, their desire to stop us seeing in is stronger. It's not just tinted glass (as I first thought when I heard the "blacked-out windows" comment), the thing has a PVC wrap completely obscuring all the windows.

It's positively sinister. Smiling occupants or not. I feel a Doctor Who script pitch coming on...

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Faux incredulity from John Major?

On Salmond:

Is he seriously suggesting that a promise publicly made by a Conservative prime minister, by the Labour leader of the opposition, and by the Liberal deputy prime minister could just be callously ditched after the referendum vote?
Click to expand...
 
I confess it is rather fun watching the unholy alliance of Tory/ Labour /Lib Dems trying to sing from the same song sheet on this single issue.
I'm waiting for our new ally , Hassan Rohani to chime in.
 
Oops, that should have been, did we see any reference to this on the BBC. That'll be a no, then.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Actually, it's Anas Sarwar who is in charge of that bus, not Jim Murphy as I said.

Why would anyone want to drive round Scotland in June in a bus with blacked-out windows? It's bonkers. What must in be like inside? I for one would get terminal motion sickness and be unable to function.

People pay good money to be driven round Scotland in tour buses at this time of year. The scenery is spectacular. But these guys don't want to see it. Or if they do, their desire to stop us seeing in is stronger. It's not just tinted glass (as I first thought when I heard the "blacked-out windows" comment), the thing has a PVC wrap completely obscuring all the windows.

It's positively sinister. Smiling occupants or not. I feel a Doctor Who script pitch coming on...

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Actually...... If Rolfe cared to apply some objective thinking to this small issue, she would quickly be able to realise that the bus is covered in a high-tech vinyl wrap, of a sort that's only been technically viable for a few years but which is very high-impact (which is, I'm just guessing, why the Scottish Labour party has chosen it for that bus...).

The part of the vinyl wrap that covers the window section is in fact covered with tiny perforations, so that people inside the bus can indeed see out. But the whole point of the external effect of the wrap is to create the illusion of a seamless block of graphics, therefore it's integral to this effect that the windows are not externally visible.

But if poor thinkers prefer to take the incorrect and bias-laden interpretation that it's "sinister" in some way, or that the occupants for some reason do not want people to see into the bus from outside for fear of being recognised, then who's to stop them, I guess. It's just more evidence for the rest of us though, regarding some of the more bonkers, paranoid, wooly thinking from plenty of people who should know far, far better.....
 
PS: The link below shows some close-up video of the side of the bus. At that distance, you can clearly see that the horizontal top third - the part where the windows are situated - is slightly different in colour and texture to the lower two thirds. And that's because (as I said above) the top third of the wrap is covered in micro-perforations which enable those inside to see out.

http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/blog/entry/the-indyrefexpress

Still, sometimes people just see what they want to see. As you were......
 
Rolfe said:
I wonder if we'll see any reference to this on the BBC?

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnJappy/status/479285477078732801?p=v

I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, let's put this one into proper perspective too.

Firstly, I don't think any serious, objective analyst is suggesting that an independent Scotland is not viable. But that's not the correct question to be asking. The correct question to be asking is whether an independent Scotland would be better off or worse off than a Scotland that remains part of the UK. And any proper economic and political analysis indicates clearly that the answer to that question is that iScotland would be worse off.

Secondly, the fact that the article leads on GDP/cap - the metric that's superficially most "impressive"-looking - is interesting and instructive. It's a very poor measure of a country's true influence and power (economically, industrially and politically). A look at the nominal GDP/cap league table reveals that there are many anomalies: witness Austria at a lofty number 11 and Equatorial Guinea at an astounding #40. And of course the mighty Qatar at number 3.

Thirdly, the actual total nominal GDP is certainly a better and more appropriate metric to be using. And the report states that iScotland - with its proper proportion of oil and gas value - would be in the "World's top 50". Well, that's decent of course, but that's on a nominal (i.e. unadjusted for purchasing power parity) comparator, meaning that huge swathes of second- and third-world countries are effectively excluded from the list. So "Top 50" doesn't look so eye-catching all of a sudden. And for context, the Philippines are #39 in nominal GDP, with Bangladesh at #57.

The sober facts of the matter are that of course an independent Scotland would have the economic and population power to be a viable nation state in its own right. As I said, I don't think this is a point of dispute for any serious objective analyst. But as I also said, that's not the point. As a counter-example, it's routinely bandied about as a fact (which it is) that an independent California would rank around #11 out of all the World's countries for nominal GDP. But there are no clarion calls for "independence for California", are there? Why not? Well, because sane Californians know all too well that regardless of that fact, they are better off remaining part of the USA than going it alone.

Oh, and lastly, the FT article referenced in this tweet was written on............. 2nd February 2014. Wonder if we'll see any reference to it on the BBC in June 2014....? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Thanks to all the adverts for the Rev Stu Campbell and his blog, I have now started reading it. And...oh, deary deary me. If this is the type of thing printed in the MSM, its no wonder Wings over Scotland has such a large readership....

The UK's standing in the world is as under threat as it has ever been from Mr Salmond and his Nationalist–supporting campaigners in Yes Scotland. These people are determined to pull the UK asunder.
Their actions, if allowed to succeed, would be far more damaging in the long term to this country's prestige than, say, the atrocious behaviour of the traitors Burgess and Maclean, part of the Cambridge spy ring.
Independence could ruin our nuclear defence capability and, as Sir John Major said yesterday, reduce our international influence almost irrevocably. It would – if it hasn't already – cause a fatal division between friends and families throughout the UK that could last for generations, if not for good.
Click to expand...

https://archive.today/MfuWD#selection-865.0-873.302
 
Yesterday was Big Stooshie day. The reason goes back a couple of weeks.

A few weeks ago the Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone was extraordinarily rude to Colin and Chris Weir, the lottery winners who have given money to both the SNP and Yes Scotland, in an article in the Daily Mail. When they protested, he compounded the issue by insinuating that they had been forced to protest by Alex Salmond, whose brainwashed dupes they somehow were.

At the time, Stuart published an article calling Johnstone something that would break the auto-censor. I can't even link to it. This was in Wings itself, and the rude name was in the title of the article. No response at all from the MSM. The thing about that article was that it fully explained why Johnstone was being singled out for name-calling.

On Wednesday, Stuart tweeted that Johnstone was "fat, troughing scum" (note no breakage of auto-censor, though indeed it's rude). No reference to why he was calling the man names. Nothing on Wings itself at this time - it was only a tweet.

One newspaper called Stuart up and asked him for comment on the tweet. Stuart issued a prepared statement referring to Johnstine's treatment of the Weirs and declaring that he would withdraw his remarks if Johnstone apologised to the couple. That newspaper didn't run the story.

The BBC (I think - a broadcaster anyway) also interviewed Stuart about it, and again he explained about Johnstone's attack on the Weirs and that he would withdraw if an apology was forthcoming. The interview wasn't broadcast and the story was not covered.

The rest of the papers ran with "vile cybernat calls MSP vile names" articles, with of course no mention of any attack on the Weirs.

Opinion on Wings was split about this. Some felt it was bad publicity, reinforcing the "rabid, slavering fiend" cybernat stereotype. Others believed that the more people heard about Wings the more people would come to see what all the fuss was about. (One way or another though, it has to be borne in mind that what Stuart did was absolutely deliberate and calculated. Whether it was good or bad tactics may be debatable and time will tell, but in no way was it an unconsidered outburst.)

That article Strawberry quotes is just one of many, though quite a bad one. It's the constant barrage of attacks on Scotland as being uniquely incapable of functioning in the modern world (but at the same time having so much influence that independence will bring down western civilisation) combined with not-so-veiled threats to ruin the country and its economy in the event of a Yes vote, that gets so wearing.

Wings feeds people starving for the other side of the argument, and desperate for a damn good fisking of the lies, smears and scares.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
160,583 pageviews yesterday. And it turns out that the Herald report that Yes Scotland had distanced itself from Wings and instructed its activists to disassociate themselves from Wings (like they even could do such a thing) was a pack of lies.

Wings leaflets all delivered and ready to distribute at our meeting on Monday.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Yesterday was Big Stooshie day. The reason goes back a couple of weeks.

A few weeks ago the Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone was extraordinarily rude to Colin and Chris Weir, the lottery winners who have given money to both the SNP and Yes Scotland, in an article in the Daily Mail. When they protested, he compounded the issue by insinuating that they had been forced to protest by Alex Salmond, whose brainwashed dupes they somehow were.

At the time, Stuart published an article calling Johnstone something that would break the auto-censor. I can't even link to it. This was in Wings itself, and the rude name was in the title of the article. No response at all from the MSM. The thing about that article was that it fully explained why Johnstone was being singled out for name-calling.

On Wednesday, Stuart tweeted that Johnstone was "fat, troughing scum" (note no breakage of auto-censor, though indeed it's rude). No reference to why he was calling the man names. Nothing on Wings itself at this time - it was only a tweet.

One newspaper called Stuart up and asked him for comment on the tweet. Stuart issued a prepared statement referring to Johnstine's treatment of the Weirs and declaring that he would withdraw his remarks if Johnstone apologised to the couple. That newspaper didn't run the story.

The BBC (I think - a broadcaster anyway) also interviewed Stuart about it, and again he explained about Johnstone's attack on the Weirs and that he would withdraw if an apology was forthcoming. The interview wasn't broadcast and the story was not covered.

The rest of the papers ran with "vile cybernat calls MSP vile names" articles, with of course no mention of any attack on the Weirs.

Opinion on Wings was split about this. Some felt it was bad publicity, reinforcing the "rabid, slavering fiend" cybernat stereotype. Others believed that the more people heard about Wings the more people would come to see what all the fuss was about. (One way or another though, it has to be borne in mind that what Stuart did was absolutely deliberate and calculated. Whether it was good or bad tactics may be debatable and time will tell, but in no way was it an unconsidered outburst.)

That article Strawberry quotes is just one of many, though quite a bad one. It's the constant barrage of attacks on Scotland as being uniquely incapable of functioning in the modern world (but at the same time having so much influence that independence will bring down western civilisation) combined with not-so-veiled threats to ruin the country and its economy in the event of a Yes vote, that gets so wearing.

Wings feeds people starving for the other side of the argument, and desperate for a damn good fisking of the lies, smears and scares.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Ah, more objective correction required.......

As far as I can tell, this goes back to quotes given by Alex Johnstone to the Scottish Daily Mail, in an article about the Weirs published on 26th April. Johnstone is quoted exactly as follows in that article:


“The easiest way to describe it is it simply leaves me a bit uneasy. The thing that has always concerned me about the Weirs is the process behind these donations. Is it entirely their idea? Is it entirely because they are deeply committed to the political principle – or were they approached for donations? Were they courted for donations, as many large donors often are? The bottom line is, were they targeted?”

“When it comes to the funding of political parties, we’re all in it to some extent”.

“It’s not entirely how they came by their money, but the fact that they came into money and were immediately targeted. If it was someone who was managing large amounts of money on a daily basis who made the decision, based on long-term commitments and experience, to donate to a political cause, that would be one thing. It’s the fact that a couple came into a very large amount of money overnight and were, it appears, very quickly targeted by a political organisation.”


Now, it may be that Johnstone has made other remarks about the Weirs that I haven't found. But if that's not the case, then the remarks quoted above, while arguably distasteful and a bit "sore loser", do not count (by any objective measure) as Johnstone being "extraordinarily rude" to the Weirs.

By contrast, Campbell was "extraordinarily rude" to Johnstone on a number of occasions in response to the above quotes. Incidentally, for Rolfe to complain that the even more offensive insults written by Campbell were overlooked, while the merely very offensive insults were picked up by the mainstream media, is rich indeed.

Once again, it appears that political zealotry has clouded the eyes and removed the ability to look at things with clarity and common sense. A fascinating phenomenon.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, more objective correction required.......

As far as I can tell, this goes back to quotes given by Alex Johnstone to the Scottish Daily Mail, in an article about the Weirs published on 26th April. Johnstone is quoted exactly as follows in that article:


“The easiest way to describe it is it simply leaves me a bit uneasy. The thing that has always concerned me about the Weirs is the process behind these donations. Is it entirely their idea? Is it entirely because they are deeply committed to the political principle – or were they approached for donations? Were they courted for donations, as many large donors often are? The bottom line is, were they targeted?”

“When it comes to the funding of political parties, we’re all in it to some extent”.

“It’s not entirely how they came by their money, but the fact that they came into money and were immediately targeted. If it was someone who was managing large amounts of money on a daily basis who made the decision, based on long-term commitments and experience, to donate to a political cause, that would be one thing. It’s the fact that a couple came into a very large amount of money overnight and were, it appears, very quickly targeted by a political organisation.”


Now, it may be that Johnstone has made other remarks about the Weirs that I haven't found. But if that's not the case, then the remarks quoted above, while arguably distasteful and a bit "sore loser", do not count (by any objective measure) as Johnstone being "extraordinarily rude" to the Weirs.

By contrast, Campbell was "extraordinarily rude" to Johnstone on a number of occasions in response to the above quotes. Incidentally, for Rolfe to complain that the even more offensive insults written by Campbell were overlooked, while the merely very offensive insults were picked up by the mainstream media, is rich indeed.

Once again, it appears that political zealotry has clouded the eyes and removed the ability to look at things with clarity and common sense. A fascinating phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Wait, you mean that minor criticism was construed by a cybernat as a mean attack and that they then were more insulting, more times, and yet they think they are innocent victims?

Well, I am shocked.
 
Aaaargh! We're doomed! The scariest of all scary stories in the Scotsman.
A SCOTTISH food maker has been told by an English stockist they will not be welcoming his prize winning oatcakes south of the border if Scotland votes for independence. Fife based Dan Connolly started Your Piece Baking Company five years ago, inspired by the taste of his mother-in-law’s real hand made Scottish oatcakes.
...
However, a farm shop in England, which has not been named, contacted Dan to say that, if come September 18, if the result is ‘Yes’, then it will be saying ‘No’ to Your Piece Baking Company.
Click to expand...
Whatever next? The Americans banning haggis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom