SNP Government planning half a billion pounds of NHS cutbacks, leaked dossier reveals. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Raskol;45994916]Its funny that pro-yes people maintain that while The National Union of Journalists has been complaining that there has been significant intimidation and abuse of journalists by the Yes campaign and its supporters. [URL]http://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-calls-for-end-to-threats-and-intimidation-of-journalists/[/URL][/QUOTE] that article says like in the first line that this is present on both sides. things like that always happen, you cant control every single person in any campaign. lmao that whole article is just about abuse from both sides in general how can you even isolate it

[QUOTE=Raskol;45994916]Its funny that pro-yes people maintain that while The National Union of Journalists has been complaining that there has been significant intimidation and abuse of journalists by the Yes campaign and its supporters. [url]http://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-calls-for-end-to-threats-and-intimidation-of-journalists/[/url][/QUOTE] Been abuse both ways mate. It's an emotional issue, of course people are going to get angry. Especially given the perceived bias from journalists people would expect better from (with the BBC being the signal failure here)

[QUOTE=Craigewan;45994937]Been abuse both ways mate. It's an emotional issue, of course people are going to get angry. Especially given the perceived bias from journalists people would expect better from (with the BBC being the signal failure here)[/QUOTE] So you admit that the Yes media campaign is no better than what you already complain about? Plus you need to read the rest of the article, its said that the BBC is being unfairly criticized by both sides. That doesn't fit your narrative you keep repeating about the BBC.

[QUOTE=Marzipas;45994936]that article says like in the first line that this is present on both sides. things like that always happen, you cant control every single person in any campaign.[/QUOTE] To highlight the line directly from the article: [quote]The NUJ has expressed concern at the increase in intimidation and bullying of journalists covering the independence referendum and calls for people on both sides of the campaign to rein in the abuse being directed at our members.[/quote] But of course, it is only a problem because those horrible Yessers are doing it, right Raskol? [editline]16th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Raskol;45994941]So you admit that the Yes media campaign is no better than what you already complain about?[/QUOTE] I don't know how you're making the jump from "individuals are directing abuse to journalists" to "Yes aligned media is abusing journalists!" But I'd love to actually understand how your brain works

[quote]In particular, the NUJ is concerned about threats about future employment at the country's main broadcaster as well as public labelling of journalists and programmes as being biased. As the Public Service Broadcaster, BBC Scotland's journalism is rightly scrutinised very closely by people and parties on all sides of the political debate. No journalist working for the organisation has a problem with this but they have been singled out by demonstrations which by and large have been loud and rowdy but can be perceived as being intimidatory and a threat to press freedom. There is an increasing trend towards the intimidation of BBC journalists, who are working hard to hold politicians of all sides to account in the referendum debate.[/quote] Basically the NUJ is calling you out on your shit that you keep crying about BBC bias.

[QUOTE=Raskol;45994955]Basically the NUJ is calling you out on your shit that you keep crying about BBC bias.[/QUOTE] The thing is a thug insulting a journalist is different from the STATE FUNDED BBC showing bias. The NUJ is complaining about a potential danger to press freedom but the BBC supporting a BT/pro westminster agenda is a bigger threat. It turns the BBC into an instrument of domestic political propaganda, which is not such a nice prospect. Note on this, this is bad because it is state funded and shows bias to the current government, it could be used to control who people vote for (kind of is here) Edit: Raskol please do you not see the issue with this?

Can't wait to live next to a third world country. Soon England will know how america feels next to mexico.

[QUOTE=Raskol;45994955]Basically the NUJ is calling you out on your shit that you keep crying about BBC bias.[/QUOTE] what so its now unlawful to stage a protest against a piece of reporting that was seen as to a large amount of people to have been one sided? god forbid. this is just directed towards the people in the campaign, not the campaigns themselves. Better Together aren't responsible for the times yes supporters have been branded nazis, nor should Yes be responsible for some supporters protesting over a percieved bias. its not like campaigns are babysitters for people who hold a specific view

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45995004]The thing is a thug insulting a journalist is different from the STATE FUNDED BBC showing bias. The NUJ is complaining about a potential danger to press freedom but the BBC supporting a BT/pro westminster agenda is a bigger threat. It turns the BBC into an instrument of domestic political propaganda, which is not such a nice prospect. Note on this, this is bad because it is state funded and shows bias to the current government, it could be used to control who people vote for (kind of is here)[/QUOTE] But the BBC is being accused of bias from the other side as well. So how'd you figure that? I'm sure when both sides are complaining you're probably being pretty accurate.

[QUOTE=Marzipas;45994915]this isn't about everything being great instantly lmao are you an idiot things will be difficult for the first few years, there'll be times where you think you might have made the wrong choice, its not something that just pays off instantly.[/QUOTE] The first few years [i]will[/i] suck badly, after that there is potential Scotland might recover (if the oil reserves turn out to be real and not to much damage is done in the meanwhile). You want to put Scotland through hell on vague promises of "better days ahead" from a leader who has been repeatedly proven to be lying through his teeth?

[QUOTE=Marzipas;45995016]what so its now unlawful to stage a protest against a piece of reporting that was seen as to a large amount of people to have been one sided? god forbid. this is just directed towards the people in the campaign, not the campaigns themselves. Better Together aren't responsible for the times yes supporters have been branded nazis, nor should Yes be responsible for some supporters protesting over a percieved bias. its not like campaigns are babysitters for people who hold a specific view[/QUOTE] I just think all this screeching from Yes supporters is intellectually dishonest and appears only to be an attempt to warp the truth. By crying about BBC bias that isn't actually there to the extent they claim, simply because they're correctly reporting on some of the real negatives that exist.

[QUOTE=Raskol;45995060]I just think all this screeching from Yes supporters is intellectually dishonest and appears only to be an attempt to warp the truth. By crying about BBC bias that isn't actually there to the extent they claim, simply because they're correctly reporting on some of the real negatives that exist.[/QUOTE] I think the problem is that the BBC report has been, in part, bias and in others it has been fair. When it comes to painting Alex Salmond in a bad light such as the video of him supposedly not answering the question does, there tends to be a bias. However, when reporting on other aspects of the campaigns and the real positives and negatives of independence I feel that the reporting is normally just, based on the information the BBC is given to report on. EDIT: And obviously Yes campaigners are going to complain about them painting the campaign leader poorly, and the No supporters are going to be in support in the parts of BBC reports which are validly expressing their views.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;45995041]The first few years [i]will[/i] suck badly, after that there is potential Scotland might recover (if the oil reserves turn out to be real and not to much damage is done in the meanwhile). You want to put Scotland through hell on vague promises of "better days ahead" from a leader who has been repeatedly proven to be lying through his teeth?[/QUOTE] you talk as if alex salmond is going to be the person who rules scotland forever. its highly unlikely that the SNP will get elected once we're independent, and enough of this shit about oil being the only thing that is worth anything. loads of countries are independent and they don't have oil reserves, they are just a bonus. I'm not basing my vote on what a person said. I was on the fence until a few weeks ago, I used to be a hard no. I just looked at everything myself. I still think some stuff the yes campaign say is wrong, but I agree with some of it. I still think some of the stuff the no campaign say is wrong, but I agree with some of it. Only person you should trust in this is yourself, because its us who will pull through in the end. Unless you want to trust the UK government and have a nice clone of the McCrone report crop up in the next few years to humiliate us again.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;45995041]The first few years [i]will[/i] suck badly, after that there is potential Scotland might recover (if the oil reserves turn out to be real and not to much damage is done in the meanwhile). You want to put Scotland through hell on vague promises of "better days ahead" from a leader who has been repeatedly proven to be lying through his teeth?[/QUOTE] Better to try for change and improvement than to resign to the slow decline under westminster. If it fails then they become slightly worse, but at least they will be self determining and be able to persue their own agendas. You speak like westminster has never lied.

[QUOTE=Raskol;45995060]I just think all this screeching from Yes supporters is intellectually dishonest and appears only to be an attempt to warp the truth. By crying about BBC bias that isn't actually there to the extent they claim, simply because they're correctly reporting on some of the real negatives that exist.[/QUOTE] I have nothing against the BBC reporting on the negatives. The only real bias i've seen is the Nick Robinson report which claimed Salmond didn't answer a question, when he spent 7 minutes answering it in great detail.

[QUOTE=Marzipas;45995103]I have nothing against the BBC reporting on the negatives. The only real bias i've seen is the Nick Robinson report which claimed Salmond didn't answer a question, when he spent 7 minutes answering it in great detail.[/QUOTE] As I remember he answered the first question in great detail but not the 2nd.

[QUOTE=Marzipas;45995096]you talk as if alex salmond is going to be the person who rules scotland forever. its highly unlikely that the SNP will get elected once we're independent, and enough of this shit about oil being the only thing that is worth anything. loads of countries are independent and they don't have oil reserves, they are just a bonus.[/QUOTE] If Yes wins and Salmond can schedule the first election before Scotland tanks then he will be running the country for the next 4-5 years. That is beside the point though. You would seriously base Scotland's future on the word of a man who has lied at every step of the way?

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;45995160]If Yes wins and Salmond can schedule the first election before Scotland tanks then he will be running the country for the next 4-5 years. That is beside the point though. You would seriously base Scotland's future on the word of a man who has lied at every step of the way?[/QUOTE] im not even sure what lies you are referring to, but you are acting as if salmond is some sort of war criminal, im not a fan of him myself. are you willing to base soctlands future in the hands of a government that is trying to scare you into voting no? this can be flipped either way, and in both cases its a stupid argument.

[QUOTE=Marzipas;45995096]you talk as if alex salmond is going to be the person who rules scotland forever. its highly unlikely that the SNP will get elected once we're independent[/QUOTE] If Scotland votes independence it will put a final nail in the coffin of Scottish labour. You are looking at an SNP government for possibly a generation until a Scottish party can politically oppose them. You can see what happened to Ireland when they became a republic the fianna fail party won every presidenetial election from 1945-90, since the formation of the party they have been in power for 61-79 years. Scottish independence will not allow the Scottish people to vote for the party they want, we will be forced to have SNP as there will be no one left to fight them. Of course Alex Salmond knows all of this but won't tell us the truth because all he needs is to convince 51% of the people with his lies to win the vote.

I can't really imagine Scotland under fat man salmond. All his politics seems to be berating Westminster for his independence and if he gets it he'll have nothing to complain about.

[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;45995270]I can't really imagine Scotland under fat man salmond. All his politics seems to be berating Westminster for his independence and if he gets it he'll have nothing to complain about.[/QUOTE] That's not entirely true, if we were to gain independence we would not be governed by the SNP. There would have to be a referendum within Scotland to choose it's new government, which funnily enough would probably be the SNP based on the turnaround opinion of them after the Yes campaign. Although I think it would be Nicola Sturgeon leading the party at that point.

Its true I spoke to a scotsman yesterday and he was like how he's voting Yes, but not for Salmond. But for the future of his grandchildren. You don't even need to like or agree with Salmond to vote Yes.

Scottish budget [url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00433802.pdf]gets cut by 11%[/url] and after that, the amount Scotland spends gets cut. What a shocker. This is [b]exactly[/b] what the Yes campaign and the SNP have been saying all along - without full control over our finances, things are going to get cut hard.

[QUOTE=Raskol;45995426]Its true I spoke to a scotsman yesterday and he was like how he's voting Yes, but not for Salmond. But for the future of his grandchildren. You don't even need to like or agree with Salmond to vote Yes.[/QUOTE] Which goes both ways, you can vote No and not agree with the main British political parties.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;45994537]Nice of the article to mention the reasoning behind that, isn't it? Scotland is getting a shit deal in the near future - The Barnett formula is being scrapped, but as a nice hand-me-back, we get to spend tax money raised in Scotland. Sounds great, right? Except, its not. The only tax they get to spend is that raised from the citizens of Scotland, not the businesses. The Barnett formula gave us a proportional to population cut-back of tax which was still less than if we were able to tax the business in Scotland (It basically means the highly lucrative Renewables and Oil industries are taxed in England, instead. It also ignored the fact that Scotland, on average, raises more tax per head than the rest of the UK). The SNP knows that if we stay in the Union, we are going to be haemorrhaging money within years as the Union shafts us with a "fairer" deal, so in order to prevent us having to privatise our NHS out of sheer necessity, cuts are necessary. Remaining in the Union puts the SNP in between a rock and a hard place where they will have to continue the socialised services we demand, but with even less money to do so. Or we could vote Independence.[/QUOTE] This is like knowing you're going to fall over and scrape your knee, and choosing to cut off your leg so that it doesn't happen.