NitshillBear

Like I said, the shite he posts about Rangers is hard to ignore...but I do that because the political and media coverage is very good. Anyone with a shred of a critical faculty can see that. The graphic and article linked from WoS don't even form a significant part of what I'm saying. But here's the thing about McCrone and the skullduggery of 1979...they did that then and t's a matter of historical record. The Westminster mainstream have demonstrated that they are unworthy of the mandate that we have been handing them for 40 years. By their every action, be it McCrone, 1979, the poll tax or the bedroom tax they demonstrate their contempt for us. What they did then should inform our judgement now, To be truly honest I'm fucked off with it. That's the bottom line.

I don't expect to convince anybody here. Just posting what I think and why I think it. If you read it and you're still attached to a belief in the UK regardless, then so be it.

Presume those going on about WoS know what "ad hominem" means. He's a fud when it comes to football, but the political stuff is generally meticulously sourced. And the Trident article isn't even him Whoever asked, aye, plenty of facts. McCrone is a fact. The 40% amendment is a fact. The myth of subsidy is a fact. The ineffectiveness of Trident is a fact. Plenty of others to choose from as well.

Didn't notice the paragraph spacing was wrong. FFS.

Why I'm Voting Yes - Written in reply to an English former colleague asking me about it... It's not easy to fully articulate all of the reasons I intend to vote yes. They encompass a wide variety of subjects covering many different aspects of Scotland's history and its place within the UK. From what I can gather, the coverage of Scotland's referendum in England is very much that of "Alex Salmond versus the UK political establishment". I suppose that's an easy way to characterise the debate, not least because it comes with a ready-made bogey man. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Yes campaign will, in years to come, be recognised as the movement that reinvented Scottish, and possibly British, politics. The town hall meeting has been reborn. People are engaging with the mechanisms of democracy like never before. Those who have never voted in their lives are suddenly energised and discussing how things can be different in their country and the biggest turnaround of all is in the poorest demographic where people who considered themselves powerless and detached from the political process are finding a voice. Whether it's yes or no, things have changed already. So, why yes? If I had to give you one sentence it would simply be that I believe Scotland would be a fairer and more prosperous country if it were independent. But here's the long answer. History plays a big part. I'm not suggesting we go back to 1707 and revive old grievances (and they're many). For one, there's no need to, because the recent past presents us with a litany of contempt, neglect and dishonesty that the "parcel of rogues" could only dream of. In 1974 government economist Professor Gavin McCrone compiled his now titular report on the effect that North Sea oil would have on an independent Scotland. It concluded that Scotland would have an "embarrassing tax surplus", making the country as rich as Switzerland, and with the hardest currency in Europe, with the exception of the Norwegian Kronor. This isn't an SNP election pamphlet. This was a man commissioned and trusted by Ted Heath's Tory government. The McCrone Report was promptly classified for 30 years, lest it boost support for the SNP at a time when devolution was a real possibility. Think about that for a second. The same political edifice that keeps telling me that we're "better together" deliberately suppressed information from an entire country on the basis that they might seek self-determination off the back of it. That's incredible on its own, but fast forward 5 years to the first referendum on devolution where, despite achieving a majority yes vote, Scotland was denied a parliament on the basis of the "40% rule". This was an amendment that stipulated the requirement of a minimum 40% turn out for the referendum result to be binding. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where people who had died since the start of voter registration effectively counted as no votes. Consider for a second the effect Gavin McCrone's report might have had on that referendum, and the entirely different country we'd be living in now if the truth had been allowed to propagate. Following on from this we have the cultivation of the myth of subsidy. Ever since I can remember I've been told in fairly unequivocal fashion that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK; that Scots are "subsidy junkies". This ludicrous psychological assault on an entire country was carried out with the full knowledge of the reality, specifically that wealth actually flows from Scotland into the treasury by virtue of oil and gas taxation. In other words: Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK and has done for every one of the past 30 years. The numbers, of course, were always expertly finessed so that oil and gas revenue didn’t constitute part of Scotland’s contribution. This craven misrepresentation of Scotland's true value to the UK (specifically to the impact of oil and gas on the balance of payments) isn't some one off slip of the tongue by a rogue politician. It's one example in a decades long campaign of institutional dishonesty and obfuscation. Quite simply, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Westminster is going to suddenly start behaving in a respectful and responsible way towards Scotland. Of more immediate concern of course are the consequences of voting no. There's considerable support for adjusting or even scrapping the Barnett formula, which would result in a significant reduction in Scotland's block grant. So a no vote is effectively a vote for austerity. More devolution is promised but the powers suggested so far are trifling and none of them allow Scotland to keep the taxes raised in this country. Whether Barnett is scrapped or not it's a demonstrable fact that the block grant will shrink anyway. The NHS in England is undergoing what is a de facto process of privatisation. Health in Scotland is, of course, entirely devolved and always has been, but what we're seeing in England isn't happening in isolation. The reduction in public spending in England has a direct effect on Scotland's budget by virtue of Barnett. The less public spending there is in England, the smaller Scotland's block grant. What that means is that cuts are inevitable. One of the biggest areas of public spending is health, so what's happening to the NHS in England has a direct impact on healthcare in Scotland. Additionally there's always the threat of addressing the “West Lothian Question” so that Scottish MPs are prevented from influencing purely English matters. It’s not very difficult to foresee a situation where Scottish MPs are excluded from matters concerning English public spending even though it has a direct impact on spending in Scotland. One of the things you'll hear repeated in the referendum debate is that a yes vote will ensure that we get the government we vote for. The response to that is usually some glib appeal to the notion that the UK is a functioning democracy and you can't cry when you don't get your own way. That would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that Scottish votes make almost no difference to who governs at Westminster. A fact neatly summarised in this graphic entitled "Scottish votes make almost no difference at Westminster" (http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/samaritans1.jpg). This doesn't resemble democracy as I understand it. Scotland is a country, not a region. It has a political character that is distinct from other parts of the UK, something that's no more obvious than when we consider the surge in popularity of UKIP. I don't want to be part of a country that's sliding ever rightward, towards the bigotry and insularity of Nigel Farage's brand of ethnic British nationalism. There's something deeply unsettling about watching a debate in the House of Lords. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes the wave of nausea to pass over me. Perhaps it's the knowledge that these (mostly) white old men are each being paid £300 a day to sit there, somewhere between sleep and death, while one of their number misrepresents some new piece of legislation. Or maybe it's simply the idea of a "House of Lords". Lords. Ladies. Peers. The very notion that such people exist in the 21st century feels as insulting as it is anachronistic. The House of Lords is the ultimate destination of these career politicians that we currently see shouting at old ladies on the streets of Motherwell in the name of the Union, or engaging in foaming-mouthed, finger-pointing public breakdowns live on TV. These are the Lords of tomorrow. Every single one of them is on a trajectory that leads them directly to a peerage, and an ermine-clad retirement in the second chamber. A yes vote is a vote to scour away the heredity, dishonesty and cronyism of a system that endorses the disgusting spectacle of the House of Lords. There are a whole list of more general reasons for voting yes. Land reform for example. The feudal system of land ownership here is the most inequitable in the developed world. There are also more general issues of poverty and deprivation. No other country in history has discovered oil and actually become poorer as a result. That's the situation Scotland is in, largely because Margaret Thatcher used what should have been a rainy day bounty to keep interest rates artificially low in the 80s. Her free market capitalist dream didn't care much for rainy days. We also have the chance to rid Scotland of nuclear warheads in one fell swoop, something that will form the basis of negotiations (regarding the schedule for removal) in the event of a yes vote. There are so many arguments against Trident that it would take another post just to cover the basics. Thankfully someone else has already done that here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/. But these are all reasons that largely appeal to reason and logic. The truth is that I believe in the principle of independence above all, and that supercedes everything else I've written here. I want to see a country where the people are sovereign and government truly is just a mechanism for effecting the will of the electorate. We have an amazing country filled with beauty and ingenuity and, yes, the sort of natural resources that any country would covet. We have an identity that expresses itself through our political and cultural distinctness. We're a country that has given the world so much and yet we allow ourselves to be governed remotely by an elitist hegemony that only cares what it can get from us and never what it can do for us. Independence isn't about ethnic nationalism. It's not about blue faces and Braveheart. A yes vote DOES free us, but not from the people of England because it's never been about that. It frees us from a system of government that has failed us repeatedly. And you know what? We'll still be here, just north of Berwick, if you want to visit.

I thought it sounded like Paedo Cheesebreath

"Human beings"? You been on the bevvy?

Quality. "Jorg Albertez!"

I know for certain that about 80% of the facts posted there are either incorrect or misrepresented. For example, 4% isn't a "preferential" rate at all. It's actually on the high side compared to the rest of their portfolio.

Which is far fairer than first past the post. In the 2010 UK general election for example, the Tories won 47.1% of the seats from 36.1% of the votes. Contrast that withe Lib Dems who only won 8.8% of the seats from 23% of the votes. The hyperbole about the SNP winning wasn't about it being a "landslide", but about the massive swing away from Labour.

I'm not saying there weren't Scottish MPs, simply that in the vast majority of general elections you could have removed them from the mix and returned an identical result. Even in the case of the current coalition where the Scottish Lib Dems mattered, we've still ended up with a de facto Tory government. And the number of seats contested in Scotland is decreasing each time as well. While we're here, I wasn't sure about posting this stuff on here. Figured it would be panned without a second thought. Thanks for restoring my faith a wee bit.

Beg yer pardon Re: the election. But that's a great example. You have a real impetus to vote (or at least you would if they had any powers) because the result is up in the air and you can influence it. How many general elections have we seen where Scotland is coloured entirely red and England a mish mash of red and blue. Scotland clearly saying they don't want the Tories, but the Tories is what we got. The point is our government is usually decided by people in the south east that we share very little in common with.

Why would indifference to Britain have any impact on my enjoyment of Rangers games? Like I said, people are welcome to self-identify however they choose.

It was 2010, but point taken. Participating in a democracy means that you don't always get what you want. But it ceases to be a democracy when a clearly defined, socially, culturally and historically distinct group of people are never represented, and the system is actually weighted to ensure that never changes.

Well that's fairly pierced my argument.

I'm indifferent to Britain. I think Scotland's interests are better served by independence.

I'd like rid of the lot of them to be honest. But regardless of political leaning, in Scotland our vote counts for nothing. We have no influence over who governs us. We're beholden to the south east of England. And we can change that.

Just as you can love Scotland and be independent.

I prefer "Scotland-lover" to "Britain-hater".

It's not my fault if the UK government doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. If I'm talking about a whole new political paradigm in which Scotland is no longer governed from Westminster, does it not stand to reason that I'd compare it to what we currently have? You might not like me calling him dodgy Dave, or referring to his party as chinless acolytes. But they've more than earned that distinction.

No different to any party manifesto that's ever been published and repeatedly broken then eh? At least you can be pretty sure the SNP won't try to scour it from the face of the Internet, unlike dodgy Dave and his cabal of chinless acolytes.

My tuppence, for whatever it's worth. Reading the various declarations of pride at being British on here leaves me mystified. Not that I think there's anything wrong with it...people can self-identify however they like. But if you're Scottish, and willing to do some reading, it would surely take little time before you came to the conclusion that the British love-in is a distinctly unrequited one. Incidents such as the suppression of the McCrone report, commissioned in the 1970s to assess the benefit of North Sea oil on an independent Scotland, should fill any Scot with disbelief and anger. Taking into account assets that are ours by right, Scotland is a net contributor to the UK exchequer. All the bluster you've heard for decades about how we're subsidised by the rest of the UK? Lies. And this is the point. Successive governments are quite happy to lie to us to maintain the status quo. This current one is no different. The absolute whoppers put out by the Better Together campaign would be funny if the situation wasn't so serious. But for me, this is about something more fundamental. We're constantly told that we live in a democracy. But in Scotland that's simply not the case. In the post-war era, the Scottish vote has had a miniscule impact on the results of UK general elections. In only 3 of the 18 general elections in this period has the Scottish vote had any influence over the elected party, and in two of those occasions the result of discounting Scottish votes would have been a hung parliament. Quite simply I want a say in how my country is governed and I think the prospect of independence represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to terraform a whole new political landscape, free from the old attitudes and prejudices. How does all of this tally with supporting Rangers? I'll accept that it's not entirely compatible. But I do think Rangers can be proudly Scottish and retain sight of its origins.

Maybe wait until next week and read the white paper when it's published.

It's fuck all to do with anyone if we put 5 stars or 55 stars or a picture of Brother Walfrid singing Simply The Best on the karaoke on the top...fuck these arseholes.

Delete stuff from Twitter and it disappears from Twitter. But there are sites that record Tweets for posterity. But more hilariously CF's own fame means there are references and screen caps all over the bheast boards that incriminate him