Independence Referendum

[Kmac84]

I wouldn't fly off the handle if such unadulterated pish wasn't posted and past off as fact, I had previously assumed you were a fairly well educated fella Arb, but it seems you lack ability to think for yourself and simply believe the propoganda that depicts the Scots as subsidy junkies.

@mccool - you don't have a case.

I asked you to inform me which parts of what nig said were untrue i am awaiting your response.  They were not my statements and i never said whether i had the same views or not.  I just asked you to inform me what part of what he said was factually incorrect.

What bits do you think were true and we can go from there?

You are like a westminster pro answering questions with questions.  I asked first so i will let you answer first. 

Well I can't be arsed explaining it to someone who can't vote in our referendum or someone who takes what Farage says and trys to pass it off as fact but this article from the New Statesman n 2011 is a decent read and explains the case without us having to delve into the GERS report.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

[Somerled]

Jeez i type slow took me ages so not deleting just cos rodley asked first. Watching tv and playing at the same time my excuse 

The White Paper's statements on alcohol alone should be enough to terrify most folk. "Just vote Yes and we'll take care of you and decide what's best for you" seems to be the attitude.

Was intrigued by this, from what I understand they propose a minimum unit price for alcohol. Given our nations terrible use of alcohol why do you think this is so bad?

Everything they've done so far targets the on-trade which is emphatically not where the problem lies. Read the white paper. It basically implies that whisky has been singled out for punitive duties because it's made in Scotland - which is also not true - and suggests raising all other duties too, giving English producers an automatic advantage.

Minimum pricing will only help to a very small degree, the only answer is in education.

I have just scanned the white paper and can't see anything mentioned in any detail other than a proposal for minimum unit pricing for alcohol. The only mention whisky gets is the concern that if were taken out of the EU by Westminster we will lose the backing of the EU’s trade negotiations with countries like India, the United States and China. So when you say implies what does it actually say?

I totally agree that education is part of the answer but as a range of measures within which pricing is a useful tool - not my words they are my wife's a healthcare professional working in the addictions field for over 20 years.

Can you tell me what they have done so far to target the on-trade (I assume this is your line of business)

Yeah I work in the on trade but also make beer and sell to the off trade and export too.

I should also point out that I actually disagree with both campaigns, but find myself disagreeing with the no's slightly less. I want a federal system for the whole uk. But that involves staying in the uk. I don't read any right wing rags. I used to be a lawyer and am extremely concerned at the current administration's policies on justice.

The current licensing system in Scotland is a joke - treating the owner if a corner shop in Achiltibuie the same as a manager of a wetherspoons in Glasgow. It's just bonkers. The starting point seems to be 'drink is evil, what shall we do about it'. Anyway, I'm on my phone so all this typing is a right pain in the arse, I'm not as young as I used to be.

[neeko]

I am not sure that the solution to anyone's problems has been an extra layer of govt bureaucracy

[Kmac84]

I am not sure that the solution to anyone's problems has been an extra layer of govt bureaucracy

This.  Lets be normalised and independent.  I call for independence for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. 

[arbboy]

I wouldn't fly off the handle if such unadulterated pish wasn't posted and past off as fact, I had previously assumed you were a fairly well educated fella Arb, but it seems you lack ability to think for yourself and simply believe the propoganda that depicts the Scots as subsidy junkies.

@mccool - you don't have a case.

I asked you to inform me which parts of what nig said were untrue i am awaiting your response.  They were not my statements and i never said whether i had the same views or not.  I just asked you to inform me what part of what he said was factually incorrect.

What bits do you think were true and we can go from there?

You are like a westminster pro answering questions with questions.  I asked first so i will let you answer first.  

Well I can't be arsed explaining it to someone who can't vote in our referendum or someone who takes what Farage says and trys to pass it off as fact but this article from the New Statesman n 2011 is a decent read and explains the case without us having to delve into the GERS report.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

Is this what you do when you are campaigning on the streets then when people ask you questions you don't want to answer?  I never tried to pass anything off as fact or that it was my view/opinion i just asked you to explain what nig said during the 6 minute interview that wasn't true.  Shouldn't take you too long as Nig didn't say a lot during the 6 minutes.  If it's too much trouble to educate me as to what he said that was factually incorrect i won't get involved any more and leave you to campaign in your usual style.  Shout the loudest and hope people who disagree go away.  As to whether i have a vote or not what difference does that make to you answering my question?

I will leave you alone to campaign as you see fit. I understand you are very one sided/passionate etc etc.  You were right about one thing though i am well educated and used to a two way debate and people i am debating with to actually read what i say, not what they think i am saying because it suits them.  Over and out.

[Eck]

I wouldn't fly off the handle if such unadulterated pish wasn't posted and past off as fact, I had previously assumed you were a fairly well educated fella Arb, but it seems you lack ability to think for yourself and simply believe the propoganda that depicts the Scots as subsidy junkies.

@mccool - you don't have a case.

I asked you to inform me which parts of what nig said were untrue i am awaiting your response.  They were not my statements and i never said whether i had the same views or not.  I just asked you to inform me what part of what he said was factually incorrect.

What bits do you think were true and we can go from there?

You are like a westminster pro answering questions with questions.  I asked first so i will let you answer first. 

Well I can't be arsed explaining it to someone who can't vote in our referendum or someone who takes what Farage says and trys to pass it off as fact but this article from the New Statesman n 2011 is a decent read and explains the case without us having to delve into the GERS report.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

Is this what you do when you are campaigning on the streets then when people ask you questions you don't want to answer?  I never tried to pass anything off as fact or that it was my view/opinion i just asked you to explain what nig said during the 6 minute interview that wasn't true.  Shouldn't take you too long as Nig didn't say a lot during the 6 minutes.  If it's too much trouble to educate me as to what he said that was factually incorrect i won't get involved any more and leave you to campaign in your usual style.  Shout the loudest and hope people who disagree go away.  As to whether i have a vote or not what difference does that make to you answering my question?

I will leave you alone to campaign as you see fit. I understand you are very one sided/passionate etc etc.  Over and out.

But he did answer your question.

[Somerled]

I am not sure that the solution to anyone's problems has been an extra layer of govt bureaucracy

I'm not sure that's how it would work.

[Rod Paradise]

I wouldn't fly off the handle if such unadulterated pish wasn't posted and past off as fact, I had previously assumed you were a fairly well educated fella Arb, but it seems you lack ability to think for yourself and simply believe the propoganda that depicts the Scots as subsidy junkies.

@mccool - you don't have a case.

I asked you to inform me which parts of what nig said were untrue i am awaiting your response.  They were not my statements and i never said whether i had the same views or not.  I just asked you to inform me what part of what he said was factually incorrect.

What bits do you think were true and we can go from there?

You are like a westminster pro answering questions with questions.  I asked first so i will let you answer first.  

Since you ignored my reply earlier, I'll play here.

Watched the video till the end of Farage's first segment...

Claim 1, Better Together campaign weak, agreed.

Claim 2, Idea of not being Independent if in the EU - only to a strange definition of Independence, still a lot more autonomy than we do now.

Claim 3, stirring up of anti-English hatred in 16-24 year olds, not proven - no evidence of a) stirring of hatred, or b) significant levels of hatred. The No campaign has been boasting of the youth vote being more pro-union, so I'm not convinced.

Claim 4, English subsidies.... the following graph is from the Financial Times:


Claim 5, EU subsidies - speculation, there's no certainty over what happens with the EU, mainly because Cameron won't ask the question, prefering to keep stressing the uncertainty.

Claim 6, Over 50% of Scotland on benefits... TRUE - but missing a HUGE point.... the %age is higher for the UK. ONS stats for 2010/11 (latest I can find) show 52.7% of Scottish households get more benefits than they pay taxes. However the same study shows 53.4% of UK households in the same state.... who's the benefit junkies now? http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/media-centre/statements/household-taxes-and-benefits--update/index.html

Claim 7, Last claim from him was Salmond being a communist and anti-business....

In 1978 he entered the Government Economic Service as an Assistant Economist in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, part of the now defunct Scottish Office. Two years later he joined the staff of the Royal Bank of Scotland where he worked for seven years, initially as an assistant economist. In 1982 he was appointed Oil Economist, and from 1984 he worked as a bank economist as well as continuing to hold the position of Oil Economist.[12] While with the Royal Bank, he wrote and broadcast extensively for both domestic and international outlets. He also contributed regularly to oil and energy conferences. In 1983 Salmond created a "Royal Bank/BBC oil index" that is still used.

Oh aye- dedicated anti-business man 

As for communist, he's always been a left-wing socialist, to Farage or the USA that is close to communist, I'd like to think we were more politically intelligent than that though.

So 1 true, 1 true but misleading, 3 debatable, 2 nonsense....

[maccol]

@mccool - you don't have a case.

Fortunately my vote will be worth EXACTLY the same as yours on the day.

[Rod Paradise]

The White Paper's statements on alcohol alone should be enough to terrify most folk. "Just vote Yes and we'll take care of you and decide what's best for you" seems to be the attitude.

Was intrigued by this, from what I understand they propose a minimum unit price for alcohol. Given our nations terrible use of alcohol why do you think this is so bad?

Everything they've done so far targets the on-trade which is emphatically not where the problem lies. Read the white paper. It basically implies that whisky has been singled out for punitive duties because it's made in Scotland - which is also not true - and suggests raising all other duties too, giving English producers an automatic advantage.

Minimum pricing will only help to a very small degree, the only answer is in education.

This confused me - the Government is trying to implement minimum pricing for off sales, if anyone can find a pub that sell their drink for less than the proposed minimum please tell me.

I've just searched the White Paper, since your claim if implied singling out of whisky must be really well hidden. There is talk of minimum pricing (again most whisky isn't affected, the distilleries are fighting it over the effect on the bog standard vodkas they sell AFAIK), but the only mention of whisky is wrt exports.

Maybe you could copy the bit you're talking about?

It does. There's a table in there showing whisky as the only spirit paying duty at 40%. Which it obviously isn't. The minimum pricing is the first thing they've proposed which affects off sales. Meantime pubs are closing all over the place.

Do you know how long it is that Scotland has had the worst liver disease record in Europe? It's only since the 1990s. Which is when people stopped drinking in pubs and drank at home instead.

Fortunately Scottish food & drink exports are on a massive upward curve right now - which is a great thing. That will continue with a No vote, will it continue with a Yes vote? I don't know.

You'll need to link me up because I've read the food & drink section again and am not finding it. I'd have thought minimum pricing on off-sales would help the pubs, which have suffered, but I'm not sure what specific SG policies hurt them. We can postpone it till you get to a computer though I hate posting long posts from a phone as well.

One thing I do know is that events in British Embassies aimed at Scottish exports (including whisky) are charged for by the Embassy, events for other UK exports aren't.

[arbboy]

I wouldn't fly off the handle if such unadulterated pish wasn't posted and past off as fact, I had previously assumed you were a fairly well educated fella Arb, but it seems you lack ability to think for yourself and simply believe the propoganda that depicts the Scots as subsidy junkies.

@mccool - you don't have a case.

I asked you to inform me which parts of what nig said were untrue i am awaiting your response.  They were not my statements and i never said whether i had the same views or not.  I just asked you to inform me what part of what he said was factually incorrect.

What bits do you think were true and we can go from there?

You are like a westminster pro answering questions with questions.  I asked first so i will let you answer first.  

Since you ignored my reply earlier, I'll play here.

Watched the video till the end of Farage's first segment...

Claim 1, Better Together campaign weak, agreed.

Claim 2, Idea of not being Independent if in the EU - only to a strange definition of Independence, still a lot more autonomy than we do now.

Claim 3, stirring up of anti-English hatred in 16-24 year olds, not proven - no evidence of a) stirring of hatred, or b) significant levels of hatred. The No campaign has been boasting of the youth vote being more pro-union, so I'm not convinced.

Claim 4, English subsidies.... the following graph is from the Financial Times:


Claim 5, EU subsidies - speculation, there's no certainty over what happens with the EU, mainly because Cameron won't ask the question, prefering to keep stressing the uncertainty.

Claim 6, Over 50% of Scotland on benefits... TRUE - but missing a HUGE point.... the %age is higher for the UK. ONS stats for 2010/11 (latest I can find) show 52.7% of Scottish households get more benefits than they pay taxes. However the same study shows 53.4% of UK households in the same state.... who's the benefit junkies now? http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/media-centre/statements/household-taxes-and-benefits--update/index.html

Claim 7, Last claim from him was Salmond being a communist and anti-business....

In 1978 he entered the Government Economic Service as an Assistant Economist in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, part of the now defunct Scottish Office. Two years later he joined the staff of the Royal Bank of Scotland where he worked for seven years, initially as an assistant economist. In 1982 he was appointed Oil Economist, and from 1984 he worked as a bank economist as well as continuing to hold the position of Oil Economist.[12] While with the Royal Bank, he wrote and broadcast extensively for both domestic and international outlets. He also contributed regularly to oil and energy conferences. In 1983 Salmond created a "Royal Bank/BBC oil index" that is still used.

Oh aye- dedicated anti-business man 

As for communist, he's always been a left-wing socialist, to Farage or the USA that is close to communist, I'd like to think we were more politically intelligent than that though.

So 1 true, 1 true but misleading, 3 debatable, 2 nonsense....

Appreciate your reply with data to back up the issues with what Nig said.  TYVM.  

[Somerled]

The White Paper's statements on alcohol alone should be enough to terrify most folk. "Just vote Yes and we'll take care of you and decide what's best for you" seems to be the attitude.

Was intrigued by this, from what I understand they propose a minimum unit price for alcohol. Given our nations terrible use of alcohol why do you think this is so bad?

Everything they've done so far targets the on-trade which is emphatically not where the problem lies. Read the white paper. It basically implies that whisky has been singled out for punitive duties because it's made in Scotland - which is also not true - and suggests raising all other duties too, giving English producers an automatic advantage.

Minimum pricing will only help to a very small degree, the only answer is in education.

This confused me - the Government is trying to implement minimum pricing for off sales, if anyone can find a pub that sell their drink for less than the proposed minimum please tell me.

I've just searched the White Paper, since your claim if implied singling out of whisky must be really well hidden. There is talk of minimum pricing (again most whisky isn't affected, the distilleries are fighting it over the effect on the bog standard vodkas they sell AFAIK), but the only mention of whisky is wrt exports.

Maybe you could copy the bit you're talking about?

It does. There's a table in there showing whisky as the only spirit paying duty at 40%. Which it obviously isn't. The minimum pricing is the first thing they've proposed which affects off sales. Meantime pubs are closing all over the place.

Do you know how long it is that Scotland has had the worst liver disease record in Europe? It's only since the 1990s. Which is when people stopped drinking in pubs and drank at home instead.

Fortunately Scottish food & drink exports are on a massive upward curve right now - which is a great thing. That will continue with a No vote, will it continue with a Yes vote? I don't know.

You'll need to link me up because I've read the food & drink section again and am not finding it. I'd have thought minimum pricing on off-sales would help the pubs, which have suffered, but I'm not sure what specific SG policies hurt them. We can postpone it till you get to a computer though I hate posting long posts from a phone as well.

One thing I do know is that events in British Embassies aimed at Scottish exports (including whisky) are charged for by the Embassy, events for other UK exports aren't.

That isn't true. I've been to these events, no charge for anyone. Dunno where that story came from but it's utter bollocks.

[Rod Paradise]

The White Paper's statements on alcohol alone should be enough to terrify most folk. "Just vote Yes and we'll take care of you and decide what's best for you" seems to be the attitude.

Was intrigued by this, from what I understand they propose a minimum unit price for alcohol. Given our nations terrible use of alcohol why do you think this is so bad?

Everything they've done so far targets the on-trade which is emphatically not where the problem lies. Read the white paper. It basically implies that whisky has been singled out for punitive duties because it's made in Scotland - which is also not true - and suggests raising all other duties too, giving English producers an automatic advantage.

Minimum pricing will only help to a very small degree, the only answer is in education.

This confused me - the Government is trying to implement minimum pricing for off sales, if anyone can find a pub that sell their drink for less than the proposed minimum please tell me.

I've just searched the White Paper, since your claim if implied singling out of whisky must be really well hidden. There is talk of minimum pricing (again most whisky isn't affected, the distilleries are fighting it over the effect on the bog standard vodkas they sell AFAIK), but the only mention of whisky is wrt exports.

Maybe you could copy the bit you're talking about?

It does. There's a table in there showing whisky as the only spirit paying duty at 40%. Which it obviously isn't. The minimum pricing is the first thing they've proposed which affects off sales. Meantime pubs are closing all over the place.

Do you know how long it is that Scotland has had the worst liver disease record in Europe? It's only since the 1990s. Which is when people stopped drinking in pubs and drank at home instead.

Fortunately Scottish food & drink exports are on a massive upward curve right now - which is a great thing. That will continue with a No vote, will it continue with a Yes vote? I don't know.

You'll need to link me up because I've read the food & drink section again and am not finding it. I'd have thought minimum pricing on off-sales would help the pubs, which have suffered, but I'm not sure what specific SG policies hurt them. We can postpone it till you get to a computer though I hate posting long posts from a phone as well.

One thing I do know is that events in British Embassies aimed at Scottish exports (including whisky) are charged for by the Embassy, events for other UK exports aren't.

That isn't true. I've been to these events, no charge for anyone. Dunno where that story came from but it's utter bollocks.

Do they normally issue guests the cost breakdown for events?

It's a strange one, the argument goes that Scottish Development International has to cough up for the champagne and canapés with which prospective foreign clients are plied, but so does its partner body, UK Trade & Investment, which pays fees to itself under the Overseas Markets Introduction Scheme.

So Scottish trade events pay someone else, ruK trade events pay themselves.....

[Somerled]

The White Paper's statements on alcohol alone should be enough to terrify most folk. "Just vote Yes and we'll take care of you and decide what's best for you" seems to be the attitude.

Was intrigued by this, from what I understand they propose a minimum unit price for alcohol. Given our nations terrible use of alcohol why do you think this is so bad?

Everything they've done so far targets the on-trade which is emphatically not where the problem lies. Read the white paper. It basically implies that whisky has been singled out for punitive duties because it's made in Scotland - which is also not true - and suggests raising all other duties too, giving English producers an automatic advantage.

Minimum pricing will only help to a very small degree, the only answer is in education.

This confused me - the Government is trying to implement minimum pricing for off sales, if anyone can find a pub that sell their drink for less than the proposed minimum please tell me.

I've just searched the White Paper, since your claim if implied singling out of whisky must be really well hidden. There is talk of minimum pricing (again most whisky isn't affected, the distilleries are fighting it over the effect on the bog standard vodkas they sell AFAIK), but the only mention of whisky is wrt exports.

Maybe you could copy the bit you're talking about?

It does. There's a table in there showing whisky as the only spirit paying duty at 40%. Which it obviously isn't. The minimum pricing is the first thing they've proposed which affects off sales. Meantime pubs are closing all over the place.

Do you know how long it is that Scotland has had the worst liver disease record in Europe? It's only since the 1990s. Which is when people stopped drinking in pubs and drank at home instead.

Fortunately Scottish food & drink exports are on a massive upward curve right now - which is a great thing. That will continue with a No vote, will it continue with a Yes vote? I don't know.

You'll need to link me up because I've read the food & drink section again and am not finding it. I'd have thought minimum pricing on off-sales would help the pubs, which have suffered, but I'm not sure what specific SG policies hurt them. We can postpone it till you get to a computer though I hate posting long posts from a phone as well.

One thing I do know is that events in British Embassies aimed at Scottish exports (including whisky) are charged for by the Embassy, events for other UK exports aren't.

That isn't true. I've been to these events, no charge for anyone. Dunno where that story came from but it's utter bollocks.

Do they normally issue guests the cost breakdown for events?

It's a strange one, the argument goes that Scottish Development International has to cough up for the champagne and canapés with which prospective foreign clients are plied, but so does its partner body, UK Trade & Investment, which pays fees to itself under the Overseas Markets Introduction Scheme.

So Scottish trade events pay someone else, ruK trade events pay themselves.....

I can only speak from a small sample size of 2 events - Tokyo & Singapore - but from speaking to the rUK companies that were there we seemed to get a much better deal than all of them. Like i say, I can only base it on what I have experienced myself. Can't speak highly enough of SDI, they've been fantastic, but operating under the UKTI system is undoubtedly a benefit too.

[Doobs]

The White Paper's statements on alcohol alone should be enough to terrify most folk. "Just vote Yes and we'll take care of you and decide what's best for you" seems to be the attitude.

Was intrigued by this, from what I understand they propose a minimum unit price for alcohol. Given our nations terrible use of alcohol why do you think this is so bad?

Everything they've done so far targets the on-trade which is emphatically not where the problem lies. Read the white paper. It basically implies that whisky has been singled out for punitive duties because it's made in Scotland - which is also not true - and suggests raising all other duties too, giving English producers an automatic advantage.

Minimum pricing will only help to a very small degree, the only answer is in education.

This confused me - the Government is trying to implement minimum pricing for off sales, if anyone can find a pub that sell their drink for less than the proposed minimum please tell me.

I've just searched the White Paper, since your claim if implied singling out of whisky must be really well hidden. There is talk of minimum pricing (again most whisky isn't affected, the distilleries are fighting it over the effect on the bog standard vodkas they sell AFAIK), but the only mention of whisky is wrt exports.

Maybe you could copy the bit you're talking about?

It does. There's a table in there showing whisky as the only spirit paying duty at 40%. Which it obviously isn't. The minimum pricing is the first thing they've proposed which affects off sales. Meantime pubs are closing all over the place.

Do you know how long it is that Scotland has had the worst liver disease record in Europe? It's only since the 1990s. Which is when people stopped drinking in pubs and drank at home instead.

Fortunately Scottish food & drink exports are on a massive upward curve right now - which is a great thing. That will continue with a No vote, will it continue with a Yes vote? I don't know.

You'll need to link me up because I've read the food & drink section again and am not finding it. I'd have thought minimum pricing on off-sales would help the pubs, which have suffered, but I'm not sure what specific SG policies hurt them. We can postpone it till you get to a computer though I hate posting long posts from a phone as well.

One thing I do know is that events in British Embassies aimed at Scottish exports (including whisky) are charged for by the Embassy, events for other UK exports aren't.

That isn't true. I've been to these events, no charge for anyone. Dunno where that story came from but it's utter bollocks.

Do they normally issue guests the cost breakdown for events?

It's a strange one, the argument goes that Scottish Development International has to cough up for the champagne and canapés with which prospective foreign clients are plied, but so does its partner body, UK Trade & Investment, which pays fees to itself under the Overseas Markets Introduction Scheme.

So Scottish trade events pay someone else, ruK trade events pay themselves.....

Surely there isn't a block on Scottish companies taking part at events promoting the UK?  So there is no different treatment between English companies and Scottish companies.

If a company want to promote just Scotland then isn't it slightly different?  Presumably they would be treated the same as I would if I set up a company called Yorkshire Development International and asked if I could use the embassy to promote all good things from Yorkshire?