• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Scottish Independence v. Further devolution, or just convoluted lies?

Should Scotland become independent?

  • Should stay how things are now

    Votes: 6 15.0%

  • Should become fully independent

    Votes: 20 50.0%

  • Should extend devolved powers but remain part of UK

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • I am Spade

    Votes: 6 15.0%
  • Total voters
    40
Awh I'm sorry, OTW, I've had a drink - so can't properly read your post (will do tomorrow, I promise).

I agree with you re sour losers though - we never truly know how reliable the system is. Sorry, since doing a Psychology degree, I can't just accept things anymore when it comes to statistics and votes etc. I assume, and would like to think, that all was genuine and well. Like I've said numerous time, though, I'm not Scottish and am more bothered about my own country---- Wales. We have some sort of independence here, we also get free prescriptions. as well as other things, so I can't complain.

I hope you're all doing well.

Evey
 
One Thousand Words said:
It is a sign of a poorly thought out campaign if you whinge after you lose though. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, and I'm sure if they decided to hold it again in a years time, the result could be reversed. The reservations the majority of people had was of the unknown. That is where they failed to come up with a solid financial and economical plan of how things would work.

Emotional campaign of nationalism works while you host the commonwealth games, but the ma and pa's who then head off to work worry more about micro issues at home than historical events. Reality is oil alone is not enough to runs Scotland without introducing higher taxation that exists in say Norway. Their economic success comes from decades of financial prudence, something that would require initially a financial readjustment. For many families, they would not see the long term benefits, only the short term pain of higher cost of living.

I am all for more local governance personally. However it borders on xenophobia when you start to argue about who is indigenous and who should rule. How many from an immigrant background would have voted Yes? If anything borders such as this should be slowly broken down around the world, not re established. We are all humans, and bloodlines or countries only serve to divide us as a species.
Click to expand...

I agree - but i only saw a 'civic nationalism' on the yes side, which specifically avoided ethinic/bloodline ideas ('it's not about who you are, but where you happen to live') - plenty of 'immigrants' voted yes (eg majority of scottish asians). I'm sure plenty of yes people thought of independence in ethnic terms, but they weren't the majority and they weren't leading the political debate.

I accept how people voted as i'm a democrat - by the same token i'd want to be sure the result WAS democratic if there were any suspicions about the vote (as would the nos if they lost). I can absolutely believe the result was genuine, but it doesn't hurt to double check (i remember the 92 election, which was only won by 1,250 votes (spread over several marginals) and i suspect was rigged - nick davies on this).

I respect the no voters' views and the democratic result - doesn't mean i suddenly agree with them and would stop arguing with them (or whinge if you like) - and neither would the nos had they lost.

Am i whinging if i won't ignore the dodgy media bias? If election purdah rules agreed by all sides were stuck to, there wouldn't have been a 'vow' the week before; and if the government didn't break election law (eg by the cabinet secretary phoning up businesses, according to the FT editor - thats against the law), the result may have been different (this isn't hindsight, as we were saying it all at the time).

At the very least these issues need to be explored robustly to try and prevent that sort of thing in future elections. (i have a feeling that over the next few weeks/months, we'll start hearing more and more about the dodgy deals done in the last weeks of this campaign)
 
Last edited:
One Thousand Words said:
It is a sign of a poorly thought out campaign if you whinge after you lose though. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, and I'm sure if they decided to hold it again in a years time, the result could be reversed. The reservations the majority of people had was of the unknown. That is where they failed to come up with a solid financial and economical plan of how things would work.

Emotional campaign of nationalism works while you host the commonwealth games, but the ma and pa's who then head off to work worry more about micro issues at home than historical events. Reality is oil alone is not enough to runs Scotland without introducing higher taxation that exists in say Norway. Their economic success comes from decades of financial prudence, something that would require initially a financial readjustment. For many families, they would not see the long term benefits, only the short term pain of higher cost of living.

I am all for more local governance personally. However it borders on xenophobia when you start to argue about who is indigenous and who should rule. How many from an immigrant background would have voted Yes? If anything borders such as this should be slowly broken down around the world, not re established. We are all humans, and bloodlines or countries only serve to divide us as a species.
Click to expand...

*LIKE*

Evey
 
One Thousand Words said:
All I'm seeing is a lot of sour grapes from the losing side.

Like it or not you live in a democracy, where majority rules. When 97% of the electorate votes! and you get beaten by ten percent, you have to accept the result and move on. Unfortunately, unlike an election, it will be many years before you are allowed another referendum on the issue.

Reality is this referendum was fought along socio economic lines, and the poorer amongst you are in the minority. Unless you plan on picking up pitchforks and physically fighting for independence you have to move on and suck it up.
Click to expand...

Fairly bizarre post. No one on the yes side has not accepted it, it has been accepted. The ones trying to start a riot are the No side, that won.

They won but still can't move on, they have to go out giving everyone in sight a kicking. Bad winners, idiots, I don't know but it's certainly not sour grapes from the yes side.
 
Frankly I think we should kick them out now for being so insolent. They'll be begging to come back in a decade
 
The whinge continues...

Some evidence of BBC scotland's (earlier) bias against independence

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/...ottish-independence-power-and-propaganda.html

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...ty-dozen-the-case-against-bbc-scotland-part-1

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/...-coverage-of-the-independence-referendum.html

Regardless of the result of the referendum, more and more people have become aware that major media organisations, including the BBC, are not to be trusted to tell the truth, and that the interests they stand for are not the readers, but the corporate owners and advertisers (or the government/establishment in the case of BBC). (find me one that isn't like this).

The BBC by definition is biased towards the 'establishment', because it's a core part of it - admittedly in the past the BBC did sometimes exhibit more 'social democratic' views (mostly when the establishment was trying that stuff out as a valve against real socialism), but that's gone now; they've always been for the state first (one of the first things they did when set up was to use propaganda to help work against the general strike in the 20s). Despite the constant daily mail refrain of left wing bias, current bbc news output has been measured academically and shown to have right wing bias (it's pretty obvious to see anyway). This has intensified unsurprisingly under Chris Patten (the woman now replacing him also has dodgy links eg to private healthcare and hsbc)

I'm sure many/most members of the organisation don't think it's biased, but if they didn't think this way, they wouldn't have got the job in the first place (the propaganda model in action (as described in chommers' interview with paxo)). When you're within a class/social group, you tend to share unspoken assumptions, which can appear to you as if they are self-evident - this is mostly an unconscious process; i'm sure most of the bbc journalists would be horrified to think they were part of a propaganda system (but the various studies showing this are hard to refute). Don't be fooled that the BBC is really any different to RT (and vice versa).
 
Last edited:
State-owned broadcaster in political bias shocker? 8o

Newsnet Scotland is not the most credible or impartial of sources, as I'm sure you're aware. Not that there's much wrong with the remainder of your post, but you don't need to back it up with material from the lunatic fringe.
 
Just refute the content, not the messenger (i still have to read the bbc to check that it's biased)

and based on experience i trust the integrity of the 'lunatic fringe' news overall more than the normal media (excluding icke-style stuff, but you can't have been saying NNS was like that surely?). With either we still have to use our own critical thinking, check references and try to avoid confirmation bias. When any 'authority' you attribute to a source is earned in the recent past by specific actions/performance, rather than being purely titular, or some habitual vestige of the mental furniture of your culture, there's less to be misled by.

(but i added a better source above (still lunatic fringe mind)
 
Last edited:
I'm just far more interested in the aftermath of the referendum and its implications for the British political landscape than I am with pointing fingers and chasing phantoms. I think that's a lot more relevant to this discussion than any attempt to prove a right-wing bias in the media, of which anybody with a mind of their own is already very much aware.

Oh, and also this:

ickepissed1.jpg
 
(you're such a bloody liberal :p) That increased awareness of blatant media bias (no phantom) will be one of the big implications for the british political landscape (bbc has lost a lot of trust, and not only in scotland). It seemed it was mainly the pensioners who couldn't bring themselves to not trust auntie who swung the vote to no. To me control of information is one of the biggest pollitical issues (as it's successfully used to corral opinion on all other issues).

But please do regale us with your opinions on the political ramifications of the referendum ;)
 
Last edited:
If you want to see bias simply look at the media rules enforced by Fiji during their election last weekend. There was a total ban on all electioneering, even commenting on social media was banned. The reasons was so the people could make up their own minds without ant bias from either side. Of course the general who led a coup and over threw the previously elected government 8 yrs ago was voted in by a landslide.

Salmons "we was tricked" quote would have to be the most retarded thing I have heard from a politician in the past 24 hr

Governments have been overthrown in the Middle East solely by twitter and Facebook ground swells. You don't need the British Broadcasting Corporation support to win any election, you simply need a platform that the majority of the electorate supports
 
Other less dictator-y countries also have media bans in campaigns without any coups happening though. All media is biased - the problem is the uk mainstream media and especially the BBC pretend that their brand of kool aid isn't biased; and significant numbers of people believe them (believing some bollocks myth about the 'fourth estate' or the 'impartial' bbc). In the west the free press means anyone is free to own a newspaper and fill it with opinion masquerading as fact (but only some people can afford to own a newspapers (well maybe one at a time)). Not surprising that most of these opinions tend to be the sort of opinions that might favour newspaper owners' position (hence right wing media).

What 'the majority of the electorate supports' is heavily influenced by the media - it's not unbeatable though - 45% still voted for independence despite the barrage of all media - that's pretty heartening to me.
 
Last edited:
The problem isn't the media, it's the stupid Neds who believe everything they see on television. Perhaps it's time to admit democracy doesn't work. A majority of idiots voting is still a bunch of idiots

Psst, jimmy Saville wasn't a nice charitable guy and Sooty and Sweep were a couple of socks on some blokes hand
 
Well i like democracy, being a socialist. And isn't it chicken and egg? I certainly feel myself getting stupider when i watch most media output. I don't think the majority of people are idiots at all - ignorant on some things maybe (as am i) - being too innocent and trusting in authority is sort of a nice personal quality (and sorry if i'm patronising you, i'm just saying what i think :p)
 
That's ridiculous - i'm a socialist (or anarchist or whatever); a big part of that to me is having proper democracy. Now i'd probably prefer a more direct democracy than the representative version, but the vote is what it is. To have a fair vote however means the voters should have as full knowledge of the issues involved as possible - hence why control of the media is such an important political issue (and has helped push the politics of the UK more to the right than it would have been)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top