One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[Meister Jag]

long time no see, you been keeping well?

 

Hi Jaggy, haven't been posting much but still a frequent forum visitor (past few days excluded due to access problems). Still in regular contact with a few mates / comrades (remember we number many!) on the forum and leaving the political analysis in your capable hands.

 

In truth, I can see both sides of the referendum debate but - and I've made this point many times over the years, have to question what will be delivered to the average punter in the street. Keep the pound, Bank of England controls the economy, The Queen stays as sovereign (you'll like that) so royal patronage will continue and the parliament will swear allegiance etc. The Queen will have the power to dissolve parliament upon the recommendation of who... a High Commissioner as in the case of Australia some years back? So would we ever be truly independent? Low corporation tax suggests a low wage economy with big business in control; this is hardly in line with the 'high wage, high skill' recommendations of the Jimmy Reid Foundation (which I like; but why hasn't any government tried to take us down this road in the past?). I also don't buy the argument that this a stepping stone to Scotland becoming a socialist republican utopia. Look at who will be in charge and making money out of Scotland - the same multinationals making dosh in many other parts of the globe.

 

Recent bumf through my door suggests that a Scottish Government would reign in Atos (so presumably finding no one fit for work... do we become a benefit tourist destination if free border, EU membership etc?), but it's a government department (DWP) who tells Atos what the test is. Presumably this role would be taken on by the Scottish Parliament (department yet to be created) and a budget would have to be created. Would this help benefit-dependency? - it had better be a damn big budget as the West of Scotland's social welfare spend is not matched anywhere else in Western Europe. But if people want to go with this promise then I guess politicians can be held accountable. Not that they'll care as they'll have achieved their project aims i.e. independence of sorts.

 

Cynical about the whole process and just broken a promise that I wouldn't get involved in this debate. I know that many will disagree with what I say and will suggest that if we don't try we'll never move forward.

 

See you about. Hard hat now on waiting for the bombs to fall...

Edited August 28, 2014 by Meister Jag

[Meister Jag]

Jaggybunnet:

 

Agreed about the tv debates. Useless, and may even result in some people voting for the wrong reasons.

 

Anybody seen the Youtube videos of Jim Murphy's tour of Scotland to speak for the union? Funny but pathetic at the same time.

 

Shades of Farage being hounded? Not great for democracy but showing that some people are, er, passionate (?) about what they believe in?

[Jaggernaut]

Shades of Farage being hounded? Not great for democracy but showing that some people are, er, passionate (?) about what they believe in?

 

I watched some of all four videos, and he gave no answers to hard and direct questions from people on the street; in fact he simply foisted off the questioners and turned to look at his (very few) supporters. If that is the level of support for "no" the length and breadth of Scotland, then the YES victory will be massive.

 

Being "hounded" has been part and parcel of public speaking for centuries. A Labour party member got ejected from a "no" campaign meeting the other night for daring to criticise Gordon Brown. Is that a better picture of democracy?

[Norgethistle]

 

 

I watched some of all four videos, and he gave no answers to hard and direct questions from people on the street; in fact he simply foisted off the questioners and turned to look at his (very few) supporters. If that is the level of support for "no" the length and breadth of Scotland, then the YES victory will be massive.

 

Being "hounded" has been part and parcel of public speaking for centuries. A Labour party member got ejected from a "no" campaign meeting the other night for daring to criticise Gordon Brown. Is that a better picture of democracy?

 

If he'd been in public he would have been charged with breech of the piece, there is questioning, debating or just heckling and being abusive he was the former

[jaggybunnet]

I watched some of all four videos, and he gave no answers to hard and direct questions from people on the street; in fact he simply foisted off the questioners and turned to look at his (very few) supporters. If that is the level of support for "no" the length and breadth of Scotland, then the YES victory will be massive.

 

Being "hounded" has been part and parcel of public speaking for centuries. A Labour party member got ejected from a "no" campaign meeting the other night for daring to criticise Gordon Brown. Is that a better picture of democracy?

 

if this is your democracy in a independent Scotland you can stuff it, i don't like the guy but bloody hell.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28969671

[Norgethistle]

 

 

if this is your democracy in a independent Scotland you can stuff it, i don't like the guy but bloody hell.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28969671

 

Unfortunately it has been evident since the campaigns started as soon as you question or disagree with the Nats your abused online or in person, I don't see anywhere near that level of hate or bitterness in the No camp, I agree with you Jaggy if this is the way an Independant Scotland will operate then I want nothing to do with it

[Meister Jag]

I watched some of all four videos, and he gave no answers to hard and direct questions from people on the street; in fact he simply foisted off the questioners and turned to look at his (very few) supporters. If that is the level of support for "no" the length and breadth of Scotland, then the YES victory will be massive.

 

Being "hounded" has been part and parcel of public speaking for centuries. A Labour party member got ejected from a "no" campaign meeting the other night for daring to criticise Gordon Brown. Is that a better picture of democracy?

 

I thought that a guiding principle of 'oor ain wee parliament' was that there would be a move away from adversarial Westminster-style debates. No bear pit politics so to speak. The Gordon Brown comment, if true, is equally outrageous... and possibly an example of the debate being lost in some quarters. Yes, in a democracy and at a public meeting, you should be able to ask relevant questions. (Wasn't there so don't know what happened.)

[P-R]

Unfortunately it has been evident since the campaigns started as soon as you question or disagree with the Nats your abused online or in person, I don't see anywhere near that level of hate or bitterness in the No camp, I agree with you Jaggy if this is the way an Independant Scotland will operate then I want nothing to do with it

Well I think it depends on what side of the fence you stand on as to whether you perceive more abuse coming from the Yes / No side. Not that I condone an attack on Jim Murphy but I'm sure you're only hearing more about it because of his position.

[Guy Incognito]

Hi Jaggy, haven't been posting much but still a frequent forum visitor (past few days excluded due to access problems). Still in regular contact with a few mates / comrades (remember we number many!) on the forum and leaving the political analysis in your capable hands.

 

In truth, I can see both sides of the referendum debate but - and I've made this point many times over the years, have to question what will be delivered to the average punter in the street. Keep the pound, Bank of England controls the economy, The Queen stays as sovereign (you'll like that) so royal patronage will continue and the parliament will swear allegiance etc. The Queen will have the power to dissolve parliament upon the recommendation of who... a High Commissioner as in the case of Australia some years back? So would we ever be truly independent? Low corporation tax suggests a low wage economy with big business in control; this is hardly in line with the 'high wage, high skill' recommendations of the Jimmy Reid Foundation (which I like; but why hasn't any government tried to take us down this road in the past?). I also don't buy the argument that this a stepping stone to Scotland becoming a socialist republican utopia. Look at who will be in charge and making money out of Scotland - the same multinationals making dosh in many other parts of the globe.

 

Recent bumf through my door suggests that a Scottish Government would reign in Atos (so presumably finding no one fit for work... do we become a benefit tourist destination if free border, EU membership etc?), but it's a government department (DWP) who tells Atos what the test is. Presumably this role would be taken on by the Scottish Parliament (department yet to be created) and a budget would have to be created. Would this help benefit-dependency? - it had better be a damn big budget as the West of Scotland's social welfare spend is not matched anywhere else in Western Europe. But if people want to go with this promise then I guess politicians can be held accountable. Not that they'll care as they'll have achieved their project aims i.e. independence of sorts.

 

Cynical about the whole process and just broken a promise that I wouldn't get involved in this debate. I know that many will disagree with what I say and will suggest that if we don't try we'll never move forward.

 

See you about. Hard hat now on waiting for the bombs to fall...

 

"What will be delivered to the average punter in the street"

 

I mind hearing that harrumphed around the time of the Holyrood referendum too. But since the Holyrood parliament was formed it has, off the top of my head, given the average punter in the street the smoking ban, free prescriptions and free higher education. Post-independence it might also give the average punter in the street the sense that his or her vote actually means something as well as the reassurance that he or she is not part of a country that has or is just about to illegally invade another. Again, that is just of the top of my head.

 

The Queen will remain head of state. That's the plan anyway. But to throw it back at you, how much practical difference does it make to our punter on the street if Scotland's head of state is some auld wifey in an expensive hat or a politician? Both are fairly benign, conceptually, unlike the ludicrous feudal entity that is the House of Lords - one of if not the largest unelected legislative body in the world. For the record, I would far rather we elected our own head of state; a hereditary monarchy in this day and age is just absurd. But let's take things one step at time here.

 

I am also a fan of the Jimmy Reid Foundation (whose name works as well for a mod soul group as it does a think-tank) but their ideas aren't actually all that radical when you consider that many of them are already being used throughout Europe. Why has no government tried to take us down that path in this country? One reason is because we have known nothing but neo-liberal rule for the past 35 years since Labour decided to take on the Tories at their own game (and were eventually very successful in doing so). And yes, the SNP are also neo-liberals - the low corporation tax is their policy and their policy alone and it certainly isn't something I personally support. It is entirely possible, however, that they won't get to enact said policy because they are by no means guaranteed to form Scotland's first post-independence government. Another party might emerge and adopt some of the JRF's ideas. It might even be Labour, if they can snap out of their neo-liberal trance.

 

I agree that it is unlikely, highly unlikely, that we would see the back of multinationals (is there anywhere that is free from them?) but at least we might be able to hold them to account a bit better. As I have said, low business tax isn't something I favour (in part for the reasons you have highlighted) but the important thing isn't jacking it up, it is making sure that big businesses pay their fair share; no more loopholes!

 

You are right, Atos are only doing what they have been asked by DWP; in turn DWP are only doing what they have been asked by the government. Aside from the moral repugnancy (IMHO) of a multinational making profits off the back of social welfare, I would argue that it is possible for a government to be a little more in touch with people's needs than the ConDems appear to be and consequently devise a welfare policy that is more effective and a little less brutal than we have at present. (Incidentally, I could be wrong I am sure that social provision spend is slightly lower per capita in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.)

 

I thought that a guiding principle of 'oor ain wee parliament' was that there would be a move away from adversarial Westminster-style debates. No bear pit politics so to speak. The Gordon Brown comment, if true, is equally outrageous... and possibly an example of the debate being lost in some quarters. Yes, in a democracy and at a public meeting, you should be able to ask relevant questions. (Wasn't there so don't know what happened.)

 

Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy both sit in Westminster though (when they can be bothered). I don't know if that has in any way influenced Mr Murphy's decision to stand on semi-deserted street corners and shopping centres on a stack of Irn Bru crates bellowing like a lunatic or not.

 

Outwith the mainstream politics of middle aged men in suits yelling at each other the level of engagement and debate at a grassroots level in this campaign has been thrilling. I am sure I have said it already on this thread but whatever the result I hope it continues post-referendum (and by the way, as interesting as it has been at times I am glad that the end is nearly upon us!).

[Guy Incognito]

 

 

if this is your democracy in a independent Scotland you can stuff it, i don't like the guy but bloody hell.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28969671

 

 

Unfortunately it has been evident since the campaigns started as soon as you question or disagree with the Nats your abused online or in person, I don't see anywhere near that level of hate or bitterness in the No camp, I agree with you Jaggy if this is the way an Independant Scotland will operate then I want nothing to do with it

 

 

Seriously you two, get a grip. It was an egg. Not a brick, not a fist, a f*cking egg.

 

I don't condone it - the man is entitled to express his point of view - but he won't be the first politician it has happened to and he won't be the last.

 

And Norge, I admit that there are some absolute zoomers out there who support independence but if you honestly haven't seen anger or bitterness coming from the No side then you either haven't been paying proper attention or you are deluded. Alex Salmond and Jim Sillars have both received death threats during this campaign and there are a myriad of examples of ordinary campaigners being abused both online and in the street for their opinions. Thankfully, most people on either side of the campaign have conducted themselves in a respectful manner, by and large.

[Meister Jag]

Guy, thanks for your comments, a number of which I agree with. I've elected not to quote your post as it would fill too much space and might detract from the discussion; especially once I start waffling.

 

My position is relatively straightforward in that what has been delivered has been possible with devolution. Whatever further devolved powers come our way should the referendum fail will simply see an extension of existing powers; and why not. To my mind, the Tories can't wait to foist Devo Max upon Scotland as it will allow them step back and allow the parliament to make tough even unpopular decision on matters such as taxation (to meet the needs of the nation, the only way may be up!). In turn, I think they feel this might see them making a reappearance as a force. (Remember that in the last Scottish election over 200k people still voted for them; so not entirely a spent force. The votes cast in the EU elections suggested that their support is growing; but this may be referendum-related.) So why else offer Devo Max and why the distance from the other two pro-union parties?

 

Also, to my mind a 'Yes' vote would see or require a massive increase in the size of Holyrood and consideration would (IMO) need to be given to some form of bicameral system. But who do we appoint on what basis? Surely not the hereditary types of the H of L; although royal patronage will remain and presumably the parliament will would still be able to recommend gongs etc. I suppose this would then give patronage jobs to business leaders, politicians (quota basis?), chosen academics, the odd token TU bod or even church leaders. Whatever is decided, the apparatus of government then starts to grow, more civil servants, new chamber premises etc. (Pretty sure I read somewhere that we have a high level of representation per head of pop next to the rest of the UK.) Parliaments come at a greater cost; especially if a second chamber were to be created.

 

But I return to my point, which is that I don't think a 'Yes' vote will empower the people of Scotland in the way that many believe. Big business will still own / run the country and government will be wary of shaking them too hard. For example, where a company has been arrived and been afforded start-up money to create jobs, if they don't like how they're being treated they will simply up sticks and move elsewhere (Motorola didn't stick about too long out at Bathgate and as for the Chungwa TV tube mob...). Some will argue that this is the beauty of the free market. Chase the profit to where the most money can be made for the lowest possible output. To my mind, the people of Scotland then become pawns in a low-wage economy; or am I being too bleak?

 

Apologies if it appears I'm being cynical, but my distrust of those who wish to exploit people for profit remains. I have no doubt that the current Scottish government is well-intentioned and I can see the argument that local control means tighter control and influence; yet I'm not convinced.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

 

Seriously you two, get a grip. It was an egg. Not a brick, not a fist, a f*cking egg.

 

I don't condone it - the man is entitled to express his point of view - but he won't be the first politician it has happened to and he won't be the last.

 

But yet you just have above

 

And Norge, I admit that there are some absolute zoomers out there who support independence but if you honestly haven't seen anger or bitterness coming from the No side then you either haven't been paying proper attention or you are deluded. Alex Salmond and Jim Sillars have both received death threats during this campaign and there are a myriad of examples of ordinary campaigners being abused both online and in the street for their opinions. Thankfully, most people on either side of the campaign have conducted themselves in a respectful manner, by and large.

[Jaggernaut]

Unfortunately it has been evident since the campaigns started as soon as you question or disagree with the Nats your abused online or in person, I don't see anywhere near that level of hate or bitterness in the No camp, I agree with you Jaggy if this is the way an Independant Scotland will operate then I want nothing to do with it

 

Aw give it a rest with this false outrage over "Nats" (childish insult) abusing "no" campaigners. Take a look at the comments on the Scotsman "newspaper" site for really vile behaviour, and most of it is from "no" supporters. The only individual to be convicted for a referendum-related crime is a "no" supporter. Look at the insults the Weirs got for donating to their preferred political party. Who has threatened to slit Alex Salmond's throat? -- Not a YES supporter.

 

Politician gets hit by an egg shocker!! Grow up; it's happened hundreds of times in England and Scotland, and involving political parties and protesters of all kinds.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[Norgethistle]

Aw give it a rest with this false outrage over "Nats" (childish insult) abusing "no" campaigners. Take a look at the comments on the Scotsman "newspaper" site for really vile behaviour, and most of it is from "no" supporters. The only individual to be convicted for a referendum-related crime is a "no" supporter. Look at the insults the Weirs got for donating to their preferred political party. Who has threatened to slit Alex Salmond's throat? -- Not a YES supporter.

 

Politician gets hit by an egg shocker!! Grow up; it's happened hundreds of times in England and Scotland, and involving political parties and protesters of all kinds.

 

So again your condemming it?

 

Look at the abuse at JK Rowling, or the single mum that came out to support No to name a few, just look to Gordon Brown the other day when he was making a speech.

The agression seen by alot towards anyone that supports No is frightening, I've been called an Orange Bas####, English, a traitor, not a true Scot to name a few because to me independance makes no sense and I question it

[Jaggernaut]

So again your condemming it? Look at the abuse at JK Rowling, or the single mum that came out to support No to name a few, just look to Gordon Brown the other day when he was making a speech. The agression seen by alot towards anyone that supports No is frightening, I've been called an Orange Bas####, English, a traitor, not a true Scot to name a few because to me independance makes no sense and I question it

 

You are blind to abuse by "no" supporters. Totally blind. You don't even acknowledge it, you are so blinkered.

[Jaggernaut]

if this is your democracy in a independent Scotland you can stuff it, i don't like the guy but bloody hell.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-28969671

 

There's a lot of interesting observations being made about this incident. By coincidence, somebody just happened to be focusing a video camera just at the right time on Jim Murphy's back. The egg-lobber, nothing whatsoever to identify him as a YES supporter in any way, calmly approaches, lobs his egg, then calmly disappears. This is all "caught" on video, with nobody, none of Murphy's team, doing anything whatsoever to either prevent the incident or attempt to intervene in any way. The egg-lobber's face is clearly visible, so you'd think that the police would easily be able to make an arrest and charge him with assault. But no arrest. But then Murphy calls off his tour of Scotland and claims that SNP "attack dogs" are making things impossible for him. Have you seen the videos of his tour? Nobody, but nobody is listening to him, nobody is turning up to listen to what he has to say.

 

A convenient way to avoid further humiliation, and also to create another lie and blame it on the YES campaign? We'll see.

[jaggybunnet]

There's a lot of interesting observations being made about this incident. By coincidence, somebody just happened to be focusing a video camera just at the right time on Jim Murphy's back. The egg-lobber, nothing whatsoever to identify him as a YES supporter in any way, calmly approaches, lobs his egg, then calmly disappears. This is all "caught" on video, with nobody, none of Murphy's team, doing anything whatsoever to either prevent the incident or attempt to intervene in any way. The egg-lobber's face is clearly visible, so you'd think that the police would easily be able to make an arrest and charge him with assault. But no arrest. But then Murphy calls off his tour of Scotland and claims that SNP "attack dogs" are making things impossible for him. Have you seen the videos of his tour? Nobody, but nobody is listening to him, nobody is turning up to listen to what he has to say.

 

A convenient way to avoid further humiliation, and also to create another lie and blame it on the YES campaign? We'll see.

 

oh dear, nuff said

[Guy Incognito]

Guy, thanks for your comments, a number of which I agree with. I've elected not to quote your post as it would fill too much space and might detract from the discussion; especially once I start waffling.

 

My position is relatively straightforward in that what has been delivered has been possible with devolution. Whatever further devolved powers come our way should the referendum fail will simply see an extension of existing powers; and why not. To my mind, the Tories can't wait to foist Devo Max upon Scotland as it will allow them step back and allow the parliament to make tough even unpopular decision on matters such as taxation (to meet the needs of the nation, the only way may be up!). In turn, I think they feel this might see them making a reappearance as a force. (Remember that in the last Scottish election over 200k people still voted for them; so not entirely a spent force. The votes cast in the EU elections suggested that their support is growing; but this may be referendum-related.) So why else offer Devo Max and why the distance from the other two pro-union parties?

 

Also, to my mind a 'Yes' vote would see or require a massive increase in the size of Holyrood and consideration would (IMO) need to be given to some form of bicameral system. But who do we appoint on what basis? Surely not the hereditary types of the H of L; although royal patronage will remain and presumably the parliament will would still be able to recommend gongs etc. I suppose this would then give patronage jobs to business leaders, politicians (quota basis?), chosen academics, the odd token TU bod or even church leaders. Whatever is decided, the apparatus of government then starts to grow, more civil servants, new chamber premises etc. (Pretty sure I read somewhere that we have a high level of representation per head of pop next to the rest of the UK.) Parliaments come at a greater cost; especially if a second chamber were to be created.

 

But I return to my point, which is that I don't think a 'Yes' vote will empower the people of Scotland in the way that many believe. Big business will still own / run the country and government will be wary of shaking them too hard. For example, where a company has been arrived and been afforded start-up money to create jobs, if they don't like how they're being treated they will simply up sticks and move elsewhere (Motorola didn't stick about too long out at Bathgate and as for the Chungwa TV tube mob...). Some will argue that this is the beauty of the free market. Chase the profit to where the most money can be made for the lowest possible output. To my mind, the people of Scotland then become pawns in a low-wage economy; or am I being too bleak?

 

Apologies if it appears I'm being cynical, but my distrust of those who wish to exploit people for profit remains. I have no doubt that the current Scottish government is well-intentioned and I can see the argument that local control means tighter control and influence; yet I'm not convinced.

 

Thanks for the reply MJ. I feel you are overrating the Tories' 'devo max' proposal a wee bit though. Admittedly, it is better than Labour's pathetic pig in a poke proposal, but while income tax collection may be devolved all other revenues (including the oil and gas) will still be controlled by Westminster. Full devo max, i.e. full control over revenues, welfare and pensions with only foreign policy, immigration and defence being retained by Westminster, might interest me by way of a compromise, but what is currently on the table from the unionists isn't enough.

 

And that is assuming it even is on the table. Boris Johnson let the mask slip recently when he questioned why his party were promising more powers to Scotland in the event of a No vote. I can see his logic: the Tories fought tooth and nail against devolution in the '90s and now they are asking us to believe that they will deliver even more powers if we vote No!

 

There are pros and cons of bicameral vs unicameral parliaments. A second chamber would act as a safety valve for the first, but having just the one chamber means that government is less bloated (no bad thing). Even if we stuck with a unicameral system we would require additional ministerial posts to replace those currently filled in Westminster, but I don't see the change being massive. Regarding practicalities such as office space and staffing, we already have bodies on the ground; some Westminster departments have operational centres up here and the staff could just transfer over. Not everything need be headquartered in Edinburgh either: there is no shortage of office space in places like Dundee or Glasgow. One of the appealing aspects of independence, for me, is the potential to create a less centralised, less bloated state. Apparently Scotland has one of lowest levels of participatory democracy in Europe and we need to address this.

 

You'll never find me extolling the virtues of big business and if I thought that independence automatically equals an economy built on low-paid, low-skilled jobs then I too would be apathetic; the last thing I want is for Scotland to remain a country of wage slaves. But it needn't be that way. We could create an economy built around well-paid, high value jobs by specialising. I have seen hydrogen ship manufacturing being suggested, and then there is our huge potential for renewable energy.

 

Basically, an independent Scotland is a blank canvass and we shouldn't assume that it will be a mini-UK or that the SNP's vision will remain set in stone.

[Guy Incognito]

But yet you just have above

 

No I haven't. I was trying to say keep things perspective. George Galloway apparently got beaten up in London the other night (quite badly too) and yesterday a man was convicted for threatening to kill Alex Salmond. Both make Murphy's egg assault look even more inconsequential.

 

But for clarification, I do not believe that Jim Murphy should have had an egg thrown at him nor do I applaud what happened. I believe that in spite of him being an odious, weasely, draft-dodging, expenses-fiddling, careerist sell-out with a core of rotten principles, he is entitled to hold and express his opinions just the same as anyone else without being assaulted by poultry produce.

 

I could really go an omelette now...

[Guy Incognito]

There's a lot of interesting observations being made about this incident. By coincidence, somebody just happened to be focusing a video camera just at the right time on Jim Murphy's back. The egg-lobber, nothing whatsoever to identify him as a YES supporter in any way, calmly approaches, lobs his egg, then calmly disappears. This is all "caught" on video, with nobody, none of Murphy's team, doing anything whatsoever to either prevent the incident or attempt to intervene in any way. The egg-lobber's face is clearly visible, so you'd think that the police would easily be able to make an arrest and charge him with assault. But no arrest. But then Murphy calls off his tour of Scotland and claims that SNP "attack dogs" are making things impossible for him. Have you seen the videos of his tour? Nobody, but nobody is listening to him, nobody is turning up to listen to what he has to say.

 

A convenient way to avoid further humiliation, and also to create another lie and blame it on the YES campaign? We'll see.

 

There are images of the guy who is supposed to have lobbed the egg all over the internet now. If he isn't publically identified or lifted by the police any time soon then you have to wonder why.

 

[Jaggernaut]

oh dear, nuff said

 

Exactly.

[Norgethistle]

There's a lot of interesting observations being made about this incident. By coincidence, somebody just happened to be focusing a video camera just at the right time on Jim Murphy's back. The egg-lobber, nothing whatsoever to identify him as a YES supporter in any way, calmly approaches, lobs his egg, then calmly disappears. This is all "caught" on video, with nobody, none of Murphy's team, doing anything whatsoever to either prevent the incident or attempt to intervene in any way. The egg-lobber's face is clearly visible, so you'd think that the police would easily be able to make an arrest and charge him with assault. But no arrest. But then Murphy calls off his tour of Scotland and claims that SNP "attack dogs" are making things impossible for him. Have you seen the videos of his tour? Nobody, but nobody is listening to him, nobody is turning up to listen to what he has to say.

 

A convenient way to avoid further humiliation, and also to create another lie and blame it on the YES campaign? We'll see.

 

Actually there was more than 1 person throwing, add to that the hate mob from YES (Which some YES folk now saying was NO campaigners in disguise!!!), whether people are listening to him or not does not entail for hate mobs to turn up en-masse and heckle in what appears organised demo's

 

The abuse shouted at Gordon Brown the other day again was out of order

[Norgethistle]

This may show a bit what is going on

 

 

http://vimeo.com/104844421

[Fawlty Towers]

The recent developments on both sides have really disappointed me. The majority of people on both sides of the debate have conducted themselves well but, as always, a noisy minority spoil it for others. Lets hope that people reflect on things and the final couple of weeks see sensible questions asked and actual answers, not vague could bes, provided.

[Norgethistle]

The recent developments on both sides have really disappointed me. The majority of people on both sides of the debate have conducted themselves well but, as always, a noisy minority spoil it for others. Lets hope that people reflect on things and the final couple of weeks see sensible questions asked and actual answers, not vague could bes, provided.

 

I think the 19th of September may be a rather busy day for the police regardless what way the vote goes