Will you vote for independence?

[geminisnake]

Apart from the bumphlet I've heard naff all from BT.

 

[Quartz]

Apart from the bumphlet I've heard naff all from BT.

I didn't even get the bumphlet.

 

[Frankie Jack]

I've had an area specific bumphlet from them and a mini newspaper printed by Trinity Mirror group.

Bumphlet with tic box Qs that can be sent back.





Mini news sheet fill to bursting with similar No people as the front. With 'clebs for Naw too.

 

[Frankie Jack]

To add, both arrived Saturday so there's time for others letter boxes to rattle.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Snarling letter?

Hootsmon link

Salmond ‘snarled at’ me, says Fishermen’s leader


THE leader of Scotland’s fishermen has accused Alex Salmond of attempting to “intimidate” him after he asked a series of questions about the consequences of independence.

Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF), told The Scotsman that Mr Salmond had “snarled” at him after he set out the questions in a letter to the First Minister.

Mr Armstrong had challenged Mr Salmond about what the SFF leader suggested were SNP plans to restrict access to Scottish waters to other EU nations if an independent Scotland was denied membership.

However, Mr Salmond in his response said the claim was a “ridiculous interpretation” of the SNP government’s position.

Mr Salmond wrote to Mr Armstrong to say it was “astonishing that anyone else would follow this interpretation”, after the SFF leader asked about access to Scotland’s waters and the arrangements for EU rebates.

However, Mr Armstrong insisted: “Instead of answering the questions, we got this letter back in which we were snarled at.”

 

[DairyQueen]

Well, Dispatches was a bit of a hatchet job on both sides, but was particularly hard on the SNP. I've recorded it so I can watch it again - I missed ~5 mins after the break.

The reporter missed the fact that many of those who withdrew from the CBI had to withdraw after it took a side because they had to remain neutral, but he did demonstrate that Swinney did pressure them. The evidence of the Scottish Fisheries being bullied was pretty clear-cut: they showed a clip of the chairman being told he was 'on thin ice' by a SNP SMP in the Scottish Parliament (her words, not mine). I hope to be speaking to some senior Scottish fisheries people next week so I'll know more then. The whiskey claim of bullying was also pretty bad, but I note that nobody was prepared to come forward with concrete evidence.

HEADLINE: RICH WHITE MEN ARE BEING PERSECUTED

 

[DairyQueen]

CBI are a joke, they were meant to remain impartial and didn't. Unless Swinney said something outrageous, I will not feel sorry for them. The whisky guy wrote a Unionist piece in the herald a month ago. It just looks like a bunch of establishment types are co-ordinating their actions with Better Together.

To be honest it just looks like Westminster are mobilising their mates in high places, but the press have become the PR machine for Better Together over the last few weeks so don't trust any of these 'stories' any more.

 

[weepiper]

To be honest it just looks like Westminster are mobilising their mates in high places

But that can't be right, they're the underdogs!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/better-together-say-underdogs-independence-3464533

 

[Quartz]

But that can't be right, they're the underdogs!

He's right but he's got the reasons wrong. Defending the status quo is difficult, because it can be seen as dull, old, and boring; independence is being promoted as shiny, new, and exciting.

 

[DairyQueen]

He's right but he's got the reasons wrong. Defending the status quo is difficult, because it can be seen as dull, old, and boring; independence is being promoted as shiny, new, and exciting.

He's wrong. I understand the point, but you know what you are saying is bollocks in the context of this referendum.

 

[Quartz]

He's wrong. I understand the point, but you know what you are saying is bollocks in the context of this referendum.

Sorry, but derision doesn't work. Try better next time.

 

[DairyQueen]

Sorry, but derision doesn't work. Try better next time.

Apologies. The press coverage has been overwhelmingly biased towards No. Surely you can see that? This is not whether you agree with one side or another.

 

[Quartz]

Apologies. The press coverage has been overwhelmingly biased towards No

I really cannot say that. The Yes camp want a change: it is right and proper that they be closely questioned. That is not bias. Largely I see the incompetence and inaction of Better Together highlighted. (They've still got the shop in Union Street; there were still no visitors today when I passed it.) I also see an unwillingness of both camps to admit when they've fucked up and take corrective action.

 

[DexterTCN]

I really cannot say that....

You can't see a pro-union bias in the media? That's very difficult to accept.

 

[Quartz]

You can't see a pro-union bias in the media?

I can't see an overwhelming bias.

 

[DexterTCN]

Have you read an overwhelming amount?

 

[DotCommunist]

in england its been pro union or complete avoidance of the subject from major media.

 

[DairyQueen]

I really cannot say that. The Yes camp want a change: it is right and proper that they be closely questioned. That is not bias. Largely I see the incompetence and inaction of Better Together highlighted. (They've still got the shop in Union Street; there were still no visitors today when I passed it.) I also see an unwillingness of both camps to admit when they've fucked up and take corrective action.

In the tabloids the Yes campaign are sometimes not even given a right to respond.

Overall, though, I see some newspapers could quite possibly be co-ordinating a campaign with Better Together. I can understand why you might disagree with that.

Yes Scotland rely on real people on the ground.

 

[Quartz]

in england its been pro union or complete avoidance of the subject from major media.

The Telegraph is most definitely pro-Union, but has not been afraid to criticise BT, a prime example being Cameron's farcical visit to Aberdeen with the Cabinet.

In the tabloids the Yes campaign are sometimes not even given a right to respond.

I tend to not read the tabloids. The likes of the Daily Mail are enough to make my blood boil.

 

[DairyQueen]

There is the manner in which the SNP is being made out to be undemocratic in the press so that Alistair Darling can claim an independent Scotland would be a dictatorship. The press report this without question even when evidence has surfaced that a Conservative government may have covered up a sex abuse ring at the heart of government during the same period. This is probably the most striking thing to happen in the last few days, but hey ho covering up crimes in Westminster should be expect. A healthy part of democracy, right?

The Telegraph is most definitely pro-Union, but has not been afraid to criticise BT, a prime example being Cameron's farcical visit to Aberdeen with the Cabinet.

Telegraph and Times are so incredibly biased, they are not serious newspapers. There is not really any question about that. The depths they have sank this referendum is incredible. Sensationalist, lazy journalism. They are basically tabloids. The example you provided is not criticism with any substance, its like criticising Cameron's hair. What else they criticised? Genuine BT/UK statements here.

 

[DotCommunist]

Better together- westminster keeping you safe. And your kids.

 

[Quartz]

There is the manner in which the SNP is being made out to be undemocratic in the press so that Alistair Darling can claim an independent Scotland would be a dictatorship.

You mean, much like Labour were reduced to Blair and the Tories to Thatcher?

The press report this without question even when evidence has surfaced that a Conservative government may have covered up a sex abuse ring at the heart of government during the same period.

And Labour earlier too.

Telegraph and Times are so incredibly biased, they are not serious newspapers.

On the contrary. They are openly biased and once you understand that you can take them seriously.

 

[danny la rouge]

I can't see an overwhelming bias.

This is worth a read, then:

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

 

[Quartz]

This is worth a read, then:

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

Indeed. It is well known that different parts of the BBC have different biases; I have Biased BBC bookmarked.

 

[DairyQueen]

Quartz, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I am not sure what debate you are having, if you are having a debate at all.

You mean, much like Labour were reduced to Blair and the Tories to Thatcher?

Tell me one newspaper that does this? My point was that a number of Better Together PR stunts were reported unchallenged to allow Alistair Darling to make this claim. A claim that is so ludicrous given current events at Westminster. Involving, as you point out, both major UK political parties.

On the contrary. They are openly biased and once you understand that you can take them seriously.

It is a poor right-wing paper. There is no consistency and no intellectual coherence. Look at the way they report Trade Unionists who back up Better Together and Trade Unionists involved in strike action in England. There is no philosophical reason what-so-ever why a free market liberal should be against Scottish independence.

More to the point, this could be made of any newspaper; "The Sun can be taken seriously once you understand its full of shit". The Telegraph and Times can't be taken seriously as newspapers, maybe as some barometer of establishment thinking.

 

[DexterTCN]

Indeed. It is well known that different parts of the BBC have different biases; I have Biased BBC bookmarked.

"Yes Danny, that link has much to say on the subject of media bias in the independence referendum, and addresses many points/allegations I and others have made....but I'm not going to discuss it, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't suit me, so in a way I'm basically ignoring you and making a mockery of the concept of discussion."

Is that what you said there? I'm not sure.

 

[Quartz]

Is that what you said there? I'm not sure.

No, I said exactly what I said, no more and no less. Don't try and read something more into it.

 

[Quartz]

It is a poor right-wing paper. There is no consistency and no intellectual coherence.

Don't be silly. Firstly, they toe the line their owners, the Barclay Bros not the Establishment, tell them to take. Secondly, we have freedom of speech, so they're allowed to be right wing. And we must respect that. So we take those into consideration when you read their reporting. Just like we take the left-wing nature of the Guardian into account. (I do hope you don't take the Guardian as gospel truth). Your nihilipilification of them says more about you than them.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't be silly. Firstly, they toe the line their owners, the Barclay Bros not the Establishment, tell them to take. Secondly, we have freedom of speech, so they're allowed to be right wing. And we must respect that. So we take those into consideration when you read their reporting. Just like we take the left-wing nature of the Guardian into account. (I do hope you don't take the Guardian as gospel truth). Your nihilipilification of them says more about you than them.

Boycott made the century.

 

[danny la rouge]

"left wing nature of the Guardian"

What? Eh?