FREEDOM!!!! [2]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Not exactly a scientific poll, but a Glasgow bakery made a bunch of bite sized cakes, half of them with YES in them and half of them with NO, then offered them to passers by (halfway through they also changed round the colours of the icing on each in case that was having an influence) by the end of a week worth of giving away cakes they had given away more YES than NO by about half.

Interestingly however another baker did the same thing in Edinburgh and shifted twice as many NO cakes as YES.

This is surprising as Glasgow historically has been a bastion of Labour support and Labour are for the Union, and Edinburgh is the capital and seat of political power.
You would expect the results to have come out the other way.

Hm, would the votes of the people who are watching their weight correspond or differ I wonder.  

What you have to understand Blue is that when you combine two words in Scotland- 'free' and 'cakes' there are no dieters.

That will be me   not far behind ! If a supermarket puts out free little tasters of ham or cheese or whatever, you can rely on me to clear the plate. I even hang around as a worker sets up her stall, I just about give her time to get the yoghurt samples out  

Thats the spirit!   

Eldorion wrote:He's really young.  I hope he's not a corrupt asshole like Berlusconi and is able to do some good for Italy.

strangely he isnt corrupt, he's actually a nice guy.   

Mrs Figg wrote:
strangely he isnt corrupt, he's actually a nice guy.   

   Is that even legal in Italy??? 

Edit: I'm still shocked that they're still hounding Raffaele Sollecito in the Meredith Kercher case. He seems like a nice guy too.
Whereas Guede is getting paroled to go to University.  

It really seems like the Italian justice system is run by criminals for criminals....

Not all that Freedom related, but an interesting bit as to the Barosso thing.

They were talking about the Nato leadership situation on Norwegian news. The apparent frontrunner for the Head of NATO position is, according to Norwegian news, former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who apparently has the support of Barack Obama and Angela Merkel. His primary competition however is seen as José Manuel Barosso, who's name apparently has been put forward by David Cameron.

Just something to add some context to his comments on the Scottish independence issue.

Mmm, so the evidence so far- Barosso makes a statement about Scotland comparing its application to that of Kosovo, when the two have nothing in common, then goes on to say it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to remain an EU member.
A statement I commented at the time sounded like it had been worded by the NO camp.

Within a day the deputy head of the EU whilst in Ireland is saying that he was 'misunderstood' and other senior former EU heads say they dont understand his comparison or agree with his conclusion.

He is accused in the French Parliament by all sides of speaking inappropriately for the member states, none of whom have said what he said.
And he is accused of saying it in return for a nomination for the NATO top job.

Now Barosso has been put forward as a candidate for the NATO top job, by David Cameron, head of the NO campaign.

I think this one might be settled    - its just yet more of Project Fear, more bribing people to come out against, more false statements and fear-mongering.


This for me is more reason for independence, why would I want to stay allied with a country than in a democratic debate cannot give me good reasons to stay in the Union but instead chooses devious and underhand means to try to scare me out of choosing independence- where is the argument for staying in? Where the vision of the future Britain and how it would function?

Even all the varying shades of devolution plus the different parties are offering are only being made under protet and the threat of a YES vote.

If the Union is so great for all parties equally why can they not make a case for the Union that doesn't rotate around something they called 'Project Fear'?
Why was there never considered a 'Project Union'? where they convince Scots of the positive merits of being in the Union and why we should stay within it?


I suspect there was no Project Union because there is no case to make that Scotland does well out of the Union any more, and that in fact England does well out of us being in the Union and that they knew they could never sell us that as a reason for staying.
Hence Project Fear instead. Don't convince us to stay, convince us its to dangerous to leave.

Interesting but again non-scientific poll of sorts.
There was a referendum debate in my home town this week in the town hall.
There were 209 people attended it and of those 139 took part in a mock ballot at the end.

At the start of the evening there was a show of hands of who was for and against which according to the local paper showed 55percent for YES and 45 for NO.

By the ballot at the end that had become 93 for YES and 39 voted NO, or 66.5% for and 23.5% against with 5% undecided.

This surprised the hell out of me. My home town is west coast traditional- lots of masons and Union Jack waving supporters of the Crown, traditionally protestant in other words, and generally therefore Unionist.

Those who question Salmonds decision that Scotland should retain the monarchy should reflect on this I think, it was a very shrewd move- allowing those particularly here in the west to still vote YES without breaking loyalty to a protestant Crown.

It might be mercenary from Salmond, but it is good politics tactically.

Westminster's no currency union position has taken a kicking, from Beijing of all places-

'Leslie Young, professor of economics at a university in Beijing, claims the Treasury's position does not stand up to scrutiny.
He was commissioned by businessman Sir Tom Hunter's new institute to assess the case against a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Sir Tom is funding academic reports, research and polling in a bid to help people better understand the issues in the referendum, while he says he remains undecided on his vote.
This academic paper is a fierce denunciation of the Treasury's reasons for opposing a currency union.
The new contribution to the debate from Prof Young argues the Treasury has not made clear why it believes the currency union would not be in the interests of the rest of the UK, if Scotland votes for independence.
It attacks the parallels drawn by Sir Nick Macpherson with the recent crisis in the Eurozone countries, arguing Scotland and the rest of the UK are no parallel with the differences between Germany and Greece.
Prof Young, of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing, also casts doubt on claims that banks in an independent Scotland would pose too great a risk for the rest of the UK, or that Holyrood's budget would diverge from Westminster, and put intolerable pressure on the alliance.
The professor argues: "There may be good reasons for the UK to reject a currency union with an independent Scotland, but none can be found in the Treasury letter. Yet that letter is the key justification for the stance of the UK government."
A Treasury spokesman commented: "A currency union is not going to happen. This means less than six months from the referendum, the Scottish government still has no plan for what currency they would use".- BBC


Yeah just you keep flogging that dead in the water line till your blue in the face Treasury- no one believes you.

Some more on that report form the Herald- it didnt half rip the Westminster position apart!

'Professor Leslie Young, of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing, accused the UK Government of relying on a "lurid collage of fact, conjecture and fantasy" in making its argument.
Young, whose work has been commended by two Nobel Prize winners and by the chairman of the Nobel Committee, has served an unprecedented four terms on the editorial board of the American Economic Review, the leading scholarly journal in economics.
oung knocked down the ­Eurozone comparison on the grounds that Scotland and England would be closer in "business, financial and fiscal systems" than Eurozone members.
"They would start from very similar political and business cultures, hence very similar macroeconomic and business structures and financial parameters," he wrote. "So currency unification would not bring on the tensions that drove the Eurozone crisis."
He added: "The two governments and the central bank could quickly agree to head off any downward economic spiral with decisive action, given their shared values and culture, virtually identical business, financial and fiscal systems, and the familiarity, goodwill and respect that obtain between their electorates."
"Scotland, unlike Greece, is a mature polity whose citizens have long enjoyed - and today demand - responsible government, transparent institutions and intelligent public discourse.
"Therefore ignorant, inflammatory rhetoric blaming English intransigence for the consequences of Scottish fiscal over-reach would be quickly dissected and dismissed by the many respected journalists, academics, and think-tank analysts on both sides of the border."
He added: "There is no substantive point here."
Young challenged each paragraph of the Treasury letter in his report, describing it as focusing on "non-issues", and being "loose analysis" with "inconsistent assumptions".- Herald

David H wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:
strangely he isnt corrupt, he's actually a nice guy.   

   Is that even legal in Italy??? 

Edit: I'm still shocked that they're still hounding Raffaele Sollecito in the Meredith Kercher case. He seems like a nice guy too.
Whereas Guede is getting paroled to go to University.  

 It really seems like the Italian justice system is run by criminals for criminals....

If I was Sollecito I would leave the country or live near a handy border. He is in danger of getting 29 years for something he may not have done. As I said before Italians are notoriously bad at solving murders of women, there are many many cases in the last 10 years that have dragged on in total chaos.

Energy supply has been an issue in this referedum, heres what the SNP White Paper says-

"a single GB-wide market for electricity and gas will continue"

Heres what the Tory led government position is -

"the Scottish government's plan goes against all commercial logic."

And so the two position have stood, until today when we got a third opinion, from SSE, the UK's second largest energy supplier, who in the interests of their business had conducted their own review into likely scenarios if its YES.-

""a single energy market in Great Britain would be the most likely outcome in the event of a Yes vote".



And so another scare tactic collapses as soon as its scrutinised. Wonder what the next one will be?

If you become part of some European quango they will ban fried Mars Bars or force you to change the name for the French market. Le Snickeurs fritte. Haggis and neeps will become, Tripé avec Neepé. dont say I didnt warn you. Project Fear strikes again!  

I honestly wouldn't be surprised any more Figg if they did claim that.   

I haven't been super on top of referendum news lately, but I found this video to be pretty interesting.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2014/mar/26/george-galloway-scotland-say-naw-video

-------

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/viewtopic.forum?t=952