Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Original post:



And now the update:

A FOREIGN Office department ostensibly set up to promote the Scottish Government's interests is being used against it in the independence referendum, diplomatic cables have revealed.

The Devolution Unit, created by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2012 to deliver abroad the "utmost co-operation", now appears to be at the heart of Westminster's anti-independence drive, amassing hostile reactions from overseas.

It is understood the FCO has contacted the governments of China, Russia, the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the 28 EU nations about the Scottish referendum in a global search for allies who might oppose independence.

So there we have it then, information obtained via Freedom of Information requests by National Collective(pro-Yes music/art/culture group) not only validates previous reports of the UK seeking anti-independence statements from Russia and Spain, but reveals it has also been briefing more than two-dozen other nations in order to generate negative commentary, and that it has been doing so via a department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which was supposedly set up to promote Scotland abroad and help the Scottish Government in their dealings with other nations. This on the heels of another Tory cabinet minister coming up to Scotland for a flying visit(the latest in a long procession) to let us know that we'd be a pariah state that nobody in the EU would want anything to do with.

But according to David Cameron, this debate is still a Scottish matter, only to be debated by Scots, and so it would be entirely inappropriate for him to involve himself by debating the First Minister

...

As an aside, those in favour of Scottish independence, whatever our stated reasons, are often cast by the London-centric press as Braveheart-watching, whisky-swilling, Jimmy Hat-wearing English-haters. Labour party members who state publicly they are in favour are branded as "SNP plants", and any who profess that they will vote Yes out of dissatisfaction with the UK's political system, or because they believe independence is a better platform from which to address inequality, or for any of dozens of other reasons, are greeted with implications that we're all just covering up our secret desire to don the woad and run about bellowing "FREEDOM!". I realise this will be sounding a wee bit chippy to some at this point, but it's important to establish the context in which to view what follows(that being that some media commentators imply independence supporters are all twee shortbread-tin dafties who think they live in Brigadoon). Just the other day was Burns Night, an event I've rarely taken part in since it's always seemed a wee bit silly to me, but for those unaware it commemorates the life and works of Robert Burns the poet(which is better done by reading the work and understanding the life, IMO), a radical Enlightenment thinker who penned poems about equality, liberty, and the hypocrisy of the aristocracy and crown(and his borderline-indiscriminate affection for the fairer sex, heh).

A couple of wee examples, the first is the last three verses of "A Man's A Man For A' That";

Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a cuif for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's aboon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that;
The pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

And some selected verses from "The Tree of Liberty";

Heard ye o' the tree o' France,
I watna what's the name o't;
Around the tree the patriots dance,
Weel Europe kens the fame o't.
It stands where ance the Bastile stood,
A prison built by kings, man,
When Superstition's hellish brood
Kept France in leading-strings, man.

...

But vicious folk aye hate to see
The works o' Virtue thrive, man;
The courtly vermin's banned the tree,
And grat to see it thrive, man;
King Loui' thought to cut it down,
When it was unco sma', man
For this the watchman cracked his crown,
Cut aff his head and a', man.

...

For Freedom, standing by the tree,
Her sons did loudly ca', man;
She sang a sang o' liberty,
Which pleased them ane and a', man
By her inspired, the new-born race
Soon drew the avenging steel, man;
The hirelings ran-her foes gied chase,
And banged the despot weel, man

Let Britain boast her hardy oak,
Her poplar and her pine, man,
Auld Britain ance could crack her joke,
And o'er her neighbours shine, man
But seek the forest round and round,
And soon 'twill be agreed, man,
That sic a tree can not be found
'Twixt London and the Tweed, man.

...

Wi' plenty o' sic trees, I trow,
The warld would live in peace, man;
The sword would help to mak a plough,
The din o' war wad cease, man.
Like brethren in a common cause,
We'd on each other smile, man;
And equal rights and equal laws
Wad gladden every isle, man.

Wae worth the loon wha wadna eat
Sic halesome dainty cheer, man;
I'd gie my shoon frae aff my feet,
To taste sic fruit, I swear, man.
Syne let us pray, auld England may
Sure plant this far-famed tree, man;
And blithe we'll sing, and hail the day
That gave us liberty, man.

Again, necessary context. And now the main event of what was actually supposed to be a small addendum to the FCO story but oh well: the Better Together(anti independence campaign) special celebrity Burns Night message.

Be warned, I wanted to wash out my brain with bleach after I saw this, it's so cringe-inducing:




Yep, that is indeed Glasgow-born American citizen John Barrowman, trying almost-successfully("Chicogo"? ) to dredge up the Scottish accent he's not used outside of panto-shows for thirty years, reciting short snippets of the Bard's work, in support of the British state, punctuated with terrible puns about independence being bad and Alex Salmond being fat. From an auto-cue. In a tartan jacket.

There aren't enough facepalms in the world.

It's clearly a conspiracy to keep the Scottish in slavery.

If only the Scottish people had guns...

 Yodhrin wrote:
...were supposedly in no way about forming a joint strategy and message(PP are dealing with independence movements in both the Catalan and Basque regions), it seemingly then just a complete coincidence that both governments soon afterwards adopted exactly the same legally unsupported rhetoric about EU membership for states which gain independence from an existing member state, and have each been pointing to the comments of the other in their national medias as proof they are correct in their assertions.

Accusations were made on Twitter earlier in the year that British diplomats abroad had been briefed by the government to appeal to their host nations to take an openly negative stance to Scottish independence, and while they remain unverified it certainly seems much more plausible given these recent developments.

I get this strange feeling you're after independence...

Also, care to expand upon the point I've highlighted?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
It's clearly a conspiracy to keep the Scottish in slavery.

So you see nothing wrong with the leader of the UK attempting to get foreign leaders to act against a part of his own country, all while refusing to debate the issue himself because he insists only Scots should be involved?

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
...were supposedly in no way about forming a joint strategy and message(PP are dealing with independence movements in both the Catalan and Basque regions), it seemingly then just a complete coincidence that both governments soon afterwards adopted exactly the same legally unsupported rhetoric about EU membership for states which gain independence from an existing member state, and have each been pointing to the comments of the other in their national medias as proof they are correct in their assertions.

Accusations were made on Twitter earlier in the year that British diplomats abroad had been briefed by the government to appeal to their host nations to take an openly negative stance to Scottish independence, and while they remain unverified it certainly seems much more plausible given these recent developments.

I get this strange feeling you're after independence...

Also, care to expand upon the point I've highlighted?

I make no secret of that, I've posted on the subject here before. This story, however, is nothing to do with my preferences, it comes from the Russian state news agency via one of Scotland's national newspapers(a paper which is by no means pro-independence).

And I'll gladly expand on the point. Both Better Together and the Partido Popular claim that the mere act of voting for independence would immediately result in the portion of an existing member state which so voted being out of the EU, it's inhabitants stripped of their EU citizenship, and that any attempt by them to get back into the EU would be no different than if Turkey or any other nation applied to join. There is no basis for that in EU law, there is no provision for the scenario of a part of a member state becoming independent in EU treaties, and there is no mechanism in EU treaties for stripping existing EU citizens of their citizenship. The former chief of staff of France's Minister of European Affairs agrees it's nonsense/ So does Sir David Edward who served as a Judge in the European Court of Justice and its predecessor from 1989 to 2004. As does Graham Avery, a senior advisor at the European Policy Centre who has worked at the European Commission for 33 years, including a period with the Directorate for Enlargement. In their more lucid moments, the Better Together campaign will admit that in reality, since no provision for the scenario exists, there will be a political settlement based on negotiation, at which point they invariably attempt to claim the chance of such a settlement is so remote as to be hopeless since Spain would veto any attempt for Scotland to gain entry to avoid giving ammo to the Catalan and Basque independence movements; Yves Gounin disagrees in the article linked above, but more embarrassingly so does the Spanish Foreign Minister.

Were Ireland did have a small war the last time a part of the UK wished to be independent... Pity Scottish regiments are receiving cuts as part of the army's reorganisation.

Has this been reported anywhere other than a Scottish newspaper? I couldn't find anything on BBC website nor Google (other than links from aforementioned paper and twitter links tweeting about the paper article)

Yodhrin wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
It's clearly a conspiracy to keep the Scottish in slavery.

So you see nothing wrong with the leader of the UK attempting to get foreign leaders to act against a part of his own country, all while refusing to debate the issue himself because he insists only Scots should be involved?

filbert wrote:Has this been reported anywhere other than a Scottish newspaper? I couldn't find anything on BBC website nor Google (other than links from aforementioned paper and twitter links tweeting about the paper article)

Filbert has succinctly summarised why this story doesn't bother me, it reeks of bias and tinfoil hat.

 d-usa wrote:
If only the Scottish people had guns...

Can they hold their ground with haggis?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
It's clearly a conspiracy to keep the Scottish in slavery.

So you see nothing wrong with the leader of the UK attempting to get foreign leaders to act against a part of his own country, all while refusing to debate the issue himself because he insists only Scots should be involved?

filbert wrote:Has this been reported anywhere other than a Scottish newspaper? I couldn't find anything on BBC website nor Google (other than links from aforementioned paper and twitter links tweeting about the paper article)

Filbert has succinctly summarised why this story doesn't bother me, it reeks of bias and tinfoil hat.

QFT. I did look at the website, but gave up after a few minutes. It reminded me of some American news sites I've had the misfortune of looking at - paranoid, and aimed at a dedicated group of readers who already agree with what's being published.
And I couldn't find anything to back it up.

 d-usa wrote:
If only the Scottish people had guns...

Thanks Obama

Seriously, you guys are trolling to get a rise, right? The Herald is a national newspaper, a broadsheet, and its editorial line on independence ranges from the outright Unionism it displayed until a few months ago, to today's strained almost-neutrality.

I don't think it takes hundreds of Whitehall servants to rubbish the independence debate.

Do you want to live in a country that will be independant but be exactly the same or possibly worse off? Yes? Vote YES in the 2014 Scottish referendum...

The National Inquirer is a national newspaper. Its still full of bullocks bollocks (I never used that word before dakka, damn you brits!).

Don't you mean bollocks, fine chap?

If that's how its spelled then yes

Yeah.. that article you linked to shows a remarkable lack of corroboration, much less links to the Russian article in question. What little details it does appear to repeat makes the original Russian article seem about as reliable and impartial as Press-TV.

The only way that I could see Cameron asking for Putin's help is if he wanted to treat Scotland like Chechnya

 LordofHats wrote:
The National Inquirer is a national newspaper. Its still full of bullocks bollocks (I never used that word before dakka, damn you brits!).

Perhaps you guys don't use the same terms, but "broadsheet" generally means comparisons to the National Inquirer are ridiculous. The Times is a broadsheet, the Guardian is a broadsheet, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall St Journal etc etc. They may have an editorial line you disagree with, or publish opinion pieces authored by cretins, but they're hardly supermarket tabloid rags. But then, I forget, to the others from Britain in this thread who made that kind of assumption, everything up here in Jockland is just a Mickey Mouse imitation of the far superior, more cultured, more sophisticated thing down south, so obviously our press must be the same.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I don't think it takes hundreds of Whitehall servants to rubbish the independence debate.

And yet almost every Whitehall department has had staff drafted in to help with that bloated numpty Ian Davidson's "Scotland Analysis" series, what are we up to, 11 so far? Some real belters have come out of those, for example, did you know Scotland doesn't exist? Yep, Davidson managed to ferret out some "legal advisors" who say that the political union between Scotland and England was not a union or partnership at all, but actually the abolition of Scotland in every legal sense, and the incorporation of its former lands and people's into a "Greater England".

Do you want to live in a country that will be independant but be exactly the same or possibly worse off? Yes? Vote YES in the 2014 Scottish referendum...

The facepalm smiley is so appropriate for this comment that the irony is almost painful. I'd appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by it though, since as a characterisation of the case for independence that persuaded me, it appears completely alien.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-russia-approach-from-uk-1-3265421

This story here shows that it's most likely a load of rubbish coming from the heralds Scotland.

But it could be true which means we may have a real life UK version of red dawn about to happen.

I'm sorry, but Yodhrin, you have shown, time and again, that you are so totally biased on this that reasoned debate cannot be had.

Of course they UK government wants the support of other nations. Look at the damage this is already risking to the UK economy, with the UK having to say it will honor all debts whatever happens, just to keep stability, all because Salmond is playing chicken with our economy to score points with people like you. He is far worse for dragging out spurious academics than the pro union.

But it looks like this is more nonsense.

To be honest most of the UK couldn't give a damn one way or the other. I couldn't, although I a fall slightly on the pro independence side, because I think some people like Salmond are bent on causing havoc for idealogical reasons. However, it is hardly a surprise that the UK government is asking for support. Also hardly surprising that David Cameron refuses to have a debate. Unlike Alex Salmond he seems to realize this is nor a party political matter. Salmond however is trying to make it about "Nasty Tories" knowing full well that making it look like the union was a Tory thing would help him. And I'm afraid much of what he says is not fact, but wishful thinking. The idea that you can walk away with all assets and no debt, or the idea that membership of the EU will be automatic on the same basis as the UK, when it will be vehemently apposed by Spain & France. Or the idea that we could have a monitory union in sterling, or that Scotland can continue to discriminate against UK students. He flips backwards and forwards on the status of Scotland at the moment depending on what would get the most support.

Please, take the chip off your shoulder and look at the arguments on both sides with a more critical view point. There is far too much paranoia and bias going on with many people for such a monumental issue.

I made no comment one way or the other as to the quality of the Scottish paper that presented this story; I simply wondered if it had been reported elsewhere as I couldn't find anything when searching. Generally speaking, a good barometer for the validity of a story is when it is reported in multiple different sources and organs. If this story is true, then I am surprised the BBC, for instance, seem to have made no mention of it whatsoever.

I couldn't find anything about this on ITAR TASS' Russian website, neither by searching for Scotland, Scottish, Cameron, Great Britain or G8 (in Russian, before anyone tries to be a smartass about putting English keywords into their search engine), nor by checking their International News and Foreign Politics sections from Dec. 30th to Jan. 2nd.

Just saying.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The National Inquirer is a national newspaper. Its still full of bullocks bollocks (I never used that word before dakka, damn you brits!).

Perhaps you guys don't use the same terms, but "broadsheet" generally means comparisons to the National Inquirer are ridiculous. The Times is a broadsheet, the Guardian is a broadsheet, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall St Journal etc etc. They may have an editorial line you disagree with, or publish opinion pieces authored by cretins, but they're hardly supermarket tabloid rags. But then, I forget, to the others from Britain in this thread who made that kind of assumption, everything up here in Jockland is just a Mickey Mouse imitation of the far superior, more cultured, more sophisticated thing down south, so obviously our press must be the same.

If no one else is reporting on it (not even the supposed original source) I'd say it's pretty fair to call BS on it. It's got nothing to do with the fact that the newspaper is Scottish, it's got everything to do with the fact that there's no evidence supporting the claim.

If it turns out to be true it's a load of bullcrap on Cameron's part, but it's not looking too likely from what we've been able to glean from this thread...

 Yodhrin wrote:

Do you want to live in a country that will be independant but be exactly the same or possibly worse off? Yes? Vote YES in the 2014 Scottish referendum...

The facepalm smiley is so appropriate for this comment that the irony is almost painful. I'd appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by it though, since as a characterisation of the case for independence that persuaded me, it appears completely alien.

The joy of self governance is outweighed by it going horribly wrong and leaving us in a worse economic situation than we are in now. The risk is too great and we aren't being shown anything concrete to prove that it's worth taking that risk.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Do you want to live in a country that will be independant but be exactly the same or possibly worse off? Yes? Vote YES in the 2014 Scottish referendum...

The facepalm smiley is so appropriate for this comment that the irony is almost painful. I'd appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by it though, since as a characterisation of the case for independence that persuaded me, it appears completely alien.

The joy of self governance is outweighed by it going horribly wrong and leaving us in a worse economic situation than we are in now. The risk is too great and we aren't being shown anything concrete to prove that it's worth taking that risk.

Clearly "They" have got to you, with there lies... You don't understand and believe everything your told. Trust no one. Question everything.

If true, it's a savvy move on the part of the current government. The more they protest, the more they give Salmond ammunition. It is a matter of global importance, so other countries are going to weigh in regardless, and it's largely going to be negative opinions towards the pro independence side.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I'm sorry, but Yodhrin, you have shown, time and again, that you are so totally biased on this that reasoned debate cannot be had.
...
Please, take the chip off your shoulder and look at the arguments on both sides with a more critical view point. There is far too much paranoia and bias going on with many people for such a monumental issue.
...
Clearly "They" have got to you, with there lies... You don't understand and believe everything your told. Trust no one. Question everything.

Nice "reasoned debate" there chief.

The rest of your post can be boiled down to "I don't like/trust Alex Salmond", which is pretty much irrelevant to the topic since, and I know this might be a wee shock; lots of independence supporters share your view. Even I do, to an extent; I don't dislike him, and while I don't "trust" him(because anyone who invests anything other than the most basic and conditional trust in politicians is a numpty), I afford him some respect for maintaining policies I support when even the Labour party have betrayed those principles, and for being one of only a handful of politicians in the UK with any profile who're unwilling to dance to UKIP's tune on immigration. The politician that I respect most that's involved with the pro-independence campaign is actually Patrick Harvie; he's managed to whip the Scottish Greens into shape and get them to adopt more sensible lines on scientific issues, and it'll likely be the Greens that I vote for in March 2016 at the first Scottish general election.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Do you want to live in a country that will be independant but be exactly the same or possibly worse off? Yes? Vote YES in the 2014 Scottish referendum...

The facepalm smiley is so appropriate for this comment that the irony is almost painful. I'd appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by it though, since as a characterisation of the case for independence that persuaded me, it appears completely alien.

The joy of self governance is outweighed by it going horribly wrong and leaving us in a worse economic situation than we are in now. The risk is too great and we aren't being shown anything concrete to prove that it's worth taking that risk.

If the joy of self-governance was my primary concern, I'd have been an SNP member rather than a lifelong Labour voter(back when I still laboured(aha) under the misapprehension that Labour were a left-of-centre party). From my perspective, the risk of it all going horribly wrong is far outweighed by the concrete reality of what the UK is becoming.

25 billion more in cuts, half of that from social security for the under 25's.
The UK either out of the EU, or trying to destroy its positive aspects to serve the interests of City financiers.
The terminally ill forced into private-sector workfare programmes in order to keep qualifying for disability benefits.
Access to drug treatments on the NHS determined by whether they will help people who are "of value to society".
Permanent austerity.

"But Labour will save us!" call out Jim Murphy and assorted other pro-Union commentators. The same Labour who have committed to continuing Tory spending cuts until at least 2020. The same Labour who have promised to be tougher on "welfare" than the Tories. The same Labour that took us into the Iraq War, that started the PFI/PPP scheme, that began the social security reforms that the Tories now get all the blame for, including bringing in ATOS, sanctions, and farming out residential care of the elderly and disabled to private corporations like Serco.

There's no need for speculation about Barnett Formula cuts or how all the promises of more devolution are empty, all you need to do to see that the Union doesn't work for Scotland(and indeed, most of everywhere else in the UK outside of London and the Shires) is look at what it's leaders and prospective leaders have done, and what they say they will do.

So, could Scotland descend into Doomsday-style anarchy, or more realistically is there a risk we'd maybe be a wee bit worse off? Sure, but everything's a risk, the questions to ask are "how big is the risk" and "is it the reward worth it" - given that even the leaders of the No campaign long ago conceded that Scotland is economically viable and now limit their arguments to insisting that we'd just do a bit better within the UK, I'll take the risk that the people who live here are no less capable than any other small-to-middling size Northern European nation, because the reward is the modern social democracy that people who live in Scotland have been voting for for the past 30+ years.

It is all part of Putin's plan for world conquest. He wants to take out the Scottish whisky industry and force the whole world to buy Russian vodka instead. And when the whole world is drinking Russian Standard or Stolichnaya, he will put a mind controlling substance in the vodka so that everyone will obey the orders of the most awesome man on the world. Hail Putin!
So the choice is between Scottish independence and slavery to Putin.

Let him. We still have Irish whiskey

feth that, I need scotch.