This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
I just keep a sense of proportion, one of the very few here who seem capable of doing so. Your very own figures, quoted upthread, show how insane your hysteria on this is (not just yours, I accept):
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn
So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.
Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.
And those costs should be borne by those who have chosen to live there, Richard. Look, there must be advantages to living in Scotland. Whatever those are - cheap houses, nice scenery, deep fried Mars Bars, the attractive and intelligible regional accent - they are offsetting benefits to set against the disadvantages of living in a sparsely populated and remote part of the country.
WTF should the rest of us, who have foregone those benefits, be expropriated to cushion those who enjoy them from the financial drawbacks of their choices?
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
I just keep a sense of proportion, one of the very few here who seem capable of doing so. Your very own figures, quoted upthread, show how insane your hysteria on this is (not just yours, I accept):
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn
So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.
Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.
As RCS rightly pointed out, that calculation was with higher oil prices and output. Today's figure is likely much larger than that.
On average the following years produced a higher Scottish Oil revenue than the year of the report.
It really isn't as thin as it looks. You have to remember that a bet on yes, is exactly the same as laying no. Look at the amount of money available on 'No' - more than £50,000 if you want to back between 1.22 and 1.24, and £40,000 if you want to lay between 1.25 and 1.27
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
I just keep a sense of proportion, one of the very few here who seem capable of doing so. Your very own figures, quoted upthread, show how insane your hysteria on this is (not just yours, I accept):
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn
So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.
Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.
And those costs should be borne by those who have chosen to live there, Richard. Look, there must be advantages to living in Scotland. Whatever those are - cheap houses, nice scenery, deep fried Mars Bars, the attractive and intelligible regional accent - they are offsetting benefits to set against the disadvantages of living in a sparsely populated and remote part of the country.
WTF should the rest of us, who have foregone those benefits, be expropriated to cushion those who enjoy them from the financial drawbacks of their choices?
Although that argument could be made for Hampstead keeping all of the income tax receipts of its residents. As someone pointed out, we are supposed to be a United Kingdom, and it is inevitable that some regions will be richer than others.
And those costs should be borne by those who have chosen to live there, Richard. Look, there must be advantages to living in Scotland. Whatever those are - cheap houses, nice scenery, deep fried Mars Bars, the attractive and intelligible regional accent - they are offsetting benefits to set against the disadvantages of living in a sparsely populated and remote part of the country.
WTF should the rest of us, who have foregone those benefits, be expropriated to cushion those who enjoy them from the financial drawbacks of their choices?
The same argument applies to Wales or Yorkshire (the latter being a particularly fine place to live).
You're arguing against any form of inter-regional transfer.
So does the word "bitch" but I'd still consider it inappropriate as an insult to a woman. Especially one who wasn't doing anything wrong. We have far too few women on here and this sort of abuse doesn't help.
"Afaik it is used for "door knocking" - no point in going round to the homes of people who have already voted - so it will create a list of "no" voters who have not yet voted to encourage them to do so...."
That sounds more interesting. So I will be doing my bit for the union!
Indeed!
Did you catch the Gordon Brown interview last night - worth watching - puts the current generation in the shade....
I'd forgotten about that. This morning I have been blaming the bedtime cheese for last night's amazing dream in which I found myself agreeing with Gordon Brown.
Yes - he was a man transformed on his own turf, eloquent, fluent, persuasive - very different from the brooding sulk in No 10......
LOL.........fanny alert
Fanny has more than one meaning, especially up here, and not just the unfortunate Miss Adams of Alton.
Rumours that pb.com is going to have all women threads are completely baseless...
For shame! I'm sure me and Beverley C could have a very interesting conversation about shoes!!!
Could I point out that Hannibal had the better taste in sandals...
Rumours that pb.com is going to have all women threads are completely baseless...
For shame! I'm sure me and Beverley C could have a very interesting conversation about shoes!!!
Absolutely! We could even start on autumn collections and finding a decent conditioner that does not turn your hair to either a frizz or an oilslick overnight.
I was tempted to mention bras but that is best kept for an all women thread..... ;-)
And those costs should be borne by those who have chosen to live there, Richard. Look, there must be advantages to living in Scotland. Whatever those are - cheap houses, nice scenery, deep fried Mars Bars, the attractive and intelligible regional accent - they are offsetting benefits to set against the disadvantages of living in a sparsely populated and remote part of the country.
WTF should the rest of us, who have foregone those benefits, be expropriated to cushion those who enjoy them from the financial drawbacks of their choices?
The same argument applies to Wales or Yorkshire (the latter being a particularly fine place to live).
You're arguing against any form of inter-regional transfer.
No, he's not. Inter-regional transfers can still be justified in terms of more people needing health treatment or unemployment insurance in a particular region.
As usual, there seems to be a spectacular lack of a sense of proportion regarding the Barnett formula. Any needs-based settlement would give a broadly similar result. As Cameron said in 2009:
there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.
Under the current formula NI does best, closely followed by Scotland, but on most assessments Wales is the most underfunded on the basis of poverty and related factors. Some English regions could possibly be in the same bracket, alongside the Scottish rust belt.
Not if you were counting the revenue properly , Westminster fiddle the books on Scotland
The VOW is going to look like one of the worst decisions of all time if NO wins by 10%.
LOL!
It will be forgotten by the end of next week, but even if that weren't the case, don't you think your comment might be a tad over the top?
I don't think millions of people in poorer English reasons being thousands of pounds per year worse off relative to Scots is something that will be forgotten by the end of next week.
As usual, there seems to be a spectacular lack of a sense of proportion regarding the Barnett formula. Any needs-based settlement would give a broadly similar result. As Cameron said in 2010:
there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
See my long note below. The really outrageous levels of public spending go to London. The Scottish allocation is made in reference to all spending in England, including London. As London takes more than its share of the English spending, there's much less available to English regions. Perhaps that's an argument for devolution in England.
Philip Davies @PhilipDaviesMP 10h For the record, I will not be voting to maintain an unfair funding settlement for Scotland whatever Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg say
Is the Barnett formula unfair ?
I cannot see Westminster looking to change it, after all these years.
I also reckon Salmond will get his currency union.
This really does strike me as a pivotal moment in Cameron's fortunes. He has now done enough to convince me not to vote for him. By committing to use my money in perpetuity to bribe Scotch Labour scumbags, he has IMO demonstrated appalling judgement and gross, gross irresponsibility, and this was the week he lost my vote. I do not want these sponging f>ckwits in the UK; he has no mandate to bribe them to stay, he does not speak or act for me, and how dare he put that Cyclopean pr>ck Brown in charge.
The EU will have taken careful note of how he has behaved over IndyRef and now know if they did not before that they can stonewall him and he'll fold.
He could and should have used a potential exit vote as a means to extract anything he wanted from the EU. He should be getting ready to act like Scotland has acted so that the EU would give him anything to stay.
No-one can endorse the Barnett formula out of a sense of principles, and no Prime Minister with a sense of democracy can commit to handing home counties money over to Scotland without any input from parliament. He is just willing to say whatever is needed to maintain his power. It was the same with the immigration pledge of getting it down to tens of thousands, when the levels are virtually identical to what they were four years ago. He never had any intention of achieving it. It's the same with the EU: he's not interested in a genuine substantial repatriation of powers. As he told Carswell, he just wants to put on just enough of a show to get an In vote, because he puts staying in with Brussels above getting the best deal for Britain.
Sorry, had to be away last night so couldn't follow this one up.... just intrigued how exactly you think Cameron has excluded Parliament from any future application of the Barnett Formula?
He's made the commitment without consulting his party or parliament.
In what sense is it a commitment?
In what sense is something headlined THE VOW a commitment? Let's have a look at the dictionary!
I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?
Lies from yes (the standard type of lies we have at every election: more for free, everything will turn up rosy) v lies from no (we're all doomed 100 times over, even in ways which sound good to me like not being allowed into the eu or not having to guarantee the savings of either English or Scottish residents cos all the banks have buggered off down south). It is all lies, so we're better off sticking to first principles (whatever they might be: varies by voter).
Keeping power as close as feasible to home, screwing Labour, fighting against unfair asymmetric devolution....take your pick.
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
I just keep a sense of proportion, one of the very few here who seem capable of doing so. Your very own figures, quoted upthread, show how insane your hysteria on this is (not just yours, I accept):
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn
So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.
Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.
Wales and the Westcountry are sparsely-populated and spread out. This "anomaly" is to the tune of thousands of pounds of income in services between what people in Scotland get and what people in poor parts of EWNI get. It's against every notion of fairness.
But I'm glad we have you, Richard "George Osborne is near perfect" Nabavi, to keep us all in a sense of proportion.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
One of the more common Yes slogans you'll see is a variant along the lines of "Don't tell me not to buy my dream house just because you don't like the paintjob"
Salmond and the SNP are the paintjob, the house is independence.
I think you'd be surprised about how many people are voting for independence who will then be voting against the SNP at the first available election.
On here they think on the ballot paper it is "Should Alex Salmond be an Independent Country", not caught up yet.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
One of the more common Yes slogans you'll see is a variant along the lines of "Don't tell me not to buy my dream house just because you don't like the paintjob"
Salmond and the SNP are the paintjob, the house is independence.
I think you'd be surprised about how many people are voting for independence who will then be voting against the SNP at the first available election.
On here they think on the ballot paper it is "Should Alex Salmond be an Independent Country", not caught up yet.
Oh, so it's not 'Do you want a free unicorn in a kilt?'
I suspect the Yes voters know that Salmond is lying but they want to believe him so they will.
I think they are barmy but if I were Scottish, I would vote Yes anyway. It's a big adventure and worth the pain. But I guarantee my wife (who's Irish anyway) would vote No for the same reason.
He is not lying , he is looking at it with optimism rather than BT viewpoint which is pessimistic. His glass is half full , BT's glass is near empty. I don't follow pessimists, they are gloomy and boring people.
The Devo-Nano proposals of the Vow don't give any more money to Scotland - the effective result of giving control over income tax to Scotland is in all likely hood probably to decrease Scotland's budget because getting your hands on one income stream without control of the others is damaging.
A yearly fluctuation that saw Income Tax decrease and other taxes increase to resulting in Scotland gave the same fiscal contribution to the UK would mean a budget cut for Scotland - if the same thing happened in reverse - income tax spiked but other taxes crashed then that becomes a perverse budget increase.
Exactly it is merely a poisoned chalice which will take power away.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
For all the rhetoric the US will not want them or if they were to take them they would rip them with massive charges
"the plan would ensure that our four Trident missile-carrying Vanguard submarines would not remain in the hands of a Non-Nato foreign country and deprive Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of any “leverage” in post -independence negotiations.
The call, which one senior US politician last night said would be “overwhelmingly supported” in Congress"
Philip Davies @PhilipDaviesMP 10h For the record, I will not be voting to maintain an unfair funding settlement for Scotland whatever Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg say
Is the Barnett formula unfair ?
I cannot see Westminster looking to change it, after all these years.
I also reckon Salmond will get his currency union.
This really does strike me as a pivotal moment in Cameron's fortunes. He has now done enough to convince me not to vote for him. By committing to use my money in perpetuity to bribe Scotch Labour scumbags, he has IMO demonstrated appalling judgement and gross, gross irresponsibility, and this was the week he lost my vote. I do not want these sponging f>ckwits in the UK; he has no mandate to bribe them to stay, he does not speak or act for me, and how dare he put that Cyclopean pr>ck Brown in charge.
The EU will have taken careful note of how he has behaved over IndyRef and now know if they did not before that they can stonewall him and he'll fold.
He could and should have used a potential exit vote as a means to extract anything he wanted from the EU. He should be getting ready to act like Scotland has acted so that the EU would give him anything to stay.
No-one can endorse the Barnett formula out of a sense of principles, and no Prime Minister with a sense of democracy can commit to handing home counties money over to Scotland without any input from parliament. He is just willing to say whatever is needed to maintain his power. It was the same with the immigration pledge of getting it down to tens of thousands, when the levels are virtually identical to what they were four years
Sorry, had to be away last night so couldn't follow this one up.... just intrigued how exactly you think Cameron has excluded Parliament from any future application of the Barnett Formula?
He's made the commitment without consulting his party or parliament.
In what sense is it a commitment?
In what sense is something headlined THE VOW a commitment? Let's have a look at the dictionary!
I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?
One of my work colleagues and all round good bloke is from Aberdeen. He fully recognises it'll be freedom n vinegar not freedom n jam. But doesn't care. He's looking 50 years ahead and says so. An unmovable YES voter.
I have really good friends who will be heartbroken if it's a No. I have respect for their vision, even though I am committed to breaking their hearts to avoid a bigger disaster. What drives me mad with frustration are those that think that it will be milk and honey and then rant about freedom and courage.
The Yes campaign have put forward seven reasons for voting Yes, every one of them false. The Better Together's five claims are at the very least defensible. I am not being partisan in this assessment. But if it is Yes, it will be a very narrow win on prospectus that was totally false.
Take of those Tory rose tinted specs and look again
Within a generation, emigre Scots will have returned, .
That sounds optimistic - as one myself.
Not all of them, Ghostly Harry, but enough to make a difference, and enough to show the next generation that you don't have to emigrate to make it.
Oh, and you'll need a proper international airport as well. But don't worry there are plenty of banks (mostly based in London, but they're not chauvinist; money's money) who will finance one if Scotland starts to look outwards, rather than inwards.
No more being robbed and having to fly to the London cesspit to get anywhere so they can hog all the international slots.
On the eve of independence, Scotland’s poet laureate pens a valedictory poem to the English people.
“O Arse-lickers chasing gongs, Chicken-hearted tossers. Pathetic creatures scared of your own shadows, Ha ha ha, big gob smacked shut. Sad sack Tory half-wits — You hyenas will chase money anywhere. Come on cretins, you can do it, Ask your mammy to help. You are fanny of the first order, Full of wind and piss. Stick your heads up your erchie, you wittering dimwits, Wobbly chicken-hearted wimps. No wonder England is down the cludgie. Hinge and Brackett are blubbing — Get the Kleenex. Doom and gloom, dread laden drudgery, Are you right in the head? Thick as mince, You turnips!”
Not one of Carol Ann Duffy's better efforts - or was this delegated to Liz Lochead?
I think we on pbc know who Scotland's premier wordsmith is now.
I have been thinking about why the referendum is so close.
The economic arguments for remaining in our larger domestic market, the sharing of the risks of the inevitable financial turbulence of the next few years, having the security of effective armed forces and having a position of some weight in the EU are just so overwhelming that this should be an incredibly easy decision.
But, for at least half of Scots it isn't. Why?
What Salmond has achieved is to make this referendum a contest between the Westminster Establishment and the Scottish people. It is a remarkable achievement, especially as he himself has been in power now for a number of years with responsibility for health, education and social services.
Salmond claims that Scots are different because they don't like the Westminster establishment. This, of course, is where he is wrong. Who does? If a vote against the Westminster establishment were possible then most, possibly even all areas of the UK outside London itself would be inclined to vote against it. That is exactly what happened in the Euros where the population were given a free hit to vote against the established parties for a body of minimal perceived consequence in their lives.
To manage to run as anti establishment whilst being First Minister is indeed an incredible achievement but his success shows how much is wrong with our politics and our country. The suspicion is that there will be business as usual (with a twist of further devolution) will follow a no vote but there is an incredible opportunity for anyone who can capture that anti Westminster sentiment. It has proven to be incredibly strong.
I think the obsession with devolution and europe is going to dominate the next parliament, while the real issues are ignored.
There is an anti-politics feeling that is quite dangerous to democracy, but the politicians answer is just to argue and create more jobs for themselves in Westminster/Brussels/Holyrood.
I posted a link earlier to a Soton Uni article on anti-politics - unfortunately it didn't cover the SNP.
Philip Davies @PhilipDaviesMP 10h For the record, I will not be voting to maintain an unfair funding settlement for Scotland whatever Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg say
Is the Barnett formula unfair ?
I cannot see Westminster looking to change it, after all these years.
I also reckon Salmond will get his currency union.
This really does strike me as a pivotal moment in Cameron's fortunes. He has now done enough to convince me not to vote for him. By committing to use my money in perpetuity to bribe Scotch Labour scumbags, he has IMO demonstrated appalling judgement and gross, gross irresponsibility, and this was the week he lost my vote. I do not want these sponging f>ckwits in the UK; he has no mandate to bribe them to stay, he does not speak or act for me, and how dare he put that Cyclopean pr>ck Brown in charge.
The EU will have taken careful note of how he has behaved over IndyRef and now know if they did not before that they can stonewall him and he'll fold.
He could and should have used a potential exit vote as a means to extract anything he wanted from the EU. He should be getting ready to act like Scotland has acted so that the EU would give him anything to stay.
No-one can endorse the Barnett formula out of a sense of principles, and no Prime Minister with a sense of democracy can commit to handing home counties money over to Scotland without any input from parliament. He is just willing to say whatever is needed to maintain his power. It was the same with the immigration pledge of getting it down to tens of thousands, when the levels are virtually identical to what they were four years ago. He never had any intention of achieving it. It's the same with the EU: he's not interested in a genuine substantial repatriation of powers. As he told Carswell, he just wants to put on just enough of a show to get an In vote, because he puts staying in with Brussels above getting the best deal for Britain.
Sorry, had to be away last night so couldn't follow this one up.... just intrigued how exactly you think Cameron has excluded Parliament from any future application of the Barnett Formula?
He's made the commitment without consulting his party or parliament.
In what sense is it a commitment?
How about 1. a solemn promise. 2. solemnly promise to do a specified thing.
I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?
One of my work colleagues and all round good bloke is from Aberdeen. He fully recognises it'll be freedom n vinegar not freedom n jam. But doesn't care. He's looking 50 years ahead and says so. An unmovable YES voter.
I have really good friends who will be heartbroken if it's a No. I have respect for their vision, even though I am committed to breaking their hearts to avoid a bigger disaster. What drives me mad with frustration are those that think that it will be milk and honey and then rant about freedom and courage.
The Yes campaign have put forward seven reasons for voting Yes, every one of them false. The Better Together's five claims are at the very least defensible. I am not being partisan in this assessment. But if it is Yes, it will be a very narrow win on prospectus that was totally false.
Take of those Tory rose tinted specs and look again
The opposite. I came into the referendum broadly neutral. Although I am team player type and I like the idea of doing things together - which is also why I support the EU - I was very clear, and am very clear, that if independence was going to work better for us, that's we should go for. When I started to looking at the implications of independence it became that it simply didn't stack up. The more you look, the more unstacked it becomes.
I am not saying everything in the Yes manifesto is false because I support the other team. I am saying it because everything in the manifesto is false. My objections to independence and my support for the other team come from that. Apart from anything, if independence is such a great thing, why do the Yes team feel a need to be dishonest?
There isn't an equivalence that all campaigns are dishonest. While Better Together have indulged in some of Alex Salmond's "scare-mongering" their basic claims do stack up, unlike those of Yes Scotland.
O/T Thai expat site has about an hour ago published this, from Bangkok.: "Police yesterday arrested a British tourist after he was suspected to have connection with the deaths of two fellow Britons in Koh Tao off Surat Thani coast. Apparently they're checking his DNA against blood etc on the bodies. Two other friends have been asked to stay in Thailand pending the results of similar tests. Stopped at the airport, apparently.
Comments
WTF should the rest of us, who have foregone those benefits, be expropriated to cushion those who enjoy them from the financial drawbacks of their choices?
You're arguing against any form of inter-regional transfer.
I was tempted to mention bras but that is best kept for an all women thread..... ;-)
'Shaun Wright wrote to Keith Vaz to 'supplement the answers he gave' under oath. Is supplement a new word for change?'
Yes,it's new leftie speak,similar to an exam failure being called a deferred success.
vow
vaʊ/Submit
noun
1.
a solemn promise.
synonyms: oath, pledge, promise, bond, covenant, commitment, avowal
Arguing on here can be a trying matter.
Keeping power as close as feasible to home, screwing Labour, fighting against unfair asymmetric devolution....take your pick.
But I'm glad we have you, Richard "George Osborne is near perfect" Nabavi, to keep us all in a sense of proportion.
1.
a solemn promise.
2.
solemnly promise to do a specified thing.
I am not saying everything in the Yes manifesto is false because I support the other team. I am saying it because everything in the manifesto is false. My objections to independence and my support for the other team come from that. Apart from anything, if independence is such a great thing, why do the Yes team feel a need to be dishonest?
There isn't an equivalence that all campaigns are dishonest. While Better Together have indulged in some of Alex Salmond's "scare-mongering" their basic claims do stack up, unlike those of Yes Scotland.
Two other friends have been asked to stay in Thailand pending the results of similar tests. Stopped at the airport, apparently.