Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[TheMaganator]

You may not like the article but it points out the division that'll be caused.

 

It won't be a pretty or graceful separation - despite what the Nats will tell you (no doubt with a 'so long as Westminster behave themselves', thrown in)

 

Why won't it be?

 

Because both governments will fight tooth and nail to get the best deal for their country - as you'd expect them to do.

[Patrick Bateman]

Defence policy is not the backbone of the Foreign Policy. The UK has done good work in relation to international development, been a leader in combating global poverty, furthering democracy and pushing others to meet their millenium goal commitments. Those are good things. There have been foreign policy disasters of late, but those were ones in which the NATO community minus two major nations of it engaged in. Denmark, Norway and Iceland all provided some form of support to Iraw. But in relation to Afghanistan - as you use this a lot - the SNP, Scottish Labour, the Scots Tories and the Scots Liberals (all the major Scottish parties) back this conflict. It was a war began under NATO's Article 4 of collective defence. All NATO allies engaged in it. Had we been independent, Scotland would've taken part.

 

As it is, that war is on the draw down. In fact by the end of 2014 no British combat forces will be serving in Afghanistan. So independence will not "end" this war. Nor will it end a fondness of foreign adventures. The SNP backed the involvement in Libya. They backed Syrian involvement if under UN mandate. The white paper calls for Scotland to play her "full part" in NATO military operations and EU ones too. So Scotland will not be an Ireland or a Sweden engaged in menial peacekeeping work for the UN.

 

There is not a guarantee anything will end or begin or change with independence. There's no guarantee an independent Scotland wouldn't send what forces it had into a dubious conflict. The fact is people are fallable and will make these mistakes. Mark such arguments we wouldn't under the "Scots are morally superior" claptrap spouted by some in the Yes campaign.

 

 

 

Bollocks. Really is. Iraq was a disaster. Afghanistan has been a prolonged, bloody go no where.

 

But to say Scotland would stand against mighty America is really wrong and misleading, ignores the facts and the position you'd be in under NATO membership. The 9/11 attacks were decided to be the whole collective security thing for NATO. All nations in NATO contributed in some form. Denmark sent troops, Norway too - Denmark was involved in the initial war in Iraq. Two nations of 5 million with men on the ground. The Baltic states even have boots on the ground there. Scotland would have and will be in the same boat by virtue of NATO membership. Iraq was different due to it being a pre-emptive strike. Not a defensive NATO mission.

 

For the rights or wrongs of it the history shows that wee socially progressive nations Yes tells us we can be like they forget that these nations have been involved in all the blunders of UK foreign policy of the past decade. What's the common link? NATO membership and close relationship to the United States. Both policies advocated by Yes Scotland and the SNP government. Should we believe therefore it'd be any different? No. To think so is ignorant to reality and spurious at best to claim.

 

Since when did *not* invading countries equate to 'standing against America'? You seem to be all over the place on this one. On the one hand, you admit that both wars have been a disaster, on the other, you say we should vote no, because even if we voted yes, we'd just get dragged into it anyway because of Nato. To claim that we'd spend the same amount on warfare that we do now as an independent country is dishonest.

 

You even say there's 'no guarantee' that anything will change with independence. Err, I'm pretty sure there's a greater chance of change than if we vote no. Your reasons for advocating No appear to hinge on a frankly naive belief that Westminster will suddenly embark on a series of reforms that will benefit Scotland, when there is absolutely zero leverage following a no vote. Labour have no right to offer anything; the negotiations will be with the Tories who have no interest in Scotland whatsoever. You need to look to the past to inform choices in the future, as much as you dismiss Yes Scotland, the Tories have an established track record for betraying their promises. As I have said before, do you seriously think Westminster would grant powers (as if we should have to ask) that would benefit Scotland where it could even possibly be to the detriment of the rest of the UK? I wouldn't expect them to at the best of times, let alone in the run up to 2015. You really need to factor in realpolitik to your idealised version of unionism.

 

 

Well, it can be actually....for example, in both world wars many of the allies (certainly the British, Canadians, Americans, Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders) had to "invade" other countries to defend themselves against what was perceived to be aggression and the threat to their own countries. We didn't sit back and only fight when the Germans/Italians/Hungarians/Finns/Thais/Japanese invaded our "homelands" (although attacks on Malaya and Hong Kong, for example, might well have been seen as an attack on British Empire lands)

 

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I am saying that invasion can often be seen to be a viable defence strategy.

 

I clearly wasn't talking about World War 2. I don't recall Afghanistan or Iraq acting aggressively towards Scotland/The UK. We invaded the first because America wanted to reassert itself, we invaded the latter because Bush wanted to finish what his daddy failed to do; topple Saddam Hussein. They were both wholly unnecessary, unlike WW2.

 

 

 

And as for Fraser Nelson's article? The latest census shows that 63% of people in Scotland consider themselves Scottish only, with 18% at Scottish and British. He can try to convince himself of the contrary, but that's a census, you can't really argue with it. He even had to edit that article because he'd said that there was no policy on passports, when it was clearly stated in the white paper. Seems like Nelson, for all his Tory boy machinations, is just another London hack who hasn't done his research. A pretty embarrassing article, really.

[jack D and coke]

You may not like the article but it points out the division that'll be caused.

 

It won't be a pretty or graceful separation - despite what the Nats will tell you (no doubt with a 'so long as Westminster behave themselves', thrown in)

 

Why won't it be?

 

Because both governments will fight tooth and nail to get the best deal for their country - as you'd expect them to do.

It won't cause any friction for me. Why on earth would Scotland gaining independence mean I can't back an athlete from the rest of the UK? What a ridiculous viewpoint! I've liked Americans, Mexicans, brazilians, English etc etc and nothing would change the fact. Just because at the moment we're part of the UK and Jessica Ennis wins gold does that really make a difference in my life supposing we had become independent?? I would still want her to win for goodness sake! What a nonsensical view. Sorry but it's bollox. At the moment I'm down under and I've heard nothing but people say England England England when talking about Britain. Even mentioning the British cricket team losing the ashes

 

On the other hand does Britain losing the ashes bother you?

[TheMaganator]

 

It won't cause any friction for me. Why on earth would Scotland gaining independence mean I can't back an athlete from the rest of the UK? What a ridiculous viewpoint! I've liked Americans, Mexicans, brazilians, English etc etc and nothing would change the fact. Just because at the moment we're part of the UK and Jessica Ennis wins gold does that really make a difference in my life supposing we had become independent?? I would still want her to win for goodness sake! What a nonsensical view. Sorry but it's bollox. At the moment I'm down under and I've heard nothing but people say England England England when talking about Britain. Even mentioning the British cricket team losing the ashes

 

On the other hand does Britain losing the ashes bother you?

I like cricket, so yes.

 

But I support England and any of the other home nations in whatever sport they play (unless playing against Scotland). I undoubtedly feel they way because I'm British.

 

I'm not sure how I'll feel if we vote Yes - towards the rUK in sports? Thankfully I still see no chance of Yes winning

[jack D and coke]

I like cricket, so yes.

 

But I support England and any of the other home nations in whatever sport they play (unless playing against Scotland). I undoubtedly feel they way because I'm British.

 

I'm not sure how I'll feel if we vote Yes - towards the rUK in sports? Thankfully I still see no chance of Yes winning

You support England just now but your not sure how you'd feel if we voted Yes? That's mental mate. Why would that change? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[TheMaganator]

 

You support England just now but your not sure how you'd feel if we voted Yes? That's mental mate. Why would that change? That doesn't make any sense to me.

We're currently all part of the UK, so I support them. If we vote Yes, we'll no longer have that bond.

 

I'd likely still support them anyway - but it's an interesting thought (for me anyway)

[jack D and coke]

We're currently all part of the UK, so I support them. If we vote Yes, we'll no longer have that bond.

 

I'd likely still support them anyway - but it's an interesting thought (for me anyway)

So England winning the ashes for example means more to you now than it would say after a Yes vote aye? Because we're all British? Did Britain win the World Cup in 1966? Did the British rugby team win the World Cup in 2003?

Edited December 24, 2013 by jack D and coke

[TheMaganator]

 

So England winning the ashes for example means more to you now than it would say after a Yes vote aye? Because we're all British? Did Britain win the World Cup in 1966? Did the British rugby team win the World Cup in 2003?

No, the England rugby & football teams won them. I supported England over Aus in the rugby & had I been alive I'd have supported them against the Germans.

It's not a bizarre concept to have more of an affiliation with something because you share a bond.

[jack D and coke]

No, the England rugby & football teams won them. I supported England over Aus in the rugby & had I been alive I'd have supported them against the Germans.

It's not a bizarre concept to have more of an affiliation with something because you share a bond.

You share a bond with Edinburgh do you want Hibs to win the Scottish cup?

[TheMaganator]

 

You share a bond with Edinburgh do you want Hibs to win the Scottish cup?

I don't know where you're going with this. Do you not support other British teams?

 

I don't want Hibs to win the Scottish Cup. I have an irrational dislike for them. But I'd support any other Scottish team (apart from Celtic) when playing in a tournament that didn't involve Hearts.

[Patrick Bateman]

No, the England rugby & football teams won them. I supported England over Aus in the rugby & had I been alive I'd have supported them against the Germans.

It's not a bizarre concept to have more of an affiliation with something because you share a bond.

 

I don't think anybody said it was. I mean, is the thought that independence might make you question why you support the England cricket team really a substantial reason against independence? If you chose to stop supporting England, that would be your choice, surely, and not as a direct consequence of a Yes vote? It seems a particularly weak argument, tbh.

[jack D and coke]

I don't know where you're going with this. Do you not support other British teams?

 

I don't want Hibs to win the Scottish Cup. I have an irrational dislike for them. But I'd support any other Scottish team (apart from Celtic) when playing in a tournament that didn't involve Hearts.

You don't know where I'm going?? I'm not sure what your on about bro. Your saying we have a bond over the whole islands but not for your own city. What are you on about? It's either one thing or another. If you like to see England win at whatever I'm unsure how Scotland gaining independence can change that in the same way as a lot of English people wanting Andy Murray to lose won't change either. Just like that article your making things up as you go along. As it goes I really like the English people but i want their football and rugby teams to get f***** quite frankly and whether we remain part of the UK or not that will never change. Individually the English are great but collectively they are a bunch of wanks.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I don't think anybody said it was. I mean, is the thought that independence might make you question why you support the England cricket team really a substantial reason against independence? If you chose to stop supporting England, that would be your choice, surely, and not as a direct consequence of a Yes vote? It seems a particularly weak argument, tbh.

It's not a reason to vote No.

[Gizmo]

One things I am absolutely certain about is this; if Scotland rejects Independence, we will not see greater powers being devolved.

 

Indeed, having capitulated we can expect the block grant to be cut, again, and other punishments for getting uppity. A vote for NO is seen as a tacit rejection of devolution by the tories and they will act. Just like 1979 - the tory coalition's abhorrent actions since sneaking into power is proof enough.

[TheMaganator]

 

You don't know where I'm going?? I'm not sure what your on about bro. Your saying we have a bond over the whole islands but not for your own city. What are you on about? It's either one thing or another. If you like to see England win at whatever I'm unsure how Scotland gaining independence can change that in the same way as a lot of English people wanting Andy Murray to lose won't change either. Just like that article your making things up as you go along. As it goes I really like the English people but i want their football and rugby teams to get f***** quite frankly and whether we remain part of the UK or not that will never change. Individually the English are great but collectively they are a bunch of wanks.

I'm not making things up as I go along.

 

Of course I share a bond with fellow Edinburgh ers - I said my dislike of Hibs was irrational.

 

I don't think that collectively the English are a bunch of wanks, as you put it, anymore than any other group are. Sure, they have their morons - but so do we.

 

I have never said this was a reason to vote No. I said I'm not sure how I'll feel about the other home nations if we separate.

 

All I said was that the article highlights the division that a Yes vote will cause. We'll no longer be nations in partnership. I don't think that's strange or controversial.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Since when did *not* invading countries equate to 'standing against America'? You seem to be all over the place on this one. On the one hand, you admit that both wars have been a disaster, on the other, you say we should vote no, because even if we voted yes, we'd just get dragged into it anyway because of Nato. To claim that we'd spend the same amount on warfare that we do now as an independent country is dishonest.

 

You even say there's 'no guarantee' that anything will change with independence. Err, I'm pretty sure there's a greater chance of change than if we vote no. Your reasons for advocating No appear to hinge on a frankly naive belief that Westminster will suddenly embark on a series of reforms that will benefit Scotland, when there is absolutely zero leverage following a no vote. Labour have no right to offer anything; the negotiations will be with the Tories who have no interest in Scotland whatsoever. You need to look to the past to inform choices in the future, as much as you dismiss Yes Scotland, the Tories have an established track record for betraying their promises. As I have said before, do you seriously think Westminster would grant powers (as if we should have to ask) that would benefit Scotland where it could even possibly be to the detriment of the rest of the UK? I wouldn't expect them to at the best of times, let alone in the run up to 2015. You really need to factor in realpolitik to your idealised version of unionism.

 

And your vision is based on a belief constitutional change will create and foster political change when there is no proof of that. Look at the parties stabding a chance of power in the next 10 years up here:

 

The SNP - flat tax Swinney and big business friendly Salmond proposing nothing truly radical socially. No real substance to welfare. Nothing to see in Health amd Education but poor decisions resulting in shortfalls. A regressive local government funding settlement. And now wanting a currency union tieing us to what many Yes supporters say is a failed policy favouring London in interest rates. A desire to join the interventionist NATO. Huge world of difference.

 

Labour - Cannae see 2 weeks ahead of itself. Its vision is muddied and confused.

 

The Tories - the less eurosceptic part of Toryism with a name change and full economic powers to flex would again be revived.

 

So what change do we see? Little to me. Its a Scottish face on a failed economic position. Really is. Dont get your hopes up that the SNP top brass will embrace RiC and Jimmy Reid. They speak the language the policy doesnt match it though.

 

 

 

 

I clearly wasn't talking about World War 2. I don't recall Afghanistan or Iraq acting aggressively towards Scotland/The UK. We invaded the first because America wanted to reassert itself, we invaded the latter because Bush wanted to finish what his daddy failed to do; topple Saddam Hussein. They were both wholly unnecessary, unlike WW2.

 

And with Afghanistan how many NATO members didnt join in there? I'm not all over the shop. I oppose NATO membership. I see it as unnecessary and a trap to pull usbinto foreign trips at the behest of others in the name of collective security. Why should we be at the beck and call of NATO HQ come a Yes vote? Answer me that. The Red Dug isnt breathing down our necks these days. So why host US ships and planes jetting about carrying god only knows what? Whats more why the insistence this must be? Why no popular vote on this and the EU later after we decide the issue of being in or out the Union?

 

 

And as for Fraser Nelson's article? The latest census shows that 63% of people in Scotland consider themselves Scottish only, with 18% at Scottish and British. He can try to convince himself of the contrary, but that's a census, you can't really argue with it. He even had to edit that article because he'd said that there was no policy on passports, when it was clearly stated in the white paper. Seems like Nelson, for all his Tory boy machinations, is just another London hack who hasn't done his research. A pretty embarrassing article, really.

 

Will we be asked that question of affinity in the 2021 census if Yes wins? I doubt it.

 

Why is Yes doing so poorly if its all about how we feel? Sure if you asked that in Wales or Northern Ireland you'd get similar opinions. England too. So what? I'm a Jambo, I dont call my self a fan of the SPFL. Same difference to me.

[jack D and coke]

I'm not making things up as I go along.

 

Of course I share a bond with fellow Edinburgh ers - I said my dislike of Hibs was irrational.

 

I don't think that collectively the English are a bunch of wanks, as you put it, anymore than any other group are. Sure, they have their morons - but so do we.

 

I have never said this was a reason to vote No. I said I'm not sure how I'll feel about the other home nations if we separate.

 

All I said was that the article highlights the division that a Yes vote will cause. We'll no longer be nations in partnership. I don't think that's strange or controversial.

Sorry man but what exactly will change for you? I can't see what will actually change if that is the way you feel tbh. Have you seen how much the Irish follow English football? They are supposed to despise England yet they flock over in their thousands weekly to watch and support. Your imagining things that aren't going to happen. Roads won't be cut off, you'll still be able to drive over the border, people will still speak English to each other you might even still be using a pound note. Don't have crap reasons for rejecting independence.

[TheMaganator]

 

Sorry man but what exactly will change for you? I can't see what will actually change if that is the way you feel tbh. Have you seen how much the Irish follow English football? They are supposed to despise England yet they flock over in their thousands weekly to watch and support. Your imagining things that aren't going to happen. Roads won't be cut off, you'll still be able to drive over the border, people will still speak English to each other you might even still be using a pound note. Don't have crap reasons for rejecting independence.

How many times?!... I have not said this is a reason to vote No.

[Patrick Bateman]

And your vision is based on a belief constitutional change will create and foster political change when there is no proof of that. Look at the parties stabding a chance of power in the next 10 years up here:

 

The SNP - flat tax Swinney and big business friendly Salmond proposing nothing truly radical socially. No real substance to welfare. Nothing to see in Health amd Education but poor decisions resulting in shortfalls. A regressive local government funding settlement. And now wanting a currency union tieing us to what many Yes supporters say is a failed policy favouring London in interest rates. A desire to join the interventionist NATO. Huge world of difference.

 

Labour - Cannae see 2 weeks ahead of itself. Its vision is muddied and confused.

 

The Tories - the less eurosceptic part of Toryism with a name change and full economic powers to flex would again be revived.

 

So what change do we see? Little to me. Its a Scottish face on a failed economic position. Really is. Dont get your hopes up that the SNP top brass will embrace RiC and Jimmy Reid. They speak the language the policy doesnt match it though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And with Afghanistan how many NATO members didnt join in there? I'm not all over the shop. I oppose NATO membership. I see it as unnecessary and a trap to pull usbinto foreign trips at the behest of others in the name of collective security. Why should we be at the beck and call of NATO HQ come a Yes vote? Answer me that. The Red Dug isnt breathing down our necks these days. So why host US ships and planes jetting about carrying god only knows what? Whats more why the insistence this must be? Why no popular vote on this and the EU later after we decide the issue of being in or out the Union?

 

 

 

Will we be asked that question of affinity in the 2021 census if Yes wins? I doubt it.

 

Why is Yes doing so poorly if its all about how we feel? Sure if you asked that in Wales or Northern Ireland you'd get similar opinions. England too. So what? I'm a Jambo, I dont call my self a fan of the SPFL. Same difference to me.

 

I can't prove something that hasn't happened yet, congratulations. However, with a Yes vote, we WILL have a Government that fully represents Scotland, not one where we have 9% of say in the parliament as we currently do. This is a mathematical reality that you cannot escape. It's far more reasonable to assert that a monumental constitutional change will result in different politics than it is to suggest that the rejection of such change will result in favourable developments. Just look at history, it just isn't reasonable for you to assert that the Tories have changed and that everything will be hunky-dory, that we'll get all those taxes devolved. Why would Westminster cede power like that when there is zero political pressure? Again, that's something you can't assert your way out of. Again, it's also becoming tiresome to equate a post-independence solely with the SNP; the makeup at Holyrood will completely and irrevocably change. For one, Scottish Labour will be exactly that, not one where Lamont gets her policies faxed to her by Miliband, and can't act with any real autonomy, as Falkirk showed.

 

I have no particular interest in joining Nato, nor have I ever expressed an interest in being part of Nato. I want independence, I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an avid SNP supporter. Just because I might disagree with one element of what's being proposed, that doesn't constitute a reason to reject independence. To do so would be pretty irrational. It seems to me that you'd need to have every single part of your political vision offered before you'd even consider independence, which is pretty ridiculous really. It's especially ridiculous when you accept that a no vote will see Scotland continue Nato membership as part of the UK anyway, with zero prospect of that ever changing.

 

I have absolutely no idea what the relevance of your last point is. Nelson was saying a majority people in Scotland feel British, the census, as scientific a measure as you'll find anywhere, proves that he is incorrect. A bit like the rest of his ill-written article that he had to re-edit because he seemingly hasn't bothered to read the White Paper.

[jack D and coke]

How many times?!... I have not said this is a reason to vote No.

Why defend the article then? It's a stupid, nonsensical piece.

[TheMaganator]

 

Why defend the article then? It's a stupid, nonsensical piece.

There are hundreds of issues that will feature in this debate. Not everyone of them that is discussed has to be a reason to vote Yes or No.

[jack D and coke]

There are hundreds of issues that will feature in this debate. Not everyone of them that is discussed has to be a reason to vote Yes or No.

I agree but if I read a paper thin pish article I wouldn't attempt to find a reason to defend it. It was awful yet you quoted a part of it and have spent the last many number of posts attempting to defend it. It was a dreadful piece.

[Patrick Bateman]

Here's a look at the top 21 gaffes by Better Together. http://nationalcollective.com/2013/12/24/top-21-better-together-gaffes-2013/?fb_action_ids=10151942799828101&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151942799828101%22%3A337733079702805%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151942799828101%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

 

 

Here's another interesting article from WingsOverScotland - http://wingsoverscotland.com/nothing-ever-changes/ - Now, clearly Yes Scotland still has work to do, but it's clear better together's tactics aren't working. If they were, Darling wouldn't be subject to the personal attacks, would he?

[TheMaganator]

Here's a look at the top 21 gaffes by Better Together. http://nationalcollective.com/2013/12/24/top-21-better-together-gaffes-2013/?fb_action_ids=10151942799828101&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151942799828101%22%3A337733079702805%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151942799828101%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

 

 

Here's another interesting article from WingsOverScotland - http://wingsoverscotland.com/nothing-ever-changes/ - Now, clearly Yes Scotland still has work to do, but it's clear better together's tactics aren't working. If they were, Darling wouldn't be subject to the personal attacks, would he?

That BT 21 gaffes article is eye wateringly tragic.

[Patrick Bateman]

That BT 21 gaffes article is eye wateringly tragic.

 

How? Are you denying that better together have made mistakes? They clearly have.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

How? Are you denying that better together have made mistakes? They clearly have.

I didn't get past 13. Having a dig at BT for using celebrities that don't live here?!

 

Cox? Cummings?

 

Yeah, they've made mistakes. Perhaps that article could have been penned if Yes were romping the polls. They're not, and doung an article like that (not least because it's utter shite) when they're in the position they are in makes the look petty and, well, pathetic.

[Patrick Bateman]

I didn't get past 13. Having a dig at BT for using celebrities that don't live here?!

 

Cox? Cummings?

 

Yeah, they've made mistakes. Perhaps that article could have been penned if Yes were romping the polls. They're not, and doung an article like that (not least because it's utter shite) when they're in the position they are in makes the look petty and, well, pathetic.

 

Brian Cox does live here, and Alan Cumming is eligible to vote. The Krankies and Ferguson, as far as I'm aware, aren't. You've dismissed an article when you've not even read half of it.

 

You're also getting confused between Yes Scotland and National Collective, the two are completely independent of each other. I wonder if better together has an equivalent pro-union cultural output? The BBC I suppose.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Brian Cox does live here, and Alan Cumming is eligible to vote. The Krankies and Ferguson, as far as I'm aware, aren't. You've dismissed an article when you've not even read half of it.

 

You're also getting confused between Yes Scotland and National Collective, the two are completely independent of each other. I wonder if better together has an equivalent pro-union cultural output? The BBC I suppose.

I didn't dismiss it. I called it pathetic.

 

Cumming has been told he is not eligible - despite his best efforts otherwise.

 

It doesn't matter who wrote it - they're clearly Yes supporters.

Edited December 24, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Patrick Bateman]

I didn't dismiss it. I called it pathetic.

 

Cumming has been told he is not eligible - despite his best efforts otherwise.

 

It doesn't matter who wrote it - they're clearly Yes supporters.

 

I didn't know about Cumming, I guess that's why he hasn't been involved as much recently.

 

And so what if they're Yes supporters? Are better together not allowed to be criticised for their risible campaigning so far? Should nobody say anything because some polls say No is ahead just now? Both sides are entitled to criticise each other; that's politics.

[deesidejambo]

[Modedit. Debate properly and in accordance with the rules or don't bother]

[Ulysses]

Should nobody say anything because some polls say No is ahead just now? Both sides are entitled to criticise each other; that's politics.

 

All polls, not some. Campaign if you wish, criticise the other side if you wish. But don't spoof.

 

It's not some polls that are showing a No lead; it's all of them. Unless there's a poll in recent days that we've missed, every poll carried out with a reliable methodology since the middle of 2011 has shown a No lead - and I'm giving the mid-2011 poll the benefit of the doubt because I haven't read the details of the sampling and questioning methodology.

[Patrick Bateman]

All polls, not some. Campaign if you wish, criticise the other side if you wish. But don't spoof.

 

It's not some polls that are showing a No lead; it's all of them. Unless there's a poll in recent days that we've missed, every poll carried out with a reliable methodology since the middle of 2011 has shown a No lead - and I'm giving the mid-2011 poll the benefit of the doubt because I haven't read the details of the sampling and questioning methodology.

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/09/snppanelbase-poll-shows-one-point-yes-lead/ I could say 'most' polls, that would be correct, but definitely not all. Or will you dismiss panelbase because you disagree with the findings? Whilst No currently leads, it is being eroded from No to 'Don't knows'. To dismiss independence with 9 months to go, considering the political machines between the respective campaigns, is daft, if you ask me. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

Anyway, we're getting away from the point I was making. Maganator had said that the article criticising better together was 'pathetic' because polls say Yes is behind. Which follows he thinks better together shouldn't be criticised based on polling. Which is an utterly ridiculous thing to say, in my opinion.

[Ulysses]

http://blog.whatscot...point-yes-lead/ I could say 'most' polls, that would be correct, but definitely not all. Or will you dismiss panelbase because you disagree with the findings? Whilst No currently leads, it is being eroded from No to 'Don't knows'. To dismiss independence with 9 months to go, considering the political machines between the respective campaigns, is daft, if you ask me. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

The fact is that no reliable poll has shown a Yes lead since the middle of 2011. No reliable poll whatsoever. I can't say whether or not the one poll that did show a Yes lead in mid-2011 was unreliable, but in fairness since I can't find the details of that poll I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Anyway, we're getting away from the point I was making.

 

No we're not. We're getting towards a discussion on the point I was making about your incorrect comment.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/09/snppanelbase-poll-shows-one-point-yes-lead/ I could say 'most' polls, that would be correct, but definitely not all. Or will you dismiss panelbase because you disagree with the findings? Whilst No currently leads, it is being eroded from No to 'Don't knows'. To dismiss independence with 9 months to go, considering the political machines between the respective campaigns, is daft, if you ask me. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

Anyway, we're getting away from the point I was making. Maganator had said that the article criticising better together was 'pathetic' because polls say Yes is behind. Which follows he thinks better together shouldn't be criticised based on polling. Which is an utterly ridiculous thing to say, in my opinion.

I have never said BT should not be criticised. I am very critical of them (though admittedly not on here).

 

I just think it looks pathetic to say 'ha ha, look at their 'gaffes'' when a. Some on the list are just stupid and b. Your campaign is not any better (and by 'your' I mean the authors of the article)

 

& on polls - Panelbase is generally not considered credible

Edited December 24, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Patrick Bateman]

The fact is that no reliable poll has shown a Yes lead since the middle of 2011. No reliable poll whatsoever. I can't say whether or not the one poll that did show a Yes lead in mid-2011 was unreliable, but in fairness since I can't find the details of that poll I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

 

No we're not. We're getting towards a discussion on the point I was making about your incorrect comment.

 

Except you had said that 'no reliable poll has shown a Yes lead since 2011. That, as I have shown by posting a link to a panel base poll conducted in August 2013, simply isn't true. Unless you're dismissing Panelbase as being unreliable, which would just be an assertion.

 

You seem quite quick to dismiss the possibility of independence happening, that's up to you. No apparently leads right now, but that (apparent) gap has closed and will continue to close. I distinctly remember polls predicting a heavy Labour victory in 2011, and we all know how that turned out. That leads me to think that, as I've said repeatedly now, polling isn't all that reliable, so notions of them 'closing' or being insurmountable aren't exactly accurate. The odds of a Yes vote, for one thing, have dropped in the past month or two. As I've said, better together is a Tory funded Labour construct, in the lead up to 2015, friction is inevitable, they're also routinely destroyed in debates, be they televised or otherwise. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/8364-strathclyde-university-debate-delivers-win-for-yes The swing has been universally from No to undecided and occasionally to yes following these debates. That's precisely why the no side want to restrict and limit the debates as much as possible and why they're terrified of the PM actually doing his job and representing Westminster in Scotland. I also think we'll see a bit of national pride on the back of the Ryder cup and, more importantly, the commonwealth games, amongst other cultural events happening in 2014. What's better together's narrative? More austerity, more poverty, more governance from parties we didn't vote for. That isn't going to win, and I suspect their inherent complacency might get the better of them.

[Ulysses]

Except you had said that 'no reliable poll has shown a Yes lead since 2011. That, as I have shown by posting a link to a panel base poll conducted in August 2013, simply isn't true. Unless you're dismissing Panelbase as being unreliable, which would just be an assertion.

 

I said what I said because it is correct. The Panelbase poll to which you linked is unreliable, because of its questioning methodology. When I saw the result originally, I was prepared to give it some benefit of the doubt and treat it as a statistical outlier; given the margins of error and confidence intervals involved in sampling, it was statistically possible for one outlier poll to show a Yes lead in the middle of a rake of polls showing a substantial No lead. However, I then saw a note somewhere - ukpollingreport, I think - to say that this poll was different to others in the group in that it asked other questions that could have influenced the outcome of the survey on voting intentions in the referendum. So I read the report, and it did exactly that. The voting intention question came at the end of a raft of questions that not only could have influenced the voting intentions poll, but were clearly designed to do so. It reminded me of the Yes Minister sketch where Humphrey Appleby gets Bernard Woolley to answer Yes and No to the same poll question by asking him different sets of leading questions first.

 

The only valid polls are those which ask how people intend to vote on the referendum question - with no related questions, and definitely no leading questions. No independent statistician or researcher would stand over that Panelbase "survey" - and its validity can be clearly shown by the fact that the result remains a statistical quirk.

 

 

You seem quite quick to dismiss the possibility of independence happening, that's up to you.

 

Nope. What I have said - and there is only a minuscule possibility of my being inaccurate - is that if the voting had taken place at any time over the last two and a half years, the No side would have won at a canter. I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

 

 

No apparently leads right now, but that (apparent) gap has closed and will continue to close.

 

Since the publication of the white paper, two polls have shown a "shift" from don't know to Yes which was smaller than the margin of error for the poll, which is inconclusive to say the least.

 

 

I distinctly remember polls predicting a heavy Labour victory in 2011...

 

So do I. But the polls in the weeks before the election all showed a significant SNP lead, except for one YouGov poll in mid-April that showed the SNP lead at only 3%.

 

 

That leads me to think that, as I've said repeatedly now, polling isn't all that reliable....

 

The polls are never reliable when we're losing.

 

 

The odds of a Yes vote, for one thing, have dropped in the past month or two.

 

I've already dealt with that - they haven't.

 

 

I also think we'll see a bit of national pride on the back of the Ryder cup and, more importantly, the commonwealth games, amongst other cultural events happening in 2014.

 

Patrick pls.

 

 

.....I suspect their inherent complacency might get the better of them.

 

On the one hand, you tell us they're complacent. On the other hand, you tell us they're wanting to dump their own campaign leadership because they're running scared (even though they're miles ahead in the polls). That seems like a huge dose of wishful thinking from you.

 

 

I think the No campaign is doing perfectly fine. But with nine months to go the Yes campaign can narrow the gap. If they're going to do that, they need to change their approach. Hopefully for the sake of Scottish independence they'll be analysing the situation a bit more coldly and ruthlessly than you will - because if they analyse it the way you're looking at it then the campaign is going nowhere.

[Patrick Bateman]

I said what I said because it is correct. The Panelbase poll to which you linked is unreliable, because of its questioning methodology. When I saw the result originally, I was prepared to give it some benefit of the doubt and treat it as a statistical outlier; given the margins of error and confidence intervals involved in sampling, it was statistically possible for one outlier poll to show a Yes lead in the middle of a rake of polls showing a substantial No lead. However, I then saw a note somewhere - ukpollingreport, I think - to say that this poll was different to others in the group in that it asked other questions that could have influenced the outcome of the survey on voting intentions in the referendum. So I read the report, and it did exactly that. The voting intention question came at the end of a raft of questions that not only could have influenced the voting intentions poll, but were clearly designed to do so. It reminded me of the Yes Minister sketch where Humphrey Appleby gets Bernard Woolley to answer Yes and No to the same poll question by asking him different sets of leading questions first.

 

The only valid polls are those which ask how people intend to vote on the referendum question - with no related questions, and definitely no leading questions. No independent statistician or researcher would stand over that Panelbase "survey" - and its validity can be clearly shown by the fact that the result remains a statistical quirk.

 

 

 

 

Nope. What I have said - and there is only a minuscule possibility of my being inaccurate - is that if the voting had taken place at any time over the last two and a half years, the No side would have won at a canter. I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

 

 

 

 

Since the publication of the white paper, two polls have shown a "shift" from don't know to Yes which was smaller than the margin of error for the poll, which is inconclusive to say the least.

 

 

 

 

So do I. But the polls in the weeks before the election all showed a significant SNP lead, except for one YouGov poll in mid-April that showed the SNP lead at only 3%.

 

 

 

 

The polls are never reliable when we're losing.

 

 

 

 

I've already dealt with that - they haven't.

 

 

 

 

Patrick pls.

 

 

 

 

On the one hand, you tell us they're complacent. On the other hand, you tell us they're wanting to dump their own campaign leadership because they're running scared (even though they're miles ahead in the polls). That seems like a huge dose of wishful thinking from you.

 

 

I think the No campaign is doing perfectly fine. But with nine months to go the Yes campaign can narrow the gap. If they're going to do that, they need to change their approach. Hopefully for the sake of Scottish independence they'll be analysing the situation a bit more coldly and ruthlessly than you will - because if they analyse it the way you're looking at it then the campaign is going nowhere.

 

You can assert that the panel base poll isn't accurate, I can assert that it is. Kinda cancels each other out.

 

'The polls in the WEEKS' before being the operative word. I'm pretty sure Labour were considered favourites to be the largest party in early April 2011, but I can't find an article to back this up right now.

 

As for you dismissing the effect of major sporting and cultural events on people? aye, ok then. Anything which proves to people that, shock horror, Scots can actually host things and govern themselves opens people up to the possibility of independence.

 

To say that Better Together been complacent and that their leadership might be ditched aren't contradictory in any sense, so I struggle to see your point here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10495809/Downing-Street-hunt-over-Alistair-Darling-whispering-campaign.html This was widely reported, so it's not a case of wishful thinking.

 

As for your final point, I have more faith in a machine that can win an outright majority at Holyrood over one that is coordinated by the man who ran David Milliband's campaign to be Labour leader. I'll be very interested to see what happens when Salmond debates Cameron, Carmichael, Gove, or whomever else wants to continue better together's losing streak in debates. The lack of passion from the no side is there to see; it's driven by political self-interest and a belief that Scots are uniquely inferior at self-governance. It's a dreadful message and one that will crumble in time. I don't understand your point about me 'lacking ruthlessness' in my assessment of what's going on. I follow this stuff pretty closely and don't necessarily express all my views on this thread.

[Ulysses]

You can assert that the panel base poll isn't accurate, I can assert that it is. Kinda cancels each other out.

 

Except that it doesn't. That poll contained leading questions. The kindest thing one can say about the poll is that it has a significant methodological discontinuity by reference to all the other polls. The fact remains that every statistically reliable poll since the middle of 2011 has shown a clear (in most cases landslide) No lead. By the way, your desperation to cling to the one rogue poll and claim it has validity is telling. If the other polls were showing a Yes lead or a close race, you wouldn't need to refer to it at all.

 

 

'The polls in the WEEKS' before being the operative word. I'm pretty sure Labour were considered favourites to be the largest party in early April 2011, but I can't find an article to back this up right now.

 

There were in fact two outlier polls, both taken by YouGov, one asking about constituency votes, the other about regional votes. Both showed a narrow SNP lead when other polls were showing a lead of at least 9-10 percentage points. Who cares when the change occurred? The reason for the change wasn't that the polls were unreliable; it was that people changed their minds. I've already said that there's time for people to change their minds. My point is not that they won't - it's that they won't unless the Yes campaign gets its act together.

 

As for you dismissing the effect of major sporting and cultural events on people? aye, ok then. Anything which proves to people that, shock horror, Scots can actually host things and govern themselves opens people up to the possibility of independence.

 

Yes, because people couldn't care less. The Ryder Cup is a European event, and it is European rather than nationalist sentiments that will dominate proceedings, regardless of where the event takes place. People are already well aware that major events have been and can be hosted in Scotland. Many of those people would argue that this is all proof of the advantages for Scotland of being a nation within a nation - and the Yes campaign doesn't have an answer to that as far as anyone can see.

 

 

To say that Better Together been complacent and that their leadership might be ditched aren't contradictory in any sense....

 

It is when you say it, because it is your bias that is on display. You want Yes to win - you don't post on this thread to debate, you post to campaign. So you believe in the best prospects for Yes and the worst for No. Take the blinkers off. No is winning, and winning by a considerable distance. The Yes campaign is the one that needs to get its act together.

 

 

As for your final point, I have more faith in a machine that can win an outright majority at Holyrood over one that is coordinated by the man who ran David Milliband's campaign to be Labour leader.

 

Of course you do; you're biased, for heaven's sake. The Yes campaign is the one that is losing; the Yes campaign is the one that needs to ditch its strategy, or its leadership, or possibly both.

[Alba gu Brath]

All polls, not some. Campaign if you wish, criticise the other side if you wish. But don't spoof.

 

It's not some polls that are showing a No lead; it's all of them. Unless there's a poll in recent days that we've missed, every poll carried out with a reliable methodology since the middle of 2011 has shown a No lead - and I'm giving the mid-2011 poll the benefit of the doubt because I haven't read the details of the sampling and questioning methodology.

 

 

Hmmm. The polls I've seen conducted after various televised debates have all seen the Yes vote win. Can't name them all but there was the one in Dundee with Lord Robertson and another the BBC did near the bridge on the Tweed. Are they any less scientific than polls done with internet subscribers? I don't know.

 

However, it would suggest that when people are faced with real arguments that they tend to go towards yes.

[Alba gu Brath]

 

 

 

Of course you do; you're biased, for heaven's sake. The Yes campaign is the one that is losing; the Yes campaign is the one that needs to ditch its strategy, or its leadership, or possibly both.

 

Where would the SNP be just now if they followed your logic. Loser Iain Gray was into a double figure lead within weeks of the last Scottish election. He almost lost his own seat in East Lothian.

 

Like I've said before, any old cynic can sit on the sidelines and snipe but if you've got real ideas, and the guts, then let's see you get involved.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What was the turnout at the last Holyrood election?

 

Will the expected higher turnout for the referendum help the yes or no cause?

[Ulysses]

 

Where would the SNP be just now if they followed your logic. Loser Iain Gray was into a double figure lead within weeks of the last Scottish election. He almost lost his own seat in East Lothian.

 

Like I've said before, any old cynic can sit on the sidelines and snipe but if you've got real ideas, and the guts, then let's see you get involved.

 

You've seen polls, you've seen signs, we get it.

 

The Yes campaign is losing. That is a fact. It is the Yes campaign that needs to be concerned, not the No campaign.

 

My place is on the sidelines. As a neutral, I can happily kick lumps out of any nonsense put out by either side.

 

As a neutral, and a dispassionate observer, I'm telling you that the Yes side is a good distance behind. Loyalty (To what? Scotland? The campaign? The party?) means guys like yourself and PB can't admit to that. But the SNP leadership can (in private, naturally). Yes supporters have to hope that they are evaluating this coldly and clinically, and making plans to change their campaign to turn things around. I thought the White Paper would bring a change of pace, but it didn't. Perhaps things will change in the New Year.

[southside1874]

You've seen polls, you've seen signs, we get it.

 

The Yes campaign is losing. That is a fact. It is the Yes campaign that needs to be concerned, not the No campaign.

 

My place is on the sidelines. As a neutral, I can happily kick lumps out of any nonsense put out by either side.

 

As a neutral, and a dispassionate observer, I'm telling you that the Yes side is a good distance behind. Loyalty (To what? Scotland? The campaign? The party?) means guys like yourself and PB can't admit to that. But the SNP leadership can (in private, naturally). Yes supporters have to hope that they are evaluating this coldly and clinically, and making plans to change their campaign to turn things around. I thought the White Paper would bring a change of pace, but it didn't. Perhaps things will change in the New Year.

 

Exactly. As a supporter of independence, I would like to say there is absolutely nothing wrong with folk that want to remain part of the UK. Everyone has to respect each others opinion. It gets to the point when you agree to differ and move on. Anything else becomes ridiculous. The theory goes that we can all meet in the middle and give Scotland more powers in the meantime. However, the larger percentage of the vote for independence will give more power to devolving authority. In simple terms, the yes vote have very little support and therefore we accept the status quo. As Ulysses said, There is very little support for the yes vote.

[jack D and coke]

 

Exactly. As a supporter of independence, I would like to say there is absolutely nothing wrong with folk that want to remain part of the UK. Everyone has to respect each others opinion. It gets to the point when you agree to differ and move on. Anything else becomes ridiculous. The theory goes that we can all meet in the middle and give Scotland more powers in the meantime. However, the larger percentage of the vote for independence will give more power to devolving authority. In simple terms, the yes vote have very little support and therefore we accept the status quo. As Ulysses said, There is very little support for the yes vote.

Good post.

[The Comedian]

 

 

Exactly. As a supporter of independence, I would like to say there is absolutely nothing wrong with folk that want to remain part of the UK. Everyone has to respect each others opinion. It gets to the point when you agree to differ and move on. Anything else becomes ridiculous. The theory goes that we can all meet in the middle and give Scotland more powers in the meantime. However, the larger percentage of the vote for independence will give more power to devolving authority. In simple terms, the yes vote have very little support and therefore we accept the status quo. As Ulysses said, There is very little support for the yes vote.

 

It's a fact that YES is behind. It's also a fact they haven't lost because the vote is months away.

 

People can point to polls until the cows come home, it means nothing just now. If it's a comfort blanket for some crack on.

 

We will see on the day. That's all anyone can say as there have been shocks before.

[southside1874]

It's a fact that YES is behind. It's also a fact they haven't lost because the vote is months away.

 

People can point to polls until the cows come home, it means nothing just now. If it's a comfort blanket for some crack on.

 

We will see on the day. That's all anyone can say as there have been shocks before.

 

The "yes voters" have nothing to lose. We lost our country 300 years ago. I do think Scotland would be better off looking after it's own affairs but I respect others thoughts of keeping the UK together. There is no right or wrong here. Someone recently asked me to convince them why they should vote for an independent Scotland. This question was put to me because of my obvious affiliation towards Scotland running it's own affairs. My answer was that "I don't want to convince you that Scotland would be better running it's own affairs. If you believe that we are better run from Westminster then I respect your opinion." I only have my belief on the information I look at. On both sides of the debate, I see folk looking for information that suits their beliefs. This, IMO is what is wrong in so many ways and until this simple thing changes, then it doesn't matter. There is no point as the big companies will run all over us anyway. You see, large companies don't break into small countries because small countries have a population that is united. We may lose our place at the G7 or whatever it's called now. I don't want our politicians running the world, I want them to run our country.

[shaun.lawson]

You've seen polls, you've seen signs, we get it.

 

The Yes campaign is losing. That is a fact. It is the Yes campaign that needs to be concerned, not the No campaign.

 

My place is on the sidelines. As a neutral, I can happily kick lumps out of any nonsense put out by either side.

 

As a neutral, and a dispassionate observer, I'm telling you that the Yes side is a good distance behind. Loyalty (To what? Scotland? The campaign? The party?) means guys like yourself and PB can't admit to that. But the SNP leadership can (in private, naturally). Yes supporters have to hope that they are evaluating this coldly and clinically, and making plans to change their campaign to turn things around. I thought the White Paper would bring a change of pace, but it didn't. Perhaps things will change in the New Year.

 

I of course agree with this. Who wouldn't? It's entirely factual. But what I don't understand is why.

 

Trying (and failing) to view this in a cold, detached way, I've often been left with the sense that the NO campaign is a complacent, borderline joke, which loudly recalls the miserable failings of Scottish Labour in recent years - while YES has been vigorous, modern and effective. So I can't understand why the polls aren't budging; honestly, I can't.

 

Is it just that, similar to general elections, nothing will happen until we get very close to polling day? Is there really no significant appetite for independence in Scotland despite the havoc which Thatcher and the present government (neither of them supported in Scotland) have wrought, despite the success of devolution, despite the huge success which Salmond has enjoyed?

 

I think it was you who commented, much earlier in the thread, that those you'd spoken to outside Scotland could not understand why Scotland would not vote for independence. I'm in that group too: I can't understand why YES wouldn't win either. To me (but I'm biased, because of my political leanings), it's a no-brainer.

Edited December 26, 2013 by shaun.lawson

[TheMaganator]

Britain to be Europe's biggest a Economy by 2028. I thought the UK was finished/bust etc etc

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/26/britain-europe-top-economy-by-2030

[jack D and coke]

Britain to be Europe's biggest a Economy by 2028. I thought the UK was finished/bust etc etc

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/26/britain-europe-top-economy-by-2030

Just think how wealthy the RoUK will be if they manage to rid themselves of those scranning cadging jocks too? That surely must drag England oops sorry the the UK down a place or two no? The wealth will be insane!!! No more subsidising old moaning jocko types. Scotland would probably fall off the lowest end of the scale of bankrupt socialist totalitarian regimes whereas England and the rest of the UK will be feckin rolling in it! Tally ho old chap.

[Das Root]

Yes aren't behind, they're simply starting from a position that is some distance from the status quo.

 

They're making great headway with families and younger elements of society. But getting nowhere with OAPs and such...they will never vote Yes so no more time will be spent trying to change their minds.

 

Everything will ramp up considerably after the New Year. Plenty of time to go to ensure a Yes victory.

 

Has this been touched upon? BBC caught out with the biased coverage, using an Irish minister to further their own aims and viewpoint.

 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/affairs-scotland/8501-independence-and-the-eu-how-bbc-scotland-were-caught-misleading-the-public-part-one

 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/affairs-scotland/8503-independence-and-the-eu-how-bbc-scotland-were-caught-misleading-the-public-part-two

Edited December 26, 2013 by Das Root