Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Das Root]

Just in case this is missed, her viewpoint on Scotland and the EU.

 

"I was asked about the future of negotiations with the EU in the event that Scotland votes for independence. I thought that my reply was largely in line with that of the Scottish Government. I certainly did not at any stage suggest that Scotland could, should or would be thrown out of the EU. Scottish people are citizens of Europe.

 

My understanding is that the Scottish Government has already committed to a negotiation with the EU between 2014 and 2016, if you vote for independence in 2014. If my interview suggested something other than that, this was not my intention. I think my comments have been misconstrued - if so I sincerely regret this.

 

As SNP Westminster Leader, Angus Robertson said 'Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence', and that 'The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries'.

 

I think that sums up the situation quite well."

 

I do hope this is held up as gospel just as much as the Spanish PM's comments were.

[Ulysses]

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

 

In the polls, more people say they want to vote No than Yes. That means No is ahead, and Yes is behind.

 

 

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.

 

Women are more likely to vote No than men. Working people are more likely to vote No than the unemployed. In effect, the groups saying they're most likely vote Yes are those who think they have nothing to lose by flipping the coin. And in any case, if the voting intentions are static then the Yes campaign can't claim to be making headway.

 

 

Everything will ramp up considerably after the New Year.

 

It will have to, because at this rate of going the No side will win easily.

[Das Root]

And it will ramp up Uly. That's blooming obvious.

[Ulysses]

And it will ramp up Uly. That's blooming obvious.

 

You were one of those who said we'd see the campaign change when the White Paper came out. But that was a damp squib.

[TheMaganator]

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

 

After a terrible day at Tynecastle - this has cheered me up no end!

[Das Root]

After a terrible day at Tynecastle - this has cheered me up no end!

 

 

 

Been getting lessons on how to spin from those boys in the No camp

 

Did you see the No marketing plan?

 

 

 

http://yesscotland.net/news/yes-rebuts-leaked-proposal-no-campaigns-relaunch

 

 

Those boys no...or should that be know?

[The Comedian]

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

 

http://www.theguardi...economy-by-2030

 

Looks like your crystal ball is playing up...

 

The future for a Independent Scotland - Pestilence, unpredictable and tins of beans cost ?34.20.

 

The future for the UK - Bigger economy than Germany. Easily affordable groceries.

 

 

Utterly desperate.

 

[Das Root]

You were one of those who said we'd see the campaign change when the White Paper came out. But that was a damp squib.

 

 

How was it a damp squib? Well laid out, plenty of info to work with. I'm certainly looking forward to 2014's campaign, a Battle Royale by the time August hits imo. Good times ahead

[Ulysses]

 

 

How was it a damp squib?

 

It had no impact on the campaign.

 

What if the problem for the Yes side is not the campaign? What if it's the message?

[Das Root]

It had no impact on the campaign.

 

What if the problem for the Yes side is not the campaign? What if it's the message?

 

 

Had no immediate impact would be far more accurate at present, and even then you could argue that it has helped form people's opinions, even if they aren't shouting from the rooftops about it. However you certainly cannot tell how the next 10mths will go since they haven't been yet.

 

Message is fine. Vote Yes. Pretty simple imo.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Das Root

[Das Root]

.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Das Root

[Ulysses]

 

 

Had no immediate impact would be far more accurate at present, and even then you could argue that it has helped form people's opinions, even if they aren't shouting from the rooftops about it. However you certainly cannot tell how the next 10mths will go since they haven't been yet.

 

Message is fine. Vote Yes. Pretty simple imo.

 

According to Yes supporters, the White Paper would answer the doubters and the critics and breathe new life into the campaign for a Yes vote.

 

It didn't.

 

The message is fine for you, but not for most people, and for every one of you there seem to be nearly 2 of them.

[Ulysses]

 

 

The future for the UK - Bigger economy than Germany.

 

 

 

 

I've read and re-read that report and I don't buy it. By the way, if you look closely the report also says that the UK will have the biggest population in the EU by 2030 or possibly earlier.

[jack D and coke]

 

 

 

Been getting lessons on how to spin from those boys in the No camp

 

Did you see the No marketing plan?

 

 

 

http://yesscotland.net/news/yes-rebuts-leaked-proposal-no-campaigns-relaunch

 

 

Those boys no...or should that be know?

The more I think about it the more disgusted I become with the No campaign and BT. They've spent their entire campaign trying to knock the whole countries confidence with, most of the time anyway, baseless garbage and things they've made up in their own head. I can see them after a no vote now, champagne out celebrating that they've shattered a nations confidence in itself. Shameful.

[Alba gu Brath]

According to Yes supporters, the White Paper would answer the doubters and the critics and breathe new life into the campaign for a Yes vote.

 

It didn't.

 

The message is fine for you, but not for most people, and for every one of you there seem to be nearly 2 of them.

 

Aye, but where are you? The message or the medium?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Looks like your crystal ball is playing up...

 

The future for a Independent Scotland - Pestilence, unpredictable and tins of beans cost ?34.20.

 

The future for the UK - Bigger economy than Germany. Easily affordable groceries.

 

 

Utterly desperate.

 

Is that from the BT campaign? It's not.

Fingers in the ears & ignore it though - as it goes against what you've been told by the Yes camp.

[TheMaganator]

 

The more I think about it the more disgusted I become with the No campaign and BT. They've spent their entire campaign trying to knock the whole countries confidence with, most of the time anyway, baseless garbage and things they've made up in their own head. I can see them after a no vote now, champagne out celebrating that they've shattered a nations confidence in itself. Shameful.

What exactly are you reading that makes you think that that is the BT msg? You just had a bizarre nonsensical 'tally ho' response to that guardian article.

What do you think about the Yes campaign & their positive msg? Does the constant UK bashing bother you?

[Alba gu Brath]

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.

 

Am not sure about the lack of passion on your part. There's certainly a lot of hot air regarding the 'way forward' as you see it for YS but little or nothing in terms of an alternative, save that Scotland goes for a misty Celtic nationalism that plays on our cultural differences.

 

You've read my posts. I'm not in any party and am not a member of 'Yes', save giving them some dosh.

 

We have ten months to go - no one 'is behind' as the game proper hasn't started yet. In my recollection, polls are often wrong regarding big votes and elections. Equally I'm not saying that Yes will win - simply that no-one knows.

 

To bring up the Iain Gray defeat again. If you had criticised his campaign on account of the 'polls' in the run up to the last election, the Labour gurus and media would've laughed at you. After the day, it was time for surgery and bigtime soulgazing as the SNP romped home and left several Labour 'big guns' looking for new employment. A friend who works in the Parly told me that Frank Macaveetie (forgive spelling) slapped her on the shoulder and said, 'see you next week hen' on the day before the election. Where is he now?

 

As to fence-sitting - it's not much of a moral highground. Either you think the status-quo is good for Scotland or you don't. If you want more powers, then fine, but a 'no' vote won't attain them.

 

You said you live in Ireland. Would they want London rule again? I've spoken to others from similar nations - Denmark and Slovenia - and neither wished to be rule by Stockholm, Berlin or Moscow again. And, like Shaun says above, most foreigners looking in can't understand why we haven't gone for self-determination before.

 

All I see is cynicism.

[Alba gu Brath]

What exactly are you reading that makes you think that that is the BT msg? You just had a bizarre nonsensical 'tally ho' response to that guardian article.

What do you think about the Yes campaign & their positive msg? Does the constant UK bashing bother you?

 

That's just a statement of fact. See any of the announcements by the ConDems. Austerity is what we will get as part of the UK. And Darling would've done the same. There is a difference between fact and speculation.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

That's just a statement of fact. See any of the announcements by the ConDems. Austerity is what we will get as part of the UK. And Darling would've done the same. There is a difference between fact and speculation.

I'm glad the Yes camp now accept the difference between fact & speculation.

 

So, day 1 of independence...

 

Your post says labour, Tory & lib dems will give us austerity. I take it you see the SNP as the party to take us forward? Or are you just speculating that the 3 parties other than the SNP will maintain their 'austerity' policies?

[Das Root]

According to Yes supporters, the White Paper would answer the doubters and the critics and breathe new life into the campaign for a Yes vote.

 

It didn't.

 

The message is fine for you, but not for most people, and for every one of you there seem to be nearly 2 of them.

 

 

 

How do you know?

[Groot]

 

 

 

 

How do you know?

 

I think he means because since the white paper came out there has not been a significant shift in the polls, I assume the Yes team would have hoped / expected to see some movement

 

Does that mean the white paper lacked enough substance to change the opinion of enough of the No or Undecided vote?

[JamboX2]

You said you live in Ireland. Would they want London rule again? I've spoken to others from similar nations - Denmark and Slovenia - and neither wished to be rule by Stockholm, Berlin or Moscow again. And, like Shaun says above, most foreigners looking in can't understand why we haven't gone for self-determination before.

 

All I see is cynicism.

 

I'm not speaking for Uly but I'd argue there is a world of difference between the Scottish nationalist movement and the Irish one at the turn of the last century. For one the Irish position was always one of imperialism. Ireland was at a time described as the first colony of the Empire as it had been subjugated since Edward I and constantly brought in by force. It was therefore, to my understanding, much more akin to an anti-imperialist struggle. Catholics and the non-anglican protestants up til the 19th century were second class citizens in their own nation and Union was a forced thing upon Ireland. Scotland joined the Union willingly and wasn't subjugated (arguably we done a lot of the subjugating over there as well).

 

Scottish Nationalism is based on a more civic nature of wanting greater powers in Scotlnad and to get Westminster out of the picture. Therefore the history of the two makes that question a non-starter. Why would anyone bring back a colonial structure? Why would India or Kenya rejoin the Empire, or better put push for it to be refounded?

 

The Scottish narrative is unlike nearly all the independence movements of the past 50-100 years. We aren't and never were a colony. We were not occupied by another power like the Soviet annexation of the balkan states. We are not the result of a post-war redrawing of a map were two or more distinct peoples were forced together by the world's great powers. It's nothing like that. So to ask, as many in Yes do, would "they" go back to London rule, is to me, disingenuous and vacuous.

[JamboX2]

How do you know?

 

The polls have changed little since. In some the No side has hardened.

 

I have read some of the White Paper - it's very dry reading imo. And it's nature is that of a political manifesto for an election. It's not accesible to the public like it should. I'd argue a pamphlet of 30-50 pages would've been ideal. Short, sharp and easy to carry. Not a weighty 670 page tome with stats and dioramas. It's academic in style.

 

A shorter edition made for public outlining the route to independence and lighter writing was needed to complement the big full one to make it something that'd have caught the public eye. As a No leaning voter I feard it being written by some of the names mooted, that would've made it attractive to read. It is instead a civil service white paper and as a result many (I'd argue) wont read it as it's dull and official. An error on the government's behalf imo.

[Patrick Bateman]

I'm not speaking for Uly but I'd argue there is a world of difference between the Scottish nationalist movement and the Irish one at the turn of the last century. For one the Irish position was always one of imperialism. Ireland was at a time described as the first colony of the Empire as it had been subjugated since Edward I and constantly brought in by force. It was therefore, to my understanding, much more akin to an anti-imperialist struggle. Catholics and the non-anglican protestants up til the 19th century were second class citizens in their own nation and Union was a forced thing upon Ireland. Scotland joined the Union willingly and wasn't subjugated (arguably we done a lot of the subjugating over there as well).

 

Scottish Nationalism is based on a more civic nature of wanting greater powers in Scotlnad and to get Westminster out of the picture. Therefore the history of the two makes that question a non-starter. Why would anyone bring back a colonial structure? Why would India or Kenya rejoin the Empire, or better put push for it to be refounded?

 

The Scottish narrative is unlike nearly all the independence movements of the past 50-100 years. We aren't and never were a colony. We were not occupied by another power like the Soviet annexation of the balkan states. We are not the result of a post-war redrawing of a map were two or more distinct peoples were forced together by the world's great powers. It's nothing like that. So to ask, as many in Yes do, would "they" go back to London rule, is to me, disingenuous and vacuous.

 

Then why are our capital's streets named after Hanoverian royalty with little reference to Scots royalty? Why is our official language English and not Scots/Gaelic/Lallands, etc? What was Cromwell doing in the mid 17th century? Why did we have to have Wars of Independence leading to a Declaration of Independence? etc, etc.

 

I can take a guess at what you'll come back with, and I don't think this is strictly relevant to Scottish independence debate now, but to say Scotland was 'never a colony' and to suggest that the English made no attempt to colonise us, is factually incorrect. Again, I'll draw you back to Jack Straw's comments here. http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-things-change/

[JamboX2]

Then why are our capital's streets named after Hanoverian royalty with little reference to Scots royalty? Why is our official language English and not Scots/Gaelic/Lallands, etc? What was Cromwell doing in the mid 17th century? Why did we have to have Wars of Independence leading to a Declaration of Independence? etc, etc.

 

I can take a guess at what you'll come back with, and I don't think this is strictly relevant to Scottish independence debate now, but to say Scotland was 'never a colony' and to suggest that the English made no attempt to colonise us, is factually incorrect. Again, I'll draw you back to Jack Straw's comments here. http://wingsoverscot...-things-change/

 

We were not forced into union. The street names of the new town were made to honor the Monarchy of Scotland at the time of construction - which was decades after 1707. English had emerged as the court language at the time of Malcom III and Queen Margaret (herself English) to the detriment of Scots and Gaelic. Cromwell was rooting out Royalists in the home of his enemy the KIng and enforced a "Commonwealth". I make no excuses for that, but Scotland retained an independent Governmnet through to 1707.

 

Again you take the opinion I have made all this up. I don't really care tbh. From studying history Scotland had a notionally independent Government apart from the Interregnums of the 13th Century when Longshanks did conquer Scotland. I believe that was repelled, Arbroath and except from a few spells of Cromwellian occupation in the 17th century we were never a colony in the way Ireland was viewed. Like it or not the then elected government of Scotland in 1707 signed a Treaty and passed an Act of the Parliament of Scotland to have Union. If it was forced upon us it was by Scots greed and envy of the English and their Empire in the late 17th century.

Edited December 26, 2013 by JamboX2

[Patrick Bateman]

Like it or not the then elected government of Scotland in 1707 signed a Treaty and passed an Act of the Parliament of Scotland to have Union. If it was forced upon us it was by Scots greed and envy of the English and their Empire in the late 17th century.

 

Greed? If by greed you mean certain Scottish parliamentarians accepting huge sums of money and titles in England in exchange for dissolving the Scottish Parliament which lead to widespread rioting from the general population, then sure. Hardly a healthy way to start a 'nation' such as Britain though, really. I also recommend this article that will overturn some of your preconceptions about the history of the Act of Union. http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/

[JamboX2]

 

 

Greed? If by greed you mean certain Scottish parliamentarians accepting huge sums of money and titles in England in exchange for dissolving the Scottish Parliament which lead to widespread rioting from the general population, then sure. Hardly a healthy way to start a 'nation' such as Britain though, really. I also recommend this article that will overturn some of your preconceptions about the history of the Act of Union. http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/

 

Or the greed by which Scots parliamentarians and financiers blew all the cash on Darien, shattering the national economy in the.hope of somehow dominating trade in the Carribean - already dominated by the Spanish and English. Greed of capitalist aristocratic Scots which impoverished the ordinary Scots below them in some foreign imperialistic adventure.

 

What came next was Union. For the rights and wrongs of its foundation it sure helped turn Scotlands fortunes around through time.

[shaun.lawson]

 

What if the problem for the Yes side is not the campaign? What if it's the message?

 

Bingo. That's exactly it.

 

And - the rather large caveat about maybe nothing much happening until we get very near polling day notwithstanding: not for nothing do many, many respected, dispassionate observers expect this race to tighten massively - what I cannot fathom is why.

[Das Root]

I think he means because since the white paper came out there has not been a significant shift in the polls, I assume the Yes team would have hoped / expected to see some movement

 

Does that mean the white paper lacked enough substance to change the opinion of enough of the No or Undecided vote?

 

 

I think it's implied that what is happening now, will happen Sept 2014. As in...there will be zero change no matter what happens in the next 10mths of the campaign.

 

I just don't understand that reasoning. Neither do I place my faith in polling as an absolute truth. Plenty of opinions may have been changed by the WP, but unless they were asked by a pollster their voice isn't heard.

 

When the votes are in and known, that's when it matters. Up until that point every person who believes that Scotland and Scottish people should run their own affairs needs to step up and make a difference in the campaign.

[Ulysses]

Aye, but where are you? The message or the medium?

 

Does that mean anything? Anyway, who cares where I am? I'm just commenting on the fact that the Yes side is well behind in the polls. Rather than own up to that, Yes supporters on this thread engage in a range of responses from denying the facts to Orwellian interpretation of the data. On this forum, all that Yes supporters now seem to be able to do is have a go at everyone - No campaigners, neutrals, the media - rather than concentrate on actually making an argument for voting Yes and/or acknowledging that the Yes campaign has a big mountain to climb to have any chance of winning.

 

I'm also asking if it's just possible that this isn't about the campaign. Given that the No side isn't exactly inspiring either, maybe in fact the Yes side is wiping the floor with the No side and maximising the potential Yes vote. Maybe 35-40% Yes is as good as it gets.

[scott_jambo]

Does that mean anything? Anyway, who cares where I am? I'm just commenting on the fact that the Yes side is well behind in the polls. Rather than own up to that, Yes supporters on this thread engage in a range of responses from denying the facts to Orwellian interpretation of the data. On this forum, all that Yes supporters now seem to be able to do is have a go at everyone - No campaigners, neutrals, the media - rather than concentrate on actually making an argument for voting Yes and/or acknowledging that the Yes campaign has a big mountain to climb to have any chance of winning.

 

I'm also asking if it's just possible that this isn't about the campaign. Given that the No side isn't exactly inspiring either, maybe in fact the Yes side is wiping the floor with the No side and maximising the potential Yes vote. Maybe 35-40% Yes is as good as it gets.

 

Uly. Nail your colours to the mast. Where do stand on Scottish Independence?

[Das Root]

Does that mean anything? Anyway, who cares where I am? I'm just commenting on the fact that the Yes side is well behind in the polls. Rather than own up to that, Yes supporters on this thread engage in a range of responses from denying the facts to Orwellian interpretation of the data. On this forum, all that Yes supporters now seem to be able to do is have a go at everyone - No campaigners, neutrals, the media - rather than concentrate on actually making an argument for voting Yes and/or acknowledging that the Yes campaign has a big mountain to climb to have any chance of winning.

 

I'm also asking if it's just possible that this isn't about the campaign. Given that the No side isn't exactly inspiring either, maybe in fact the Yes side is wiping the floor with the No side and maximising the potential Yes vote. Maybe 35-40% Yes is as good as it gets.

 

 

Interesting. So Yes supporters "have a go at everyone"...but not the No supporters? These chaps are solid debaters with every post a winner I imagine?

 

[modedit]

[jack D and coke]

What exactly are you reading that makes you think that that is the BT msg? You just had a bizarre nonsensical 'tally ho' response to that guardian article.

What do you think about the Yes campaign & their positive msg? Does the constant UK bashing bother you?

the tally ho comment is being squarely blamed on a fine Aussie pale ale I'm partaking in quite a lot just now, James Squire The Chancer

 

Perhaps shouldn't comment when pished haha!

 

[Ulysses]

Am not sure about the lack of passion on your part.

 

Yes or No, I'll still be Irish. It's not a lack of passion; it's a sense of objectivity.

 

 

There's certainly a lot of hot air regarding the 'way forward' as you see it for YS but little or nothing in terms of an alternative, save that Scotland goes for a misty Celtic nationalism that plays on our cultural differences.

 

You should try resisting the urge to take personalised pot shots at people who don't share your view of the world. It's not my fault that the Scottish people are expressing a preference for voting No. But they are, in politics just like in any competitive game it's a good idea to be willing to change your tactics when you're behind. My view is that the "managerialist" approach of the SNP is stifling the campaign and boring people into voting No, but it's not my call.

 

 

We have ten months to go - no one 'is behind' as the game proper hasn't started yet. In my recollection, polls are often wrong regarding big votes and elections. Equally I'm not saying that Yes will win - simply that no-one knows.

 

I'm not saying that No will win. But I am saying that unless things change No will win, and win big.

 

 

As to fence-sitting - it's not much of a moral highground. Either you think the status-quo is good for Scotland or you don't. If you want more powers, then fine, but a 'no' vote won't attain them.

 

They won't be my powers one way or the other. I am neither Scottish nor British.

 

 

You said you live in Ireland. Would they want London rule again?

 

I do. And you live in the United Kingdom, however much or little you like that fact, so you already have London rule. There is an argument that says that Scotland will thrive best as a nation within a nation. I'm not buying that or rejecting it; I'm just pointing out that a lot of Scottish people, including many contributors to this thread, believe that it is true. They have a Scottish identity, but they are also quite comfortable about the idea that their national identity can survive and prosper within the United Kingdom. That makes that group of voters central to this campaign, and unless the Yes campaign can persuade a significant percentage of those people to change their minds, the No side will win the referendum next September.

[Ulysses]

So Yes supporters "have a go at everyone"...but not the No supporters? These chaps are solid debaters with every post a winner I imagine?

 

Nope, the No side take personal swipes at people who disagree with them as well. Some on both sides get a bit over the top, which is why eight people have lost their memberships. Just for the record, that happens to break down evenly 4-4.

 

I'm just pointing out how Yes supporters have responded to my observations about the polls. You'd imagine that a few Yes supporters would have said it's a cause for concern, but no-one has.

[Das Root]

Nope, the No side take personal swipes at people who disagree with them as well. Some on both sides get a bit over the top, which is why eight people have lost their memberships. Just for the record, that happens to break down evenly 4-4.

 

I'm just pointing out how Yes supporters have responded to my observations about the polls. You'd imagine that a few Yes supporters would have said it's a cause for concern, but no-one has.

 

 

In fairness, things get rather boring on this thread imo. Arguments go round and round, the currency chat had me leave for quite a few weeks. Same folk say the same things, tensions rise, such is life.

 

The polls mean nothing to me. Unless they brought one out with a polling range of 100,000 people but they tend to be 1000. And as I tend to point out, 10mths to go. 10mths in politics, 10wks even, is a lifetime. And the campaign is stage by stage. You will get your hearts and minds campaign next year, it won't all be about nuts, bolts and sterling zones.

 

People just need some patience and stop writing Yes off this early in the game. Things will ramp up, will change, will become bigger and better as more money is pumped in and budgets rise. ?ms will be spent and the last few months will be immense imo. Really looking forward to it and I know Yes will triumph as I believe in the Scottish people, they just need to believe in themselves a bit more and they'll tick the Yes box come September.

[Ulysses]

When the votes are in and known, that's when it matters.

 

Agreed. Anything I've said about the polls can only reflect the position at the time the polls were taken.

 

I should - as a way of arguing against myself - tell the story of the referendum to abolish the Irish Senate. This was an apparently very popular move, because it reduced the number of politicians, saved money, and got rid of a political talking shop with very little power or influence. The referendum took place on October 4th this year. Right up until a week before the vote, all the opinion polls showed a strong Yes majority (but also quite a high undecided figure). The lowest Yes lead suggested a 60-40 win. On polling day, the referendum was lost. The No side won by 52-48.

 

So the fact that the polls say anything now is only an indication of current views and sentiment.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Uly. Nail your colours to the mast. Where do stand on Scottish Independence?

Why does he need to nail his colours to anything?

[Ulysses]

.....but they tend to be 1000.

 

In fairness, that's because it's the ideal size for making accurate predictions at a relatively low cost. Samples of 1,000 to 1,500 gave an accurate view of Obama's wins over McCain and Romney.

[scott_jambo]

Why does he need to nail his colours to anything?

 

It's a metaphor, Geoff.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

It's a metaphor, Geoff.

Yes Scott, and that was meant to be ironic.

 

Anyway, the point stands. It is similar to me in that I think this is the most interesting political development in British history since the partition of Ireland. However, if I had a vote on it, I would abstain on principle. Uly doesn't have a vote either but he is interested in the outcome. Why does he need to take a side on what he wants to happen?

[Das Root]

Yes Scott, and that was meant to be ironic.

 

Anyway, the point stands. It is similar to me in that I think this is the most interesting political development in British history since the partition of Ireland. However, if I had a vote on it, I would abstain on principle. Uly doesn't have a vote either but he is interested in the outcome. Why does he need to take a side on what he wants to happen?

 

 

You need to be in it to win in Geoff. If folk want to debate, they should be happy to say what side they are debating for. Nobody's a neutral, even if they like to think they are they always sway to one side more than the other. Just ask a referee.

[scott_jambo]

Yes Scott, and that was meant to be ironic.

 

Anyway, the point stands. It is similar to me in that I think this is the most interesting political development in British history since the partition of Ireland. However, if I had a vote on it, I would abstain on principle. Uly doesn't have a vote either but he is interested in the outcome. Why does he need to take a side on what he wants to happen?

 

So you'd both abstain? Unfortunately us Scots don't have that choice. (Unless you decide to spoil your vote)

 

Our choice is Yes or No. If you or Uly were Scottish which would it be?

 

Go on, lets here it - pull the splinters out your toosh. We all have had to.

Edited December 27, 2013 by scott_jambo

[Das Root]

In fairness, that's because it's the ideal size for making accurate predictions at a relatively low cost. Samples of 1,000 to 1,500 gave an accurate view of Obama's wins over McCain and Romney.

 

 

Yep, but it's an entirely different question. Democrat or Republican is something that happens every four years, making a country independent once in 300yrs. Asking 1000 people may be cheap but will not represent a national view imo, especially so this long before the game is in full swing.

[Ulysses]

Uly. Nail your colours to the mast. Where do stand on Scottish Independence?

 

What's the saying? Where you stand on an issue often depends on where you sit.

 

I'm sitting in Ireland. So I guess that's where I stand as well. I have the luxury (and maybe the necessity) of remaining neutral, and that's what I'm going to do.

 

I've made both Yes and No arguments on this thread, and I've been highly critical of both Yes and No arguments as well. I have a view that a Scottish identity and a British identity are both things to be proud of. Having neither myself, of course I also think that it's quite OK to not want to have one or the other. But I am sort of wedded to the idea that if these identities are worth having then they're worth having a decent debate over them.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So you'd both abstain? Unfortunately us Scots don't have that choice. (Unless you decide to spoil your vote)

 

Our choice is Yes or No. If you or Uly were Scottish which would it be?

 

Go on, lets here it - pull the splinters out your toosh. We all have had to.

 

How can you pigeon hole me into what being Scottish is though? I lived in Scotland for 15 years and never once called myself a Scot, because I wasn't.

[Ulysses]

If folk want to debate, they should be happy to say what side they are debating for.

 

Unless, of course, they aren't debatong for a side.

 

 

Yep, but it's an entirely different question. Democrat or Republican is something that happens every four years, making a country independent once in 300yrs. Asking 1000 people may be cheap but will not represent a national view imo, especially so this long before the game is in full swing.

 

You're not a statistician, then.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

You need to be in it to win in Geoff. If folk want to debate, they should be happy to say what side they are debating for. Nobody's a neutral, even if they like to think they are they always sway to one side more than the other. Just ask a referee.

 

Unless you are throwing brickbats at all sides and playing agent provocateur. It is easy to do that with the No side as they don't seem to have a strategy. Asking awkward questions of the Yes guys, however, seems to get the hackles up. I did that with the currency question and you yourself said you got bored with it, despite saying yourself that the White Paper is incorrect with its assertions on the matter.

[scott_jambo]

What's the saying? Where you stand on an issue often depends on where you sit.

 

I'm sitting in Ireland. So I guess that's where I stand as well. I have the luxury (and maybe the necessity) of remaining neutral, and that's what I'm going to do.

 

I've made both Yes and No arguments on this thread, and I've been highly critical of both Yes and No arguments as well. I have a view that a Scottish identity and a British identity are both things to be proud of. Having neither myself, of course I also think that it's quite OK to not want to have one or the other. But I am sort of wedded to the idea that if these identities are worth having then they're worth having a decent debate over them.

 

Interesting.

Also interesting that you see national identity as the most important issue to yourself. Maybe that's because you're an irishman.

 

Personally, three over riding factors for me are economics, socialist principles and the corruption/aristocracy tendancies of Westminster

 

I care less about Scottish identity than you, tbh (and British even less so).

Edited December 27, 2013 by scott_jambo