Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[coconut doug]

amazing blinkered view. If the US and UK had been involved it would never have been boots on the ground, it was always going to be military strikes at specific targets to balance the playing field and bring Assad to the negotiating table.

 

How on earth can you say Putin helped save lives when the war is still rumbling on to this day, as I said 150,000 dead, around the same as Iraq in about a fifth of the time.

 

Putin has blood on his hands. How can you say he avoided a bloodbath, it is a bloodbath ffs ! And he has prolonged it.

 

If we had have carried out these strategic military strikes it may well have brought about the end sooner. We will never know, but to praise Putin in all of this is bonkers, absolute bonkers.

 

As for Salmond, he came out in the days around the vote in Westminster and said Scotland would have been involved in any military strikes on Syria if part of NATO/UN.

 

And as for Chomsky, read Nick Cohen's book 'What's left?'. He rips him to bits. Chomsky doesn't care about the innocent or human rights abuses. His enemies enemy is his friend no matter how ridiculous and hypocritical it makes him look.

If Putin had acquiesced, Nato would have bombed and caused loss of life as well as blowing up chemical weapons plants. Al Nusra/Al Qaeda would be hanging children, eating human flesh, shooting prisoners of war and conducting genocide against other ethnic or religious groups on an even greater scale. I can say Putin saved lives even though the war rumbles on because things could have been even worse. I wouldn't want to live in Assad's Syria before the conflict but I have no doubt that it was one of the better Arab States. If the fundamentalists get in it's Sharia law and back to the Stone Age.

 

Lancet figures offer different numbers for Iraq casualties http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq>

 

This shows a similar rate of attrition.

 

Salmond's comment was qualified though you'd never know it from the headline. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/syria-action-backed-under-independence-salmond-1-3071423 Salmond said action would only be backed "if the use of chemical weapons could be proved" and if approved by the UN. It wasn't proved and as you know from the previous link, at least some of them were supplied by our allies. The proposed strikes on Syria were not approved by the UN.

 

Putin played an absolute blinder in this by protecting Russian trade interests in Syria, elevating Russia's status in many parts of the world by standing up to and seeing off The West. He did this diplomatically by addressing the American people directly and did it militarily by promising to support Syria come what may. He also stole the moral high ground by providing the solution to the chemical weapons issue and by insisting on UN agreement before any action took place. Putin?s actions may have prevented WW3 according to some.

 

You don't have to like him or even approve of his actions but you would be churlish not to recognise his achievements. I think that was what Salmond was saying.

 

About Chomsky - I'm not buying "ridiculous and hypocritical". I read some of Cohen's work and I?m not convinced at all. He apparently still thinks invading Iraq was a good idea, says it all for me.

 

Sorry you find my reasoning "absolute bonkers" and my opinion "blinkered". I know there are no absolutes but you are the one saying Putin has nothing to be admired for and that the democratically elected leader of Scotland is wrong to say that he does. I?ll leave it there.

[jack D and coke]

 

[inappropriate content removed]

 

is that right??

 

Some of the statements on these No Borders have been hilarious too. There's one about Mel Gibson chasing a haggis FFS! I actually do believe there are some people who believe this is what it's all about even after all this time.

 

Unbelievable ignorance.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/14/george-osborne-not-bluffing-currency-union-independent-scotland

 

There will be no currency union.

 

With that in mind - does that change anyone's view?

 

I posted a potential problem that I saw a few days ago that if you have debt (mortgage, loans, finance) in Sterling that you will potentially be repaying it in Sterling - a currency we'll have no control over.

 

Will be be paid in Sterling?

 

I get those voting Yes for emotional and ideological reasons but in practical terms it is going to be a nightmare.

 

Risk Vs Reward. It's surely a no brainier?

[TheMaganator]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-weirs-donations-top-5-5m-1-3412281

 

The Weirs have given a further ?1m.

 

 

[scott_jambo]

http://www.theguardi...endent-scotland

 

There will be no currency union.

 

With that in mind - does that change anyone's view?

 

I posted a potential problem that I saw a few days ago that if you have debt (mortgage, loans, finance) in Sterling that you will potentially be repaying it in Sterling - a currency we'll have no control over.

 

Will be be paid in Sterling?

 

I get those voting Yes for emotional and ideological reasons but in practical terms it is going to be a nightmare.

 

Risk Vs Reward. It's surely a no brainier?

 

He is bluffing and there will be a currency union. If the Tories refuse to recognise our stake in the British pound then we will not recognise our British debt.

[jack D and coke]

 

He is bluffing and there will be a currency union. If the Tories refuse to recognise our stake in the British pound then we will not recognise our British debt.

That's kind of the position I'm taking too. What they're basically saying is it's England's pound and none of you are having it. If for instance Scotland was a success and Wales and NI followed suit they're basically laying the marker down now that it's theirs and Wales and NI better take note. You leave and you won't have the English pound to back up your little tin pot economies.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

He is bluffing and there will be a currency union. If the Tories refuse to recognise our stake in the British pound then we will not recognise our British debt.

Which would be a disaster for us on the international finance markets. He's under oath.

 

First thing we do as an independent nation - ask to have a foreign country control our currency.

 

Second thing we do is ditch our share of the debt.

[TheMaganator]

 

That's kind of the position I'm taking too. What they're basically saying is it's England's pound and none of you are having it. If for instance Scotland was a success and Wales and NI followed suit they're basically laying the marker down now that it's theirs and Wales and NI better take note. You leave and you won't have the English pound to back up your little tin pot economies.

Nope. It's the UKs. Nothing to do with England.

 

You're just hoping he's bluffing and will vote Yes regardless?

 

If he's not bluffing?

[scott_jambo]

Which would be a disaster for us on the international finance markets. He's under oath.

 

First thing we do as an independent nation - ask to have a foreign country control our currency.

 

Second thing we do is ditch our share of the debt.

 

Osbourne will prob not be chancellor anyway and if he is he can make some pish up about the "situation has changed". Loving the faith you have gained in the political class telling the truth all of a sudden. They are under oath everytime they speak in the parliament chamber.

 

Market forces would see a lot of opportunity in a Scotland not shackled with UK debt. The markets are an entity which has no morality or conscience. The whole thing is a zerosum trading game.

 

You are still not acknowledging our stake in the British pound. Going by your logic, the first thing we do as an independent nation is ask a foreign country for "their" debt.

Edited May 15, 2014 by scott_jambo

[jack D and coke]

Nope. It's the UKs. Nothing to do with England.

 

You're just hoping he's bluffing and will vote Yes regardless?

 

If he's not bluffing?

Yes it's the UK's but England's. If Wales and NI express a wish to leave they get told the same thing....meaning it's ours(England's).

 

I don't think or hope Osbourne is bluffing but we don't get use of our money then we are under no obligation whatsoever to take on a foreign countries debts. This is not defaulting btw we aren't liable for a cent of it.

[TheMaganator]

 

Yes it's the UK's but England's. If Wales and NI express a wish to leave they get told the same thing....meaning it's ours(England's).

 

I don't think or hope Osbourne is bluffing but we don't get use of our money then we are under no obligation whatsoever to take on a foreign countries debts. This is not defaulting btw we aren't liable for a cent of it.

Fine.

 

But if he isn't bluffing - why would we want a currency union that the UK controls? It's a terrible idea. So is starting our own new currency.

 

There are no positive currency options. Currency is the most fundamental aspect of day to day life.

[jack D and coke]

Fine.

 

But if he isn't bluffing - why would we want a currency union that the UK controls? It's a terrible idea. So is starting our own new currency.

 

There are no positive currency options. Currency is the most fundamental aspect of day to day life.

I don't disagree with any of that tbh.

 

[flecktimus]

Fine.

 

But if he isn't bluffing - why would we want a currency union that the UK controls? It's a terrible idea. So is starting our own new currency.

 

There are no positive currency options. Currency is the most fundamental aspect of day to day life.

 

So how does other country's manage with there currencies.

 

Forgot we are to wee and stupid to manage our own affairs, that's me voting No then.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

George's only position is to keep the markets buoyant, a currency charge at the border will be bad for English business meaning bad for his position....it's self interest. The pound belongs to everybody not one man.

[IMA MAROON]

George's only position is to keep the markets buoyant, a currency charge at the border will be bad for English business meaning bad for his position....it's self interest. The pound belongs to everybody not one man.

 

The UK belongs to us all but the Yes supporters want to give it away.

[JamboX2]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/exclusive-senior-labour-figures-push-government-departments-be-scrapped

 

Idea to abolish the Northen, Ireland, Wales and Scotland Offices as part of a radical redesign of the British government should labour win. An idea I back and one which will empower the administrations of each nation as they will have to speak to and not through Whitehall.

[jambos are go!]

http://www.dailyreco...y-shows-3544057

 

Here is the Survation poll in todays Daily Record showing a No lead of 12%. Survation methods are thought to favour YES so it would seem really bad news for them. In addition it reports that Alex Salmond has become a major negative for the YES campaign. .

Edited May 15, 2014 by jambos are go!

[Alba gu Brath]

Fine.

 

But if he isn't bluffing - why would we want a currency union that the UK controls? It's a terrible idea. So is starting our own new currency.

 

There are no positive currency options. Currency is the most fundamental aspect of day to day life.

 

Why would you want an expensive defence system that the US controls?

 

More to the point, Trident et al are not fundamental to day to day life. Makes it more ridiculous.

[jack D and coke]

http://www.dailyreco...y-shows-3544057

 

Here is the Survation poll in todays Daily Record showing a No lead of 12%. Survation methods are thought to favour YES so it would seem really bad news for them. In addition it reports that Alex Salmond has become a major negative for the YES campaign. .

I'd tend to agree Salmond and to a lesser extent Sturgeon are negatives for Yes just as practically everybody who opens their mouth is for No. They've both been utterly appalling and it's been excruciating to watch gaffe after gaffe on both sides. I've tried to exclude everybody from the equation and I'm trying to just look to the implications for the country in both outcomes because frankly they've all came across like a bunch of dicks.

 

One way or another I'll be glad when it's over.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

Fine.

 

But if he isn't bluffing - why would we want a currency union that the UK controls? It's a terrible idea. So is starting our own new currency.

 

There are no positive currency options. Currency is the most fundamental aspect of day to day life.

Why is starting a separate Scots currency a terrible idea?

[Don Draper]

http://www.dailyreco...y-shows-3544057

 

Here is the Survation poll in todays Daily Record showing a No lead of 12%. Survation methods are thought to favour YES so it would seem really bad news for them. In addition it reports that Alex Salmond has become a major negative for the YES campaign. .

 

That article reads like it was written by a Primary Six pupil. I struggle to believe that there really are folk out there planning on voting yes or no simply based on whether they like or dislike Alex Salmond...

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

He is bluffing and there will be a currency union. If the Tories refuse to recognise our stake in the British pound then we will not recognise our British debt.

 

A currency is indivisible. It is not an asset. It is a monetary system. Therefore there is no obligation for anything to be shared like this. It is for negotiation between governments.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

A currency is indivisible. It is not an asset. It is a monetary system. Therefore there is no obligation for anything to be shared like this. It is for negotiation between governments.

 

?1 = 100p

 

:'>

 

Anyway, a currency union would be disastrous for both countries, whether you believe Osborne is serious or bluffing.

[JamboInSouthsea]

The currency issue is a bit of a weird one...I am no economist but the reasoning behind a union (currency) was suggested as best option by some Nobel award winning (or laureat) economists but have read that the most efficient economies are those with 5-6M population with their own currency.

 

As it stands, it's all about self determination for me and ALL other issues are secondary...this is what it is about...nothing else actually matters..you can pan back 300+ yrs or so or the last 20, tis irrelevant.

 

If Scotland were to become independent then fantastic...if not, then more of the same...better the devil etc..(cop out, IMHO)

[JyTees]

 

 

That article reads like it was written by a Primary Six pupil. I struggle to believe that there really are folk out there planning on voting yes or no simply based on whether they like or dislike Alex Salmond...

 

You underestimate the lack of intelligence and ignorance of the electorate.

 

[Smack]

What is to prevent an independent Scotland from pinning currency to the pound. I know Barbados' currency is pinned to the dollar, what have I missed? Would we need a separate Scottish pound which was exactly equal to an English pound?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What is to prevent an independent Scotland from pinning currency to the pound. I know Barbados' currency is pinned to the dollar, what have I missed? Would we need a separate Scottish pound which was exactly equal to an English pound?

Nothing, except the new Scottish Central Bank would have to hold large amounts of sterling to maintain the exchange rate.

[ToYouToMe]

http://www.dailyreco...y-shows-3544057

 

Here is the Survation poll in todays Daily Record showing a No lead of 12%. Survation methods are thought to favour YES so it would seem really bad news for them. In addition it reports that Alex Salmond has become a major negative for the YES campaign. .

 

You lost me at Daily Record.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

[jack D and coke]

 

You underestimate the lack of intelligence and ignorance of the electorate.

This in absolute spades.

[Ulysses]

What is to prevent an independent Scotland from pinning currency to the pound. I know Barbados' currency is pinned to the dollar, what have I missed? Would we need a separate Scottish pound which was exactly equal to an English pound?

 

What you've missed is the cost. Scotland would have to maintain huge reserves of Sterling to maintain the peg. Panama and Barbados hold USD reserves equivalent to 25% of annual GDP. Ireland got away with a lower percentage back in the 1970s, but that wouldn't work nowadays. So an independent Scotland would have to borrow about ?35 billion immediately to back its currency, thereby adding about ?1.4 billion a year to the interest bill. This would use up half the annual revenues from oil and gas, and would be piled on top of an opening deficit position worse than Ireland or Portugal had in the middle of being rescued by the IMF.

 

Short version: There's no reason you can't, but it requires significant sacrifices.

[coconut doug]

What you've missed is the cost. Scotland would have to maintain huge reserves of Sterling to maintain the peg. Panama and Barbados hold USD reserves equivalent to 25% of annual GDP. Ireland got away with a lower percentage back in the 1970s, but that wouldn't work nowadays. So an independent Scotland would have to borrow about ?35 billion immediately to back its currency, thereby adding about ?1.4 billion a year to the interest bill. This would use up half the annual revenues from oil and gas, and would be piled on top of an opening deficit position worse than Ireland or Portugal had in the middle of being rescued by the IMF.

 

Short version: There's no reason you can't, but it requires significant sacrifices.

Are Scottish bank notes not already backed 1 for 1 in the B of E?

 

Could AAA rated Scotland not borrow money at a cheaper rate than 4.1% as you suggest?

 

Is it not true that the B of E holds about a third of UK national debt. What interest is the BofE charging on this?

 

Is your figure for oil revenues not unrepresentative? ?2.8 billion is the most recent and lowest figure for many years but there has been significant recent investment and new areas will open up if Trident is removed. The figure in 2010 was almost 5 times the figure you quote.

 

Is it not true that Scotland earns proportionately more in foreign earnings than rUK would.

 

If these variables are factored in would the sacrifice not be significantly less.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Are Scottish bank notes not already backed 1 for 1 in the B of E?

 

Because they are sterling. They won't be sterling in a currency union or, for that matter, accepted by the Bank of England.

 

Could AAA rated Scotland not borrow money at a cheaper rate than 4.1% as you suggest?

 

All things being equal, it is unlikely. Again though, until Scotland sells sovereign debt this question cannot truly be answered.

 

Is it not true that the B of E holds about a third of UK national debt. What interest is the BofE charging on this?

 

It is true and it is between 3% and 3.5%. Not sure why this is relevant here. Are you suggesting that Scotland goes down the Modern Monetary Theory route?

Is your figure for oil revenues not unrepresentative? ?2.8 billion is the most recent and lowest figure for many years but there has been significant recent investment and new areas will open up if Trident is removed. The figure in 2010 was almost 5 times the figure you quote.

 

Aren't those the figures in the GERS report?

Is it not true that Scotland earns proportionately more in foreign earnings than rUK would.

 

Scotland is a bigger net exporter than the UK, yes, but Scotland still has a trade deficit.

If these variables are factored in would the sacrifice not be significantly less.

 

What "sacrifice"? If you mean a pegged currency that's a matter for the Scottish electorate and government but it would be good for people to understand the implications.

[Ulysses]

Are Scottish bank notes not already backed 1 for 1 in the B of E?

 

This would no longer be the case if Scotland was trying to maintain a peg to Sterling rather than just letting the Bank of England do what it does for the UK. That is exactly why the problem of borrowing the money arises in the first place.

 

 

Could AAA rated Scotland not borrow money at a cheaper rate than 4.1% as you suggest?

 

What AAA rating? Scotland doesn't exist, so you'll just have to hope it gets a triple A rating. But just to play along with you, a triple A rated Scotland would get away with maybe ?1.1 billion or so - assuming it didn't have to borrow even more than ?35 billion. How a newly created small country is supposed to justify a triple A rating while running a deficit the wrong side of 7% of GDP would be a mystery to everyone, but there you go.

 

 

Is it not true that the B of E holds about a third of UK national debt. What interest is the BofE charging on this?

 

And? If a newly independent Scotland takes on a share of the debt, it will pay at least the same rate the rUK has to pay on debt servicing, possibly plus a premium. If it repudiates, it will pay nothing - all it will sacrifice is any prospect of a credit rating containing the letter A. Oops.

 

 

Is your figure for oil revenues not unrepresentative? ?2.8 billion is the most recent and lowest figure for many years but there has been significant recent investment and new areas will open up if Trident is removed. The figure in 2010 was almost 5 times the figure you quote.

 

The figure is the figure. Do you want to hope it gets higher? Off you go, but that's not going to help Scotland create a soft left paradise, create a super duper oil fund, find that ?35 billion on day one and simultaneously balance the books in the event that oil prices don't oblige you. In other words, you can't spend the same cash twice.

 

 

Is it not true that Scotland earns proportionately more in foreign earnings than rUK would.

 

What matters for this debate is the total amount of tax revenue the Exchequer can get - not how it is generated.

 

 

If these variables are factored in would the sacrifice not be significantly less.

 

No, it would not.

 

Trying to peg a Scottish buck to the pound would be a drain on the Scottish economy - and it'd be as big a drain regardless of other issues. No matter what way all the other stuff you mentioned plays out, the central reality is that doing this would cost your taxpayers at least a billion a year and possibly up to and beyond ?1.4 billion. That is money your taxpayers do not have, and if they did they would have to question if it was a sensible use of that kind of money.

 

So it can be done, and no-one has ever said it can't. But the costs are very high indeed. Whether they are greater than the benefits is a whole other debate. How much are you willing to spend on an insurance policy? Or to massage the ego of your First Minister?

[coconut doug]

Because they are sterling. They won't be sterling in a currency union or, for that matter, accepted by the Bank of England.

 

Are they sterling though? My understanding is that private companies like Clydesdale RBS (previously) and BOS are only allowed to issue notes of their own because they have backed them by depositing an equivalent amount with the B of E. Legal Tender issues show that Scottish and Bof E notes are not the same. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#16

In a currency union wouldn't Scotland and rUK have the same currency and wouldn't it be sterling? I'm not sure why the present arrangements (backing 1for1) would not work in the same way after independence. I'm not supporting currency union or necessarily disagreeing with you, i think there is a lack of clarity here hence the original question.

 

All things being equal, it is unlikely. Again though, until Scotland sells sovereign debt this question cannot truly be answered.

 

Last time i looked the B of E was issuing currency to clearing banks at 0.27%. I assume that in a pegged currency situation Scotland would not get access to any comparable rates. Serious question - Why would you deposit money with the Bof E to support currency pegging when you could withdraw the lot and use it to support your own currency and weaken the rUK pound at the same time?

 

 

It is true and it is between 3% and 3.5%. Not sure why this is relevant here. Are you suggesting that Scotland goes down the Modern Monetary Theory route?

 

Both these sources show Bof E holds 25.7% of U.K. debt

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hugh-salmon/national-debt-who-do-we-owe_b_2922219.html?view=print

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

 

MMT as i now understand it says there is no need repay to the central bank. I wasn't really suggesting that but if more than 25% of national debt is owed to the central bank then the management of this debt can handled in a different way to debt owed on the open market. If the Bank of England is broken up and Scotland receives a proportionate share it can expect receipts to come in from the debtors and would be able to manage this in a way that is beneficial to Scotland.

 

Aren't those the figures in the GERS report?

 

Yes but one year's figures are not necessarily representative?

 

Scotland is a bigger net exporter than the UK, yes, but Scotland still has a trade deficit.

 

True but relatively better than rUK so less pressure on a Scottish currency in a pegged situation.

 

 

What "sacrifice"? If you mean a pegged currency that's a matter for the Scottish electorate and government but it would be good for people to understand the implications.

 

Understanding the implications is why i asked the questions. I am not secure in my opinions to do with currency. The word sacrifce pertained to Ulysses' saying that a pegged currency was possible but only of Scotland made a "significant sacrifice".

[The Comedian]

I see Cameron has been up not butting in to the Independence debate again.

 

He has plenty to say to a nation where the majority of it's inhabitants wouldn't give him the reek of their shite.

[henry]

 

Thank goodness the silent majority will see us stay in the UK.

[Ulysses]

For the third time of asking, JKB members show a clear majority (64-36) in favour of independence.

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/139952-how-will-you-vote-jkb-independence-referendum-poll-may-2014/page__st__50__gopid__4213004&do=findComment&comment=4213004

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Sorry Doug, was there a reply in that?

[jack D and coke]

For the third time of asking, JKB members show a clear majority (64-36) in favour of independence.

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/139952-how-will-you-vote-jkb-independence-referendum-poll-may-2014/page__st__50__gopid__4213004&do=findComment&comment=4213004

I know it's only a football forum but this amazes me no end. Hearts were always very pro British too,and it's not even close!!!

[The Comedian]

Why isn't that poll representative then?

[henry]

I know it's only a football forum but this amazes me no end. Hearts were always very pro British too,and it's not even close!!!

 

Because kickback isn't always representative of what the Hearts support thinks. I don't know any Hearts fan that supports independence and I'd guess less than 10% post on kickback, others may read it but don't post. [modedit]

Edited May 17, 2014 by JKBMod 1

[flecktimus]

Why isn't that poll representative then?

 

We are a male dominated forum, could maybe be one reason and our voting age would most likely be 16 - 60.

 

[modedit]

Edited May 17, 2014 by JKBMod 1

[flecktimus]

Because kickback isn't always representative of what the Hearts support thinks. I don't know any Hearts fan that supports independence and I'd guess less than 10% post on kickback, others may read it but don't post. The other point is the separatists are more fanatical and are all over the internet like a rash.

 

I would disagree with that, most polls on JKB are never far of the mark IMO and don't forget when ICM or.Mori conduct polls they only sample about a 1000 people which is a very small percentage of the Scottish population.

[jack D and coke]

I don't know any Hearts fan that supports independence and I'd guess less than 10% post on kickback

Really? I know a right few but I also know about the same amount who don't want indy.

[modedit]

Edited May 17, 2014 by JKBMod 1

[Craig_]

I would disagree with that, most polls on JKB are never far of the mark IMO and don't forget when ICM or.Mori conduct polls they only sample about a 1000 people which is a very small percentage of the Scottish population.

 

'Tis an interesting question. I've lived here for almost 40 years, yet never once been asked my opinion for a poll. Begs the question of just who they ask. I'm sure the pollsters would tell you they have methods of making them representative of the larger electorate, yet they seem to get things wrong with alarming regularity (last Scottish election springs to mind, sure it was meant to be a hung parliament!).

[flecktimus]

'Tis an interesting question. I've lived here for almost 40 years, yet never once been asked my opinion for a poll. Begs the question of just who they ask. I'm sure the pollsters would tell you they have methods of making them representative of the larger electorate, yet they seem to get things wrong with alarming regularity (last Scottish election springs to mind, sure it was meant to be a hung parliament!).

 

Just a little bit more about the JKB poll, it is actually showing almost exactly the same as the main stream polls, that since February/March there has been very little movement.

[jambos are go!]

I would disagree with that, most polls on JKB are never far of the mark IMO and don't forget when ICM or.Mori conduct polls they only sample about a 1000 people which is a very small percentage of the Scottish population.

Since they were started decades ago the standard size of opinion polls across the developed countries has been 1000. And historically they have been accurate to plus or minus 2%. IIRC

[jambos are go!]

I would disagree with that, most polls on JKB are never far of the mark IMO and don't forget when ICM or.Mori conduct polls they only sample about a 1000 people which is a very small percentage of the Scottish population.

IIRC at the last Holyrood Election on JKB support for the SNP was 70% plus and they achieved less that 50%. Well off the mark.

[Gizmo]

Because kickback isn't always representative of what the Hearts support thinks. I don't know any Hearts fan that supports independence and I'd guess less than 10% post on kickback, others may read it but don't post. The other point is the separatists are more fanatical and are all over the internet like a rash.

 

Every hearts fan that I know is a YES voter. I assume that people tend to move in circles of people similar to themselves but just thought I'd share.

[ToadKiller Dog]

To say kickback doesn't represent the mainstream view of the hearts support is wrong , of course the internet football forum user is generally a younger age group and male so it has to be balanced a little .

The nobody I know argument is crap also . Kickback has far more hearts fans than any individual poster will ever directly know or has asked about the question .

 

The hearts fans majority yes support as indicated is likely broadly in line with the national trends for the football forums .

 

Rangers would likely be the only one that bucks the trend .