Even More SNP Nonsense

[aussieh]

"In last year?s Independence Referendum, Catholics were far more likely than Protestants to vote Yes, by 55 per cent, compared with 2:1 against on the Protestant side. This may be an artifact, because Protestants tend to be older and more middle class, and so ?religion? may simply be a proxy for other social factors. We cannot separate out ?religion? in its theological guise from the characteristics of its social practitioners. Thus, the voting habits and social attitudes of Catholics seem to have more to do with their social and historic status as outsiders in Scotland than with theological beliefs."

 

If anything the article suggests it's in name only and more to do with extenuating social circumstances than Coco's suggestion of bigotry.

Heard it

[coconut doug]

You have attacked others on here for use of anecdotal evidence to back up claims and you do so here with impunity.

 

I would suggest, modestly and politely, that it is views such as these which are preventing the Yes side from picking up further support.

 

To win you must engage with and convince people yours is the right path through reasoned argument, perhaps even those who are genuinely bigotted. To claim you lost the last vote because of this would be to put your head in a bucket to the wider reasoning behind that defeat and to not learn where to do things right the next time.

Opposing, pointing out and challenging bigotry is not going to damage the Indy case. Denying the widespread existence of, and your affinity with such people, and views are why Unionism will ultimately fail.

 

I don't attack people for using anecdotal evidence. It is the conclusions you/they draw from anecdotal evidence or as is often the case from no evidence at all. Are you saying that there are not enough voters of this type to have swayed the Indy vote in favour of "NO". Do you have any evidence to support your view?

 

Is it the "reasoned arguments" of our regular union supporters on here that have changed your views? Look again at the comments they make and tell me if I am so far off the mark.

[JamboX2]

Opposing, pointing out and challenging bigotry is not going to damage the Indy case. Denying the widespread existence of, and your affinity with such people, and views are why Unionism will ultimately fail.

Where have i claimed, agreed with or shown an affinity with bigots? Are all unionists bigots?

 

I'm all for pointing out and challenging bigotry. But I don't quite think 55% of the Scottish electorate in the 2014 referendum are bigots.

 

I don't attack people for using anecdotal evidence. It is the conclusions you/they draw from anecdotal evidence or as is often the case from no evidence at all. Are you saying that there are not enough voters of this type to have swayed the Indy vote in favour of "NO". Do you have any evidence to support your view?

So anecdotal evidence is fine where it supports your view but not mine? Because that is exactly what it looks like to me from your statement. On another thread i raised with you friends and family relatives who work in education citing staffing issues and a reduction in funding for extracurricular activities. You said that wasn't good enough to lead as evidence of issues in education. But I'm to buy your bigotry point as valid fact?

 

Where's your evidence it did sway the vote?

 

Is it the "reasoned arguments" of our regular union supporters on here that have changed your views? Look again at the comments they make and tell me if I am so far off the mark.

I wouldn't let myself be swayed by some of the space cadets on here on a lot of things. Certainly not the zanier elements on the political threads. I just don't believe in the real world all 55% of the No voters are or were bigots.

[coconut doug]

"In last year?s Independence Referendum, Catholics were far more likely than Protestants to vote Yes, by 55 per cent, compared with 2:1 against on the Protestant side. This may be an artifact, because Protestants tend to be older and more middle class, and so ?religion? may simply be a proxy for other social factors. We cannot separate out ?religion? in its theological guise from the characteristics of its social practitioners. Thus, the voting habits and social attitudes of Catholics seem to have more to do with their social and historic status as outsiders in Scotland than with theological beliefs."

 

If anything the article suggests it's in name only and more to do with extenuating social circumstances than Coco's suggestion of bigotry.

The article quite clearly did not state that the differences in voting patterns between catholic and protestant people was more to do with "extenuating social circumstances" as you suggest. Were you correct, we would have a massive religion based inequality problem in Scotland.

 

What the article said was "We cannot separate out ?religion? in its theological guise from the characteristics of its social practitioners." and ?religion? may simply be a proxy for other social factors."  Absolutely correct in my view. Religion is in terminal decline in Scotland but some of the sectarian views associated with it remain. They are dying though and because of that, demographics and reasoned argument unionism will ultimately lose.

[coconut doug]

Where have i claimed, agreed with or shown an affinity with bigots? Are all unionists bigots? 

 

You don't support bigots and I haven't said that you did.

I'm all for pointing out and challenging bigotry. But I don't quite think 55% of the Scottish electorate in the 2014 referendum are bigots.

 

Neither do I but a significant number were.

So anecdotal evidence is fine where it supports your view but not mine? Because that is exactly what it looks like to me from your statement. On another thread i raised with you friends and family relatives who work in education citing staffing issues and a reduction in funding for extracurricular activities. You said that wasn't good enough to lead as evidence of issues in education. But I'm to buy your bigotry point as valid fact?

 

I asked you for evidence to support your point (different point though). I rubbished your evidence because it was anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is not usually a good form of evidence. Its better if you can find official, empirical evidence.

Where's your evidence it did sway the vote?

 

If you wanted evidence you could have asked for it  Jake provided some straight away.

 

I wouldn't let myself be swayed by some of the space cadets on here on a lot of things. Certainly not the zanier elements on the political threads. I just don't believe in the real world all 55% of the No voters are or were bigots.

 

Neither do I. What about 10% though?, that's al it would have taken for "No" to win .

 

It's not the Zany bits though, its the abusive comments, don't you think that they could come up with something better than Nippy, Krankie, cult, Braveheart etc  after all this time? Isn't that how you do things in the sectarian world?

 

[coconut doug]

The average man won the referendum for no. No voters are normal people (the majority of people you walk past in the street who cast a vote in the referendum btw) who might just not like the proposed division of their country. Plain and simple. 

 

You have a massive chip on your shoulder. 

The average man voted "Yes".                         http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948

[aussieh]

The average man won the referendum for no. No voters are normal people (the majority of people you walk past in the street who cast a vote in the referendum btw) who might just not like the proposed division of their country. Plain and simple.

 

You have a massive chip on your shoulder.

Real men voted Yes, bang average men voted no.

[JamboX2]

The article quite clearly did not state that the differences in voting patterns between catholic and protestant people was more to do with "extenuating social circumstances" as you suggest. Were you correct, we would have a massive religion based inequality problem in Scotland.

 

What the article said was "We cannot separate out ?religion? in its theological guise from the characteristics of its social practitioners." and ?religion? may simply be a proxy for other social factors." Absolutely correct in my view. Religion is in terminal decline in Scotland but some of the sectarian views associated with it remain. They are dying though and because of that, demographics and reasoned argument unionism will ultimately lose.

You've quoted the section directly after that which I quoted. It again states that this is less to do with religion than the social circumstances of it's adherents. In effect it's more to do with social class than anything else.

 

Hence the view that faith is a proxy for class. And historically there was a social and economic inequality between presbyterian Scots and catholic ones.

 

I still do not believe that a bigotted, orange lodge vote was big enough to swing the vote as you suggest. Your evidence appears light touch and more based on your low opinions of no voters than anything else.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Where have i claimed, agreed with or shown an affinity with bigots? Are all unionists bigots?

 

You don't support bigots and I haven't said that you did.

I'm all for pointing out and challenging bigotry. But I don't quite think 55% of the Scottish electorate in the 2014 referendum are bigots.

 

Neither do I but a significant number were.

So anecdotal evidence is fine where it supports your view but not mine? Because that is exactly what it looks like to me from your statement. On another thread i raised with you friends and family relatives who work in education citing staffing issues and a reduction in funding for extracurricular activities. You said that wasn't good enough to lead as evidence of issues in education. But I'm to buy your bigotry point as valid fact?

 

I asked you for evidence to support your point (different point though). I rubbished your evidence because it was anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is not usually a good form of evidence. Its better if you can find official, empirical evidence.

Where's your evidence it did sway the vote?

 

If you wanted evidence you could have asked for it Jake provided some straight away.

 

I wouldn't let myself be swayed by some of the space cadets on here on a lot of things. Certainly not the zanier elements on the political threads. I just don't believe in the real world all 55% of the No voters are or were bigots.

 

Neither do I. What about 10% though?, that's al it would have taken for "No" to win .

 

It's not the Zany bits though, its the abusive comments, don't you think that they could come up with something better than Nippy, Krankie, cult, Braveheart etc after all this time? Isn't that how you do things in the sectarian world?

 

Show me where your 10% comes from.

 

The rest is a tired argument from you on your perception of the no side. For every nutter yoon there's a nutter Yes supporter. Aussieh tik-tok v Trapper saying nippy.

[deesidejambo]

It is reasonable to infer that, per capita, in general, more Catholics than protestants can be described as being republican in political views.

 

I would expect group of people who have a higher predominance of republicans is also have a higher predominance of Indy voters. No surprise that the data shows this.

 

But to suggest one side is bigoted on this issue but the other is not shows the bigotry is with the poster, not the two communities.

[aussieh]

Show me where your 10% comes from.

 

The rest is a tired argument from you on your perception of the no side. For every nutter yoon there's a nutter Yes supporter. Aussieh tik-tok v Trapper saying nippy.

Or tarts who vote for the highest bidder. Push me pull me. Kezia is an apt leader.

[aussieh]

It is reasonable to infer that, per capita, in general, more Catholics than protestants can be described as being republican in political views.

 

I would expect group of people who have a higher predominance of republicans is also have a higher predominance of Indy voters. No surprise that the data shows this.

 

But to suggest one side is bigoted on this issue but the other is not shows the bigotry is with the poster, not the two communities.

Aye that big catholic country The USA and the proddy imperialists of Spain.

[AlphonseCapone]

I've lived amongst these people most of my life. Almost every utterance they make is a bigoted one. The ones who do not attend Rangers games exhibit the same attitudes. The chaps at the golf club and the ladies of the coffee morning circuit are the same and like nothing better than to call AS or NS names and never tire of telling each other how bad Scotland is and how stupid our people are.

 

I'm not voting for Indy because I don't like Salmond they said but what they meant was I'm not voting for indy because Scotland would then be run by Scots who are inherently inferior to the English which is exactly the same bigotry as shown in the films. Heaven forbid it might be that someone from social class D or E might find themselves in a position of power.

 

You know many equate the SNP with the IRA and anti Britishness in general yet this is nothing more than a convenient manufacture to express your loyalism and British nationalism. The press very keen to promote this notion. Just look at the comments on here and you will find sentiments and phrasing like those in the film.

 

These people in the films won the referendum for NO. Its pathetic to cite YES voters as coming from social classes D and E, as if this diminished their vote in some way especially when you remember where the core vote for No comes from. I'm afraid that for many it is sectarian and very obviously so.

You're equating the majority of No voters with some of the dicks who also voted No. You're showing the same mentality espoused by folk who call Yes voters idiots, brainwashed, English haters etc.

 

Both No and Yes are legitimate positions held in the main by normal, decent people.

[aussieh]

A belief that Scotland should remain part of the UK is sectarian now is it? That's quite a statement. If you really think the average no voter is a union flag waving Rangers fan then you really need to get out more.

That's exactly what it is. But you'd probably have to live here to know that.

[deesidejambo]

That's exactly what it is. But you'd probably have to live here to know that.

QED

[aussieh]

QED

Come down here and ill Show you. Its quite evident and not this silent majority you speak of.

Agreed it's different up east, but that's down to self preservationism.

[deesidejambo]

Come down here and ill Show you. Its quite evident and not this silent majority you speak of.

Agreed it's different up east, but that's down to self preservationism.

Go and see T2. Thankfully no Hun clubs like that up here.

 

But a night out at the Ibrox Bar in Tenerife is a different story.

[aussieh]

Go and see T2. Thankfully no Hun clubs like that up here.

 

But a night out at the Ibrox Bar in Tenerife is a different story.

here dee, I think maybe these threads should be merged, I'm starting to get a sair heid.

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by aussieh

[deesidejambo]

here dee, I think maybe these threads should be merged, I'm starting to get a sair heid.

 

All for merging but you got me punted from the other thread.

 

Rhubarb Gin (made in Embra) will help you.

[aussieh]

All for merging but you got me punted from the other thread.

 

Rhubarb Gin (made in Embra) will help you.

Sorry dee, I was a bit pissed aff.

[Arnold Rothstein]

That's exactly what it is. But you'd probably have to live here to know that.

Tbf, you live in Paisley or some other shithole so I can see how your view of the world might be skewed by those around you.

[Arnold Rothstein]

You're equating the majority of No voters with some of the dicks who also voted No. You're showing the same mentality espoused by folk who call Yes voters idiots, brainwashed, English haters etc.

 

Both No and Yes are legitimate positions held in the main by normal, decent people.

Spot on.

[Australis]

NICOLA STURGEON is set to dump the SNP?s long-held aim of an independent Scotland remaining a full EU member state in order to best satisfy her "fetish" for breaking away from the UK, it has emerged.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/760625/Nicola-Sturgeon-SNP-ditch-full-EU-membership-claim-second-independence-referendum-Brexit

 

What about the 1.6 million she was looking after who wanted to stay in. is she taking them out against their will .

Just make it up as you go along Nicola.

[Boris]

NICOLA STURGEON is set to dump the SNP?s long-held aim of an independent Scotland remaining a full EU member state in order to best satisfy her "fetish" for breaking away from the UK, it has emerged.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/760625/Nicola-Sturgeon-SNP-ditch-full-EU-membership-claim-second-independence-referendum-Brexit

 

What about the 1.6 million she was looking after who wanted to stay in. is she taking them out against their will .

Just make it up as you go along Nicola.

 

 

BUt we would still be in single market, have freedom of movement etc.

 

If anything, this could be the best solution.

[JamboX2]

You're equating the majority of No voters with some of the dicks who also voted No. You're showing the same mentality espoused by folk who call Yes voters idiots, brainwashed, English haters etc.

 

Both No and Yes are legitimate positions held in the main by normal, decent people.

[Space Mackerel]

NICOLA STURGEON is set to dump the SNP?s long-held aim of an independent Scotland remaining a full EU member state in order to best satisfy her "fetish" for breaking away from the UK, it has emerged.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/760625/Nicola-Sturgeon-SNP-ditch-full-EU-membership-claim-second-independence-referendum-Brexit

 

What about the 1.6 million she was looking after who wanted to stay in. is she taking them out against their will .

Just make it up as you go along Nicola.

Imagine going on a public forum and:

 

1. Claiming the Express is a factual based newspaper.

2. Admitting to reading it.

[aussieh]

Tbf, you live in Paisley or some other shithole so I can see how your view of the world might be skewed by those around you.

Is that Paisley with the most A Listed buildings Scotland outside Edinburgh. Where the Stewart dynasty began. But hey you concentrate on the housing schemes ruined by Thatcherism.

 

So Arnie, do you live in Scotland? Or do you have no business in Scottish affairs?

Edited January 30, 2017 by aussieh

[JamboX2]

Imagine going on a public forum and:

 

1. Claiming the Express is a factual based newspaper.

2. Admitting to reading it.

As a position it makes sense. Especially when you consider this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/shift-scottish-independence-yougov-nicola-sturgeon-balancing-act?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Add_to_Facebook

 

Basically EFTA membership over the EU would unite the Yes side and could steal former no voters as via EFTA you could implement a separate free trade deal with the UK. Also gives control over fisheries and agriculture.

[jake]

"In last year?s Independence Referendum, Catholics were far more likely than Protestants to vote Yes, by 55 per cent, compared with 2:1 against on the Protestant side. This may be an artifact, because Protestants tend to be older and more middle class, and so ?religion? may simply be a proxy for other social factors. We cannot separate out ?religion? in its theological guise from the characteristics of its social practitioners. Thus, the voting habits and social attitudes of Catholics seem to have more to do with their social and historic status as outsiders in Scotland than with theological beliefs."

 

If anything the article suggests it's in name only and more to do with extenuating social circumstances than Coco's suggestion of bigotry.

 

 

But if thats the case as you state in your last paragraph that suggests a deeper set bigotry in this country .

[Arnold Rothstein]

Is that Paisley with the most A Listed buildings Scotland outside Edinburgh. Where the Stewart dynasty began. But hey you concentrate on the housing schemes ruined by Thatcherism.

 

So Arnie, do you live in Scotland? Or do you have no business in Scottish affairs?

I live in the city with the most A listed buildings pal. It's braw.

 

ps. I was in Paisley the other day. It's a shithole.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Arnold Rothstein

[coconut doug]

It is reasonable to infer that, per capita, in general, more Catholics than protestants can be described as being republican in political views.

 

I would expect group of people who have a higher predominance of republicans is also have a higher predominance of Indy voters. No surprise that the data shows this.

 

But to suggest one side is bigoted on this issue but the other is not shows the bigotry is with the poster, not the two communities.

Are you suggesting that those depicted on Press TV and making Nazi salutes in George square  are not bigots?

[manaliveits105]

Only 27% previously 47% now want an indy2 before brexit (Scotsman today)

Krankies peg shooglier by the day

[coconut doug]

But if thats the case as you state in your last paragraph that suggests a deeper set bigotry in this country .

Of course it does and I made that point in post 1393 but X2 makes no attempt to explain or support his point.

 

He thinks it is to do with "Social class" and "extenuating social circumstances" parroting the  notion that Indy supporters are from social classes  D and E when the study quoted by yourself denies this.

 

The BBC analysis that I posted denies it too.

[jake]

Only 27% previously 47% now want an indy2 before brexit (Scotsman today)

Krankies peg shooglier by the day

 

Core support

[JamboX2]

But if thats the case as you state in your last paragraph that suggests a deeper set bigotry in this country .

I've always argued on here that successive Scottish governments and Secretaries of State have failed to deal with the sectarian issue.

 

What I am saying though is that I would still argue this is more a class issue than not.

[JamboX2]

Of course it does and I made that point in post 1393 but X2 makes no attempt to explain or support his point.

 

He thinks it is to do with "Social class" and "extenuating social circumstances" parroting the  notion that Indy supporters are from social classes  D and E when the study quoted by yourself denies this.

 

The BBC analysis that I posted denies it too.

 

The BBC analysis you linked isn't BBC analysis, it is from the Scottish Referendum Study, which was born out of the British Election Study. A long running UK wide attempt to look at a great deal of social factors and linking those to a vote - The survey looked for correlation between voters' identities and the way they cast their referendum ballot.

 

The study's authors are noted in the article by Douglas Fraser as:

 

It found a strong link on religious affiliation. Some 60% of Protestants voted 'No', while 58% of Catholics voted 'Yes'. Those adherents of the Church of England were 81% for the Union - the strongest correlation of all. However, the research does not indicate that religion was a cause of the way people voted.

 

So from that in itself despite more protestants voting No and more catholics voting yes, the researchers behind these stats have stated that religion was a cause of the way people voted. If we are to go down that road, why is a presbyterian protestant more likely to vote yes over an anglican or episcopalian protestant (given the full quote says 81% of anglicans voted no)?

 

So the research you yourself are using explicitly states that it does not indicate that religion was a cause of the way people voted. 

 

Douglas Fraser states in his closing paragraphs that the SRS: 

 

...showed a similar gender gap, there was an indication that the youngest voters were pro-union, and there was a split between higher skilled, higher earners and those on lower pay with lower work skill levels.

 

So... age and a split between higher skilled/higher earners and those with less skills/lower earners. I would suggest that a reading of the SRS report summary and also of the opening paragraphs of the article blows your bigots/religion point out the water in favour of issues of class and social factors:

 

A breakdown of voting patterns, drawn from a survey of 5,000 Scots conducted soon after the referendum day, runs counter to the widespread belief that there was a clear split between older and young voters, or that higher earners backed the United Kingdom.

It did, however, confirm other polling evidence that women were decisive in the result. While men were 53% for 'Yes', women were 57% for 'No'.

Voters earning more than ?30,000 were found to be evenly split, while those earning less than ?20,000 were 53% for independence.

It was those earning between ?20,000 and ?30,000 who can also be seen as deciding the outcome - voting 'No' by a margin of 56% to 44%.

 

To me that says: women were decisive by being anti-yes, those earning less than ?20,000 were overwhelmingly pro-yes and the middle class won it for no. 

 

Given the above quote on religion not being an influencing factor, what is the basis for your bigot point?

Edited January 30, 2017 by JamboX2

[deesidejambo]

Are you suggesting that those depicted on Press TV and making Nazi salutes in George square are not bigots?

Of course not. They are.

 

But I am saying that the assertion that anyone who voted No is a bigot and anyone who supported Yes is not is brainless.

 

But if it keeps you happy to think that way then go for it.

[jake]

I've always argued on here that successive Scottish governments and Secretaries of State have failed to deal with the sectarian issue.

 

What I am saying though is that I would still argue this is more a class issue than not.

 

Which as i pointed out is indicative of a deeper problem..

Its not just no voters that are guilty of voting in allegiance to a mindset.

[JamboX2]

Which as i pointed out is indicative of a deeper problem..

Its not just no voters that are guilty of voting in allegiance to a mindset.

Indeed. I listened to the recent podcast for In Our Time. They were talking about Mary, Queen of Scots. Political tribalism is ingrained in the Scottish psyche.

 

Sectarianism is a boil on Scotland.

 

But Coco is claiming No voters are bigots by virtue of being No voters. His anecdotal evidence is not supported by his own stats based evidence. That's what I was getting at here. Unless he further seeks to claim protestants are more likely to be bigots than catholics, which again is a baseless assertion as I know some catholics who have some bigotry in them.

[Pans Jambo]

This wont sit well with the Yoonies:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/fff67a62-88fa-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de

[AlphonseCapone]

This wont sit well with the Yoonies:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/fff67a62-88fa-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de

Need a subscription to read.

[Pans Jambo]

Need a subscription to read.

The headline more or less tell you what the article says.

Scottish exports would be worth around ?100Bn P/A after Indy.

[Space Mackerel]

The headline more or less tell you what the article says.

Scottish exports would be worth around ?100Bn P/A after Indy.

But but but but but, the GERS figures say otherwise!!

[Space Mackerel]

As a position it makes sense. Especially when you consider this:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/shift-scottish-independence-yougov-nicola-sturgeon-balancing-act?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Add_to_Facebook

 

Basically EFTA membership over the EU would unite the Yes side and could steal former no voters as via EFTA you could implement a separate free trade deal with the UK. Also gives control over fisheries and agriculture.

I never clicked the Express link, so apologies but I see where you are coming from. Lots of options for us Indy supporters.

[AlphonseCapone]

The headline more or less tell you what the article says.

Scottish exports would be worth around ?100Bn P/A after Indy.

As good as the headline is, the details and sources are more important.

 

Have you managed to read the article? Able to paraphrase any of it?

[Stuart Lyon]

What if Brexit proves a success for the the UK - how will that sit with the SNP's desire to be in Europe? I voted to remain in the EU.

[Pans Jambo]

As good as the headline is, the details and sources are more important.

 

Have you managed to read the article? Able to paraphrase any of it?

It let me read it once then asked me to subscribe (It is the Financial Times). TBH I just skimmed it when eating my porridge and then posted the link on here for effect. I will see if I can find it somewhere else and cut n' paste. It was basically ?60Bn exported to rUK and ?40Bn to the rest of the world currently.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Pans Jambo

[Pans Jambo]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Pans Jambo

[Space Mackerel]

 

.

Where's the article that you copied and pasted gone? I read it earlier.

[Hasselhoff]

Looks like they have been saying the same thing since 2014 about there being ?100bn of export. It didn't convince people back then, even when the oil revenue was decent. 

 

http://frannleach.com/pdfs/140706-01.pdf

 

Edit: Haha, oh dear it is the same link - so there isn't a new article on FT about this, it's just a 3 year old article

Edited January 31, 2017 by Hasselhoff