Indy Ref Part Deux

[Boris]

Not sure about current employees but as I stated , there are literally thousands of well heeled civil servant retirees in Scotland enjoying an inflation proof pension which they did not contribute towards. The annual bill for that would fall to an independent Scotland.

 

Sorry, the way you worded it originally, I took it that you meant current employees were in non contributory schemes.

 

The old civil service scheme was non contributory, but that changed a few years ago.

 

Whether the whole cost would fall to an independent Scotland is debatable though, given it would be a UK liability, so Scotland would fairly pay its per capita share, with rUK making up the rest, surely?

[SwindonJambo]

Sorry, the way you worded it originally, I took it that you meant current employees were in non contributory schemes.

 

The old civil service scheme was non contributory, but that changed a few years ago.

 

Whether the whole cost would fall to an independent Scotland is debatable though, given it would be a UK liability, so Scotland would fairly pay its per capita share, with rUK making up the rest, surely?

 

It would certainly be quite high up on the 'Up for Negotiation' Agenda in any disentanglement negotiations  Boris, that's for sure.

[jambo lodge]

Sorry, the way you worded it originally, I took it that you meant current employees were in non contributory schemes.

 

The old civil service scheme was non contributory, but that changed a few years ago.

 

Whether the whole cost would fall to an independent Scotland is debatable though, given it would be a UK liability, so Scotland would fairly pay its per capita share, with rUK making up the rest, surely?

 

Can see the argument about shared liability for HMRC employees based in Scotland  etc. But those working for Scottish Office and the associated quangos? Just like Brexit the arguments about assets/ liabilities would only become clear after much detailed discussion.

[Boris]

Can see the argument about shared liability for HMRC employees based in Scotland etc. But those working for Scottish Office and the associated quangos? Just like Brexit the arguments about assets/ liabilities would only become clear after much detailed discussion.

Indeed, but still HMG employees...

[SwindonJambo]

Can see the argument about shared liability for HMRC employees based in Scotland  etc. But those working for Scottish Office and the associated quangos? Just like Brexit the arguments about assets/ liabilities would only become clear after much detailed discussion.

I think that's a good shout and what would happen. Any retirees from roles solely for the service of Scotland would be paid for by Indy Scotland and an agreement would be reached for all the rest. I think the Brexit negotiations will give us a good idea of what such negotiations might be like. And Brexit is only a key member negotiating departure from a Trading Block - it could be far thornier for a state splitting in 2.

[The Comedian]

Here's hoping it's got a while to go, I'm away for a trade test on Wednesday for the Mariner hook-up with Aker Solutions. At 32 I'm hoping to get many more trips out of the North Sea.

 

 

:jjyay:

 

Plenty life in the old NS yet.

[reaths17]

wheres our resident pollsters on this, whats the latest polls saying ?

[deesidejambo]

wheres our resident pollsters on this, whats the latest polls saying ?

In the GE thread.     Not looking good for Indy at all.

 

The Panelbase one is here.

 

Excluding dont-kows its still 55/45

 

Also when you add in a poll from over a month ago where the No voters were deemed far more solid than the Yes (a sliding scale was used to determine their intent) and when you (in my view only) add in the silent (usually old) ones who dont respond to polls but do vote, I'd say Indy is doomed.

[reaths17]

In the GE thread.     Not looking good for Indy at all.

 

The Panelbase one is here.

 

Excluding dont-kows its still 55/45

 

Also when you add in a poll from over a month ago where the No voters were deemed far more solid than the Yes (a sliding scale was used to determine their intent) and when you (in my view only) add in the silent (usually old) ones who dont respond to polls but do vote, I'd say Indy is doomed.

 

aaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhhh, there will be bridges getting jumped from with that news

[manaliveits105]

Kantar showing 60/40 in favour of the union 

 

Q gnat questioning the voracity of Kantar obviously as its not WOS approved 

[reaths17]

:jjyay:

 

Plenty life in the old NS yet.

NS confirmed, she May lose Platforms, not looking good.

[deesidejambo]

aaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhhh, there will be bridges getting jumped from with that news

If the Kantar poll is representative then thats a severe kicking for Indy.  55/37 excluding dont knows which works out at about 60/40.

 

Will be interested to see the poll tables when they come out.

 

Nicola has simply messed it up.  She should have kept her piehole shut until the polls go in her favour, but instead she jumped in on the day of Brexit Poll and is now hamstrung.   She has no choice but to push on with Section 30 now.

 

Tick-tock.

[Boris]

If the Kantar poll is representative then thats a severe kicking for Indy.  55/37 excluding dont knows which works out at about 60/40.

 

Will be interested to see the poll tables when they come out.

 

Nicola has simply messed it up.  She should have kept her piehole shut until the polls go in her favour, but instead she jumped in on the day of Brexit Poll and is now hamstrung.   She has no choice but to push on with Section 30 now.

 

Tick-tock.

 

Equally May has potentially blundered by not allowing it asap.  It will now be held after Brexit and two/three years into what seems to be a Tory landslide government.

 

If seven days is a long time in politics...

[deesidejambo]

Equally May has potentially blundered by not allowing it asap.  It will now be held after Brexit and two/three years into what seems to be a Tory landslide government.

 

If seven days is a long time in politics...

Agree.    She should have let Indy2 happen, but maybe experience from her predecessor led to a more, ahem, conservative approach!

 

But the upshot is the whole thing will drag on, and on, and on.  And the divisiveness will continue to the detriment of all in Scotland.

[Boris]

Agree.    She should have let Indy2 happen, but maybe experience from her predecessor led to a more, ahem, conservative approach!

 

But the upshot is the whole thing will drag on, and on, and on.  And the divisiveness will continue to the detriment of all in Scotland.

 

Isn't politics by its very nature divisive?  Scottish independence is, for better or worse, on the political agenda.  I don't think it is particularly divisive, I have a viewon it and respect others rights to their views too.  That's politics.

 

I must say my seethe levels rise somewhat when Ruth Davidson starts banging on about divisiveness - a Tory!  The very people who have made the UK as divided as it is today.  It's like May wanting no opposition in parliament "for Brexit".  Why shouldn't parliament scrutinise the government?  That's what parliament is for!

 

Same goes for Holyrood.  The SNP can bang on about independence as much as they want, but their record in government needs to stand up.

 

At the moment it's not the SNP that is bringing up independence as an issue, yet they are the ones apparently obssessed by it.

[deesidejambo]

Isn't politics by its very nature divisive? Scottish independence is, for better or worse, on the political agenda. I don't think it is particularly divisive, I have a viewon it and respect others rights to their views too. That's politics.

 

I must say my seethe levels rise somewhat when Ruth Davidson starts banging on about divisiveness - a Tory! The very people who have made the UK as divided as it is today. It's like May wanting no opposition in parliament "for Brexit". Why shouldn't parliament scrutinise the government? That's what parliament is for!

 

Same goes for Holyrood. The SNP can bang on about independence as much as they want, but their record in government needs to stand up.

 

At the moment it's not the SNP that is bringing up independence as an issue, yet they are the ones apparently obssessed by it.

Nope. SNP went for Section 30, not the Tories.

 

The Tories are simply using it as a vote winner. Clever move.

 

And the divisiveness is real. Maybe not quite NI but real. I get the feeling all this stuff amuses you but families who see risk to their children's future are worried.

[Boris]

Nope. SNP went for Section 30, not the Tories.

 

The Tories are simply using it as a vote winner. Clever move.

 

And the divisiveness is real. Maybe not quite NI but real. I get the feeling all this stuff amuses you but families who see risk to their children's future are worried.

 

The SNP were entitled to go ahead with a section 30 - it was in their manifesto, and the Tories have been using it to increase their support in the most cynical way ever.  If anything it's the best thing to happen to them!

 

Amuses me?  I don't find it funny, far from it.  

 

If anything a UK subject to hard brexit and a Tory hegemony for the next twenty years doesn't exactly fill me with hope for the future, or my child's future either, not to mention my neices and nephews and my friends kids and in fact every single old person, kid, or person full stop in not just Scotland, but the UK.  

 

But yeah, it's just shits and giggles.

[deesidejambo]

The SNP were entitled to go ahead with a section 30 - it was in their manifesto, and the Tories have been using it to increase their support in the most cynical way ever. If anything it's the best thing to happen to them!

 

Amuses me? I don't find it funny, far from it.

 

If anything a UK subject to hard brexit and a Tory hegemony for the next twenty years doesn't exactly fill me with hope for the future, or my child's future either, not to mention my neices and nephews and my friends kids and in fact every single old person, kid, or person full stop in not just Scotland, but the UK.

 

But yeah, it's just shits and giggles.

The hegemony you fear will not happen. Power corrupts. Even the invincible Thatcher Govt faded and got booted eventually.

 

But the rise of Farage, Trump, May, Le Pen etc did not come despite the efforts of Liberal centrist policies designed to be "right-on", but because of them.

[Boris]

The hegemony you fear will not happen. Power corrupts. Even the invincible Thatcher Govt faded and got booted eventually.

 

But the rise of Farage, Trump, May, Le Pen etc did not come despite the efforts of Liberal centrist policies designed to be "right-on", but because of them.

 

I don't think I've ever advocated liberal centrism!

[deesidejambo]

I don't think I've ever advocated liberal centrism!

I was generalising.

 

Anyway NS enacted Section 30 despite the majority of voters on both sides of the Indy divide being against it. Yes's and No's. Recent polls clearly and consistently confirm that.

 

So the Tories will rightly claim they are representing the will of the people. Which in the democratic sense they are.

 

But I wish Davidson would shut up about it. She has got her votes and now needs to focus on other Manifesto issues.

[Boris]

 

But I wish Davidson would shut up 

 

FTFY

 

As an aside, I saw her on Sunday in Pets at Home in Kirkcaldy.

 

Well, the wee fella saw her, "Here Dad, isn't that that woman from the parliament?".  We had just walked out so I glanced round and sure enough, it was her.  She looked quite angry, but I think that's just her general demenour.  Saw her walking her dog a Louden Links a while back.  Did all I could to keep the car on the road...(Joke obvs!)

[deesidejambo]

FTFY

 

As an aside, I saw her on Sunday in Pets at Home in Kirkcaldy.

 

Well, the wee fella saw her, "Here Dad, isn't that that woman from the parliament?".  We had just walked out so I glanced round and sure enough, it was her.  She looked quite angry, but I think that's just her general demenour.  Saw her walking her dog a Louden Links a while back.  Did all I could to keep the car on the road...(Joke obvs!)

Lundin Links?  Get with the Fife geography.

[Boris]

Lundin Links?  Get with the Fife geography.

 

That's the fella.

 

I'm an interloper, still finding my feet...

[deesidejambo]

That's the fella.

 

I'm an interloper, still finding my feet...

Get it right or you will indeed find your feet.     In a bag in the Forth.

[reaths17]

The SNP were entitled to go ahead with a section 30 - it was in their manifesto, and the Tories have been using it to increase their support in the most cynical way ever.  If anything it's the best thing to happen to them!

 

Amuses me?  I don't find it funny, far from it.  

 

If anything a UK subject to hard brexit and a Tory hegemony for the next twenty years doesn't exactly fill me with hope for the future, or my child's future either, not to mention my neices and nephews and my friends kids and in fact every single old person, kid, or person full stop in not just Scotland, but the UK.  

 

But yeah, it's just shits and giggles.

their manifesto said if things changed, with brexit they did, then they did again when polls showed THE PEOPLE that voted for her manifesto had changed their minds, surely that more than brexit is the big change "the voting public" , thus not entitling her to invoke section 30 or is that too democratic for politicians/parties ?

[Boris]

their manifesto said if things changed, with brexit they did, then they did again when polls showed THE PEOPLE that voted for her manifesto had changed their minds, surely that more than brexit is the big change "the voting public" , thus not entitling her to invoke section 30 or is that too democratic for politicians/parties ?

 

Polls are merely a barometer and not definite.  Perhaps we should have had a referendum on whether to have a referendum?

[Boris]

Get it right or you will indeed find your feet.     In a bag in the Forth.

 

mon then.

[deesidejambo]

their manifesto said if things changed, with brexit they did, then they did again when polls showed THE PEOPLE that voted for her manifesto had changed their minds, surely that more than brexit is the big change "the voting public" , thus not entitling her to invoke section 30 or is that too democratic for politicians/parties ?

She was simply caught out - I suspect Eck would be involved.

 

It all started on the morning of the Brexit vote: from then on based on her comments she was on a path of no return to Indy2.    She should have shut her piehole and waited for polls to show a 60% support for Indy.  But she went off on it and her masturbatory supporters jumped for joy.

 

Now the polls are solidly against Indy but she will have no choice but to soldier on to the inevitable panning.   This time for a generation.

[Boris]

She was simply caught out - I suspect Eck would be involved.

 

It all started on the morning of the Brexit vote: from then on based on her comments she was on a path of no return to Indy2.    She should have shut her piehole and waited for polls to show a 60% support for Indy.  But she went off on it and her masturbatory supporters jumped for joy.

 

Now the polls are solidly against Indy but she will have no choice but to soldier on to the inevitable panning.   This time for a generation.

 

You seem sad that they will lose?

[reaths17]

She was simply caught out - I suspect Eck would be involved.

 

It all started on the morning of the Brexit vote: from then on based on her comments she was on a path of no return to Indy2.    She should have shut her piehole and waited for polls to show a 60% support for Indy.  But she went off on it and her masturbatory supporters jumped for joy.

 

Now the polls are solidly against Indy but she will have no choice but to soldier on to the inevitable panning.   This time for a generation.

that's the thing, this could kill it for more than just a generation, surely tactically, back off and wait for better weather, its like hitler and napoleon attacking Russia with a badly equipped army for the conditions.

[deesidejambo]

You seem sad that they will lose?

No i will be very happy when they get panned.

 

I was just pointing out the Nicola Sturgeon got too excited and exercised poor judgement.  I seem to remember after Indy1 she said something to the effect of waiting till support reached 60% before calling Indy2.  I may be wrong in that, but if she indeed said it then she made the mistake of not following her own advice.  Either way she shot her load too quickly.

 

I suspect the hand of Eck drove this one, but she made her bed and now she has to lie in it.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I don't think I've ever advocated liberal centrism!

 

True. If there is no neo prefix Boris is not interested.

[Boris]

True. If there is no neo prefix Boris is not interested.

Pah! It's all the same, really.

[deesidejambo]

Pah! It's all the same, really.

Out of interest - what exactly neo Liberalism anyway?

[Boris]

Out of interest - what exactly neo Liberalism anyway?

No doubt I will get this wrong, but my interpretation of it is Friedmanesque economics as championed by Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan. A move away from the more Keynsian, mixed economy approach. Markets decide, state retreats. I assume it is called neoliberalism as it harks back to late 19th century liberal economics. A return to Victorian values some may say.

[deesidejambo]

No doubt I will get this wrong, but my interpretation of it is Friedmanesque economics as championed by Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan. A move away from the more Keynsian, mixed economy approach. Markets decide, state retreats. I assume it is called neoliberalism as it harks back to late 19th century liberal economics. A return to Victorian values some may say.

Fks sake I wish I never asked!

 

Do you just mean Tories?

[coconut doug]

I was generalising.

 

Anyway NS enacted Section 30 despite the majority of voters on both sides of the Indy divide being against it. Yes's and No's. Recent polls clearly and consistently confirm that.

 

So the Tories will rightly claim they are representing the will of the people. Which in the democratic sense they are.

 

But I wish Davidson would shut up about it. She has got her votes and now needs to focus on other Manifesto issues.

That might be difficult to prove given that the latest poll shows 49% in favour of indyref2. This is consistent with all recent polls. I'd like to see where you got that info from. Mine is from here http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/ and other sources.

[151]

.

[reaths17]

That might be difficult to prove given that the latest poll shows 49% in favour of indyref2. This is consistent with all recent polls. I'd like to see where you got that info from. Mine is from here http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/ and other sources.

a blog from a separatist, i didn't have you down as deluded like your posted missing pals

[deesidejambo]

That might be difficult to prove given that the latest poll shows 49% in favour of indyref2. This is consistent with all recent polls. I'd like to see where you got that info from. Mine is from here http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/ and other sources.

Not difficult to prove at all.  You should look at the poll tables.  Heres the Survation one.

 

Others are similar.  And for clarity - wanting Indyref2 doesn't mean you are a Yes-voter.  Some no-voters, like myself, want it asap so I would be in your 49%.

 

Meanwhile the Kantar poll doesn't look good for Indy - 60/40 for No, but presumably this is a rogue poll.

 

And btw 49%is not a majority.

[deesidejambo]

a blog from a separatist, i didn't have you down as deluded like your posted missing pals

Indeed looking at blogs from either side will be biased and only foolish people look at these.  Hence look at the raw poll tables which are published on the web always.  Then draw your own conclusions from the raw data.

 

If people must go via blogs then I'd say Curtice is about as independent as you can get.  imo

[deesidejambo]

Not difficult to prove at all.  You should look at the poll tables.  Heres the Survation one.

 

Others are similar.  And for clarity - wanting Indyref2 doesn't mean you are a Yes-voter.  Some no-voters, like myself, want it asap so I would be in your 49%.

 

Meanwhile the Kantar poll doesn't look good for Indy - 60/40 for No, but presumably this is a rogue poll.

 

And btw 49%is not a majority.

And while you ask - I know you will disagree but for the record the Survation poll is split by Socio-Economic Groups (SEG) showing ABC1 at 62/38 No and DE 51/48 Yes.  But thats all my lies of course.  I'm just making that up.

[coconut doug]

And while you ask - I know you will disagree but for the record the Survation poll is split by Socio-Economic Groups (SEG) showing ABC1 at 62/38 No and DE 51/48 Yes.  But thats all my lies of course.  I'm just making that up.

These are polls not taken at the time of indyref 1. They use different categories to those claimed by you.

[deesidejambo]

These are polls not taken at the time of indyref 1. They use different categories to those claimed by you.

Yawn.

 

I'll get some of the IndyRef tables for you tomorrow.

 

They show the same thing.

 

And I use Socio ABC and DE groupings. You are so desperate to prove me wrong you can't accept what the data clearly shows but that's your prerogative.

 

Why not accept it's perfectly normal for lower Socio groups to want change? I would if I was in that position. Likewise the ABCs are quite likely to vote for the status quo so I see no surprise in the poll outcomes.

 

But you can keep disagreeing. Again and again. And again. The poll tables are there for all to see.

[coconut doug]

Indeed looking at blogs from either side will be biased and only foolish people look at these.  Hence look at the raw poll tables which are published on the web always.  Then draw your own conclusions from the raw data.

 

If people must go via blogs then I'd say Curtice is about as independent as you can get.  imo

Yes it's a blog but he is analysing the poll results. The results are facts and cannot be sensibly disputed. The blog does not challenge the facts indeed the results are similar, nearly identical to the poll you quote which shows 48% (49%) of people in Scotland wanting indyref 2 In particular, your poll  shows 85% of yes voters want indyref 2 whilst 81% do not. This totally contradicts your claim that the majority of yes and No voters are against having a referendum.  "Anyway NS enacted Section 30 despite the majority of voters on both sides of the Indy divide being against it. Yes's and No's. Recent polls clearly and consistently confirm that." is what you said and it is rubbish both factually and logically.

 

Your poll shows 44% of ABC! in favour of indyref 2 and 53% of C2DE in favour. The biggest differences by far are with age groups and place of birth with English born residents being significantly against.

 

We are not going by blogs, we are going by results. The idea that an indy supporter is incapable of extracting the relevant information is yet another example of your inability to see things for what they are. The Tories are not going rout the SNP, Indy will not go away. We are not like NI and it doesn't need to be divisive. Indy is all about making our country a better place. Any decent person knows that you will not achieve this by voting for the current Tory party.

 

 

[coconut doug]

Yawn.

 

I'll get some of the IndyRef tables for you tomorrow.

 

They show the same thing.

 

And I use Socio ABC and DE groupings. You are so desperate to prove me wrong you can't accept what the data clearly shows but that's your prerogative.

 

Why not accept it's perfectly normal for lower Socio groups to want change? I would if I was in that position. Likewise the ABCs are quite likely to vote for the status quo so I see no surprise in the poll outcomes.

 

But you can keep disagreeing. Again and again. And again. The poll tables are there for all to see.

Don't bother. I'll link the same site as before http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948 This is the biggest study by far done on the topic.

 

I'll just quote the first sentence "The 'No' majority in the independence referendum last year is being explained by an unusual alliance of Scotland's youngest voters, its average earners, Protestants and women."

 

Can you see that this study of over 5,000 people specifically states that the No vote had a higher incidence of average earners? Not the high earners as you repeatedly tell us.

 

I don't have a reluctance to accept anything on this subject. I keep looking for facts and truth and find a torrent of misrepresentation.

 

The poll tables are there for all to see. Why don't you look at them without your prejudices? Why should I accept that socio groups D and E want change and ABC want the status quo? If that were the case we would have constant change, we don't. What proof do you have for this assertion?

[JamboX2]

Don't bother. I'll link the same site as before http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948 This is the biggest study by far done on the topic.

 

I'll just quote the first sentence "The 'No' majority in the independence referendum last year is being explained by an unusual alliance of Scotland's youngest voters, its average earners, Protestants and women."

 

Can you see that this study of over 5,000 people specifically states that the No vote had a higher incidence of average earners? Not the high earners as you repeatedly tell us.

 

I don't have a reluctance to accept anything on this subject. I keep looking for facts and truth and find a torrent of misrepresentation.

 

The poll tables are there for all to see. Why don't you look at them without your prejudices? Why should I accept that socio groups D and E want change and ABC want the status quo? If that were the case we would have constant change, we don't. What proof do you have for this assertion?

If people on average earnings didn't want independence, would they not fall in Class group B and C1 (ie middle and lower middle class)? Whilst C2, D and E would fall into skilled labour, semi-skilled and unskilled/unemployed?

 

In which case surely Deeside is right to say more lower and working class people voters voted Yes than No.

 

In general those with less are more willing to try for political change when offered as they have less to lose with average and wealthier earners.

 

It all looks very similar to the Brexit vote. I.e. if you are wealthier and better educated you vote Remain more often than not than if you are less educated and poorer?

[Harry Potter]

Fks sake I wish I never asked!

 

Do you just mean Tories?

Boris for Prime minister, could baffle any politician in a debate.

[Boris]

Boris for Prime minister, could baffle any politician in a debate.

I'll take that as a compliment!

[deesidejambo]

Don't bother. I'll link the same site as before http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34283948 This is the biggest study by far done on the topic.

 

I'll just quote the first sentence "The 'No' majority in the independence referendum last year is being explained by an unusual alliance of Scotland's youngest voters, its average earners, Protestants and women."

 

Can you see that this study of over 5,000 people specifically states that the No vote had a higher incidence of average earners? Not the high earners as you repeatedly tell us.

 

I don't have a reluctance to accept anything on this subject. I keep looking for facts and truth and find a torrent of misrepresentation.

 

The poll tables are there for all to see. Why don't you look at them without your prejudices? Why should I accept that socio groups D and E want change and ABC want the status quo? If that were the case we would have constant change, we don't. What proof do you have for this assertion?

The reason we don't have the constant change is because in this poll Socio ABCs responded 62/38 and the DEs were 49/51 so the aggregate ends up in favour of No. simple arithmetic.

 

Anyway let's just agree there is no Socio Group difference despite the poll data.