Scottish Independence

[snooky]

RT reporting today that Scotland is favourite to get the new UK space station ...................... but only if we vote 'No'.
Some people really have their heads in the clouds.
I'm certainly not over the moon about this.

[Moulin Yarns]

That's the way we are supposed to see it. This whole "project fear" catchphrase is wearing thing. The Yes campaign's poster that one should vote Yes to stop 100,000 more children living in poverty was as negative as anything I've seen from the No camp.


Remember that it was Better Together that coined the 'Project Fear' phrase. I think it was about June 2013 that is first appeared in the media.

[marinello59]

Bad poll for yes from Survation today. 57-43 ex DK. 4% swing to N. Probably a bit of post debate bounce and these things usually fade but not good. :-(

And the blame lies squarely with the leadership of the Yes campaign. It's far to late to take Salmond totally out of the game but Sturgeon should be front and centre for the next six weeks. I've kept saying that the Yes campaign lacked direction and was spending far too much time busting non-existent myths and whinging about establishment bias rather than pushing the positives that voting Yes will bring. The social media campaign has totally lost its way now as well with Yes Scotland only playing to themselves. What was a strength has become a total turn off.

[RyeSloan]

Remember that it was Better Together that coined the 'Project Fear' phrase. I think it was about June 2013 that is first appeared in the media.

I think you are right but how many times has it been repeated by the Yes campaign since?

[Beefster]

2. One quarter of the electorate is voting by post? I personally don't know anyone who is. Obviously move in the wrong circles...

My parents will be voting by post as they are out of the country on the day of the referendum. I know of a few elderly folk who will also be using postal voting.

[Stranraer]

And the blame lies squarely with the leadership of the Yes campaign. It's far to late to take Salmond totally out of the game but Sturgeon should be front and centre for the next six weeks. I've kept saying that the Yes campaign lacked direction and was spending far too much time busting non-existent myths and whinging about establishment bias rather than pushing the positives that voting Yes will bring. The social media campaign has totally lost its way now as well with Yes Scotland only playing to themselves. What was a strength has become a total turn off.

:agree: I agree 100%. I'm going to see Tommy Sheridan do a talk on the 12th to hear his case for a Scottish Republic :greengrin

[allmodcons]

And the blame lies squarely with the leadership of the Yes campaign. It's far to late to take Salmond totally out of the game but Sturgeon should be front and centre for the next six weeks. I've kept saying that the Yes campaign lacked direction and was spending far too much time busting non-existent myths and whinging about establishment bias rather than pushing the positives that voting Yes will bring. The social media campaign has totally lost its way now as well with Yes Scotland only playing to themselves. What was a strength has become a total turn off.

Your own personal hatred of Salmond is now clearly affecting your judgement M59. The mere suggestion that Salmond should have been taken "totally out of the game" before now is just laughable. You are now pedalling the BT myth that Salmond is a liability to Yes. It is you, who continually tells us not to complain about establishment bias, that has been taken in hook, line & sinker by the same establishment. Thankfully, you are not heading up the Yes campaign! Don't panic Mr Marinello don't panic. Here, read this and ffs stop panicking.


http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9551-beyond-the-hype-of-the-tv-debate-is-the-real-yes-campaign-

[Pretty Boy]

Anybody know what event was going on today?

Bit of a spat on Twitter breaking out about Yes supporters photographing, filming and heckling people attending a Better Together event.

[Beefster]

Anybody know what event was going on today?

Bit of a spat on Twitter breaking out about Yes supporters photographing, filming and heckling people attending a Better Together event.

Not sure what's happening today but it's going to take Scotland a bit of time to recover from all this bull**** post-referendum.

[Just Alf]

Not sure what's happening today but it's going to take Scotland a bit of time to recover from all this bull**** post-referendum.

:agree:

[WindyMiller]

Anybody know what event was going on today?

Bit of a spat on Twitter breaking out about Yes supporters photographing, filming and heckling people attending a Better Together event.


Could be something like this
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152349681492903&set=pcb.10152349689602903&type=1

[marinello59]

Your own personal hatred of Salmond is now clearly affecting your judgement M59. The mere suggestion that Salmond should have been taken "totally out of the game" before now is just laughable. You are now pedalling the BT myth that Salmond is a liability to Yes. It is you, who continually tells us not to complain about establishment bias, that has been taken in hook, line & sinker by the same establishment. Thankfully, you are not heading up the Yes campaign! Don't panic Mr Marinello don't panic. Here, read this and ffs stop panicking.


http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9551-beyond-the-hype-of-the-tv-debate-is-the-real-yes-campaign-

What do you think of Gordon Wilson's comments today then?

[snooky]

Not sure what's happening today but it's going to take Scotland a bit of time to recover from all this bull**** post-referendum.

I reckon at least 2 years of hurt before the nation reconciles - no matter how the vote goes.
Yes or no, we're in for a drop in living standards, IMO.
We all have our own opinions on who will give us the lesser thrashing though. :cool2:

[allmodcons]

What do you think of Gordon Wilson's comments today then?

I've seen GW's comments today and don't agree with what he's saying.

[Moulin Yarns]

Could be something like this
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152349681492903&set=pcb.10152349689602903&type=1


That is nothing compared to what I saw yesterday. A house in Pitlochry has had a large Yes board in their garden torn down and smashed to bits and the word 'RACISTS' painted on the fence. I don't doubt there are stories the other way round, but can anybody condone trespass and vandalism. The house owner told me the police wouldn't attend an incident like this.

[marinello59]

I've seen GW's comments today and don't agree with what he's saying.

I guess he has just been taken in by the ''establishment'' hook, line and sinker and is now peddling the BT myths. :greengrin

[WindyMiller]

That is nothing compared to what I saw yesterday. A house in Pitlochry has had a large Yes board in their garden torn down and smashed to bits and the word 'RACISTS' painted on the fence. I don't doubt there are stories the other way round, but can anybody condone trespass and vandalism. The house owner told me the police wouldn't attend an incident like this.


Unfortunately our media only seem to cover anything done by the "Nats".

[Stranraer]

Unfortunately our media only seem to cover anything done by the "Nats".

:agree: I've seen 3 or 4 stories in the paper about No signs being destroyed.

[Stranraer]

The Daily Record is at it again. Why on earth should voters care what Louise Linton has to say about independence? Another scare story that a team Scotland wouldn't be able to participate in the Olympics. They just keep on coming.

[Beefster]

We're back to moaning about the media again? The polls must be grim reading again for the 'Yes' campaign again, are they?

[DaveF]

We're back to moaning about the media again? The polls must be grim reading again for the 'Yes' campaign again, are they?

Is your keyboard stuck Beefster :greengrin

[Beefster]

Is your keyboard stuck Beefster :greengrin

Keyboard's fine again. Again, I think it's my brain again.

[Stranraer]

We're back to moaning about the media again? The polls must be grim reading again for the 'Yes' campaign again, are they?

Quite rightly moaning about the Daily Record... if that counts as "media (http://wingsoverscotland.com/we-are-not-alone/)".

[Moulin Yarns]

The Daily Record isn't all bad :wink:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accused-letting-slip-4034087

No really, it can sometimse get things right :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-debate-undecided-voters-3996847

I'm away for lunch now to watch this

http://www.referendumtv.net/referendum-tv-live-1108/

[Stranraer]

The Daily Record isn't all bad :wink:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accused-letting-slip-4034087

No really, it can sometimse get things right :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-debate-undecided-voters-3996847

I'm away for lunch now to watch this

http://www.referendumtv.net/referendum-tv-live-1108/

Aye the Boris Johnson comments did make a wee splash on page 9 after a scare story on the NHS's future.

[JeMeSouviens]

We're back to moaning about the media again? The polls must be grim reading again for the 'Yes' campaign again, are they?

Survation on Saturday was bad (N+4), Yougov today not so much (N+1). There's some interesting analysis of Survation on the ScotGoesPop blog, although it's very pro-Yes so much salt is needed. However, essentially it appears the last couple of Survation polls show signs of inflating Y and this one shows signs of inflating N, so they're probably showing margin of error around the middle.

The polls moved significantly towards Y over the 6 months late autumn to late spring. They've been pretty static since then. I don't think we'll see much movement before the vote barring some cataclysmic event none of us have thought of.

So, I expect N to win but it'll be closer than the currently triumphant Unionists think. There's been a lot of talk about shy voters telling the pollsters one thing but seriously planning the other. The most famous example of this is the "Shy Tory" effect in 1992 when final polls predicted they'd get 35% but they actually got 42%. The crucial thing about "social desirability bias" is that people doing it are telling the pollster what they think will make the pollster have a high opinion of them. I think the fact that the telephone (Ipsos/MORI) and face to face (TNS/BMRB) polls show much higher N votes tends to suggest there's Shy Yes at work here. When Y voters are routinely portrayed as vile cybernats, anti-English racists or deluded romantic Braveheart fans, this makes sense. However, having said all that, I think the chances are it won't show up in the anonymous online polls (Yougov, ICM, Panelbase, Survation).

[DaveF]

Has anyone here actually been asked a question by pollsters?

[degenerated]

Has anyone here actually been asked a question by pollsters?
Nope, haven't been asked anything.

[Pretty Boy]

Has anyone here actually been asked a question by pollsters?

One online for YouGov about 6 weeks ago.

[Stranraer]

Has anyone here actually been asked a question by pollsters?

Yes twice. I think it was IPSOS/MORI.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I wonder how many disappointed people there will be when they turn up on the day to cast their vote only to be told they can't vote as they haven't registered?

[GoldenEagle]

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/WeeBlueBookDesktopEdition.pdf

Page 36 for the alternative view of the 'Shipbuilding' question.

[ronaldo7]

Should the Orange Order be allowed to March through the streets of Edinburgh in uniform to promote a political cause?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/orange-blackout/

From the article

My mole at Pacific Quay tells me that there will be no BBC coverage of the Orange Order No campaign march in Edinburgh on 13 September. It has been decided that this would “present an unfairly negative image of the No campaign.” I find that fascinating, as the BBC has certainly never shirked from portraying an unfairly negative image of the Yes campaign. Apparently BBC Scotland have taken the decision “in consultation with” their bosses in England.

The proposed Orange for No march appears plainly to be in contravention of the Public Order Act 1936. This act makes it illegal to wear a uniform to promote a political cause:

Section 1 (i)

Subject as hereinafter provided, any person
who in any public place or at any public meeting wears
uniform signifying his association with any political
organisation or with, the promotion of any political
object shall be guilty of an offence :

For the Orange order to march through Edinburgh in uniform to support the No referendum campaign seems to me as blatant a contravention of the Act as can possibly be imagined. The Act remains in force, this section has not been modified by subsequent legislation and it does apply to Scotland. The specific provisions for Scotland at Section 8 relate solely to the mechanics of administration.

Orange marches in Scotland are not normally prosecuted on the (frankly weak) grounds that they are a cultural not a political manifestation. But that cannot be said of the September 13 March which is being undertaken by the Grand Orange Lodge as a registered participant in the referendum campaign. If they march in uniform they are very plainly indeed in breach of the Public Order Act.

The Act is not a dead letter from the 1930s. It was used to arrest and convict Irish Republicans demonstrating at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park for wearing black berets. Its breach of the peace provisions were used against pickets in the miners’ strike.

There is therefore a key question here – is the law applied impartially, or is it only applied against political demonstrations opposed to the Westminster Establishment? Is the law ignored for political demonstrations in support of the Westminster Establishment?

It is not a case of whether you support the existence of this particular law. It is an essential attribute of a democracy that where the law exists it is applied impartially. That appears not to be the case in Scotland.

[DaveF]

I wonder how many disappointed people there will be when they turn up on the day to cast their vote only to be told they can't vote as they haven't registered?

I assume I'm registered given I've voted in every election since I've been old enough to. Or is this a one off registration for the referendum? You've got me worried now!

[CropleyWasGod]

I assume I'm registered given I've voted in every election since I've been old enough to. Or is this a one off registration for the referendum? You've got me worried now!

Fash ye not.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/the_independence_referendum/guide_to_voting.aspx

[Jay]

I assume I'm registered given I've voted in every election since I've been old enough to. Or is this a one off registration for the referendum? You've got me worried now!

I'm thinking the same Dave, I'm sure I registered us a while back but I'm now doubting myself. Only reason I think I did was because I have a 17 year old who can vote and it stuck in my mind - or maybe I'm making it up! Anyone know if you can check?

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm thinking the same Dave, I'm sure I registered us a while back but I'm now doubting myself. Only reason I think I did was because I have a 17 year old who can vote and it stuck in my mind - or maybe I'm making it up! Anyone know if you can check?

See above.

[DaveF]

Fash ye not.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/the_independence_referendum/guide_to_voting.aspx

Ta.

I'm fairly certain I filled in those details but I did it online? Sure there was a website where you put in a code if the details of your form remained unchanged, but then maybe that was for the Euro elections.....

[Jay]

See above.

Yeah thanks, we must have posted at the same time. :)

[Stranraer]

Should the Orange Order be allowed to March through the streets of Edinburgh in uniform to promote a political cause?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/orange-blackout/

From the article

My mole at Pacific Quay tells me that there will be no BBC coverage of the Orange Order No campaign march in Edinburgh on 13 September. It has been decided that this would “present an unfairly negative image of the No campaign.” I find that fascinating, as the BBC has certainly never shirked from portraying an unfairly negative image of the Yes campaign. Apparently BBC Scotland have taken the decision “in consultation with” their bosses in England.

The proposed Orange for No march appears plainly to be in contravention of the Public Order Act 1936. This act makes it illegal to wear a uniform to promote a political cause:

Section 1 (i)

Subject as hereinafter provided, any person
who in any public place or at any public meeting wears
uniform signifying his association with any political
organisation or with, the promotion of any political
object shall be guilty of an offence :

For the Orange order to march through Edinburgh in uniform to support the No referendum campaign seems to me as blatant a contravention of the Act as can possibly be imagined. The Act remains in force, this section has not been modified by subsequent legislation and it does apply to Scotland. The specific provisions for Scotland at Section 8 relate solely to the mechanics of administration.

Orange marches in Scotland are not normally prosecuted on the (frankly weak) grounds that they are a cultural not a political manifestation. But that cannot be said of the September 13 March which is being undertaken by the Grand Orange Lodge as a registered participant in the referendum campaign. If they march in uniform they are very plainly indeed in breach of the Public Order Act.

The Act is not a dead letter from the 1930s. It was used to arrest and convict Irish Republicans demonstrating at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park for wearing black berets. Its breach of the peace provisions were used against pickets in the miners’ strike.

There is therefore a key question here – is the law applied impartially, or is it only applied against political demonstrations opposed to the Westminster Establishment? Is the law ignored for political demonstrations in support of the Westminster Establishment?

It is not a case of whether you support the existence of this particular law. It is an essential attribute of a democracy that where the law exists it is applied impartially. That appears not to be the case in Scotland.

The only reason they want to march is because they are frightened that Scottish independence might lead to Irish unification. The Orange order are morons. Sinn Fein and co. are staying out of the debate, why can't loyalists do the same?

[Hibbyradge]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/WeeBlueBookMobileEdition.pdf

[marinello59]

Should the Orange Order be allowed to March through the streets of Edinburgh in uniform to promote a political cause?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/orange-blackout/

From the article

My mole at Pacific Quay tells me that there will be no BBC coverage of the Orange Order No campaign march in Edinburgh on 13 September. It has been decided that this would “present an unfairly negative image of the No campaign.” I find that fascinating, as the BBC has certainly never shirked from portraying an unfairly negative image of the Yes campaign. Apparently BBC Scotland have taken the decision “in consultation with” their bosses in England.

The proposed Orange for No march appears plainly to be in contravention of the Public Order Act 1936. This act makes it illegal to wear a uniform to promote a political cause:

Section 1 (i)

Subject as hereinafter provided, any person
who in any public place or at any public meeting wears
uniform signifying his association with any political
organisation or with, the promotion of any political
object shall be guilty of an offence :

For the Orange order to march through Edinburgh in uniform to support the No referendum campaign seems to me as blatant a contravention of the Act as can possibly be imagined. The Act remains in force, this section has not been modified by subsequent legislation and it does apply to Scotland. The specific provisions for Scotland at Section 8 relate solely to the mechanics of administration.

Orange marches in Scotland are not normally prosecuted on the (frankly weak) grounds that they are a cultural not a political manifestation. But that cannot be said of the September 13 March which is being undertaken by the Grand Orange Lodge as a registered participant in the referendum campaign. If they march in uniform they are very plainly indeed in breach of the Public Order Act.

The Act is not a dead letter from the 1930s. It was used to arrest and convict Irish Republicans demonstrating at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park for wearing black berets. Its breach of the peace provisions were used against pickets in the miners’ strike.

There is therefore a key question here – is the law applied impartially, or is it only applied against political demonstrations opposed to the Westminster Establishment? Is the law ignored for political demonstrations in support of the Westminster Establishment?

It is not a case of whether you support the existence of this particular law. It is an essential attribute of a democracy that where the law exists it is applied impartially. That appears not to be the case in Scotland.

Their 'uniforms' only serve to make them look just as ridiculous as they sound. How could anybody take someone seriously who wore that kit? They're an embarrassment to themselves rather than the Better Together campaign. Only the lunatic fringe of the Yes side would seriously suggest that they are typical of the BT campaign.
But if their presence on the street pushes even one more voter in to the Yes camp then their wee walk should be allowed to go ahead. :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

We're back to moaning about the media again? The polls must be grim reading again for the 'Yes' campaign again, are they?

Yeah because the media have been so even handed right enough even down to the coverage by the supposed impartial National broadcaster. A summary glance at the front pages of the newspapers any morning you choose will tell you all you need to know about the level of debate through the press.

[JeMeSouviens]

The only reason they want to march is because they are frightened that Scottish independence might lead to Irish unification. The Orange order are morons. Sinn Fein and co. are staying out of the debate, why can't loyalists do the same?

See your previous sentence. :wink:

[hibs0666]

Yeah because the media have been so even handed right enough even down to the coverage by the supposed impartial National broadcaster. A summary glance at the front pages of the newspapers any morning you choose will tell you all you need to know about the level of debate through the press.

Maybe just maybe the case being made for independence is not that compelling?

[CropleyWasGod]

Ta.

I'm fairly certain I filled in those details but I did it online? Sure there was a website where you put in a code if the details of your form remained unchanged, but then maybe that was for the Euro elections.....


Yeah thanks, we must have posted at the same time. :)

If you call 0131 344 2500, they will tell you whether you're registered.

I know, because I just did it. :greengrin

[Beefster]

Yeah because the media have been so even handed right enough even down to the coverage by the supposed impartial National broadcaster. A summary glance at the front pages of the newspapers any morning you choose will tell you all you need to know about the level of debate through the press.

I'm not sure why you quoted my post. My post was about the excuses from the Yes camp and when they appear rather than about the media.

[Stranraer]

I'm not sure why you quoted my post. My post was about the excuses from the Yes camp and when they appear rather than about the media.

I must say Beefster I made that comment about the media without looking at any polls. My Aunt just happened to have a Daily Record sitting and I opened it...

[southfieldhibby]

Maybe just maybe the case being made for independence is not that compelling?

I'd agree with this.I think The Yes campaign with be the engineers of their own demise with a fairly tepid attempt.I think if they had gone more aggressive, more adventurous and further away from where they just now, they'd have skooshed it.They really needed to convince someone like Henry McLeish to get on board early.I'm convinced he's gonna vote yes.

Which makes think Salmond could actually take or leave a victory next month, as he knows it's the beginning of the end for him and his party politically.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'd agree with this.I think The Yes campaign with be the engineers of their own demise with a fairly tepid attempt.I think if they had gone more aggressive, more adventurous and further away from where they just now, they'd have skooshed it.They really needed to convince someone like Henry McLeish to get on board early.I'm convinced he's gonna vote yes.

Which makes think Salmond could actually take or leave a victory next month, as he knows it's the beginning of the end for him and his party politically.

I have to disagree with that bit.

If it's a No, it will be very interesting to see what happens next. If the Unionist parties don't make good their promises, then we'll be back here again very soon. If they do, and we get all these new powers, in 5-10 years time the younger generation will be saying "what do we need Westminster for?"

Either way, this referendum is IMO a staging post in a process that is ongoing. Someone, I can't remember who, warned at the time of the devolution debate that devolution was a precursor to "independence by stealth". I think that is being played out, albeit over a much longer period than the SNP wanted.

[Moulin Yarns]

Is this a promise or a bribe?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/promise-of-348m-shipyard-contract-for-no-vote-1-3506327

Note the different angle from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28747624

Also note when they were actually announced, this is just a reannouncement.

Meanwhile multi-national companies are leaving the sinking ship faster than you can count, apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-28755287

[JeMeSouviens]

I have to disagree with that bit.

If it's a No, it will be very interesting to see what happens next. If the Unionist parties don't make good their promises, then we'll be back here again very soon. If they do, and we get all these new powers, in 5-10 years time the younger generation will be saying "what do we need Westminster for?"

Either way, this referendum is IMO a staging post in a process that is ongoing. Someone, I can't remember who, warned at the time of the devolution debate that devolution was a precursor to "independence by stealth". I think that is being played out, alebit over a mucch longer period than the SNP wanted.

I agree with your disagreement. Scottish Social Attitudes survey out today asks constitutional preference rather than Indy Y/N and finds:

All decisions at Holyrood (ie. indy although they didn't use the word) - 41%
Everything bar defence & foreign affairs (ie. devo max) - 29%
Everything bar tax, welfare, defence, foreign affairs - 22%
All decisions at Westminster - 6%

Even if the case isn't won for Indy this time, the electorate are clearly running a long way ahead of any of the Unionists' devo-mini proposals if any of them ever come to light. When you factor in that support for the union is strongest among over 65s, I'm absolutely sure that if we don't win this time, we'll win next time.

btw, I'm sure the SNP wanted a shorter timescale but I'm not sure any of them seriously expected it. The progress in just over a decade from the 2003 Scottish election is not far short of incredible. A Y vote of 40%+ would've been considered a disaster for unionism as recently as last year, now if they get it they'll hail it as a triumph.

[The_Horde]

Is this a promise or a bribe?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/promise-of-348m-shipyard-contract-for-no-vote-1-3506327

Note the different angle from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28747624

Also note when they were actually announced, this is just a reannouncement.

Meanwhile multi-national companies are leaving the sinking ship faster than you can count, apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-28755287

Is there not meant to be oil on the Clyde that they're hoping to drill for should we become independent and once the subs are gone?

[Moulin Yarns]

;4125618']Is there not meant to be oil on the Clyde that they're hoping to drill for should we become independent and once the subs are gone?


There is. Again it was the MOD that stopped oil exploration in case one of their subs bumped into a rig :greengrin

[southfieldhibby]

;4125618']Is there not meant to be oil on the Clyde that they're hoping to drill for should we become independent and once the subs are gone?

There's oil in the Firth of Forth too.Gas as well.And The Moray,Cromarty and Solway.

[RyeSloan]

I agree with your disagreement. Scottish Social Attitudes survey out today asks constitutional preference rather than Indy Y/N and finds: All decisions at Holyrood (ie. indy although they didn't use the word) - 41% Everything bar defence & foreign affairs (ie. devo max) - 29% Everything bar tax, welfare, defence, foreign affairs - 22% All decisions at Westminster - 6% Even if the case isn't won for Indy this time, the electorate are clearly running a long way ahead of any of the Unionists' devo-mini proposals if any of them ever come to light. When you factor in that support for the union is strongest among over 65s, I'm absolutely sure that if we don't win this time, we'll win next time. btw, I'm sure the SNP wanted a shorter timescale but I'm not sure any of them seriously expected it. The progress in just over a decade from the 2003 Scottish election is not far short of incredible. A Y vote of 40%+ would've been considered a disaster for unionism as recently as last year, now if they get it they'll hail it as a triumph.

interesting viewpoint that I've seen a coupe of times...reminds me of the European treaty votes; if you don't get the answer you want just ignore the result and hold another vote.

Is it not conceivable that this was the Yes camps best opportunity? It's very doubtful we will see a SNP majority (or any majority) in the Scottish parliament again any time soon so where will the political appetite come from to hold another vote? In addition why would Westminster consider granting another succession vote anytime soon when they will (probably) be able to point to 2014 and say the people decided then and that's that?

I would suggest if it is a No then it would be wise to focus on getting on with devolving further powers within the UK framework and putting this version of independence to bed rather than dreaming of when there will be another independence vote.

[PeeJay]

Personally, I think that if the vote is a clear no in September (which I fully expect it to be), then the whole issue, i.e. from the point of view of the SNP and the Yes camp, should be put to bed for good. The Scottish people would then be better off trying to achieve greater political devolution throughout the UK for Scotland and the other regions and - with the aid of the other regions - to rest the power currently based in Westminster away from it - for the benefit of the UK as a whole. It will serve little purpose to continue trying to undermine the effectiveness of the UK by demanding a split at some stage of the future for a particular region, if the current referendum is lost. Far better to place all the political awareness and effort currently being expended for independence, into trying to improve life in the UK - for everyone. If Westminster/London is the problem, take the battle to Westminster/London, if the rest of the country can be brought on board, changes can be effected.

[JeMeSouviens]

interesting viewpoint that I've seen a coupe of times...reminds me of the European treaty votes; if you don't get the answer you want just ignore the result and hold another vote.

Is it not conceivable that this was the Yes camps best opportunity? It's very doubtful we will see a SNP majority (or any majority) in the Scottish parliament again any time soon so where will the political appetite come from to hold another vote? In addition why would Westminster consider granting another succession vote anytime soon when they will (probably) be able to point to 2014 and say the people decided then and that's that?

I would suggest if it is a No then it would be wise to focus on getting on with devolving further powers within the UK framework and putting this version of independence to bed rather than dreaming of when there will be another independence vote.

I wouldn't expect another vote post-No in the next 10 years unless this one is very close and there's a major failure to devolve at all. I wouldn't be so sure about the SP. I'm not sure the Libs will ever recover from a Tory coalition, the Tories themselves aren't showing any sign of revival and Labour in Scotland is a bit of a twitching corpse as well. I think we might see more radical representation emerge from the the referendum campaign and the SNP will hold together (prob under Sturgeon) as long as they get a creditably close showing. So while the SNP might not get a majority on their own, the chances of a pro-independence majority of SNP+Green+Lefties is reasonably likely at some point 10+ years out?

Plus I think that we would get on with devolving further powers so it wouldn't be such a big jump next time. If there is another constitutional convention as per the early 90s, the SNP won't make the mistake of getting left out this time. They will attempt to own the result.

[JeMeSouviens]

Personally, I think that if the vote is a clear no in September (which I fully expect it to be), then the whole issue, i.e. from the point of view of the SNP and the Yes camp, should be put to bed for good. The Scottish people would then be better off trying to achieve greater political devolution throughout the UK for Scotland and the other regions and - with the aid of the other regions - to rest the power currently based in Westminster away from it - for the benefit of the UK as a whole. It will serve little purpose to continue trying to undermine the effectiveness of the UK by demanding a split at some stage of the future for a particular region, if the current referendum is lost. Far better to place all the political awareness and effort currently being expended for independence, into trying to improve life in the UK - for everyone. If Westminster/London is the problem, take the battle to Westminster/London, if the rest of the country can be brought on board, changes can be effected.

Nice font. :wink: But there is no appetite for devolution in England and Scotland is not a region.

[GlesgaeHibby]

interesting viewpoint that I've seen a coupe of times...reminds me of the European treaty votes; if you don't get the answer you want just ignore the result and hold another vote.

Is it not conceivable that this was the Yes camps best opportunity? It's very doubtful we will see a SNP majority (or any majority) in the Scottish parliament again any time soon so where will the political appetite come from to hold another vote? In addition why would Westminster consider granting another succession vote anytime soon when they will (probably) be able to point to 2014 and say the people decided then and that's that?

I would suggest if it is a No then it would be wise to focus on getting on with devolving further powers within the UK framework and putting this version of independence to bed rather than dreaming of when there will be another independence vote.

Very interesting point, and one I've been thinking about today. If the vote goes 70:30 for no, then that is a clear win for the no campaign and can surely put the issue to bed for a number of years.

If it ends up 55:45 to the no campaign (pretty conceivable), then that really isn't a clear win at all, and won't really settle things. What happens next? When Westminster start going back on their promises on devo max, support for independence will only grow stronger. I don't believe for a second that they will give us further devolution should we vote no, Cameron was dead against having that as an option on the ballot paper.

[snooky]

Nice font. :wink: But there is no appetite for devolution in England and Scotland is not a region.

You tell 'em, JMS! :aok:

[snooky]

Is this a promise or a bribe?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/promise-of-348m-shipyard-contract-for-no-vote-1-3506327


The cynic in me thinks of the pawnbroker offering me £50 quid my £500 watch. :coffee:

From the BBC link in GF's post -

"Announcing the contract, UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: "UK warships are only built in UK shipyards. This multi-million pound contract shows our commitment to investing in new ships for the Royal Navy and maintaining in the UK the expertise needed to build the warships of the future.

"It will benefit the dedicated workers of the Clyde, their families and the local economy in Glasgow." "


So refreshing to see that there's no political motive behind this announcement.

Skulduggerists.

[Beefster]

If it ends up 55:45 to the no campaign (pretty conceivable), then that really isn't a clear win at all

55:45 would be a clear win. We can't keep going through this process because one side only won by 10%.

Unless you're advocating a vote pretty soon to rejoin the UK, if Yes only win 55:45?

[snooky]

I have to disagree with that bit.

If it's a No, it will be very interesting to see what happens next. If the Unionist parties don't make good their promises, then we'll be back here again very soon. If they do, and we get all these new powers, in 5-10 years time the younger generation will be saying "what do we need Westminster for?"

Either way, this referendum is IMO a staging post in a process that is ongoing. Someone, I can't remember who, warned at the time of the devolution debate that devolution was a precursor to "independence by stealth". I think that is being played out, albeit over a much longer period than the SNP wanted.

Probably sums up the whole scenario in a nutshell.

Hark, all ye 'YES' and 'NO' voters, CWG spaketh the truth. :aok:

[PeeJay]

Nice font. :wink: But there is no appetite for devolution in England and Scotland is not a region.

If the point about Westminster is a valid one (and I think it is) then it can be taken to the various "regions" in England/Wales for the betterment of everyone in the UK, surely - I think of Scotland more of as a region myself, but I accept that others see it differently - remember it's 300 years of not being an independent nation, and even back then it was hardly one nation ... anyway, I'm not much into "nations" to be honest (unless it's football). Too much about this vote is on the emotional level vis-a-vis a perceived nation status and its place in the world ... a mistaken outlook in my view. Bear in mind, I'm a long way away and have been for a long, long time - could explain the font thingy too, I guess. :greengrin

[judas]

....... The social media campaign has totally lost its way now as well with Yes Scotland only playing to themselves. What was a strength has become a total turn off.

I read your post last night and tracked back today, because the point above was stirring in my head today and in some respects it rings true.

Sadly and to my enormous frustration, I think social media is all that the YES campaign have. When one looks at the ownership of the major mainstream media organs, they are all headquartered in London and owned by a wealthy elite who work with government (think Murdoch with all his papers + Sky News and Richard Desmond with his tabloids + channel 5).

What are YES supporters to do to reach a large audience? It comes down to advancement of the YES case through the exponential reach of social media.

The frustration in my view, is that perhaps 50% of the UK population are unable to think for themselves. Doped up on the X Factor and soaps at the end of a busy day, they will base their judgements on what they see and read.

[Glory Lurker]

I must say Beefster I made that comment about the media without looking at any polls. My Aunt just happened to have a Daily Record sitting and I opened it...


Are you referring to the TNS poll? Was it in the printed version of the Record?

[DaveF]

55:45 would be a clear win. We can't keep going through this process because one side only won by 10%.

Unless you're advocating a vote pretty soon to rejoin the UK, if Yes only win 55:45?

It would be a win, but certainly not a clear one and we'll go through the process again (again :greengrin) if and when the electorate vote in a party with Independence on their agenda.

[Stranraer]

I read your post last night and tracked back today, because the point above was stirring in my head today and in some respects it rings true.

Sadly and to my enormous frustration, I think social media is all that the YES campaign have. When one looks at the ownership of the major mainstream media organs, they are all headquartered in London and owned by a wealthy elite who work with government (think Murdoch with all his papers + Sky News and Richard Desmond with his tabloids + channel 5).

What are YES supporters to do to reach a large audience? It comes down to advancement of the YES case through the exponential reach of social media.

The frustration in my view, is that perhaps 50% of the UK population are unable to think for themselves. Doped up on the X Factor and soaps at the end of a busy day, they will base their judgements on what they see and read.

Sadly, this is how I see it too. I've had 3 or 4 people say to me "what about the currency"?... without further explaining their concerns. They obviously looked at the daily papers, read the headlines and that's it, they are definite "No's". I have a family member completely unwilling to listen to any pro-independence argument whatsoever.

[Northernhibee]

I read your post last night and tracked back today, because the point above was stirring in my head today and in some respects it rings true.

Sadly and to my enormous frustration, I think social media is all that the YES campaign have. When one looks at the ownership of the major mainstream media organs, they are all headquartered in London and owned by a wealthy elite who work with government (think Murdoch with all his papers + Sky News and Richard Desmond with his tabloids + channel 5).

What are YES supporters to do to reach a large audience? It comes down to advancement of the YES case through the exponential reach of social media.

The frustration in my view, is that perhaps 50% of the UK population are unable to think for themselves. Doped up on the X Factor and soaps at the end of a busy day, they will base their judgements on what they see and read.

I'm sorry, I disagree. We've seen Salmond cosy up to Rupert Murdoch (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799027/Alex-Salmond-Rupert-Murdoch-is-a-remarkable-man.html) in an attempt to gain any advantage possible in the referendum.

I am a solid no voter and am basing my vote on putting in the effort to look at all sides of the argument and for me 'no' is what I believe is right for Scotland.

[Bristolhibby]

The cynic in me thinks of the pawnbroker offering me £50 quid my £500 watch. :coffee:

From the BBC link in GF's post -

"Announcing the contract, UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: "[B]UK warships are only built in UK shipyards. This multi-million pound contract shows our commitment to investing in new ships for the Royal Navy and maintaining in the UK the expertise needed to build the warships of the future.

"It will benefit the dedicated workers of the Clyde, their families and the local economy in Glasgow." "


So refreshing to see that there's no political motive behind this announcement.

Skulduggerists.

That's how I see it. Fact if the matter is the only place that complex warships can be fabricated & built in the British Isles are in Glasgow.

There is no alternative.

J

[GoldenEagle]

That's how I see it. Fact if the matter is the only place that complex warships can be fabricated & built in the British Isles are in Glasgow.

There is no alternative.

J

Someone should ask what their plan b is?

[RyeSloan]

That's how I see it. Fact if the matter is the only place that complex warships can be fabricated & built in the British Isles are in Glasgow. There is no alternative. J

Sure the Queen Elizabeth was 'built' at Rosyth and fabricated in 6 different UK yards so while I assume the Scottish yards are pivotal I don't think that statement is 100% accurate...

[RyeSloan]

Sadly, this is how I see it too. I've had 3 or 4 people say to me "what about the currency"?... without further explaining their concerns. They obviously looked at the daily papers, read the headlines and that's it, they are definite "No's". I have a family member completely unwilling to listen to any pro-independence argument whatsoever.

Are we to assume that only No voters think like this and are brainwashed by the X factor and paper headlines?

[Beefster]

The frustration in my view, is that perhaps 50% of the UK population are unable to think for themselves. Doped up on the X Factor and soaps at the end of a busy day, they will base their judgements on what they see and read.

If only we could stop those pesky voters having a say in important elections...

[Bristolhibby]

Sure the Queen Elizabeth was 'built' at Rosyth and fabricated in 6 different UK yards so while I assume the Scottish yards are pivotal I don't think that statement is 100% accurate...

Sorry, future builds. As far as I'm concerned QE Class are completely committed.

J

[Hibrandenburg]

Bookies have 5/1 odds against a YES vote. Get those bets and votes in guys!

:greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Are we to assume that only No voters think like this and are brainwashed by the X factor and paper headlines?

Well, to be fair, you'd be hard pushed to find a Yes voter swayed by a deluge of pro-Yes tabloid headlines ... there aren't any! :wink:

[JimBHibees]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/WeeBlueBookMobileEdition.pdf

Excellent link and read and all voters should read prior to voting in September especially those sleep walking into a No vote based on the hideously biased coverage.

[marinello59]

Sadly, this is how I see it too. I've had 3 or 4 people say to me "what about the currency"?... without further explaining their concerns. They obviously looked at the daily papers, read the headlines and that's it, they are definite "No's". I have a family member completely unwilling to listen to any pro-independence argument whatsoever.

So much for Scotland's greatest asset being it's people then. It's heart breaking to see so many on the Yes side dismissing half of our population as being too stupid or too scared to make an informed choice.
Mainly preaching to the converted, displaying intolerance to those voting No and getting the excuses in before a single vote that counts has been cast is not going to win this for us.

[Moulin Yarns]

Excellent link and read and all voters should read prior to voting in September especially those sleep walking into a No vote based on the hideously biased coverage.

So is this http://adamrpollock.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/why-voting-no-is-a-huge-mistake/


So much for Scotland's greatest asset being it's people then. It's heart breaking to see so many on the Yes side dismissing half of our population as being too stupid or too scared to make an informed choice.
Mainly preaching to the converted, displaying intolerance to those voting No and getting the excuses in before a single vote that counts has been cast is not going to win this for us.

If more people read links like the one above and the Wee Blue Book then the arguments against independence would evaporate quicker than snaw aff a dyke.

[Stranraer]

So much for Scotland's greatest asset being it's people then. It's heart breaking to see so many on the Yes side dismissing half of our population as being too stupid or too scared to make an informed choice.
Mainly preaching to the converted, displaying intolerance to those voting No and getting the excuses in before a single vote that counts has been cast is not going to win this for us.

Sorry, I maybe didn't put that as well as I could. I was really talking about my personal experience. Of course there are people on both sides of the debate who like the X-Factory.

Apologies again, I just find trying to explain things to No voters extremely frustrating at times.

[Beefster]

Apologies again, I just find trying to explain things to No voters extremely frustrating at times.

So what you're effectively saying is that you find it frustrating to have to engage different opinions?


So much for Scotland's greatest asset being it's people then. It's heart breaking to see so many on the Yes side dismissing half of our population as being too stupid or too scared to make an informed choice.
Mainly preaching to the converted, displaying intolerance to those voting No and getting the excuses in before a single vote that counts has been cast is not going to win this for us.

If it's a No in the referendum, we're all going to have to listen to how it was down to the stupidity of the Scottish electorate. Guaranteed.

[Stranraer]

So what you're effectively saying is that you find it frustrating to have to engage different opinions?

Different opinions I can deal with. But my area is a Conservative stronghold, full of Sevco fans who are unwilling to listen to other sides of the argument. I have challenged a good few with the question "Why are we Better Together" and they don't answer or they can't answer.

I am friends with 3 or 4 Better Together campaigners and we can have a decent debate about independence but in my area that is a novelty.

[JimBHibees]

So is this http://adamrpollock.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/why-voting-no-is-a-huge-mistake/

If more people read links like the one above and the Wee Blue Book then the arguments against independence would evaporate quicker than snaw aff a dyke.

Cracking blog, people really do need to think seriously at what they would be voting No for. Self determination is a massive opportunity and it would be only the start of something great IMO.

We had the same promises in 79, I think we were going to get a brand new Hampden and guess what it didnt happen.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Beefster]

Different opinions I can deal with. But my area is a Conservative stronghold, full of Sevco fans who are unwilling to listen to other sides of the argument. I have challenged a good few with the question "Why are we Better Together" and they don't answer or they can't answer.

I am friends with 3 or 4 Better Together campaigners and we can have a decent debate about independence but in my area that is a novelty.

Fair enough. That's a different kettle of fish entirely.

[judas]

If only we could stop those pesky voters having a say in important elections...

I think both you and Simar are missing the point, which is simply that half the electorate, are completely swayed by the content of their daily red top.

If those papers are telling them to vote one way, then that is what they will do.

[judas]

I'm sorry, I disagree. We've seen Salmond cosy up to Rupert Murdoch (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10799027/Alex-Salmond-Rupert-Murdoch-is-a-remarkable-man.html) in an attempt to gain any advantage possible in the referendum.

I am a solid no voter and am basing my vote on putting in the effort to look at all sides of the argument and for me 'no' is what I believe is right for Scotland.

I am respectful of your view and appreciate your desire to see both sides, but I'm not sure you have the right end of the stick with my earlier comments.

Salmond would do as all politicians do and court the media to gain an advantage. But the point I am making is that the 95% of media is headquartered in London and supportive of UK government and shadowing parties.

The papers are prejudicial and this is being passed on to the readership.

To my mind an election has never been won without the support of the press. Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all had it.

[marinello59]

I am respectful of your view and appreciate your desire to see both sides, but I'm not sure you have the right end of the stick with my earlier comments.

Salmond would do as all politicians do and court the media to gain an advantage. But the point I am making is that the 95% of media is headquartered in London and supportive of UK government and shadowing parties.

The papers are prejudicial and this is being passed on to the readership.

To my mind an election has never been won without the support of the press. Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all had it.

Despite the high opinion it has of itself the press does not lead opinion, it follows it. Murdoch's titles are prime examples of that, they'll see which way the wind is blowing and back the most likely winner. Let's give the Scottish electorate some credit for being able to make their own minds up based on the facts rather than having the newspaper editors do it for them.

[Moulin Yarns]

With ONLY 5 weeks to go there appears to be (from the polls) a fair proportion of undecided folks, unlike most of those posting here, but it might be worth passing this on to help those undecide out with some evidence.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/134771714/An-Evidence-Based-Case-for-Scottish-Independence

[RyeSloan]

I think both you and Simar are missing the point, which is simply that half the electorate, are completely swayed by the content of their daily red top. If those papers are telling them to vote one way, then that is what they will do.

Doubt half the electorate even reads a red top these days and there is plenty argument to be made that people buy the paper of their political persuasion rather than the other way around.

Sure the media will provide some influence, would be daft to suggest otherwise but I think it's also pretty daft to suggest half the electorate will vote the same way as the alleged bias of the paper that they read over a daily cuppa solely down to the contents of that papers editorial stance.

[Stranraer]

Did anyone else watch the FM being interviewed on Reporting Scotland? I never knew Jackie Bird was so smug, she was incredibly irritating.

[judas]

Despite the high opinion it has of itself the press does not lead opinion, it follows it. Murdoch's titles are prime examples of that, they'll see which way the wind is blowing and back the most likely winner. Let's give the Scottish electorate some credit for being able to make their own minds up based on the facts rather than having the newspaper editors do it for them.

If that is the case, then why do 36 out of 37 national or daily newspapers in Scotland oppose Independence? Hardly a true reflection on the current balance of opinion. If they were, as you say, following opinion, then wouldn't 16 to 17 support of ind?

Sorry to say, I think there are a great number of intelligent people able to weigh up the facts on both sides of the debate. But there are also a great number of working people who don't have the time, nous or inclination avail themselves of the issues. They will be influenced by background mood music.

[marinello59]

If that is the case, then why do 36 out of 37 national or daily newspapers in Scotland oppose Independence? Hardly a true reflection on the current balance of opinion. If they were, as you say, following opinion, then wouldn't 16 to 17 support of ind?

Sorry to say, I think there are a great number of intelligent people able to weigh up the facts on both sides of the debate. But there are also a great number of working people who don't have the time, nous or inclination avail themselves of the issues. They will be influenced by background mood music.


Maybe 36 out of 37 papers think No will win. Which was my point. Although I don't think 36 papers have actually come out and said vote No.

[judas]

Maybe 36 out of 37 papers think No will win. Which was my point. Although I don't think 36 papers have actually come out and said vote No.

So, do you believe that the institutions of media lobby government and have reciprocal 'arrangements' in place?

For example, if Rupert Murdoch decides it is in the best interests of his power base to be on the side of say, David Cameron, do you think he would use his media outlets to sway opinion, in a time of need, over a game changing issue like the breakup of the UK?

[marinello59]

So, do you believe that the institutions of media lobby government and have reciprocal 'arrangements' in place?

For example, if Rupert Murdoch decides it is in the best interests of his power base to be on the side of say, David Cameron, do you think he would use his media outlets to sway opinion, in a time of need, over a game changing issue like the breakup of the UK?

Eh?
I've already said I don't think newspapers have the power they would like to think they have to sway opinion. The electorate is too smart.

[Pretty Boy]

Decent article by Ipsos Mori about the media and polling:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/506/Was-it-the-Sun-and-the-Times-wot-nearly-won-it.aspx

[over the line]

This referendum has already made at least one Scot poorer and we are still a month off the vote! I was planning on buying US dollers tomorrow (as the £ has been strong)for my hols in Orlando and the pound has dropped by 6 cents in the last month. I am guessing mainly (or certainly partly) due to the currency uncertainty issue?

That's over £100 you bloody Yes lot have cost me and I don't even live in Scotland anymore! ;)

The dilema now is do I buy now and cut my losses, or do I wait for the inevitable No result and see if the pound bounces back? :confused:

[Just Alf]

S'funny .. The money bods at my work have blaimed
1) Ukraine
2) Iraq
3) Palestine
4) Saudi (I think, summat to do with oil production)


In that order... "Our" vote's not even made a cameo appearance yet although it is expected in a few weeks...

[judas]

Eh?
I've already said I don't think newspapers have the power they would like to think they have to sway opinion. The electorate is too smart.

It's refreshing to see such faith. It's a simple view point, but they say simple minded people are the happiest.

[Alex Trager]

Excuse the caps. This was sent as a text and it's easier to explain this than change it.

IF WE ARE CATEGORICALLY NOT ALLOWED TO DO ALL THAT WE ARE BEING TOLD, WHY IS THAT NOT BEING SAID NOW? WHY IS THAT NOT BEING AGREED AND PUT IN WRITING AND IN FRONT OF OUR EYES RIGHT NOW? Here you go Scotland. Each and every single political party in the rest of the UK has said you are not getting the pound and all the rest of it?

I have a pretty good idea why not

[Alex Trager]

Haha. http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/15/qyqu6epy.jpg
How unsurprising

[over the line]

S'funny .. The money bods at my work have blaimed
1) Ukraine
2) Iraq
3) Palestine
4) Saudi (I think, summat to do with oil production)


In that order... "Our" vote's not even made a cameo appearance yet although it is expected in a few weeks...

Ok then, I am willing to split the blame 5 ways in that case. But you've still cost me about £22!

But I would think the above list would affect the dollar as much as the pound really? So I think I'll still blame the Yesites! ;)

[ronaldo7]

Ok then, I am willing to split the blame 5 ways in that case. But you've still cost me about £22!

But I would think the above list would affect the dollar as much as the pound really? So I think I'll still blame the Yesites! ;)

Ran out of Love Bombs? :greengrin:timebomb:

[over the line]

Ran out of Love Bombs? :greengrin:timebomb:

:):):):D:D:D:):):):D:D: Vote No :):):):D:D:D:):):)

Better? ;)

[JimBHibees]

Haha. http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/15/qyqu6epy.jpg
How unsurprising

Basically will say anything to get the vote.

[Just Alf]

Basically will say anything to get the vote.

Like a politician you
Mean? :-)



(Of whatever colour! :-( )

[Hibs Class]

Haha. http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/15/qyqu6epy.jpg
How unsurprising


Basically will say anything to get the vote.

Have you seen the full quote from that Newsnight programme? I looked it up after the debate a week or two back, and the broader context/point was quite different from the extract above.

[marinello59]

It's refreshing to see such faith. It's a simple view point, but they say simple minded people are the happiest.

Brilliant. Nothing like throwing out a bit of abuse to those who don't share your views.

[judas]

Brilliant. Nothing like throwing out a bit of abuse to those who don't share your views.

Sorry. I'm Not with you.

I thought you made your point well enough, I just don't agree with you. Get over it.

[Northernhibee]

Have you seen the full quote from that Newsnight programme? I looked it up after the debate a week or two back, and the broader context/point was quite different from the extract above.

This.

Here's a graphic that is far more accurate in it's context.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10600598_743797352345924_1387329951109969236_n.jpg ?oh=b628b349aaf109ba4e9f9d12616dd048&oe=54805A3F&__gda__=1415735222_d08d0a5b9cae99075bb7ba664839175 c

[Stranraer]

This.

Here's a graphic that is far more accurate in it's context.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10600598_743797352345924_1387329951109969236_n.jpg ?oh=b628b349aaf109ba4e9f9d12616dd048&oe=54805A3F&__gda__=1415735222_d08d0a5b9cae99075bb7ba664839175 c

There have been lies from both sides (http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lies-you-get/). The idea that Scotland couldn't use the pound is false, but Darling did well in the first debate on the currency so he will keep repeating it any chance he gets. Compared to Salmond's grilling last night I'd say he got off lightly on Reporting Scotland tonight.

[Moulin Yarns]

This referendum has already made at least one Scot poorer and we are still a month off the vote! I was planning on buying US dollers tomorrow (as the £ has been strong)for my hols in Orlando and the pound has dropped by 6 cents in the last month. I am guessing mainly (or certainly partly) due to the currency uncertainty issue?

That's over £100 you bloody Yes lot have cost me and I don't even live in Scotland anymore! ;)

The dilema now is do I buy now and cut my losses, or do I wait for the inevitable No result and see if the pound bounces back? :confused:

In your own words it is a guess and not a very good one.

[over the line]

In your own words it is a guess and not a very good one.

Errrrrrrrm, fairly sure that uncertainty about the future of a currency and the possibility of a major split within the nation of that currency, will cause doubts about its stability, making it less attractive and therefore reduce its value?

Just a 'guess' though. ;)

[Mibbes Aye]

Errrrrrrrm, fairly sure that uncertainty about the future of a currency and the possibility of a major split within the nation of that currency, will cause doubts about its stability, making it less attractive and therefore reduce its value?

Just a 'guess' though. ;)

You might find this (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-scotland-economy-crash-sterling-ronald-macdonald) interesting. It raises even more questions.

[RyeSloan]

You might find this (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-scotland-economy-crash-sterling-ronald-macdonald) interesting. It raises even more questions.

It sure does...whether it's accurate or not no one knows but it is certainly a possibility.

Divergence of the economy has to happen, there would be little point in independence otherwise. Quite what would happen when that divergence begins to occur is open to debate but there are certainly significant risks attached to such an approach...

[over the line]

You might find this (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-scotland-economy-crash-sterling-ronald-macdonald) interesting. It raises even more questions.

Quite a sobering prediction/report. Let's hope we never risk it being played out.


Just wish it wasn't by Ronald McDonald, with Murdo MacLoed taking the photo! Roll on the jokes/puns/jibes! ;)

[marinello59]

Sorry. I'm Not with you.

I thought you made your point well enough, I just don't agree with you. Get over it.

Get over what? I'm quite happy to disagree with anybody.
I'll keep it respectful though and won't be calling you simple minded though. Even though you are wrong. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

An excellent read. One mans opinion, and no mud slinging, or doom and gloom threats.



http://adamrpollock.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/why-voting-no-is-a-huge-mistake/

Has anybody noticed a lot of these 'experts' on their subjects are saying this WILL happen, or that WOULD happen, when all it is in reality is just their opinion. Nobody can predict the future (unless you are mystic Meg) and it is all conjecture.

Al Darling - Lose Trident and 8000 jobs WOULD be lost BUT an FOI enquiry clearly said 520 civilian jobs exist at Faslane and Coulport and that is the total jobs that would be lost as a direct result of losing Trident, BUT Faslane WILL becoe the base for Scotland's Armed Forces, creating jobs

[JeMeSouviens]

You might find this (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-scotland-economy-crash-sterling-ronald-macdonald) interesting. It raises even more questions.

I suppose if you ask a clown ... :wink:

An alternative view:

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-an-independent-scotland-should-keep-the-pound-without-ruks-permission/

Personally I would go (and would always have gone) for a Scots pound pegged via currency board, but then I'm not an economist. The downside is maintaining a foreign currency reserve, but that's obviously much easier if you're claiming an 8.5% of the BoE's reserve and you drive a hard deal on servicing debt, since the UK has already said rUK will inherit and guarantee *all* the debt, iScotland is in a good position to drive a hard bargain here.

Ah, I see a real economist, Prof Sir Donald Mackay agrees with me: :aok:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28787839


I should also say that I am firmly of the opinion that we will get a CU if we want one. Anyone who watched Andrew Neill's BBC doc about the effect of independence on rUK would have seen that the English establishment are desperate for more time to sort out Trident. It lends considerable weight to the Guardian's unnamed senior cabinet minister who said "of course there will be a CU".

We get a CU in exchange for extending the Trident removal time by 5-10 years.

[ronaldo7]

Henry seems very sceptical about Scots voting No. He's been around a while and maybe remembers the promises of 79 or maybe as far back as 74 and the McCrone report.

He may be positioning himself to lead the New SLab Party in iScotland, and steer it back on course.

http://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2014-08-14/henry-mcleish-scots-need-to-think-very-carefully-before-voting-no/

[Alex Trager]

Have you seen the full quote from that Newsnight programme? I looked it up after the debate a week or two back, and the broader context/point was quite different from the extract above.

Looking at the first sentence, i think the rest of the context is not that important. He has said it makes sense and is desirable.

I am not btw saying that everything should be taken from it's context and understood as one quote but unless he's being funny in this quote, then I doubt the rest of the context makes much difference?

[Alex Trager]

An excellent read. One mans opinion, and no mud slinging, or doom and gloom threats.



http://adamrpollock.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/why-voting-no-is-a-huge-mistake/

Has anybody noticed a lot of these 'experts' on their subjects are saying this WILL happen, or that WOULD happen, when all it is in reality is just their opinion. Nobody can predict the future (unless you are mystic Meg) and it is all conjecture.

Al Darling - Lose Trident and 8000 jobs WOULD be lost BUT an FOI enquiry clearly said 520 civilian jobs exist at Faslane and Coulport and that is the total jobs that would be lost as a direct result of losing Trident, BUT Faslane WILL becoe the base for Scotland's Armed Forces, creating jobs

As I have previously said the only people who could tell us for sure what will happen are the RUK. And they could do that by signing an agreement saying we will not share the pound etc. Whatever else they have threatened.

All they need to do is show us all that agreement signed and sealed and we would have a definite answer.
As far as I am aware they can do this so I wonder why they don't.

[ronaldo7]

We just seem to keep delivering that oil time and again. Some even coming ON STREAM in 2019. Who'd have thought it eh.

http://blog.maerskoil.com/post/80778649083/key-project-culzean-field#.U-3Ar_ldW8A

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23681061

And we have more...http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/video-north-sea-resource-produce-700million-barrels/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=video-north-sea-resource-produce-700million-barrels&utm_source=Energy+Voice&utm_campaign=e4e56e04a4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5368044726-e4e56e04a4-37714633

[marinello59]

We just seem to keep delivering that oil time and again. Some even coming ON STREAM in 2019. Who'd have thought it eh.

http://blog.maerskoil.com/post/80778649083/key-project-culzean-field#.U-3Ar_ldW8A

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23681061

Practically everybody that lives in Aberdeen I would have thought. The central belt seems to be paying attention now though for some reason. :greengrin
Are you sure you should have posted this here? This is part of the ''secret'' oil field that isn't going to be revealed until after the referendum vote. Shhhhh.

[marinello59]

I suppose if you ask a clown ... :wink:

An alternative view:

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-an-independent-scotland-should-keep-the-pound-without-ruks-permission/

Personally I would go (and would always have gone) for a Scots pound pegged via currency board, but then I'm not an economist. The downside is maintaining a foreign currency reserve, but that's obviously much easier if you're claiming an 8.5% of the BoE's reserve and you drive a hard deal on servicing debt, since the UK has already said rUK will inherit and guarantee *all* the debt, iScotland is in a good position to drive a hard bargain here.

Ah, I see a real economist, Prof Sir Donald Mackay agrees with me: :aok:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28787839


I should also say that I am firmly of the opinion that we will get a CU if we want one. Anyone who watched Andrew Neill's BBC doc about the effect of independence on rUK would have seen that the English establishment are desperate for more time to sort out Trident. It lends considerable weight to the Guardian's unnamed senior cabinet minister who said "of course there will be a CU".

We get a CU in exchange for extending the Trident removal time by 5-10 years.

I think you are right. Although like you my preference would have been for a Scots pound. I do wonder if we will end up with the Euro after the dust settles.

[over the line]

I suppose if you ask a clown ... :wink:

An alternative view:

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-an-independent-scotland-should-keep-the-pound-without-ruks-permission/

Personally I would go (and would always have gone) for a Scots pound pegged via currency board, but then I'm not an economist. The downside is maintaining a foreign currency reserve, but that's obviously much easier if you're claiming an 8.5% of the BoE's reserve and you drive a hard deal on servicing debt, since the UK has already said rUK will inherit and guarantee *all* the debt, iScotland is in a good position to drive a hard bargain here.

Ah, I see a real economist, Prof Sir Donald Mackay agrees with me: :aok:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28787839


I should also say that I am firmly of the opinion that we will get a CU if we want one. Anyone who watched Andrew Neill's BBC doc about the effect of independence on rUK would have seen that the English establishment are desperate for more time to sort out Trident. It lends considerable weight to the Guardian's unnamed senior cabinet minister who said "of course there will be a CU".

We get a CU in exchange for extending the Trident removal time by 5-10 years.



With regards to the first link, are we seriously taking advice from a liberal think tank, who are advocating modeling Scotland's currency/economy along the lines of central and south American countries? I do hope not! :confused:

The second link is mainly negative toward the iS stance on using the GB pound.

Difficult to know the potential outcome isn't it, both sides put their own spin on it. One thing is sure though, the currency is a huge uncertainty and uncertainties result in the weakening of the economy.

[ronaldo7]

Practically everybody that lives in Aberdeen I would have thought. The central belt seems to be paying attention now though for some reason. :greengrin
Are you sure you should have posted this here? This is part of the ''secret'' oil field that isn't going to be revealed until after the referendum vote. Shhhhh.

I've always run against the grain:greengrin TOP SECRET reports have flowed through my hands many a time. It's the Silent service you have to worry about.:greengrin

[marinello59]

I've always run against the grain:greengrin TOP SECRET reports have flowed through my hands many a time. It's the Silent service you have to worry about.:greengrin

:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Mon the Greens.

http://greenmsps.org/?p=341

That'll be the Fracking ****ed.

[ronaldo7]

We're supposed to be able the Trust Danny Alexander with more powers for Scotland in a No vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg


A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."

[Stranraer]

We're supposed to be able the Trust Danny Alexander with more powers for Scotland in a No vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg


A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."

At least I can rest assured, if there is a No vote, we don't need to worry about the Lib Dems anymore. I'm more concerned with the growth of UKIP.

[Beefster]

I think you are right. Although like you my preference would have been for a Scots pound. I do wonder if we will end up with the Euro after the dust settles.

Wonder no longer, m59. When the dust settles, we'll still be using the UK pound (and UK passports, UK defence etc etc).

[marinello59]

Wonder no longer, m59. When the dust settles, we'll still be using the UK pound (and UK passports, UK defence etc etc).

:greengrin
I'll admit I am not as confident as I was a couple of months back about a Yes vote but I still think it's going to be closer than the polls are showing.

[sauzee_4]

With regards to the first link, are we seriously taking advice from a liberal think tank, who are advocating modeling Scotland's currency/economy along the lines of central and south American countries? I do hope not! :confused:

The second link is mainly negative toward the iS stance on using the GB pound.

Difficult to know the potential outcome isn't it, both sides put their own spin on it. One thing is sure though, the currency is a huge uncertainty and uncertainties result in the weakening of the economy.

What is wrong with central american countries?

The "Panama-model" as people put it gets a lot of stick, but the truth is Panama has the 7th most stable financial system in the world.

"If we look at GDP and inflation for Ecuador since it adopted the US dollar, the trends look positive. GDP in Ecuador has grown faster since the switch and inflation has been more stable. Of course, one shouldn't compare developing economies on another continent too closely with Scotland, but it does show that adopting another currency or pegging your own doesn't automatically mean disaster."

http://www.cityam.com/1407769507/scottish-independence-salmond-nothing-stop-scotland-keeping-pound

Again, where is the problem.

Using Sterling in this way is going to be a short term deal anyway, and the UK used to peg the GBP to the US dollar for a very long time indeed. I didn't hear cry's of "THAT'S NOT INDEPENDENCE!" at that stage :greengrin

[judas]

Get over what? I'm quite happy to disagree with anybody.
I'll keep it respectful though and won't be calling you simple minded though. Even though you are wrong. :greengrin

OK apologies. Looking again at my comments, I can see how this could be interpreted negatively (not my intention btw).

As I said, think your point is a good one and would like to believe in it.

[degenerated]

What is wrong with central american countries?

The "Panama-model" as people put it gets a lot of stick, but the truth is Panama has the 7th most stable financial system in the world.

"If we look at GDP and inflation for Ecuador since it adopted the US dollar, the trends look positive. GDP in Ecuador has grown faster since the switch and inflation has been more stable. Of course, one shouldn't compare developing economies on another continent too closely with Scotland, but it does show that adopting another currency or pegging your own doesn't automatically mean disaster."

http://www.cityam.com/1407769507/scottish-independence-salmond-nothing-stop-scotland-keeping-pound

Again, where is the problem.

Using Sterling in this way is going to be a short term deal anyway, and the UK used to peg the GBP to the US dollar for a very long time indeed. I didn't hear cry's of "THAT'S NOT INDEPENDENCE!" at that stage :greengrin

I'm fairly positive that the pound was also benchmarked against the deustschmark during the late 70's?

[JeMeSouviens]

:greengrin
I'll admit I am not as confident as I was a couple of months back about a Yes vote but I still think it going to be closer than the polls are showing.

For the 2011, SP election, actual list vote was:

Indy (SNP+Green) - 48%
Non-Indy (Lab+Con+Lib) - 44%

(Plus various fringe parties/independents I'm assuming would balance out.)

ie. Indy+4

On the same basis, the final polls showed:

Yougov 4th May (day before election):

Indy - 41
Non-Indy - 52


TNS 3rd May

Indy - 46
Non-Indy - 50


MORI 21st April

Indy - 48
Non-Indy - 50


Panelbase 4th April

Indy - 42
Non-Indy - 50


ICM 15th March

Indy - 38
Non-Indy - 59


While I'd obviously love it if Y had a comfy lead, there's certainly no reason to give up hope.

[over the line]

What is wrong with central american countries?

The "Panama-model" as people put it gets a lot of stick, but the truth is Panama has the 7th most stable financial system in the world.

"If we look at GDP and inflation for Ecuador since it adopted the US dollar, the trends look positive. GDP in Ecuador has grown faster since the switch and inflation has been more stable. Of course, one shouldn't compare developing economies on another continent too closely with Scotland, but it does show that adopting another currency or pegging your own doesn't automatically mean disaster."

http://www.cityam.com/1407769507/scottish-independence-salmond-nothing-stop-scotland-keeping-pound

Again, where is the problem.

Using Sterling in this way is going to be a short term deal anyway, and the UK used to peg the GBP to the US dollar for a very long time indeed. I didn't hear cry's of "THAT'S NOT INDEPENDENCE!" at that stage :greengrin

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with central and south American countries. What I am saying is I don't want an iS to base an economical model on theirs. It's easy to cherry pick one bit of info (7th most stable financial system) and champion it. Panama also has about 30% of its population living below the poverty line, so not so great ay? I'm sure adopting the dollar would work for a lot of developing countries, but its a pointless comparison to make with Scotland and a potential iS.

[Moulin Yarns]

:greengrin
I'll admit I am not as confident as I was a couple of months back about a Yes vote but I still think it's going to be closer than the polls are showing.


For the 2011, SP election, actual list vote was:

Indy (SNP+Green) - 48%
Non-Indy (Lab+Con+Lib) - 44%

(Plus various fringe parties/independents I'm assuming would balance out.)

ie. Indy+4

On the same basis, the final polls showed:

Yougov 4th May (day before election):

Indy - 41
Non-Indy - 52


TNS 3rd May

Indy - 46
Non-Indy - 50


MORI 21st April

Indy - 48
Non-Indy - 50


Panelbase 4th April

Indy - 42
Non-Indy - 50


ICM 15th March

Indy - 38
Non-Indy - 59


While I'd obviously love it if Y had a comfy lead, there's certainly no reason to give up hope.



Dinnae give up hope

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-undecided-voters-yes-boost-1-3510786

2.51% swing needed :wink:

FWIW I think it will be close, with a no vote winning. Just so we can all blame somebody else.

[Moulin Yarns]

I can't believe my work block the Press and Journal

Anyway, the front page

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/s526x395/10330422_584774541632057_8596731597592021932_n.jpg

[JimBHibees]

I can't believe my work block the Press and Journal

Anyway, the front page

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/s526x395/10330422_584774541632057_8596731597592021932_n.jpg

Must be a lie, the oil was due to run out not long after the 70's. Kind of sums up the nonsense we get served up from Westminster.

[JeMeSouviens]

I can't believe my work block the Press and Journal

Anyway, the front page

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/s526x395/10330422_584774541632057_8596731597592021932_n.jpg

Surely it should say, "BLOW TO SALMOND - Massive North Sea find to last decades" ? :confused::rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

This referendum has already made at least one Scot poorer and we are still a month off the vote! I was planning on buying US dollers tomorrow (as the £ has been strong)for my hols in Orlando and the pound has dropped by 6 cents in the last month. I am guessing mainly (or certainly partly) due to the currency uncertainty issue?

That's over £100 you bloody Yes lot have cost me and I don't even live in Scotland anymore! ;)

The dilema now is do I buy now and cut my losses, or do I wait for the inevitable No result and see if the pound bounces back? :confused:

There you go with your guessing again! :rolleyes:

Over the last year, the trend is for the £ to strengthen.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GBPUSD=X&t=1y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

I think you'd find all this political chat a lot easier if you actually considered some evidence now and again rather than going with your hunches. :wink:

An explanation for you here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101874795?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline |story&par=yahoo&doc=101874795#.

[sauzee_4]

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with central and south American countries. What I am saying is I don't want an iS to base an economical model on theirs. It's easy to cherry pick one bit of info (7th most stable financial system) and champion it. Panama also has about 30% of its population living below the poverty line, so not so great ay? I'm sure adopting the dollar would work for a lot of developing countries, but its a pointless comparison to make with Scotland and a potential iS.

So only 5% more than we do? They must be struggling, oh wait :D

'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'

Time to do something different.

In terms of championing or trashing another countries economy I am doing neither. I am saying let's have an objective look at it before we judge. Panama seems to be doing ok, and several other countries have done ok pegging their currency, including the UK (ironically)

[JeMeSouviens]

Have you seen the full quote from that Newsnight programme? I looked it up after the debate a week or two back, and the broader context/point was quite different from the extract above.

Not really:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eKht7X6P0T4

He's saying that he thinks CU leads to political union, there is no mention that it's impossible or harmful to either side or any of the things he says he thinks now.

[CropleyWasGod]

With regards to the first link, are we seriously taking advice from a liberal think tank, who are advocating modeling Scotland's currency/economy along the lines of central and south American countries? I do hope not! :confused:

The second link is mainly negative toward the iS stance on using the GB pound.

Difficult to know the potential outcome isn't it, both sides put their own spin on it. One thing is sure though, the currency is a huge uncertainty and uncertainties result in the weakening of the economy.

Ireland pegged its currency to Sterling for about 70 years, indeed it used the £ itself for some years, and it did okay.

[JeMeSouviens]

Ireland pegged its currency to Sterling for about 70 years, indeed it used the £ itself for some years, and it did okay.

Indeed. I'm sure I've said it before on here, but if you look at Ireland's economic performance vs Scotland since 1921 it is absolutely stellar. They have come from nowhere to streak past us.

Denmark and Switzerland both peg to the € (in Switzerland's case, probably temporarily, it was put in place to help exporters because the CHF was getting ridiculous flows as a safe haven) and I don't see anyone calling either of them struggling economies.

[sauzee_4]

Indeed. I'm sure I've said it before on here, but if you look at Ireland's economic performance vs Scotland since 1921 it is absolutely stellar. They have come from nowhere to streak past us.

Denmark and Switzerland both peg to the € (in Switzerland's case, probably temporarily, it was put in place to help exporters because the CHF was getting ridiculous flows as a safe haven) and I don't see anyone calling either of them struggling economies.

Do you have any figures for this JMS? it would really blow the argument out of the water that "dollarisation" is a guaranteed disaster if the last country who did it, a near neighbour has actually shown it to be a success compared to our current arrangements.

[over the line]

There you go with your guessing again! :rolleyes:

Over the last year, the trend is for the £ to strengthen.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GBPUSD=X&t=1y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

I think you'd find all this political chat a lot easier if you actually considered some evidence now and again rather than going with your hunches. :wink:

An explanation for you here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101874795?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline |story&par=yahoo&doc=101874795#.

I have already responded to similar criticism over my original post, please see post 3137, to save me typing it again. :)

Then see if you can find any links too someone else's guesses ("evidence" ) to counter the basic logic of it. ;)

Plus my original post does specifically say the pound has been falling in the last month, pay attention please. ;):)

[ronaldo7]

Aye, shipbuilding is safe in the Union right enough. Poor *******s facing the dole.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28803561

The Labour leaflet in this link says it all really.

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/01/29/independence-means-doom-and-gloom-claims-better-together/

[JeMeSouviens]

Do you have any figures for this JMS? it would really blow the argument out of the water that "dollarisation" is a guaranteed disaster if the last country who did it, a near neighbour has actually shown it to be a success compared to our current arrangements.

Data from Maddison project (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm)

www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical.../horizontal-file_02-2010.xls

I've picked out 5 years, 1921, Ireland's year of independence. 1926, I felt it a little unfair not to give Ireland some leeway because they immediately fought a bitter civil war and that was really a post-imperial legacy from the UK, so 1926 allows that drag to be removed. 1950, since it's post war and in the middle. 1979, the year Ireland broke the link with sterling and joined ERM, so was effectively pegged to the DM and subsequently, of course, the Euro.

GDP per capita: 1921/1926/1950/1979/2008

Ireland 2533/2653/3453/8366/27898
UK 4439/5315/6939/13167/23742

Ireland as %age of UK: 57%/49%/49%/64%/118%

Performance is the same 1926-1950 but the period 1950-1979 gives you the data you want. Ireland is pegged to £ all that time and relatively outperforms by 2.42x (Ireland) to 1.89x (UK).

[JeMeSouviens]

I have already responded to similar criticism over my original post, please see post 3137, to save me typing it again. :)

Then see if you can find any links too someone else's guesses ("evidence") to counter the basic logic of it. ;)

Plus my original post does specifically say the pound has been falling in the last month, pay attention please. ;):)

I refuse to argue with someone who can't even cut'n'paste. :rolleyes::wink:

Read the CNBC link for analysis on the pound's recent fall vs the $ and then pick out anything linked to the indyref (clue, there isn't anything :wink:).

[over the line]

I refuse to argue with someone who can't even cut'n'paste. :rolleyes::wink:

Read the CNBC link for analysis on the pound's recent fall vs the $ and then pick out anything linked to the indyref (clue, there isn't anything :wink:).

My outdated phone and fat fingers make it difficult to cut and paste! :D So are you telling me there is no place for technobiffs in your Scotopia? ;)

Plus we don't argue do we, I thought it was just a bit of light hearted jousting? :)

I'm sure the pound weakening is caused by several different factors, someone else posted on here that it is down to different factors again. We are all 'guessing' really, even the 'experts'. My view from down here though is that the currency issue has been brought to the fore in the last few weeks, which will inevitably cause uncertainty won't it?

[Mr White]

Got our polling cards through today. My wife was going to vote no so hers is in the bin. Democracy in action :greengrin

[Bristolhibby]

Got our polling cards through today. My wife was going to vote no so hers is in the bin. Democracy in action :greengrin

LOL, Real Politik.

I think you can vote without a polling card.

J

[Stranraer]

LOL, Real Politik.

I think you can vote without a polling card.

J

:agree: You can. It says so on... the polling card

[over the line]

So only 5% more than we do? They must be struggling, oh wait :D

'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'

Time to do something different.

In terms of championing or trashing another countries economy I am doing neither. I am saying let's have an objective look at it before we judge. Panama seems to be doing ok, and several other countries have done ok pegging their currency, including the UK (ironically)

I may be reading your post wrong, because I can't believe you are saying that 25% of the people in the UK are living below the poverty line? Is that what you are saying?

I really don't get the insanity thing, what do you realistically expect to happen? An iS won't be a magical wonderland or something, it will be something similar to life now, but people may be marginally better or worse off. As I've said before, I think we need a bit of perspective with this referendum, its no Berlin wall moment!

If an iS is comparable with Panama, god help you all up there! ;)

[over the line]

Ireland pegged its currency to Sterling for about 70 years, indeed it used the £ itself for some years, and it did okay.

Not so sure Ireland have been doing so well really?

[stoneyburn hibs]

I may be reading your post wrong, because I can't believe you are saying that 25% of the people in the UK are living below the poverty line? Is that what you are saying?

I really don't get the insanity thing, what do you realistically expect to happen? An iS won't be a magical wonderland or something, it will be something similar to life now, but people may be marginally better or worse off. As I've said before, I think we need a bit of perspective with this referendum, its no Berlin wall moment!

If an iS is comparable with Panama, god help you all up there! ;)

Every other one of your posts is about the currency and the uncertainty of it. I haven't heard anyone claiming that Scotland will be a wonderland should it be Independent. God help us indeed.

[over the line]

Every other one of your posts is about the currency and the uncertainty of it. I haven't heard anyone claiming that Scotland will be a wonderland should it be Independent. God help us indeed.

I was just questioning what S4's insanity quote was about? I just don't see how the current set up is insanity in any way. I get the impression some people think that an iS will be like the second coming or something, I just don't get it?

As for the god help us bit, do you think an iS being like Panama is a good thing, or even a relevant and worthwhile comparison to make?

[CropleyWasGod]

I was just questioning what S4's insanity quote was about? I just don't see how the current set up is insanity in any way. I get the impression some people think that an iS will be like the second coming or something, I just don't get it?

As for the god help us bit, do you think an iS being like Panama is a good thing, or even a relevant and worthwhile comparison to make?
The Panama comparison is largely used as a pejorative by the BT supporters. I used Ireland as it is much more relevant to our situation and should therefore be the model about which we can argue sensibly.

As has been set out above, Ireland did pretty well in the 70 years of pegging its currency to the £. It could be argued that its problems started when it joined the €. That, of course, is a different debate.

My old economics lecturer, Donald Mackay, greatly respected throughout the world, seems to agree.

[over the line]

The Panama comparison is largely used as a pejorative by the BT supporters. I used Ireland as it is much more relevant to our situation and should therefore be the model about which we can argue sensibly.

As has been set out above, Ireland did pretty well in the 70 years of pegging its currency to the £. It could be argued that its problems started when it joined the €. That, of course, is a different debate.

My old economics lecturer, Donald Mackay, greatly respected throughout the world, seems to agree.

The Panama model/comparison seems to be favoured on here by many Yes supporters. I agree with you that it is of little relevance, I don't see the point in it.

Just to let you know, I never had an economics lecturer, you may be able to tell? ;):)

[Beefster]

Aye, shipbuilding is safe in the Union right enough. Poor *******s facing the dole.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28803561

The Labour leaflet in this link says it all really.

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/01/29/independence-means-doom-and-gloom-claims-better-together/

Bit low using the loss of jobs in a shipbuilder completely unrelated to the independence debate to try and score some points IMHO.

I think you're well aware that the shipbuilders referred to in any chat about independence are the ones who rely on defence orders from the UK.

[sauzee_4]

I may be reading your post wrong, because I can't believe you are saying that 25% of the people in the UK are living below the poverty line? Is that what you are saying?

I really don't get the insanity thing, what do you realistically expect to happen? An iS won't be a magical wonderland or something, it will be something similar to life now, but people may be marginally better or worse off. As I've said before, I think we need a bit of perspective with this referendum, its no Berlin wall moment!

If an iS is comparable with Panama, god help you all up there! ;)

You need to do more research Eport. Yes, 1 in 5 people in Scotland live in Poverty.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/study-reveals-1-million-scots-3795489

And a yes vote gives us a chance to change it

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/9288-yes-vote-offers-chance-to-tackle-poverty-and-low-pay

[sauzee_4]

I may be reading your post wrong, because I can't believe you are saying that 25% of the people in the UK are living below the poverty line? Is that what you are saying?

I really don't get the insanity thing, what do you realistically expect to happen? An iS won't be a magical wonderland or something, it will be something similar to life now, but people may be marginally better or worse off. As I've said before, I think we need a bit of perspective with this referendum, its no Berlin wall moment!

If an iS is comparable with Panama, god help you all up there! ;)

Oh sorry, again you are going with your "hunches" on the panama situation. Throw us some facts on why "dollarisation" is so bad for a countries economy.

We've seen some evidence from JMS that adopting this model is not necessarily bad. And we know that Panama has the 7th most stable financial system in the world.

I await your own contradictory evidence:greengrin

[sauzee_4]

Not so sure Ireland have been doing so well really?

Their GDP per head is currently higher than ours. Again, research:wink:

[Bristolhibby]

Bit low using the loss of jobs in a shipbuilder completely unrelated to the independence debate to try and score some points IMHO.

I think you're well aware that the shipbuilders referred to in any chat about independence are the ones who rely on defence orders from the UK.

This.

Your complex military warship and your standard ferry are like apples and pairs.

The only things they have in common is they float an have engines.

It's like comparing a Ford Transit to an F1 car and saying it's the same industry.

J

[over the line]

You need to do more research Eport. Yes, 1 in 5 people in Scotland live in Poverty.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/study-reveals-1-million-scots-3795489

And a yes vote gives us a chance to change it

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/in-brief/9288-yes-vote-offers-chance-to-tackle-poverty-and-low-pay

I'll do the research when you do the maths. I think you will find that one in five equals 20%, not 25% as your post suggested. ;):). Anyway as I have said before, the poverty line is different in every country, as it is a comparison to the average living standards of the country. So I am sure that the vast majority of the worlds poor would jump at the chance of having the living standard of almost anyone in this country.

[over the line]

Oh sorry, again you are going with your "hunches" on the panama situation. Throw us some facts on why "dollarisation" is so bad for a countries economy.

We've seen some evidence from JMS that adopting this model is not necessarily bad. And we know that Panama has the 7th most stable financial system in the world.

I await your own contradictory evidence:greengrin

I think you are missing my point? What I am saying is that it is a pointless comparison to make. Central American economies and countries are so vastly different to Scotland, it just becomes a pointless comparison. You may as well make a case for an iS to become a one party communist state, because it seems to have worked for China. ;)

[over the line]

Their GDP per head is currently higher than ours. Again, research:wink:

Cherry picking again. They have massive unemployment (sending a cherry right back at you).

I thought GDP was nonsense anyway? I'm sure I read that on someone's post on here a few weeks back? ;):)

[Moulin Yarns]

Oh sorry, again you are going with your "hunches" on the panama situation. Throw us some facts on why "dollarisation" is so bad for a countries economy.

We've seen some evidence from JMS that adopting this model is not necessarily bad. And we know that Panama has the 7th most stable financial system in the world.

I await your own contradictory evidence:greengrin


Their GDP per head is currently higher than ours. Again, research:wink:


Give the guy a break :wink: he lives in England so is being fed the Westminster propaganda and isn't being exposed to the filthy dirty tactics of the National Front for the Liberation of Alba (NAFLA)

Actually, naw, lets keep bombarding him with facts:

GPs in England will lose millions of pounds if Jeremy Hunt gets his way. FACT

source https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/jeremy-hunt-don-t-close-our-gp-surgeries#petition

[ronaldo7]

Bit low using the loss of jobs in a shipbuilder completely unrelated to the independence debate to try and score some points IMHO.

I think you're well aware that the shipbuilders referred to in any chat about independence are the ones who rely on defence orders from the UK.

Not at all. The Better together camp have been ramping up the rhetoric of Shipbuilding on the clyde, being stronger in the Union, even although we have lost over 30,000 jobs since the seventies in that area. Seems the Union isn't working at all for the benefit of the Clydesiders.

13281

On the subject of things being related to the Independence debate. Everything is related, Jobs, Tax/Spend, Welfare, Social Justice, it's the way you see your country being run really, and you know where I stand on that.

[over the line]

Give the guy a break :wink: he lives in England so is being fed the Westminster propaganda and isn't being exposed to the filthy dirty tactics of the National Front for the Liberation of Alba (NAFLA)

Actually, naw, lets keep bombarding him with facts:

GPs in England will lose millions of pounds if Jeremy Hunt gets his way. FACT

source https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/jeremy-hunt-don-t-close-our-gp-surgeries#petition

Ha, bring it on people! ;):)

I am certainly not being fed propaganda, the referendum barely gets a mention down here. I think it has already been pointed out that I'm light on research and I certainly don't claim to be an expert in the field. I just like to question and test some of the more dubious and spurious claims and comparisons (or 'evidence' as it is sometimes refered to) made on here. Obviously not all posts and links are of that nature but still I think its good to question stuff isn't it, especially stuff put forward by people who have total faith in one concept or another? Just because an article, or information supports a concept/cause you (or anyone) believe in, doesn't mean that its correct. As I've said before, if you look in the right place, you will almost always get the answer you are searching for. So I could also spend my time searching for links to sites or information supporting almost any point of view you care to think of (I won't though because I am a bit lazy like that :) ) but I would still question them.

Believe nothing and question everything.

But having said that, I do find some links interesting and informative, so keep em coming please. :)

Undoubtedly the NHS needs and has to be reformed in so many ways. Financial reality will largely dictate the changes it would seem. It's funny how the NHS gets slated left right and centre, but if anything gets changed within it, people are up in arms about it. :confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

Right now I am reading a paper called Closer and there is an article on Counterfactuals' or whatiffery.

What if hitler had succeeded? What if Bonnie Prince Charlie hadn't stopped at Derby? You get the idea, pointless speculation but fun nonetheless.

It deals with What happens if it is a No vote?' The suggestion is English Nationalism will come to the fore.

[sauzee_4]

I think you are missing my point? What I am saying is that it is a pointless comparison to make. Central American economies and countries are so vastly different to Scotland, it just becomes a pointless comparison. You may as well make a case for an iS to become a one party communist state, because it seems to have worked for China. ;)

It is you who has made the comparison. You said "if we are going to model our economy on a south american country god help us".

I am saying the economists who have looked at the issue, seem to think it can work perfectly well.

[sauzee_4]

Cherry picking again. They have massive unemployment (sending a cherry right back at you).

I thought GDP was nonsense anyway? I'm sure I read that on someone's post on here a few weeks back? ;):)

Fair do's it might be cherry picking, not sure 11% is massive, although it is higher than ours (7.5%)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate

Panama's is 4.1% ;) :greengrin :na na:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/panama/unemployment-rate

[over the line]

Fair do's it might be cherry picking, not sure 11% is massive, although it is higher than ours (7.5%)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/unemployment-rate

Panama's is 4.1% ;) :greengrin :na na:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/panama/unemployment-rate

Fair enough, there must be a bigger demand than I thought for their hats and slim panatellas cigars? ;)

[Beefster]

you know where I stand on that.

Yup. To the extend that you'll plumb new depths to 'make a point'.

Still, I'm sure your primary concern is the redundant shipbuilders. The fact that you can tenuously link them to something Labour has said about other shipyards is just a side bonus, I'm sure.

[ronaldo7]

Yup. To the extend that you'll plumb new depths to 'make a point'.

Still, I'm sure your primary concern is the redundant shipbuilders. The fact that you can tenuously link them to something Labour has said about other shipyards is just a side bonus, I'm sure.

The depths being plumbed were by your Unionist pals, trying to insinuate that we are somehow better off staying with the people who've caused havoc with over 30,000 families lives since the seventies.

The communities of the west of Scotland deserve better than what's been offered to them in the past.

I've already mentioned that the 80 or so families who have people going to sign on the dole deserve better. What do Better Together offer? £72.40 a week.

I do understand the differentiation between Ferguson's and either Scotstouns or Govan, but we've lost Govan under your system. Maybe you could see fit to take some time to look at the history of our communities and see the devastation that's been caused by your pals.

The point stands, even if you think it's many leagues under the sea. People deserve better.

[Mibbes Aye]

The depths being plumbed were by your Unionist pals, trying to insinuate that we are somehow better off staying with the people who've caused havoc with over 30,000 families lives since the seventies.

The communities of the west of Scotland deserve better than what's been offered to them in the past.

I've already mentioned that the 80 or so families who have people going to sign on the dole deserve better. What do Better Together offer? £72.40 a week.

I do understand the differentiation between Ferguson's and either Scotstouns or Govan, but we've lost Govan under your system. Maybe you could see fit to take some time to look at the history of our communities and see the devastation that's been caused by your pals.

The point stands, even if you think it's many leagues under the sea. People deserve better.

Yet the party that wants independence has chosen to have a flagship domestic policy for the last seven years which benefits the rich over the poor.

How does that help our poorer communities?

[Mibbes Aye]

Brilliant. Nothing like throwing out a bit of abuse to those who don't share your views.

This is maybe a point that hasn't received the attention it should.

I do wonder about how some in the Yes camp seem to view our own people.

If it's a vote for No, I can't help thinking that the electorate will be portrayed as either feart or stupid (or both) by the unhappy Yessers. We've seen it already on this thread.

For a camp that tells us we can shape our own destiny, they seem awfully bitter if we don't choose their version of destiny :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Yet the party that wants independence has chosen to have a flagship domestic policy for the last seven years which benefits the rich over the poor.

How does that help our poorer communities?

We canny take any lessons from the party who crashed the economy in 2008 mate. I believe you've been given the answer to the Q above.

Back to Shipbuilding please:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

We canny take any lessons from the party who crashed the economy in 2008 mate. I believe you've been given the answer to the Q above.

Back to Shipbuilding please:greengrin

No, I've not.

No one from the Yes side has told me how a policy which rewards the rich over the poor and does nothing for the poorest, helps our poorest communities.

It sort of makes all their rhetoric about a 'fairer Scotland' sound a bit empty and vacuous, doesn't it? Which also reinforces the suspicion I voiced a couple of posts above - that they look on us as stupid.

[over the line]

Right now I am reading a paper called Closer and there is an article on Counterfactuals' or whatiffery.

What if hitler had succeeded? What if Bonnie Prince Charlie hadn't stopped at Derby? You get the idea, pointless speculation but fun nonetheless.

It deals with What happens if it is a No vote?' The suggestion is English Nationalism will come to the fore.

Oh come on now, you are going to have to tell us what would've happened with Hitler and BPC! Don't leave us hanging please. :)

[ronaldo7]

No, I've not.

No one from the Yes side has told me how a policy which rewards the rich over the poor and does nothing for the poorest, helps our poorest communities.

It sort of makes all their rhetoric about a 'fairer Scotland' sound a bit empty and vacuous, doesn't it? Which also reinforces the suspicion I voiced a couple of posts above - that they look on us as stupid.

You have.

You may not have liked it but it's there. Now back to the shipbuilding please. No mention of the 30,000 job losses since the 70's

Why are we losing ship building jobs under the Union? I do know the difference from one ship builder to the other btw.

[Mibbes Aye]

You have.

You may not have liked it but it's there. Now back to the shipbuilding please. No mention of the 30,000 job losses since the 70's

Why are we losing ship building jobs under the Union? I do know the difference from one ship builder to the other btw.

Where?

Where's the explanation as to how the council tax freeze helps the poorest, rather than benefitting the rich more than anyone else?

[RyeSloan]

You have. You may not have liked it but it's there. Now back to the shipbuilding please. No mention of the 30,000 job losses since the 70's Why are we losing ship building jobs under the Union? I do know the difference from one ship builder to the other btw.

I would suggest globalisation....I.e most ships can be built quicker and cheaper elsewhere in the world so that's where they are built.

But you seem to be suggesting otherwise so would be interested to hear your thoughts as to why shipbuilding has declined so much "under the union"

[sauzee_4]

Yet the party that wants independence has chosen to have a flagship domestic policy for the last seven years which benefits the rich over the poor.

How does that help our poorer communities?

Still repeating that boring point :D

Have the SNP brought in the poll tax or the Bedroom tax yet?

Yes to a REAL labour party, social justice and an end to Tory rule.

[sauzee_4]

Ok, time for the no camp to answer some questions :D

Number 1. Do you agre that we should spend £150 billion on a new nuclear weapon system?

2. If not, what are your plans for either removing the system or decommissioning it.

[Mibbes Aye]

Still repeating that boring point :D

Have the SNP brought in the poll tax or the Bedroom tax yet?

Yes to a REAL labour party, social justice and an end to Tory rule.

Why don't you answer the point?

You argue for a Yes vote and say we can have a fairer society but you won't answer why the pro-Yes party have a flagship policy that promotes inequality.

That's not boring, it's extremely concerning. And it just strips away your credibility.

[over the line]

You have.

You may not have liked it but it's there. Now back to the shipbuilding please. No mention of the 30,000 job losses since the 70's

Why are we losing ship building jobs under the Union? I do know the difference from one ship builder to the other btw.

The decline in shipbuilding is not exclusive to the Clyde, as I am sure you are aware. I am currently sat about quarter of a mile from the once great Camell Lairds shipyard in Birkenhead. It used to employ 15000 people in its pomp. After decades of decline it has recently had a bit of a boost and is on the up again but its still a pale imitation of its former self.

I think there are several reasons for this industry's sad decline, but I'm not sure it can be 'pinned' on the Union? In essence foreign shipbuilders just became more competitive and more reliable at building ships than us. Places like South Korea just overtook us and left us standing. I think this is partly due to poor management, who were probably shortsighted and stuck in their ways. It was also partly because of rampant trade unions (more so in some areas of the country than others), who made it harder for the industry to adapt and modernise.

I know plenty of people who used to work at Lairds and from the tales they tell me about how it was, I'm not surprised we couldn't keep up with the Koreans and the like.

[over the line]

Ok, time for the no camp to answer some questions :D

Number 1. Do you agre that we should spend £150 billion on a new nuclear weapon system?

2. If not, what are your plans for either removing the system or decommissioning it.

I am in favour of having nuclear weapons yes. If they need modernising or replacing, then yes we should do it. I'm happy to discuss my reasons for this, if required.

Regarding your second point, I wasn't aware I was expected to come up with a plan to decommission nuclear arms? But thanks for the heads up anyway. I best get cracking on a plan, because I reakon it might be quite tricky!?!?! :eek:

[over the line]

Ok, time for the no camp to answer some questions :D

Number 1. Do you agre that we should spend £150 billion on a new nuclear weapon system?

2. If not, what are your plans for either removing the system or decommissioning it.

Quick update with regards to this plan for decommissioning WMD you've sprung on me. I have come up with three initial plans, tell me what you think?

1. Recycling. Everyone loves recycling now don't they? But apparently my local tip don't cater for WMD's. Bloody typical, probably the fault of that bloody Westminster lot and their bloody cutbacks!?!

2. Dig a big hole on the wasteland near my work and put them in that. Only problem is I have an ankle injury from footy and I'd struggle with the digging at mo. Plus I think they are building on it soon.

3. Put them down the side of my house, next to the broken rabbit run and the old Hoover. Prob put a tarp over them, to stop the neighbours getting arsey about it. I figure they will biodegrade over time.

I am favouring option 3 at the moment, but I'm keeping an open mind.

[Fergus52]

Why don't you answer the point?

You argue for a Yes vote and say we can have a fairer society but you won't answer why the pro-Yes party have a flagship policy that promotes inequality.

That's not boring, it's extremely concerning. And it just strips away your credibility.

Thats such a tenuous point.

I know plenty of people who are very pro yes but don't agree with the snp on a alot of things, so why should a yes voter have to answer for their policies?

Thats like saying a no voter has to answer for every jobbies policy that labour or the Tories have had

[ronaldo7]

Where?

Where's the explanation as to how the council tax freeze helps the poorest, rather than benefitting the rich more than anyone else?

As I said, I don't think the answer you got was to your liking, but constantly trying to foist one policy into the light whilst not taking a manifesto in the round really dilutes your argument.

Manifestos are wide and varied. They will have policies that entice the electorate to vote certain ways although they may not like "ALL" of the policies within them.

If we could take certain policies from each party we might be onto a winner eh.

[ronaldo7]

I would suggest globalisation....I.e most ships can be built quicker and cheaper elsewhere in the world so that's where they are built.

But you seem to be suggesting otherwise so would be interested to hear your thoughts as to why shipbuilding has declined so much "under the union"

The only thing I'm suggesting is that the No campers have ramped up the rhetoric on Shipbuilding being safer within the Union when clearly it's not.

[ronaldo7]

This is maybe a point that hasn't received the attention it should.

I do wonder about how some in the Yes camp seem to view our own people.

If it's a vote for No, I can't help thinking that the electorate will be portrayed as either feart or stupid (or both) by the unhappy Yessers. We've seen it already on this thread.

For a camp that tells us we can shape our own destiny, they seem awfully bitter if we don't choose their version of destiny :greengrin

I think most in the Yes camp will take the result whatever it is and get on with it. If it's yes then we start building our country. If it's No, then I'll be trying to keep out of the way from Ian Davidson MP, and his BAYONET.:wink:

http://www.glawest.org/ian-davidson-mp-repeats-call-to-bayonet-scottish-independence-supporters/

[ronaldo7]

Scotland's leading Historian (No, not Dan Snow), has decided. Just another 1 vote, but every little helps.:greengrin

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/17/scottish-independence-tom-devine-yes-vote-referendum-alex-salmond?CMP=twt_gu

[ronaldo7]

13285

A bit of light relief.

[Hibrandenburg]

I am in favour of having nuclear weapons yes. If they need modernising or replacing, then yes we should do it. I'm happy to discuss my reasons for this, if required.

Regarding your second point, I wasn't aware I was expected to come up with a plan to decommission nuclear arms? But thanks for the heads up anyway. I best get cracking on a plan, because I reakon it might be quite tricky!?!?! :eek:

Do you live where these nuclear weapons are stored and serviced?

[over the line]

Do you live where these nuclear weapons are stored and serviced?

No, but I do live about a mile from where part of them are made. Why do you ask?

[Hibrandenburg]

No, but I do live about a mile from where part of them are made. Why do you ask?

Simply because I believe that those who live directly under the shadow of them should have the say in whether they stay or not.

[Phil D. Rolls]

SOS doing more to drive undecideds to Yes.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-brands-could-face-buy-english-backlash-1-3511976

Project Fear is fast becoming Project Incontinence. Do they really think anyone will fall for this?

[BarneyK]

SOS doing more to drive undecideds to Yes.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-brands-could-face-buy-english-backlash-1-3511976

Project Fear is fast becoming Project Incontinence. Do they really think anyone will fall for this?

Of all the industries bringing this up, surely the whisky industry isn't the one to be talking about a national backlash. If you want to buy "scotch" you have to buy it from Scotland surely? A small distinction of course, but valid all the same.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Of all the industries bringing this up, surely the whisky industry isn't the one to be talking about a national backlash. If you want to buy "scotch" you have to buy it from Scotland surely? A small distinction of course, but valid all the same.

I wonder how they cope selling whisky in Japan, Germany and Italy. After all, it's not that long ago we had a wee disagreement.

I think the shareholders of these companies should be questioning the competence of the people who run them.

As for the Scotsman, it's going to alienate a lot of people with nonsense like this. I want to read objective reporting, not propaganda for either side.

[Hibrandenburg]

Nobody but the Scots or those who've made Scotland their home really give a toss about what happens to Scotland. Why then should we accept that a government outside Scotland has the final say about what is good for Scotland? It's lunacy defined.

[over the line]

Simply because I believe that those who live directly under the shadow of them should have the say in whether they stay or not.

Fair enough, but I don't agree with the logic of that really. Why do you think that? I think I know the point you are making but could you please clarify your point, so I don't jump the gun?

[Beefster]

Nobody but the Scots or those who've made Scotland their home really give a toss about what happens to Scotland. Why then should we accept that a government outside Scotland has the final say about what is good for Scotland? It's lunacy defined.

You'd want an independent Scotland to be independent from the EU too?

[Hibrandenburg]

Fair enough, but I don't agree with the logic of that really. Why do you think that? I think I know the point you are making but could you please clarify your point, so I don't jump the gun?

Ok I'll put it another way. If every single Scot was against having nuclear weapons in Scotland it would not make any difference whatsoever. Under the current system if the rest of the UK wants to have an atomic weapons program and wants it to be sited in Scotland then it will be sited in Scotland and to hell with what the people who actually live there think. That's not democracy, that's tantamount to ruling by decree.

[Hibrandenburg]

You'd want an independent Scotland to be independent from the EU too?


No I'd like the people of Scotland to decide for themselves what's good and right for them.

If Westminster decides we go to war then we go to war.

If Westminster decides we'll have atomic weapons in Scotland then we'll have atomic weapons based in Scotland.

If Westminster decides to abolish our parliament then it would be abolished.

If Westminster decides to raise the age of voting to 75 in General elections then that too would happen.

An independent Scotland within Europe would be able to decide otherwise on all of the above.

See the difference?

[Hibrandenburg]

Fair enough, but I don't agree with the logic of that really. Why do you think that? I think I know the point you are making but could you please clarify your point, so I don't jump the gun?

Ok I'll put it another way. If every single Scott was against having nuclear weapons in Scotland it would not make any difference whatsoever. Under the current system if the rest of the UK wants to have an atomic weapons program and wants it to be sited in Scotland then it will be sited in Scotland and to hell with what the people who actually live there think. That's not democracy, that's tantamount to ruling by decree.

[over the line]

SOS doing more to drive undecideds to Yes.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-brands-could-face-buy-english-backlash-1-3511976

Project Fear is fast becoming Project Incontinence. Do they really think anyone will fall for this?

I posted a few weeks back that my view from down here in England is that I think there will be a backlash. I think if the vote is Yes (as unlikely as that seems now ;) ), a lot of people in rUK will feel somewhat betrayed and genuine resentment. I think there would be some form of backlash that would impact on Scottish products, how much of an affect this would have and how long I don't know. I believe that a large proportion of Scotland's exports are to the rUK, so it is bound to have some affect I feel.

I don't see any reason to scoff at the businesses who are considering this as a potential problem, why not be prepared, surely that is good business sense?

Whether the vote is Yes or No, there are bound to be winners and losers in business and in general, to think there won't be any negatives after a Yes vote is ridiculous. I don't see the harm in reporting this stuff, surely the more information and views reported the better?

[Beefster]

Ok I'll put it another way. If every single Scot was against having nuclear weapons in Scotland it would not make any difference whatsoever. Under the current system if the rest of the UK wants to have an atomic weapons program and wants it to be sited in Scotland then it will be sited in Scotland and to hell with what the people who actually live there think. That's not democracy, that's tantamount to ruling by decree.

If every single Scot was against nuclear weapons, presumably we wouldn't want to stay in NATO?

[Hibrandenburg]

If every single Scot was against nuclear weapons, presumably we wouldn't want to stay in NATO?


Why not? The majority of NATO members have no nuclear weapons.

[over the line]

Ok I'll put it another way. If every single Scott was against having nuclear weapons in Scotland it would not make any difference whatsoever. Under the current system if the rest of the UK wants to have an atomic weapons program and wants it to be sited in Scotland then it will be sited in Scotland and to hell with what the people who actually live there think. That's not democracy, that's tantamount to ruling by decree.

Ok, I'm glad I didn't jump the gun, because that wasn't the answer I was expecting. So you are against having nuclear weapons because you don't like being told what to do by the rest of the UK, is that right?

Obviously your point is hypothetical because not everyone in Scotland is against nuclear weapons. So in that case why make the point? (Genuine question, not just being an arse about it).

[Hibrandenburg]

Ok, I'm glad I didn't jump the gun, because that wasn't the answer I was expecting. So you are against having nuclear weapons because you don't like being told what to do by the rest of the UK, is that right?

Obviously your point is hypothetical because not everyone in Scotland is against nuclear weapons. So in that case why make the point? (Genuine question, not just being an arse about it).

That's what hypothetical questions were invented for, to highlight possible scenarios.

I could have used a number of other examples (poll tax) but the nuclear weapons subject was being discussed already.

[Beefster]

Why not? The majority of NATO members have no nuclear weapons.

Because NATO countries are protected by nuclear weapons. There's a difference between the NIMBY-ism of not wanting them in your country and never having had them in the first place but supporting and accepting protection from them.

Incidentally, a few NATO countries host NATO nuclear weapons without having ever developed them themselves or officially being 'nuclear states'.

[Hibrandenburg]

Because NATO countries are protected by nuclear weapons. There's a difference between the NIMBY-ism of not wanting them in your country and never having had them in the first place but supporting and accepting protection from them.

Incidentally, a few NATO countries host NATO nuclear weapons without having ever developed them themselves or officially being 'nuclear states'.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the pros and cons of nuclear weapons. I used it as a hypothetical scenario to highlight the current lack of influence the Scottish electorate has over its own territory.

[over the line]

That's what hypothetical questions were invented for, to highlight possible scenarios.

I could have used a number of other examples (poll tax) but the nuclear weapons subject was being discussed already.

But there does have to be some point or relevance to a hypothetical question at the same time? I was just wanted to clarify what point was being made.

I think I see your point now, so you aren't against nuclear weapons as such, you are just against the fact its not a Scottish person/government saying where they are based, is that it?

[Hibrandenburg]

But there does have to be some point or relevance to a hypothetical question at the same time? I was just wanted to clarify what point was being made.

I think I see your point now, so you aren't against nuclear weapons as such, you are just against the fact its not a Scottish person/government saying where they are based, is that it?

Sorry mate, I thought that was quite clear in my statement.

[over the line]

Sorry mate, I thought that was quite clear in my statement.

No bother, I just didn't want to wrongly fill in the gaps that's all.

Just another quick point, you mentioned the people who fall under the shadow of the NW should make the decisions etc. Where do you define the shadow to be?

[Hibrandenburg]

No bother, I just didn't want to wrongly fill in the gaps that's all.

Just another quick point, you mentioned the people who fall under the shadow of the NW should make the decisions etc. Where do you define the shadow to be?

Like I mentioned in an earlier post I'm more interested in the question of who decides on nuclear weapons than the pros and cons of them.

I'd rather concentrate on the fact that the Scottish electorate have very little say on a subject that probably concerns them more than the rest of the UK. That was the whole point in the first place that is now being deflected in another direction.

[over the line]

Like I mentioned in an earlier post I'm more interested in the question of who decides on nuclear weapons than the pros and cons of them.

I'd rather concentrate on the fact that the Scottish electorate have very little say on a subject that probably concerns them more than the rest of the UK. That was the whole point in the first place that is now being deflected in another direction.

No, no, my question isn't about the pros and cons of nuclear weapons at all. It is a question that is entirely in keeping with your wider point you are making. What do you define as the shadow, where people should decide over the current subject (that just happens to be NW)?

After all, your original post asked me if I lived near the NW. So do I fall under the shadow, for example?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Because NATO countries are protected by nuclear weapons. There's a difference between the NIMBY-ism of not wanting them in your country and never having had them in the first place but supporting and accepting protection from them.

Incidentally, a few NATO countries host NATO nuclear weapons without having ever developed them themselves or officially being 'nuclear states'.

Is that the best of both worlds?

[Hibrandenburg]

No, no, my question isn't about the pros and cons of nuclear weapons at all. It is a question that is entirely in keeping with your wider point you are making. What do you define as the shadow, where people should decide over the current subject (that just happens to be NW)?

After all, your original post asked me if I lived near the NW. So do I fall under the shadow, for example?

But that's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. :confused:

[Beefster]

I'm not going to get into a debate about the pros and cons of nuclear weapons.

Neither am I. I didn't mention the benefit or harm of nuclear weapons.

My point was about the hypocrisy (IMHO) of wanting the nuclear weapons off our soil but not having an issue with being protected by nuclear weapons that Germany, Holland, the UK etc are hosting.

We're surely against nuclear weapons or not?

[Hibrandenburg]

Neither am I. I didn't mention the benefit or harm of nuclear weapons.

My point was about the hypocrisy (IMHO) of wanting the nuclear weapons off our soil but not having an issue with being protected by nuclear weapons that Germany, Holland, the UK etc are hosting.

We're surely against nuclear weapons or not?

There's not a lot we can do about other countries decision to host nuclear weapons on their own soil and at the moment we don't really have a choice whether they're based in Scotland or not, that's my point.

Some opinion polls have said that as many as 80% of Scots don't want Trident in Scotland but we have to lump it because the rest of the UK prefer not to have them in their own back yard.

[CropleyWasGod]

I was on the bus into town yesterday, sat behind an annoying bunch of 10-12 year old girls.

They were noisy, and full of the usual stuff that kids that age talk about. Until, that is, one of them mentioned the referendum.

The next 10 minutes was taken up by a discussion about independence. Given their age, there was a lot of naive stuff said, but that is beside my point. When was the last time you ever heard kids that age talk about politics?

This debate has been in full swing for about 18 months now, and as it has proceeded, the level to which people have become engaged with it is quite astonishing. Whether it's because people appreciate the importance of the vote, or because suddenly we are relevant politically, I am not sure. However, the extent of involvement is unprecedented in my lifetime.

The last 10-15 years have seen a marked increase in electoral apathy in the UK, for lots of reasons. That has resulted in us getting the politicians we deserve, rather than the ones we need, IMO. If there was some way of transferring the current enthusiasm into the traditional elections, we might actually see that being reversed.

[over the line]

But that's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. :confused:

My point is that you asked if I lived near the NW, so you could make a point about the people in Scotland making decisions on where (if anywhere) the NW should be based. If we are talking about "being under the shadow" of NW and this being some sort of qualifier for making a decision over the NW, then I assume you think that all people in Scotland live under this shadow?

People who live in Belfast and Carlisle live closer to the NW than people in Aberdeen. I live closer to them than people in Kirkwall. So surely I should have more of a say than them shouldn't I?

I am using this very specific point to make a wider one. I think it highlights the futility in the whole referendum. The Yes campaign want to split the UK along a now pointless border that was defined hundreds of years ago by people who have been dead for centuries, in a time and world that bares no resemblance or relevance to the modern world. I just don't get this whole them and us stuff. I certainly don't get the whole victim mentality that the Yes supporters are portraying. I don't see that the difference between the people of Langholm and the people of Longtown? They are no more different or similar than the people of Dumfries and Thurso for example, or in fact Ellesmere Port and Edinburgh. In fact the people of of Langholm and Longtown probably have a lot more in common, due to their close proximity but just happen to be either side of the border.

For me the referendum is just creating more pointless divisions, not only with rUK but within Scotland itself. I love Scotland and it is a great place but it has become a great place whilst being part of the UK, fact.

Fair do's, bit of a ramble I admit but do you see my point? :)

[Hibrandenburg]

My point is that you asked if I lived near the NW, so you could make a point about the people in Scotland making decisions on where (if anywhere) the NW should be based. If we are talking about "being under the shadow" of NW and this being some sort of qualifier for making a decision over the NW, then I assume you think that all people in Scotland live under this shadow?

People who live in Belfast and Carlisle live closer to the NW than people in Aberdeen. I live closer to them than people in Kirkwall. So surely I should have more of a say than them shouldn't I?

I am using this very specific point to make a wider one. I think it highlights the futility in the whole referendum. The Yes campaign want to split the UK along a now pointless border that was defined hundreds of years ago by people who have been dead for centuries, in a time and world that bares no resemblance or relevance to the modern world. I just don't get this whole them and us stuff. I certainly don't get the whole victim mentality that the Yes supporters are portraying. I don't see that the difference between the people of Langholm and the people of Longtown? They are no more different or similar than the people of Dumfries and Thurso for example, or in fact Ellesmere Port and Edinburgh. In fact the people of of Langholm and Longtown probably have a lot more in common, due to their close proximity but just happen to be either side of the border.

For me the referendum is just creating more pointless divisions, not only with rUK but within Scotland itself. I love Scotland and it is a great place but it has become a great place whilst being part of the UK, fact.

Fair do's, bit of a ramble I admit but do you see my point? :)

Ok I'll make it simpler for you. You live in the smaller half of a semi detached house. Would you like your neighbour to choose your curtains for you or have control of your home security?

[over the line]

Ok I'll make it simpler for you. You live in the smaller half of a semi detached house. Would you like your neighbour to choose your curtains for you or have control of your home security?

I see the point you are trying to make, but sorry still don't get it.

This comparison is suggesting that everyone in Scotland is like one big family, who all want the same metaphorical curtains etc. This is clearly not the case, as the polls suggest that over half the people are happy with the current 'curtain' choosing process. So even if there is an iS, it stands to reason that a lot of the residents of this 'smaller semi', still aren't going to get the 'curtains' they want. So how is that an improvement? The Yes campaign have built this imaginary dividing wall between the neighbours and I think its pointless and needless. For example under the last government Scotland certainly had its fair share (if not more) of the 'curtain' choosing responsibility. (Enough with the curtains!) :rolleyes::)


What I'm saying is, I just don't see the whole 'poor old Scotland' thing that the Yes campaign is portraying. It's not the hard done to, downtrodden little neighbour by any means. The vast majority of people down here look at Scotland very fondly and favourably and see it as an integral and equal part of the UK. And like I said before, its doing very well as part of the UK.

[sauzee_4]

Neither am I. I didn't mention the benefit or harm of nuclear weapons.

My point was about the hypocrisy (IMHO) of wanting the nuclear weapons off our soil but not having an issue with being protected by nuclear weapons that Germany, Holland, the UK etc are hosting.

We're surely against nuclear weapons or not?

Why don't we campaign to leave Nato after a yes? Or vote the greens in who (I think) oppose it?

[Hibrandenburg]

I see the point you are trying to make, but sorry still don't get it.

This comparison is suggesting that everyone in Scotland is like one big family, who all want the same metaphorical curtains etc. This is clearly not the case, as the polls suggest that over half the people are happy with the current 'curtain' choosing process. So even if there is an iS, it stands to reason that a lot of the residents of this 'smaller semi', still aren't going to get the 'curtains' they want. So how is that an improvement? The Yes campaign have built this imaginary dividing wall between the neighbours and I think its pointless and needless. For example under the last government Scotland certainly had its fair share (if not more) of the 'curtain' choosing responsibility. (Enough with the curtains!) :rolleyes::)


What I'm saying is, I just don't see the whole 'poor old Scotland' thing that the Yes campaign is portraying. It's not the hard done to, downtrodden little neighbour by any means. The vast majority of people down here look at Scotland very fondly and favourably and see it as an integral and equal part of the UK. And like I said before, its doing very well as part of the UK.

Suppose it all boils down to self perception. You obviously feel British therefore see little difference between the rest of the UK and Scotland. I feel more Scottish than British and even serving 13 years in a British Army regiment hasn't altered that.

[Moulin Yarns]

Why don't we campaign to leave Nato after a yes? Or vote the greens in who (I think) oppose it?

This is the whole point of the referendum, it is the start of a whole new world. It is not about the SNP. It's a chance to change Scotland for the better. I believe that Ellesmere Port is bidding for the next base for Trident

[over the line]

Suppose it all boils down to self perception. You obviously feel British therefore see little difference between the rest of the UK and Scotland. I feel more Scottish than British and even serving 13 years in a British Army regiment hasn't altered that.

Yes you are right perception comes into it. All of us have only ever known Scotland as part of the UK, so our perceptions are based on that. To separate the two is a concious decision (which you are entitled to do obviously) and I personally don't see the need or point in doing that.

My stance though is based more on practical points than self perception of nationality etc. I'm not totally opposed to an iS in principle, I just don't think it is the best thing for Scotland's future IMHO.

[Stranraer]

Why don't we campaign to leave Nato after a yes? Or vote the greens in who (I think) oppose it?

I'd happily vote for the Greens post-independence, we'd then have no Monarchy either which has to be a bonus for any democracy.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'd happily vote for the Greens post-independence, we'd then have no Monarchy either which has to be a bonus for any democracy.

Why wait until independence? If more people voted Green maybe the SNP wouldn't have a majority at Holyrood.

[Bristolhibby]

Like I mentioned in an earlier post I'm more interested in the question of who decides on nuclear weapons than the pros and cons of them.

I'd rather concentrate on the fact that the Scottish electorate have very little say on a subject that probably concerns them more than the rest of the UK. That was the whole point in the first place that is now being deflected in another direction.

Yip, it's the democratic deficit that is the key issue for me.

Your point could be made on many policy decisions, War in Iraq, Bedroom Tax, Poll Tax, trade deals with Gadaffi, etc.

J

[Stranraer]

Why wait until independence? If more people voted Green maybe the SNP wouldn't have a majority at Holyrood.

They don't stand in my area.

[over the line]

This is the whole point of the referendum, it is the start of a whole new world. It is not about the SNP. It's a chance to change Scotland for the better. I believe that Ellesmere Port is bidding for the next base for Trident

Ha, yes I think that would be good. :)

Seriously though it wouldn't bother me. They will end up somewhere no matter what won't they? If we ever get to a state of conflict where our nuclear weapons are attacked or seriously compromised it won't make much difference where they are in relation to our homes. Like I said before, I am currently closser to them than some parts of Scotland anyway.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ha, yes I think that would be good. :)

Seriously though it wouldn't bother me. They will end up somewhere no matter what won't they? If we ever get to a state of conflict where our nuclear weapons are attacked or seriously compromised it won't make much difference where they are in relation to our homes. Like I said before, I am currently closser to them than some parts of Scotland anyway.

I used to live in Grangemouth, no worries when the bomb went off as the wouldn't know anything about it.

Don't bet on them ending up somewhere else. Do you know of anyone that wants them?

I forgot, they will be imposed on wherever

[Moulin Yarns]

They don't stand in my area.

Nor mine, unfortunately

[Hibrandenburg]

Yip, it's the democratic deficit that is the key issue for me.

Your point could be made on many policy decisions, War in Iraq, Bedroom Tax, Poll Tax, trade deals with Gadaffi, etc.

J

:agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

Yes you are right perception comes into it. All of us have only ever known Scotland as part of the UK, so our perceptions are based on that. To separate the two is a concious decision (which you are entitled to do obviously) and I personally don't see the need or point in doing that.

My stance though is based more on practical points than self perception of nationality etc. I'm not totally opposed to an iS in principle, I just don't think it is the best thing for Scotland's future IMHO.

I said at the beginning of this thread that my opinion is an emotional one. I believe that Scotland has to look out for Scotland because I feel myself as Scottish more than British. All my takes on any argumentation are swayed by that and if your honest then yours too.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yip, it's the democratic deficit that is the key issue for me.

Your point could be made on many policy decisions, War in Iraq, Bedroom Tax, Poll Tax, trade deals with Gadaffi, etc.

J

:agree:

[Stranraer]

Nor mine, unfortunately

The SNP are the only pro-independence party that stand in my constituency so I vote for them.

[over the line]

I used to live in Grangemouth, no worries when the bomb went off as the wouldn't know anything about it.

Don't bet on them ending up somewhere else. Do you know of anyone that wants them?

I forgot, they will be imposed on wherever

I'm not sure if you have ever been to Ellesmere Port? We have a uranium recycling plant, the UK's second largest oil refinery, we have a plant that makes the lead that goes in petrol, plus many more industrial gems to marvel at! Bring on the nuclear weapons I say! People here wouldn't care. I think the headline in the local paper would be, "Great news, as Scotland gifts jobs BOOM to town"! Also I've seen the Faslane facility and its easier on the eye than most of E/Port, so it would be a welcome addition! :D

[over the line]

Yip, it's the democratic deficit that is the key issue for me.

Your point could be made on many policy decisions, War in Iraq, Bedroom Tax, Poll Tax, trade deals with Gadaffi, etc.

J

Fair enough I see the point you are making, but how do we know that if an iS had have been an established entity at the relevant times, it wouldn't have backed the Iraq war, or traded with Gadaffi?

[over the line]

Why don't we campaign to leave Nato after a yes? Or vote the greens in who (I think) oppose it?

Do the Greens come anywhere near being a realistic alternative in Scotland?

Errrrm, going to have to mention it seeing as you brought it up but "after a yes" you say? Think you are being a bit optimistic aren't you? ;):)