Scottish Independence

[over the line]

A couple of years ago, my sister was told by her shop steward that they'd get a Unison member to cover her shift if she went on strike. She gave her days pay to the strike fund instead.

It seems to me the whole concept of collective representation has gone, and as has been said, people see it more as a personal protection scheme.

Other unions providing cover for striking workers, wow things have changed! Your sister would be better off saving her money, if that's the way the unions work at her place.

Don't get me wrong, personal experience has taught me that the unions are (and always have been) slippery but without the realistic prospect of a workforce withdrawing their labour, the unions are a pointless entity. I am certainly no Red Robbo, striking should be a last resort. But if you have reached that last resort and the vote is for a strike.........get out of those gates, simple as that.

[Peevemor]

Because the snp have never been a party with the poor at the forefront of their policy. It's only now coming of the back of a recession they are now being seen by some as a left wing socialist party. Or so it seems to me. But when it comes down to it their sums didn't add up and big cuts were coming and I believe we would have faced a long hard recession. Plus UKIP want freedom from Europe the UK s biggest trading partner just like the snp want independence from our biggest trading partner. Both doesn't make sense but both driven by their nationalists views.

No. The SNP want independence but continued trade with rUK (hence the common currency) together with the EU.

And why exactly would Scotland have faced a long hard recession? Even the better together doom mongers weren't predicting that.

[Rasta_Hibs]

No. The SNP want independence but continued trade with rUK (hence the common currency) together with the EU.

And why exactly would Scotland have faced a long hard recession? Even the better together doom mongers weren't predicting that.

I think the uncertainty would not attract investment in the short term to medium term. Alot of our economy would have been lost and it would take years to build back up if at all. The oil price as you can see is trading well below their prediction. I fail to see how there wouldn't be hardship in the short to medium term.

[Peevemor]

I think the uncertainty would not attract investment in the short term to medium term. Alot of our economy would have been lost and it would take years to build back up if at all. The oil price as you can see is trading well below their prediction. I fail to see how there wouldn't be hardship in the short to medium term.

The Bank of England has confirmed that contingency plans were in place to support the pound in both iScotland and rUK in the event of a Yes vote.

You seem to think that an iScotland would automatically be worse off than it is in the current setup. Even with the fluctuations in oil revenue can you explain why this would be the case?

[allmodcons]

Sorry bud but you are already behind the game. The Scottish Left Project launched today. 14 different groups have signed up and talks have begun with the Scottish Trade Unions.

Labour and the Nats are already running scared at the thought of a pro independence alternative to socialist labour. Far from targeting the far left it seeks to replace labour as the radical voice in Scottish politics.

I don't think I am 'behind the game'.

I know that this 'project' is already happening, I just don't think it has any chance of achieving the goals outlined in your previous post.

The Scottish left are notorious for infighting and IMO there are too many egos in this very broad church for the project to be a success. Check out the combined vote share the far left achieved at the last Scottish Election and the General Election the year previous, it doesn't make for good reading.

The wider electorate does not want a Socialist Government. The 'middle ground' is where the votes are to be won. I sincerely hope we get a left of centre socially democratic Scottish Government in 2016 but, not for a minute, do I think there is any appetite for some kind of Socialist Republic.

[Rasta_Hibs]

The Bank of England has confirmed that contingency plans were in place to support the pound in both iScotland and rUK in the event of a Yes vote.

You seem to think that an iScotland would automatically be worse off than it is in the current setup. Even with the fluctuations in oil revenue can you explain why this would be the case?

the amount of capital that would leave the country surely means that Scotland would be worse off?

[allmodcons]

The nationalists would tear this country apart just for their own selfish nationalist ideology. They will take it so far before the real Scots and the majority put them in their place once again!


SNP and UKIP I put in the same bracket.

Your posts get more embarrassing by the day.
When are you going to grasp the concept that sometimes it's better to say nothing than anything at all.

[marinello59]

oh ? a freeze on that damn community charge and free prescriptions, now, considering the facts(or so i read) that the 'poorer' in society are more prone to illness and struggle to make ends meet i think that's at least two most welcome policy's :agree: god help the poorest in society if the Labour party ever get full control of Holyrood, no thanks

The poorer in society always did get free prescriptions. Now millionaires do as well. Imagine if instead of benefitting the well off with free medicine we targeted that money to areas like Shettleston where male life expectancy after years of devolved health provision is scandously low.

[Peevemor]

the amount of capital that would leave the country surely means that Scotland would be worse off?

What capital?

And what about the capital that would stay in the country instead of being nabbed by London?

[Rasta_Hibs]

Your posts get more embarrassing by the day.
When are you going to grasp the concept that sometimes it's better to say nothing than anything at all.

Only once the rebellion has been squashed shall I be silent! Lol

[Swedish hibee]

SNP and UKIP I put in the same bracket.

Your quote is almost as funny as the Tories quoting Trainspotting :faf:

[Northernhibee]

SNP and UKIP I put in the same bracket.

Quite correct - one policy parties whose followers are mostly such because of xenophobia/anglophobia.

[Peevemor]

Quite correct - one policy parties whose followers are mostly such because of xenophobia/anglophobia.

Nonsense! Wanting the best for Scotland doesn't make you an anglophobe.

[Just Alf]

Nonsense! Wanting the best for Scotland doesn't make you an anglophobe.

:agree: still can't believe people actually think that despite the wall to wall coverage over the past two years....... Oh well........

[Just Alf]

13634

[NAE NOOKIE]

Quite correct - one policy parties whose followers are mostly such because of xenophobia/anglophobia.

That is a tag which could be aimed at UKIP who do seem to attract folk with anti immigration and in some cases anti Muslim views, and I dare say a few who are in the 'Scots are scroungers' camp. But to aim this scattergun comment at Scottish nationalists as a whole is patent nonsense.

I have no doubt there are xenophobes and Anglophobes in the Scottish nationalist movement, but there is no evidence to show that they are anything other than a tiny minority and certainly not what drives the movement as a whole ... to say "whose followers are mostly such" is an unjustified slur.

I never get this one policy party stuff either ... If you mean the party exists to work for an independent Scotland then of course it does, that's its reason for being. If I thought for 10 seconds that the SNP was driven by xenophobia or Anglophobia I would not be a member of it, I see no evidence of that.

[NAE NOOKIE]

:agree: still can't believe people actually think that despite the wall to wall coverage over the past two years....... Oh well........

Wall to wall coverage of what exactly? Oh and posting stupid wee pictures doesn't constitute an argument by the way.

[Just Alf]

Wall to wall coverage of what exactly? Oh and posting stupid wee pictures doesn't constitute an argument by the way.

Coverage of the actual arguments/discussions..... It's really clear from all that (to me at least) that the independence aspiration is absolutely nothing to do with Anti-Englishness, it's all about why it would be better for Scotland (and her people, of what ever "nationality").

And maybe fair point re the pic, I'm just getting a bit exasperated that what's been a fairly good thread for a long time seems to be taking a turn for the worse since the vote.

[allmodcons]

Only once the rebellion has been squashed shall I be silent! Lol

Presumably you meant quashed or are you going to sit on it?


Quite correct - one policy parties whose followers are mostly such because of xenophobia/anglophobia.

Quality. Why bother posting if your only reason for doing so is to antagonise.

[lord bunberry]

Has anyone ever been to a branch meeting for the SNP? I'm going to my first one next Monday and I've no idea what to expect.

[Peevemor]

Has anyone ever been to a branch meeting for the SNP? I'm going to my first one next Monday and I've no idea what to expect.

I hope you've got your kilt and your Jimmy hat. :greengrin

[allmodcons]

The poorer in society always did get free prescriptions. Now millionaires do as well. Imagine if instead of benefitting the well off with free medicine we targeted that money to areas like Shettleston where male life expectancy after years of devolved health provision is scandously low.

Not sure I agree with this M59.

IMO there is only marginal cost difference between providing free prescriptions and administering them via a system of means testing.

Universal benefits (some not all) are clear, easy to understand, cost little to administer and, importantly, with things like free school meals, are devoid of stigma.

The simplest solution to the issue you raise with regard to millionaires benefiting from universal benefits is to ensure that they are taxed accordingly on their earinings.

That is why, in order to make a real difference, the Scottish Government (of any political make up) needs full control over taxation and spending.

[allmodcons]

Has anyone ever been to a branch meeting for the SNP? I'm going to my first one next Monday and I've no idea what to expect.

Just watch out for the Nazis, Xenophobes and Junkies :greengrin

[Just Alf]

Just watch out for the Nazis, Xenophobes and Junkies :greengrin

:greengrin

on a separate note, I see the main parties are all formally putting forward their Devolution/More Powers proposals.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29592742

I notice the SNP have included Broadcasting..... I wonder if that's them starting to prepare for a future indy vote in the years ahead... no more (perceived) BBC bias?! :cb

[Beefster]

Has anyone ever been to a branch meeting for the SNP? I'm going to my first one next Monday and I've no idea what to expect.

I used to be a member of the Newtongrange branch in my younger days (until the branch was suspended at one point). It was all committees, minutes, points of order etc IIRC.


IMO there is only marginal cost difference between providing free prescriptions and administering them via a system of means testing.

Most folk eligible for free prescriptions were held in a database. Checking eligibility added practically nothing to the cost of manually processing the prescription slips AFAIK.

[marinello59]

Not sure I agree with this M59.

IMO there is only marginal cost difference between providing free prescriptions and administering them via a system of means testing.

Universal benefits (some not all) are clear, easy to understand, cost little to administer and, importantly, with things like free school meals, are devoid of stigma.

The simplest solution to the issue you raise with regard to millionaires benefiting from universal benefits is to ensure that they are taxed accordingly on their earinings.

That is why, in order to make a real difference, the Scottish Government (of any political make up) needs full control over taxation and spending.

That's an argument that is being made now but I am not so sure it's valid. If you were claiming benefits or part of a specific group you simply ticked a box. No great cost involved there surely? At the time that the policy was introduced the Scottish Government were happy to portray it as a substantial cost so they can't really have it both ways. The Holyrood Governments we have had so far could all have done more to help the poorer in society with the tools they already have but they chose not to. Hypocrites, the lot of them.

[allmodcons]

Most folk eligible for free prescriptions were held in a database. Checking eligibility added practically nothing to the cost of manually processing the prescription slips AFAIK.

This from the BMA who want prescription charges abolished in England:-

“The principle of charging for prescriptions runs counter to the founding principle of an NHS that is free at the point of use. The cost of administering prescription charges is so high that the NHS would be better off abolishing them, as current exemption rules can be confusing and unfair".

[allmodcons]

That's an argument that is being made now but I am not so sure it's valid. If you were claiming benefits or part of a specific group you simply ticked a box. No great cost involved there surely? At the time that the policy was introduced the Scottish Government were happy to portray it as a substantial cost so they can't really have it both ways. The Holyrood Governments we have had so far could all have done more to help the poorer in society with the tools they already have but they chose not to. Hypocrites, the lot of them.

As per my reply to Beefster. This from the BMA:-

“The principle of charging for prescriptions runs counter to the founding principle of an NHS that is free at the point of use. The cost of administering prescription charges is so high that the NHS would be better off abolishing them, as current exemption rules can be confusing and unfair".

I would be genuinely interested to hear from you as how the Scottish Government could enact real change with the powers they currently have at their disposal?

Putting the Council Tax to one side, simply because I too don't agree with the freeze policy, can you provide any examples where a different approach by the Scottish Government would seriously help to redistribute wealth.

I think policies like the smoking ban in public places, free prescriptions, free school meals in primary schools and mitigating the cost of the bedroom tax are, generally speaking, good for the less well off in our society.

Other policies like free personal care for the elderly and education based on the ability to learn rather than the ability to pay make a real difference. For example, free personal care has an opportunity cost in direct NHS spend and free tuition fees provides a window of opportunity for many kids from poorer backgrounds.

Ultimately, everybody pays for universal benefits in the form of taxes and those making the most should pay a larger share than low wage earners.
IMO that consecutive Westminster Governments haven't gone far enough in this regard and indeed, right now, we have the shameful scenario in times of austerity where Cameron is promising tax cuts for middle earners that won't make an iota of difference to the living standards of those he is trying to woo.

[Moulin Yarns]

Has anyone ever been to a branch meeting for the SNP? I'm going to my first one next Monday and I've no idea what to expect.

Not sure about the SNP ones, but here's a wee taster for my first Scottish Green branch meeting on Wednesday.


There is a lot to discuss as a branch and I do not think we will get through it all that evening but here are a few things to think about :

There are then 6 points which are really just ideas for discussion, then the email signs off with



This is your branch and your input is welcomed and appreciated.


The Greens are good at involving the members.

[RyeSloan]

As per my reply to Beefster. This from the BMA:- “The principle of charging for prescriptions runs counter to the founding principle of an NHS that is free at the point of use. The cost of administering prescription charges is so high that the NHS would be better off abolishing them, as current exemption rules can be confusing and unfair". I would be genuinely interested to hear from you as how the Scottish Government could enact real change with the powers they currently have at their disposal? Putting the Council Tax to one side, simply because I too don't agree with the freeze policy, can you provide any examples where a different approach by the Scottish Government would seriously help to redistribute wealth. I think policies like the smoking ban in public places, free prescriptions, free school meals in primary schools and mitigating the cost of the bedroom tax are, generally speaking, good for the less well off in our society. Other policies like free personal care for the elderly and education based on the ability to learn rather than the ability to pay make a real difference. For example, free personal care has an opportunity cost in direct NHS spend and free tuition fees provides a window of opportunity for many kids from poorer backgrounds. Ultimately, everybody pays for universal benefits in the form of taxes and those making the most should pay a larger share than low wage earners. IMO that consecutive Westminster Governments haven't gone far enough in this regard and indeed, right now, we have the shameful scenario in times of austerity where Cameron is promising tax cuts for middle earners that won't make an iota of difference to the living standards of those he is trying to woo.

Yet we read of a further shortfall in income tax...largely down to the increase in the zero band and self employment that tilts the dependence in top earners even further.

It would appear that there is a common desire for those with more to pay more yet surely there is a point where the 'rich' are too few to provide for the too many.

I read yesterday Sweden has it's basic rate income tax band starting a £1,600 which is designed to ensure everyone pays something and most feel they have a stake in the system. I can imagine the uproar if we tried that in the UK but it was an interesting insight none the less.

[lord bunberry]

I hope you've got your kilt and your Jimmy hat. :greengrin

I'm going as Sean Connery

[lord bunberry]

Just watch out for the Nazis, Xenophobes and Junkies :greengrin

It's in the Jewel Miners Club so we'll blend in a treat :greengrin

[Just Alf]

Yet we read of a further shortfall in income tax...largely down to the increase in the zero band and self employment that tilts the dependence in top earners even further.

It would appear that there is a common desire for those with more to pay more yet surely there is a point where the 'rich' are too few to provide for the too many.

I read yesterday Sweden has it's basic rate income tax band starting a £1,600 which is designed to ensure everyone pays something and most feel they have a stake in the system. I can imagine the uproar if we tried that in the UK but it was an interesting insight none the less.

intially read that last bit in horror (Thinking about my better half) but on reflection I can see where they are coming from.... I'm guessing the lowest end would be a nominal % contribution? must make it a bit more onerous to adminster though if theres a few "tax bands"

[lord bunberry]

Not sure about the SNP ones, but here's a wee taster for my first Scottish Green branch meeting on Wednesday.



There are then 6 points which are really just ideas for discussion, then the email signs off with




The Greens are good at involving the members.

Ours is beginning with apologies and ending with fracking, I'm not sure which I'm looking forward to more. I'm guessing apologies isn't what I'm thinking it is :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

I used to be a member of the Newtongrange branch in my younger days (until the branch was suspended at one point). It was all committees, minutes, points of order etc IIRC.



Most folk eligible for free prescriptions were held in a database. Checking eligibility added practically nothing to the cost of manually processing the prescription slips AFAIK.

Thanks, I was thinking it might be a little dry.

[Just Alf]

It's in the Jewel Miners Club so we'll blend in a treat :greengrin

Hmmm... not sure if a "Lord" would fit in there..... but hey ho!

:wink:

[allmodcons]

Yet we read of a further shortfall in income tax...largely down to the increase in the zero band and self employment that tilts the dependence in top earners even further.

It would appear that there is a common desire for those with more to pay more yet surely there is a point where the 'rich' are too few to provide for the too many.

I read yesterday Sweden has it's basic rate income tax band starting a £1,600 which is designed to ensure everyone pays something and most feel they have a stake in the system. I can imagine the uproar if we tried that in the UK but it was an interesting insight none the less.

There is no doubt the tax system in the UK needs to be simplified, if only to prevent 'good' Accountants from taking the piss.

I can see why you've highlighted the term rich, for me, middle earners (circa £50000+) right up to the super rich do not need tax breaks right now. As I've said before, for many in that bracket a minor tax increase would simply mean having one less gadget in their Household! I obviously can't speak for everybody, but if 'collecting' gadgets is more important to people than living in a fairer more just society, I think we are f****d.

My understanding is that the Swedish system makes for a more inclusive society where there isn't such a divide between those at the bottom end and the top end, though I'd have to qualify this by saying that I don't know that much about Sweden as a country. It would be madness to make such a transformational leap in a 'oner' but, over time, might be something a UK Government could aspire to.

[RyeSloan]

There is no doubt the tax system in the UK needs to be simplified, if only to prevent 'good' Accountants from taking the piss. I can see why you've highlighted the term rich, for me, middle earners (circa £50000+) right up to the super rich do not need tax breaks right now. As I've said before, for many in that bracket a minor tax increase would simply mean having one less gadget in their Household! I obviously can't speak for everybody, but if 'collecting' gadgets is more important to people than living in a fairer more just society, I think we are f****d. My understanding is that the Swedish system makes for a more inclusive society where there isn't such a divide between those at the bottom end and the top end, though I'd have to qualify this by saying that I don't know that much about Sweden as a country. It would be madness to make such a transformational leap in a 'oner' but, over time, might be something a UK Government could aspire to.

Ach I'm no expert in any tax regime that's for sure but how many minor tax increases can be applied? There comes a point where fair and just needs to be applied to those earning the income as well...you can't just go on squeezing and squeezing. Already more people than ever are captured by the 40% bracket...the fiscal drag on that has been huge, add in NI contribs then 20% VAT on subsequent spending of taxed income and you are starting to get some serious taxation levels there.

Firing some numbers into an income calculator is interesting..30k pa give about 2k a month take home. 50k pa gives about 3k so out of the extra 20k that person has earned 8k of that goes straight to the treasury, a total of almost 14k more than twice what the person on 30k is paying for well under twice the salary.

A really good example is someone earning 65k. They pay 20k of that in tax and NI alone..assuming the majority of their remainder is spent on VATable gadgets you can add on another 9k so if you are fortunate to earn 65k you will be contributing the best part of 30k per year in taxation. Those are huge numbers and I accept a lot of people will never earn that and a lot will say that well they have plenty left but with an effective tax rate of getting onto 50% I'm not so sure you can argue further increases to that would be fair or just.

To me we seem to be in a mindset of insisting the few continue to pay more and more while forgetting the fact that it might not be possible to make those sums work.

It's also no surprise to me the huge increase in self employment....a lot of that income tax is lost forever into the black economy and ignoring that fact and continuing to increase income tax by not raising the higher bands is really a false economy.

Not saying I have any concrete solutions but certainty from what I can see neither do any of the political parties. If we want a fairer society we need to find a sensible and fair way to do it.

[Beefster]

This from the BMA who want prescription charges abolished in England:-

“The principle of charging for prescriptions runs counter to the founding principle of an NHS that is free at the point of use. The cost of administering prescription charges is so high that the NHS would be better off abolishing them, as current exemption rules can be confusing and unfair".


Administering the entire prescription system in England costs around £10million pa.

The NHS in England takes in around £500million pa in prescription charges.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Coverage of the actual arguments/discussions..... It's really clear from all that (to me at least) that the independence aspiration is absolutely nothing to do with Anti-Englishness, it's all about why it would be better for Scotland (and her people, of what ever "nationality").

And maybe fair point re the pic, I'm just getting a bit exasperated that what's been a fairly good thread for a long time seems to be taking a turn for the worse since the vote.

After reading what you said in reply to me I re read your post. Sorry mate I totally misread what you had said .... my apologies.

[Just Alf]

After reading what you said in reply to me I re read your post. Sorry mate I totally misread what you had said .... my apologies.

no worries... im a nighmare at getting stuff across the right way a lot of the time :thumbsup:

(especially with the wife... NOT that I'm saying you're like her i hasten to add!!!! :wink: )

[Betty Boop]

Sorry, now on my phone, but look at unison website


Strike definitely on 21st October.

[Swedish hibee]

My understanding is that the Swedish system makes for a more inclusive society where there isn't such a divide between those at the bottom end and the top end, though I'd have to qualify this by saying that I don't know that much about Sweden as a country. It would be madness to make such a transformational leap in a 'oner' but, over time, might be something a UK Government could aspire to.

This is totally true- everyone is born equal in Sweden, there is no class system like the UK.
But yes, how much you pay in taxes is dependent on how much you earn but there is a minimum set amount for everyone. The 'well off' here do have the mentality to want to help the poor as these children of 'poor' parents are Sweden's future.

[Moulin Yarns]

Strike definitely on 21st October.

apologies, it turns out what I read is in England and Wales.

[over the line]

Strike definitely on 21st October.

Will you be striking BB?

[over the line]

apologies, it turns out what I read is in England and Wales.

Will you be striking now GF?

[Moulin Yarns]

Will you be striking now GF?

As it turns out, I'm on holiday then. I would have been torn as I'm up to my eyes in work at the moment, report deadlines to meet and a fair number of renewable schemes to comment on. My deadlines are the Friday before.

[One Day Soon]

As it turns out, I'm on holiday then. I would have been torn as I'm up to my eyes in work at the moment, report deadlines to meet and a fair number of renewable schemes to comment on. My deadlines are the Friday before.

What strike is this and what is it over?

[NAE NOOKIE]

What strike is this and what is it over?

Dinnae tell him .... :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Dinnae tell him .... :greengrin


Too late.

It doesn't seem clear whether the call to strike is over the level of pay award imposed or the fact that it was imposed rather than negotiated - or both.

[JimBHibees]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-question-ruth-davidson-over-postal-votes-1-3568873

What a truly joyful picture that is.

[Peevemor]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-question-ruth-davidson-over-postal-votes-1-3568873

What a truly joyful picture that is.

Another one for the dartboard! :greengrin

[over the line]

As it turns out, I'm on holiday then. I would have been torn as I'm up to my eyes in work at the moment, report deadlines to meet and a fair number of renewable schemes to comment on. My deadlines are the Friday before.

Personally I would strike, no matter what my workload etc. We don't get many opportunities to stand up and be counted do we and I feel it is very important to show unity in these situations. I accept it probably won't get people a bigger pay rise etc, but it sends an important message to the powers that be that there is a limit to what people will take and that those people will stand up for themselves.

It's obviously none of my business and its certainly not my place to tell anyone what to do, but I would always encourage people to make that stand and be counted. I admire and understand your commitment to your work but I would personally find a way to do the work around the strike days and show my solidarity.

But you are on your hols anyway, so no matter. Are you going anywhere nice?

[RyeSloan]

Too late. It doesn't seem clear whether the call to strike is over the level of pay award imposed or the fact that it was imposed rather than negotiated - or both.

I watched the NHS strike coverage last night and was further confused.

It seemed to suggest that all staff had received a wage rise (what used to be called a cost of living rise) and the argument was over a 1% rise above and beyond that...is that correct? And if so what was the cost of living rise?

To be honest I thought these cost of living rises went out the window decades ago...was amazed to see they still exist.

[degenerated]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-question-ruth-davidson-over-postal-votes-1-3568873

What a truly joyful picture that is.

the particularly odious John McTernan was also on TV days before the referendum saying exactly the same thing. One hopes that this cretin doesn't manage to evade the long arm of the law.

[Moulin Yarns]

Personally I would strike, no matter what my workload etc. We don't get many opportunities to stand up and be counted do we and I feel it is very important to show unity in these situations. I accept it probably won't get people a bigger pay rise etc, but it sends an important message to the powers that be that there is a limit to what people will take and that those people will stand up for themselves.

It's obviously none of my business and its certainly not my place to tell anyone what to do, but I would always encourage people to make that stand and be counted. I admire and understand your commitment to your work but I would personally find a way to do the work around the strike days and show my solidarity.

But you are on your hols anyway, so no matter. Are you going anywhere nice?

I was thinking of Runcorn, but theres a lot of gardening needing done. (only joking about Runcorn by the way :wink: )

[Moulin Yarns]

I watched the NHS strike coverage last night and was further confused.

It seemed to suggest that all staff had received a wage rise (what used to be called a cost of living rise) and the argument was over a 1% rise above and beyond that...is that correct? And if so what was the cost of living rise?

To be honest I thought these cost of living rises went out the window decades ago...was amazed to see they still exist.

Not 100% sure, but was it not the grade increment + 1% but those at the top of their grade don't get anymore increments. I know my sister in law was on strike and she is at the top of her grade. (earning the same as me and mrs Fleece together!!)

[bawheid]

I see that further devolution (or home rule as it was being called just prior to the referendum) is being debated at Weatminster just now.

Have Cameron, Miliband and Clegg bothered to show? Nah... the jobs been done.

[Moulin Yarns]

I see that further devolution (or home rule as it was being called just prior to the referendum) is being debated at Weatminster just now.

Have Cameron, Miliband and Clegg bothered to show? Nah... the jobs been done.

Willie Hague on just now, but of course all it is they are talking about is "English votes for English laws"

Is it too much for all of the Westminster politicians, and no voters in the referendum, to understand the the solution to the West Lothian Question was there for all on September 18th. A Yes vote was the only answer to the West Lothian Question that would not have required further debate.

[over the line]

I was thinking of Runcorn, but theres a lot of gardening needing done. (only joking about Runcorn by the way :wink: )

Runcorn is lovely at this time of year, the smog hangs nicely in the damp autumn air. Not a patch on Ellesmere Port though, we have got Europes biggest halloween pumpkin! You won't find that in yer back garden. :)

[Moulin Yarns]

Runcorn is lovely at this time of year, the smog hangs nicely in the damp autumn air. Not a patch on Ellesmere Port though, we have got Europes biggest halloween pumpkin! You won't find that in yer back garden. :)

Amazing the effect that pollution can have on your fruit and veg :wink:

[over the line]

Amazing the effect that pollution can have on your fruit and veg :wink:

I was going to say 'yes, you should see the size of my plums', but that would be straying into a whole different genre of forum!!! ;):)

[RyeSloan]

Not 100% sure, but was it not the grade increment + 1% but those at the top of their grade don't get anymore increments. I know my sister in law was on strike and she is at the top of her grade. (earning the same as me and mrs Fleece together!!)

Ahh OK...I've got it (I think)...thing is then that this is not about a 1% rise but a 1% rise for those not already getting their grade increment (some seem to have had a grade increment and 1%). Do you know what the grade increment was?

All seems a bit smoke and mirrors to me...I would love a standard increase every year no matter my performance or the performance of my company.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ahh OK...I've got it (I think)...thing is then that this is not about a 1% rise but a 1% rise for those not already getting their grade increment (some seem to have had a grade increment and 1%). Do you know what the grade increment was?

All seems a bit smoke and mirrors to me...I would love a standard increase every year no matter my performance or the performance of my company.

I'm not sure about the NHS, but in Local Government the various grades have around 10 increments. In my own case there is a difference in hourly rate from bottom of my grade to top of £1.93. that's over 10 years, so my last increment was 25p an hour + 1% of the annual salary. Once at the top, there is no annual increment, and I would have to rely on the percentage pay rise offered, or negotiated.

In the private sector there may be a performance related increase, or annual bonus.

[The_Exile]

So a 6 hour debate on further devolution today and only one non-unionist MP gets the opportunity to contribute to the debate......for 6 minutes. Farce.

[degenerated]

Not one of the three stooges bothered their @rse to be there, no sign of Alistair darling either.
Did Murphy or Alexander deign it worthy of their attendance either?

[The_Exile]

Doubt it, the pictures on the news showed the house to be at least 60-70% empty.

[degenerated]

Doubt it, the pictures on the news showed the house to be at least 60-70% empty.
I'm surprised they called it a debate about Scotland and devolution, it seemed to be about English votes for English laws more than anything else.

[The_Exile]

I'm surprised they called it a debate about Scotland and devolution, it seemed to be about English votes for English laws more than anything else.

That very point was raised by Pete Wishart I think, the speaker just said that this was a "general debate" about Scottish devolution, whatever that means??!!

[Mibbes Aye]

So a 6 hour debate on further devolution today and only one non-unionist MP gets the opportunity to contribute to the debate......for 6 minutes. Farce.

I'm maybe reading you wrong but when I watched the TV news they showed both Angus Robertson and Pete Wishart speaking, in what was a two-minute slot on the main show. That's decent representation on mainstream news IMO and I find it hard to believe that it was the only nationalist contribution to the debate.

EDIT - in fact I checked. Mike Weir and Stewart Hosie also spoke during the debate. I count four, you count one. Am I wrong? How did you miss them? :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

So a 6 hour debate on further devolution today and only one non-unionist MP gets the opportunity to contribute to the debate......for 6 minutes. Farce.


I'm maybe reading you wrong but when I watched the TV news they showed both Angus Robertson and Pete Wishart speaking, in what was a two-minute slot on the main show. That's decent representation on mainstream news IMO and I find it hard to believe that it was the only nationalist contribution to the debate.

EDIT - in fact I checked. Mike Weir and Stewart Hosie also spoke during the debate. I count four, you count one. Am I wrong? How did you miss them? :greengrin

Just clocked Angus MacNeil contributed as well. That will be five SNP MPs. You said only one :confused:

[over the line]

Just clocked Angus MacNeil contributed as well. That will be five SNP MPs. You said only one :confused:

I think the Yes white paper and economic 'plan', showed that maybe maths wasn't their strong point! ;):)

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm maybe reading you wrong but when I watched the TV news they showed both Angus Robertson and Pete Wishart speaking, in what was a two-minute slot on the main show. That's decent representation on mainstream news IMO and I find it hard to believe that it was the only nationalist contribution to the debate.

EDIT - in fact I checked. Mike Weir and Stewart Hosie also spoke during the debate. I count four, you count one. Am I wrong? How did you miss them? :greengrin

I listened to the debate at work yesterday afternoon, and the debate was hijacked by EVEL debate. When Pete Wishart brought this to the attention of the House the Speaker said it was a general debate on Devolution in the UK following the Scottish Referendum. So the Scottish Debate is being used to provide more powers to the regions of the UK, a positive thing IMHO, but the debate was published in the Westminster orders as a debate on Devolution in Scotland following the referendum.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I listened to the debate at work yesterday afternoon, and the debate was hijacked by EVEL debate. When Pete Wishart brought this to the attention of the House the Speaker said it was a general debate on Devolution in the UK following the Scottish Referendum. So the Scottish Debate is being used to provide more powers to the regions of the UK, a positive thing IMHO, but the debate was published in the Westminster orders as a debate on Devolution in Scotland following the referendum.

They seem to have made a fool of Broon as well. His big gig gets hijacked - think hell be spending more time with his family soon.

[#FromTheCapital]

Just clocked Angus MacNeil contributed as well. That will be five SNP MPs. You said only one :confused:

:tee hee:

[Beefster]

Just clocked Angus MacNeil contributed as well. That will be five SNP MPs. You said only one :confused:

This must be the thread with the biggest amount of inaccuracies posted in hibs.net history (including some of my posts). Good to see nothing has changed post-result.

[marinello59]

This must be the thread with the biggest amount of inaccuracies posted in hibs.net history (including some of my posts). Good to see nothing has changed post-result.

We live in a country where 45% are 100% more right than 55% apparently. :greengrin
I criticised the Yes campaign frequently for spending more time talking to itself than trying to win No voters over. This whole 45 thing is falling in to exactly the same trap. It's totally divisive.
I do have faith in Nicola Sturgeon to put that right though. She showed late in the campaign that actively reaching out to Labour voters would bear fruit. If only she had replaced Salmond last year.

[Beefster]

We live in a country where 45% are 100% more right than 55% apparently. :greengrin
I criticised the Yes campaign frequently for spending more time talking to itself than trying to win No voters over. This whole 45 thing is falling in to exactly the same trap. It's totally divisive.
I do have faith in Nicola Sturgeon to put that right though. She showed late in the campaign that actively reaching out to Labour voters would bear fruit. If only she had replaced Salmond last year.

I agree entirely. I stated this before but it was sort of dismissed as a No supporter just lying to make a point but I was totally open to being convinced to vote yes (up to a certain point). Anecdotally, I think a fair percentage of No voters have no ideological objection to independence (I didn't). IMHO Salmond blew it bigtime.

[JeMeSouviens]

We live in a country where 45% are 100% more right than 55% apparently. :greengrin
I criticised the Yes campaign frequently for spending more time talking to itself than trying to win No voters over. This whole 45 thing is falling in to exactly the same trap. It's totally divisive.
I do have faith in Nicola Sturgeon to put that right though. She showed late in the campaign that actively reaching out to Labour voters would bear fruit. If only she had replaced Salmond last year.

I agree, but nobody in the Greens or the SNP is talking in terms of the "45". I think they're quite wisely allowing the activist base to have a grumble while focusing all public pronouncement on the Smith commission and the positive aim for Devo-as-much-as-possible.

I'm not sure about the reaching out to Labour voters. Sturgeon undoubtedly proved effective at doing this but I tend to think playing up the left-leaning rhetoric probably pushed a few more of the "I'm all right Jack" No voters to get out and vote. Playing up the prospect for radical change for the disenchanted while at the same time de-risking that change for the comfortable is a difficult circle to square. While I'd have loved to win the referendum, maybe getting there gradually through increasing devo steps is a better way?

[JeMeSouviens]

I agree entirely. I stated this before but it was sort of dismissed as a No supporter just lying to make a point but I was totally open to being convinced to vote yes (up to a certain point). Anecdotally, I think a fair percentage of No voters have no ideological objection to independence (I didn't). IMHO Salmond blew it bigtime.

Yes, Salmond made some mistakes but "Blew it bigtime" is ridiculous hyperbole for the leader of a campaign that got from ~30% to ~45%. (And "totally open" hardly sits well with "up to a certain point".)

[allmodcons]

We live in a country where 45% are 100% more right than 55% apparently. :greengrin
I criticised the Yes campaign frequently for spending more time talking to itself than trying to win No voters over. This whole 45 thing is falling in to exactly the same trap. It's totally divisive.
I do have faith in Nicola Sturgeon to put that right though. She showed late in the campaign that actively reaching out to Labour voters would bear fruit. If only she had replaced Salmond last year.


I agree entirely. I stated this before but it was sort of dismissed as a No supporter just lying to make a point but I was totally open to being convinced to vote yes (up to a certain point). Anecdotally, I think a fair percentage of No voters have no ideological objection to independence (I didn't). IMHO Salmond blew it bigtime.

I'm loving all this if only Salmond hadn't been the man, Salmond blew it big time blame game!

Absolute nonsense, anybody who knows anything about the Nationalist Movement in Scotland, knows full well that getting 45% of the electorate to vote for Independence was some achievement.

If you'd told anybody that we'd get a referendum on the Independence issue when Salmond took charge of the SNP for a second term in 2004 you'd have been roundly ridiculed.

Look at the record, a minority Scottish Government in 2007 followed by a majority Government in 2011, that in system designed to prevent the formation of a majority Government, culminating in the referendum vote last month. If you think that's failure then, frankly, you've lost the plot.

With regard to committed 'No' voters now seemingly telling us they have no problem with the concept of Independence, please be assured there is/was no shame in voting 'No'.

Whilst you may not have agreed with the content of the White Paper or the SNP vision of Independence, you have to accept that you had sovereignty in your hands for a single day and voted to hand it back to Westminster, thereby, saying goodbye to any 'concept' of Independence for a generation.

Clearly what we have here is your disdain for the man, getting in the way of the facts.

[Beefster]

Yes, Salmond made some mistakes but "Blew it bigtime" is ridiculous hyperbole for the leader of a campaign that got from ~30% to ~45%. (And "totally open" hardly sits well with "up to a certain point".)

The referendum was there to be won. He didn't. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I think "blew it bigtime" is fairly accurate.

I know you are one of the ones who don't believe me. In any event, I meant up to a certain point in time so it's completely compatible with "totally open".

[Hibrandenburg]

The referendum was there to be won. He didn't. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I think "blew it bigtime" is fairly accurate.

I know you are one of the ones who don't believe me. In any event, I meant up to a certain point in time so it's completely compatible with "totally open".

Salmond started as the complete underdog, the fact he took it in the last weeks down to the wire was an absolute sensation. The fact it took a dodgy penalty in injury time to decide the match will ensure the history books look favourably on his legacy. This ain't over.

[Beefster]

I'm loving all this if only Salmond hadn't been the man, Salmond blew it big time blame game!

Absolute nonsense, anybody who knows anything about the Nationalist Movement in Scotland, knows full well that getting 45% of the electorate to vote for Independence was some achievement.

If you'd told anybody that we'd get a referendum on the Independence issue when Salmond took charge of the SNP for a second term in 2004 you'd have been roundly ridiculed.

Look at the record, a minority Scottish Government in 2007 followed by a majority Government in 2011, that in system designed to prevent the formation of a majority Government, culminating in the referendum vote last month. If you think that's failure then, frankly, you've lost the plot.

With regard to committed 'No' voters now seemingly telling us they have no problem with the concept of Independence, please be assured there is/was no shame in voting 'No'.

Whilst you may not have agreed with the content of the White Paper or the SNP vision of Independence, you have to accept that you had sovereignty in your hands for a single day and voted to hand it back to Westminster, thereby, saying goodbye to any 'concept' of Independence for a generation.

Clearly what we have here is your disdain for the man, getting in the way of the facts.

Just to be clear, the referendum is done and dusted. It's over. There is really no need to keep fighting as if it's up for grabs.

In any event, here is where I remove myself (again). When folk accuse me of lying for hee-haw reason and without justification, it's time for me to step out, safe in the knowledge that any argument won't make the slightest bit of difference now (if they ever did). Unfortunately, you're not even the first this morning to imply I'm a liar.

It's good to hear that I shouldn't be ashamed of voting no though. That'll be a relief to 55% of us.


Salmond started as the complete underdog, the fact he took it in the last weeks down to the wire was an absolute sensation. The fact it took a dodgy penalty in injury time to decide the match will ensure the history books look favourably on his legacy. This ain't over.

It seems I'm not the only one re-writing history. Far from folk claiming getting pumped by 10% was going to be a great achievement, before the referendum, some were claiming that yes was going to win convincingly. I seem to recall claims of 60-70% in favour of yes.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I watched the devolution debate for hours. Scotland barely got a mention and when an SNP member tried to point that out he was slapped down with undisguised glee by the speaker. The utter belittling disrespect that MP was shown shocked and angered me I have to say.

A number of contributors grabbed the chance to put the boot in to the SNP / Yes campaign .... this apparently was because many of them make no secret of the fact that they would still like to see an independent Scotland and in the eyes of the unionists that means they have refused to accept the result of the referendum. Demanding that nationalist to give up the fight for independence on the back of September the 18th is utterly facile as these people very well know, its political point scoring, nothing more, nothing less.

Make no mistake, this was a debate about English votes for English laws, not about what Scottish devolution should now consist of. The full focus was on what the Tories and Labour might gain or lose in the referendum fall out. The Tories were all about what they now see as an 'open goal' chance to sideline Labours Scottish MPs. Labour were all about trying to make a case for that not happening.

Apart from that, what happens in the Commons debating chamber has little or nothing to do with the actual process of government which takes place in committee. Having said that, the turn out and the quality of MPs / Ministers present in the chamber for any debate is a barometer of its importance and place in Westminster's priorities.

The tiny turn out was bad enough. The failure of any of the Vow signatories to show up, not to mention the leader of the better together campaign said it all.

As another poster said ................... job done.

[allmodcons]

Just to be clear, the referendum is done and dusted. It's over. There is really no need to keep fighting as if it's up for grabs.

Completely agree, as I said, in my previous post "saying goodbye to any concept of Independence for a generation".


In any event, here is where I remove myself (again). When folk accuse me of lying for hee-haw reason and without justification, it's time for me to step out, safe in the knowledge that any argument won't make the slightest bit of difference now (if they ever did). Unfortunately, you're not even the first this morning to imply I'm a liar.

Man you're sensitive at times. Where did I call you a liar? Can I not call in to question your acceptance of the concept of Independence?

As an SNP supporter, I've been referred to as an Nazi and Anglophobe on these boards. Doesn't mean I throw the toys out of the pram.

Anyway the main reason for my post, which you completely ignored, was to point out Salmond's track record.

It's good to hear that I shouldn't be ashamed of voting no though. That'll be a relief to 55% of us.

I'm pleased for you and the 55% that voted as you did, as long as your conscience is clear then I'm (genuinely) happy for you.

You complain about 'Yes' supporters not moving on from the referendum vote, then you post something that states "Salmond blew it big time".

Now that I have moved on, am I not supposed to respond?

[#FromTheCapital]

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the level of bitterness displayed by some of 'the 45', sadly I'm not.

Many have decided to join the SNP/other parties, or found another constructive method of continuing the fight. To them I say good luck if it ever comes around again (which I think it probably will in another 20 years or so). Who knows, maybe the SNP will come up with a better plan next time.

Many have taken it on the chin, and got on with their lives, again fair play.

Others just continue to vent a load of pish on the internet or down the pub..... To them I say shut the **** up and move on.

[Peevemor]

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the level of bitterness displayed by some of 'the 45', sadly I'm not.

Many have decided to join the SNP/other parties, or found another constructive method of continuing the fight. To them I say good luck if it ever comes around again (which I think it probably will in another 20 years or so). Who knows, maybe the SNP will come up with a better plan next time.

Many have taken it on the chin, and got on with their lives, again fair play.

Others just continue to vent a load of pish on the internet or down the pub..... To them I say shut the **** up and move on.

It's not going to go away.

[cabbageandribs1875]

55,000 new members :thumbsup:

[allmodcons]

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the level of bitterness displayed by some of 'the 45', sadly I'm not.

Many have decided to join the SNP/other parties, or found another constructive method of continuing the fight. To them I say good luck if it ever comes around again (which I think it probably will in another 20 years or so). Who knows, maybe the SNP will come up with a better plan next time.

Many have taken it on the chin, and got on with their lives, again fair play.

Others just continue to vent a load of pish on the internet or down the pub..... To them I say shut the **** up and move on.

:agree:

Well done if you're continuing the fight!
Well done if you're not continuing the fight!
Shut the **** up if you're talking pish

What is the point of your post?

[Moulin Yarns]

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the level of bitterness displayed by some of 'the 45', sadly I'm not.

Many have decided to join the SNP/other parties, or found another constructive method of continuing the fight. To them I say good luck if it ever comes around again (which I think it probably will in another 20 years or so). Who knows, maybe the SNP will come up with a better plan next time.

Many have taken it on the chin, and got on with their lives, again fair play.

Others just continue to vent a load of pish on the internet or down the pub..... To them I say shut the **** up and move on.


It's not going to go away.

The genie is out the bottle. Tonight I attend my first branch meeting and one of the speakers is Maggie Chapman, the reports from the conference were good, and yes, Patrick Harvie said that nobody should get hung up on 'the 45' but instead the plan is to reach out to the 55, and that includes some guys on here :wink: When Westminster fails to deliver on the Vow, we will be loooking for your support, this time. :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the level of bitterness displayed by some of 'the 45', sadly I'm not.

Many have decided to join the SNP/other parties, or found another constructive method of continuing the fight. To them I say good luck if it ever comes around again (which I think it probably will in another 20 years or so). Who knows, maybe the SNP will come up with a better plan next time.

Many have taken it on the chin, and got on with their lives, again fair play.

Others just continue to vent a load of pish on the internet or down the pub..... To them I say shut the **** up and move on.

This is not aimed at you personally.

From what I saw in the Commons yesterday and have seen in the press recently venting pish post 18/09/14 is not the sole preserve of the Yes side.

[cabbageandribs1875]

:agree:

Well done if you're continuing the fight!
Well done if you're not continuing the fight!
Shut the **** up if you're talking pish

What is the point of your post?


quite bizarre :agree:

[johnbc70]

:agree:

Well done if you're continuing the fight!
Well done if you're not continuing the fight!
Shut the **** up if you're talking pish

What is the point of your post?

I think some Yes voters still spout a load of pish. It was the BBCs fault, it was the supermarkets that swung it, the labour party phoned all the OAPs and told them their pensions would not get paid, the banks are to blame, all the private polls showed Yes were winning, there was vote rigging on the night etc etc etc. If you have joined a political party to achieve the aim of independence then great crack on, if you have done nothing and are getting on with your life then great crack on. If your still posting a load of pish about who was to blame for a No vote (take your pick from the above) then yes please shut the **** up.

[Hibrandenburg]

quite bizarre :agree:

Indeed, you'd think that someone who didn't want to hear it anymore would not open and read a thread titled "Scottish Independence".

[cabbageandribs1875]

Indeed, you'd think that someone who didn't want to hear it anymore would not open and read a thread titled "Scottish Independence".


indeed :agree: you would think the two posters with the big keyboards telling yes voters to STFU should maybe stop reading a thread if it upsets them so much :boo hoo:they obviously don't like democracy(unless it suits them of course) and even worse, i'm quite sure one of them was crying several hundred posts ago about posters being nasty to each other and the thread should be closed :faf: what a ticket

[allmodcons]

I think some Yes voters still spout a load of pish. It was the BBCs fault, it was the supermarkets that swung it, the labour party phoned all the OAPs and told them their pensions would not get paid, the banks are to blame, all the private polls showed Yes were winning, there was vote rigging on the night etc etc etc. If you have joined a political party to achieve the aim of independence then great crack on, if you have done nothing and are getting on with your life then great crack on. If your still posting a load of pish about who was to blame for a No vote (take your pick from the above) then yes please shut the **** up.

I think some 'No' voters "spout a load of pish", in fact, IMO there is copious amounts of pish posted on these boards, without it the boards would be idle.

I'll ask again, can you confirm what the point was of the original post made by FromTheCapital?

Is this the thread not entitled Scottish Independence?

Are the the only issues open for discussion those that suit his/your agenda?

[ronaldo7]

Well, I've only gone and joined a political party at my time of life. The dream will not die.:greengrin

[GreenLake]

I think some Yes voters still spout a load of pish. It was the BBCs fault, it was the supermarkets that swung it, the labour party phoned all the OAPs and told them their pensions would not get paid, the banks are to blame, all the private polls showed Yes were winning, there was vote rigging on the night etc etc etc. If you have joined a political party to achieve the aim of independence then great crack on, if you have done nothing and are getting on with your life then great crack on. If your still posting a load of pish about who was to blame for a No vote (take your pick from the above) then yes please shut the **** up.

Individuals and groups might be induced to think in certain ways. Research into the psychology of how groups think was a subject not exactly uninteresting to political leaders during the last century. It is obviously a crackpot conspiracy theory to imagine that any of that went on in the Scottish independence vote. The world is full of conspiracy theories not conspiracies. :hilarious


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ERfxWouXs#t=910

[ronaldo7]

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the level of bitterness displayed by some of 'the 45', sadly I'm not.

Many have decided to join the SNP/other parties, or found another constructive method of continuing the fight. To them I say good luck if it ever comes around again (which I think it probably will in another 20 years or so). Who knows, maybe the SNP will come up with a better plan next time.

Many have taken it on the chin, and got on with their lives, again fair play.

Others just continue to vent a load of pish on the internet or down the pub..... To them I say shut the **** up and move on.

Or maybe the No voters are seeing their plan for the best of both worlds coming down around their knees, and are dying to put this whole thing to bed by telling everyone to STFU, and move on.

This thing has a long long way to run yet so belt up:wink:, buckle in and get ready for the ride.:aok:

[Hibrandenburg]

Or maybe the No voters are seeing their plan for the best of both worlds coming down around their knees, and are dying to put this whole thing to bed by telling everyone to STFU, and move on.

This thing has a long long way to run yet so belt up:wink:, buckle in and get ready for the ride.:aok:

:agree:

It took a while and a few setbacks to get slavery abolished, equal rights for women and legalize gay marriage. They didn't shut the **** up, quite the contrary in fact. Why should those who want an independent Scotland do otherwise?

[#FromTheCapital]

:faf:
It seems that quite a few on here need to shut up and move on.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The referendum was there to be won. He didn't. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I think "blew it bigtime" is fairly accurate.

I know you are one of the ones who don't believe me. In any event, I meant up to a certain point in time so it's completely compatible with "totally open".

In the same way as you would say Spartans might blow an opportunity to beat Celtic at parkhead only to lose a late goal following some dodgy stuff off the ball that went completely unnoticed by the assembled media.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Or maybe the No voters are seeing their plan for the best of both worlds coming down around their knees, and are dying to put this whole thing to bed by telling everyone to STFU, and move on.

This thing has a long long way to run yet so belt up:wink:, buckle in and get ready for the ride.:aok:

Youll be hard pushed to find anybody who voted No, by the end of the year.

[Moulin Yarns]

Personally, I'm going to shut up and eat my cereal. Then I will continue to rip holes in the BT lies.

Anybody who believes all the pish spouting is from one side need only look on the BT facebook page at what they were coming up with in the final 2 weeks of the campaign. I challenged some of their activists to confirm the sources and they couldn't.

[snooky]

:faf:
It seems that quite a few on here need to shut up and move on.

Re. moving on.
That would be very convenient for ......
55% (or I suspect much less now :wink:) of Scotland
100% of Yesminister
the BBCeedy
and almost all of the bum-roll tabloids.

The referendum was the end of the beginning, as one sage observed.

[Hibrandenburg]

Youll be hard pushed to find anybody who voted No, by the end of the year.

Parallel to that you'll find the YES voters will increase to a level similar to those who attended Tynecastle on 01.01.1973

[RyeSloan]

In the same way as you would say Spartans might blow an opportunity to beat Celtic at parkhead only to lose a late goal following some dodgy stuff off the ball that went completely unnoticed by the assembled media.

I think this is some of the nonsense that is being alluded to...you are suggesting the vote was won by dubious means. It is being suggested by quite a few No voters that this was not the case and in fact the opposite was true..Yes didn't have a clear enough or coherent enough vision to persuade then to vote Yes.

That's the point...instead of claiming dodgy stuff have a cold hard look at why the argument was not won.

[Mibbes Aye]

:agree:

It took a while and a few setbacks to get slavery abolished, equal rights for women and legalize gay marriage. They didn't shut the **** up, quite the contrary in fact. Why should those who want an independent Scotland do otherwise?

It's laughable to compare those things with the desire of some for Scotland to separate.

I would compare your Yes camp more with something like the anti-abortionists. Often vociferous, vitriolic and vehement in their self-belief that they were right and their opponents were wrong but ultimately the majority didn't like the look of your prospectus

[Mibbes Aye]

It's not going to go away.

Not you personally Peevemor, but I love it when I see this sort of thing from the Yes camp - it smacks of stalker ex-boyfriend who can't take "No" for an answer. Actually a bit creepy. Did Salmond not insist the 'sovereign will of the Scottish people' had to be respected (admittedly when he was closest in the polls)?.......

[Phil D. Rolls]

Parallel to that you'll find the YES voters will increase to a level similar to those who attended Tynecastle on 01.01.1973

I was thinking along the lines of the number who saw the Sex Pistols at Manchester Free Trade Hall.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think this is some of the nonsense that is being alluded to...you are suggesting the vote was won by dubious means. It is being suggested by quite a few No voters that this was not the case and in fact the opposite was true..Yes didn't have a clear enough or coherent enough vision to persuade then to vote Yes.

That's the point...instead of claiming dodgy stuff have a cold hard look at why the argument was not won.

I think breaking the Purdah was pretty dodgy behaviour, and I think the referee would have blown for a foul if it hadn't been such a big club doing it.

If the UK has ceded more powers to Scotland without good reason, then it was a pretty senseless bribe. If the argument had already been won by them, why throw the kitchen sink at the problem.

I guess it depends on how much influence the intervention of Dave, Nick, and Ed had on the outcome.

[Moulin Yarns]

I was thinking along the lines of the number who saw the Sex Pistols at Manchester Free Trade Hall.

I'm guessing it will far exceed the number of Celtc fans who were in Seville in 2003

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm guessing it will far exceed the number of Celtc fans who were in Seville in 2003

There will be more Sevillians still talking about that, than no voters.

[bawheid]

I would compare your Yes camp more with something like the anti-abortionists.

Really?

[Moulin Yarns]

Really?

of course, don't you recognise the debating style of the Westmontster apologists? ;-)

[GreenLake]

The BT camp can take comfort in the fact that Salmond reckoned he could sell Scotland's oil at $110 per barrel. The UK Gov predicted that oil would fall to $92-97 per barrel by 2016-18. It's kind of nice the Government can celebrate being right and I hope they enjoy the $85 a barrel Brent is fetching these days. This will cause a big drop in GDP and the only figures we are guaranteed not to see a drop in are those which are placed on boards outside petrol stations.

[Mibbes Aye]

Really?

Yes.

It's more fitting than comparing it to the struggle for equal rights for women, for example. Actually insulting to the memory of the suffragettes to compare the two IMO.

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes.

It's more fitting than comparing it to the struggle for equal rights for women, for example. Actually insulting to the memory of the suffragettes to compare the two IMO.

That is really funny, because all the Yes campaign wanted was the equal right to self determination that has been denied to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since the creation of the United (sic) Kingdom. All power being held by the Westmonster elite.

Now, go and shut up and eat your cereal like a good boy!

[Mibbes Aye]

That is really funny, because all the Yes campaign wanted was the equal right to self determination that has been denied to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since the creation of the United (sic) Kingdom. All power being held by the Westmonster elite.

Now, go and shut up and eat your cereal like a good boy!

But the majority voted for self-determination within the United Kingdom.

If you want to increase the 45, the trick is not to insult or demean the 55.

They weren't feart, stupid or manipulated, they just didn't buy your story.

If you keep calling them feart, stupid or manipulated they will never buy your story.

[RyeSloan]

I think breaking the Purdah was pretty dodgy behaviour, and I think the referee would have blown for a foul if it hadn't been such a big club doing it. If the UK has ceded more powers to Scotland without good reason, then it was a pretty senseless bribe. If the argument had already been won by them, why throw the kitchen sink at the problem. I guess it depends on how much influence the intervention of Dave, Nick, and Ed had on the outcome.

Well plenty were saying that any intervention from Call me Dave would be an own goal so probably not very much I would suggest.

[marinello59]

I'm loving all this if only Salmond hadn't been the man, Salmond blew it big time blame game!

Absolute nonsense, anybody who knows anything about the Nationalist Movement in Scotland, knows full well that getting 45% of the electorate to vote for Independence was some achievement.

If you'd told anybody that we'd get a referendum on the Independence issue when Salmond took charge of the SNP for a second term in 2004 you'd have been roundly ridiculed.

Look at the record, a minority Scottish Government in 2007 followed by a majority Government in 2011, that in system designed to prevent the formation of a majority Government, culminating in the referendum vote last month. If you think that's failure then, frankly, you've lost the plot.

With regard to committed 'No' voters now seemingly telling us they have no problem with the concept of Independence, please be assured there is/was no shame in voting 'No'.

Whilst you may not have agreed with the content of the White Paper or the SNP vision of Independence, you have to accept that you had sovereignty in your hands for a single day and voted to hand it back to Westminster, thereby, saying goodbye to any 'concept' of Independence for a generation.

Clearly what we have here is your disdain for the man, getting in the way of the facts.

Your devotion to your dear leader is almost touching but you have to realise others may give him a wee bit of criticism. You do seem to be exaggerating what I actually said somewhat in order to go off on some tangential rant.
As for my distain for the man getting in the way of facts, what facts are these? I have said several times since the referendum that it was actually a pretty good result given the starting point and there were plenty of positives to build on going forward. That doesn't mean mistakes weren't made and I do believe that we could have achieved the ultimate result with Sturgeon leading the way. Obviously you find that thought rather distressing though which is your right.

[Moulin Yarns]

But the majority voted for self-determination within the United Kingdom.

If you want to increase the 45, the trick is not to insult or demean the 55.

They weren't feart, stupid or manipulated, they just didn't buy your story.

If you keep calling them feart, stupid or manipulated they will never buy your story.

Where do I call anyone feart, stupid or manipulated?

The insult is your comparison of the Yes campaign with pro life campaigners.

[Peevemor]

Not you personally Peevemor, but I love it when I see this sort of thing from the Yes camp - it smacks of stalker ex-boyfriend who can't take "No" for an answer. Actually a bit creepy. Did Salmond not insist the 'sovereign will of the Scottish people' had to be respected (admittedly when he was closest in the polls)?.......

Regardless of what anyone says, the establishment did everything in it's power and told any lie it could to save England and the "vow" will not be respected to any reasonable extent. The UK is in the keech and as things worsen Scotland will get the stinky end of the stick as per normal. More and more No voters will realise they've been had big style and the next time around there will be well documented evidence of the countless lies that were used by the BT crew.

Apart from anything else, I'm still waiting for one valid reason why Scotland should stay in the UK.

In addition, more and more Scots will be unable to recognise themselves in the ****bag circus that Westminster is becoming.

Again, it's not going to go away.

[Mibbes Aye]

Where do I call anyone feart, stupid or manipulated?

The insult is your comparison of the Yes campaign with pro life campaigners.

I was talking about the Yes campaign in general but even in the post I quoted you talk about an 'elite'. How do that elite retain power in your view? It's not by the barrel of a gun. And in the post before that you talk about BT 'lies'. Isn't that suggesting manipulation?

Mind you, it's lazy or manipulative to misquote me. I didn't compare the Yes campaign with pro-life campaigners, I said I would be more inclined to compare it with anti-abortionists than I would be to compare it with anti-slavery, women's emancipation or gay rights.

There's a reason for that. Nationalism is ideological. It's based on a philosophy of difference and a philosophy of creating an 'other' in order to give itself something to define itself by (i.e. defined by not being the 'other'). That's a rather simplistic and distasteful perspective in my book and bears resemblance to other debates that are similarly binary - anti-abortionism being one.

And I'll say it again, both issues seem to be characterised by a vocal element who can't grasp at all that others might have a differing opinion, which is valid and god forbid, possibly even correct. There's an unhealthy and often comparable degree of zealotry in both those camps.

What's worse though is the comparison between the Yes campaign and the anti-slavery, women's emancipation and gay rights movements implicitly suggests that they are all on the same side and therefore opponents of Yes can be viewed similarly to pro-slavery, anti-emancipation and anti-gay rights campaigners.

Given the amount of money Brian Souter has put the way of Yes and the SNP, that's very, very incongruent.

[#FromTheCapital]

:agree:

Well done if you're continuing the fight!
Well done if you're not continuing the fight!
Shut the **** up if you're talking pish

What is the point of your post?

It doesn't tend to be very constructive when you're spouting bitter sounding nonsense on an Internet message board one month after the vote. Find another way of venting or trying to make a difference. That was the main point of my post that you were so desperate to know, hopefully the suspense didn't cause you any harm.


Indeed, you'd think that someone who didn't want to hear it anymore would not open and read a thread titled "Scottish Independence".

Believe it or not, I still find certain elements of the issue interesting. However most of the time when I click on this thread these days all i see is bitterness and inaccuracy. You're one of the main culprits actually :rolleyes:

[over the line]

Regardless of what anyone says, the establishment did everything in it's power and told any lie it could to save England and the "vow" will not be respected to any reasonable extent. The UK is in the keech and as things worsen Scotland will get the stinky end of the stick as per normal. More and more No voters will realise they've been had big style and the next time around there will be well documented evidence of the countless lies that were used by the BT crew.

Apart from anything else, I'm still waiting for one valid reason why Scotland should stay in the UK.

In addition, more and more Scots will be unable to recognise themselves in the ****bag circus that Westminster is becoming.

Again, it's not going to go away.

How does Scotland get the "stinky end of the stick"? I believe it is wealthier than the UK average and gets above average government funding. Doesn't sound too stinky to me.

As for the valid reason why Scotland should stay in the UK:- more of the population voted to stay in the UK, than voted to leave it. I think that is the best reason you can get isn't it?

[Mibbes Aye]

Apart from anything else, I'm still waiting for one valid reason why Scotland should stay in the UK.






As for the valid reason why Scotland should stay in the UK:- more of the population voted to stay in the UK, than voted to leave it. I think that is the best reason you can get isn't it?

:agree: 'Sovereign will of the Scottish people' as somebody once said. Feels like it's only the 'sovereign will' if it had gone their way though :rolleyes:

But also, Peevemor - people weren't voting whether to join the UK, they were voting whether to leave the UK. I suspect many people thought that leaving created more uncertainty and risk. They didn't want to take a gamble on Alec Salmond's prospectus (and it was his prospectus, let's be honest).

If Yes campaigners want to win in the future they have to make the effort to engage with No voters to find out why people voted No instead of dismissing them as puppets in thrall to the media or the BT campaign.

It speaks volumes about what some in the Yes camp actually think about the Scottish electorate.

[Rasta_Hibs]

It's not going to go away.

Ha ha cmon now your taking it to far!

[Peevemor]

How does Scotland get the "stinky end of the stick"? I believe it is wealthier than the UK average and gets above average government funding. Doesn't sound too stinky to me.

As for the valid reason why Scotland should stay in the UK:- more of the population voted to stay in the UK, than voted to leave it. I think that is the best reason you can get isn't it?

Are you sure about the first bit?

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/economics-made-simple-2-gross-domestic-product/

And I meant a reason to vote to stay in the UK.

[Peevemor]

:agree: 'Sovereign will of the Scottish people' as somebody once said. Feels like it's only the 'sovereign will' if it had gone their way though :rolleyes:

But also, Peevemor - people weren't voting whether to join the UK, they were voting whether to leave the UK. I suspect many people thought that leaving created more uncertainty and risk. They didn't want to take a gamble on Alec Salmond's prospectus (and it was his prospectus, let's be honest).

If Yes campaigners want to win in the future they have to make the effort to engage with No voters to find out why people voted No instead of dismissing them as puppets in thrall to the media or the BT campaign.

It speaks volumes about what some in the Yes camp actually think about the Scottish electorate.

And why were people so worried about "uncertainty and risk"? It wouldn't have anything to do with the (self confessed) scare mongering carried out by and on behalf of BT? The Bank of England has (since) confirmed that a contingency plan was in place to stabilise Sterling in the aftermath of a Yes vote. Why wasn't this reported before the vote?

I still haven't been given a good reason why Scotland should stay in the UK (or why people should have voted for the status quo in the referendum).

One good reason! Anyone?

[Peevemor]

Ha ha cmon now your taking it to far!

Bye - it's been real!

First use of the ignore list for me.

[Mibbes Aye]

And why were people so worried about "uncertainty and risk"? It wouldn't have anything to do with the (self confessed) scare mongering carried out by and on behalf of BT? The Bank of England has (since) confirmed that a contingency plan was in place to stabilise Sterling in the aftermath of a Yes vote. Why wasn't this reported before the vote?

I still haven't been given a good reason why Scotland should stay in the UK (or why people should have voted for the status quo in the referendum).

One good reason! Anyone?

That's two questions :greengrin

First answer is because the Scottish people's sovereign will was to stay (or words to that effect - basically we voted to stay, and folk need to accept that)

Second answer is more complex and links into my point about engaging with No voters. I've posted my reasons for voting No on here, it's not necessarily fair to expect everyone else to share their reasons and they certainly won't all share my reasons.

People didn't want to separate, in greater numbers than those who did. If you genuinely want to know why then I would humbly suggest that the best approach is not to alienate people when asking or when hearing their response (again, not directed at you S, but at some in the Yes camp).

[RyeSloan]

And why were people so worried about "uncertainty and risk"? It wouldn't have anything to do with the (self confessed) scare mongering carried out by and on behalf of BT? The Bank of England has (since) confirmed that a contingency plan was in place to stabilise Sterling in the aftermath of a Yes vote. Why wasn't this reported before the vote? I still haven't been given a good reason why Scotland should stay in the UK (or why people should have voted for the status quo in the referendum). One good reason! Anyone?

I suppose it's all about perspective. The question wasn't do you want to stay it was do you want to leave. You could argue they are the same thing but it wasn't to me.

We were asked if we wanted to leave and to leave some where you need a destination to go to. To me that destination wasn't articulated well enough, it simply wasn't clear what the end destination would look like or that it would look difference enough to justify the long difficult journey to get there.

In my mind that's the lesson that should be learned; that a ill defined concept was not enough.

[Mibbes Aye]

I suppose it's all about perspective. The question wasn't do you want to stay it was do you want to leave. You could argue they are the same thing but it wasn't to me.

We were asked if we wanted to leave and to leave some where you need a destination to go to. To me that destination wasn't articulated well enough, it simply wasn't clear what the end destination would look like or that it would look difference enough to justify the long difficult journey to get there.

In my mind that's the lesson that should be learned; that a ill defined concept was not enough.

It's a fascinating point.

I'm intrigued to know what the discussions were amongst the strategists at the centre of the Yes campaign and how we ended up with the approach they took. As far as I'm aware there's been very, very limited disclosure so who made the decisions about strategy? Was it all Salmond? How much did Sturgeon dictate?

With Cameron, we know he has his inner court and we know Lynton Crosby came back and we can speculate as to the dynamic there.

Likewise with Miliband, we have a good idea as to who he is close to in the Shadow Cabinet and we know about the advisers who have or once had his ear (cf Axelrod, Glasman).

Who was it who informed the Nat strategy? Obviously it failed and even as a No voter I think there was an open door to be kicked there, so something feels badly wrong in how the Yes message was communicated.

Who is answering for that?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Not you personally Peevemor, but I love it when I see this sort of thing from the Yes camp - it smacks of stalker ex-boyfriend who can't take "No" for an answer. Actually a bit creepy. Did Salmond not insist the 'sovereign will of the Scottish people' had to be respected (admittedly when he was closest in the polls)?.......

On the morning of 19/09/2014 it was the sovereign will of the Scottish people that Scotland would not become an independent country. I have accepted that decision and as we can all see, Scotland is indeed still part of the UK.

Having said that .... Why did / do the better together camp think that the no majority result was going to make people like me who have been nationalists all their days just give up on that point of view and slink off into the sunset. To expect people to just turn off their fundamental beliefs like a tap is utterly unrealistic, bordering on naïve.

If my lifelong and still held unshakeable belief that Scotland should be an independent state means that I have refused to accept the result of the referendum then so be it. As far as I am concerned the referendum was held to decide if Scotland should be independent or stay in the UK, not that I or people like me should stop believing it should be independent.

[Hibrandenburg]

It's laughable to compare those things with the desire of some for Scotland to separate.

I would compare your Yes camp more with something like the anti-abortionists. Often vociferous, vitriolic and vehement in their self-belief that they were right and their opponents were wrong but ultimately the majority didn't like the look of your prospectus

You missed my point and jumped straight on the hyperbole express. The point is that why should someone give up her/his fundamental political belief just because they got knocked back after losing one democratic process?

Following your logic then every political party that fails to win an election should just cease to exist, that ain't going to happen no matter how much you'd like it to.

You might be ok with the paradox of being one of the wealthiest nations on the planet and our child poverty levels, our insistence in retaining immoral weapons of mass destruction on our soil and sending our sons and daughters to foreign lands to conduct illegal wars coupled with an unjust political system that ensures the political choices made by another region determines what path we follow, just don't expect everyone who disagrees to shut the **** up and go away because we won't. As the saying goes "we might have lost the battle but we will win the war". And no that wasn't a dedeclaration of war before you go off and take everything I say literally again.

[Hibrandenburg]

On the morning of 19/09/2014 it was the sovereign will of the Scottish people that Scotland would not become an independent country. I have accepted that decision and as we can all see, Scotland is indeed still part of the UK.

Having said that .... Why did / do the better together camp think that the no majority result was going to make people like me who have been nationalists all their days just give up on that point of view and slink off into the sunset. To expect people to just turn off their fundamental beliefs like a tap is utterly unrealistic, bordering on naïve.

If my lifelong and still held unshakeable belief that Scotland should be an independent state means that I have refused to accept the result of the referendum then so be it. As far as I am concerned the referendum was held to decide if Scotland should be independent or stay in the UK, not that I or people like me should stop believing it should be independent.

:agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

Mind you, it's lazy or manipulative to misquote me. I didn't compare the Yes campaign with pro-life campaigners, I said I would be more inclined to compare it with anti-abortionists than I would be to compare it with anti-slavery, women's emancipation or gay rights.

There's a reason for that. Nationalism is ideological. It's based on a philosophy of difference and a philosophy of creating an 'other' in order to give itself something to define itself by (i.e. defined by not being the 'other'). That's a rather simplistic and distasteful perspective in my book and bears resemblance to other debates that are similarly binary - anti-abortionism being one.


What's worse though is the comparison between the Yes campaign and the anti-slavery, women's emancipation and gay rights movements implicitly suggests that they are all on the same side and therefore opponents of Yes can be viewed similarly to pro-slavery, anti-emancipation and anti-gay rights campaigners.


Now you are being daft, the comparison was made to highlight that if you believe a cause is worth fighting for then fight for it. But don't let that stop you twisting it into something sordid, it hasn't stopped you in the past and I'll assume you'll continue to do so rather than tell you to shut the **** up.

[Moulin Yarns]

And why were people so worried about "uncertainty and risk"? It wouldn't have anything to do with the (self confessed) scare mongering carried out by and on behalf of BT? The Bank of England has (since) confirmed that a contingency plan was in place to stabilise Sterling in the aftermath of a Yes vote. Why wasn't this reported before the vote?

I still haven't been given a good reason why Scotland should stay in the UK (or why people should have voted for the status quo in the referendum).

One good reason! Anyone?


That's two questions :greengrin

First answer is because the Scottish people's sovereign will was to stay (or words to that effect - basically we voted to stay, and folk need to accept that)

Second answer is more complex and links into my point about engaging with No voters. I've posted my reasons for voting No on here, it's not necessarily fair to expect everyone else to share their reasons and they certainly won't all share my reasons.

People didn't want to separate, in greater numbers than those who did. If you genuinely want to know why then I would humbly suggest that the best approach is not to alienate people when asking or when hearing their response (again, not directed at you S, but at some in the Yes camp).

From what Peevemor has asked, Nobody, either on this message board or the official Better Together campaign were able to provide, before the referendum, a reason for Scotland to stay in the UK, it was all about the perceived risks of going alone, even though the PM said we could afford to do so.

From Mibbes Aye's and other answers all you are saying is the vote for no was bigger so that is the reason. No it is not, it is the outcome.

One answer please? One reason for Scotland to remain part of the UK.

[Beefster]

That's the point...instead of claiming dodgy stuff have a cold hard look at why the argument was not won.

That's exactly what I was trying to do (probably in my usual clumsy, direct way) with the 'Salmond blew it' before it was (intentionally or otherwise) misinterpreted/misunderstood by folk who would rather pretend that the referendum didn't happen and keep the discussion going on that basis.

Still I suppose its harder to reflect on and learn from what went wrong than pretend that we should all be ashamed of how we voted, hide etc.

[Jack]

No, I got your point and made another. I was having a dig at the White paper which had budgeted a significant part of future finances of Scotland on oil at $113 a barrel.

Not a very good dig though given that since 1970, approximately when production of North Sea oil went into full swing, it was $3 a barrel meaning more than double the rate of general inflation to where we are now. Of course there's been the occasional dip in prices but the unrelenting inflation busting increases over the years is obvious, whatever side of the debate you're on.

[johnbc70]

Not a very good dig though given that since 1970, approximately when production of North Sea oil went into full swing, it was $3 a barrel meaning more than double the rate of general inflation to where we are now. Of course there's been the occasional dip in prices but the unrelenting inflation busting increases over the years is obvious, whatever side of the debate you're on.

To budget a significant part of a nations finances on a price that has been achieved something like 4 times in its history is in my mind fair game to have a dig at. The white paper had this price factored in for and budgeted for in 2016, that's 15 months away. Now if they had a gradual rise up to 113 over a larger time span then maybe it would be more realistic, but they never.

Bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank do not have their predictions this high and if the SNP figures were wrong (which is looking highly likely as oil is unlikely to be 113 a barrel in just over 1 year) then there would have been a huge gap in the public finances in the 1st year of an iScotland.

So all in all pretty fair game for a dig I would say.

[over the line]

Are you sure about the first bit?

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/economics-made-simple-2-gross-domestic-product/

And I meant a reason to vote to stay in the UK.

I think that link supports my point doesn't it? Scotland is wealthier than average for the UK and it does get above average government funding doesn't it?

One reason for voting to stay in the UK was that I think people felt the future was more secure within the UK. The Yes campaign just didn't persuade enough people to think otherwise did they?

The reality is that life for most people in Scotland is very comfortable and those people didn't feel that the huge changes and possible risks/uncertainties attached to independence was a worthwhile venture.

[over the line]

You might be ok with the paradox of being one of the wealthiest nations on the planet and our child poverty levels, our insistence in retaining immoral weapons of mass destruction on our soil and sending our sons and daughters to foreign lands to conduct illegal wars coupled with an unjust political system that ensures the political choices made by another region determines what path we follow, just don't expect everyone who disagrees to shut the **** up and go away because we won't. As the saying goes "we might have lost the battle but we will win the war". And no that wasn't a dedeclaration of war before you go off and take everything I say literally again.

I think we may have spoken about these subjects before, so if I'm repeating myself I apologise.

Poverty is all relative isn't it? The vast majority of the worlds poor would love to be poor here wouldn't they? I know it doesn't make it right though and I realise the gap between rich and poor is far too big, but an iS wouldn't have eradicated poverty would it?

A lot of people don't agree with your view of nuclear weapons. I am glad we have them and I believe they are the main reason we haven't had any large scale global conflict since WW2.

Obviously Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes, but plenty of other countries made the same mistake as the UK didn't they? I believe an iS (had it been in existence then), would also have been involved in those conflicts as well.

Political decisions are nearly always going to be made in another region, unless you happen to live in the same region as the parliament. Most of the UK population doesn't live in the region where the decisions are made. The same would apply in an iS, most Scots don't live in Edinburgh.

As for "winning the war", for you Hiberlin, ze var ist over! ;):)

But I also don't think people should "shut up and go away".

[allmodcons]

Your devotion to your dear leader is almost touching but you have to realise others may give him a wee bit of criticism. You do seem to be exaggerating what I actually said somewhat in order to go off on some tangential rant.
As for my distain for the man getting in the way of facts, what facts are these? I have said several times since the referendum that it was actually a pretty good result given the starting point and there were plenty of positives to build on going forward. That doesn't mean mistakes weren't made and I do believe that we could have achieved the ultimate result with Sturgeon leading the way. Obviously you find that thought rather distressing though which is your right.


Predictable response M59.

The sarcasm and tone of your opening line doesn't befit you IMO.

I have no "devotion" to any Party Leader, but do happen to think that Salmond has been a very good Leader of the SNP, an opinion which I backed up by reference to his track record since 2004.

You know as well as I do, it's easy to say we could have won the referendum with someone else at the helm.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but, basically, it's pure conjecture on your part.

Salmond has a proven track record as leader of SNP and IMO the wider Yes campaign did an incredible job securing 1.6M votes.

FWIW, I think Sturgeon will be a good replacement but, make no mistake, she has a hard act to follow.

As to your comments about me finding the scenario you describe as "distressing" well that's just laughable!

[allmodcons]

I think we may have spoken about these subjects before, so if I'm repeating myself I apologise.

Poverty is all relative isn't it? The vast majority of the worlds poor would love to be poor here wouldn't they? I know it doesn't make it right though and I realise the gap between rich and poor is far too big, but an iS wouldn't have eradicated poverty would it?

I would have hoped the Government in an iScotland would at least have looked at addressing the issue!
Westminster certainly isn't. The gap between rich and poor gets ever wider and now we have Cameron & Osbourne in 'election mode' offering the well off tax cuts, new (completely irresponsible) personal pension plans and an IHT cut whilst, at the same time, telling us austerity is here to stay?

A lot of people don't agree with your view of nuclear weapons. I am glad we have them and I believe they are the main reason we haven't had any large scale global conflict since WW2.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but perhaps there'd be less poverty, worldwide that is, if countries didn't spend so much money on weapons of mass destruction and 'defence' budgets.

Obviously Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes, but plenty of other countries made the same mistake as the UK didn't they? I believe an iS (had it been in existence then), would also have been involved in those conflicts as well.

This paragraph I like. We f****d up over Iraq & Afghanistan (just as we currently appear to be doing in Syria with ISIS) but it's OK cos plenty of other countries f****d up too????

Political decisions are nearly always going to be made in another region, unless you happen to live in the same region as the parliament. Most of the UK population doesn't live in the region where the decisions are made. The same would apply in an iS, most Scots don't live in Edinburgh.

Presumably, however, you would agree that Edinburgh is somewhat closer to Scottish constituencies than London?

[over the line]

Presumably, however, you would agree that Edinburgh is somewhat closer to Scottish constituencies than London?

I am willing to argue almost anything, but no I won't argue with a geographical fact. ;)

[over the line]

Presumably, however, you would agree that Edinburgh is somewhat closer to Scottish constituencies than London?

I've just noticed the bits in grey you've spliced into my post.

I thought the geography question was a bit too easy! ;):)

Poverty: yes you might be right, an iS may have addressed it more effectively. But I stand by my point about it all being relative.

Iraq n that: my point was that an iS (if it had existed at the time) would probably have followed suit with most of the rest of the western world and got involved too. Therefore making the same mistake as all the others.

Nukes, guns etc: of course there would be more money to spend on nice stuff if we all stopped fighting. Not going to happen though I'm afraid. Humans are just too aggressive, take away the nukes, guns etc and we would just spend the money on swords and spears to kill each other with.


Out of interest, how do you think ISIS and Syria should be addressed?

[NAE NOOKIE]

I've just noticed the bits in grey you've spliced into my post.

I thought the geography question was a bit too easy! ;):)

Poverty: yes you might be right, an iS may have addressed it more effectively. But I stand by my point about it all being relative.

Iraq n that: my point was that an iS (if it had existed at the time) would probably have followed suit with most of the rest of the western world and got involved too. Therefore making the same mistake as all the others.

Nukes, guns etc: of course there would be more money to spend on nice stuff if we all stopped fighting. Not going to happen though I'm afraid. Humans are just too aggressive, take away the nukes, guns etc and we would just spend the money on swords and spears to kill each other with.


Out of interest, how do you think ISIS and Syria should be addressed?

That's true E/Port ..... mind you, spending a proportion of your GDP on a home defence force which from time to time will be called upon to send a token force on UN peace keeping duties or to fight in a no brainer conflict like fighting ISIS is one thing.

Spending a disproportionate amount of your GDP on a nuclear missile system you could never use unilaterally and conventional forces proportionate to some romantic notion of your place in the world that you think gives you carte blanche to act as deputy to the self proclaimed world policeman America is quite another.

[allmodcons]

I've just noticed the bits in grey you've spliced into my post.

I thought the geography question was a bit too easy! ;):)

I understand Jackie Baillie struggled with this question leading up to the referendum.

Poverty: yes you might be right, an iS may have addressed it more effectively. But I stand by my point about it all being relative.

No one is disputing that it is all relative, however, in a UK context IMO Westminster have a track record of not dealing with the issue. You didn't pass comment on the election bribes coming from Cameron & Osbourne? IMO this is not the sort of policies that would have been pursued by a Scottish Government.

Iraq n that: my point was that an iS (if it had existed at the time) would probably have followed suit with most of the rest of the western world and got involved too. Therefore making the same mistake as all the others.

Pure conjecture on your part, but wrong on so many levels. Are you seriously suggesting that the Scottish Parliament, as it is now, would have voted for military action in Iraq? Even at the time of the dodgy dossier, the then Labour led coalition at Holyrood only just managed to scrape a majority vote in support of intervention.

Nukes, guns etc: of course there would be more money to spend on nice stuff if we all stopped fighting. Not going to happen though I'm afraid. Humans are just too aggressive, take away the nukes, guns etc and we would just spend the money on swords and spears to kill each other with.

Not sure I want to agree with this, but witnessing what 'goes on' worldwide, I have to concede you may have a point here.

Out of interest, how do you think ISIS and Syria should be addressed?

With regard to your final point, you might want to have a squint at the appropriate thread.
To use someone else's terminology (I forget who) IMO the West has created it's very own Frankenstein's Monster in ISIS.

[over the line]

That's true E/Port ..... mind you, spending a proportion of your GDP on a home defence force which from time to time will be called upon to send a token force on UN peace keeping duties or to fight in a no brainer conflict like fighting ISIS is one thing.

Spending a disproportionate amount of your GDP on a nuclear missile system you could never use unilaterally and conventional forces proportionate to some romantic notion of your place in the world that you think gives you carte blanche to act as deputy to the self proclaimed world policeman America is quite another.

Yes good point, you may be right. Personally I would rather be a nuclear power, than totally rely on others, especially at the moment. The UK may not be the "power" it once was but it is still a global player, if we like it or not.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nukes, guns etc: of course there would be more money to spend on nice stuff if we all stopped fighting. Not going to happen though I'm afraid. Humans are just too aggressive, take away the nukes, guns etc and we would just spend the money on swords and spears to kill each other with.




That's true E/Port ..... mind you, spending a proportion of your GDP on a home defence force which from time to time will be called upon to send a token force on UN peace keeping duties or to fight in a no brainer conflict like fighting ISIS is one thing.

Spending a disproportionate amount of your GDP on a nuclear missile system you could never use unilaterally and conventional forces proportionate to some romantic notion of your place in the world that you think gives you carte blanche to act as deputy to the self proclaimed world policeman America is quite another.

Not every NATO country advocates spending more on defence, nuclear or otherwise. 2 major NATO countries are slashing billiions from their defence budgets, while NATO (USA) wanted a 2% increase.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/03/canada-and-germany-derail-nato-request-to-increase-military-spending-targets/

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes good point, you may be right. Personally I would rather be a nuclear power, than totally rely on others, especially at the moment. The UK may not be the "power" it once was but it is still a global player, if we like it or not.

Is Germany a 'Global Player'?

Is Canada a 'Global Player'?

I would say yes to both.

Are either or both of them Nuclear Powers?

No, for different reasons.

[over the line]

With regard to your final point, you might want to have a squint at the approrpriate thread.
To use someone else's terminology (I forget who) IMO the West has created it's very own Frankenstein's Monster in ISIS.

Re your last post (splicing won't show up on this post), I'm glad we agree on something. Shame it has to be the fact that humans like killing each other!

Re Iraq, yes its conjecture on my part, but we can't transpose todays Scottish Parliament and say their decision now would have been different back then (if that makes sense?). Back then they did vote to take action on the information available and an iS may also have done. We will never know though will we?

I will have a look at the other thread, ta.

[allmodcons]

Re your last post (splicing won't show up on this post), I'm glad we agree on something. Shame it has to be the fact that humans like killing each other!

Re Iraq, yes its conjecture on my part, but we can't transpose todays Scottish Parliament and say their decision now would have been different back then (if that makes sense?). Back then they did vote to take action on the information available and an iS may also have done. We will never know though will we?

I will have a look at the other thread, ta.

Just for the record, if we could 'teleport' the Scottish Parliament (as it is today) back to 2003, on the evidence provided by Blair, there is no way a majority SNP Government would have gone to war.

FWIW, I seem to recall that the actual vote in the Scottish Parliament back in 2003 was framed around the question of 'regime change' rather than the dodgy dossier on weapons of mass destruction.

I better do some work, enjoy the thread on ISIS.

[Mibbes Aye]

Now you are being daft, the comparison was made to highlight that if you believe a cause is worth fighting for then fight for it. But don't let that stop you twisting it into something sordid, it hasn't stopped you in the past and I'll assume you'll continue to do so rather than tell you to shut the **** up.

Unfortunately that's the sort of level of 'debate' that's all too common.

To take your two posts, I think it's you who is missing the point however.

I got the bit about comparison but I thought you were the one, not I, who who was engaging in hyperbole. Comparing the Yes campaign to anti-slavery or women's emancipation is riding on the coat tails of endeavours you don't have the right to associate your separatist campaign with IMO - it doesn't come close to that sort of moral high ground. And linking it to the gay rights struggle is laughable when you look at how much money the Yes camp and the SNP have accepted from Brian Souter.

Far more apt is the comparison to an issue like anti-abortionism. A binary issue where some of its supporters have an almost messianic belief in how right they are, with a tendency towards vitriol and little or no empathy as to why people disagree with you.

And people did disagree with you, in big numbers.

And if you want people to agree with you you need to show some humility and acceptance to engage with those people as to why.

[RyeSloan]

That's true E/Port ..... mind you, spending a proportion of your GDP on a home defence force which from time to time will be called upon to send a token force on UN peace keeping duties or to fight in a no brainer conflict like fighting ISIS is one thing. Spending a disproportionate amount of your GDP on a nuclear missile system you could never use unilaterally and conventional forces proportionate to some romantic notion of your place in the world that you think gives you carte blanche to act as deputy to the self proclaimed world policeman America is quite another.

I'm reasonably sure that the white paper suggested that Scotland would spend a similar proportion of GDP in defence as is currently spent by the UK government...c2.5% GDP.

[RyeSloan]

Not every NATO country advocates spending more on defence, nuclear or otherwise. 2 major NATO countries are slashing billiions from their defence budgets, while NATO (USA) wanted a 2% increase. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/03/canada-and-germany-derail-nato-request-to-increase-military-spending-targets/

I doubt the Germans will be cutting too much very soon considering the state their armed forces are in.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/12137.19.0.0/world/military/germanys-embarrassing-failures-prompt-military-spending-debate

[over the line]

Is Germany a 'Global Player'?

Is Canada a 'Global Player'?

I would say yes to both.

Are either or both of them Nuclear Powers?

No, for different reasons.

Germany is certainly an industrial and economic global player, but obviously for its own unique reasons it is not a military global player (don't worry, I'm not going to mention the Wars. Oh damn, I just have! ;) ). I think I'm right in saying that they do have other peoples nukes in Germany don't they? Plus I think the whole nuclear bomb idea was theirs in the first place wasn't it? Maybe not the best example to choose, but I get your point.

I do like Canada, I keep saying I'm going to move there (don't go, I hear you cry). Not such a global player as the UK or indeed Germany, but they did ditch their nukes and seem to be doing ok, so maybe you have a point?

[NAE NOOKIE]

I'm reasonably sure that the white paper suggested that Scotland would spend a similar proportion of GDP in defence as is currently spent by the UK government...c2.5% GDP.

That may be the case. But I would imagine that if that amount of spending were required it wouldn't be on vanity projects. Even the US thinks that's what replacing Trident is .... and the UK will be buying it from them.

I am prepared to believe that a commitment to that level of spending in the white paper would have been made with half an eye on people who would be worried about MOD jobs in Scotland. If it had became evident after independence that we could cover our defence requirements for less a gradual reduction would have been on the cards. Ireland spends about 0.5% of GDP.

[JeMeSouviens]

(don't go, I hear you cry).

You already did. ;-)

[JeMeSouviens]

That's exactly what I was trying to do (probably in my usual clumsy, direct way) with the 'Salmond blew it' before it was (intentionally or otherwise) misinterpreted/misunderstood by folk who would rather pretend that the referendum didn't happen and keep the discussion going on that basis.

Still I suppose its harder to reflect on and learn from what went wrong than pretend that we should all be ashamed of how we voted, hide etc.

Came across as triumphal nose rubbing to me.

I don't really see the point of continuing the indyref argument tbh. We lost but not by enough to kill the idea. The way forward is obviously derisking by getting as much devo as possible and making it work. No other way, is there?

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's exactly what I was trying to do (probably in my usual clumsy, direct way) with the 'Salmond blew it' before it was (intentionally or otherwise) misinterpreted/misunderstood by folk who would rather pretend that the referendum didn't happen and keep the discussion going on that basis.

Still I suppose its harder to reflect on and learn from what went wrong than pretend that we should all be ashamed of how we voted, hide etc.

No, it's us that should be ashamed.

I accept the result. I don't like the way it was achieved - pretty dodgy stuff breaking the Purdah.

[Mibbes Aye]

Came across as triumphal nose rubbing to me.

I don't really see the point of continuing the indyref argument tbh. We lost but not by enough to kill the idea. The way forward is obviously derisking by getting as much devo as possible and making it work. No other way, is there?


Sensitive :greengrin

Let's be honest, if it had been a Yes vote there would have been plenty of this

:partyhibb

and this

:thumbsup:

and this

:cheers:

and a very big dose of 'GIRFUY Darling', 'GIRFUY Alexander', 'GIRFUY Cameron', 'GIRFUY Brown' etc etc etc

By contrast we saw none of that from those of us who argued for 'No'.

And we haven't seen any posts saying:


:cheers: GIRFUY Salmond. Your nasty, divisive, small-minded and tribalistic politics of separation, politics of difference was well and truly rejected. Scottish people are smarter than to fall for arguments that are based on trying to convince people they are weak, powerless and victims - that's the tactics of bullies and guys who are into domestic abuse. Once again, GIRFUY Salmond :partyhibb:

No one from the No camp has posted that sort of triumphalism, in sharp contrast to what could have been expected had Yes won.

Dry your eyes.

[over the line]

You already did. ;-)

Good point, I did didn't I. :D

[Swedish hibee]

Sensitive :greengrin

Let's be honest, if it had been a Yes vote there would have been plenty of this

:partyhibb

and this

:thumbsup:

and this

:cheers:

and a very big dose of 'GIRFUY Darling', 'GIRFUY Alexander', 'GIRFUY Cameron', 'GIRFUY Brown' etc etc etc

By contrast we saw none of that from those of us who argued for 'No'.

And we haven't seen any posts saying:



No one from the No camp has posted that sort of triumphalism, in sharp contrast to what could have been expected had Yes won.

Dry your eyes.

Yep.. The NO campaign with a shared stage of Torie, Labour & UKIP slapping each others backs on a job well done on saving their jobs is a sight that will live with me forever.
Your right- there will be no change, and life will simply carry on as usual in Scotland.

How sad eh.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yep.. The NO campaign with a shared stage of Torie, Labour & UKIP slapping each others backs on a job well done on saving their jobs is a sight that will live with me forever.
Your right- there will be no change, and life will simply carry on as usual in Scotland.

How sad eh.

No change?

Public services in Scotland, like the UK, are facing a massive, almost existentialist crisis, where demand is increasing massively and the resource to deal with it isn't keeping pace, it's diminishing.

That would be true regardless of the result in September and regardless of the result next May.

Those results only inform how we respond to the crisis.

Life is going to change dramatically for most people over the next few years and that would be the case regardless of which flag flies above our public buildings.

[Moulin Yarns]

No change?

Public services in Scotland, like the UK, are facing a massive, almost existentialist crisis, where demand is increasing massively and the resource to deal with it isn't keeping pace, it's diminishing.

That would be true regardless of the result in September and regardless of the result next May.

Those results only inform how we respond to the crisis.

Life is going to change dramatically for most people over the next few years and that would be the case regardless of which flag flies above our public buildings.

I know that where I work has been told to prepare for a 15% reduction in budget for 2015/16

[Mibbes Aye]

I know that where I work has been told to prepare for a 15% reduction in budget for 2015/16

Are you PKC?

[JeMeSouviens]

Sensitive :greengrin

Let's be honest, if it had been a Yes vote there would have been plenty of this

:partyhibb

and this

:thumbsup:

and this

:cheers:

and a very big dose of 'GIRFUY Darling', 'GIRFUY Alexander', 'GIRFUY Cameron', 'GIRFUY Brown' etc etc etc

By contrast we saw none of that from those of us who argued for 'No'.

And we haven't seen any posts saying:



No one from the No camp has posted that sort of triumphalism, in sharp contrast to what could have been expected had Yes won.

Dry your eyes.

Yes I have to concede you've been so much better than the hypothetical nonexistent behaviour you've just made up. Go you!

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes I have to concede you've been so much better than the hypothetical nonexistent behaviour you've just made up. Go you!

Thank you!

It's good that the posters on here who advocated 'No' have been recognised for their magnanimity.

It's a pity it took a No voter to highlight it :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

It's a fascinating point.

I'm intrigued to know what the discussions were amongst the strategists at the centre of the Yes campaign and how we ended up with the approach they took. As far as I'm aware there's been very, very limited disclosure so who made the decisions about strategy? Was it all Salmond? How much did Sturgeon dictate?

With Cameron, we know he has his inner court and we know Lynton Crosby came back and we can speculate as to the dynamic there.

Likewise with Miliband, we have a good idea as to who he is close to in the Shadow Cabinet and we know about the advisers who have or once had his ear (cf Axelrod, Glasman).

Who was it who informed the Nat strategy? Obviously it failed and even as a No voter I think there was an open door to be kicked there, so something feels badly wrong in how the Yes message was communicated.

Who is answering for that?

AllModCons?

JeMeSouviens?

Ronaldo7?

GoldenFleece?

Hiberlin?

I know you're not all SNP members but you were Yes supporters.

What do you think went wrong with the Yes strategy, given there must have been a strategy to win the vote?

What would you have done differently?

[Mibbes Aye]

AllModCons?

JeMeSouviens?

Ronaldo7?

GoldenFleece?

Hiberlin?

I know you're not all SNP members but you were Yes supporters.

What do you think went wrong with the Yes strategy, given there must have been a strategy to win the vote?

What would you have done differently?

I should add I'm genuinely interested in the response. I originally graduated in Politics so I am fascinated by people's reasoning around stuff like this from that point of view, as opposed to whatever view I might hold.

[Mibbes Aye]

I should add I'm genuinely interested in the response. I originally graduated in Politics so I am fascinated by people's reasoning around stuff like this from that point of view, as opposed to whatever view I might hold.

And who actually owned the Yes strategy?

Did it change over the course?

How much control did Sturgeon have?

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes I have to concede you've been so much better than the hypothetical nonexistent behaviour you've just made up. Go you!

So does that mean you will be withdrawing your accusation at Beefster of "triumphal noserubbing"?

Or can you back it up with some substance, otherwise it comes across as a bit bitter, a bit rejected, a bit 'poor me'?

We know you lost.

We didn't rub it in.

You're still not happy.

Deal with it.

[ronaldo7]

AllModCons?

JeMeSouviens?

Ronaldo7?

GoldenFleece?

Hiberlin?

I know you're not all SNP members but you were Yes supporters.

What do you think went wrong with the Yes strategy, given there must have been a strategy to win the vote?

What would you have done differently?

Hi mate,

I think we lost the vote due to not spending enough time encouraging the older voter. I said so at the time to one of my Yes colleagues whilst out canvassing. My surprise on the night of the vote was the Highlands and Perth and Kinross, when I seen them go NAW, I went to bed.

The other thing against us was the MSM (I know, I know) but, let's face it, if you have an overwhelming body of information against you, then it's going to be a hard slog. To have got 45% of the vote imo was immense.

The ref even empowered me to go and join a political party. I joined in with the rest of my new colleagues(over 50 of us) at our first branch meeting last week.

Onwards and upwards to keeping the Unionist parties feet to the fire, and get those "Extensive Powers/Home Rule/Federalism/Devo Max", for ALL OF US.

[Mibbes Aye]

Hi mate,

I think we lost the vote due to not spending enough time encouraging the older voter. I said so at the time to one of my Yes colleagues whilst out canvassing. My surprise on the night of the vote was the Highlands and Perth and Kinross, when I seen them go NAW, I went to bed.

The other thing against us was the MSM (I know, I know) but, let's face it, if you have an overwhelming body of information against you, then it's going to be a hard slog. To have got 45% of the vote imo was immense.

The ref even empowered me to go and join a political party. I joined in with the rest of my new colleagues(over 50 of us) at our first branch meeting last week.

Onwards and upwards to keeping the Unionist parties feet to the fire, and get those "Extensive Powers/Home Rule/Federalism/Devo Max", for ALL OF US.

Cheers R7.

I think the media follows the vote rather than the other way around - they depend on sales, the vote doesn't.

It's an interesting point you make re the older voter. Demographics indicate that it's a slice of the population that will only grow. Why did they vote 'No'? What would make them vote 'Yes'?

Other thing to ponder is whether it's a fair assumption to say that older people tend to gravitate away from radical change, a small 'c' conservatism starts to take hold.

I read a few comments after the referendum that suggested we just had to wait until people died before we got a Yes vote. Apart from being insulting it missed the point massively. We will all be old at some point and is anyone suggesting our vote or view is diminished by that?

Without wishing to give tips to the separatists, there's a group to be won that's only going to increase in size. Convince the older generation that separation is a safe bet. Do that and you'll probably get your mandate.

[ronaldo7]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/15/wake-up-westminster-scottish-green-party-hung-parliament

Loved this... Westminster may soon come to regret its referendum victory: now, it’s going to have to try to govern the rebellious Scots.

[ronaldo7]

Cheers R7.

I think the media follows the vote rather than the other way around - they depend on sales, the vote doesn't.

It's an interesting point you make re the older voter. Demographics indicate that it's a slice of the population that will only grow. Why did they vote 'No'? What would make them vote 'Yes'?

Other thing to ponder is whether it's a fair assumption to say that older people tend to gravitate away from radical change, a small 'c' conservatism starts to take hold.

I read a few comments after the referendum that suggested we just had to wait until people died before we got a Yes vote. Apart from being insulting it missed the point massively. We will all be old at some point and is anyone suggesting our vote or view is diminished by that?

Without wishing to give tips to the separatists, there's a group to be won that's only going to increase in size. Convince the older generation that separation is a safe bet. Do that and you'll probably get your mandate.

The media follows what their owner thinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom

If broadcasting is devolved in our new powers, we might have a chance next time.:wink:

Already working on the bit in bold:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/15/wake-up-westminster-scottish-green-party-hung-parliament

Loved this... Westminster may soon come to regret its referendum victory: now, it’s going to have to try to govern the rebellious Scots.

Bit of a ****fest by the author.

That's the point with CiF in the Guardian. They give people the space. In this instance he's not exactly advanced the cause, he's been a bit rubbish :confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

The media follows what their owner thinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom

If broadcasting is devolved in our new powers, we might have a chance next time.:wink:

Already working on the bit in bold:greengrin

Your camp were blaming the local press regardless!

Get your message right, stop scaring people and you might have a chance.

Why do you think 55% of Scottish voters said no?

[Mibbes Aye]

Hi mate,

I think we lost the vote due to not spending enough time encouraging the older voter. I said so at the time to one of my Yes colleagues whilst out canvassing. My surprise on the night of the vote was the Highlands and Perth and Kinross, when I seen them go NAW, I went to bed.

The other thing against us was the MSM (I know, I know) but, let's face it, if you have an overwhelming body of information against you, then it's going to be a hard slog. To have got 45% of the vote imo was immense.

The ref even empowered me to go and join a political party. I joined in with the rest of my new colleagues(over 50 of us) at our first branch meeting last week.

Onwards and upwards to keeping the Unionist parties feet to the fire, and get those "Extensive Powers/Home Rule/Federalism/Devo Max", for ALL OF US.

Credit to you for responding, out of the folk I listed.

It still doesn't tell me what you would have said to older people, if it was them that lost it for you.

Is that true for the rest of you? AllModCons, JeMeSouviens, Hiberlin etc?

[Moulin Yarns]

I'll get back to you when I have time, Mibees Aye, in the meantime I urge everybody to try to stop this happening


http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/voter-registration-row-over-threat-of-80-fine-1-3575534

[Phil D. Rolls]

AllModCons?

JeMeSouviens?

Ronaldo7?

GoldenFleece?

Hiberlin?

I know you're not all SNP members but you were Yes supporters.

What do you think went wrong with the Yes strategy, given there must have been a strategy to win the vote?

What would you have done differently?

What went wrong was that the SNP called a referendum, despite a clear majority of the population being happy with the Union. They got it so wrong that they only got within touching distance of victory.

What really went wrong is that the defenders of the union were so hopeless that they almost threw it away, despite having the advantage of numbers and a BBC that reported the campaign from a London centric angle.

What really went wrong is that Better Together managed to drive a significant proportion of the population towards independence, through their inept and morally bankrupt tactics. Just as Thatcher managed to push people towards Devolution.

The lesson of the referendum and its aftermath is that the British don't do people questioning their authority very well. This resulted in panic measures and a display of the ugly face of the British Empire in the form of threats and lies.

I wish that the English media had shown a greater understanding of the issues, instead of doing that smug Home Counties routine where it's a case of the natives getting up to some nonsense.

What went wrong is that we are closer to independence than we have ever been.

[Mon Dieu4]

AllModCons?

JeMeSouviens?

Ronaldo7?

GoldenFleece?

Hiberlin?

I know you're not all SNP members but you were Yes supporters.

What do you think went wrong with the Yes strategy, given there must have been a strategy to win the vote?

What would you have done differently?

if you believe the stats then it was the OAP vote that sealed the deal where as the majority of youngsters wanted independence, I would say that there was pretty much nothing the Yes campaign could have done to sway the majority of the oldies for various reasons, if we had another vote in 20 years time and the yes could engage the youngsters again then I could see them winning this time

I've been thinking carefully how to word this and of it sounds horrible or flippant it's because I can't think of a way to word it correctly but I think the younger generations have been stitched up a bit, everyone deserves a vote but let's face it in 20 years lots of these older folk are not going to be here, there should have been a bigger engagement between the generations asking what the younger people wanted as let's face it they are who ones who are going to live it

[ACLeith]

Other thing to ponder is whether it's a fair assumption to say that older people tend to gravitate away from radical change, a small 'c' conservatism starts to take hold.

As a generalisation I think you're right. I must be in the minority that buck the trend, as are many of my fellow OAP friends. I have never voted Tory and am even less likely now than at any time in my voting life. Why? Their underlying principles are about the redistribution of wealth - from the bottom to the top - which for me is morally repugnant. And if they manage to implement even half of the proposals they put forward at their recent conference then we ain't seen nothing yet.

I really hope I get another chance to vote in a referendum before I shuffle off, next time offering a broader choice of real options rather than the simplistic yes/no we had. Maybe then we can begin to get a format of government for Scotland/England/Britain that is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

[johnbc70]

if you believe the stats then it was the OAP vote that sealed the deal where as the majority of youngsters wanted independence, I would say that there was pretty much nothing the Yes campaign could have done to sway the majority of the oldies for various reasons, if we had another vote in 20 years time and the yes could engage the youngsters again then I could see them winning this time

I've been thinking carefully how to word this and of it sounds horrible or flippant it's because I can't think of a way to word it correctly but I think the younger generations have been stitched up a bit, everyone deserves a vote but let's face it in 20 years lots of these older folk are not going to be here, there should have been a bigger engagement between the generations asking what the younger people wanted as let's face it they are who ones who are going to live it

The older generation were encouraged to 'think of your grandchildren and their children and their children's children etc. so maybe they did and were not convinced it was the best option.

[ACLeith]

The older generation were encouraged to 'think of your grandchildren and their children and their children's children etc. so maybe they did and were not convinced it was the best option.

I did which is why I voted YES. But I accept I was probably in the minority

[allmodcons]

I should add I'm genuinely interested in the response. I originally graduated in Politics so I am fascinated by people's reasoning around stuff like this from that point of view, as opposed to whatever view I might hold.

I will get back to you with regard to your post as to why I think Yes didn't win the referendum vote. FWIW, I fully accept the result, but despite being on the losing side have taken a lot of positives from the defeat.

Putting that to one side for a moment, I’m not at all surprised to learn that you graduated in politics. You write a good story, there is no denying that but, unfortunately, your posts often culminate in pontification and political dogma. None more so than your diatribe around Nationalism as an ideology. For most of us ‘lay people’ this is not what it is about at all, quite simply put, I don’t see my support for the SNP or the Yes campaign as some kind of Nationalist Ideology, I just happen to think that a Government based in Edinburgh is better placed to deal with the issues that affect Scotland. It is a simple political decision that I do not look to as an Ideology. Your preference is the Westminster system of Government, mine is Holyrood.

In one of your earlier posts you state quite categorically that “I would compare your Yes camp more with something like the anti-abortionists. Often vociferous, vitriolic and vehement in their self-belief that they were right and their opponents were wrong but ultimately the majority didn't like the look of your prospectus”.

In another you follow it with this “I'll say it again, both issues seem to be characterised by a vocal element who can't grasp at all that others might have a differing opinion, which is valid and god forbid, possibly even correct. There's an unhealthy and often comparable degree of zealotry in both those camps.

These, of course, are criticisms that can be levelled at any political group but, for you, are only attributable to the SNP or Nationalists.

Never has anybody in the Labour Party been vociferous, vitriolic and vehement in their self belief that they were right and their opponents wrong?

Having made a direct link between Pro-Life Campaigners and the Yes campaign and accused us of extremism you then have the audacity to ask for an olive branch!

You maybe can’t see it, but your rhetoric doesn’t appear to be saying I’m willing to listen.

Where I do agree with you is that those who support Independence do need to engage with No voters but, occasionally, there are those on both sides that no matter how you engage them will not be swayed. Your rhetoric shows that you clearly abhor the Nationalist movement and, as such, you should not be surprised that insults are traded in the manner they are/have been.

There are some willing to look past their own politcal roots, engage and see the Yes campiagn for what it was/is, sadly, just not enough.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class

[NAE NOOKIE]

if you believe the stats then it was the OAP vote that sealed the deal where as the majority of youngsters wanted independence, I would say that there was pretty much nothing the Yes campaign could have done to sway the majority of the oldies for various reasons, if we had another vote in 20 years time and the yes could engage the youngsters again then I could see them winning this time

I've been thinking carefully how to word this and of it sounds horrible or flippant it's because I can't think of a way to word it correctly but I think the younger generations have been stitched up a bit, everyone deserves a vote but let's face it in 20 years lots of these older folk are not going to be here, there should have been a bigger engagement between the generations asking what the younger people wanted as let's face it they are who ones who are going to live it

If the referendum was to be re done 10 years from now there will be as many pensioners then as there are now, their attitudes and stuff that concerns them will be the same. The older you get the more change worries you. If a pension is your only source of income you must be cast iron sure that its safe.

Better together made a decent job of casting doubt on that, how they did it doesn't matter, the problem was that Yes were unable to persuade enough of them that the no stuff was scaremongering.

For the next time ( and there will be one ) the Yes campaign must have a cast iron message about pensions and be better able to get it across.

As I've said ... the same problem exists with the currency issue, which like it or not won the day more than anything else. That along with the scare stuff about businesses moving and leaving Scotland in the lurch. Even if it wasn't true a lot of executives were happy to back their pals in the Westminster clique ... dinnae want tae risk any future knighthood.

That is why I became convinced that we are no longer a partner in any sort of equal union .... we have become a prisoner of it. Theres a lot of hard work ahead.

[allmodcons]

Nice quote on the WoS website today. Taken from The Evening Standard, 16 October 2014:-

“George Osborne was today named the most influential person in London as the Chancellor topped the Evening Standard’s The 1000 power list, with Mayor Boris Johnson in second place. (https://archive.today/L0KQ0)The Evening Standard panel decided Mr Osborne is London’s most influential person because of his willingness to invest in the capital despite pressure for the Treasury to spend the money in other parts of Britain.” (https://archive.today/L0KQ0)

Pooling and sharing of resources?

[Mon Dieu4]

If the referendum was to be re done 10 years from now there will be as many pensioners then as there are now, their attitudes and stuff that concerns them will be the same. The older you get the more change worries you. If a pension is your only source of income you must be cast iron sure that its safe.

Better together made a decent job of casting doubt on that, how they did it doesn't matter, the problem was that Yes were unable to persuade enough of them that the no stuff was scaremongering.

For the next time ( and there will be one ) the Yes campaign must have a cast iron message about pensions and be better able to get it across.

As I've said ... the same problem exists with the currency issue, which like it or not won the day more than anything else. That along with the scare stuff about businesses moving and leaving Scotland in the lurch. Even if it wasn't true a lot of executives were happy to back their pals in the Westminster clique ... dinnae want tae risk any future knighthood.

That is why I became convinced that we are no longer a partner in any sort of equal union .... we have become a prisoner of it. Theres a lot of hard work ahead.

I agree with what you say but feel that the current crop of OAPs are war and post war babies so feel they have that affinity with the union, with a more tech savvy generation coming up behind them I would hope they have more information at their disposal instead of believing some of the scare stories, I honestly believe an independent Scotland is inevitable, just hope I'm about to see it

[JeMeSouviens]

So does that mean you will be withdrawing your accusation at Beefster of "triumphal noserubbing"?

Or can you back it up with some substance, otherwise it comes across as a bit bitter, a bit rejected, a bit 'poor me'?

We know you lost.

We didn't rub it in.

You're still not happy.

Deal with it.

It's not an accusation, just a heads-up on how it came across to me since Beefster seemed unsure as to how it had been received.

Fwiw, after a few days of bitter teeth gnashing, I'm totally over the Indyref*. As I said, would've loved to have won but looking forward to the building of a stronger SP with powers that work, thereby derisking the proposition for next time. I think a key part of this will be EVEL. Making London a less powerful, attractive place to work for Unionist party MPs where they can only ever be 2nd class backbenchers will see more of them stay at Holyrood, and if they stay at Holyrood and are ambitious, they'll look for more power. A self reinforcing cycle to drive us down the slippery slope.

* I got notice of redundancy the week after the Indyref (great year :rolleyes:), "poor me". :wink: Good for perspective though!

[Rasta_Hibs]

lol Scotland will always say no! Sooner you realise this the better for yourself!

[steakbake]

lol Scotland will always say no! Sooner you realise this the better for yourself!

:donotfeedthetroll:

[One Day Soon]

This thread is a dead parrot.

[steakbake]

This thread is a dead parrot.

It's worn itself out.

[One Day Soon]

It's worn itself out.

More like its had the life ritually beaten out of it by a thousand glib assertions. Poor parrot.

[Just Alf]

Credit to you for responding, out of the folk I listed.

It still doesn't tell me what you would have said to older people, if it was them that lost it for you.

Is that true for the rest of you? AllModCons, JeMeSouviens, Hiberlin etc?

I'm not on your list :-(

so I'll call myself "etc? :greengrin

I only have direct knowledge of my in-laws.... in their late 70's .....

They both like the idea of independence but they voted no because they were worried about their pensions.

That's it.... that was their only worry and it is pivotal to them as, from their point of view, they cant go back out to work if something went wrong with their pensions.

there's bound to be loads of other reasons from others but there you go.

[NAE NOOKIE]

lol Scotland will always say no! Sooner you realise this the better for yourself!

That my friend of all of the words in the English language is the one which is least applicable to the recorded history of the human race.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I agree with what you say but feel that the current crop of OAPs are war and post war babies so feel they have that affinity with the union, with a more tech savvy generation coming up behind them I would hope they have more information at their disposal instead of believing some of the scare stories, I honestly believe an independent Scotland is inevitable, just hope I'm about to see it

I agree there was an element of that. My late mum born in 1926, God rest her, was a case in point.

[Moulin Yarns]

I agree there was an element of that. My late mum born in 1926, God rest her, was a case in point.

My late mum was always SNP in Fife. Talk about needles in haystacks. I would like to think she would have been a Yes, but I know my brother and I would have explained the pension situation well enough.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's not an accusation, just a heads-up on how it came across to me since Beefster seemed unsure as to how it had been received.

Fwiw, after a few days of bitter teeth gnashing, I'm totally over the Indyref*. As I said, would've loved to have won but looking forward to the building of a stronger SP with powers that work, thereby derisking the proposition for next time. I think a key part of this will be EVEL. Making London a less powerful, attractive place to work for Unionist party MPs where they can only ever be 2nd class backbenchers will see more of them stay at Holyrood, and if they stay at Holyrood and are ambitious, they'll look for more power. A self reinforcing cycle to drive us down the slippery slope.

* I got notice of redundancy the week after the Indyref (great year :rolleyes:), "poor me". :wink: Good for perspective though!

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things work out for you.

[Mibbes Aye]

if you believe the stats then it was the OAP vote that sealed the deal where as the majority of youngsters wanted independence, I would say that there was pretty much nothing the Yes campaign could have done to sway the majority of the oldies for various reasons, if we had another vote in 20 years time and the yes could engage the youngsters again then I could see them winning this time

I've been thinking carefully how to word this and of it sounds horrible or flippant it's because I can't think of a way to word it correctly but I think the younger generations have been stitched up a bit, everyone deserves a vote but let's face it in 20 years lots of these older folk are not going to be here, there should have been a bigger engagement between the generations asking what the younger people wanted as let's face it they are who ones who are going to live it

I know where you are coming from and while I disagree, it is a difficult thing to word appropriately and you've done that as well as anyone could IMO.

I suppose the counter-arguments would be along the lines of older people potentially having greater wisdom from just longer lived experience? As referenced elsewhere I also wonder whether people's views shift? I don't have any stats but I would gamble that a decent number of No voters in their sixties were Yes-minded in their twenties.

I suppose I wonder what happened to the Yes voters from 1979. They must have included most pro-independence folk surely? It feels like some of them must have shifted away from Yes over the last 35 years?

[Mibbes Aye]

I will get back to you with regard to your post as to why I think Yes didn't win the referendum vote. FWIW, I fully accept the result, but despite being on the losing side have taken a lot of positives from the defeat.

Putting that to one side for a moment, I’m not at all surprised to learn that you graduated in politics. You write a good story, there is no denying that but, unfortunately, your posts often culminate in pontification and political dogma.

To be fair, it was a while ago and I've done other things since then, so I don't think it defines me


None more so than your diatribe around Nationalism as an ideology. For most of us ‘lay people’ this is not what it is about at all, quite simply put, I don’t see my support for the SNP or the Yes campaign as some kind of Nationalist Ideology, I just happen to think that a Government based in Edinburgh is better placed to deal with the issues that affect Scotland. It is a simple political decision that I do not look to as an Ideology. Your preference is the Westminster system of Government, mine is Holyrood.

Two things.

First, it is the fate of those who follow an ideology to claim they don't - they will often claim they actually follow something that is 'common-sense' or the 'natural state of things'.

Second, if you go back to my posts I've often argued for a federalism with lots of decision-making devolved to a Lothian or South-east Scotland region. I don't prefer Westminster, I think localism would be more inhibited by Holyrood having supremacy.


In one of your earlier posts you state quite categorically that “I would compare your Yes camp more with something like the anti-abortionists. Often vociferous, vitriolic and vehement in their self-belief that they were right and their opponents were wrong but ultimately the majority didn't like the look of your prospectus”.

In another you follow it with this “I'll say it again, both issues seem to be characterised by a vocal element who can't grasp at all that others might have a differing opinion, which is valid and god forbid, possibly even correct. There's an unhealthy and often comparable degree of zealotry in both those camps.

These, of course, are criticisms that can be levelled at any political group but, for you, are only attributable to the SNP or Nationalists.

Not true. As you've just proved, I level them at anti-abortionists too. I don't doubt I could level them at others in another thread, where relevant.


Never has anybody in the Labour Party been vociferous, vitriolic and vehement in their self belief that they were right and their opponents wrong?

Having made a direct link between Pro-Life Campaigners and the Yes campaign and accused us of extremism you then have the audacity to ask for an olive branch!

You maybe can’t see it, but your rhetoric doesn’t appear to be saying I’m willing to listen.

I accept that, it's fair comment.

I don't think it takes away from my point though.

You (collectively) might not like the messenger, or the way the message is conveyed, but the message is true


Where I do agree with you is that those who support Independence do need to engage with No voters but, occasionally, there are those on both sides that no matter how you engage them will not be swayed. Your rhetoric shows that you clearly abhor the Nationalist movement and, as such, you should not be surprised that insults are traded in the manner they are/have been.

There are some willing to look past their own politcal roots, engage and see the Yes campiagn for what it was/is, sadly, just not enough.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class


i don't abhor the Nationalist movement, it's not personal. Like most folk I've got friends and family who were vehemently Yes and some who were absolutely No. I do have a problem with nationalism generally though, as I've posted before I think it's a distasteful ideology based on the politics of difference and based on the nurturing of resentment.

[GreenLake]

Your camp were blaming the local press regardless!

Get your message right, stop scaring people and you might have a chance.

Why do you think 55% of Scottish voters said no?

Because they were scared. :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not on your list :-(

so I'll call myself "etc? :greengrin

I only have direct knowledge of my in-laws.... in their late 70's .....

They both like the idea of independence but they voted no because they were worried about their pensions.

That's it.... that was their only worry and it is pivotal to them as, from their point of view, they cant go back out to work if something went wrong with their pensions.

there's bound to be loads of other reasons from others but there you go.

Sorry for not including you :greengrin

I think that's really valuable. The specifics for a lot of people aren't about dewy-eyed notions of 'controlling our destiny' or rejecting what's perceived as a small-minded ideology, they're about the very practical issues of what change means in terms of daily living.

[Mibbes Aye]

Because they were scared. :greengrin

So they should have been!

Gambling our future on a bunch of half-baked promises :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Hi mate,

I think we lost the vote due to not spending enough time encouraging the older voter. I said so at the time to one of my Yes colleagues whilst out canvassing. My surprise on the night of the vote was the Highlands and Perth and Kinross, when I seen them go NAW, I went to bed.

The other thing against us was the MSM (I know, I know) but, let's face it, if you have an overwhelming body of information against you, then it's going to be a hard slog. To have got 45% of the vote imo was immense.

The ref even empowered me to go and join a political party. I joined in with the rest of my new colleagues(over 50 of us) at our first branch meeting last week.

Onwards and upwards to keeping the Unionist parties feet to the fire, and get those "Extensive Powers/Home Rule/Federalism/Devo Max", for ALL OF US.


So which Party did you join?

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's worn itself out.

It's pining for the fjords.

[Chibs]

So they should have been!

Gambling our future on a bunch of half-baked promises :greengrin

I assume you are talking about the vow.

[Hibrandenburg]

AllModCons?

JeMeSouviens?

Ronaldo7?

GoldenFleece?

Hiberlin?

I know you're not all SNP members but you were Yes supporters.

What do you think went wrong with the Yes strategy, given there must have been a strategy to win the vote?

What would you have done differently?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bYajHIcXMk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[allmodcons]

First, it is the fate of those who follow an ideology to claim they don't - they will often claim they actually follow something that is 'common-sense' or the 'natural state of things'.

You (collectively) might not like the messenger, or the way the message is conveyed, but the message is true

I don't abhor the Nationalist movement, it's not personal. Like most folk I've got friends and family who were vehemently Yes and some who were absolutely No. I do have a problem with nationalism generally though, as I've posted before I think it's a distasteful ideology based on the politics of difference and based on the nurturing of resentment.

I have to say I enjoyed reading your reply to my post. So much so that I've picked out my favourite parts.

Firstly, thanks for letting me 'sit in the chair'. I hadn't realised you studied Politics & Psychology!

I would expect you to believe 'your' message to be true, but just because you have confidence in the point you are trying to make, don't expect everybody to buy it.

With regard to the final point I've picked out, I'll take you at your word and accept you don't abhor Scottish Nationalism you just find it distasteful. My mistake for using intemperate language.

[over the line]

* I got notice of redundancy the week after the Indyref (great year :rolleyes:), "poor me". :wink: Good for perspective though!

Hope it all works out ok for you fella. What line of work are you in?

[Mibbes Aye]

I have to say I enjoyed reading your reply to my post. So much so that I've picked out my favourite parts.

Firstly, thanks for letting me 'sit in the chair'. I hadn't realised you studied Politics & Psychology!

I would expect you to believe 'your' message to be true, but just because you have confidence in the point you are trying to make, don't expect everybody to buy it.

With regard to the final point I've picked out, I'll take you at your word and accept you don't abhor Scottish Nationalism you just find it distasteful. My mistake for using intemperate language.

Very good, but that particular message was, and let's take the time to repeat it - if you want to get your 45 to a 55 then you probably have to put aside your passion for a Yes vote and listen to why people went with No. Don't condemn them or criticise them, just take the time to listen to them and their reasons.

You don't have to 'buy it' but if you ignore it then how can you ever hope to win them round?

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bYajHIcXMk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

That doesn't say anything about the Yes strategy, it's merely a pretty poor argument to blame media bias in the last month.

Polling suggests the vast, vast majority of No voters had made up their minds by January this year so it doesn't feel relevant at all.

I was hoping for an answer to the question - what was the Yes strategy?

If we accept there was a pro-No bias in the print media, did that come as a surprise to the Yes camp? In which case what was their strategy to respond and why didn't they see it coming?

If they already believed there would be a pro-No bias, what was their strategy to counter it?

Blaming the print media seems like a cop-out - you either knew it was an issue, in which case what did you do about it, or you didn't think it was an issue but you're happy to blame it now, which suggests more than an element of incompetence?

[allmodcons]

Very good, but that particular message was, and let's take the time to repeat it - if you want to get your 45 to a 55 then you probably have to put aside your passion for a Yes vote and listen to why people went with No. Don't condemn them or criticise them, just take the time to listen to them and their reasons.

You don't have to 'buy it' but if you ignore it then how can you ever hope to win them round?

Apologies, that I don't dispute and, indeed, think a lot of listening to, and engaging with, the 55 will be essential.

By "message" I thought you were back on your Nationalist ideology diatribe!

Also, I meant to ask if you took the time to read Billy Bragg's pre-referendum piece?

[Mibbes Aye]

Apologies, that I don't dispute and, indeed, think a lot of listening to, and engaging with, the 55 will be essential.

By "message" I thought you were back on your Nationalist ideology diatribe!

No probs, in hindsight I could have worded it more clearly . The ideology thing is my view and only my view and I'm happy to own it as such. Didn't think it was a diatribe admittedly, it was hardly council tax freeze-proportions :greengrin

Talking to the 55 is only a view as well, I suppose, but it feels like we can all agree that it's where a Yes campaign has to go to, if it is to prevail :dunno:

[allmodcons]

No probs, in hindsight I could have worded it more clearly . The ideology thing is my view and only my view and I'm happy to own it as such. Didn't think it was a diatribe admittedly, it was hardly council tax freeze-proportions :greengrin

Talking to the 55 is only a view as well, I suppose, but it feels like we can all agree that it's where a Yes campaign has to go to, if it is to prevail :dunno:

My laptop is giving me more problems than you :0(
FWIW, I'm with you on the CT freeze.
Did you read the Billy Bragg piece?

[Just Alf]

Sorry for not including you :greengrin

I think that's really valuable. The specifics for a lot of people aren't about dewy-eyed notions of 'controlling our destiny' or rejecting what's perceived as a small-minded ideology, they're about the very practical issues of what change means in terms of daily living.

I'll live :greengrin

Not sure if it was you that asked MA, but there was a question "what went wrong with the Yes argument or what could have been done better?"

The White Paper thingy did set out some of the detail about what could change then went onto give the SNP vision in part 2..... I think that was a major flaw, If the Greens, Labour for Independence etc. had all similarly set out their stall to say that "in an independent Scotland, these are the sorts of policies we'd envisage bringing to the table if voted in" then a wider audience may have seen other possible outcomes after a Yes vote and may have been more inclined to support it, I guess it would also have softened the "a yes vote is a vote for Salmond" discussions as well.

[allmodcons]

I'll live :greengrin

Not sure if it was you that asked MA, but there was a question "what went wrong with the Yes argument or what could have been done better?"

The White Paper thingy did set out some of the detail about what could change then went onto give the SNP vision in part 2..... I think that was a major flaw, If the Greens, Labour for Independence etc. had all similarly set out their stall to say that "in an independent Scotland, these are the sorts of policies we'd envisage bringing to the table if voted in" then a wider audience may have seen other possible outcomes after a Yes vote and may have been more inclined to support it, I guess it would also have softened the "a yes vote is a vote for Salmond" discussions as well.

This is a fair point JA.

I think not separating the 'SNP vision' from sovereignty and the options it would have brought to the table of an Independent Scotland was almost certainly a factor in 'Yes' losing the vote.

[Mibbes Aye]

My laptop is giving me more problems than you :0(
FWIW, I'm with you on the CT freeze.
Did you read the Billy Bragg piece?

No, or maybe and can't remember!

Was it linked on here (vague memories it might have been a while back, pre-vote?)

I'll look for it if you 're suggesting it's worth a read.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'll live :greengrin

Not sure if it was you that asked MA, but there was a question "what went wrong with the Yes argument or what could have been done better?"

The White Paper thingy did set out some of the detail about what could change then went onto give the SNP vision in part 2..... I think that was a major flaw, If the Greens, Labour for Independence etc. had all similarly set out their stall to say that "in an independent Scotland, these are the sorts of policies we'd envisage bringing to the table if voted in" then a wider audience may have seen other possible outcomes after a Yes vote and may have been more inclined to support it, I guess it would also have softened the "a yes vote is a vote for Salmond" discussions as well.

Fair comment.

I agree, the White Paper probably hindered rather than helped, given it tied Yes into one particular agenda.

Other folk have posted, about this and I've never really commented on it, but if it had been a Yes, there's a lot of people who were No voters but would have had to adapt to a Yes world.

Their principles and beliefs wouldn't have changed though - they would still be Labour-minded and Tory-minded and LibDem-minded. The vision for an independent Scotland has to speak to them if it is to be realised. What we got was a hotch-potch that gave no one any assurances. In my lifetime, every UK election has probably been won on an economic argument. This one failed on that test, because regardless of who is blamed, the questions about currency, pensions etc weren't resolved for enough of the electorate.

Fix that and there might be enough support for Yes. Don't fix it and people will never risk it.

[allmodcons]

No, or maybe and can't remember!

Was it linked on here (vague memories it might have been a while back, pre-vote?)

I'll look for it if you 're suggesting it's worth a read.

Link was at the foot of my first post today. Here it is

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class

[Hibrandenburg]

That doesn't say anything about the Yes strategy, it's merely a pretty poor argument to blame media bias in the last month.

Polling suggests the vast, vast majority of No voters had made up their minds by January this year so it doesn't feel relevant at all.

I was hoping for an answer to the question - what was the Yes strategy?

If we accept there was a pro-No bias in the print media, did that come as a surprise to the Yes camp? In which case what was their strategy to respond and why didn't they see it coming?

If they already believed there would be a pro-No bias, what was their strategy to counter it?

Blaming the print media seems like a cop-out - you either knew it was an issue, in which case what did you do about it, or you didn't think it was an issue but you're happy to blame it now, which suggests more than an element of incompetence?

You asked what went wrong with the YES strategy and I gave you my answer. I know you think the media has little influence on the population and that you think it's the population who influence the press but I disagree whole heartedly with that. They who control the media control the people, it's been known for a long time and used to great effect by the Nazis, North Korea and the whole advertisement industry lives from that fact.

The YES campaign didn't have a cat in hells chance of competing against the British State backed by the mainstream media, the dice were loaded from the start and any strategy was doomed to fail because it would always be trivialized in the press.

FWIW I think the YES campaign got their strategy bang on but were always going to lose because other than their grass roots campaign they had no answer to the propaganda machine of Westminster.

My biggest disappointment is that not enough people saw through that but I'm confident that the TV and newspaper generation won't play such a big part in the coming years.

[Mibbes Aye]

Link was at the foot of my first post today. Here it is

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class

Sorry, missed it in your post today. I'm not unfamiliar with this argument.

I don't buy into this attempt to divorce nationalism from its essence, which is a fostering of the politics of difference based on spurious grounds of national identity.

It's not 'civic nationalism' to claim you want to do something different, something that claims to be closer to a philosophy of social justice. That's just nationalism donning sheep's clothing, trying to ignore its basic premise - that Jeff from Edinburgh is of a different DNA from Geoff in Exeter and that's something to highlight as a difference rather than celebrate as diversity.

It doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, this attempt to define 'civic' nationalism as some standalone philosophy, different from 'ethnic' nationalism. In fact in some ways, it exemplifies the kind of arrogance that is unfortunately attributable to nationalism, this idea that there is an 'other' and what 'we' do is better than the 'other'.

I like some of Bragg's music but I challenge anyone to explain to me how he is right to say that Scottish nationalism fits with the 'progressive' tradition of the Chartists or 'The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists', a text which he no doubt holds dear. How does a reduction in corporation tax, or a council tax freeze fit with that?

[Mibbes Aye]

You asked what went wrong with the YES strategy and I gave you my answer. I know you think the media has little influence on the population and that you think it's the population who influence the press but I disagree whole heartedly with that. They who control the media control the people, it's been known for a long time and used to great effect by the Nazis, North Korea and the whole advertisement industry lives from that fact.

The YES campaign didn't have a cat in hells chance of competing against the British State backed by the mainstream media, the dice were loaded from the start and any strategy was doomed to fail because it would always be trivialized in the press.

FWIW I think the YES campaign got their strategy bang on but were always going to lose because other than their grass roots campaign they had no answer to the propaganda machine of Westminster.

My biggest disappointment is that not enough people saw through that but I'm confident that the TV and newspaper generation won't play such a big part in the coming years.

So did the Yes strategists know about this vast conspiracy? Nazi and North Korean-like elements against them (was it you who mentioned the hyperbole express before)?

If they did, what did they do to counter it?

If they didn't, why not? How come you knew and they didn't?

Re your last point, I've said it before, I'll say it again. You won't win votes telling people they were stupid and wrong and didn't see what you could see.

You need to accept and acknowledge people said No and talk to them about why, if you've any chance of them saying Yes in the future.

Voters don't like being told they were stupid, trust me.

[johnbc70]

You asked what went wrong with the YES strategy and I gave you my answer. I know you think the media has little influence on the population and that you think it's the population who influence the press but I disagree whole heartedly with that. They who control the media control the people, it's been known for a long time and used to great effect by the Nazis, North Korea and the whole advertisement industry lives from that fact.

The YES campaign didn't have a cat in hells chance of competing against the British State backed by the mainstream media, the dice were loaded from the start and any strategy was doomed to fail because it would always be trivialized in the press.

FWIW I think the YES campaign got their strategy bang on but were always going to lose because other than their grass roots campaign they had no answer to the propaganda machine of Westminster.

My biggest disappointment is that not enough people saw through that but I'm confident that the TV and newspaper generation won't play such a big part in the coming years.

Your entitled to your view but you need to take the blinkers off for one minute. The head of the Yes campaign himself said the media was not bias, but he was wrong and you managed to see all this happening while the head of the whole Yes campaign failed to?

[John Whyte]

There's the rub. Most of the people I have spoken to gave reasons which were nothing more than lies they'd been fed by the media.

[Beefster]

There's the rub. Most of the people I have spoken to gave reasons which were nothing more than lies they'd been fed by the media.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it works both ways and has no real basis or truth behind it.

I've spoken a fair number of people who voted yes to get rid of nukes, to get all our energy by green methods and eradicate poverty. None of which were likely.

[Moulin Yarns]

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it works both ways and has no real basis or truth behind it.

I've spoken a fair number of people who voted yes to get rid of nukes, to get all our energy by green methods and eradicate poverty. None of which were likely.




All parties of the Yes campaign aimed to rid Scotland of Nuclear weapons, regardless of Westminster's argument, they would have been removed from Scotland. It would probably have taken longer than AS said, but it would happen, there is precedent for unilateral nuclear disarmament, so I disagree with you on that one, it is more than an aspiration.
The main parties of the Yes campaign aim to generate all energy from renewable sources. Again, it would probably take longer than they wish, but it will (it has to) happen. the approval for 4 offshore wind farms that will provide energy for 25% of homes in Scotland is evidence that we are moving in the right direction. I have my own idea which could be made policy very easily that would increase renewable generation even further. I disagree with you because it is necessary and is already happening.
This is an aspiration, and is the only one that can't be guaranteed because there are so many conflicting influences.


I know you will argue black is white with me, but I believe you are wrong on 2 of your 3 points. Give me evidence that support your arguments if you are so sure of your points. (this debate could run and run :greengrin)

[ronaldo7]

Credit to you for responding, out of the folk I listed.

It still doesn't tell me what you would have said to older people, if it was them that lost it for you.

Is that true for the rest of you? AllModCons, JeMeSouviens, Hiberlin etc?

I had several conversations through my work with older people. Every one of them I spoke with, were a guaranteed No. This was down to their perceptions that their pensions would somehow change. Others within the group were happy with their lot in life, their free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, even some with free personal care.

I spoke at length with two couples who were happy with their lot. One couple would go out every Friday for a fish tea at the local Wetherspoons. They'd worked all their lives and didn't want to change anything. The other couple with the wife stuck in the house due to her disability whilst her husband "provided", everything for her. She got the papers delivered every day and sat in the house watching the TV.

Another auld gadge would never budge from his Labour stance. His Dad before him had voted Labour and he would never change. When I asked how his family are voting, he said they were all voting Yes. Not even his family would change his mind.

I even showed a couple of them the letter that was doing the rounds about from the DWP that your pension would be safe. Nothing would have changed their minds imo

I know that some others may have switched to yes due to personal circumstances, it's just the ones I spoke with were never going to move.

I bumped into the Fish tea folk in Weatherspoons the other week and they gave me the :aok: he'd kept the front page of the Record for me. I'll keep it for later. Might be able to wrap his fish tea in it soon:wink:

[Beefster]

All parties of the Yes campaign aimed to rid Scotland of Nuclear weapons, regardless of Westminster's argument, they would have been removed from Scotland. It would probably have taken longer than AS said, but it would happen, there is precedent for unilateral nuclear disarmament, so I disagree with you on that one, it is more than an aspiration.
The main parties of the Yes campaign aim to generate all energy from renewable sources. Again, it would probably take longer than they wish, but it will (it has to) happen. the approval for 4 offshore wind farms that will provide energy for 25% of homes in Scotland is evidence that we are moving in the right direction. I have my own idea which could be made policy very easily that would increase renewable generation even further. I disagree with you because it is necessary and is already happening.
This is an aspiration, and is the only one that can't be guaranteed because there are so many conflicting influences.


I know you will argue black is white with me, but I believe you are wrong on 2 of your 3 points. Give me evidence that support your arguments if you are so sure of your points. (this debate could run and run :greengrin)

Like your points, there is no evidence of my opinion. I think you know that though.

1. The removal of nuclear weapons would have been once of the first things to be negotiated away in the quest to keep the pound and remain a member of NATO IMHO.

2. Total green energy whilst relying on oil revenue is, IMHO, completely incompatible. Using your logic, the UK promised 100% renewable energy because, at some point in the future, it may be the only show in town (unless my efforts at a perpetual motion machine pay off).

3. I agree that it can't be guaranteed. Aside from anything else, poverty is all relative (someone living in poverty in another country may think that Scottish poverty was pretty luxurious) so, even if successful, all it would have done is move the definition of poverty.

My point was more about how these things were used as cast-iron guarantees by either politicians or campaigners. If independence had been voted for, I suspect that there would have been a lot of unhappy people who voted on unrealistic premises and then were told that the stuff they voted for were only aspirations. It's my aspiration to win the lottery and have Olivia Munn as a second wife. I can promise folk that it'll happen but it probably won't.

[Hibrandenburg]

So did the Yes strategists know about this vast conspiracy? Nazi and North Korean-like elements against them (was it you who mentioned the hyperbole express before)?

If they did, what did they do to counter it?

If they didn't, why not? How come you knew and they didn't?

Re your last point, I've said it before, I'll say it again. You won't win votes telling people they were stupid and wrong and didn't see what you could see.

You need to accept and acknowledge people said No and talk to them about why, if you've any chance of them saying Yes in the future.

Voters don't like being told they were stupid, trust me.

I'm not saying people are stupid I'm saying a lot of them are just like you and see what they want to see in what others say making them easy prey to headlines and hyperbole. You just proved that in your last post by claiming I compared the UK government to the Nazis and North Korea, I didn't but you saw it there because you wanted to. I merely pointed out good examples of media manipulation to sway public opinion but you can't take it on board because it doesn't fit your agenda.

If I've learned one thing during the independence campaign, it's that there are some people out there who are so convinced of their own intellectual infallibility that they are only willing to take on board that what confirms their own opinion. These people are not stupid and not confined to the anti-independence side but are so set in their ways that it's not worth trying to discuss politics with them because they'll only ever be looking for the negatives in others opinions to confirm their own stance even when the negatives are far outweighed by the positives. That's blinkered.

[Moulin Yarns]

Like your points, there is no evidence of my opinion. I think you know that though.

1. The removal of nuclear weapons would have been once of the first things to be negotiated away in the quest to keep the pound and remain a member of NATO IMHO.
Ah, the pound dilemma. We would have kept the pound that was admitted by various members of the BT side, maybe you meant 'in a currency union' :wink:, I wonder how the rUK would have managed without the cure all of the currency union? I guess we will never know. As I said, there is already a precedent for unilateral nuclear disarmament which shows it is possible.

2. Total green energy whilst relying on oil revenue is, IMHO, completely incompatible. Using your logic, the UK promised 100% renewable energy because, at some point in the future, it may be the only show in town (unless my efforts at a perpetual motion machine pay off).

But the oil is running out, so we kept being told, so we need to plan for the time it runs out in 2050 :wink:, http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2754728/SIR-IAN-WOOD-Why-Salmonds-wrong-Scotlands-oil-Its-running-faster-thinks-says-British-billionaire-built-North-Sea-fortune-makes-impassioned-plea-save-union.html That was just another lie that has been disproved immediately after the vote.

Keep working on your perpetual motion machine, the wind is running out, and the sun will implode sometime as well. :wink: Don't forget Nuclear energy, (which I want to wind down and not be extended


3. I agree that it can't be guaranteed. Aside from anything else, poverty is all relative (someone living in poverty in another country may think that Scottish poverty was pretty luxurious) so, even if successful, all it would have done is move the definition of poverty.

My point was more about how these things were used as cast-iron guarantees by either politicians or campaigners. If independence had been voted for, I suspect that there would have been a lot of unhappy people who voted on unrealistic premises and then were told that the stuff they voted for were only aspirations. It's my aspiration to win the lottery and have Olivia Munn as a second wife. I can promise folk that it'll happen but it probably won't.

I was never disillusioned that everything would fall into place immediately on Independence Day, the people of Scotland would have had to work hard to make the country as successful as possible. As it says below, it wouldn't be Utopia.

[Hibrandenburg]

Your entitled to your view but you need to take the blinkers off for one minute. The head of the Yes campaign himself said the media was not bias, but he was wrong and you managed to see all this happening while the head of the whole Yes campaign failed to?

The head of the YES campaign took a complete battering from the press and would be stupid to pick a fight with them before he hands the reigns of leadership over to his successor.

I watched an interview with Salmond and Adam Boulton the other day where the frustration of the situation was written all over Salmond's face. He had to spend 95% of the interview correcting inaccuracies brought up by Boulton, it must have been like pissing in the wind for him trying to get a message over to a journalist who was only interested in trying to make Salmond look stupid based on inaccuracies. Salmond pointed out to Boulton that "he was in danger of losing as much credibility as his colleagues at the BBC". Hardly sounds like a statement from a man who considers the press is not biased.

[RyeSloan]

All parties of the Yes campaign aimed to rid Scotland of Nuclear weapons, regardless of Westminster's argument, they would have been removed from Scotland. It would probably have taken longer than AS said, but it would happen, there is precedent for unilateral nuclear disarmament, so I disagree with you on that one, it is more than an aspiration. The main parties of the Yes campaign aim to generate all energy from renewable sources. Again, it would probably take longer than they wish, but it will (it has to) happen. the approval for 4 offshore wind farms that will provide energy for 25% of homes in Scotland is evidence that we are moving in the right direction. I have my own idea which could be made policy very easily that would increase renewable generation even further. I disagree with you because it is necessary and is already happening. This is an aspiration, and is the only one that can't be guaranteed because there are so many conflicting influences. I know you will argue black is white with me, but I believe you are wrong on 2 of your 3 points. Give me evidence that support your arguments if you are so sure of your points. (this debate could run and run :greengrin)

I'm interested in your energy policy idea.

I'm also interested in the cost of the offshore wind you support and how that compares to traditional energy generation

I'm even more interested in seeing an example if an electricity grid that can reliably deliver energy to a country based 100% on renewables.

It seems to me that people like the idea of green energy without understanding the current costs and challenges it brings. Sure I'm certain that at one point in the future we may remove the need to burn fossil fuel for energy but I've seen nothing to suggest that utopia is anywhere near being cost effective in the short to medium term (barring maybe solar in very sunny places). I'm also very curious as to how Scotland being independent would have brought that day forward in any meaningful way.

Not being flippant, it was a key point brought up time and again to support independence yet I failed to see any serious analysis of how it would be done and how it could be afforded by the generators and consumers alike. More than happy to be shown that analysis though...as I said I have a lay mans interest in this type of thing so happy to read up further.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm interested in your energy policy idea.

I'm also interested in the cost of the offshore wind you support and how that compares to traditional energy generation

I'm even more interested in seeing an example if an electricity grid that can reliably deliver energy to a country based 100% on renewables.

It seems to me that people like the idea of green energy without understanding the current costs and challenges it brings. Sure I'm certain that at one point in the future we may remove the need to burn fossil fuel for energy but I've seen nothing to suggest that utopia is anywhere near being cost effective in the short to medium term (barring maybe solar in very sunny places). I'm also very curious as to how Scotland being independent would have brought that day forward in any meaningful way.

Not being flippant, it was a key point brought up time and again to support independence yet I failed to see any serious analysis of how it would be done and how it could be afforded by the generators and consumers alike. More than happy to be shown that analysis though...as I said I have a lay mans interest in this type of thing so happy to read up further.

Might be simplistic but if we don't make the change the costs will be much more than financial. You can't breathe money.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm interested in your energy policy idea.

I'm also interested in the cost of the offshore wind you support and how that compares to traditional energy generation

I'm even more interested in seeing an example if an electricity grid that can reliably deliver energy to a country based 100% on renewables.

It seems to me that people like the idea of green energy without understanding the current costs and challenges it brings. Sure I'm certain that at one point in the future we may remove the need to burn fossil fuel for energy but I've seen nothing to suggest that utopia is anywhere near being cost effective in the short to medium term (barring maybe solar in very sunny places). I'm also very curious as to how Scotland being independent would have brought that day forward in any meaningful way.

Not being flippant, it was a key point brought up time and again to support independence yet I failed to see any serious analysis of how it would be done and how it could be afforded by the generators and consumers alike. More than happy to be shown that analysis though...as I said I have a lay mans interest in this type of thing so happy to read up further.


I work in the local Planning department, and help to develop policy and strategy. My speciality isn't sustainability, but I work with those that do and have picked up a lot of interesting insight into renewable energy and where it could be improved.

Here's a wee thing to think about, before oil and gas, the main energy source was coal, before coal (and the industrial revolution)? wind and water, and wood. What are we now calling renewables? exactly, we are going backwards to go forwards. The only thing that has changed is the technology which has vastly improved.

I think there has been a move to more small scale generation where it is required, and most of it isn't very visible so is probably not appreciated.

I regularly see planning applications for hydro schemes which are 'run of river' some even use archimedes screws, where water is taken out at high level, piped to a turbine lower down and returned to the river, minimising impact on the environment. These schemes typical generate between 0.2 and 1MW of energy and there several hundred across Scotland, manly in the highland area. These typically provide reliable energy to remote rural estates, and like solar energy, they feed into the grid anything above that required locally.

We don't remember the water mills that lined our rivers, but the same principal applies of generating energy where it is required, meaning less reliance on the national grid, but at the same time providing excess energy to the grid.

Another 'old technology' is wind, windmills used to be dotted about all over the place, even Edinburgh (Bellford Mill, Leith Mill and Mylne's Mill)

Wind Energy is what we hear most about, onshore is easier to build, but has an environmental impact, often involving destroying areas of peat, releasing Co2 into the atmosphere, that is now being addressed by more careful choice of micro locating turbines where there is less impact. We hear more about the large wind farms like Griffin, 68 turbines, with between 93 and 101m turbines which generates 156MW, but there is a large number of small scale single or groups of 2 or 3 turbines which, like the Hydro schemes mentioned above, generate energy where it is used, and weed anything extra into the grid.

The problem with onshore wind energy schemes is the wind is unreliable, particularly when areas of high pressure sit over the country in winter, when we need the energy most, which is why there is a move towards offshore turbines where there is more reliable airflow from land to sea due to the temperature gradient. The development costs are higher for offshore, but it is more reliable.

Then we come to Solar energy, the only 'new technology' and one with a lot of misunderstanding, but huge potential.

Firstly you don't need full sunlight, but it helps. We have seen solar panels on house roofs, they typical produce 4KW for an average roof, again, the energy is used where it is generated and the surplus sold to the grid, but they don't need to be on roofs. There are plans to build a solar farm, basically 2 fields covered with solar panels beside the Tay between Perth and Dundee, and the good thing is the field can still take livestock as the panels are off the ground.

I would like to see a Scottish Planning Policy where it is a requirement to incorporate energy generation, not just energy conservation in every new building. Imagine, every new house has to have solar panels, a small increase in cost (estimate of £5,000 to £8,000 per house) but reduced fuel bills as a result.

I haven't even mentioned renewable heat systems. Biomass boilers, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps.

OK, I've only scraped the surface, and not answered all your questions.

National grid delivering 100% renewables is not necessarily the answer, more generation of our own energy where it is required is one of the other options, and there is already huge amount happening as you can see.


As for it happening in Scotland if it had voted for Independence, nothing in life is guaranteed, but from what I have read from the parties at both Scottish and UK wide level regarding their policies, the Scottish politicians, of all colours, are further committed than their UK counterparts.

I hope that gives some insight into where my opinions come from, and they are just my opinion.

My party of choice are closest to these views, but how much power they will have in the future, who knows.

Don't mention Nuclear energy, that is a whole different kettle of fish, or can of worms.

PHEW, that has been one of my most serious posts.

[Hibrandenburg]

I work in the local Planning department, and help to develop policy and strategy. My speciality isn't sustainability, but I work with those that do and have picked up a lot of interesting insight into renewable energy and where it could be improved.

Here's a wee thing to think about, before oil and gas, the main energy source was coal, before coal (and the industrial revolution)? wind and water, and wood. What are we now calling renewables? exactly, we are going backwards to go forwards. The only thing that has changed is the technology which has vastly improved.

I think there has been a move to more small scale generation where it is required, and most of it isn't very visible so is probably not appreciated.

I regularly see planning applications for hydro schemes which are 'run of river' some even use archimedes screws, where water is taken out at high level, piped to a turbine lower down and returned to the river, minimising impact on the environment. These schemes typical generate between 0.2 and 1MW of energy and there several hundred across Scotland, manly in the highland area. These typically provide reliable energy to remote rural estates, and like solar energy, they feed into the grid anything above that required locally.

We don't remember the water mills that lined our rivers, but the same principal applies of generating energy where it is required, meaning less reliance on the national grid, but at the same time providing excess energy to the grid.

Another 'old technology' is wind, windmills used to be dotted about all over the place, even Edinburgh (Bellford Mill, Leith Mill and Mylne's Mill)

Wind Energy is what we hear most about, onshore is easier to build, but has an environmental impact, often involving destroying areas of peat, releasing Co2 into the atmosphere, that is now being addressed by more careful choice of micro locating turbines where there is less impact. We hear more about the large wind farms like Griffin, 68 turbines, with between 93 and 101m turbines which generates 156MW, but there is a large number of small scale single or groups of 2 or 3 turbines which, like the Hydro schemes mentioned above, generate energy where it is used, and weed anything extra into the grid.

The problem with onshore wind energy schemes is the wind is unreliable, particularly when areas of high pressure sit over the country in winter, when we need the energy most, which is why there is a move towards offshore turbines where there is more reliable airflow from land to sea due to the temperature gradient. The development costs are higher for offshore, but it is more reliable.

Then we come to Solar energy, the only 'new technology' and one with a lot of misunderstanding, but huge potential.

Firstly you don't need full sunlight, but it helps. We have seen solar panels on house roofs, they typical produce 4KW for an average roof, again, the energy is used where it is generated and the surplus sold to the grid, but they don't need to be on roofs. There are plans to build a solar farm, basically 2 fields covered with solar panels beside the Tay between Perth and Dundee, and the good thing is the field can still take livestock as the panels are off the ground.

I would like to see a Scottish Planning Policy where it is a requirement to incorporate energy generation, not just energy conservation in every new building. Imagine, every new house has to have solar panels, a small increase in cost (estimate of £5,000 to £8,000 per house) but reduced fuel bills as a result.

I haven't even mentioned renewable heat systems. Biomass boilers, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps.

OK, I've only scraped the surface, and not answered all your questions.

National grid delivering 100% renewables is not necessarily the answer, more generation of our own energy where it is required is one of the other options, and there is already huge amount happening as you can see.


As for it happening in Scotland if it had voted for Independence, nothing in life is guaranteed, but from what I have read from the parties at both Scottish and UK wide level regarding their policies, the Scottish politicians, of all colours, are further committed than their UK counterparts.

I hope that gives some insight into where my opinions come from, and they are just my opinion.

My party of choice are closest to these views, but how much power they will have in the future, who knows.

Don't mention Nuclear energy, that is a whole different kettle of fish, or can of worms.

PHEW, that has been one of my most serious posts.

And a damn good one at that.

[RyeSloan]

And a damn good one at that.

Agreed!

Thanks Fleece..I've not got time to reply now but when I get a sec I'll try and come back on yer very insightful post.

[Mibbes Aye]

I work in the local Planning department, and help to develop policy and strategy. My speciality isn't sustainability, but I work with those that do and have picked up a lot of interesting insight into renewable energy and where it could be improved.

Here's a wee thing to think about, before oil and gas, the main energy source was coal, before coal (and the industrial revolution)? wind and water, and wood. What are we now calling renewables? exactly, we are going backwards to go forwards. The only thing that has changed is the technology which has vastly improved.

I think there has been a move to more small scale generation where it is required, and most of it isn't very visible so is probably not appreciated.

I regularly see planning applications for hydro schemes which are 'run of river' some even use archimedes screws, where water is taken out at high level, piped to a turbine lower down and returned to the river, minimising impact on the environment. These schemes typical generate between 0.2 and 1MW of energy and there several hundred across Scotland, manly in the highland area. These typically provide reliable energy to remote rural estates, and like solar energy, they feed into the grid anything above that required locally.

We don't remember the water mills that lined our rivers, but the same principal applies of generating energy where it is required, meaning less reliance on the national grid, but at the same time providing excess energy to the grid.

Another 'old technology' is wind, windmills used to be dotted about all over the place, even Edinburgh (Bellford Mill, Leith Mill and Mylne's Mill)

Wind Energy is what we hear most about, onshore is easier to build, but has an environmental impact, often involving destroying areas of peat, releasing Co2 into the atmosphere, that is now being addressed by more careful choice of micro locating turbines where there is less impact. We hear more about the large wind farms like Griffin, 68 turbines, with between 93 and 101m turbines which generates 156MW, but there is a large number of small scale single or groups of 2 or 3 turbines which, like the Hydro schemes mentioned above, generate energy where it is used, and weed anything extra into the grid.

The problem with onshore wind energy schemes is the wind is unreliable, particularly when areas of high pressure sit over the country in winter, when we need the energy most, which is why there is a move towards offshore turbines where there is more reliable airflow from land to sea due to the temperature gradient. The development costs are higher for offshore, but it is more reliable.

Then we come to Solar energy, the only 'new technology' and one with a lot of misunderstanding, but huge potential.

Firstly you don't need full sunlight, but it helps. We have seen solar panels on house roofs, they typical produce 4KW for an average roof, again, the energy is used where it is generated and the surplus sold to the grid, but they don't need to be on roofs. There are plans to build a solar farm, basically 2 fields covered with solar panels beside the Tay between Perth and Dundee, and the good thing is the field can still take livestock as the panels are off the ground.

I would like to see a Scottish Planning Policy where it is a requirement to incorporate energy generation, not just energy conservation in every new building. Imagine, every new house has to have solar panels, a small increase in cost (estimate of £5,000 to £8,000 per house) but reduced fuel bills as a result.

I haven't even mentioned renewable heat systems. Biomass boilers, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps.

OK, I've only scraped the surface, and not answered all your questions.

National grid delivering 100% renewables is not necessarily the answer, more generation of our own energy where it is required is one of the other options, and there is already huge amount happening as you can see.


As for it happening in Scotland if it had voted for Independence, nothing in life is guaranteed, but from what I have read from the parties at both Scottish and UK wide level regarding their policies, the Scottish politicians, of all colours, are further committed than their UK counterparts.

I hope that gives some insight into where my opinions come from, and they are just my opinion.

My party of choice are closest to these views, but how much power they will have in the future, who knows.

Don't mention Nuclear energy, that is a whole different kettle of fish, or can of worms.

PHEW, that has been one of my most serious posts.

Great to read an informed post about a subject that gets bandied about regularly. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

You can't leave it hanging though, you have to post your thoughts on nuclear :greengrin. It sounds like you aren't taking a simplistic view.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not saying people are stupid I'm saying a lot of them are just like you and see what they want to see in what others say making them easy prey to headlines and hyperbole. You just proved that in your last post by claiming I compared the UK government to the Nazis and North Korea, I didn't but you saw it there because you wanted to. I merely pointed out good examples of media manipulation to sway public opinion but you can't take it on board because it doesn't fit your agenda.

If I've learned one thing during the independence campaign, it's that there are some people out there who are so convinced of their own intellectual infallibility that they are only willing to take on board that what confirms their own opinion. These people are not stupid and not confined to the anti-independence side but are so set in their ways that it's not worth trying to discuss politics with them because they'll only ever be looking for the negatives in others opinions to confirm their own stance even when the negatives are far outweighed by the positives. That's blinkered.

Maybe.

Or maybe they're just right in this case. Would that mean you were blinkered?

Maybe there's no wrong or right in this case and they're blinkered, you're blinkered and I'm blinkered.

Blinking heck :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

I work in the local Planning department, and help to develop policy and strategy. My speciality isn't sustainability, but I work with those that do and have picked up a lot of interesting insight into renewable energy and where it could be improved.

Here's a wee thing to think about, before oil and gas, the main energy source was coal, before coal (and the industrial revolution)? wind and water, and wood. What are we now calling renewables? exactly, we are going backwards to go forwards. The only thing that has changed is the technology which has vastly improved.

I think there has been a move to more small scale generation where it is required, and most of it isn't very visible so is probably not appreciated.

I regularly see planning applications for hydro schemes which are 'run of river' some even use archimedes screws, where water is taken out at high level, piped to a turbine lower down and returned to the river, minimising impact on the environment. These schemes typical generate between 0.2 and 1MW of energy and there several hundred across Scotland, manly in the highland area. These typically provide reliable energy to remote rural estates, and like solar energy, they feed into the grid anything above that required locally.

We don't remember the water mills that lined our rivers, but the same principal applies of generating energy where it is required, meaning less reliance on the national grid, but at the same time providing excess energy to the grid.

Another 'old technology' is wind, windmills used to be dotted about all over the place, even Edinburgh (Bellford Mill, Leith Mill and Mylne's Mill)

Wind Energy is what we hear most about, onshore is easier to build, but has an environmental impact, often involving destroying areas of peat, releasing Co2 into the atmosphere, that is now being addressed by more careful choice of micro locating turbines where there is less impact. We hear more about the large wind farms like Griffin, 68 turbines, with between 93 and 101m turbines which generates 156MW, but there is a large number of small scale single or groups of 2 or 3 turbines which, like the Hydro schemes mentioned above, generate energy where it is used, and weed anything extra into the grid.

The problem with onshore wind energy schemes is the wind is unreliable, particularly when areas of high pressure sit over the country in winter, when we need the energy most, which is why there is a move towards offshore turbines where there is more reliable airflow from land to sea due to the temperature gradient. The development costs are higher for offshore, but it is more reliable.

Then we come to Solar energy, the only 'new technology' and one with a lot of misunderstanding, but huge potential.

Firstly you don't need full sunlight, but it helps. We have seen solar panels on house roofs, they typical produce 4KW for an average roof, again, the energy is used where it is generated and the surplus sold to the grid, but they don't need to be on roofs. There are plans to build a solar farm, basically 2 fields covered with solar panels beside the Tay between Perth and Dundee, and the good thing is the field can still take livestock as the panels are off the ground.

I would like to see a Scottish Planning Policy where it is a requirement to incorporate energy generation, not just energy conservation in every new building. Imagine, every new house has to have solar panels, a small increase in cost (estimate of £5,000 to £8,000 per house) but reduced fuel bills as a result.

I haven't even mentioned renewable heat systems. Biomass boilers, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps.

OK, I've only scraped the surface, and not answered all your questions.

National grid delivering 100% renewables is not necessarily the answer, more generation of our own energy where it is required is one of the other options, and there is already huge amount happening as you can see.


As for it happening in Scotland if it had voted for Independence, nothing in life is guaranteed, but from what I have read from the parties at both Scottish and UK wide level regarding their policies, the Scottish politicians, of all colours, are further committed than their UK counterparts.

I hope that gives some insight into where my opinions come from, and they are just my opinion.

My party of choice are closest to these views, but how much power they will have in the future, who knows.

Don't mention Nuclear energy, that is a whole different kettle of fish, or can of worms.

PHEW, that has been one of my most serious posts.


Maximising the renewable stuff is important. However while it is all very nice, it doesn't deliver the baseload you need in a developed economy. Nuclear does and so does coal or gas. Gas has to come from dangerous far away places meaning it is very price volatile. Coal is dirty, though it can be scrubbed to a degree. That leaves nuclear which is the logical option. However our politics is so crap and our politicians so supine that they won't stand up for the logical option. Oh wait, England are building new nuclear so we can hypocritically rely on that for baseload while carefully polishing our green credentials.

[One Day Soon]

The head of the YES campaign took a complete battering from the press and would be stupid to pick a fight with them before he hands the reigns of leadership over to his successor.

I watched an interview with Salmond and Adam Boulton the other day where the frustration of the situation was written all over Salmond's face. He had to spend 95% of the interview correcting inaccuracies brought up by Boulton, it must have been like pissing in the wind for him trying to get a message over to a journalist who was only interested in trying to make Salmond look stupid based on inaccuracies. Salmond pointed out to Boulton that "he was in danger of losing as much credibility as his colleagues at the BBC". Hardly sounds like a statement from a man who considers the press is not biased.

I'm confused, are you referring to Blair Jenkins the official head of the Yes campaign or to Alex Salmond the de facto head of the Yes campaign?

[Moulin Yarns]

Great to read an informed post about a subject that gets bandied about regularly. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

You can't leave it hanging though, you have to post your thoughts on nuclear :greengrin. It sounds like you aren't taking a simplistic view.

I am a bit busy, but the simple answer, is that I accept Nuclear is here for the foreseeable future, but I would rather that we didn't have to rely on it, there were 5 accidents in the space of a week involving nuclear plants or waste in Scotland just this month. I no longer live in the central belt, so wouldn't be directly affected but the potential for a disaster exists as nuclear material is transported regularly. I would rather see it phased out as renewables come on stream. Same with fossil fuels, and I won't even go into fracking ! (opening up myself for the next question)


Maximising the renewable stuff is important. However while it is all very nice, it doesn't deliver the baseload you need in a developed economy. Nuclear does and so does coal or gas. Gas has to come from dangerous far away places meaning it is very price volatile. Coal is dirty, though it can be scrubbed to a degree. That leaves nuclear which is the logical option. However our politics is so crap and our politicians so supine that they won't stand up for the logical option. Oh wait, England are building new nuclear so we can hypocritically rely on that for baseload while carefully polishing our green credentials.

All energy sources are 'dirty' including nuclear and renewables, just to different extents. I refer to the manufacture process in the case of renewables (and the transport) and the volume of concrete that is required to hold turbines up.

A renewable I haven't even mentioned is wave and tidal power, which we have plenty resources for.

[One Day Soon]

I had several conversations through my work with older people. Every one of them I spoke with, were a guaranteed No. This was down to their perceptions that their pensions would somehow change. Others within the group were happy with their lot in life, their free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, even some with free personal care.

I spoke at length with two couples who were happy with their lot. One couple would go out every Friday for a fish tea at the local Wetherspoons. They'd worked all their lives and didn't want to change anything. The other couple with the wife stuck in the house due to her disability whilst her husband "provided", everything for her. She got the papers delivered every day and sat in the house watching the TV.

Another auld gadge would never budge from his Labour stance. His Dad before him had voted Labour and he would never change. When I asked how his family are voting, he said they were all voting Yes. Not even his family would change his mind.

I even showed a couple of them the letter that was doing the rounds about from the DWP that your pension would be safe. Nothing would have changed their minds imo

I know that some others may have switched to yes due to personal circumstances, it's just the ones I spoke with were never going to move.

I bumped into the Fish tea folk in Weatherspoons the other week and they gave me the :aok: he'd kept the front page of the Record for me. I'll keep it for later. Might be able to wrap his fish tea in it soon:wink:


Yes but which political party was it that you eventually joined? :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

I am a bit busy, but the simple answer, is that I accept Nuclear is here for the foreseeable future, but I would rather that we didn't have to rely on it, there were 5 accidents in the space of a week involving nuclear plants or waste in Scotland just this month. I no longer live in the central belt, so wouldn't be directly affected but the potential for a disaster exists as nuclear material is transported regularly. I would rather see it phased out as renewables come on stream. Same with fossil fuels, and I won't even go into fracking ! (opening up myself for the next question)



All energy sources are 'dirty' including nuclear and renewables, just to different extents. I refer to the manufacture process in the case of renewables (and the transport) and the volume of concrete that is required to hold turbines up.

A renewable I haven't even mentioned is wave and tidal power, which we have plenty resources for.


Where's the base load coming from?

[Mibbes Aye]

I had several conversations through my work with older people. Every one of them I spoke with, were a guaranteed No. This was down to their perceptions that their pensions would somehow change. Others within the group were happy with their lot in life, their free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, even some with free personal care.

I spoke at length with two couples who were happy with their lot. One couple would go out every Friday for a fish tea at the local Wetherspoons. They'd worked all their lives and didn't want to change anything. The other couple with the wife stuck in the house due to her disability whilst her husband "provided", everything for her. She got the papers delivered every day and sat in the house watching the TV.

Another auld gadge would never budge from his Labour stance. His Dad before him had voted Labour and he would never change. When I asked how his family are voting, he said they were all voting Yes. Not even his family would change his mind.

I even showed a couple of them the letter that was doing the rounds about from the DWP that your pension would be safe. Nothing would have changed their minds imo

I know that some others may have switched to yes due to personal circumstances, it's just the ones I spoke with were never going to move.

I bumped into the Fish tea folk in Weatherspoons the other week and they gave me the :aok: he'd kept the front page of the Record for me. I'll keep it for later. Might be able to wrap his fish tea in it soon:wink:

:greengrin

Thanks for that :aok: