Scottish Independence

[Fife-Hibee]

Top lads. :cool2:

https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/17883011.proclaimers-donate-scottish-independence-rally-george-square/

[Hibrandenburg]

Anyone else watch Yes/No inside the indy ref. Jaw dropping contempt from the BBC saying they weren't impartial and Tories admitting that they might not have been entirely honest in the run up to the vote and why the vow wasn't honoured. No **** Sherlock.

[Onceinawhile]

Scotland would need a further referendum on joining the EU. The present terms that the UK have will not be available to Scotland, it will also mean us using the Euro. That in itself is not insurmountable but certainly would cause issues with our biggest trade partners in the rUK


So what terms do you think the EU will set Scotland? We might be begging to use the euro if the new Scottish currency is a flop or we are still using the £

How have you gone from "it will mean using the euro" to "we might be begging to use the euro" in two posts?

With the exception of one post saying - that's been disproved, no one has debated the point at all, yet you've totally changed your position?

Were you just throwing the "it will mean using the euro" out there to try and annoy people, or was it just as a bare faced lie?

[ronaldo7]

Anyone else watch Yes/No inside the indy ref. Jaw dropping contempt from the BBC saying they weren't impartial and Tories admitting that they might not have been entirely honest in the run up to the vote and why the vow wasn't honoured. No **** Sherlock.

The good thing about this documentary, is people are seeing what the British state got up to in their determination to keep us.

The vow hasn't been delivered as the Scottish Parliament isn't permanent and can be dissolved by Westminster when they want to. It was all conventions, which you can now see with the Brexit debacle, the UK government riding roughshod through.

Bring on Indyref2.

[JeMeSouviens]

Anyone else watch Yes/No inside the indy ref. Jaw dropping contempt from the BBC saying they weren't impartial and Tories admitting that they might not have been entirely honest in the run up to the vote and why the vow wasn't honoured. No **** Sherlock.

The jaw dropping thing for me in that was Osbourne at the end: "the SNP were put firmly back in their box". Aye, ok then George. :rolleyes:

Clearly he'd used up his 45 minutes per decade interest in Scottish politics.

[xyz23jc]

The good thing about this documentary, is people are seeing what the British state got up to in their determination to keep us.

The vow hasn't been delivered as the Scottish Parliament isn't permanent and can be dissolved by Westminster when they want to. It was all conventions, which you can now see with the Brexit debacle, the UK government riding roughshod through.

Bring on Indyref2.

Never saw this, where can I find it, Iplayer or youtube? Maybe post a link if you can. Cheers.:aok:

[Moulin Yarns]

The poll from @thetimesscot this week supports our poll in March. Should there be an #indyref2 - 61%. Will there be one within the next five years - 65%. Will Scotland become an independent country - 63% https://t.co/70CPUSHfNL

[JeMeSouviens]

Never saw this, where can I find it, Iplayer or youtube? Maybe post a link if you can. Cheers.:aok:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00037wn/yesno-inside-the-indyref

[xyz23jc]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00037wn/yesno-inside-the-indyref

Dunno whether tae watch it before or after the football and rugby.....Decisions decisions...Bit like Brexit really, eh? :greengrin

Cheers Anyhooj amigo! :aok:

[JeMeSouviens]

Dunno whether tae watch it before or after the football and rugby.....Decisions decisions...Bit like Brexit really, eh? :greengrin

Cheers Anyhooj amigo! :aok:

No worries. If you watch it after the football then hide any sharp objects beforehand would be my advice. :aok:

[lucky]

How have you gone from "it will mean using the euro" to "we might be begging to use the euro" in two posts?

With the exception of one post saying - that's been disproved, no one has debated the point at all, yet you've totally changed your position?

Were you just throwing the "it will mean using the euro" out there to try and annoy people, or was it just as a bare faced lie?

Read them again, I was asking about EU terms in one post and saying the second that if the Scottish currency is a flop we might be desperate for the euro.

No need to get so personal in your posts. This meant to be a fans form. I’m also someone who voted no and needs persuading to change from that

[ronaldo7]

Never saw this, where can I find it, Iplayer or youtube? Maybe post a link if you can. Cheers.:aok:

I see JMS has furnished you with the details. Enjoy.

[ronaldo7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00037wn/yesno-inside-the-indyref

🙌 cheers.

[southfieldhibby]

I'd be fine using the Euro, what are the negative implications of using it?

[JeMeSouviens]

I'd be fine using the Euro, what are the negative implications of using it?

I think the biggest one is that, as Greece found out, you can't devalue your way out of a crisis.

[Eaststand]

I'd be fine using the Euro, what are the negative implications of using it?

If we adopted the Euro as our currency, then you visited England, you'd probably have to change money from our new Euro to their new 'St George' Pound or whatever they rename it :-0

GGTTH

[Moulin Yarns]

If we adopted the Euro as our currency, then you visited England you'd have to change money from our new Euro to their new 'St George' Pound or whatever they rename it :-0

GGTTH

Not forgetting that if you have a mortgage with an English bank or building society you will need to change the Euro to the the new Anglo currency, so I'm led to believe. 😉

[Hibbyradge]

If we adopted the Euro as our currency, then you visited England, you'd probably have to change money from our new Euro to their new 'St George' Pound or whatever they rename it :-0

GGTTH

I'm sure that you would need to exchange currency, but they wouldn't change the name of the pound.

Of course, you could just pay by card.

[xyz23jc]

No worries. If you watch it after the football then hide any sharp objects beforehand would be my advice. :aok:


:greengrin Defo!

[Bristolhibby]

Not forgetting that if you have a mortgage with an English bank or building society you will need to change the Euro to the the new Anglo currency, so I'm led to believe. 😉

That won’t happen.

They would use the currency of their customers.

J

[Moulin Yarns]

That won’t happen.

They would use the currency of their customers.

J

I know, but there are some people who don't understand that.

[Bristolhibby]

I know, but there are some people who don't understand that.

Sorry, missed the winky emoji.

J

[cabbageandribs1875]

If we adopted the Euro as our currency, then you visited England, you'd probably have to change money from our new Euro to their new 'St George' Pound or whatever they rename it :-0

GGTTH


:faf: guid yin, Boris Johnson on one side and meghan markle on the other

[cabbageandribs1875]

One I know very well (albeit a strong indy supporter) certainly does. I know plenty farming types that aren't so keen on independence and I imagine the above won't be such a big 'issue' for them :greengrin.. in fact I'm sure a few of them would be able to turn the argument into blaming the SNP quicker than you can say Hibs are 1 down.



he can always count on the majority of scottish farmers :agree: it's bizarre, he could have a policy in his election campaign that all Scottish farmers will be rounded up and shot, and they would still vote Tory :rolleyes:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17884615.defeated-boris-johnson-visit-scotland-bad-week-brexit-turmoil/?ref=fbshr&fbclid=IwAR35u-XAtYLhuAmJmYNiDTV_Qam7SD1GJMXfTWnGF7ysb5dkCuHRe3CF hEk


His trip to a farm in Aberdeenshire comes just over a week after Ruth Davidson (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/ruth-davidson/) quit as Scottish Tory leader and days after an opinion poll suggested the Conservatives would lose ten of their 13 seats in Scotland in a Westminster (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/westminster/) vote.

[cabbageandribs1875]

22495

[Moulin Yarns]

Some interesting data from yesterday's @yougov #indyref2 poll. Yes are ahead in all age groups apart from the 65+. https://t.co/jTyaS3Xhfk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1170080480705875968?s=09

[Smartie]

It would be a shame if we had a cold winter this year, eh?

[Ozyhibby]

https://stv.tv/amp/1440580-poll-tories-to-lose-all-seats-to-snp-in-general-election/?__twitter_impression=true

Tories facing wipeout in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

It would be a shame if we had a cold winter this year, eh?

Along with devastating cuts to our national health service due to the brexit that age group voted for.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Not forgetting that if you have a mortgage with an English bank or building society you will need to change the Euro to the the new Anglo currency, so I'm led to believe. 😉

You bad man.

[Fife-Hibee]

https://i.ibb.co/qNdt9d7/britainelects.png

So the Conservative voting intentions in the UK continues to rise while in Scotland it continues to plummet.

Surely now IS the time? :confused:

[Callum_62]

Cabinet suggesting Bojo will "test the law" come October

Imagine for a second if this was the Scottish Govs position

Can't believe folk still hold the belief that this is the best course for Scotland

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Petition for Official International Observers for Next Scottish Independence Referendum
we can't have unionists counting/fixing/cheating etc etc :bitchy:....get it signed :agree:


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/petition-for-official-international-observers-for-next-scottish-independence-referendum/amp/?fbclid=IwAR08IAGTkXsRk3jE_97pqqWVyPiC7Aqn1cVorrK0 zSM5R6ozqhmzJEpIF2Q (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/petition-for-official-international-observers-for-next-scottish-independence-referendum/amp/?fbclid=IwAR08IAGTkXsRk3jE_97pqqWVyPiC7Aqn1cVorrK0 zSM5R6ozqhmzJEpIF2Q)

[lucky]

Petition for Official International Observers for Next Scottish Independence Referendum
we can't have unionists counting/fixing/cheating etc etc :bitchy:....get it signed :agree:


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/petition-for-official-international-observers-for-next-scottish-independence-referendum/amp/?fbclid=IwAR08IAGTkXsRk3jE_97pqqWVyPiC7Aqn1cVorrK0 zSM5R6ozqhmzJEpIF2Q (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/petition-for-official-international-observers-for-next-scottish-independence-referendum/amp/?fbclid=IwAR08IAGTkXsRk3jE_97pqqWVyPiC7Aqn1cVorrK0 zSM5R6ozqhmzJEpIF2Q)

Do You seriously believe that last referendum was fixed or the result was a fraud?

[Callum_62]

Do You seriously believe that last referendum was fixed or the result was a fraud?Something quite odd with postal votes

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Do You seriously believe that last referendum was fixed or the result was a fraud?

It's hard to say.

If it was geniuenly NO, then it was genuinely NO.
If it was geniuenly YES, then it would have still been NO.

[StevieC]

Do You seriously believe that last referendum was fixed or the result was a fraud?

I personally think there is an issue with postal votes. I dont think that this would necessarily have changed outcome, but i definitely think the security/procedures for postal votes needs looked at.

[Ozyhibby]

I personally think there is an issue with postal votes. I dont think that this would necessarily have changed outcome, but i definitely think the security/procedures for postal votes needs looked at.

I think that’s a case for all elections in the UK. I personally would do away with postal votes altogether.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

I think that’s a case for all elections in the UK. I personally would do away with postal votes altogether.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only if there's secure alternative.

People shouldn't lose the possibilty to vote just because they can't make it to a specific polling station on the day of an election.

[Moulin Yarns]

Only if there's secure alternative.

People shouldn't lose the possibilty to vote just because they can't make it to a specific polling station on the day of an election.

There's a lot of work going on to make elections more secure



https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/blockchain-election-security/

[Future17]

Voting fraud happens in all electoral events, but I think it would be fair to say that it was more prevalent during the IndyRef. The most common type was likely related to postal voting in the context of people registering to vote at an address which was not their main residence, and having their postal vote packs sent to another address. The points I would make about that is:

1) No "independent" observation of a future IndyRef will make a difference to this aspect of matters.

2) Nothing will ever change with regard to process in this aspect of matters.

3) Whilst this type of voting fraud almost certainly occurred, it is just as likely to have been perpetrated by "Yes" voters as "No" voters, so the effect on the result was likely negligible.

[Onceinawhile]

Voting fraud happens in all electoral events, but I think it would be fair to say that it was more prevalent during the IndyRef. The most common type was likely related to postal voting in the context of people registering to vote at an address which was not their main residence, and having their postal vote packs sent to another address. The points I would make about that is:

1) No "independent" observation of a future IndyRef will make a difference to this aspect of matters.

2) Nothing will ever change with regard to process in this aspect of matters.

3) Whilst this type of voting fraud almost certainly occurred, it is just as likely to have been perpetrated by "Yes" voters as "No" voters, so the effect on the result was likely negligible.

I agree with the above, but it was very odd that Ruth Davidson knew the results of the postal votes before they had been counted officially.

[Fife-Hibee]

3) Whilst this type of voting fraud almost certainly occurred, it is just as likely to have been perpetrated by "Yes" voters as "No" voters, so the effect on the result was likely negligible.

I would disagree with this. A large bulk of YES supporters were people disillusioned with the political system. People who rarely ever bothered to even vote. They wouldn't have known how to game the system to their advantage. Tories on the other hand know exactly how to play the system.

[Future17]

I agree with the above, but it was very odd that Ruth Davidson knew the results of the postal votes before they had been counted officially.

It wasn't so much odd that she knew (or at least thought she knew) the results of postal votes, it was more odd that she didn't know to keep her mouth shut about it! :greengrin

Agents of candidates/parties are entitled to attend postal vote openings to ensure transparency but, in theory, shouldn't be able to see how the actual ballot paper has been marked. In practice, it can be difficult to maintain that level of secrecy. The law states that those present at openings agree to maintain the secrecy of the ballot so, even if they do see how the ballot papers have been marked, they shouldn't be telling anyone; however, it's essentially accepted that agents (of all parties/groups) do try to see how postal voters have voted and do report back.

The law around this aspect of matters is designed to prevent such information leaking out to the point that it may affect the overall outcome. Davidson's stupidity on this point wasn't significant due to the timing of her comment, as voting had closed or was close to closing; however, the irony is that, had her comment been made earlier, the theory behind the law suggests it would have inspired more "Yes" voters to vote than otherwise may have done so!

[Fife-Hibee]

Only if there's secure alternative.

People shouldn't lose the possibilty to vote just because they can't make it to a specific polling station on the day of an election.

It would take a rare set of circumstances for somebody not to have 5 minutes in a day to turn up to a voting booth. Illness, or severe physical disability perhaps. But you would think they'd have access to a person of trust who could vote on their behalf.

Postal voting is highly suspect in my view. The results almost always seem to go against the general flow. A lot of Tom, Dick and Harry's in those postal vote results me thinks.

[Future17]

I would disagree with this. A large bulk of YES supporters were people disillusioned with the political system. People who rarely ever bothered to even vote. They wouldn't have known how to game the system to their advantage. Tories on the other hand know exactly how to play the system.

I'm not sure whether there's any evidence to support the parts of your comment I've highlighted in bold but, even if there is, it doesn't take a knowledge of the system to commit the type of fraud I referred to; it just requires the internet and some intelligence.

There may be an argument for rich people being better placed to exploit the rules, and I know there's a suggestion that rich people "have more to lose" when proposals are made to change the status quo. I don't have any evidence of that though.

[Future17]

It would take a rare set of circumstances for somebody not to have 5 minutes in a day to turn up to a voting booth. Illness, or severe physical disability perhaps. But you would think they'd have access to a person of trust who could vote on their behalf.

Postal voting is highly suspect in my view. The results almost always seem to go against the general flow. A lot of Tom, Dick and Harry's in those postal vote results me thinks.

Postal voting is most commonly used (in the genuine sense) by people who will be away from home on election day - most commonly due to work or holidays. There's no guarantee people in these circumstances will have someone who they feel comfortable appointing as a proxy (for a variety of reasons).

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure whether there's any evidence to support the parts of your comment I've highlighted in bold but, even if there is, it doesn't take a knowledge of the system to commit the type of fraud I referred to; it just requires the internet and some intelligence.

There may be an argument for rich people being better placed to exploit the rules, and I know there's a suggestion that rich people "have more to lose" when proposals are made to change the status quo. I don't have any evidence of that though.

If there was postal vote fraud (and I don't have any reason to suspect there was) then it would have most likely been perpetrated by party activists rather than voters.

eg.


BBC Radio 4's File on 4 spoke to a man in Derby who said his mother had her postal vote cast for her by activists who turned up at her house and pressurised her into letting them fill in her ballot paper.

He said: "Campaigners came to the house and they asked my mum to vote for them and actually my mum, not being able to read English, she didn't know where to put the cross, so one of the people put the cross in the box for her and said, 'There you go now you can just sign it and we will take it off you.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26520836

There are dark rumours of activists collecting postal ballots en masse in nursing homes and the like.

Edit - the dark rumours not specific to the indyref btw. I personally don't buy conspiracy theories and unless the result had been 50.5 - 49.5 I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it.

[Fife-Hibee]

Postal voting is most commonly used (in the genuine sense) by people who will be away from home on election day - most commonly due to work or holidays. There's no guarantee people in these circumstances will have someone who they feel comfortable appointing as a proxy (for a variety of reasons).

Over 700,000 postal votes. That's a lot of people away during their countries biggest 'democratic' say in modern history wouldn't you say?

[Fife-Hibee]

If there was postal vote fraud (and I don't have any reason to suspect there was) then it would have most likely been perpetrated by party activists rather than voters.

eg.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26520836

There are dark rumours of activists collecting postal ballots en masse in nursing homes and the like.

Edit - the dark rumours not specific to the indyref btw. I personally don't buy conspiracy theories and unless the result had been 50.5 - 49.5 I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it.

I have family members in nursing homes and we never heard anything about them recieving ballot papers. So either they don't recieve their ballots unless requested, or somebody else (not family) are getting a hold of them.

[Callum_62]

Over 700,000 postal votes. That's a lot of people away during their countries biggest 'democratic' say in modern history wouldn't you say?Over 20% of the vote was postal?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Over 20% of the vote was postal?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

There were 789,024 postal voters 'allegedly' registered to vote just days before the referendum.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/11/referendum-registered-voters-scotland-four-million-97-per-cent

How many of them made up the final vote share I can't say, as there doesn't appear to be any official figures anywhere indicating what percentage of the otherall vote came from postal ballots.

[Fife-Hibee]

According to the Scotsman, the postal vote percentage turnout was 89.6% - https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-89-6-postal-vote-turnout-1-3544716

That would result in a share of 706,965 postal voters. (19.5% of the total vote turnout of 3,623,344).

[Jack]

Is it not the case that once you get a postal vote that's it until you change your mind back to visiting a polling station?

I'm applying for one as I'm quite often away on holiday.

There were rumours after a recent election/referendum that canvassers when they were doing their rounds were noting empty houses.

[Future17]

If there was postal vote fraud (and I don't have any reason to suspect there was) then it would have most likely been perpetrated by party activists rather than voters.

Edit - the dark rumours not specific to the indyref btw. I personally don't buy conspiracy theories and unless the result had been 50.5 - 49.5 I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it.

That 100% has happened in the past although, as you've alluded to, is less likely to have happened at the IndyRef. There was actually a relatively recent incident of a party delivering over 200 postal votes to the Returning Officer's staff in one batch. There were subsequent discussions about the appropriateness of that, but it's not technically in breach of the legislation.

The most common type of postal fraud generally is thought to be when a dominant figure in a household simply completes postal ballot papers for every person in the household. It's known to be prevalent in traditionally patriarchal cultures, but is generally considered to taboo to tackle by politicians, due to concerns about being labelled as racist.


Over 700,000 postal votes. That's a lot of people away during their countries biggest 'democratic' say in modern history wouldn't you say?

When you register to vote by post, you have the option to register for an imminent electoral event, or for all electoral events. Most people, having experienced the ease of voting by post once, choose to do so at all future events. As a result, the number of postal voters has increased substantially in recent times.


I have family members in nursing homes and we never heard anything about them recieving ballot papers. So either they don't recieve their ballots unless requested, or somebody else (not family) are getting a hold of them.

Yeah, that's also an area of concern which has previously been discussed with the relevant authorities. It's very hard to get evidence of any wrongdoing however.


Over 20% of the vote was postal?

18.6%

EDIT: 18.6% of the electorate was issued with a postal vote. 90.6% of those issued with a postal vote actually voted by that method.

[Future17]

Is it not the case that once you get a postal vote that's it until you change your mind back to visiting a polling station?

I'm applying for one as I'm quite often away on holiday.

There were rumours after a recent election/referendum that canvassers when they were doing their rounds were noting empty houses.

For what purpose?

[Peevemor]

I'm not one for wearing tin foil hats, but I'm 100% convinced that the British establishment were never going to permit a Yes result to be returned in 2014.

[Fife-Hibee]

I'm not one for wearing tin foil hats, but I'm 100% convinced that the British establishment were never going to permit a Yes result to be returned in 2014.

When you consider that national defence were monitoring things very closely and they considered a YES outcome a threat to national security, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that they would have intervened in some way to prevent such an outcome from occuring.

[StevieC]

Tories and the elderly are by far and away the majority when it comes to postal votes. To this end it is not surprising Ruth knew they had a large postal vote, but as it is also the voting option most likely to be abused you would have to question the validity of a lot of those votes.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-49649586?__twitter_impression=true

I see little old Ireland are providing the EU’s new trade negotiator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Tories and the elderly are by far and away the majority when it comes to postal votes. To this end it is not surprising Ruth knew they had a large postal vote, but as it is also the voting option most likely to be abused you would have to question the validity of a lot of those votes.

If postal voters are mostly Tories and the Tory party is for No and the result is mostly No, why would you "have to question the validity of a lot of those votes"?

[Fife-Hibee]

If postal voters are mostly Tories and the Tory party is for No and the result is mostly No, why would you "have to question the validity of a lot of those votes"?

Why are most postal voters tories? (like 90%+ of them) ???

Why the link between postal voting and one particular party?

[StevieC]

If postal voters are mostly Tories and the Tory party is for No and the result is mostly No, why would you "have to question the validity of a lot of those votes"?

Because postal voting is the one most open to abuse.

A few situations have already been mentioned. Dominant householder, multiple properties, manager of nursing home, lots of ways to increase a particular vote via postal voting fraud.

[RyeSloan]

Because postal voting is the one most open to abuse.

A few situations have already been mentioned. Dominant householder, multiple properties, manager of nursing home, lots of ways to increase a particular vote via postal voting fraud.

Would it not have to be coordinated on a very grand scale in order for it to be defrauded?

[Future17]

Why are most postal voters tories? (like 90%+ of them) ???

Why the link between postal voting and one particular party?

How do you know this is true?

[Moulin Yarns]

That 100% has happened in the past although, as you've alluded to, is less likely to have happened at the IndyRef. There was actually a relatively recent incident of a party delivering over 200 postal votes to the Returning Officer's staff in one batch. There were subsequent discussions about the appropriateness of that, but it's not technically in breach of the legislation.

The most common type of postal fraud generally is thought to be when a dominant figure in a household simply completes postal ballot papers for every person in the household. It's known to be prevalent in traditionally patriarchal cultures, but is generally considered to taboo to tackle by politicians, due to concerns about being labelled as racist.



When you register to vote by post, you have the option to register for an imminent electoral event, or for all electoral events. Most people, having experienced the ease of voting by post once, choose to do so at all future events. As a result, the number of postal voters has increased substantially in recent times.



Yeah, that's also an area of concern which has previously been discussed with the relevant authorities. It's very hard to get evidence of any wrongdoing however.



18.6%

EDIT: 18.6% of the electorate was issued with a postal vote. 90.6% of those issued with a postal vote actually voted by that method.

Maybe a stupid question, but why were a party delivering postal votes in large numbers to the returning officer? Postal votes Don't get sent to any party, they are sent to the election office at the local authority.

[marinello59]

Why are most postal voters tories? (like 90%+ of them) ???

Why the link between postal voting and one particular party?

Where did you get that 90% plus figure from?

[Jack]

For what purpose?

They, or someone, were then registering for a vote of two!

[RyeSloan]

Why are most postal voters tories? (like 90%+ of them) ???

Why the link between postal voting and one particular party?

Ahh did you just make that up?

Let’s look at the last SG election (which of course has postal votes as well..strange how it seems only to have been an issue for the Indy vote)

Total postal votes accounted for 23% of the votes cast.

Your 90%+ (let’s take the lowest value) would mean that they provided a return of a minimum of 20.7% for the Tories.

Thus you are suggesting Ruth and her crew secured just 1.3% of votes cast at voting stations to get to their 22% share of the overall vote.

Indeed if we were to take your + at face value suggests they actually would have needed negative votes cast at the voting stations in order to achieve the vote share!

[Future17]

Maybe a stupid question, but why were a party delivering postal votes in large numbers to the returning officer? Postal votes Don't get sent to any party, they are sent to the election office at the local authority.

Per the example in JMS' earlier post, campaigners from the party involved had apparently collected them from voters, over the course of a couple of weeks, when going door-to-door in the run-up to the election. The story actually emerged, not due to any concern over fraud, but due to the Returning Officer's frustrations in relation to the administrative burden of such a large quantity being delivered at late notice!

Realistically, it's not a massive area of concern as, broadly speaking, these campaigners are attending the homes of their known supporters and those supporters trust the campaigners from the party they support.

[Future17]

They, or someone, were then registering for a vote of two!

Interesting. I'm not saying that has never happened, but it's an extremely high risk strategy for relatively minimal gain.

[Moulin Yarns]

Per the example in JMS' earlier post, campaigners from the party involved had apparently collected them from voters, over the course of a couple of weeks, when going door-to-door in the run-up to the election. The story actually emerged, not due to any concern over fraud, but due to the Returning Officer's frustrations in relation to the administrative burden of such a large quantity being delivered at late notice!

Realistically, it's not a massive area of concern as, broadly speaking, these campaigners are attending the homes of their known supporters and those supporters trust the campaigners from the party they support.

👍 Thanks for that. I was having a senior moment obviously.

[cabbageandribs1875]

SNP MP's sing Scots Wha Hae whilst bercow is away with the tories, a tad wee bitty out of tune right enough :greengrin


https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/west-lothian-mp-captures-moment-mps-sang-in-commons-in-proroguing-protest-1-5000963?fbclid=IwAR3Cu380LLpHVjWpNZN1rsbTHeErnb_yh XY__nGnxXYzQuqN6Cqr_-Eohfk





i'm sure bbc scotland(lol) will mention it

[cabbageandribs1875]

22511

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Scottish tories seem to be wanting Rory Stewart to stand as an MSP and he will be Ruth Davidson's successor.

[Onceinawhile]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Scottish tories seem to be wanting Rory Stewart to stand as an MSP and he will be Ruth Davidson's successor.

Interesting.

One of his family homes is just outside Crieff, so at least he would have roots here.

[Ozyhibby]

Interesting.

One of his family homes is just outside Crieff, so at least he would have roots here.

That sounds totally normal when it’s a Tory mp you are talking about.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Interesting.

One of his family homes is just outside Crieff, so at least he would have roots here.

When you say home, do you mean country estate? Hunting lodge? Or wee country cottage?

[Onceinawhile]

When you say home, do you mean country estate? Hunting lodge? Or wee country cottage?

It's a large house with some land (not a huge amount tbf) and a tennis court as far as I can recall.

I've not had to deal with him for a wee while though so it might not be 100% correct.

[Moulin Yarns]

It's a large house with some land (not a huge amount tbf) and a tennis court as far as I can recall.

I've not had to deal with him for a wee while though so it might not be 100% correct.

https://ppapix.photoshelter.com/image/I0000hw0rdlzSGo8

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting.

One of his family homes is just outside Crieff, so at least he would have roots here.

According to his wiki page:


His family is from Broich House (built in 1770), which is near Crieff in Perth and Kinross, Scotland

[Moulin Yarns]

Interesting.

One of his family homes is just outside Crieff, so at least he would have roots here.

If he was to stand for the Scottish Parliament in that constituency he would be on the same list as Liz Smith, who is quite popular (for a tory in Scotland). It might mean either one of them losing out.

[Future17]

If he was to stand for the Scottish Parliament in that constituency he would be on the same list as Liz Smith, who is quite popular (for a tory in Scotland). It might mean either one of them losing out.

I'm sure she'll agree with any plan and, if she doesn't, they'll just expel her from the party.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm sure she'll agree with any plan and, if she doesn't, they'll just expel her from the party.

As I said she is quite popular and actively working for her constituency, bringing in Rory might backfire on them.

[lord bunberry]

Is Murdo standing again? He might get to 10 in a row before Celtic.

[Moulin Yarns]

Is Murdo standing again? He might get to 10 in a row before Celtic.

More likely to be horizontal like JR-M. 😉

[southsider]

According to his wiki page:
Not exactly a coonsil hoos in the Raploch is it ?

[cabbageandribs1875]

22517


Lib dems and tories, who would have thunk it :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

European view of Scotland after Brexit vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49690513

[Moulin Yarns]

Poll in @Independent shows most Brits support #indyref2. 45% of folk sampled in Eng, Sco & Wales believe WM sd allow second vote. 30% are against. Without "don't knows" it's 60% for & 40% against.
Rest of UK is inching away from "our precious union." https://t.co/Az5iC4LHVh

[Moulin Yarns]

The @ScotSecofState says being in #EU would diminish Scotland’s democratic rights. A simple example proves otherwise :#UK held a referendum to leave #EU without asking #EU . Scotland however is being refused the right to hold a referendum about leaving #UK by - the #UK .

[Ozyhibby]

European view of Scotland after Brexit vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49690513

Only a fool would think that an independent Scotland would not be capable of joining the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Only a fool would think that an independent Scotland would not be capable of joining the EU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

Where are they when you need a laugh? 🤔

[Moulin Yarns]

Let me get this right - the LibDems say that if they win a majority of seats that’ll be a mandate to cancel #Brexit without a referendum? But when @theSNP gets a majority of seats that’s not a mandate for independence with or without a referendum? So only LibDem mandates count?

[Moulin Yarns]

Brent crude oil prices up 20%, I think the snp are behind the bombs. 😉


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49710820

[cabbageandribs1875]

the french ken the score :agree:


22526

[Fife-Hibee]

Brent crude oil prices up 20%, I think the snp are behind the bombs. 😉


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49710820

I find it amusing that people are paying the same at the stations now as they were pre-crash, yet nobody questions the killer profits the suppliers must have been making due to low p/barrel costs and why they haven't been taxed more by the UK Government.

[weecounty hibby]

the french ken the score :agree:


22526
Bloody Johnny Foreigner trying to tell us the truth. That's why we need to be out of the EU. Once the Empire is reinstated we will keep those uppity Jocks to heel again and no more of this anti English nonsense.
What's that you say there will be no Empire because those countries independent from England are doing very well for themselves? How is that possible without Westminster rule? We need to wake the **** up as a country and get Independence for Scotland over the line quickly.

[Moulin Yarns]

In light of Lib Dems shifting the window like this, I wonder what the reaction would be if an SNP GE manifesto said something like:

If SNP wins majority of seats - Call an indyref.

If SNP wins >50% of votes - Declare independence and start negotiations.


https://twitter.com/LizJarvisUK/status/1173346174109147136?s=19

[Glory Lurker]

Brent crude oil prices up 20%, I think the snp are behind the bombs. 😉


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49710820

Don't go giving the msm ideas! :-)

[cabbageandribs1875]

In light of Lib Dems shifting the window like this, I wonder what the reaction would be if an SNP GE manifesto said something like:

If SNP wins majority of seats - Call an indyref.

If SNP wins >50% of votes - Declare independence and start negotiations.


https://twitter.com/LizJarvisUK/status/1173346174109147136?s=19


22528

we already know what the leader of the Lib Cons thinks

[cabbageandribs1875]

the italians are getting prepared for an independent Scotland :agree:


22529


:cb this might also help answer the Q that's been asked 2755354282394 times by just the one poster re what we will use after indy :)

[Bangkok Hibby]

the italians are getting prepared for an independent Scotland :agree:


22529


:cb this might also help answer the Q that's been asked 2755354282394 times by just the one poster re what we will use after indy :)


Haven't seen him for a while

[Onceinawhile]

the italians are getting prepared for an independent Scotland :agree:


22529


:cb this might also help answer the Q that's been asked 2755354282394 times by just the one poster re what we will use after indy :)

Aye, but which exchange rate was better? Which is the crux of the matter for some people.

[Fife-Hibee]

So the lie today is that 7/10 Scots don't want another referendum. Lapped up by unionist trolls all over the internet. Imagine being so incredibly thick.

[Fife-Hibee]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/controversy-after-new-scottish-independence-poll-suggests-snp-should-rethink-referendum/17/09/?doing_wp_cron=1568764176.0082020759582519531250&fbclid=IwAR2Eaf37PhXtFl0tjkwtUzJv2TRGsZQ4ZV6v9ndJj x_iACEbumIIE_aJH5M

[danhibees1875]

I don't really understand the arguement that the question makes it unfair if I'm honest. Are they saying that there's a reasonable number of independence supporters who just don't read/understand questions properly but jump at the opportunity to tick a "Yes" box?

These polls always have such a low number of people (1,004 I think I read) that they don't show much, particularly not as a standalone poll.

[Fife-Hibee]

I don't really understand the arguement that the question makes it unfair if I'm honest. Are they saying that there's a reasonable number of independence supporters who just don't read/understand questions properly but jump at the opportunity to tick a "Yes" box?

These polls always have such a low number of people (1,004 I think I read) that they don't show much, particularly not as a standalone poll.

Whether you think the wording of the questions should matter or not doesn't change the fact that the wording influences the polling results. 'Scotland In Union' have had similar results in the past by wording the question in a way that it wouldn't be at the ballot box.

Think i'll put my trust in the Lord Ashcroft poll that simply asks "Should Scotland be an independent country?" as it was laid out on the ballot in 2014.

What do you think the result would be if the question was something like:

Which country best serves Scotlands future interests?

Scotland?

England?

[Future17]

I don't really understand the arguement that the question makes it unfair if I'm honest. Are they saying that there's a reasonable number of independence supporters who just don't read/understand questions properly but jump at the opportunity to tick a "Yes" box?

These polls always have such a low number of people (1,004 I think I read) that they don't show much, particularly not as a standalone poll.

Explained perfectly through the medium of "Yes Prime Minister". :greengrin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

[danhibees1875]

Explained perfectly through the medium of "Yes Prime Minister". :greengrin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

:greengrin

I've never actually watched that before!


Whether you think the wording of the questions should matter or not doesn't change the fact that the wording influences the polling results. 'Scotland In Union' have had similar results in the past by wording the question in a way that it wouldn't be at the ballot box.

Think i'll put my trust in the Lord Ashcroft poll that simply asks "Should Scotland be an independent country?" as it was laid out on the ballot in 2014.

What do you think the result would be if the question was something like:

Which country best serves Scotlands future interests?

Scotland?

England?

Okay, so it is just the way they've worded it that makes it results a "lie" then? I was wondering if there was more to it.

That's fine, I wouldn't particularly trust any individual poll, personally. Unless there was a comprehensive one done over 4m people or so (although they tried that, and it wasn't entirely trusted either :wink: ).

I would imagine "Scotland" would win your vote at the end. :aok:

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't really understand the arguement that the question makes it unfair if I'm honest. Are they saying that there's a reasonable number of independence supporters who just don't read/understand questions properly but jump at the opportunity to tick a "Yes" box?

These polls always have such a low number of people (1,004 I think I read) that they don't show much, particularly not as a standalone poll.

1000 people is a big enough sample size, *if* you have a representative sample. The 95% confidence interval is +/- 3% from sampling error. In other words, if the sample is properly representative then it will get within 3% of a true result 95% of the time. A larger sample size doesn't help much if your sample isn't properly representative.

The suspicion with using a Leave/Remain type question is that people just don't read it carefully enough. The Leave/Remain terms have become so ingrained thanks to Brexit that if the respondent is Yes/Remain (in indy/EU voting terms) or No/Leave then they have to make a conscious effort to not just tick their "default" identity.

This latest poll shows a No (or in the question's terms, "Leave the UK") majority in the 16-24 age group. In every standard question poll that's where you find the highest numbers of Yes and the highest numbers of EU-Remain.

tbh, I think it's a total red herring. I would very much doubt the Electoral Commission would go along with a Leave/Remain Indy question because of the potential confusion but even if they did, people would learn and get into the habit of answering in the new format,

[danhibees1875]

1000 people is a big enough sample size, *if* you have a representative sample. The 95% confidence interval is +/- 3% from sampling error. In other words, if the sample is properly representative then it will get within 3% of a true result 95% of the time. A larger sample size doesn't help much if your sample isn't properly representative.

The suspicion with using a Leave/Remain type question is that people just don't read it carefully enough. The Leave/Remain terms have become so ingrained thanks to Brexit that if the respondent is Yes/Remain (in indy/EU voting terms) or No/Leave then they have to make a conscious effort to not just tick their "default" identity.

This latest poll shows a No (or in the question's terms, "Leave the UK") majority in the 16-24 age group. In every standard question poll that's where you find the highest numbers of Yes and the highest numbers of EU-Remain.

tbh, I think it's a total red herring. I would very much doubt the Electoral Commission would go along with a Leave/Remain Indy question because of the potential confusion but even if they did, people would learn and get into the habit of answering in the new format,

That makes sense - I assume you mean "Remain in the UK" in your third paragraph?

I'm still not a fan of a sample size of 1000 being extrapolated to 4m (particularly given relatively fine margins on every result) so I wouldn't read much into this poll, dodgy wording or otherwise. Although it seems to be fairly common practice and plenty of people commission them so there must be something in it. I assume that they've also been relatively successful at predicting results over the long term to justify their use also.

I'd agree that any future referendum on Scotland would have to be Yes/No or a new set of answers. Having remain/leave would be silly, although I'd like to think almost everyone would manage in the end. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

That makes sense - I assume you mean "Remain in the UK" in your third paragraph?

I'm still not a fan of a sample size of 1000 being extrapolated to 4m (particularly given relatively fine margins on every result) so I wouldn't read much into this poll, dodgy wording or otherwise. Although it seems to be fairly common practice and plenty of people commission them so there must be something in it. I assume that they've also been relatively successful at predicting results over the long term to justify their use also.

I'd agree that any future referendum on Scotland would have to be Yes/No or a new set of answers. Having remain/leave would be silly, although I'd like to think almost everyone would manage in the end. :greengrin

Oh, yes I did! The question's "No" equivalent is "Remain in the UK". See, I told you it was confusing. :greengrin

[G B Young]

So the lie today is that 7/10 Scots don't want another referendum. Lapped up by unionist trolls all over the internet. Imagine being so incredibly thick.

Perhaps I'm incredibly thick but I don't actually see what's inaccurate about the way this has been reported here:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17909065.new-indyref-poll---fewer-three-10-want-another-vote-2021/

[Fife-Hibee]

Perhaps I'm incredibly thick but I don't actually see what's inaccurate about the way this has been reported here:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17909065.new-indyref-poll---fewer-three-10-want-another-vote-2021/

I'll call your 'Scotland In Union' selectively worded poll and raise you Sir John Curtice.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17911212.john-curtice-unionist-poll-reflects-rising-support-indyref2/?fbclid=IwAR3GTg63b9XKR8M6spf3FSI1YxNkpC2w3bOaPA2C _oAPAAeDOkCcZiTuX2g

The most telling part of all:

"When, six months ago, voters were presented with a range of options for the timing of another ballot, just 31% opted for holding one within the next five years. Presented with a similar set of options now, 42% express that view."

[lord bunberry]

It genuinely baffles me that people in Scotland are watching this **** show happening in front of us and still thinking that independence is a bad idea. How bad will it have to get before people change their minds? What will be the tipping point? Food shortages, fuel shortages, medical shortages. I suppose everyone has their reasons and I always respect that, but I certainly don’t understand them.

[Fife-Hibee]

It genuinely baffles me that people in Scotland are watching this **** show happening in front of us and still thinking that independence is a bad idea. How bad will it have to get before people change their minds? What will be the tipping point? Food shortages, fuel shortages, medical shortages. I suppose everyone has their reasons and I always respect that, but I certainly don’t understand them.

As long as there's a bare faced liar at westminster to hoodwink them into believing things are going to get better, nothing will change.

Lib Dems say they're going to stop brexit.... when that inevitably fails, they'll spend the next 20 years or so telling us that they would reverse brexit, if they could only just win a majority of seats.

Meanwhile, Scotland will experience dire poverty as a result of brexit and it will all fall on Holyrood (assuming it hasn't been shut down by then).

[marinello59]

As long as there's a bare faced liar at westminster to hoodwink them into believing things are going to get better, nothing will change.

Lib Dems say they're going to stop brexit.... when that inevitably fails, they'll spend the next 20 years or so telling us that they would reverse brexit, if they could only just win a majority of seats.

Meanwhile, Scotland will experience dire poverty as a result of brexit and it will all fall on Holyrood (assuming it hasn't been shut down by then).

Brexit will be bad for Scotland but dire poverty ? Get a grip, we will still be one of the richest nations on this earth.

[Fife-Hibee]

Brexit will be bad for Scotland but dire poverty ? Get a grip, we will still be one of the richest nations on this earth.

Not really sure what you're basing that on. When the cuts come through, Scotland will be the main target as the tories try to appease the 84%.

[Callum_62]

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1174439998340456448?s=19

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1174439998340456448?s=19

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk



next vote in our newly independent country will hopefully be...........


should our proud country be a Republic

aye/nay


i'l start, AYE

[lord bunberry]

Brexit will be bad for Scotland but dire poverty ? Get a grip, we will still be one of the richest nations on this earth.
The problem with that is being one of the richest nations on Earth has increased the wealth gap. Dire poverty exists while the country apparently prospers. The reality is that the wealth figures are badly skewed by the amount of rich people propping up the economy. Poverty hasn’t existed in its present numbers for 100 years. People work, but can’t make ends meet and have to use foodbanks to survive. Brexit will increase this problem massively.

[Fife-Hibee]

next vote in our newly independent country will hopefully be...........


should our proud country be a Republic

aye/nay


i'l start, AYE

Sadly, quite a fair few folk voted naw out of the fear of losing the 'superior bloodline' family. Even although it's a completely different act to the one the independence referendum sought to obolish.

[Fife-Hibee]

The problem with that is being one of the richest nations on Earth has increased the wealth gap. Dire poverty exists while the country apparently prospers. The reality is that the wealth figures are badly skewed by the amount of rich people propping up the economy. Poverty hasn’t existed in its present numbers for 100 years. People work, but can’t make ends meet and have to use foodbanks to survive. Brexit will increase this problem massively.

Well said. Remove the top 1% and lets see how "rich" we are.

[Ozyhibby]

The problem with that is being one of the richest nations on Earth has increased the wealth gap. Dire poverty exists while the country apparently prospers. The reality is that the wealth figures are badly skewed by the amount of rich people propping up the economy. Poverty hasn’t existed in its present numbers for 100 years. People work, but can’t make ends meet and have to use foodbanks to survive. Brexit will increase this problem massively.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77?sharetype=blocked

This is a long read but I think it’s a good article which explains where our capitalism is going wrong.
Also, I am useless at getting FT links to work so hopefully it’s not behind the paywall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Sadly, quite a fair few folk voted naw out of the fear of losing the 'superior bloodline' family. Even although it's a completely different act to the one the independence referendum sought to obolish.


i've often wondered how many(if any) were swayed to vote Yes after eck salmond stated leading up to the 2014 vote that we would be keeping the monarchy, we know this time around,like last time, we will be 50k+ votes down straight away from the sectarian OO

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77?sharetype=blocked

This is a long read but I think it’s a good article which explains where our capitalism is going wrong.
Also, I am useless at getting FT links to work so hopefully it’s not behind the paywall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect the paywall hits after a certain (few) number of reads, so folk can only access so many within a specified time period. Not sure what, the usual is two or three a month for paywall providers.

I agree, it was an interesting article, albeit the writer comes from a perspective that is a few degrees along the spectrum from me or probably most of the folk who post on this forum, but interesting nonetheless.

What is interesting is the author approaches it from the perspective that capitalism is fine, it just isn’t being implemented fully, hence the problems. To an extent that is true. But if it was being implemented properly in 2008 the banks would have been allowed to fail and ATMs would have stopped working and direct debits would cease and the system would have crashed and there would have been anarchy.

We do have a rigged system like the author says, where profit is privatised and risk is socialised, and that can’t be right. Maybe, just maybe, pure unfettered capitalism isn’t the answer. Maybe, just maybe, the state (at whatever level or identity) is required to protect and serve its populace?

[RyeSloan]

The problem with that is being one of the richest nations on Earth has increased the wealth gap. Dire poverty exists while the country apparently prospers. The reality is that the wealth figures are badly skewed by the amount of rich people propping up the economy. Poverty hasn’t existed in its present numbers for 100 years. People work, but can’t make ends meet and have to use foodbanks to survive. Brexit will increase this problem massively.

A hundred years? That’s a rather interesting claim, what source / metric is that based on?

[Mibbes Aye]

A hundred years? That’s a rather interesting claim, what source / metric is that based on?

I agree, but there’s a critical point about absolute poverty and relative poverty, and the metrics will have changed over a century (which I guess makes absolute poverty relative, to a degree :greengrin)

Either way, poverty is poverty and shameful but any figures need to be put in context and any changes need to be contextualised for balance.

[lord bunberry]

A hundred years? That’s a rather interesting claim, what source / metric is that based on?
It wasn’t based on facts I will admit. It was based on the fact that life expectancies and standard of living increased in Scotland for a long time. Today’s generation is the first in living memory that is expected to be worse off than their parents. Under the current system the rich have got richer and that has been the measure of economic growth. How many people remember the good times when the economy was booming as being not so great?

[lord bunberry]

I agree, but there’s a critical point about absolute poverty and relative poverty, and the metrics will have changed over a century (which I guess makes absolute poverty relative, to a degree :greengrin)

Either way, poverty is poverty and shameful but any figures need to be put in context and any changes need to be contextualised for balance.
Agreed that context is everything, but when we have built a society that is based on working for a living is the way to make a success of your life, and doing just that for some isn’t enough and they end up in foodbanks it means the current system doesn’t work.

[The Tubs]

I suspect the paywall hits after a certain (few) number of reads, so folk can only access so many within a specified time period. Not sure what, the usual is two or three a month for paywall providers.

I agree, it was an interesting article, albeit the writer comes from a perspective that is a few degrees along the spectrum from me or probably most of the folk who post on this forum, but interesting nonetheless.

What is interesting is the author approaches it from the perspective that capitalism is fine, it just isn’t being implemented fully, hence the problems. To an extent that is true. But if it was being implemented properly in 2008 the banks would have been allowed to fail and ATMs would have stopped working and direct debits would cease and the system would have crashed and there would have been anarchy.

We do have a rigged system like the author says, where profit is privatised and risk is socialised, and that can’t be right. Maybe, just maybe, pure unfettered capitalism isn’t the answer. Maybe, just maybe, the state (at whatever level or identity) is required to protect and serve its populace?

As far as I'm aware, Martin Wolf would support the position that capitalism has the tendency to create these situations and that the state has the role of preventing them. Indeed, he comments on the negative impact of the redefinition of a monopoly in the US.

[Mibbes Aye]

Agreed that context is everything, but when we have built a society that is based on working for a living is the way to make a success of your life, and doing just that for some isn’t enough and they end up in foodbanks it means the current system doesn’t work.

:agree: I get that there will always be people who fall through the various safety nets but I also get that those safety nets have been lost or removed, bit by bit over recent years.

I think for all the talk of ‘austerity’ over the last ten years, it hasn’t really sunk into people’s consciousness fully yet. Most of the things that affect us on a day to day basis are provided by councils and health boards. They have been scraped away, but by bit, over the last few years and it isn’t getting better anytime soon.

Thats why there was a thread on here about getting GP appointments. That’s why bin collections have moved from weekly to fortnightly or monthly. That’s why libraries are shut down or only open on certain days. That’s why road repairs are more sporadic. That’s why there are less classroom assistants in schools.

The need for food banks is pretty shameful though there will always be a residual need. When I think about poverty I think about Lyndon Johnson as US President and I think about Blair and Brown, especially in the second term, when it really was about declaring war on poverty and pumping huge amounts of money into addressing it. The basis was that first, it was the right and moral thing to do, but second, by giving people a lift-up they could then get to a position where they could contribute to society, as taxpayers, employees, employers. And with the security that comes from feeling safe in your circumstances, many people are better equipped to put more into their communities through voluntary work or the likes.

[Mibbes Aye]

As far as I'm aware, Martin Wolf would support the position that capitalism has the tendency to create these situations and that the state has the role of preventing them. Indeed, he comments on the negative impact of the redefinition of a monopoly in the US.

I have read Wolf before and he tends towards a pro-market view IMO but I’m happy to be challenged on that. I would say that my reading of him is that he doesn’t disagree with unfettered capitalism and that the half-hearted state interventions merely muddy the waters.

The US is a really good comment -what should be in theory a purely capitalist society has anti-trust laws that are as strict as they come. Even in professional sport, the draft syastem, wage caps and parity principle border on socialism. I’m not sure anyone has realised.

[Glory Lurker]

Cameron confirming that the Queen was interfering in politics with her referendum comment. Poor show.

[CloudSquall]

Cameron confirming that the Queen was interfering in politics with her referendum comment. She did the same before the 79 devolution referendum. Poor show.

Yep, admitting they did as much as they could possibly get away with.

[Glory Lurker]

Yep, admitting they did as much as they could possibly get away with.

But they shouldn't have got away with it. It was a breach of her role, however they might want to dress up the pre-comment conversations. It's akin to "make it look like an accident" - it doesn't mean it isn't culpable.

[Ozyhibby]

I have read Wolf before and he tends towards a pro-market view IMO but I’m happy to be challenged on that. I would say that my reading of him is that he doesn’t disagree with unfettered capitalism and that the half-hearted state interventions merely muddy the waters.

The US is a really good comment -what should be in theory a purely capitalist society has anti-trust laws that are as strict as they come. Even in professional sport, the draft syastem, wage caps and parity principle border on socialism. I’m not sure anyone has realised.

I’m no economist but in the UK it’s the government interventions in the housing industry that keep prices so high.
They massively restrict supply through the planning system which adds about £130k to the price of a new build home. It has also forced all the small volume (less than 10 houses a year) builders out the market completely. They can’t afford the teams of planning consultants, lawyers etc needed. That means a lot of small sites go undeveloped.
Then there is right to buy which just shovels money into the demand side of the equation.
Add to that housing benefit which increases rents and you have a housing market which can only go one way even after the biggest recession since the 1920’s.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

Cameron confirming that the Queen was interfering in politics with her referendum comment. She did the same before the 79 devolution referendum. Poor show.

Cameron's just hoping to shift a few more copies of his book with this sort of stuff.

The Queen mentions to a punter outside church that we should think carefully about the referendum and that prompts a sea change of opinion among voters who were until then planning to vote yes? Hardly likely. It makes for good headlines though.

[CloudSquall]

But they shouldn't have got away with it. It was a breach of her role, however they might want to dress up the pre-comment conversations. It's akin to "make it look like an accident" - it doesn't mean it isn't culpable.

Yep I agree, unfortunately when it comes to Scotland and independence another rulebook is used.

[Bristolhibby]

Cameron's just hoping to shift a few more copies of his book with this sort of stuff.

The Queen mentions to a punter outside church that we should think carefully about the referendum and that prompts a sea change of opinion among voters who were until then planning to vote yes? Hardly likely. It makes for good headlines though.

You are missing the point. The Queen should be apolitical. And Politicians should not ask her not to be.

J

[heretoday]

Cameron's just hoping to shift a few more copies of his book with this sort of stuff.

The Queen mentions to a punter outside church that we should think carefully about the referendum and that prompts a sea change of opinion among voters who were until then planning to vote yes? Hardly likely. It makes for good headlines though.

You're right. As if anyone was in any doubt the Queen wouldn't want the UK to break up. If the Nats case is as flimsy as that they can't be too confident of a big majority in another indyref.

[Fife-Hibee]

You're right. As if anyone was in any doubt the Queen wouldn't want the UK to break up. If the Nats case is as flimsy as that they can't be too confident of a big majority in another indyref.

Yep, because it's not as if we have any other ammo..... living in the UK under a PM who shut down parliament to effectively gag it, voted in by 0.14% of the population who all share the same extremist political persuasion just isn't enough to show how undemocratic the UK is.

[G B Young]

You are missing the point. The Queen should be apolitical. And Politicians should not ask her not to be.

J

As heretoday says, the Queen's official title is 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', so who could possibly think she would be apolitical on an issue such as Scottish independence? Whatever Cameron did or didn't say to her was really neither here nor there when it came to the way folk voted.

[Glory Lurker]

Heretoday, GBY, you are both missing the point. The queen can have any opinion she wants. What she can't do is involve herself in politics. It's the constitution. If you want her to be able to comment then by all means get the constitution changed.

[Ozyhibby]

She will have moved some votes, especially among older people. Today’s revelation probably mean she will be a lot more careful in the next campaign to not get involved especially when you have former pm’s blabbing about it.
Every vote counts so it’s worth kicking up a stink about it now if it helps keep her quiet next time out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

As heretoday says, the Queen's official title is 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', so who could possibly think she would be apolitical on an issue such as Scottish independence? Whatever Cameron did or didn't say to her was really neither here nor there when it came to the way folk voted.

It's underhanded and shows a disregard for democratic practices though, I think is fair to say. I think it's fair to call Cameron out for that.

I'd agree that ultimately I don't think it would have changed many/any votes though. It would also have been quite guessable that she wouldn't have been the biggest indy supporter ever.

[G B Young]

She will have moved some votes, especially among older people. Today’s revelation probably mean she will be a lot more careful in the next campaign to not get involved especially when you have former pm’s blabbing about it.
Every vote counts so it’s worth kicking up a stink about it now if it helps keep her quiet next time out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I really don't think so she'll have changed anyone's vote. The Queen remains very popular among a large percentage of the Scottish population, takes her summer holidays here every year and is essentially a far more unifying figure than any UK PM. For anyone who cited concern that she might no longer be Scotland's head of state as one of their key reasons for voting no, their mind would already have been made up.

I get what people are saying about the Queen needing to maintain a politically neutral stance but I just can't take seriously claims that Cameron encouraging her to 'raise an eyebrow a fraction' constitutes political interference. Clutching at straws.

[Glory Lurker]

I get what people are saying about the Queen needing to maintain a politically neutral stance but I just can't take seriously claims that Cameron encouraging her to 'raise an eyebrow a fraction' constitutes political interference. Clutching at straws.

There isn't a margin. PM (of whatever hue, in whatever circumstance) asks monarch to do something to help with a political matter. Monarch does something. That's unconstitutional.

[JeMeSouviens]

I really don't think so she'll have changed anyone's vote. The Queen remains very popular among a large percentage of the Scottish population, takes her summer holidays here every year and is essentially a far more unifying figure than any UK PM. For anyone who cited concern that she might no longer be Scotland's head of state as one of their key reasons for voting no, their mind would already have been made up.

I get what people are saying about the Queen needing to maintain a politically neutral stance but I just can't take seriously claims that Cameron encouraging her to 'raise an eyebrow a fraction' constitutes political interference. Clutching at straws.



Fwiw, the Queen doesn't agree with you. :wink:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49756756

[JeMeSouviens]

There isn't a margin. PM (of whatever hue, in whatever circumstance) asks monarch to do something to help with a political matter. Monarch does something. That's unconstitutional.

:agree:

Though I doubt it made any significant difference and I hope will boost post-Indy Republican sentiment.

Bring on the guillotine! :wink:

[stoneyburn hibs]

There isn't a margin. PM (of whatever hue, in whatever circumstance) asks monarch to do something to help with a political matter. Monarch does something. That's unconstitutional.

She was politicking and just happened to be at Balmoral when doing so.

[Jack]

If that's what Cameron is admitting to while at the same time saying he's already said too much you can rest assured a hell of a lot more was going on.

All the chat of private secretary's chattering sounds somewhat sinister in the circumstances i.e. taking the conversation away from politicians to deflect any criticisms if/when it leaked.

[Bristolhibby]

As heretoday says, the Queen's official title is 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', so who could possibly think she would be apolitical on an issue such as Scottish independence? Whatever Cameron did or didn't say to her was really neither here nor there when it came to the way folk voted.

She would still remain Queen of all those countries you mention post independence. In fact her ancestors did exactly that. King of Scotland and England, while both were independent countries.

It’s happened for years - King Canute was king of the English, Danish and Norwegians.

William the Conqueror was King of England and the Duke of Normandy.

English Monarch in the Middle Ages were the monarch of large parts of France.

And our very own King James IV was also King James the 1st of England.

J

[Onceinawhile]

She probably swung a few votes, but not enough to even register on most people's radar.

I do think however that once she passes that Charles taking over will result in a few more yes votes as people have a lot less time for him than Lizzie.

[JeMeSouviens]

She would still remain Queen of all those countries you mention post independence. In fact her ancestors did exactly that. King of Scotland and England, while both were independent countries.

It’s happened for years - King Canute was king of the English, Danish and Norwegians.

William the Conqueror was King of England and the Duke of Normandy.

English Monarch in the Middle Ages were the monarch of large parts of France.

And our very own King James IV was also King James the 1st of England.

J

6th.

[Moulin Yarns]

6th.

You mean VI rather than Ivy. 😉

[G B Young]

There isn't a margin. PM (of whatever hue, in whatever circumstance) asks monarch to do something to help with a political matter. Monarch does something. That's unconstitutional.

But it's not even clear that her comments to a 'well wisher' were sparked by whatever Cameron did or didn't say to her. She might just have been making a diplomatic comment which, when you read it, doesn't necessarily express a view one way or the other. Cameron seems to be trying to claim dubious credit here.

[Ozyhibby]

Makes you wonder what other things the Queen colludes with the Tories on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

6th.

👍

[Moulin Yarns]

6th.

But how is he referred to in the UK media,?

[Glory Lurker]

But it's not even clear that her comments to a 'well wisher' were sparked by whatever Cameron did or didn't say to her. She might just have been making a diplomatic comment which, when you read it, doesn't necessarily express a view one way or the other. Cameron seems to be trying to claim dubious credit here.

Okay, Nicholas Witchell :-)! We've effectively got confirmation from the Palace that were talks. She said what she said. She was purring on 19 September. She interfered.

[ronaldo7]

What's the world coming to when an every day guy, can't have a conversation with his cousin 5 times removed to intervene in a scrap between two clans.:wink:

Raises an eyebrow indeed,:greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

As heretoday says, the Queen's official title is 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', so who could possibly think she would be apolitical on an issue such as Scottish independence? Whatever Cameron did or didn't say to her was really neither here nor there when it came to the way folk voted.

All true. But the point is even if the queen's opinion was in absolutely no doubt and even if it is true ( indeed, self evident ) that she wouldn't have wanted or want Scotland to leave the UK the absolute fact is that in her position as the unelected head of state the price for holding that position is that she keeps her opinion to herself and her trap shut, no matter what her opinion is, and if she cant do so she should GTF because she isn't upholding her end of the bargain … not that the likes of me had a say in it anyway.

The fact of the matter is summed up like this ….. Everybody on planet earth knows what Coca Cola is but even so they spend hundreds of millions every year advertising the stuff and the reason they do that is in the same arena as getting the queen, no matter how surreptitiously or subliminal it was, to express an opinion on the referendum … Better together / Cameron clearly thought it would make a difference and whether that difference was vast or immaterial doesn't matter a jot. It was just another item in better together's list of underhanded tricks and another stick to beat them with when the next referendum comes around.

If nothing else, how do you square this circle? Oh the poor queen, she had to agree to prorogue parliament because she had no choice as she cant get involved in politics. But on the other hand 'her majesty' certainly had a choice to rebuff Cameron's request as 'constitutionally' she should have and yet she chose not to. So which one is it … a helpless puppet or a clever individual who will get involved in politics when it suits her?

Apolitical my arse.

[Fife-Hibee]

All true. But the point is even if the queen's opinion was in absolutely no doubt and even if it is true ( indeed, self evident ) that she wouldn't have wanted or want Scotland to leave the UK the absolute fact is that in her position as the unelected head of state the price for holding that position is that she keeps her opinion to herself and her trap shut, no matter what her opinion is, and if she cant do so she should GTF because she isn't upholding her end of the bargain … not that the likes of me had a say in it anyway.

The fact of the matter is summed up like this ….. Everybody on planet earth knows what Coca Cola is but even so they spend hundreds of millions every year advertising the stuff and the reason they do that is in the same arena as getting the queen, no matter how surreptitiously or subliminal it was, to express an opinion on the referendum … Better together / Cameron clearly thought it would make a difference and whether that difference was vast or immaterial doesn't matter a jot. It was just another item in better together's list of underhanded tricks and another stick to beat them with when the next referendum comes around.

If nothing else, how do you square this circle? Oh the poor queen, she had to agree to prorogue parliament because she had no choice as she cant get involved in politics. But on the other hand 'her majesty' certainly had a choice to rebuff Cameron's request as 'constitutionally' she should have and yet she chose not to. So which one is it … a helpless puppet or a clever individual who will get involved in politics when it suits her?

Apolitical my arse.

:top marks

[Mibbes Aye]

Loving that the seethe from those who were upset about the 2014 referendum has rotated around people being old, people being stupid, ‘Westminster’ lying, people being old, people being stupid, and now it’s the Queen’s fault.

As has been said to death 55% rejected the proposal because there wasn’t a convincing argument.

It is well over time that Yes voters stopped deflecting and looking to attribute blame and started looking at what went wrong with the Yes argument.

[Smartie]

The Monarchy appears to be less than happy about having been drawn into this nonsense.

I'm not much of a royalist but I can understand why.

Cameron has pushed his luck. Johnson should think long and hard before he does likewise on too many occasions.

[Smartie]

Loving that the seethe from those who were upset about the 2014 referendum has rotated around people being old, people being stupid, ‘Westminster’ lying, people being old, people being stupid, and now it’s the Queen’s fault.

As has been said to death 55% rejected the proposal because there wasn’t a convincing argument.

It is well over time that Yes voters stopped deflecting and looking to attribute blame and started looking at what went wrong with the Yes argument.

It will be of little comfort for you to know that many of us are examining exactly what went wrong last time and are working on a proposal that overcomes the shortcomings of the last proposal and has a bit more to offer than qustionable numbers and grievance politics.

How's this no-deal Brexit business working out for you?

[StevieC]

As has been said to death 55% rejected the proposal because there wasn’t a convincing argument.

It is very probable that a large percentage of the 55% were not convinced by the Yes argument, but I dont think you could deny that there would also have been a percentage that voted No out of fear of change. Pensions, currency, membership of EU, etc., were all tactically used by the Better Together campaign to gain a voting advantage.
Hats of to them, the fear campaign was enough to turn the tide, and "The Vow" was the icing on the cake.

The "once in a generation" is the current fallback, because I suspect the Better Together arguments for the next one will not be as successful.

[Mibbes Aye]

It will be of little comfort for you to know that many of us are examining exactly what went wrong last time and are working on a proposal that overcomes the shortcomings of the last proposal and has a bit more to offer than qustionable numbers and grievance politics.

How's this no-deal Brexit business working out for you?

Im not sure what your point is. I am against Brexit but the 2014 refendum was binding while the 2016 one was advisory.

You are spot on about questionable numbers and grievance politics. I don’t like nationalism but I am pragmatic and as such am utterly persuadable. The manky reaction on here from Yes voters in 2014 has probably pushed me further No to be honest, but I am open to arguments.

[Mibbes Aye]

It is very probable that a large percentage of the 55% were not convinced by the Yes argument, but I dont think you could deny that there would also have been a percentage that voted No out of fear of change. Pensions, currency, membership of EU, etc., were all tactically used by the Better Together campaign to gain a voting advantage.
Hats of to them, the fear campaign was enough to turn the tide, and "The Vow" was the icing on the cake.

The "once in a generation" is the current fallback, because I suspect the Better Together arguments for the next one will not be as successful.

I think you aren’t acknowledging that fear of change is a valid argument. People are entitled to view their beliefs through whatever prism they choose.

Some of those will be more palatable or less palatable to you, me or any other member of the electorate.

Funnily enough, having worked in large organisations all my life, fear of change is something that affects most of the workforce and tends to cause disruption, stress and angst. Managing it successfully is the key.

The SNP didn’t manage it successfully in 2014, yet the principles of leading and managing change are well-established and not hard to understand.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think you aren’t acknowledging that fear of change is a valid argument. People are entitled to view their beliefs through whatever prism they choose.

Some of those will be more palatable or less palatable to you, me or any other member of the electorate.

Funnily enough, having worked in large organisations all my life, fear of change is something that affects most of the workforce and tends to cause disruption, stress and angst. Managing it successfully is the key.

The SNP didn’t manage it successfully in 2014, yet the principles of leading and managing change are well-established and not hard to understand.

This is a great point. It’s not cowardly or whatever other pejorative you want to attach to it to reject indy because you fear for your own or others’ jobs and livelihoods. I wouldn’t support it if I didn’t think our society will be better off in the long run but it’s stupid to dismiss genuine concerns, especially in the short term.

However, you are a little prone to over homogenising the 55%. A good chunk of that would not be persuaded if Nicola Sturgeon personally delivered 14 tons of gold to their house on referendum day. They would rather die penniless under the Union flag. (Twirliness cuts both ways.) I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Yes won a majority of the persuadable last time. But for indy to be a success that needs to be an overwhelming majority next time.

Also it has to be said that most change management isn’t up against the combined might of the British state trying to sow FUD!

[Ozyhibby]

What happened in the last referendum is only important for what can be learned for the next. Cameron has helped Yes2 today by likely taking the queen out of the equation next time.
I’m not convinced the snp need to rush the next referendum. Another election cycle with them winning convincingly should be enough to leave better together 2 struggling for people to front their campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This is a great point. It’s not cowardly or whatever other pejorative you want to attach to it to reject indy because you fear for your own or others’ jobs and livelihoods. I wouldn’t support it if I didn’t think our society will be better off in the long run but it’s stupid to dismiss genuine concerns, especially in the short term.

However, you are a little prone to over homogenising the 55%. A good chunk of that would not be persuaded if Nicola Sturgeon personally delivered 14 tons of gold to their house on referendum day. They would rather die penniless under the Union flag. (Twirliness cuts both ways.) I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Yes won a majority of the persuadable last time. But for indy to be a success that needs to be an overwhelming majority next time.

Also it has to be said that most change management isn’t up against the combined might of the British state trying to sow FUD!

Yeah, I agree a bit and disagree with you, as per usual :greengrin

I think you have called me out right about homogenising the 55%. Good point and I will seek to avoid doing that in future.

And yes, twirliness cuts both ways. I am genuinely curious which way it would fold (excuse the pun), I suspect one is smaller, more hardcore and bitter and one is bigger and more emotive and idealistic. I think both are ultimately wrong but that’s not a judgement, simply my opinion.

I will challenge the comment about the might of the British state though. Yes voters need to stop saying it was old folk, stupid folk, lied to folk, Westminster, old folk, lied to folk, stupid folk, the Establishment, old folk, Lyebour, Warminster, stupid folk, old folk, the establishment ad nauseam.

Ever since 2014 all I have seen is vitriol thrown at the clear majority who voted No. I never see positive arguments, with credible evidence to persuade any soft No’s to vote Yes. I’m not a fundamentalist and I don’t like nationalism per se. I am open to persuasion but I just don’t see credible arguments?

[StevieC]

I am open to persuasion but I just don’t see credible arguments?

What misgivings do you have?

I personally think that Scotlands needs are best served by the Scottish people. For example, imigration needs are different up here, and a UK wide immigration policy just wouldnt work (£30,000 minimum earnings to gain an access visa, seriously?).
Westminster wont devolve such important issues, or provide the resources.
Lets say, for example, renewables. The government cut the funding for renewables in Scotland at a time that development is more important than ever. The potential for Scotland to utilise its resources and be a major contributor as we move away from fossil fuels is huge. I think it was stated that Scotland has the potential to harness something like 25% of Europes wave power, if invested in properly. Its certainly the case that there is going to be a huge demand for electricity as we move towards all electric cars, and its not going to be from greenhouse gas emitting power stations.
Its just one of many areas that is holding back our ability to grow the economy.

Its the big BT argument that we NEED the UK to survive .. but I see potential, not demise, by taking hold of our own future.

[Mibbes Aye]

What misgivings do you have?

I personally think that Scotlands needs are best served by the Scottish people. For example, imigration needs are different up here, and a UK wide immigration policy just wouldnt work (£30,000 minimum earnings to gain an access visa, seriously?).
Westminster wont devolve such important issues, or provide the resources.
Lets say, for example, renewables. The government cut the funding for renewables in Scotland at a time that development is more important than ever. The potential for Scotland to utilise its resources and be a major contributor as we move away from fossil fuels is huge. I think it was stated that Scotland has the potential to harness something like 25% of Europes wave power, if invested in properly. Its certainly the case that there is going to be a huge demand for electricity as we move towards all electric cars, and its not going to be from greenhouse gas emitting power stations.
Its just one of many areas that is holding back our ability to grow the economy.

Its the big BT argument that we NEED the UK to survive .. but I see potential, not demise, by taking hold of our own future.

Good post, I am not opposed to a Scotland on principle, I am merely against wrecking things for the sake of a saltire. When you say Scotland’s needs are best served by the Scottish people, I would argue that we already see dissatisfaction. NHS Lothian feel they are under funded within the Scottish government settlement. That won’t change.

[lapsedhibee]

The Monarchy appears to be less than happy about having been drawn into this nonsense.

I'm not much of a royalist but I can understand why.

Cameron has pushed his luck. Johnson should think long and hard before he does likewise on too many occasions.

By being "drawn into", you really mean "found out", right?

[StevieC]

Good post, I am not opposed to a Scotland on principle, I am merely against wrecking things for the sake of a saltire. When you say Scotland’s needs are best served by the Scottish people, I would argue that we already see dissatisfaction. NHS Lothian feel they are under funded within the Scottish government settlement. That won’t change.

We see a Scottish government with one hand tied behind its back by a government that dictates its budget. Maybe the money spent on Trident or HS2 could be redirected to the NHS? Maybe a growing economy of Scotland within the EU would free up more funds for hospitals? Shackled to the current austerity government that dictates our NHS budget (and the stealth privatisation of it down south) through the Barnet formula we will never know.

[The Harp Awakes]

The Monarchy appears to be less than happy about having been drawn into this nonsense.

I'm not much of a royalist but I can understand why.

Cameron has pushed his luck. Johnson should think long and hard before he does likewise on too many occasions.

They are less than happy because they have been shown to be liars when they said they were neutral in 2014.

The news coverage I watched said that several members of the royal family were unhappy about the prospect of a Yes vote, and were looking for some way of expressing an opinion to discourage it. Cameron 'gave them that opportunity' was the narrative.

Probably the tip of the iceberg being uncovered by Cameron.

[Moulin Yarns]

We see a Scottish government with one hand tied behind its back by a government that dictates its budget. Maybe the money spent on Trident or HS2 could be redirected to the NHS? Maybe a growing economy of Scotland within the EU would free up more funds for hospitals? Shackled to the current austerity government that dictates our NHS budget (and the stealth privatisation of it down south) through the Barnet formula we will never know.

Can we put the Trident/HS2 and what could go to the NHS on the side of a bus next time. Always seems to work.

[Future17]

Alex Salmond criticising Cameron for discussing his conversations with the Queen...by discussing his conversations with the Queen. :greengrin

[danhibees1875]

Can we put the Trident/HS2 and what could go to the NHS on the side of a bus next time. Always seems to work.

The amount of money spent on trident is staggering, if ever something deserved a place on the side of a bus...

For want of a better thread, does anyone know the devolved status of fracking decisions? There was (I think) a temporary ban placed on fracking by the Scottish government a couple of years ago - is that a fully devolved issue? It feels like it should fall under oil and gas extraction/energy production which I thought was reserved.

[Ozyhibby]

Can we put the Trident/HS2 and what could go to the NHS on the side of a bus next time. Always seems to work.

It’s a fair point though. There are considerable amounts of Scottish taxpayers money spent by the UK government on things that it is safe to assume an independent Scotland wouldn’t bother with.
It’s nonsense to think it would all go to the NHS mind you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

The amount of money spent on trident is staggering, if ever something deserved a place on the side of a bus...

For want of a better thread, does anyone know the devolved status of fracking decisions? There was (I think) a temporary ban placed on fracking by the Scottish government a couple of years ago - is that a fully devolved issue? It feels like it should fall under oil and gas extraction/energy production which I thought was reserved.

I've not kept up to date, but I don't think it was a ban but was called a moratorium on fracking. Essentially saying no fracking until full investigations into the environmental impact is complete. I think it has been completed.

Fracking is a reserved matter, I believe, but the controlling mechanism in Scotland is the Planning process. Fracking licenses are issued from Westminster, but no Local Authority in the central belt where licences have been issued will approve any application.

[The Modfather]

Yeah, I agree a bit and disagree with you, as per usual :greengrin

I think you have called me out right about homogenising the 55%. Good point and I will seek to avoid doing that in future.

And yes, twirliness cuts both ways. I am genuinely curious which way it would fold (excuse the pun), I suspect one is smaller, more hardcore and bitter and one is bigger and more emotive and idealistic. I think both are ultimately wrong but that’s not a judgement, simply my opinion.

I will challenge the comment about the might of the British state though. Yes voters need to stop saying it was old folk, stupid folk, lied to folk, Westminster, old folk, lied to folk, stupid folk, the Establishment, old folk, Lyebour, Warminster, stupid folk, old folk, the establishment ad nauseam.

Ever since 2014 all I have seen is vitriol thrown at the clear majority who voted No. I never see positive arguments, with credible evidence to persuade any soft No’s to vote Yes. I’m not a fundamentalist and I don’t like nationalism per se. I am open to persuasion but I just don’t see credible arguments?

I assume this is just hyperbole. I’d suggest the grievance politics you refer to, which still happens and is counter productive, is far less relevant today than it was before Brexit. I rarely mention any of the grievances I feel as there’s nothing positive to be gained from banging that drum. However they do add up to a sense of frustration that while none of them were a silver bullet it’s similar to the little things at Hibs like lack of comms, catering, turnstyle fiascos etc that make a frustration greater than the sum of their parts. Add to that certain posters on here who try to disingenuously rewrite history and claim they don’t actually remember claims about staying in the union as being the only way to guarantee EU membership.

I do however think it will be a totally different debate this tome round and think better together are in a precarious position. Project fear 2 won’t work because of Brexit and the open goal Yes2 would have if it became a debate about an independent Scotland being worse of than Scotland staying in a post Brexit union. I think it has to be fought on positive ground, do the positives of an independent Scotland outweigh the collective benefits of the union, which is a better debate, but another tough win for the union post Brexit IMO.

[Antifa Hibs]

I think you aren’t acknowledging that fear of change is a valid argument. People are entitled to view their beliefs through whatever prism they choose.

Some of those will be more palatable or less palatable to you, me or any other member of the electorate.

Funnily enough, having worked in large organisations all my life, fear of change is something that affects most of the workforce and tends to cause disruption, stress and angst. Managing it successfully is the key.

The SNP didn’t manage it successfully in 2014, yet the principles of leading and managing change are well-established and not hard to understand.

With Standard Life, RBS, Widows, Tesco's etc etc all making redundancies hopefully people will get over the fear of jobs the next time and realise their multi-billion pound company doesn't give a **** about them wether they're holding either a Scottish or British passport.

[JeMeSouviens]

The amount of money spent on trident is staggering, if ever something deserved a place on the side of a bus...

For want of a better thread, does anyone know the devolved status of fracking decisions? There was (I think) a temporary ban placed on fracking by the Scottish government a couple of years ago - is that a fully devolved issue? It feels like it should fall under oil and gas extraction/energy production which I thought was reserved.

No, it's not. The SG couldn't ban it so they have a workaround ban in place.

[danhibees1875]

I've not kept up to date, but I don't think it was a ban but was called a moratorium on fracking. Essentially saying no fracking until full investigations into the environmental impact is complete. I think it has been completed.

Fracking is a reserved matter, I believe, but the controlling mechanism in Scotland is the Planning process. Fracking licenses are issued from Westminster, but no Local Authority in the central belt where licences have been issued will approve any application.

Thanks. :aok:

The first bit is why I said temporary, I didn't think it was out and out banned which is why I was wondering where the decision lies. I didn't realise the investigation was complete though - sounds like there wasn't any/enough evidence to convince SG to go down the route of fracking.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thanks. :aok:

The first bit is why I said temporary, I didn't think it was out and out banned which is why I was wondering where the decision lies. I didn't realise the investigation was complete though - sounds like there wasn't any/enough evidence to convince SG to go down the route of fracking.

It looks like licensing was devolved a couple of years ago. But Westminster gets the payments though.


Scotland Act 2016: onshore oil and gas licensing

Onshore oil and gas licensing powers were devolved on 9 February 2018. Commencement of sections 47 to 49 of the Scotland Act 2016 transferred powers to:


legislate for the granting and regulation of onshore licences
determine the terms and conditions of licences
regulate the licensing process, including administration of existing onshore licences

The consideration payable for such licences remains a reserved matter. The regulation, including setting, of the consideration payable for a licence is therefore reserved. In addition, the UK Government has powers to revoke a licence on the basis of failure to make payments due under the licence.



Initial investigation completed but further consultation ongoing.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/scottish-government-delays-decision-full-fracking-ban

https://consult.gov.scot/energy-and-climate-change-directorate/unconventional-oil-and-gas-sea/

[Ozyhibby]

I’m pretty sure it was the fact that planning was devolved that the uk govt decided not to try locate one of the new nuclear reactors in Scotland.
Personally I’m in favour of Nuclear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I’m pretty sure it was the fact that planning was devolved that the uk govt decided not to try locate one of the new nuclear reactors in Scotland.
Personally I’m in favour of Nuclear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The price of offshore wind is now much more than half the eye-watering £92.50 per megawatt hour (for 35 years linked to inflation!) cost on new yet-to-be-built dirty nuclear at Hinkley. Renewables aren’t the solution for the future, they are hope for the right here, right now.

Wow, down more than (I) expected again today: price of new offshore wind power has fallen to new record lows of £39.65 per megawatt hour. The future is windy...

[Ozyhibby]

The price of offshore wind is now much more than half the eye-watering £92.50 per megawatt hour (for 35 years linked to inflation!) cost on new yet-to-be-built dirty nuclear at Hinkley. Renewables aren’t the solution for the future, they are hope for the right here, right now.

Wow, down more than (I) expected again today: price of new offshore wind power has fallen to new record lows of £39.65 per megawatt hour. The future is windy...

I’m as green as the next man but you still need a base load of power that wind cant provide. Nuclear is very expensive but that’s because we are not including the damage caused by climate change in the price of the Gas we burn. And Gas still makes up 50% of our electricity we use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I’m as green as the next man but you still need a base load of power that wind cant provide. Nuclear is very expensive but that’s because we are not including the damage caused by climate change in the price of the Gas we burn. And Gas still makes up 50% of our electricity we use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Things are changing, battery storage is advancing at a good rate, there is no longer a case for building new nuclear power plants.

By the time Hinckley Point is built and commissioned battery storage will be the norm.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://twitter.com/AUOBALBA/status/1174974577404870656?s=19


True independence for England means leaving all unions. The EU is step one. The UK must be step two. We cannot continue to let Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales dictate our politics like this. It’s time we looked after number one. #DissolveTheUKUnion #englishindependence

[Ozyhibby]

Things are changing, battery storage is advancing at a good rate, there is no longer a case for building new nuclear power plants.

By the time Hinckley Point is built and commissioned battery storage will be the norm.

Hope your right because that’s the path we are following but we are going to need an awful lot of electricity to move to a carbon free economy. That’s going to need a massive increase in generation and storage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

A timely piece of news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49768198

[weecounty hibby]

https://twitter.com/AUOBALBA/status/1174974577404870656?s=19


True independence for England means leaving all unions. The EU is step one. The UK must be step two. We cannot continue to let Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales dictate our politics like this. It’s time we looked after number one. #DissolveTheUKUnion #englishindependence
Where do I sign up. It is a great idea!!

[Ozyhibby]

A timely piece of news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49768198

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190920/001aeba67d6f0488b64c88c96304c21f.jpg

Looking at what we are using now, the Gas and Coal generation has to go and the Nuclear reactors are coming to the end of their life anyway. If you add to that the massive increase in demand then I really don’t see how it helps to rule out nuclear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190920/001aeba67d6f0488b64c88c96304c21f.jpg

Looking at what we are using now, the Gas and Coal generation has to go and the Nuclear reactors are coming to the end of their life anyway. If you add to that the massive increase in demand then I really don’t see how it helps to rule out nuclear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A good mix of offshore wind and onshore solar with storage would help. Today we are in a high pressure so not much onshore wind but plenty solar.

[Hibrandenburg]

Im not sure what your point is. I am against Brexit but the 2014 refendum was binding while the 2016 one was advisory.

You are spot on about questionable numbers and grievance politics. I don’t like nationalism but I am pragmatic and as such am utterly persuadable. The manky reaction on here from Yes voters in 2014 has probably pushed me further No to be honest, but I am open to arguments.

Funny how the manky supremacist unionists don't seem to bother you the same way to balance things out.

[Smartie]

Im not sure what your point is. I am against Brexit but the 2014 refendum was binding while the 2016 one was advisory.

You are spot on about questionable numbers and grievance politics. I don’t like nationalism but I am pragmatic and as such am utterly persuadable. The manky reaction on here from Yes voters in 2014 has probably pushed me further No to be honest, but I am open to arguments.

The most important point is that I was absolutely pissed and on a train at the time I posted that.

I expected to come on here today and see some proper drivel and my post at least seems to be semi-coherent even if there is no real point to it.

Anything I posted around midnight last night should really be disregarded, even if I'm not quite at the nonsense level of some of our "post chucking out time posters" yet.

Carry on everyone.......

[Jack]

With regard to the electricity debate I was going to mention Cruachan Power Station, hydro power. It doesn't really make up much of the UK supply probably because it's kept in reserve and it must keep so much in reserve in case the rest of the network fails!

And then I found an article telling how "Scotland Is Now Generating So Much Wind Energy, It Could Power Two Scotlands"

https://www.sciencealert.com/scotland-s-wind-turbines-are-now-generating-double-what-its-residents-need

[Mibbes Aye]

The most important point is that I was absolutely pissed and on a train at the time I posted that.

I expected to come on here today and see some proper drivel and my post at least seems to be semi-coherent even if there is no real point to it.

Anything I posted around midnight last night should really be disregarded, even if I'm not quite at the nonsense level of some of our "post chucking out time posters" yet.

Carry on everyone.......

:rotflmao::top marks

[Mibbes Aye]

Funny how the manky supremacist unionists don't seem to bother you the same way to balance things out.

I dare you to go back on here and tot up the amount of ‘manky supremacist unionist’ posts (especially given that I don’t think I’ve even seen a supremacist unionist post, what does that even look like?) and compare it to the manky reactions from embittered Yes supporters post-referendum.

You won’t have to look far, just your own posting history, because I called you out repeated times about the nasty, resentful tone of your posts.

I am neither a nationalist or a unionist. I’ve made my preferences clear on here on a number of occasions. Given the vast majority of posts on here promote the nationalist agenda then it is hardly surprising I am going to engage with those, and if it sounds like bull**** I will call it out. If more unionists were on here posting stuff I think was bull**** I would call them out too.

And as far as balance goes, I have praised the SNP administration a good few times on policies that I think are right and/or effective. I’ve probably criticised Corbyn more than I have criticised Sturgeon!

[StevieC]

I've not kept up to date, but I don't think it was a ban but was called a moratorium on fracking. Essentially saying no fracking until full investigations into the environmental impact is complete. I think it has been completed.

Fracking is a reserved matter, I believe, but the controlling mechanism in Scotland is the Planning process. Fracking licenses are issued from Westminster, but no Local Authority in the central belt where licences have been issued will approve any application.

My understanding is that the moratorium is ongoing. The reason that they set up the moratorium was to delay a decision for as long as possible. The reason being that a ban could be legally challenged, and if the fracking companies won the court case then Westminster would start issuing licences. As long as the moratorium is ongoing it prevents licences being issued. Ideally it should be a devolved power, but that’s highly unlikely given the high probability of Tory MPs being on the board of said companies!

EDIT: just seen another post saying that it is now devolved, I didn’t know that. Also pointed out though, that any money made from fracking goes to Westminster! You take care of the paperwork, we’ll take care of the cash!?!?

[Moulin Yarns]

My understanding is that the moratorium is ongoing. The reason that they set up the moratorium was to delay a decision for as long as possible. The reason being that a ban could be legally challenged, and if the fracking companies won the court case then Westminster would start issuing licences. As long as the moratorium is ongoing it prevents licences being issued. Ideally it should be a devolved power, but that’s highly unlikely given the high probability of Tory MPs being on the board of said companies!

EDIT: just seen another post saying that it is now devolved, I didn’t know that. Also pointed out though, that any money made from fracking goes to Westminster! You take care of the paperwork, we’ll take care of the cash!?!?

Hi Stevie, yeah, both posts were mine. I hadn't realised it was now devolved, and came to the same conclusion as you, the Scottish Government does the work and Westminster gets paid.

As I said, the planning process will stop all fracking regardless of the licensing. I think INEOS have licence to explore around Grangemouth and West Lothian.

[Bristolhibby]

Yeah, I agree a bit and disagree with you, as per usual :greengrin

I think you have called me out right about homogenising the 55%. Good point and I will seek to avoid doing that in future.

And yes, twirliness cuts both ways. I am genuinely curious which way it would fold (excuse the pun), I suspect one is smaller, more hardcore and bitter and one is bigger and more emotive and idealistic. I think both are ultimately wrong but that’s not a judgement, simply my opinion.

I will challenge the comment about the might of the British state though. Yes voters need to stop saying it was old folk, stupid folk, lied to folk, Westminster, old folk, lied to folk, stupid folk, the Establishment, old folk, Lyebour, Warminster, stupid folk, old folk, the establishment ad nauseam.

Ever since 2014 all I have seen is vitriol thrown at the clear majority who voted No. I never see positive arguments, with credible evidence to persuade any soft No’s to vote Yes. I’m not a fundamentalist and I don’t like nationalism per se. I am open to persuasion but I just don’t see credible arguments?

The might of the British State was at work throughout.

For me it’s about decision making. Scots should make their own decisions. And if that decision is to join another Union as an independent state, then that’s the people’s decision to make.

J

[Bristolhibby]

My understanding is that the moratorium is ongoing. The reason that they set up the moratorium was to delay a decision for as long as possible. The reason being that a ban could be legally challenged, and if the fracking companies won the court case then Westminster would start issuing licences. As long as the moratorium is ongoing it prevents licences being issued. Ideally it should be a devolved power, but that’s highly unlikely given the high probability of Tory MPs being on the board of said companies!

EDIT: just seen another post saying that it is now devolved, I didn’t know that. Also pointed out though, that any money made from fracking goes to Westminster! You take care of the paperwork, we’ll take care of the cash!?!?

That edit is another credit to Independence. Not that I agree with fracking or it being foisted upon Scotland. But in an independent Scotland, the Scottish people can decide if they want Fracking or not. And ensure that licence fees sit in the Scottish exchequer not in Westminster to spend as it sees fit.

J

[Hibrandenburg]

I dare you to go back on here and tot up the amount of ‘manky supremacist unionist’ posts (especially given that I don’t think I’ve even seen a supremacist unionist post, what does that even look like?) and compare it to the manky reactions from embittered Yes supporters post-referendum.

You won’t have to look far, just your own posting history, because I called you out repeated times about the nasty, resentful tone of your posts.

I am neither a nationalist or a unionist. I’ve made my preferences clear on here on a number of occasions. Given the vast majority of posts on here promote the nationalist agenda then it is hardly surprising I am going to engage with those, and if it sounds like bull**** I will call it out. If more unionists were on here posting stuff I think was bull**** I would call them out too.

And as far as balance goes, I have praised the SNP administration a good few times on policies that I think are right and/or effective. I’ve probably criticised Corbyn more than I have criticised Sturgeon!

Whoe down boy. Life exists outside Hibs Net. You said manky comments on here have probably pushed you further into the No camp, I just find it hard to believe that a balanced individual like yourself would only be influenced by the nutters on one side of the debate.

[Moulin Yarns]

Whoe down boy. Life exists outside Hibs Net. You said manky comments on here have probably pushed you further into the No camp, I just find it hard to believe that a balanced individual like yourself would only be influenced by the nutters on one side of the debate.

He needs to pay more attention to the nutters on the No side as well. 😉

[marinello59]

He needs to pay more attention to the nutters on the No side as well. 😉

To be fair to MA he wasn’t calling out the nutters but more the blame game that many Yes voters undertook in the aftermath. He has a point, the horrifically smug ‘We are the 45 ‘ thing that emerged was a big mistake, all it did was alienate those we have to win over.

[Smartie]

I dare you to go back on here and tot up the amount of ‘manky supremacist unionist’ posts (especially given that I don’t think I’ve even seen a supremacist unionist post, what does that even look like?) and compare it to the manky reactions from embittered Yes supporters post-referendum.

You won’t have to look far, just your own posting history, because I called you out repeated times about the nasty, resentful tone of your posts.

I am neither a nationalist or a unionist. I’ve made my preferences clear on here on a number of occasions. Given the vast majority of posts on here promote the nationalist agenda then it is hardly surprising I am going to engage with those, and if it sounds like bull**** I will call it out. If more unionists were on here posting stuff I think was bull**** I would call them out too.

And as far as balance goes, I have praised the SNP administration a good few times on policies that I think are right and/or effective. I’ve probably criticised Corbyn more than I have criticised Sturgeon!

Not sure if the demographic of the Hibs support would lead to a huge number of the more outrageous or offensive Unionist rantings.

We'll have a very healthy number of "No" voters in our numbers who will have had their reasons for voting the way they did, which is fair enough, but they're not likely to express the type of sentiment that I would imagine could readily be expressed on a Rangers, Hearts or Chelsea forum.

Folk on here will tend to make pro union comments with a bit of tact and dignity

(Sober tonight btw.)

[Mibbes Aye]

Whoe down boy. Life exists outside Hibs Net. You said manky comments on here have probably pushed you further into the No camp, I just find it hard to believe that a balanced individual like yourself would only be influenced by the nutters on one side of the debate.

Fair comment. I look forward to you posting examples of supremacist unionist comments on here because I don’t recall many or any. The vast majority of strong or extreme opinions have come from the Yes camp, and I think it is fair to say you and a couple of other posters were prevalent after the result. And your posts were very angry, embittered and resentful. And I guess that’s fair enough, you were passionate about the vote and the result.

I have said before, laid out my views, I’m not a unionist and I don’t like nationalism, I really don’t like nationalism, to me it is an abomination that any rational mind would reject without a second’s thought.

I am also pragmatic. If I thought that there was a model of governance and government that worked best, I would vote for it in a heartbeat. Of course, the question then becomes how do we get there, if there is the will to get there, and then ‘what works best?’

I am persuadable on indyref, but I need a lot of convincing. I suspect that puts me in a big, big camp of soft No’s.

The problem is that there isn’t much convincing from the Yes side, it is all blame. Fair comment?

[Ozyhibby]

To be fair to MA he wasn’t calling out the nutters but more the blame game that many Yes voters undertook in the aftermath. He has a point, the horrifically smug ‘We are the 45 ‘ thing that emerged was a big mistake, all it did was alienate those we have to win over.

100% agree with that. There are fundamentalists on both sides and I have little in common with either.
People need to be won over to the idea of independence, not coerced into it. That’s why I agree with the leadership of the SNP that we should not rush into a 2nd referendum just yet, there is still a fair bit of work to be done. The currency issue needs more attention paid to it because it scares people even though it shouldn’t. And a great offer on pensions needs to be made to encourage older voters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

100% agree with that. There are fundamentalists on both sides and I have little in common with either.
People need to be won over to the idea of independence, not coerced into it. That’s why I agree with the leadership of the SNP that we should not rush into a 2nd referendum just yet, there is still a fair bit of work to be done. The currency issue needs more attention paid to it because it scares people even though it shouldn’t. And a great offer on pensions needs to be made to encourage older voters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spot on. It's being worked on.

For all the nasty nationalists comments from a couple of posters on here, I don't see the yes movement as nasty at all, I see them as normalists, trying to seek self determination.

The continual pejorative rhetoric used by those posters doesn't really reflect the yes movement whatsoever.

If they go onto the streets of Edinburgh on October 5th, they'll see what I mean.

If you want nasty nationalism, go to Glasgow today, where the union brigade will be spouting their hatred of ordinary Scots.

[Fife-Hibee]

To be fair to MA he wasn’t calling out the nutters but more the blame game that many Yes voters undertook in the aftermath. He has a point, the horrifically smug ‘We are the 45 ‘ thing that emerged was a big mistake, all it did was alienate those we have to win over.

How else were they going to react? They spent the entire campaign telling people that they were being lied to with false and twisted information. Then when it became blatantly obvious that people were lied to after the referendum was over, they simply stuck their fingers in their ears and refused to accept it.

The backlash from YES voters is entirely understandable to those who don't still have their fingers in their ears.

[Fife-Hibee]

Fair comment. I look forward to you posting examples of supremacist unionist comments on here because I don’t recall many or any. The vast majority of strong or extreme opinions have come from the Yes camp, and I think it is fair to say you and a couple of other posters were prevalent after the result. And your posts were very angry, embittered and resentful. And I guess that’s fair enough, you were passionate about the vote and the result.

I have said before, laid out my views, I’m not a unionist and I don’t like nationalism, I really don’t like nationalism, to me it is an abomination that any rational mind would reject without a second’s thought.

I am also pragmatic. If I thought that there was a model of governance and government that worked best, I would vote for it in a heartbeat. Of course, the question then becomes how do we get there, if there is the will to get there, and then ‘what works best?’

I am persuadable on indyref, but I need a lot of convincing. I suspect that puts me in a big, big camp of soft No’s.

The problem is that there isn’t much convincing from the Yes side, it is all blame. Fair comment?

I think you read a book about WW2 once and now you base all forms of nationalism around it. Even although nationalism is entirely necessary and has shaped the world as we see it today.

I don't believe you're persuadable. I believe you're trolling when you tell people that. It wouldn't matter what any of us said to try and convince you, you are well and truly stuck in your ways.

[The Harp Awakes]

Fair comment. I look forward to you posting examples of supremacist unionist comments on here because I don’t recall many or any. The vast majority of strong or extreme opinions have come from the Yes camp, and I think it is fair to say you and a couple of other posters were prevalent after the result. And your posts were very angry, embittered and resentful. And I guess that’s fair enough, you were passionate about the vote and the result.

I have said before, laid out my views, I’m not a unionist and I don’t like nationalism, I really don’t like nationalism, to me it is an abomination that any rational mind would reject without a second’s thought.

I am also pragmatic. If I thought that there was a model of governance and government that worked best, I would vote for it in a heartbeat. Of course, the question then becomes how do we get there, if there is the will to get there, and then ‘what works best?’

I am persuadable on indyref, but I need a lot of convincing. I suspect that puts me in a big, big camp of soft No’s.

The problem is that there isn’t much convincing from the Yes side, it is all blame. Fair comment?

An interesting post MA. I've read your contributions over the years on Scottish independence, and I had you down as a vociferous 'No'. If you consider yourself as a soft 'No' today then that gives me hope that you may be representative of a general move in public opinion in favour of independence. It's certainly what I'm picking up from friends who were firmly in the 'No' camp in 2014.

For me independence is a means to an end. My political views haven't changed much over the years; they're still firmly left of centre and will remain so to the grave. However I gave up decades ago on the idea of a Westminster Government ever representing my political views. Boris and his ultra right wing Tory Government are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to the views of the majority of Scots, and yet they are riding high in the opinion polls.

Independence would pretty much ensure Scotland would never be governed by Tories again. For me that is too good an opportunity to miss.

[DaveF]

I don't believe you're persuadable. I believe you're trolling when you tell people that. It wouldn't matter what any of us said to try and convince you, you are well and truly stuck in your ways.

He will be lapping this reply up. You gave him exactly what he wanted (and yes, I know you don't care ☺️)

[Fife-Hibee]

Independence would pretty much ensure Scotland would never be governed by Tories again. For me that is too good an opportunity to miss.

That's not entirely true and is probably the wrong message to be sending out there. An independent Scotland will be open to a wide scale of political parties. Difference is, we (Scotland) will be able to make decisions for the betterment of our economy and social landscape. Rather than being forced to accept the one policy suits all approach taken by Westminster.

Even although this is a perfectly legitimate point to make. Mibbes Aye (like all other arguments put forward to them) will not accept it as a convincing argument, because they don't really wish to be convinced at all.

[The Harp Awakes]

That's not entirely true and is probably the wrong message to be sending out there. An independent Scotland will be open to a wide scale of political parties. Difference is, we (Scotland) will be able to make decisions for the betterment of our economy and social landscape. Rather than being forced to accept the one policy suits all approach taken by Westminster.

Even although this is a perfectly legitimate point to make. Mibbes Aye (like all other arguments put forward to them) will not accept it as a convincing argument, because they don't really wish to be convinced at all.

Tactically, I think promoting the concept of ditching Tory governments for ever could be the best way of securing independence.

The Yes movement needs to target specific sectors of the electorate to change No votes into Yes. Disaffected Labour voters and those with pro EU views are the best chance of success. By and large Tories Scotland will always vote No so there's nothing to lose in having an anti Tory message.

[Fife-Hibee]

Tactically, I think promoting the concept of ditching Tory governments for ever could be the best way of securing independence.
We've already tried that one. Alienating people who don't consider themselves to be on the "left side" of politics isn't going to help get independence over the line. We need to make the democratic case for independence and in order to do that, independence needs to look like an appealing prospect to those on both sides of the political spectrum. Scotland may lean more to the left, but that doesn't mean we're going to get enough 'left wing' people on board to push independence over the line, we need to appeal to others as well. We don't want independence to seem like it's going to be some sort of left wing dictatorship, I believe that idea put a lot of people off previously.


The Yes movement needs to target specific sectors of the electorate to change No votes into Yes. Disaffected Labour voters and those with pro EU views are the best chance of success. By and large Tories Scotland will always vote No so there's nothing to lose in having an anti Tory message.

I agree that we need to appeal to other sectors of the electorate. I don't agree that people who consider themselves "right wing" in Scotland will always vote no. That will only remain the case if we keep trying to sell independence as some sort of left-wing utopia where right wing politics will never get a look in. We need to get off that political track, because we've already seen that it leads nowhere.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think you read a book about WW2 once and now you base all forms of nationalism around it. Even although nationalism is entirely necessary and has shaped the world as we see it today.

I don't believe you're persuadable. I believe you're trolling when you tell people that. It wouldn't matter what any of us said to try and convince you, you are well and truly stuck in your ways.

Ooh, get you. I think the concept of nationalism and the nation state as it exists today has precious little to do with WW2. I think it exists from a combination of often complex factors that massively predate the Second World War.

I would suggest you start with the invention of printing presses, accompanied by the gradual rise in literacy, which enabled the spread of ideas beyond the fairly confined circles that existed before that. I would suggest you consider the Reformation and Counter-Reformation which reset the relationship between church and state, if and where states existed and redefined power relations across Europe.

I would suggest you consider the shifts in philosophical thought, particularly around the late eighteenth century. These established some of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy, which underpin the way in which we define nation states now, not least of all by redefining the status of the monarchs.

I would suggest you consider the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capital. I would suggest you consider the rise and fall of empire amongst the European nations. I would suggest you consider the dynamics that led to city states and regions unifying in the19th century, Germany being the best example, into a ‘nation’ fuelled by a hitherto non-existent nationalism.

But anyways, I might try and read another book about WW2 to double my understanding.......

[Mibbes Aye]

An interesting post MA. I've read your contributions over the years on Scottish independence, and I had you down as a vociferous 'No'. If you consider yourself as a soft 'No' today then that gives me hope that you may be representative of a general move in public opinion in favour of independence. It's certainly what I'm picking up from friends who were firmly in the 'No' camp in 2014.

For me independence is a means to an end. My political views haven't changed much over the years; they're still firmly left of centre and will remain so to the grave. However I gave up decades ago on the idea of a Westminster Government ever representing my political views. Boris and his ultra right wing Tory Government are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to the views of the majority of Scots, and yet they are riding high in the opinion polls.

Independence would pretty much ensure Scotland would never be governed by Tories again. For me that is too good an opportunity to miss.

Thanks THA, I’m curious - did you feel that domestic policy under New Labour represented your views?

I have a bee in my bonnet about nationalism and nationalist tropes but ultimately I am pragmatic. I’ve posted on here before that I think the best form of government is likely not Westminster or an independent Holyrood, but I don’t think the model I prefer is going to happen any time soon.

I do recognise that there is a significant minority, bordering on half the vote and potentially at some stage a majority that seek independence. Were that to ever happen, I wouldn’t be crying in a corner.

I think the arguments for it are very weak and based on grievance, which I think we are so much better than.

But when it comes down to it, the things that really matter in life - our schools, hospitals, courts, policing, the state of our roads, our streets, our bins, housing etc etc - are already sitting in Edinburgh and there wouldn’t be that much change on that front.

[lapsedhibee]

But when it comes down to it, the things that really matter in life - our schools, hospitals, courts, policing, the state of our roads, our streets, our bins, housing etc etc - are already sitting in Edinburgh and there wouldn’t be that much change on that front.
How often bins are emptied matters less to me than that 'we' currently have a man-child/boy-infant wandering the globe sputtering absolute nonsense on my behalf. That particular form of idiocy could not have happened in an independent Scotland imo. I've read two books on WW2 and don't have much time for nationalism, but I'll definitely be considering Yessing next time around.

[Mibbes Aye]

How often bins are emptied matters less to me than that 'we' currently have a man-child/boy-infant wandering the globe sputtering absolute nonsense on my behalf. That particular form of idiocy could not have happened in an independent Scotland imo. I've read two books on WW2 and don't have much time for nationalism, but I'll definitely be considering Yessing next time around.

For someone like me, with an inherent shunning away from nationalism and all the sentiments that go with it, it is a tough one. I don’t want to be out of the EU and I don’t like the notion that an absolute swivel head like Dom Cummings has his hands on the levers of power. At the same time Seamas Milne is merely Cummings from the left. Some choice.

Thats why I wouldn’t rule out me being persuadable. It is all about pragmatism and my view (and it is only my view) is that the best model of government for me or my family isn’t what is on offer, either at Westminster or on the nationalist prospectus, but if one becomes clearly better then it probably gets my vote.

[Ozyhibby]

For someone like me, with an inherent shunning away from nationalism and all the sentiments that go with it, it is a tough one. I don’t want to be out of the EU and I don’t like the notion that an absolute swivel head like Dom Cummings has his hands on the levers of power. At the same time Seamas Milne is merely Cummings from the left. Some choice.

Thats why I wouldn’t rule out me being persuadable. It is all about pragmatism and my view (and it is only my view) is that the best model of government for me or my family isn’t what is on offer, either at Westminster or on the nationalist prospectus, but if one becomes clearly better then it probably gets my vote.

You are looking at nationalism from the most negative point of view. And let’s face it, there are plenty of reasons to be wary of it.
Societies have always formed into groups for lots of reasons, mostly security but also it helps the division of labour. Nation states are just an extension of this. Without these groupings it would not be possible to have welfare systems etc.
When nationalism becomes dangerous is when people believe their nation is somehow superior to others for whatever reason.
I don’t see that with Scottish nationalism other than a few dafties. Anyway, the independence debate is a choice between two different nationalisms anyway, so it’s not really important whether you like the idea of nationalism or not. There is nothing else on offer for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Harp Awakes]

Thanks THA, I’m curious - did you feel that domestic policy under New Labour represented your views?

I have a bee in my bonnet about nationalism and nationalist tropes but ultimately I am pragmatic. I’ve posted on here before that I think the best form of government is likely not Westminster or an independent Holyrood, but I don’t think the model I prefer is going to happen any time soon.

I do recognise that there is a significant minority, bordering on half the vote and potentially at some stage a majority that seek independence. Were that to ever happen, I wouldn’t be crying in a corner.

I think the arguments for it are very weak and based on grievance, which I think we are so much better than.

But when it comes down to it, the things that really matter in life - our schools, hospitals, courts, policing, the state of our roads, our streets, our bins, housing etc etc - are already sitting in Edinburgh and there wouldn’t be that much change on that front.

New Labour had mixed feelings for me MA. I remember crying tears of joy when Maggie was ousted by Labour and had great hope for the future. Through time it became clear that New Labour were red Tories and the lies over the Iraq war finished me with the Party.

When Scotland becomes independent I will revert back to voting Labour I'm sure. But Scotland desperately needs independence first to begin to tackle the health and social issues the country faces.

I agree with you that many areas e.g. health, have already been devolved and we still face massive challenges. However, until Scotland controls 100% of the budget we cannot make calculated choices.

The alternative to independence is a rght wing Tory Government in Westminster for decades. The damage that will be done in that time to vulnerable Scots is incalculable.

[stoneyburn hibs]

For someone like me, with an inherent shunning away from nationalism and all the sentiments that go with it, it is a tough one. I don’t want to be out of the EU and I don’t like the notion that an absolute swivel head like Dom Cummings has his hands on the levers of power. At the same time Seamas Milne is merely Cummings from the left. Some choice.

Thats why I wouldn’t rule out me being persuadable. It is all about pragmatism and my view (and it is only my view) is that the best model of government for me or my family isn’t what is on offer, either at Westminster or on the nationalist prospectus, but if one becomes clearly better then it probably gets my vote.

Seems like your torn between being a Unionist and whats best for your country.

[Mibbes Aye]

Seems like your torn between being a Unionist and whats best for your country.

I’m definitely not a Unionist and I don’t think I can define my ‘country’

[Mibbes Aye]

New Labour had mixed feelings for me MA. I remember crying tears of joy when Maggie was ousted by Labour and had great hope for the future. Through time it became clear that New Labour were red Tories and the lies over the Iraq war finished me with the Party.

When Scotland becomes independent I will revert back to voting Labour I'm sure. But Scotland desperately needs independence first to begin to tackle the health and social issues the country faces.

I agree with you that many areas e.g. health, have already been devolved and we still face massive challenges. However, until Scotland controls 100% of the budget we cannot make calculated choices.

The alternative to independence is a rght wing Tory Government in Westminster for decades. The damage that will be done in that time to vulnerable Scots is incalculable.

That’s a thoughtful reply, thank you. I guessed Iraq might come up. Debate for another thread I think and actually one that would be worth while, with the hope that it would be civilised - I don’t doubt that with you, not sure everyone else would behave though, it seems to be too emotive for some folk.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Tactically, I think promoting the concept of ditching Tory governments for ever could be the best way of securing independence.

The Yes movement needs to target specific sectors of the electorate to change No votes into Yes. Disaffected Labour voters and those with pro EU views are the best chance of success. By and large Tories Scotland will always vote No so there's nothing to lose in having an anti Tory message.

Independence is all about ensuring that the people of Scotland always get the government they vote for, for good or bad, a state of affairs which has rarely been the case. We do not seem to buy into conservative philosophies, but that isn't to say that will always be the case in an independent Scotland.

If you ask me it would be a seriously good political move for the SNP to enshrine into its constitution that within 2 years of a vote to leave the UK the party will dissolve, leaving its members and supporters to graduate to whatever political party old or newly established they feel drawn to.

To my mind that would at a stroke spike the guns of anybody accusing the party of being self serving and looking to in effect rule an independent Scotland.

[hughio]

Independence is all about ensuring that the people of Scotland always get the government they vote for, for good or bad, a state of affairs which has rarely been the case. We do not seem to buy into conservative philosophies, but that isn't to say that will always be the case in an independent Scotland.

If you ask me it would be a seriously good political move for the SNP to enshrine into its constitution that within 2 years of a vote to leave the UK the party will dissolve, leaving its members and supporters to graduate to whatever political party old or newly established they feel drawn to.

To my mind that would at a stroke spike the guns of anybody accusing the party of being self serving and looking to in effect rule an independent Scotland.

Interesting idea.A bit too imaginative for a political party to grasp I fear.

[JeMeSouviens]

Michel Barnier makes the case* for Scotland to be an EU Member in our own right:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFPUw7aW4AEmb6u?format=png&name=900x900




* yeah, yeah, not directly but still ...

[cabbageandribs1875]

i can't find the words to explain just how much this hurts :boo hoo:


22563

[southsider]

They think stealing a slogan from Trump is going to help. God love ‘em.

[weecounty hibby]

i can't find the words to explain just how much this hurts :boo hoo:


22563
Just do it then!! Please please please start lobbying your English MPs to put in motion the process of bringing a bill forward that would see Scotland separated from England. Won't ever happen cos England needs Scotland more than they will ever admit.

[Moulin Yarns]

Bugger, how are we supposed to manage on our own?

Independence will generate a £109,000,000,000 asset windfall for Scotland https://t.co/kJNB6kqIlk via @BizforScotland

[cabbageandribs1875]

Just do it then!! Please please please start lobbying your English MPs to put in motion the process of bringing a bill forward that would see Scotland separated from England. Won't ever happen cos England needs Scotland more than they will ever admit.


there's far too many Scots that think the opposite of that unfortunately, if only the MSM started printing a little balance.

[cabbageandribs1875]

so, what's this all about then https://twitter.com/Scotpol1314/status/1177183493966761984?s=19&fbclid=IwAR1ApSVlqo8xAnXvwSxRZSpW4-kiLFD4hXsw9xuAKgtSAAiX2aZimZuStz0 :dunno:


To all the Brexiteers out there you really should make yourself aware of this, nobile officium.This is when Scots law takes over the PM’s role and asks EU for an extension. You will soon be hearing a lot about this.Your reactions should be a joy to behold!


will i get extra popcorn in or whit

[cabbageandribs1875]

just a wee reminder, as if needed :rolleyes: the lengths unionists will also go to in indy2


https://www.facebook.com/AlbaGuBrathSaorsa/videos/403538550542521/


kin scandalous

[Ozyhibby]

so, what's this all about then https://twitter.com/Scotpol1314/status/1177183493966761984?s=19&fbclid=IwAR1ApSVlqo8xAnXvwSxRZSpW4-kiLFD4hXsw9xuAKgtSAAiX2aZimZuStz0 :dunno:


To all the Brexiteers out there you really should make yourself aware of this, nobile officium.This is when Scots law takes over the PM’s role and asks EU for an extension. You will soon be hearing a lot about this.Your reactions should be a joy to behold!


will i get extra popcorn in or whit





Good wee explainer here.
https://twitter.com/mjkindependent/status/1177213340696948738?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

Is the price of independence worth paying?

Is the price of staying part of the union worth paying?

[Future17]

Good wee explainer here.
https://twitter.com/mjkindependent/status/1177213340696948738?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure I'd put too much faith in someone who states the Scottish legal system is "simply better" than the English legal system and that is "just a fact". :greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

Is the price of independence worth paying?

YES. Scotland can and will improve as a country under our own direction. There may be some short term pain but the gains in the long term. Short termism is holding us back

Is the price of staying part of the union worth paying?
NO. If you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always got!! And to be honest what we have got at the moment is completely broken.

[Jack]

I'm not sure I'd put too much faith in someone who states the Scottish legal system is "simply better" than the English legal system and that is "just a fact". :greengrin

He does explain a wee bit why it's better.

[heretoday]

I'm not sure I'd put too much faith in someone who states the Scottish legal system is "simply better" than the English legal system and that is "just a fact". :greengrin

It's like our education. It was always said that the Scottish system was superior, more rigorous etc.
Turns out it's nonsense.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Is the price of independence worth paying?

Is the price of staying part of the union worth paying?

Indeed … Though after watching that absolute car crash of smug oily Tories like Johnson and Gove smarm threaten and bluster their way through the first day of parliament's return the other day nothing on this earth would persuade me not to vote for independence at this point … If any Scottish resident, be that natural born or recently arrived, watching that still thinks those are the people who should be governing us then the must be the sort of folk who like to pay rubber clad women to make them lick out toilet bowls.

[Future17]

He does explain a wee bit why it's better.

He explains why it's different, but it's purely his opinion that those differences make it better. It's certainly not a fact.