SNP Referendum Nonsense

British. British. British.

As if our retaining some of our heritage is somehow not allowed?

Who owns it then?

The question you threw out there was is what is offered independence. The answer is clearly yes. The UK and the world is interdependent most especially economically, and I think you'll find that most nations including the UK follow political and economic alliances.

Keep our shared heritage, I wouldn't have it any other way. And I am even willing to accept that that's the main reason for keeping the monarchy, same as Canada, Australia etc.

But the Yes campaign are expecting to leave the UK, but keep the benefits of being in the UK. Which is absurd. It would be like the rUK voting to leave the EU but expect to keep free trade and movement. It just ain't gonna happen.

possibly the most bitter/misguided/insulting post I've read on this thread so far and that's going some - well done

You are misinterpreting me. This is not an attack on Scottish people, but Scottish politics and politicians. They are, in the end, no different to English politicians, or any nations actually. Criticising them will always lead to blame.

When Scotland falls into economic difficulties (and it will, all countries do) keeping the British pound, a currency out of Scottish control, will simply ensure that at the first sign of criticism will end in finger-pointing at Westminster. It would be silly to think otherwise. A very large chunk of the YES campaign boils down to little more than blaming Westminster for practically everything.

I don't blame them though. I live in the North West, and I blame Westminster for most of what has gone wrong here with employment, race relations and public transport.
 
[TW]Fox;25425151 said:
So some polls must show it as being even closer?

Any links to reputable polls?

I've yet to see the most recent graph, I'll have a look, but here's the BBC and Unionists Man At Arms himself has to say..

John Curtice said:
Eight polls have so far been conducted since the Scottish Government accepted in January that the question on the referendum ballot paper should read, ‘Should Scotland be an independent country’, as recommended by the Electoral Commission. Every single one of those polls, conducted by no less than five different companies, has put the Yes side behind. On average the Yes vote has been just 33%.

Yet this headline figure is misleading. The remaining two-thirds of Scots are not all against independence. In all of the polls there is a not inconsiderable group of ‘Don’t Knows’, ranging from 10% in an Ipsos-MORI poll conducted at the beginning of May to 20% in a Panelbase poll undertaken later that same month. (Ipsos-MORI’s figure is low because their headline figures are based only on those who say they are certain to vote, a group that, unsurprisingly, is more likely to have a view on the subject.)

To see the referendum outcome to which the polls are really pointing, we need to take out the ‘Don’t Knows’ and calculate what percentage of those with a stated view say they will vote Yes, and what proportion, No. This, after all, is standard practice when it comes to Holyrood or Westminster vote intentions – and our poll explorer enables you to see what the results are when calculated in that way . Doing so reveals that the average Yes vote is not 33% but 39% (with 61% saying No). Rather than being two to one behind, the Yes side is seemingly more like three to two behind.

Moreover, the polls do not all agree with each other. One company, Panelbase, has persistently painted a brighter picture for the Yes side than everyone else. Panelbase’s average rating for the Yes side – once the Don’t Knows are taken out – is 44%. Everyone else’s, in contrast, is just 37%.

We cannot be sure who is right and who wrong. But who is right makes a big difference to the psychology of the campaign. If everyone else is right then the Yes side has a mountain to climb. But if Panelbase are closer to the truth then it is at least within hailing distance of the winning post of 50% + 1 vote. This divergence means the wise head will be cautious in presuming to know the likely outcome.

Still, even if Panelbase are right, the Yes side will at some point need to make progress. So far there has not been any sign at all of it doing so. During 2012 and early 2013 twelve polls asked people how they would vote in response to the draft referendum question originally proposed by the Scottish Government in January 2012, that is ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country’. On average, once the Don’t Knows were taken out, Panelbase reported an average Yes vote of 44%, while everyone else put the figure at 38%.

These figures are almost identical to those obtained since January of this year. For all its sound and fury it seems that so far the referendum debate has not had any discernible impact on the balance of public opinion at all.

So the Yes side may be closer to victory than might appear at first sight. However, it has yet to demonstrate that it has the ability to win new converts to its cause. Those who would like to see an independent Scotland have to hope it starts to do so soon.

The difference with Panelbase to the other polls is the Holyrood weighting, which while 'painting a brighter picture' is probably a more accurate reflection of Scottish political opinion.
 
Keep our shared heritage, I wouldn't have it any other way. And I am even willing to accept that that's the main reason for keeping the monarchy, same as Canada, Australia etc.

But the Yes campaign are expecting to leave the UK, but keep the benefits of being in the UK. Which is absurd.

It's not keeping the benefits, the pound the royalty and other things you mentioned are essentially co-owned. Scotland would be entitled to a percentage in some cases, and it remains in the interests of both nations to have a currency union.

This is a divorce to adopt unionist terminology momentarily.



Woden said:
It would be like the rUK voting to leave the EU but expect to keep free trade and movement. It just ain't gonna happen.

So what happens if the UK does vote to leave the EU?

You don't think it would be in the interests of Europe to keep the economic community going?
 
Last edited:
As I said, they have all been discussed or noted in the other thread.

Each and every one of those issues, with evidence.

Go have a look, the link has been posted a few times. I'm not here to satisfy your demands when the effort has already been expelled! :)

I'm not going to look through 800 posts because you claim there's something in one of them. Even if there is, it's probably just you making the same claim. You're just wasting my time.

If you want me to think there is any substance at all to any of your claims, you'll have to provide some evidence. Your continued refusal to do so speaks volumes.
 
[..]
I don't blame them though. I live in the North West, and I blame Westminster for most of what has gone wrong here with employment, race relations and public transport.

Maybe you should call for "independence" (while retaining all the benefits and blaming Westminster, of course). Maybe I should do the same for the midlands. The southwest can go for the Dumnonii border again.

Hmm...that raises another question. Which split do we go for? Anglo-Saxon kingdoms? Pre-Roman kingdoms?

It's the same everywhere, e.g. talk to people in the USA and you'll find a fair few who blame the federal government for state problems and state government for county problems and county government for local problems. The only real exception is when people are unified in blaming. For example, people in every area of the city I live in are unified in blaming the city council. If I could vote to replace them with a randomnly chosen person who plays Sim City a lot, I would do so because that person would have a much better understanding of how a city works.

So I agree with you - of course it would happen in "independent" Scotland, especially since the "independence" called for retains dependence on England and is thus perfectly suited to continuing to blame England.
 
Blame England for what in that scenario?

Anything. It's a catch-all excuse. Scotland wouldn't become perfect overnight after "independence". It will continue to have problems, like everywhere else, and people will want a target to blame. It's always politically useful to blame "them", whoever "they" happens to be at the time. Since England would continue to dominate the Scottish economy (which in that scenario would be deeply bound to the English economy and subordinate to it) and since there's a long history of blaming England, it would be so politically useful that it's wildly implausible to believe that nobody would do it. Scotland is inhabited by people who are no different to people elsewhere, not by saints and angels.
 
I still don't understand what this notion of Scotland blaming England for things has to do with the case for or against independence?
Seems just to be arguing for the sake of argument to see how many stereotypical jibes can be directed towards Scotland...
 
People are unhappy that Scottish politicians are blaming Westminster and using it as an excuse for independence, and will likely continue to blame Westminster should independence occur; fairly easy to see really, whether you agree with it or not.

As to if it has any bearing on whether Scotland should be independent or not is probably moot, because it doesn't.
 
People are unhappy that Scottish politicians are blaming Westminster and using it as an excuse for independence
at the moment I think it's clear to see that the westminster parilament has clearly different policy aims than the scottish parliament - for example, the bedroom tax - it's not blaming Westminster, it's saying that we have different politcal ideals so why are we being dictated to - I don't understand why people are unhappy that the case for independence is being used as the case for independence

, and will likely continue to blame Westminster should independence occur; fairly easy to see really, whether you agree with it or not.
that's an opinion I don't agree with, the whole point in independence is to be able to take responsibility for out own affairs - if the currency union etc doesn't work both sides would be to blame and any right minded person can see that - I just don't see why this is an issue for anyone, it just reinforces the steroetype of the scot with a chip on their shoulder...
of course politicians will always blame anyone other than themselves - just look at the current government! But that still doesn't mean the people do!
 
That's just nonsense. Independence is predicated on everything going well in the mind of the voter. As soon as something which is directly related to but is an unwanted side effect of Independence - where's my Euro entry, why does no one want to talk to us, how come we have no more money, and why can't we get all of the benefits of our historic state in our now current state - then the wheels come off and the fingers get raised. At Westminster. Again.

To suggest that this is not a likely outcome is wrong..

e : just read your post for the third time. It's not a stereotype when it's true! A really common trait amongst the Scottish is to blame (1) The English and then (2) anyone else when the English respond with "Uh, that wasn't us. Again." One of the reasons stereotypes and cliches exist is because they can be based on fact and by God is this the case when it comes to our friends down South.
 
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia;25434242 said:
- then the wheels come off and the fingers get raised. At Westminster. Again.

tbh, I think that is nonsense - why would westminster be to blame if we had the power to make our own decisions?
The only thing westminster gets blamed for currently is forcing through policy which is not supported by the scottish parliament (or population) on matters where the powers aren't devolved - which is an inescapable fact of our current situation
I think it's a very negative minded view and adds nothing to the case for or against independence - I don't really think it should feature any further in the discussion as it's just allowing people to use their own preconceived idea of the Scottish population rather than explore any of the real issues
 
[FnG]magnolia;25434242 said:
e : just read your post for the third time. It's not a stereotype when it's true! A really common trait amongst the Scottish is to blame (1) The English and then (2) anyone else when the English respond with "Uh, that wasn't us. Again." One of the reasons stereotypes and cliches exist is because they can be based on fact and by God is this the case when it comes to our friends down South.

Yes, that's right, we can't analyse anything or accept resposibility for ourselves - all we do is blame our problems on the English!

UTTER TOSH
 
I think it's a very negative minded view and adds nothing to the case for or against independence - I don't really think it should feature any further in the discussion as it's just allowing people to use their own preconceived idea of the Scottish population rather than explore any of the real issues

Preconceived ideas? I'm Scottish and lived in Scotland for 38 years. I shan't apologise too much if my world view does not align with proposing that negativity should not also be considered. The irony is almost too much to bear.
 
Back
Top Bottom