Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible

Status
Not open for further replies.
alx said:
You say close to that, but how many polls is that bass on? Extensive polling would need to be undertaken before it would be believed it was a realistic number, and even then it would probably need to be 55+% yes as when it comes to the actual vote there always tends to be a shift to no.

Will be interesting to see how it varies over the next few years.
Click to expand...

Well every poll I have seen since the referendum has shown there to be no change or a very slight increase towards YES. I think a few polls showing YES at about 50% would probably be enough for the SNP to risk it. As for your last statement, that is not the case at all. The polls shifted to the YES side at the end hence the panic from the unionists offering us all sorts of bribes and concessions (which we are still waiting on).
 
lovelyhead said:
Well every poll I have seen since the referendum has shown there to be no change or a very slight increase towards YES. I think a few polls showing YES at about 50% would probably be enough for the SNP to risk it. As for your last statement, that is not the case at all. The polls shifted to the YES side at the end hence the panic from the unionists offering us all sorts of bribes and concessions (which we are still waiting on).
Click to expand...

If anything the shift from YES before the vote to NO proves my point, people tend to shift to the status quo at the last minute which is what I'm saying. This is not unusual in referendums.
 
Really unsure why people are still trying to argue with lovelyhead. I've been reading this from the beginning and his opinions are set in stone and will not change, even if Alex Salmond were to come into this thread and tell him to stop.

He's right, you're all wrong, haven't read what he's typed, can't read, and or undemocratic.
 
lovelyhead said:
I have read this a few times but it doesn't make sense and contradicts itself.
Click to expand...

It perhaps doesn't make sense because you simply don't understand? The SNP can win through voter apathy as their support is more vocal, and better mobilised now. The No side, however, may well turn out for the important vote of the referendum, but feel otherwise that there is little point in voting.

In what way is that contradictory? Or doesn't make sense?

lovelyhead said:
This argument is so weak. I could equally say that the NO side relies on past it, stuck in their ways coffin dodgers to win.
Click to expand...

That wasn't MY argument, but YOURS.

lovelyhead said:
Nice straw man argument.
Click to expand...

You do know what a straw man argument is yeah?

lovelyhead said:
I know how you feel!
Click to expand...

Incredible isn't it?

lovelyhead said:
The polls shifted to the YES side at the end hence the panic from the unionists offering us all sorts of bribes and concessions (which we are still waiting on).
Click to expand...

By that, I guess you mean the two solitary polls a week before the referendum that was a small blip in the otherwise almost perfect No majority polling?

 
bliss said:
Really unsure why people are still trying to argue with lovelyhead. I've been reading this from the beginning and his opinions are set in stone and will not change, even if Alex Salmond were to come into this thread and tell him to stop.

He's right, you're all wrong, haven't read what he's typed, can't read, and or undemocratic.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
lovelyhead said:
There's that reading comprehension thing again...
Click to expand...

OK so when you referenced my last statement and said 'that's not the case at all' what were you referring to? I assumed it was my comment about voters shifting to NO when it comes to the actual vote.
 
alx said:
OK so when you referenced my last statement and said 'that's not the case at all' what were you referring to? I assumed it was my comment about voters shifting to NO when it comes to the actual vote.
Click to expand...

The momentum was with the YES side who started off polling around the 30% mark and ended up on 45% whereas the NO side was consistently polling around 50% for most of the campaign.
 
Moses said:
TBH it'd be funny to see a referendum now, with the oil priced depressed as it is.
Click to expand...

Oil at $100 barrel: $70 to UK Treasury, $9 to Scotland.
Oil at $50 a barrel: $35 to UK Treasury, $4.50 to Scotland.
Oil at $50 a barrel under an independent Scotland: all $35 to Scotland.
 
lovelyhead said:
The momentum was with the YES side who started off polling around the 30% mark and ended up on 45% whereas the NO side was consistently polling around 50% for most of the campaign.
Click to expand...

Yes, and then for the actual vote it was 55% NO (higher than the polls), which was my point - at the last minute people tend to go with what they know (in this case voting NO). So I fail to see what I said that was apparently wrong.
 
If you think Scotland's economy is based solely on oil you are all very wrong. However I would take that 1.25bn of additional money quite happily. That is a bonus of £200+ for every Man, Woman and Child in Scotland. £200+ more than the English, Welsh or Northern Irish will be getting should be if we were independent.
 
Ha ha ha. He really doesn't have a clue. Oil money was VITAL to the SNP's economic case for iScotland. It wasn't an EXTRA or a "nice to have" but a VITAL element of their proposal. It isn't an extra £200 at all, but a necessary £200 so we don't ALL have to pay £200 MORE in taxes. Which is probably fine for the majority of the Yes supporters (most, but by all means not all, of the Yes supporters I know are long term unemployed, thinking their brew money would be sent out in gold plated, chauffeur driven limos come independence). But for the working population, who would actually have to pay this extra, it would be substantially more than the £200 figure, because they would have to pick up the slack from the brew monkeys and smack heads.

Basically, most were in it for the money. The BS that Salmond was happy for them to believe. Why do you think Dundee was the Yes heartland? Because it's full of them of course. (I say that as a Dundonian with much family on the long term brew / smack).
 
xs2man said:
Ha ha ha. He really doesn't have a clue. Oil money was VITAL to the SNP's economic case for iScotland. It wasn't an EXTRA or a "nice to have" but a VITAL element of their proposal. It isn't an extra £200 at all, but a necessary £200 so we don't ALL have to pay £200 MORE in taxes. Which is probably fine for the majority of the Yes supporters (most, but by all means not all, of the Yes supporters I know are long term unemployed, thinking their brew money would be sent out in gold plated, chauffeur driven limos come independence). But for the working population, who would actually have to pay this extra, it would be substantially more than the £200 figure, because they would have to pick up the slack from the brew monkeys and smack heads.

Basically, most were in it for the money. The BS that Salmond was happy for them to believe. Why do you think Dundee was the Yes heartland? Because it's full of them of course. (I say that as a Dundonian with much family on the long term brew / smack).
Click to expand...

Pish.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.u...cotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/

Also the oil revenue would be going into a sovereign wealth fund so wouldn't be used for day to day spending unlike how the unionists **** it all away.
 
Last edited:
Oil money is what the snp were banking on to support the country. It wasn't extra money, it was THE money.

Just be thankful the no vote won, or you would have gone bankrupt quicker than Greece.
 
lovelyhead said:
As for your third point 50% of Scottish voters did vote for the SNP <snip irrelevant stuff>
Click to expand...
No, 50% of votes were for the SNP which is still substantially less than 50% of people eligible to vote much less the entire population of Scots. As I said, it's indisputable that the majority of Scots did not vote for the SNP despite supposedly their most amazing campaign/support/results ever however you may want to try to spin it.

lovelyhead said:
Wir aw jist a wee bit too stupid tae look efter oorsels. Wi need yon clever folks fae London tae mak oor decisions for us.
Click to expand...
...and you're moaning about people using "straw man arguments"... lol

Oh Biohazzrd, it's fun to have you and your nationalistic zeal back again now you think there's a new campaign for a independence referendum to be shilled for. :)
 
lovelyhead said:
[..]
Also the oil revenue would be going into a sovereign wealth fund so wouldn't be used for day to day spending unlike how the unionists **** it all away.
Click to expand...

Do you realise your line of argument relies on taxes levied on English and Welsh people being given to an independent Scottish government for some inexplicable reason? Are you hoping no-one would notice? That's probably a reasonable hope - many voters have no idea what's going on and believe whatever rubbish they're told.

In order to put oil revenue into a sovereign wealth fund, there are several options:

1) Have a surplus of at least as much as the oil revenue after paying the costs of the country. Which wouldn't be true for Scotland.

2) Raise taxes in order to create scenario (1), i.e. fiddling the figures to pretend it's the oil revenue and hope no Scottish people realise that it's actually extra taxation. Also, hope that the extra taxation is enough and that it doesn't adversely affect the economy (which it will, sooner or later).

3) Constantly borrow more money in order to create scenario (1) and hope that no Scottish people realise what a stupid and unsustainable idea that is.

Oil is the Philosopher's Stone of Scottish independence, the Elixir of Life, the "lose lbs of belly fat with this secret" advert.

In the last USA election, Vermin Supreme promised that if he became president every American would have a free pony. That's a bit less plausible but a lot funnier.
 
lovelyhead said:
If you think Scotland's economy is based solely on oil you are all very wrong. However I would take that 1.25bn of additional money quite happily. That is a bonus of £200+ for every Man, Woman and Child in Scotland. £200+ more than the English, Welsh or Northern Irish will be getting should be if we were independent.
Click to expand...

No, but pre-referendum 20% of Scotland's economic output was in oil. With oil pricing having halved, it's shifted to about 10%. With oil being around 2% of the UK economy it's much easier for the impact to be absorbed by the large state without it impacting greatly upon any group of people, be it the Scottish or wider UK population.

Having oil is a good thing, but let's face it, you can't make reliable long-term spending decisions or predictions when 10% of your economic output can be wiped away in a matter of weeks or months.

And the money might go to the UK treasury, but more than we contribute comes back our way in the form of a block grant the SNP have mismanaged for 8 years now. We benefit massively from the economic powerhouse that is London...

But in reality, we already benefit by a huge amount from the Barnett Formula.

And let's face it, the decision as to when to have another referendum isn't purely for the "Scottish people" as the SNP like to claim. How would they even gauge support? A referendum on whether to have a referendum? It's a decision for the UK government of the day, and the UK PM who gives another one will merely set a precedent that it's fine for the SNP to continue pushing the matter until they get the outcome they want...

The SNP can put it in their manifesto next year and again in 2020, but it makes no odds because it's not up to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom