Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible

[BuffetSlayer]

I know what he is saying. But that is in the past now.

It remains relevant because fiscal policy needs to be trusted for people to make such a huge leap.

If there is another referendum, voters will remember that as being a crucial point and will want reassurances that the politicians probably can't provide. It also remove a feather from the independence cap which they will need to work around. They may or may not be able to do that convincingly.

I believe that past failing will likely damage the chances of independence in the future because credibility is important. It is coming to light that a big part of Alex Salmond's crusade was shaky in that regard. As a voter I would be asking myself what else he was wrong about.

 

[lovelyhead]

It remains relevant because fiscal policy needs to be trusted for people to make such a huge leap.

If there is another referendum, voters will remember that as being a crucial point and will want reassurances that the politicians probably can't provide. It also remove a feather from the independence cap which they will need to work around. They may or may not be able to do that convincingly.

I believe that past failing will likely damage the chances of independence in the future because credibility is important. It is coming to light that a big part of Alex Salmond's crusade was shaky in that regard. As a voter I would be asking myself what else he was wrong about.

But since the referendum the momentum has been with the YES side. YES and NO are now basically level in the polls. If the oil price thing was really important to people then you would expect to see the polls going in the opposite direction.

The price of oil is just not something the average Joe really thinks about. In fact the most likely time someone is going to think about the price of oil, is when they are filling up their car and a low oil price is probably seen as a positive in that regard.

The unionists like to point to the oil price and make a big deal out of it, but for the average person it is a non issue.

During the next referendum, I bet if you could convince the majority of people that they would be no better off but also no worse off, you would get a YES majority.

 

[grumpysculler]

You forget that Scotland is a net provider to the UK economy, even without the oil.

No it isn't.

Scotland contributes more than it's population share to the UK economy.

Scotland takes out more than it's population share in spending.

Nats always like to bang on about the first, but not the second. With the exception of a couple of years, Scotland has run at a larger deficit than the UK as a whole. Including oil revenues on a geographic basis.

It's all there in Scottish government figures.

 

[xs2man]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/#more-76341

Follow up to yesterday's article exposing the unionist media's lies.

Yet another WOS link. Why bother? Why not post from an independent source? As you are asking everyone else to do.

But since the referendum the momentum has been with the YES side. YES and NO are now basically level in the polls. If the oil price thing was really important to people then you would expect to see the polls going in the opposite direction.

The price of oil is just not something the average Joe really thinks about. In fact the most likely time someone is going to think about the price of oil, is when they are filling up their car and a low oil price is probably seen as a positive in that regard.

The unionists like to point to the oil price and make a big deal out of it, but for the average person it is a non issue.

During the next referendum, I bet if you could convince the majority of people that they would be no better off but also no worse off, you would get a YES majority.

You know, you may well be correct at the end there.

The problem is that it couldn't be done even with a reasonable oil income on the books. I suspect that it'll be significantly more difficult to assure voters they won't be worse off now.

 

[lovelyhead]

Yet another WOS link. Why bother? Why not post from an independent source? As you are asking everyone else to do.

I am not trying to prove a specific point with that link. Just sharing an example of anti SNP bias. Choose to read it or don't.

You know, you may well be correct at the end there.

The problem is that it couldn't be done even with a reasonable oil income on the books. I suspect that it'll be significantly more difficult to assure voters they won't be worse off now.

You are very sure of your views regarding what could and couldn't be done. The NO campaign managed to convince the elderly that their pensions were at risk when that wasn't the case.

 

[Werewolf]

Nearly 62% of your lifetime posts have been in this thread. What will you spend your time whining about if Scotland ever gets independence?

Probably complaining that the nasty people in England aren't doing what Scotland wants, or blaming us for everything that goes wrong in the SNP vision of a utopian Scotland free of the yoke of English repression, and complainng that Westminster followed through with what it said it would do/would not not (much the same as Salmond kept saying how regardless of what the No side said they'd do, when Scotland became independent things would go Scotlands way and Westminster would change their minds)

 

[lovelyhead]

Probably complaining that the nasty people in England aren't doing what Scotland wants, or blaming us for everything that goes wrong in the SNP vision of a utopian Scotland free of the yoke of English repression, and complainng that Westminster followed through with what it said it would do/would not not (much the same as Salmond kept saying how regardless of what the No side said they'd do, when Scotland became independent things would go Scotlands way and Westminster would change their minds)

You really are quite pathetic.

If we gained Independence, that would be mission accomplished as far as I am concerned. I wouldn't care about what the English were doing anymore than I would care about what the Australians or Japanese were doing. You seem to be operating under the impression that I hate the English. I only hate the fact that we are ruled by the English. I don't hate the people.

Post's like the above just make you look petty.

 

[Elixir]

But since the referendum the momentum has been with the YES side. YES and NO are now basically level in the polls. If the oil price thing was really important to people then you would expect to see the polls going in the opposite direction.

You keep talking about "momentum" as if either side is actually moving towards anything. There's just more noise coming from the Yes side because the No side are getting on with their lives.

 

[lovelyhead]

You keep talking about "momentum" as if either side is actually moving towards anything. There's just more noise coming from the Yes side because the No side are getting on with their lives.

Yes, momentum towards the next referendum that most people want within 10 years. If it were the case that the referendum result was 70% NO and 30% YES then the matter would probably be dead and buried. 45% YES and 55% NO most certainly has not laid the matter to rest.

You can argue the opposite if you like but roughly half of Scotland would disagree.

 

[platypus]

Probably complaining that the nasty people in England aren't doing what Scotland wants, or blaming us for everything that goes wrong in the SNP vision of a utopian Scotland free of the yoke of English repression, and complainng that Westminster followed through with what it said it would do/would not not (much the same as Salmond kept saying how regardless of what the No side said they'd do, when Scotland became independent things would go Scotlands way and Westminster would change their minds)

Pretty much what it seems Salmonds post independence plans must have been, especially when he was found out for his financial posturing pre-referendum and Scotland didn't actually have the funds. Spend the next x years borrowing and conveniently blaming it on Westminster still. And why not? Easy scapegoat for him.

 

[grumpysculler]

Yes, momentum towards the next referendum that most people want within 10 years. If it were the case that the referendum result was 70% NO and 30% YES then the matter would probably be dead and buried. 45% YES and 55% NO most certainly has not laid the matter to rest.

The only reason that it hasn't laid the matter to rest is because the SNP administration (and their supporters, perjurers and all) are incapable of adhering to a binding agreement that they signed.

Alex Salmond's victory speech had a section in it about how he and Dave had agreed to uphold the Edinburgh Agreement. It seems that the Yes side believe that the Edinburgh Agreement only applies if the right answer was given. And democracy (EU-style?) consists of asking the question again and again until the populace gives the right answer.

We were asked. We answered. End of story.

If the SNP would shut up about independence, get on with running Scotland properly and do what they promised they would then there wouldn't be nearly so much support for indy now because we could be getting on with our lives instead.

 

[Steveocee]

Yes, momentum towards the next referendum that most people want within 10 years. If it were the case that the referendum result was 70% NO and 30% YES then the matter would probably be dead and buried. 45% YES and 55% NO most certainly has not laid the matter to rest.

You can argue the opposite if you like but roughly half of Scotland would disagree.

You wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 55% win if you'd have gotten independence and the No camp were campaigning for a re-vote.

The vote was "once in a generation". The only people bothered about a re-vote now are the die hard Alex Salmond fans.

Why don't you take your LOSING MINORITY 45% and do a poll within them to see how many are actually that bothered about pressing for a revote within 10 years?

Queue the sarcastic remark which doesn't address any of my points other than that I'm English so therefore MUST be the enemy.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, momentum towards the next referendum that most people want within 10 years. If it were the case that the referendum result was 70% NO and 30% YES then the matter would probably be dead and buried. 45% YES and 55% NO most certainly has not laid the matter to rest.

You can argue the opposite if you like but roughly half of Scotland would disagree.

Do you not understand the concept of the people who make the most noise taking part in the polls, or do you just not agree with it?

 

[xs2man]

I am not trying to prove a specific point with that link. Just sharing an example of anti SNP bias. Choose to read it or don't.



You are very sure of your views regarding what could and couldn't be done. The NO campaign managed to convince the elderly that their pensions were at risk when that wasn't the case.

I didn't read it because that site is full of *****.

Also, you really are unbelievable. I basically agree with you, go on to state one point of fact as to why it will be more difficult going forward, and yet you still argue against it. I never said it couldn't be done. I did say it wasn't done pre referendum, and it will be more difficult now due to current financial factors. None of that is opinion or hear say. Only fact.

Are you just here for a fight?

 

[ubersonic]

If it were the case that the referendum result was 70% NO and 30% YES then the matter would probably be dead and buried. 45% YES and 55% NO most certainly has not laid the matter to rest.

You do understand that 45% yes on a 84.5% turnout is essentially "70% NO and 30% YES" right? A referendum on changing something is always weighted against the status quo, because due to complacency people are always more likely to fight for change than they are to fight to keep things as they are.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I only hate the fact that we are ruled by the English.

You are not ruled by the English (Any more than the English were ruled by the Scottish for the long period of time during which we had a Scottish Prime Minister). You are ruled by the United Kingdom, just as England is.

Ok sure Westminster is in London but it can hardly be floating around in neutral space can it? It has to be somewhere.

It is a Union not a takeover. No one country controls the others and as we've seen for the majority of the last 20 years it's as possible for Scotsmen to in charge as Englishmen.

 

[lovelyhead]

You do understand that 45% yes on a 84.5% turnout is essentially "70% NO and 30% YES" right? A referendum on changing something is always weighted against the status quo, because due to complacency people are always more likely to fight for change than they are to fight to keep things as they are.

No it's not. We had this discussion a few pages back.

You are not ruled by the English (Any more than the English were ruled by the Scottish for the long period of time during which we had a Scottish Prime Minister). You are ruled by the United Kingdom, just as England is.

Ok sure Westminster is in London but it can hardly be floating around in neutral space can it? It has to be somewhere.

It is a Union not a takeover. No one country controls the others and as we've seen for the majority of the last 20 years it's as possible for Scotsmen to in charge as Englishmen.

But it is the English (in nearly every general election for the last 100 years) who choose who is in power in Westminster. This was demonstrated at the last general election. It wouldn't have made any difference if Labour won every seat in Scotland.

I didn't read it because that site is full of *****.

So are you saying that what is written on Wings Over Scotland is wrong? Or do you just label it as ***** because it isn't aligned with your political opinion?

Do you not understand the concept of the people who make the most noise taking part in the polls, or do you just not agree with it?

No you are simply wrong about that.

Perhaps you might want to read about poll weighting:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-weighting

You wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 55% win if you'd have gotten independence and the No camp were campaigning for a re-vote.

The vote was "once in a generation". The only people bothered about a re-vote now are the die hard Alex Salmond fans.

Why don't you take your LOSING MINORITY 45% and do a poll within them to see how many are actually that bothered about pressing for a revote within 10 years?

Queue the sarcastic remark which doesn't address any of my points other than that I'm English so therefore MUST be the enemy.

If we won with 55% of the vote and the NO side wanted another referendum, I would have no issue with them having one so long as they managed to get a pro union party elected into holyrood with a manifesto promise to hold another referendum.

I am all for democracy you see.

 

[Cosimo]

You really are quite pathetic.

Are you a paid up member of the SNP?

 

[lovelyhead]

The only reason that it hasn't laid the matter to rest is because the SNP administration (and their supporters, perjurers and all) are incapable of adhering to a binding agreement that they signed.

Alex Salmond's victory speech had a section in it about how he and Dave had agreed to uphold the Edinburgh Agreement. It seems that the Yes side believe that the Edinburgh Agreement only applies if the right answer was given. And democracy (EU-style?) consists of asking the question again and again until the populace gives the right answer.

We were asked. We answered. End of story.

If the SNP would shut up about independence, get on with running Scotland properly and do what they promised they would then there wouldn't be nearly so much support for indy now because we could be getting on with our lives instead.

As I have said numerous times in this thread the only people who haven't accepted the NO result are nutters who think the vote was tampered with somehow.

That doesn't preclude the people from voicing their support to have another referendum. If a majority of people show their desire to hold another one then why shouldn't we have another.

This is called democracy versus the dictatorship of one man saying you can't have another one, which most of you unionists seem to support.

Are you a paid up member of the SNP?

Are you a paid up member of the AA?

 

[Cosimo]

Are you a paid up member of the AA?

I used to be a member of the Automobile Association. So again, are you a paid up member of the SNP?