Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible

[lovelyhead]

Despite the fact they had already stated they wouldn't because it didn't concern Scotland.

Scottish Foxes don't respect borders!

Actually the is major support for having a new vote on the subject, mainly because of the way it was undemocratically forced through originally (it was the second most unpopular thing any government has done this century, the only thing that had more people against it was the Iraq war).

Sources for your claim it was the second most unpopular thing any government has done this century?

Interesting, so if they weren't doing it to stir the pot and they do care about foxes and/or public opinion on it, why then do you think they have made 0 effort to introduce a ban in Scotland then? It should be easy with their majority...

I don't know why not. I have already voiced my dissatisfaction with the SNP's stance.

The link is the Guardian and left wing paper and it also covered the postponement and also stated Scottish water is publicly owned, it also stated it would potentially save the tax payer money, although thats the reason any government gives to sell off contracts to private firms isnt it?

Perhaps you need to wind your wee neck in

Because a paper is left wing does not make it pro SNP.

Again, just for your benefit Bear, If the newspaper isn't either the Sunday Herald or The National, it is anti SNP.

Well said, We had SLabour's Lewis MacDonald MSP on TV last night with the SNPbad story about the awarding Anglian Water Business contract for Billing and meter reading services for council buildings, hospitals and prisons. When it was it the very same Lewis MacDonald that introduced this legalisation in 2005 to allow this happen in the first place when Labour/Libdem where in power in Scotland. This is the normal with Labour they are utter hypocrites!

Indeed.

Just look at the way they are trying to attack the SNP for having overfunded the council tax freeze. They make no mention of the time they were in Government in Scotland, when two years in a row they had far bigger underspends than what the SNP had this time.

I am not attacking Labour for those underspends (if you take the time to learn how they come about then you would understand it would take a fortune teller to ensure an underspend doesn't happen). I am attacking them for gross hypocrisy and am attacking the unionist media for not doing their jobs properly by actually presenting the facts of the matter rather than spinning it to make the SNP look bad.

Of course you unionists are welcome to just ignore everything I have written and continue with your ignorant views of reality in Scotland.

 

[ubersonic]

Scottish Foxes don't respect borders!

Lol, that's actually a good one

Sources for your claim it was the second most unpopular thing any government has done this century?

As I said it was overshadowed only by the Iraqi war when it came to protests against it and public outcry. Nothing else has met so much disapproval.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm

I don't know why not. I have already voiced my dissatisfaction with the SNP's stance.

Did we just agree on something? :O

 

[lovelyhead]

So you'd be happy with referendums every time the balance of power in Holyrood changes? Really?

Whilst it sounds very democratic, it's ridiculous. You can't have a system where you could potentially be part of the union and then independent 5 years later to go back to the union again 5 years after that and keep flipping between the two.

It is very democratic. While it could technically happen every 5 years it would be extremely unlikely. I think that if we were to become Independent things would stay broadly the same and there wouldn't be a huge clamor to rejoin the UK. That is just my opinion though.

What happened to Salmond's "once in a generation" rule he was so found of before and just after the result? Why has that now changed to "once every parliament we get voted in but our indy ref fails"?

It wasn't a rule it was his opinion. There was a video posted by myself a few pages back showing the exact words he used if you don't believe me.

Too bad, as you point it's called democracy. Of this list of extensive countries :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...e_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom I don't see one of them wanting to be ruled by Westminster again, I wonder why.

Very true.

I wonder why that is?

 

[ubersonic]

Because a paper is left wing does not make it pro SNP.

Again, just for your benefit Bear, If the newspaper isn't either the Sunday Herald or The National, it is anti SNP.

So basically you see it this way:

Positive towards the UK = unionist drivel
Not really biased either way = anti-SNP
Positive towards the SNP = unbiased
The words of Alex Salmond = maybe sometimes pro-SNP but mostly unbiased

lol.

 

[lovelyhead]

This paints a slightly different picture

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/

That is a single poll. But even that poll still shows YES with more support than they had a year ago. Compare that poll to all the others and it shows a trend of YES support increasing with NO support declining.

Also that poll is actually a statistical tie with the numbers being with the 3% margin of error.

Perhaps the increased cost of new extraction and the impact that makes on profitability (therefore viability) and the austerity that would likely create? The decreasing yield and decreasing profitability of existing reserves? Issues pertaining to a unified currency without a unified fiscal policy?

In terms of the over 65's, perhaps they are older and wiser and fully comprehend the consequences of a yes vote over and above the 16-17yr olds that were given the vote out of desperation, the majority of which voted yes without any life experience. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between people being older and arguably wiser and people voting no.

What are your thoughts on that?

It is a lot simpler than that. The over 60's voted no because they were subjected to a unionist scare monger campaign telling them that their pensions were not safe.

Just look at this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-scottish-referendum-independence-4171949

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nce-would-put-pensions-at-risk-alexander-says

 

[[TW]Fox]

Very true.

I wonder why that is?

Probably because none of them share the same landmass as the United Kingdom and most of them are thousands of miles away from it? Plus they were taken over by and ruled over by the UK and did not vote in our elections etc.

Scotland isn't ruled over by England, Scotland is in a partnership with England. The same wasn't the case with the vast majority of that list. We invaded and took them over!

 

[[TW]Fox]

The over 60's voted no because they were subjected to a unionist scare monger campaign telling them that their pensions were not safe.

You asked them all, presumably?

 

[lovelyhead]

Lol, that's actually a good one





As I said it was overshadowed only by the Iraqi war when it came to protests against it and public outcry. Nothing else has met so much disapproval.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm





Did we just agree on something? :O

I think we agreed on two things as you are correct regarding the march as well! Having said that though all polls conducted asking whether people support the fox hunting ban say that a large majority do support it. The polls even found people in rural areas support it.

 

[Elixir]

That is a single poll. But even that poll still shows YES with more support than they had a year ago. Compare that poll to all the others and it shows a trend of YES support increasing with NO support declining.

Did you look at the chart displaying all the polls? It shows Yes with the same support as a year ago, and they haven't changed out of the range of statistical error since last year, including immediately after the referendum in which the polls overestimated Yes support as they are continuing to do now.

 

[grumpysculler]

It is a lot simpler than that. The over 60's voted no because they were subjected to a unionist scare monger campaign telling them that their pensions were not safe.

Sauce please. Showing that this was the cause of the decision to vote no and from an objectively unbiased report.

 

[lovelyhead]

So basically you see it this way:

Positive towards the UK = unionist drivel
Not really biased either way = anti-SNP
Positive towards the SNP = unbiased
The words of Alex Salmond = maybe sometimes pro-SNP but mostly unbiased

lol.

And here was me thinking we were getting to be friends!

Scotland isn't ruled over by England, Scotland is in a partnership with England. The same wasn't the case with the vast majority of that list. We invaded and took them over!

The UK is a partnership but it certainly is not an equal one.

You asked them all, presumably?

Yes, it took a while but I can confirm that every one of the over 60's who voted no did so because of the pension scaremongering. Apart from wee Jeanie fae Thornton who voted no because she always quite fancied the way Allister Darlings eyebrows didn't match the colour of his hair. She said she found it quite alluring.

Takes all sorts I suppose!

Did you look at the chart displaying all the polls? It shows Yes with the same support as a year ago, and they haven't changed out of the range of statistical error since last year, including immediately after the referendum in which the polls overestimated Yes support as they are continuing to do now.

I did look at the chart showing all of the polls. This one I assume:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...rg/YG-trackers-Scottish-Referendum-150409.pdf

If you take the averages of the three polls conducted this year the results come out to be 50% YES, 50% NO.

I assume you are looking at the tables that include the don't knows as well.

 

[Elixir]

I did look at the chart showing all of the polls. This one I assume:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...rg/YG-trackers-Scottish-Referendum-150409.pdf

If you take the averages of the three polls conducted this year the results come out to be 50% YES, 50% NO.

I assume you are looking at the tables that include the don't knows as well.

You don't appear to know what a chart is.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/

Top of the page. Support hasn't changed, and the polls have overestimated Yes support since before the referendum.

Worrying that you think the Yes/No support swing from 45/55 to 52/48 within 6 weeks of the referendum is real. Well, it's not really worrying... it's just a bit tragic.

 

[ubersonic]

I did look at the chart showing all of the polls. This one I assume:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...rg/YG-trackers-Scottish-Referendum-150409.pdf

 

[gjrc]

You don't appear to know what a chart is.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/

Top of the page. Support hasn't changed, and the polls have overestimated Yes support since before the referendum.

Worrying that you think the Yes/No support swing from 45/55 to 52/48 within 6 weeks of the referendum is real.

nb. a chart showing any numbers not supporting independence will be instantly discredited as either wrong or unionist.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

That is a single poll. But even that poll still shows YES with more support than they had a year ago. Compare that poll to all the others and it shows a trend of YES support increasing with NO support declining.

Also that poll is actually a statistical tie with the numbers being with the 3% margin of error.

The point I made was that since earlier on this year there has been a slow but definite decline. That link shows that. Granted it is only one study, but when you consider the others that have also been done, they report similar trends, however some do show an upturn in yes support around August this year and then drop again for September.

The overall point here, though, is polls can be found to support any argument but are not often reliable. I can find polls that show yes support is in gradual decline and you can find ones where it is not. With only around 1000 people polled on average per study, it is a pretty dubious resource for either of us to use to try and prove a point don't you think?

It is a lot simpler than that. The over 60's voted no because they were subjected to a unionist scare monger campaign telling them that their pensions were not safe.

Just look at this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-scottish-referendum-independence-4171949

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nce-would-put-pensions-at-risk-alexander-says

Why is that scaremongering? Can you categorically show evidence that any of the critique levelled at the yes campaign in regards to pensions and healthcare was unfounded and furthermore it is what swayed the result to no? Surely you can see why peoples pensions may have been at risk and why a continued NHS-like healthcare system was a question mark if Scotland voted yes?

Salmond had no plan B and was trying to win by assuming things would go his way and selling that to voters. As it turns out I think many yes voters are breathing a sigh of relief now because if you had of won, Scotland would be in economic dire straits. The SNP's fiscal plan would undoubtedly result in higher taxes, less spending per head and more austerity. Just as it would if they took on FFA right now, and that is why they are trying to worm their way out of it by saying rUK has to reform first (stalling tactics and do the SNP really think voters can not see through the charade?).

Can you show me that categorically pensions would not have been at risk? Can you honestly conclude that had Scotland voted yes there would be a better economy, a better welfare system, a better healthcare system and less austerity? If so can you please provide evidence as to how given nearly all information to date contradicts that standpoint?

(I also note you have not been drawn to answer my other points, but I appreciate you are busy staving off Uber and Grumpy )

 

[ubersonic]

The over 60's voted no because they were subjected to a unionist scare monger campaign telling them that their pensions were not safe.

Just because the truth is scary doesn't mean it's wrong to be honest with people!

The funny thing is, you use that as an example yet it was proven true, they weren't safe, according to Salmond's own pre-referendum calculations, had Scotland voted for independence then the fall in oil prices would have resulted in it's first act post independance to be either announcing a default or approaching the IMF for a bailout lol.

 

[lovelyhead]

You don't appear to know what a chart is.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/

Top of the page. Support hasn't changed, and the polls have overestimated Yes support since before the referendum.

Worrying that you think the Yes/No support swing from 45/55 to 52/48 within 6 weeks of the referendum is real. Well, it's not really worrying... it's just a bit tragic.

Am looking at the wrong part or are you saying that a single poll in isolation is more accurate than average findings of multiple polls?

As for the swing 6 weeks after the referendum, again that is a single poll so you can't read to much into it. But if you compare that poll to all the others that have taken place since you begin to build a better understanding of where things stand.

Where things stand is basically a 50/50 tie between YES and NO. It is hardly a fantastical finding so I am not sure why you guys are getting your knickers in such a twist over it!

nb. a chart showing any numbers not supporting independence will be instantly discredited as either wrong or unionist.

Thanks for your highly useful contribution to this debate.

 

[Elixir]

Am looking at the wrong part or are you saying that a single poll in isolation is more accurate than average findings of multiple polls?

As for the swing 6 weeks after the referendum, again that is a single poll so you can't read to much into it. But if you compare that poll to all the others that have taken place since you begin to build a better understanding of where things stand.

Where things stand is basically a 50/50 tie between YES and NO. It is hardly a fantastical finding so I am not sure why you guys are getting your knickers in such a twist over it!

No, where things stand is that polls continue to overestimate Yes support as they did a year ago by around the same amount. The polls were shown to be inaccurate when the only accurate test (the referendum) exposed Yes as having less support than polls suggested.

 

[lovelyhead]

I can find polls that show yes support is in gradual decline.

Go on then. Put your money where you mouth is! I have already made a post with the results of multiple polls carried out since the referendum showing YES support around the 50% mark. Certainly not falling like you are suggesting.

So go on then show me at least 5 polls proving me wrong.

Just because the truth is scary doesn't mean it's wrong to be honest with people!

The funny thing is, you use that as an example yet it was proven true, they weren't safe, according to Salmond's own pre-referendum calculations, had Scotland voted for independence then the fall in oil prices would have resulted in it's first act post independance to be either announcing a default or approaching the IMF for a bailout lol.

Nonsense. We wouldn't even be independent yet for a start.

In regard to pensions they were always going to have been paid by the RUK in the same way that expat pensions are paid.

No, where things stand is that polls continue to overestimate Yes support as they did a year ago by around the same amount. The polls were shown to be inaccurate when the only accurate test (the referendum) exposed Yes as having less support than polls suggested.

Again more nonsense. The polls in the run up to the referendum were very accurate in regard to the share of the vote YES would get. Out of 70 polls carried out before the referendum only 4 overestimated the YES campaign.

The evidence is right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Stop making random nonsense up. It just makes you look stupid.

 

[Elixir]

Again more nonsense. The polls in the run up to the referendum were very accurate in regard to the share of the vote YES would get. Out of 70 polls carried out before the referendum only 4 overestimated the YES campaign.

The evidence is right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Stop making random nonsense up. It just makes you look stupid.

Every poll for the two months before the referendum underestimated the lead that No had over Yes and this has continued ever since. You're intentionally misinterpreting the data because you know if you correct for undecideds the polls consistently exaggerate Yes support.

I don't blame you though, you're in far too deep to admit you're wrong now.

For example, here's some analysis from 11/09/14 with the averaged polls showing Yes/No at 49/51. But I'm sure a professor of politics at one of Scotland's leading universities isn't doing it properly, right?

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/poll-polls-11-september-updated/