1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Scottish independence vote

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.

?

Scottish independence, yes or no?

  1. I'm Scottish and in favour of independence

    137 vote(s)
    10.9%
  2. I'm Scottish and against independence

    167 vote(s)
    13.3%
  3. I'm from another part of UK and in favour of Scottish independence

    273 vote(s)
    21.7%
  4. I'm from another part of UK and against Scottish independence

    682 vote(s)
    54.2%
  1. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,720

    Again you clearly don't know the setup here, can be forgiven as many Scots don't realise NHSScotland is an entirely separate entity from the NHS in England and Wales.

    Their contracts are with NHSScotland, which would continue to exist, how it is funded is nothing to do with the employees - the simple fact is that the organisation doesn't vanish overnight as you've suggested.
     
  2. Weaver

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2008

    Posts: 722

    Location: It's Grimm up Norf

    Absolutely correct unfortunately not many people across the UK never mind Scots know that the Scottish NHS is a completely independent body and has been since its inception and simply carried on from the Highlands and Islands Medical Service (HIMS) set up in 1913 which it replaced.

    Granted it was a poor example to cite as the poster appears poorly informed. Again though I'm not surprised by the lack of an informed position as it has been extremely prevelant through out the discussion on the topic especially from those whom are sceptical of an iScotland. There are many other independent bodies through out the Scottish public sector that have been lumped into the debate as a 'loss' if a YES vote is achieved which are already separate and will have little or no effect in reality all that will happen is they will be funded from a different source.

    ------
     
  3. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 24, 2005

    Posts: 38,855

    Location: Autonomy

    [​IMG]
     
  4. q974739

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 4, 2009

    Posts: 617

    Random picture of people?

    For those of us who have great difficulty recognizing people, who are they, and why do we care?
     
  5. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 24, 2005

    Posts: 38,855

    Location: Autonomy

    You're kidding right?:D
     
  6. V F

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 13, 2003

    Posts: 15,900

    Location: UK

    Lol! Thats truly horrifying, easyrider.
     
  7. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 24, 2005

    Posts: 38,855

    Location: Autonomy

    :D
     
  8. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Glad to see that the "sceptics are uninformed" strawman is alive and well. It's been a while since I've seen that argument rolled out.

    There are ignorant and uninformed people on both sides. The difference I see is that BT try to back up their claims with references and reasoning. Yes don't justify any of their assumptions.
     
  9. xs2man

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 21, 2008

    Posts: 4,683

    This has also been my assessment of the arguments.

    Anyone that votes based on offerings without any justifications needs to have their heads looked at. Anyone can say that Scotland produces more oil & gas than UAE (an opinion I have seen touted by the Yes campaign), but, of course, whether it does or not needs to be shown (not that it matters, as it is irrelevant as O&G is state owned there anyway, unlike here).
     
  10. q974739

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 4, 2009

    Posts: 617

    No, really. While not actually face blind, the number of "famous" people I can identify without prompting is quite low. It's great in movies - I never get distracted by the roles actors have played in other films. They are actually other people.

    So, who are they?
     
  11. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,213

    David Cameron and Alex Salmond with their faces swapped. So the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Minister of Scotland, which I would assume that anyone with even a passing interest in the subject of Scottish Independence would be familiar.
     
  12. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 9,428

    Location: Aberdeen

    ISTM that a lot of support on both sides, particularly the Yes side, is not rational but emotional.
     
  13. q974739

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 4, 2009

    Posts: 617

    I would argue both that the visual appearance of the politicians is irrelevant to their arguments. But that's because I'm somewhat face blind.

    Your assumption however is incorrect. The blind wouldn't be familiar with them. I can't identify without context. Most of the partially sighted wouldn't identify them.

    Do not confuse interest in the topic with interest in the involved people.
    [Edit to add]
    The names I know. The faces - those are where the problem lies.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  14. Shadez

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 23, 2002

    Posts: 2,808

    Location: Bristol


    Im well aware that the NHS in Scotland is separate to the NHS in the rUK, what im arguing is that all acts of parliament like the one that setup the NHS in Scotland would no longer be binding and as a result the NHS in Scotland would cease to exist. If they are still binding then they would have to be repealed by parliament as we cant be responsible to public bodies north of the border

    Yes the NHS is a bad example as it is run like a company and may well exist as its own corporate entity, but the above is true for most public bodies in Scotland.
     
  15. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    In all liklihood, that would be dealt with by the two independence acts. There would be a lot of little ends to tie up but they are relatively insignificant in the context of the wider debate.

    There will still be a health service enacted by law, but the names may change on indy day. Poor performance won't though!
     
  16. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,643

    I have more than a passing interest in Scottish Independence and actually saw Alex Salmond from within arm's length on Sunday, and I still didn't recognise them. I think you're forgetting that a face is more than just eyes, nose and mouth. The shape of the face, length of jaw, height of hairline and forehead are all just as important in facial recognition.
     
  17. Weaver

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2008

    Posts: 722

    Location: It's Grimm up Norf


    You're a funny guy! You attack a supposed strawman by creating a strawman? :D



    The argument that was set out isn’t a strawman its an observed phenomenon. I'll say it again clearly for you this time... mostly the people who are sceptical of iScotland are poorly informed.

    Its clearly defined within the context of the post as an existential not a universal which is what you have implied. It is also true that there are those who are sceptical but hold a genuine belief in the Union regardless of whether they are informed on the various arguments or not (personally I wouldn’t describe those as sceptical I would say they were definite No's). Don’t get me wrong it is a valid position and they are perfectly entitled to hold it.

    However the statement that was made was not, and I repeat, directed at ALL it was directed at those who ARE poorly informed. They are poorly informed because Westminster departments and the NO campaign parroted by the MSM has been releasing misleading, distorted and at times complete fabrication on various (again for clarification NOT ALL but some) issues where they have chosen to argue the NO case. If you require a list of these, and it is quite an extensive list, then I would have no hesitation to furnish you with the already dis-proven cases and complaints from various, foreign politicians, committees and academics with regards to their work/comments being misrepresented without recourse.

    That’s all about to change as of today we have now entered the official campaigning period set out by the Scottish Government Referendum Act which laid out the rules where both sides have to be represented equally through ALL channels in order to facilitate a fair and informed debate which incidentally will have serious ramifications for, in particular, the BBC and impartiality. As far as the BBC are concerned everything is tickety boo and according to Better Together, Westminster and the MSM. However let me tell you the BBC has been found guilty of misrepresentation and distortion on two occasions yet no official apology or redress has been made publically... the No camp is in serious disarray exposed through social media and citizen journalism where a very real, unlike BT's imagined, grass roots campaign of the extremely well informed has been orchestrated.


    ------
     
  18. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    A claim that many Yes claims are unreferenced without foundation is not a strawman - it can be verified by reading most published material. The latest two economic papers are perfect examples. One paper is full of references and reasons itself to a conclusion (that doesn't mean it is correct, but it means it can be debated). The other says "with X employment and Y growth here is how rich Scotland will be".

    Well if there are uninformed people on both sides and No has a majority then logically that is the case.

    We also know that educated people are more likely to vote No. Does that mean that mostly the people supportive of iScotland are uneducated?

    The implied nonsequitor which is the strawman is that people are sceptical because they are uninformed and that information would change their view.

    If I am uninformed, please educate me on how much it would cost to setup the apparatus of an independent Scotland. It is a rather important number, but according to one front page today Alex Salmond doesn't know (and I assume that means Swinney doesn't know either). Westminster say 1.5bn, the academic says that is at the upper end of his estimate, ICAS say 700m for the tax system, Holyrood says 600m for the tax system (but only behind closed doors and this number only came out through FOI requests).

    Please also inform me how, with example policy details, how an excess 3% growth p.a. can be sustained, relative poverty can be eradicated or child poverty can be reduced. Those are the three claims that come to mind just now. I'd like to see them happen in any political framework. I don't believe they will.

    Cite please. This is an honest question - I don't recall any statutory requirement for journalism in general to be impartial. I would be genuinely interested to read this if it is the case.

    It rather strikes me that the likes of Wings and Newsnet would be in difficulty if they were required to represent both campaigns equally. It would prevent newspapers taking sides if they were required to maintain impartiality.

    I rather think that the MSM (and particularly BBC) coverage of the No campaign only helps Yes. It is spun and sensationalised. Far more negativity is due to the reporting than the actual campaign itself. Not to mention that Alex Salmond is quite charismatic and so takes well to media coverage, while Alistair Darling has barely more charisma than Gordon Brown. AD is still an effective MP but isn't exactly the man you want in the media.

    I don't participate in the grass roots campaigns. But I do find it odd that both Yes and BT report exactly the same. Widespread feeling, no appearance of any campaign from the other side, yada yada yada.

    All I know is that when BT canvassed our street they didn't speak to us. The Yes canvasser seemed to struggle to understand the "No Cold Callers" sign on the door. Apparently unsolicited doorstepping doesn't count?

    I also know people who have told Yes door steppers that they will vote Yes even when they have no intention of doing so. The actions of fringe groups have left some with a belief that openly identifying yourself as a No voter is not a route to a quiet life. I doubt that is widespread, but it might distort perceptions.

    I rather suspect that both have successful and well organised grass roots campaigns and it is in their interests to rubbish the other.
     
  19. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    'UK:OK' is the main tagline and sticker for Better Together. Which in all honesty is quite expressly average, mundane as well as being uninspiring. Even the term Better Together is vague and meaningless, in reality all we get is poorly disguised threats or insulting comparisons or distortions that give the clear impression that, somehow, Scotland is singularly incapable of being a normal country. IF anything, the impression is of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. (There is enough poll evidence out there to show that even approximately half of No voters wish Better Together to be more positive, and do not believe in the threat over the Pound et al)

    Coming to adecision if an arrangement is successful or not depends on the terms and dimensions upon which you measure and view that success. Personally, I don't think it would be hard to improve on the 'status quo' on how I look at things subjectively, in terms of my political leaning, values and beliefs. Notwithstanding the boring repetative protestations here to the contrary there is huge cross spectrum demand for a constitutional settlement akin to 'Devo Max' so it can't just be a case of Union protagonists merely standing on the successful' status quo as this amounts to little more than fallacy dressed as argument, or 'reality'.

    To describe the Union as a huge success is, entirely subjective, as is my describing the UK as a declining and failing state.

    (Ps remember 'Broken Britain'?)
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  20. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    If you have already indicated to them that you are voting a definative way they will not canvass you again, the same is true for Yes.

    What is an issue is wet behind the ear recruits that are essentially learning as they go, seasoned campaigners help them along but want to spend their own time doing their own thing too so it's a bit of difficult one at times I guess.



    To a degree yes but it is also expected, both campaigns will be aware of this and certain allowances are made for this, canvassers make an assessment on the responses ultimately. Both do a lot of private polling for internal consumption.


    It's hard to say now unfortunately. Yes is powered by a groundswell of grassroots campaign, and No don't seem to have the same willing capability most probably along the Labour/Tory fault line. I've heard recently their numbers are getting up from just shear embarressing, not seen any yet personally, although it's getting harder to guage as No are becoming less willing to officially enter into local debates and the meetings they do hold are also now typically behind closed doors by invite as opposed to the many public meetings.

    The pictures I started this thread with were put up for a reason, and it was to demonstrate the lacking ground level popular support for Better Together.

    Yes campaigning versus Unionist media was always where this Battle for Scotland was going to take place.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014